Dominion Technical Learning Programs
The challenge
Dominion needed to establish structured, consistent training programs for highly technical, safety-critical field roles. The need emerged differently across the two sides of the business: gas and electric.
Following Dominion’s acquisition of a gas business in Ohio, existing training consisted largely of job aids that were inconsistent, outdated, and not organized into a formal learning program. Dominion needed a structured approach that could ensure employees were appropriately trained and provide clear documentation for regulatory and audit requirements.
On the electrical side, the challenge included another critical dimension: the impending loss of institutional knowledge. An aging workforce meant that decades of expertise held by experienced field employees could leave the organization as they retired. The organization needed to capture that knowledge and translate it into a formal learning experience for the next generation of technicians.
Both programs also operated in environments where safety and proficiency were non-negotiable.
The challenge was therefore not simply to create courses. It was to build sustainable, multi-year learning pathways that could develop technicians progressively, document proficiency, support regulatory requirements, and preserve critical organizational knowledge.
Dominion needed to establish structured, consistent training programs for highly technical, safety-critical field roles. The need emerged differently across the two sides of the business: gas and electric.
Following Dominion’s acquisition of a gas business in Ohio, existing training consisted largely of job aids that were inconsistent, outdated, and not organized into a formal learning program. Dominion needed a structured approach that could ensure employees were appropriately trained and provide clear documentation for regulatory and audit requirements.
On the electrical side, the challenge included another critical dimension: the impending loss of institutional knowledge. An aging workforce meant that decades of expertise held by experienced field employees could leave the organization as they retired. The organization needed to capture that knowledge and translate it into a formal learning experience for the next generation of technicians.
Both programs also operated in environments where safety and proficiency were non-negotiable.
The challenge was therefore not simply to create courses. It was to build sustainable, multi-year learning pathways that could develop technicians progressively, document proficiency, support regulatory requirements, and preserve critical organizational knowledge.
My Role
I joined Dominion as an instructional designer to help formalize the gas technician training program. Approximately a year after joining the team, I became Team Lead, ultimately leading a team of three instructional designers.
As Team Lead, I was responsible for both the learning architecture and the execution of the program. My responsibilities included:
Establishing and evolving the curriculum structure
Determining course sequencing and learning progression
Assigning work across the instructional design team
Establishing and refining design templates and standards
Reviewing and improving team deliverables
Partnering directly with technical subject matter experts
Determining appropriate delivery modalities
Managing project timelines and plans
Reporting progress to leadership and process owners
Coordinating with operations and stakeholders across the business
Managing changes in SME availability and requirements
Traveling regularly throughout Ohio to work directly with SMEs, operations, and leadership
The work required me to operate across two very different environments: corporate leadership and technical field operations.
I had to understand enough of the technical environment to design credible learning while translating that work into a language and framework that senior leaders could evaluate, support, and measure.
I joined Dominion as an instructional designer to help formalize the gas technician training program. Approximately a year after joining the team, I became Team Lead, ultimately leading a team of three instructional designers.
As Team Lead, I was responsible for both the learning architecture and the execution of the program. My responsibilities included:
Establishing and evolving the curriculum structure
Determining course sequencing and learning progression
Assigning work across the instructional design team
Establishing and refining design templates and standards
Reviewing and improving team deliverables
Partnering directly with technical subject matter experts
Determining appropriate delivery modalities
Managing project timelines and plans
Reporting progress to leadership and process owners
Coordinating with operations and stakeholders across the business
Managing changes in SME availability and requirements
Traveling regularly throughout Ohio to work directly with SMEs, operations, and leadership
The work required me to operate across two very different environments: corporate leadership and technical field operations.
I had to understand enough of the technical environment to design credible learning while translating that work into a language and framework that senior leaders could evaluate, support, and measure.
The Approach
We approached the programs as progressive learning ecosystems rather than collections of individual courses.
