Organisation
Publisher with 11 programmes for language, maths, social studies and English. 30 editors, 12 in-house authors, 40 freelance authors.
Example engagement · Educational publisher
Teaching materials checked against the new core objectives
An educational publisher of 85 people with learning programmes for primary and secondary education, which has to check all its existing material against the revised core objectives (kerndoelen).
employees85
turnover€14m
learning programmes11
Profile
The organisation
Work
Developing programmes and keeping them current, answering teachers' questions, accounting to schools and the inspectorate for objective coverage.
Systems
CMS with 38,000 learning objects, Zendesk for teacher questions, Excel for objective coverage, shared drive for source material.
The question
Where the hours went
The revised core objectives meant every learning object had to be linked again. An editor took 11 minutes per object on average. For 38,000 objects that is nearly four editorial years.
Teacher questions about objective coverage took customer service 2 days to turn around because the answer sat with the editorial team. Material from older editions wasn't reused because nobody knew exactly what was in it.
Working session and scan · Worked example
Four weeks of watching the work
Working session with editorial and customer service, then four weeks alongside the language programme and the questions channel.
11 min
per learning object to link core objectives, with a 15% difference between editors.
38,000
learning objects, 60% of which had already been tagged once in an older edition under the previous objectives.
2 days
turnaround on a teacher question about objective coverage.
44%
of teacher questions had already been answered once before, scattered across mailboxes.
3 weeks
per grant report, mostly retyping from existing material.
The pattern: the same judgement made over and over, because the previous judgement was recorded nowhere.
What we built
A material pipeline and a memory
The system proposes, the editor confirms. Every link points to the passage in the learning object and the core objective it rests on.
Objective coverage and tagging
A proposal per learning object of which core objectives are covered, with the passage that supports it. Old tags are taken along as a source. If uncertain, it is flagged: I don't know.
Human approvesThe editor confirms or corrects per object.
Searchable archive
All editions and source material searchable by content and core objective. Finds what already exists before anyone writes it again.
Human approvesThe author decides on reuse.
Teacher questions
A first answer to questions about objective coverage, drawn from the tagging data and earlier answers, with references. Questions without a source go straight to editorial.
Human approvesCustomer service approves before sending.
Grant and accountability documents
Drafts in the funder's format, filled from existing material and the objective-coverage data.
Human approvesThe publisher signs.
The three rules
Every result has its source.
If the source is missing, it says: I don't know.
What goes out, a person approves.
Engagement · Worked example
Four months
Agreed before we started. One workflow live each month, with the results measured on the organisation's own work.
Month 1
Archive and baseline
38,000 objects made searchable. Baseline: 200 objects tagged by three editors as a calibration set.
Month 2
Tagging pipeline
Proposals on the calibration set: 89% agreement with editorial, 94% by week 4. Editor time per object: from 11 down to 3 minutes.
Month 3
Teacher questions
First answers with sources. 61% of questions answered within a day, without involving editorial.
Month 4
Accountability and policy
Two grant reports produced through the pipeline. Working policy and training for editorial and freelancers.
Results · Worked example
After four months
3 min
per learning object
was 11 minutes
7 months
turnaround of re-tagging
was ~4 FTE-years of work
94%
agreement with editor
was 85% between editors
< 1 day
answer to a teacher question
was 2 days
4 days
per grant report
was 3 weeks
100%
links with the passage as source
was none
What it's worth · Worked example
€375,000 to €495,000 in the first year
Largely one-off: the re-tagging. After that a lower, recurring amount. Internal rate €65 to €85, 75% realisation.
Re-tagging 38,000 objects (one-off)
€250–325k8 min × 38,000 objects = 5,070 hours × €65–85, 75% realisation
Customer service and editorial time on teacher questions
€50–70k~15 min less per question × 4,200 questions × €65–85, 75% realisation
Accountability documents
€30–40k11 days × 6 documents a year × rate
Reuse of existing material
€45–60kCounted only where authors reported it
Total, calculated conservatively
€375–495kAfterwards
What happened next
The objective-coverage data became a selling point: schools received an overview per programme showing the lesson for each core objective. Editorial now uses the calibration set as a standing quality test for every new edition. Not counted above.
Zo begin je.
Want to look for yourself first? The supplier scan and the Chain check are free and need no conversation.
The supplier scanA half-hour intro
About where your hours go. No obligation. We won't chase you afterwards.
Book an intro callThis is already running
BBEbuddy. Teachers ask a question and the answer comes from a knowledge base of their own, with the source attached. Runs in three languages.Valora. A valuation that used to take hours now takes minutes, with every calculation step visible.Bookaflow. A booking system that stops the moment a person has to decide.
Read the case