Course development review cycles without the chaos

How Program Managers can run review cycles that are structured and actually work.

Review cycles have a reputation.

They sneak in with good intentions but often leave a trail of email threads, missed deadlines, and collective confusion in their wake.

If you’re a Program Manager, we bet you’ve felt this.

One minute, you’re tracking to plan. The next?

You’re chasing feedback across five platforms, refereeing Subject Matter Expert (SME) disagreements, and trying to explain to leadership why things are taking just a little longer than expected.

Here’s the thing…

It’s not that people aren’t doing their best. They are.
It’s that the review process wasn’t designed to support that best.

At Oppida, we’ve delivered over 250 learning projects, and the same pattern pops up time and again:
Reactive reviews lead to slow, stressful projects. 

Structured reviews?
They bring clarity and quality.

This guide is for Program Managers like you (especially those working in government, higher ed, or the not-for-profit space) who need to keep learning projects compliant, high-quality, and most importantly, moving.

You are the calm in the storm

Let’s take a moment to acknowledge your role.

You’re probably the one holding it all together.
You’ve got SMEs, legal, instructional designers, and accessibility auditors all wanting different things, sometimes at the same time.

You're not here to create bureaucracy.
You’re here to create clarity.

You want a review process that protects timelines and people.
One that works in the real world, with real humans.

And you’re absolutely right: high-performing learning teams don’t rely on heroics.
They rely on clear, predictable systems.

Two very different review realities

Let’s look at the contrast.

The world we often live in:

• Feedback flies in via email, chat, PDFs, LMS notes… pick your poison.
• Reviewers aren’t aligned and give feedback that pulls in different directions.
• SMEs get overwhelmed and fall behind.
• Accessibility issues appear way too late.
• Nobody knows who has final say.

Honestly? It’s no wonder timelines start slipping.

Now, imagine this instead:

• Everyone knows what to review and when.
• Each stage has one clear decision-maker.
• Feedback is consolidated before reaching developers.
• Accessibility is baked in from the start.
• Review rounds are defined, and they end!

This isn’t fantasy.
It’s structured governance. And it's how Oppida works.

Spotting the subtle signs of chaos emerging

Project delays rarely shout. They creep in quietly:

• Review rounds drag longer than planned.
• Stakeholders arrive late and want to ‘go back three steps’.
• Approval roles are fuzzy.
• Last-minute fixes derail momentum.
• Everyone's tired and wondering: How did this get so hard?

Good news?
These aren’t people problems. 

They’re system patterns, and they’re completely fixable.

What a great review process actually looks like

Here’s what we see in projects that hum along smoothly:

1. Clear, purpose-led review stages

Each stage has a focus and a lead decision-maker.
Think:

• Vision/scope check
• Content accuracy review
• Design and build review
• Accessibility + QA
• UAT (User Acceptance Testing)

These checkpoints echo ADDIE, SAM, Agile… you name it. It’s not about reinventing the wheel. It’s about using it properly.

2. Defined decision rights

Want to cut approval drama? Get crystal clear on:

• Who reviews
• What they’re reviewing
• Who signs off
• What’s out of scope

A RACI matrix here isn’t just helpful, it’s gold!

3. Right-sized reviewer groups

Data tells us:

• 2–3 reviewers for regular stages
• Up to 5 for critical milestones

More than that?
Feedback often clashes, slows things down, and introduces confusion.

4. Limited and predictable review rounds

You’re not a hamster on a feedback wheel.
Define rounds upfront. 2 to 3 per milestone max.

Then?
Use change control for anything after that.

5. Centralised feedback

Emails. Comments. PDFs. Slack. It’s a mess.

Instead, use one source of truth. 

You'll instantly cut down on rework and mixed messages.

Helping reviewers actually succeed

People want to do a good job. But they need a little help.

Here’s what makes feedback better:

• A simple brief outlining what to look for
• Clear boundaries (what’s in and out)
• Examples or prototypes for reference
• A feedback template

Ask yourself:
“What happens when we ask for feedback without saying what matters?”