1. Map the curriculum
The initial program provided a general starting point for the topics that needed to be covered. As the team worked more deeply with SMEs and stakeholders, however, we identified additional content, gaps, and areas that required restructuring.
Courses were added, updated, divided, or redistributed across the curriculum as we developed a clearer understanding of the knowledge and skills required for proficiency.
2. Build progressive learning pathways
The curriculum was structured around increasing levels of technical proficiency—from foundational concepts through intermediate and advanced topics.
Rather than asking, "What courses do we need?", the program increasingly focused on: “What does a technician need to know and demonstrate before progressing to the next level?”
Technicians moved through progressively more advanced training and were required to demonstrate proficiency through assessments, observations, and SME evaluation before advancing.
3. Match modality to the learning need
The modality was intentionally selected based on the nature and risk of the content.
Foundational material could be delivered through e-learning, while safety-critical and regulatory topics often required instructor-led training, hands-on activities, observation, and direct assessment.
The resulting programs incorporated multiple learning modalities and supporting resources, including:
E-learning
Instructor-led training
Participant guides
Instructor guides
Job aids
Hands-on activities
Assessments
Observation forms
Vendor-supported learning
Field-based learning experiences
4. Capture expertise before it was lost
On the electrical side, the team added another layer to the approach: institutional knowledge capture.
Experienced SMEs possessed decades of practical knowledge that was not necessarily documented. With their retirement approaching, the team used interviews, audio recordings, and video recordings where appropriate to capture that expertise before it left the organization.
We approached the programs as progressive learning ecosystems rather than collections of individual courses.
1. Map the curriculum
The initial program provided a general starting point for the topics that needed to be covered. As the team worked more deeply with SMEs and stakeholders, however, we identified additional content, gaps, and areas that required restructuring.
Courses were added, updated, divided, or redistributed across the curriculum as we developed a clearer understanding of the knowledge and skills required for proficiency.
2. Build progressive learning pathways
The curriculum was structured around increasing levels of technical proficiency—from foundational concepts through intermediate and advanced topics.
Rather than asking, "What courses do we need?", the program increasingly focused on: “What does a technician need to know and demonstrate before progressing to the next level?”
Technicians moved through progressively more advanced training and were required to demonstrate proficiency through assessments, observations, and SME evaluation before advancing.
3. Match modality to the learning need
The modality was intentionally selected based on the nature and risk of the content.
Foundational material could be delivered through e-learning, while safety-critical and regulatory topics often required instructor-led training, hands-on activities, observation, and direct assessment.
The resulting programs incorporated multiple learning modalities and supporting resources, including:
E-learning
Instructor-led training
Participant guides
Instructor guides
Job aids
Hands-on activities
Assessments
Observation forms
Vendor-supported learning
Field-based learning experiences
4. Capture expertise before it was lost
On the electrical side, the team added another layer to the approach: institutional knowledge capture.
Experienced SMEs possessed decades of practical knowledge that was not necessarily documented. With their retirement approaching, the team used interviews, audio recordings, and video recordings where appropriate to capture that expertise before it left the organization.
Leadership & Execution
I led the team through a distributed ownership model.
Each instructional designer owned defined areas of the curriculum, allowing the team to work in parallel across the many technical specialties represented in the programs.
At the same time, I maintained oversight of the overall program and deliberately leveraged individual strengths within the team. For example, when a team member had particularly strong graphic-design capabilities, we used that expertise across the broader project rather than limiting it to that person’s assigned area.
My leadership approach was collaborative and hands-on.
I didn’t simply assign work and monitor completion. I worked alongside the team, reviewed deliverables, partnered with SMEs, and remained connected to the business.
I also maintained regular alignment with senior stakeholders to review progress, goals, metrics, and indicators such as behavioral improvement and time to proficiency.
Navigating competing demands
The electrical program introduced additional execution challenges.
