Home › Use Cases
The learning asset lifecycle
Building Is One Door.
Keeping Is the Whole Building.
Institutions arrive with courses built years ago by people who have since left, publisher and open material adopted piecemeal, master shells that drifted from their sections, and a review calendar they cannot prove they met. CMP takes all of it under one record. These are the cases we are asked for most, in the order they come up.
Eight cases
What Institutions Actually Bring Us.
Case 01 · The recurring one
Course change and currency
The part that recursA requirement moves. A licensure body revises its standards. A field shifts and the course that teaches it does not. Today this is discovered late, handled by whoever notices, and repeated across the courses the change touches, usually by hand and usually under a deadline set by someone else.
In CMP, requirements and outcomes are held once and inherited by the courses beneath them. Each program carries its own review interval, and CMP shows which courses are due for review. Your expert edits, rejects, or approves the revision. Nothing goes live without that decision, and the decision is on the record with a name and a date attached.
- The problem it solves: currency work that is predictable in aggregate but funded as crisis response.
- What changes: the institution stops discovering drift and starts scheduling it.
- Foundations: currency, institutional capacity, risk mitigation.
- Who feels it first: deans, instructional designers, and the accreditation lead who no longer reconstructs the history.
Case 02
Reshaping a course you already run
The textbook is replaced and the whole course was built around the old one. A fifteen-week course has to become an eight-week term, or sixteen modules have to become twelve without losing an outcome. A course taught face to face has to work online without being rewritten from scratch.
These are the most common structural changes in a catalog and the ones handled least systematically, because each one feels bespoke. CMP treats them as a re-shaping of an asset it already holds: outcomes and alignment stay fixed as the anchor, your faculty revise materials and module structure against them, and the result routes through the same approval path as anything else. What you get back is not a new course. It is the next version of the one you own, with the reason for the change recorded.
- Textbook and materials change: your faculty revise the course against the new text, and the earlier version stays on the record.
- Module count and term length change: outcomes hold as the anchor while your faculty reshape the modules, and the earlier version stays on the record.
- Modality change: one master, deployed to the modalities you offer, without a parallel copy that drifts.
- Foundations: institutional capacity, speed, currency.
Case 03
Bringing an existing catalog under the record
A strong first project is often not building anything. It is taking the courses you already run and giving them a record: what each one was built against, who owns it, when it was last reviewed, and where it stands against the outcomes you publish.
Courses come in from the LMS, from documents, and from publisher or open material already in use. Nothing is rebuilt. Each course is inventoried, checked against the outcomes and requirements you supply, and given an owner and a review date. The output is an inventory institutions do not yet have: the catalog as an asset register, with the gaps visible and prioritized rather than assumed.
- What you learn immediately: which courses have drifted, which have no living owner, and which are carrying the most risk.
- Foundations: risk mitigation, currency, hard costs.
Case 04
LMS migration and platform change
A platform decision should not be a curriculum event. When the design record lives outside the LMS, changing platforms is a redeploy rather than a rebuild, and the institution stops paying twice for content it already owns.
CMP deploys by the path your platform supports: directly to Canvas and Moodle, and to other learning platforms through standard course formats. Because the record is the source, the version deployed is the version that was approved, which is not always true of a catalog that has been hand-migrated twice.
- Foundations: hard costs, speed, risk mitigation.
- Related: this is the situation Newberry College was in. See what the first conversation is like.
Case 05
Program revision that reaches the sections
A program's outcomes are revised. In most institutions the revision reaches the catalog copy, the assessment plan, and perhaps a memo, and then reaches the individual sections unevenly, over years, depending on who taught what and who read the memo.
In CMP, sections are built from a master shell that inherits the program's outcomes. Revise the program, and the courses beneath it, which inherit its outcomes, can be seen and reviewed in one place. Faculty keep their own material and their own voice; what they inherit is the alignment, not the content.
- Foundations: currency, institutional capacity, risk mitigation.
Case 06
Launching a program on the plan's timeline
The board approves a new program in the strategic plan. The gap between that approval and a live, enrollable, governed course is where the plan is usually lost, not to disagreement but to elapsed time that has no owner.
CMP compresses the build so the constraint returns to where it belongs: your experts' judgment and your approval bodies' calendars. The record produced along the way is the same record the accreditor will ask for later, which means the launch and the substantive change documentation are the same piece of work rather than two.
- Foundations: strategic plan attainment, speed, risk mitigation.
Case 07
Compliance, onboarding, and professional development
Most institutions build and maintain this content three separate times, in three separate places, on three separate budgets, and can prove completion far better than they can prove currency of what was completed.
The same record holds it. Required training, new employee onboarding, and professional development are governed like academic courses: built to a requirement, approved by a named person, versioned when the requirement moves, and deployed to the system that already tracks completion.
- Foundations: hard costs, risk mitigation, institutional capacity.
- Institutional areas served: HR, compliance and risk, academic affairs.
Case 08
Retirement and teach-out
Programs end. The obligation to the students inside them does not, and neither does the obligation to show how the program was governed while it ran.
Retiring a program in CMP is a disposition on the record rather than a deletion. Version history, approvals, and alignment stay intact and exportable, so teach-out plans and any subsequent review are supported by evidence that already exists.
- Foundations: risk mitigation, currency.
Next step
Pick the Case That Matches Your Week.
Two ways in. Bring a course you want reviewed and updated, or bring a course you need built.