Something isn't working

Start with the problem. Know where to look.

Problems with Candidate Experience rarely have a single cause. Complaints, poor outcomes, accessibility issues or operational failures can originate in assessment design, preparation, communications, technology, processes or the way services are delivered.

Experience helps us know where to start looking. We combine candidate research and feedback with operational and performance data to test likely causes, understand what's really happening and focus improvement where it will make the greatest difference.

Candidates aren't adequately prepared

Candidates need the right preparation to demonstrate what they know and can do. That means understanding what is expected of them, having access to appropriate learning and practice, and being confident about how the assessment itself will work.

Where we'd start looking

We'd look across the whole preparation journey: the quality and accessibility of guidance and learning resources; webinars, events, masterclasses and written materials; opportunities to practise assessment content and receive meaningful feedback; and whether new approaches such as AI-enabled practice and coaching could improve access to high-quality preparation.

We'd also look at onboarding: whether candidates understand what will happen on the day, have the right equipment and technical set-up, have completed appropriate checks, and have had enough opportunity to familiarise themselves with the platform, its functionality and the assessment process.

We'd pay particular attention to whether different groups of candidates have equivalent access to preparation and support, and whether differences in preparation may be contributing to differences in experience or outcomes.

Candidates need increasingly complex adjustments

Candidates' needs can be complex, and reasonable adjustments that appear straightforward in principle can be difficult to deliver within the constraints of an assessment.

Where we'd start looking

We'd look at the end-to-end reasonable adjustments journey — how candidates understand and request support, how evidence and requests are reviewed, how decisions are made and communicated, and how agreed adjustments are translated into workable assessment arrangements.

We'd also look at the operational model behind it: demand and capacity, team structure, consistency of decision-making, technology and platform constraints, examiner and operational requirements, and how unusual or complex requests are handled.

The aim is to help organisations provide fair and appropriate access while maintaining assessment integrity and creating processes that are consistent, scalable and defensible.

Candidates aren't getting a consistent experience

Candidates should be able to demonstrate their ability under consistent conditions, regardless of when, where or with whom they take an assessment. In complex assessments, that consistency depends on much more than the assessment design itself.

Where we'd start looking

We'd look across the people, processes and technology involved in delivery — including examiner and role-player recruitment, training, standardisation and calibration; invigilator recruitment and training; platform performance and usability; operational processes; supplier performance; and the support available on the day.

We'd also look at what happens when things don't go to plan. How incidents are identified, escalated and resolved; how decisions are made; how affected candidates are supported; and whether incidents and candidate feedback are being used to improve future delivery.

The aim is to create a reliable and consistent experience that enables every candidate to demonstrate their ability fairly, while giving delivery teams the processes, training and support they need to make that happen.

Different groups of candidates are achieving different outcomes

Differences in candidate outcomes are rarely explained by a single factor. The challenge is to understand where those differences emerge and what might be contributing to them.

Where we'd start looking

We'd use assessment and candidate data to identify where differences are most pronounced — across candidate groups, assessment components, questions or stations, skill domains and marking.

We'd then focus investigation where the evidence takes us. That could include assessment and case design, examiner judgement and marking, role-player behaviour, candidate preparation and access to support, language and communication demands, or other aspects of the candidate experience.

By combining performance data with candidate insight and targeted qualitative research, we can help distinguish between possible causes and identify where the organisation has a realistic opportunity to improve fairness and outcomes.

Complaints, appeals and mitigating circumstances are becoming difficult to manage

When volumes increase, complaints, appeals and mitigating circumstances can quickly overwhelm teams — particularly if information is held across different systems, responsibilities aren't clear or cases require input from multiple people.

Where we'd start looking

We'd look at the end-to-end process: how issues are captured and categorised, what evidence is required, how cases are triaged and allocated, how decisions are made and recorded, and how candidates are kept informed and receive a clear response.

We'd also look at the systems, policies, team capacity and governance supporting the process, including how complex or high-risk cases are escalated and how peaks in demand are managed.

The aim is to create a process that is fair, consistent, timely and manageable at scale — while using the insight from complaints and appeals to identify recurring problems and improve the wider candidate experience.