Storm response could pull field employees away from their normal responsibilities and make SMEs temporarily unavailable. Employees could be reassigned within Virginia or sent to other states to support storm recovery efforts.
The team therefore had to maintain momentum while adapting to operational priorities that could change quickly.
This required flexibility in scheduling, stakeholder coordination, and curriculum development without losing sight of the larger program objectives.
I led the team through a distributed ownership model.
Each instructional designer owned defined areas of the curriculum, allowing the team to work in parallel across the many technical specialties represented in the programs.
At the same time, I maintained oversight of the overall program and deliberately leveraged individual strengths within the team. For example, when a team member had particularly strong graphic-design capabilities, we used that expertise across the broader project rather than limiting it to that person’s assigned area.
My leadership approach was collaborative and hands-on.
I didn’t simply assign work and monitor completion. I worked alongside the team, reviewed deliverables, partnered with SMEs, and remained connected to the business.
I also maintained regular alignment with senior stakeholders to review progress, goals, metrics, and indicators such as behavioral improvement and time to proficiency.
Navigating competing demands
The electrical program introduced additional execution challenges.
Storm response could pull field employees away from their normal responsibilities and make SMEs temporarily unavailable. Employees could be reassigned within Virginia or sent to other states to support storm recovery efforts.
The team therefore had to maintain momentum while adapting to operational priorities that could change quickly.
This required flexibility in scheduling, stakeholder coordination, and curriculum development without losing sight of the larger program objectives.
The Solution
The result was a multi-year technical learning ecosystem rather than a collection of disconnected training materials.
For the gas program, we created a structured progression that moved technicians from foundational knowledge toward increasing levels of technical proficiency, supported by formal assessments, observations, and qualification requirements.
The electrical program followed the same foundational architecture while incorporating lessons learned from the gas program and adapting them to the needs of the electrical workforce.
The programs incorporated:
Structured Curriculum
Progressive learning pathways organized around increasing levels of proficiency.
Multiple Modalities
E-learning, instructor-led training, hands-on learning, field experiences, vendor-supported training, and self-directed resources.
Performance-Based Assessment
Technicians demonstrated knowledge and practical proficiency through exams, observations, and SME evaluation before progressing.
Supporting Learning Resources
Instructor guides, participant guides, job aids, assessments, and observation tools.
Learning Management & Tracking
Training completion, scores, observations, and progression were tracked through the LMS to support reporting and accountability.
Institutional Knowledge Capture
On the electrical side, the team captured expertise from experienced technicians through recorded conversations and other documentation before that knowledge could be lost.
The electrical program also expanded opportunities for technicians to access e-learning while working remotely or from their vehicles, increasing the flexibility and accessibility of the learning experience.
The result was a multi-year technical learning ecosystem rather than a collection of disconnected training materials.
For the gas program, we created a structured progression that moved technicians from foundational knowledge toward increasing levels of technical proficiency, supported by formal assessments, observations, and qualification requirements.
The electrical program followed the same foundational architecture while incorporating lessons learned from the gas program and adapting them to the needs of the electrical workforce.
The programs incorporated:
Structured Curriculum
Progressive learning pathways organized around increasing levels of proficiency.
Multiple Modalities
E-learning, instructor-led training, hands-on learning, field experiences, vendor-supported training, and self-directed resources.
Performance-Based Assessment
Technicians demonstrated knowledge and practical proficiency through exams, observations, and SME evaluation before progressing.
Supporting Learning Resources
Instructor guides, participant guides, job aids, assessments, and observation tools.
Learning Management & Tracking
Training completion, scores, observations, and progression were tracked through the LMS to support reporting and accountability.
Institutional Knowledge Capture
On the electrical side, the team captured expertise from experienced technicians through recorded conversations and other documentation before that knowledge could be lost.
The electrical program also expanded opportunities for technicians to access e-learning while working remotely or from their vehicles, increasing the flexibility and accessibility of the learning experience.
Impact
The programs created greater consistency, visibility, and accountability around technician training.