Nine times out of ten: overwhelm and rework.
Small shift. Huge difference.

Feedback without the freakout

Let’s get tactical:

1. Consolidate before you build

Don’t send raw feedback to developers.
Assign one person (PM or lead) to sort, clarify, and prioritise it first.

2. Categorise feedback

Use tags like:

• Accuracy
• UX
• Accessibility
• Policy/Compliance

It helps you act on what matters and ignore what doesn’t.

3. Tackle accessibility early

This isn’t optional.
Late fixes can be 10,000× more costly.

Early planning =
✔ Budget protection
✔ Ethical learning
✔ Less stress.

QA Is not a stage. It’s a mindset.

At Oppida, we don’t only "do QA at the end."
We build quality in from the start.

That means:

• Shared style sheets
• Decision logs
• Audit-ready documentation
• Version control
• Accessibility checks from Day 1

If your project can survive an audit, it’ll thrive in delivery.

The Oppida Way: A review model that just works

We follow a three-phase approach:

Strategic Program Design

• Define scope
• Set review governance
• Lock in accessibility needs
• Clarify who does what (and when)

Course Development

• Co-design with SMEs (not just ‘extract’ from them)
• Run structured review windows
• Consolidate feedback at each step
• Prioritise the learner experience

Deliver & Iterate

• QA + compliance baked in
• UAT with clear criteria
• Final documentation for audits
• Confident launch

It’s structured. Human. Future-ready.
Just like your team deserves.

Common pitfalls (and better ways forward)

A quick checklist (Yes, you can steal this)

Before the review starts:

• Do reviewers know their role?
• Is feedback all going to one place?
• Is accessibility already part of the build?
• Are the deadlines clear?

During the review:

• Are reviewers focused on what matters at this stage?
• Is feedback being consolidated?
• Are decisions documented?

After the review:

• Are changes in scope or not?
• Has QA been consistently applied?
• Is the next step set up and ready?

Tick these off, and you’ll sleep better. Promise.

Calm is possible

When your review system reflects your values (structure, clarity, collaboration), something shifts.

✔ Feedback becomes useful
✔ SMEs feel supported
✔ Timelines stop slipping
✔ Quality improves
✔ Learners win

And so do you.

Because let’s be honest, Program Managers deserve more than chaos.
You deserve a calm, confident path to delivery.

Need help designing a structured review process that works in your world?
That’s what we do. Let’s build it together!

References

Illumina Interactive. The Top 5 Causes for Delays in eLearning Course Development – and How to Crush Them.
https://illumina-interactive.com/development-processes-practices/the-top-5-causes-for-delays-in-elearning-course-development-and-how-to-crush-them/

Christy Tucker. Time Estimates for eLearning Development.
https://christytuckerlearning.com/time-estimates-for-e-learning-development/

Graves, N., Barnett, A.G., Clarke, P., et al. How many reviewers are required for grant applications? PLOS One / PMC.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4382286/

15Five. How Role Clarity Can Help Maximize Employee Performance.
https://www.15five.com/blog/how-role-clarity-can-help-maximize-employee-performance

AbilityWorks. Disability Inclusive Usability Testing – The Cost of Not Designing for Accessibility from the Start.
https://www.abilityworks.com.au/services/disability-inclusive-usability-testing/

Coursebox. Successive Approximation Model (SAM): A Modern Approach to Instructional Design.
https://www.coursebox.ai/blog/successive-approximation-model

Watershed. The ADDIE Instructional Design Model.
https://www.watershedlrs.com/blog/learning-evaluation/addie-instructional-design-model/

Digital Learning Institute. The Digital Learning Design Process: ADDIE Model for Instructional Design.
https://www.digitallearninginstitute.com/blog/the-digital-learning-design-process-addie-model-for-instructional-design

EdTechReview. Successive Approximation Model (SAM): Pros, Cons and How to Implement it in Education.
https://www.edtechreview.in/trends-insights/insights/successive-approximation-model-sam-pros-cons-and-how-to-implement-it-in-education/

