Some of your programs are a stated curriculum with fixed stages that are repeated with each cycle, and some are a path that is built around the situation and changes with it. Both are professionally legitimate, but the system approaches them in two different ways — and must support both.
Why is this requirement included in the purchasing decision?
Because a system that imposes a single architecture forces you to make one of two bad choices: distort your standard programs with individual modifications that make them lose comparability, or cram flexible states into a mold that doesn’t fit them.
The difference appears in the reports: the standard program is compared across courses, and the flexible plan is measured against its own goals.
What should the scope cover?
- Repeatable program template: , with its stages, sessions, assignments and assessments, is copied for each new session.
- Free Individual Plan: It is built with its own goals and tasks without a prior template.
- Modification within the standard program: Is possible for a specific instance, with a validity and reason recorded, with the original template still intact.
- Rate Discrimination: That the reports show who followed the standard path and whose path was modified – comparing them requires this distinction.
- Save plan versions: Every amendment has its reason, date, and author.
- Combine them: Is a client of a standard group program and has a flexible individual plan at the same time.
Checklist in demo
- Create a program template with its stages, then run a cycle from it: Is it fully copied?
- Modified one patron’s path within the course: Was a reason requested? Did the mold remain intact?
- Run the template again: does it appear in the original structure rather than modified?
- Request a course report: Is it possible to distinguish who has had his course modified?
- Create a free individual plan for a client in the same program: Do the two work together?
The commercial benefit of a standardized program is noteworthy: a fixed structure with declared outputs that can be priced and presented to a contractor and its impact measured across cycles. The flexible plan is suitable for individual work and is difficult to formulate as a sellable offer. Many centers build modular programs for precisely this reason.
Limits that need to be adopted
- Path modification permission: Modification of a standard program to the case of a professional decision with a specific authority, not an individual action.
- Limits of comparison: When many participants change course, the course loses its standard — and this should be shown in the report, not hidden.
- Mold Review: Repeating the same edit in multiple participants is an indication that the template needs updating — check it after every couple of cycles.
- Professional content: The program structure and stages are determined by your team and its reference, and the system understands them.
The next step is to document the requirements
Categorize your programs: which are standard, which are flexible, and which can modify the path. See Groupware page.
Request a system demo
We build a program template from your program, run a course from it, and then modify one participant’s path — and see how the template stays intact and the report stays true.