Every field employee in the relevant workforce was expected to progress through the program, creating a standardized learning experience rather than allowing individual employees to receive substantially different training for the same work.
The programs also gave Dominion a more reliable way to document training for regulatory reporting and demonstrate what employees had been trained to do. On the electrical side, expanded LMS tracking made it easier to identify missed training and account for employees whose operational responsibilities temporarily pulled them away from training.
The work also strengthened the organization’s ability to evaluate proficiency consistently. Observation and assessment processes gave SMEs a structured way to evaluate technicians and determine whether they were ready to advance.
The programs created greater consistency, visibility, and accountability around technician training.
Every field employee in the relevant workforce was expected to progress through the program, creating a standardized learning experience rather than allowing individual employees to receive substantially different training for the same work.
The programs also gave Dominion a more reliable way to document training for regulatory reporting and demonstrate what employees had been trained to do. On the electrical side, expanded LMS tracking made it easier to identify missed training and account for employees whose operational responsibilities temporarily pulled them away from training.
The work also strengthened the organization’s ability to evaluate proficiency consistently. Observation and assessment processes gave SMEs a structured way to evaluate technicians and determine whether they were ready to advance.
Reflection
This project fundamentally changed how I thought about instructional design at scale.
It was the first time I had truly been responsible for an enterprise-scale learning initiative, and it gave me the opportunity to put the principles I had studied in my instructional systems design graduate program into practice.
I learned how to design a learning ecosystem rather than simply design courses.
I learned how to work with senior leaders while remaining the advocate for the people who would ultimately use the training.
And I learned how important it is for an instructional designer to understand the environment in which the work actually happens.
I wasn’t a gas technician or an electrical technician. But I took the time to understand their equipment, processes, work environment, safety requirements, and language well enough to create learning that field employees recognized as credible and practical.
Perhaps most importantly, I learned how to navigate between two very different worlds: corporate leadership and field operations. I could discuss program performance, metrics, and strategy with directors and senior leaders, then sit down with experienced field technicians and have meaningful conversations about the realities of their work.
That experience reinforced something I still believe today:
Great instructional design requires more than understanding how people learn. It requires understanding the world in which they work.
And at scale, the instructional designer’s role extends beyond creating learning.
It is about creating the structure, systems, processes, and partnerships that allow people—and the organization—to perform.
I helped transform fragmented technical training into structured, multi-year learning ecosystems—while leading a team, partnering with senior leaders and technical experts, supporting regulatory requirements, preserving institutional knowledge, and designing for measurable workforce proficiency.
This project fundamentally changed how I thought about instructional design at scale.
It was the first time I had truly been responsible for an enterprise-scale learning initiative, and it gave me the opportunity to put the principles I had studied in my instructional systems design graduate program into practice.
I learned how to design a learning ecosystem rather than simply design courses.
I learned how to work with senior leaders while remaining the advocate for the people who would ultimately use the training.
And I learned how important it is for an instructional designer to understand the environment in which the work actually happens.
I wasn’t a gas technician or an electrical technician. But I took the time to understand their equipment, processes, work environment, safety requirements, and language well enough to create learning that field employees recognized as credible and practical.
Perhaps most importantly, I learned how to navigate between two very different worlds: corporate leadership and field operations. I could discuss program performance, metrics, and strategy with directors and senior leaders, then sit down with experienced field technicians and have meaningful conversations about the realities of their work.
That experience reinforced something I still believe today:
Great instructional design requires more than understanding how people learn. It requires understanding the world in which they work.
And at scale, the instructional designer’s role extends beyond creating learning.
It is about creating the structure, systems, processes, and partnerships that allow people—and the organization—to perform.
I helped transform fragmented technical training into structured, multi-year learning ecosystems—while leading a team, partnering with senior leaders and technical experts, supporting regulatory requirements, preserving institutional knowledge, and designing for measurable workforce proficiency.