ELM Learning. Agile Instructional Design: A Better Way to Build Training.
https://elmlearning.com/blog/agile-instructional-design/

zipBoard. What You Need to Remember During eLearning Project Reviews.
https://zipboard.co/blog/elearning/what-you-need-to-remember-during-elearning-project-reviews-bb4f40a270ac/

B Online Learning. How to Review eLearning Courses.
https://bonlinelearning.com/how-to-review-elearning-courses/

Australian Public Service Commission. APS Learning Quality Framework and Design Standards.
https://www.apsc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-05/APS%20Learning%20Quality%20Framework%20and%20Design%20Standards.pdf

APS Academy. Learning Quality Framework.
https://www.apsacademy.gov.au/news/learning-quality-framework

OECD / Digital Government in Australia. Sourcing – Digital Government in Australia.
https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/digital-government-in-australia_91c22326-en/full-report/sourcing_cc75f5b4.html

Digital Transformation Agency (Australia). Sourcing and Investment.
https://www.digital.gov.au/investment/sourcing

Federation University Australia. Review of Established Courses Procedure.
https://policy.federation.edu.au/academic_governance/procedures/review_of_established_courses/ch1.pdf

TEQSA. Guidance Note: Academic Monitoring, Review and Improvement.
https://www.teqsa.gov.au/guides-resources/resources/guidance-notes/guidance-note-academic-monitoring-review-and-improvement

Victorian Auditor-General’s Office. Digital Dashboard: Status Review of ICT Projects and Initiatives.
https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/report/digital-dashboard-status-review-ict-projects-and-initiatives-phase-2/

Zigpoll. How Do You Prioritize User Feedback When There Are Conflicting Suggestions from Different Stakeholders?
http://www.zigpoll.com/content/how-do-you-prioritize-user-feedback-when-there-are-conflicting-suggestions-from-different-stakeholders

Thrive Technologies. The Hidden Cost of Scattered Project Information.
https://www.thrivetech.com.au/scattered-project-information/

UNSW Teaching. Guidelines for Accessible Courses.
https://www.teaching.unsw.edu.au/guidelines-accessible-courses

GrackleDocs. Accessibility Standards in Australia (WCAG and DDA).
https://www.grackledocs.com/en/accessibility-standards-in-australia/

Australian Government, Department of Education. Disability Standards for Education 2005.
https://www.education.gov.au/disability-standards-education-2005

Karl Groves. Getting Instant Return from Your Accessibility Testing.
https://karlgroves.com/getting-instant-return-from-your-accessibility-testing/

TPGi. The True Cost of Not Prioritizing Accessibility.
https://www.tpgi.com/the-true-cost-of-not-prioritizing-accessibility/

TestDevLab. The Importance of Integrating Accessibility Early in Software Development.
https://www.testdevlab.com/blog/the-importance-of-integrating-accessibility-early-in-software-development

ME2 Accessibility. Design Evaluation – Catching Accessibility Issues Early.
https://www.me2accessibility.com.au/design-evaluation.html

Recite Me (Australia). Accessibility in Higher Education.
https://reciteme.com/au/news/accessibility-in-higher-education/

EduFellowship. Apply Product Management to Learning Design.
https://www.edufellowship.com/blog/apply-product-management-to-learning-design/

Oppida. Why a Product Mindset Matters in Digital Education.
https://blog.oppida.co/product-mindset

Skyjed. What Is a Product Governance Framework?
https://www.skyjed.com/blog/what-is-a-product-governance-framework-with-templates

Boston Consulting Group (BCG). Software Projects Don’t Have to Be Late, Costly, and Irrelevant.
https://www.bcg.com/publications/2024/software-projects-dont-have-to-be-late-costly-and-irrelevant

Invensis Learning. What Is Scope Creep and How to Avoid It in Project Management.
https://www.invensislearning.com/blog/what-is-scope-creep/

Level Access. Why the Break-Fix Approach to Accessibility Is Broken.
https://www.levelaccess.com/blog/why-the-break-fix-approach-to-accessibility-is-broken/