Home · Solutions · Other solutions
Solution · Other solutionsThe auditor asks who was overdue on a given date; that answer should take a click
Training and policy sign-offs tracked, reminded, evidenced
Every mandatory course and policy version is matched to the people who owe it, reminded in Teams, escalated when overdue and evidenced per person, version and date on demand.
Executive summary
Your evidence pack exists only in the week somebody builds it, and two people on the list left in March.
The centre of this is a matrix nobody currently owns: which role, at which site, owes which courses and which policy versions.
Audit evidence takes minutes instead of days, because completions and acknowledgements are recorded against people, versions and dates continuously.
the learning system (assignments and enrolments); the SharePoint acknowledgement record; Microsoft Purview retention and audit
Business problem
Compliance training
Three systems each hold a third of the answer and none of them holds the question. The learning system knows courses and completions but not roles, sites or start dates. The HR system knows people but not obligations. Policies sit in SharePoint with no record of who read which version. The coordinator is the integration between them, which works exactly as well as one person with a spreadsheet can.
Because the population is assembled by hand, it is out of date the day after it is built. Joiners in a fast-turnover warehouse work for weeks before anyone notices they were never enrolled, and movers keep the curriculum of the job they left. Reminders go out as bulk emails to everyone, so everyone learns to ignore them, and completion arrives in the last week before a deadline or after it.
Acknowledgements are the weakest link. Collected by email reply or a signature sheet, they record that somebody agreed to something, but not which version they agreed to. In a dispute or an inspection that distinction is the whole point, and it is the one thing the current method cannot produce. The situation persists because each course belongs to a different owner and the cost lands in audit weeks rather than in a monthly budget line.
How it works today
The pattern below repeats for every new course and every policy revision, in most regulated sites.
- PersonA new mandatory course or policy version is defined, and a coordinator works out from org charts and memory who has to do it
- SystemThe population is uploaded to the learning system as a CSV, correct on the day it is built and wrong the day after
- AutomationThe learning system sends a bulk reminder to everybody on the list, which everybody learns to ignore
- PersonEvery week the coordinator exports the completion report and cross-references it against the HR headcount file by hand
- PersonOverdue names are emailed to line managers as a list; some managers chase, some do not
- Risk of errorJoiners and role changers are never assigned, because assignment depends on somebody noticing them
- WaitingThe deadline passes with a completion gap, and the evidence pack is assembled from exports the week the auditor arrives
Why the current process costs more than it appears
The most expensive part of this process has no cost line.
- Coordinator hours are the visible cost and the least of it. The real exposure is a regulated site running with untrained people on the floor, discovered after an incident rather than before one.
- An acknowledgement with no version binding is close to worthless. When a policy changes and a dispute follows, "they signed the policy" invites the question which policy, and there is no answer.
- Managers grow numb to lists. A message naming thirty overdue people is administrative noise; the escalation that would have mattered happens after the event that made it matter.
- Audits become week-long evidence projects that pull qualified people off their jobs to rebuild what the systems already contain, four times a year.
- Every acquisition, new site, customer requirement and regulation adds a curriculum to a matrix that lives in one person's spreadsheet and leaves with them.
Cost of inaction
Obligations only accumulate. Every new customer requirement, regulation or acquired site adds a curriculum, and every policy revision resets the acknowledgement clock for everyone it touches. The two coordinators run more exports for more courses, the completion gap stays where it is, and the audit week returns four times a year with the same scramble.
The number that matters is deliberately not in the table. Between an obligation and its evidence there is a gap the company carries every day, and it costs nothing until a regulator, a customer audit or an accident investigation asks who was trained on a specific date. That is the day it costs a certification, and no model should pretend to price it.
A plausible organisation with realistic proportions. The figures are there to be recalculated on your data; they are not a client result.
A pharmaceutical distribution company, 1,400 employees across three warehouses, operating under Good Distribution Practice and an ISO certification; SAP SuccessFactors Learning for courses, Employee Central for people, policies published on SharePoint.
Nine mandatory courses and six policy acknowledgements per person per year: 12,600 course assignments and 8,400 acknowledgements, run by two coordinators through exports and email, with four audits a year.
Populations are worked out by hand and uploaded as CSV, reminders go to everyone at once, weekly exports are reconciled against the headcount file, and overdue lists are emailed to managers.
About 35 in 100 course assignments and 40 in 100 acknowledgements need manual chasing, at six and five minutes each, plus 4,410 manager escalations a year and 30 hours of evidence assembly before every audit.
A robot maintains the obligation matrix from role, site and HR events, creates assignments in the learning system, sends each person a personal card in Teams with a one-tap enrolment, collects acknowledgements against the document version on SharePoint, escalates what stays overdue and generates the evidence pack on request.
In the modelled case the completion gap closes before the deadline instead of after it, joiners are enrolled the night they appear in the HR system, and an evidence request becomes a query rather than a project. Every figure behind that is an assumption of ours.
Proposed solution
The centre of this is a matrix nobody currently owns: which role, at which site, owes which courses and which policy versions. We build it explicitly, agree it with compliance, security and HR, and then let a robot keep it alive. Every night the robot reads joiners, movers and leavers from the HR system and completions from the learning system, adds obligations for people who now need them, retires obligations for people who have left, and creates the assignments directly rather than through a CSV upload that was already stale.
What each person sees is one card in Microsoft Teams listing what they owe, when it is due, and a button that enrols them or launches the course. Reminders follow an agreed cadence rather than a bulk send, and each one names the individual and the item, not thirty colleagues. Policy acknowledgements are collected on the SharePoint policy page itself, so the record binds the person to the document version and the moment they confirmed it, with a Microsoft Purview retention label and an audit entry behind it. That is the difference between a signature sheet and evidence.
When something stays overdue, the escalation ladder runs on its own: the line manager receives a card naming their own two overdue people and nothing else, then the site lead. Exemptions and deadline extensions exist, because reality requires them, but each needs a named approver in UiPath Action Center, a written reason and an expiry date. Power BI shows completion by site, role and obligation, and the evidence pack for any population and date range is generated, not assembled, so nobody can tidy it before it reaches an auditor.
Microsoft Teams Adaptive Cards; SharePoint policy pages and version history; Microsoft Purview retention labels and audit log; UiPath Action Center approvals completed in Teams; UiPath Orchestrator schedules, triggers and audit trail
The obligation matrix and its population rules, the enrolment logic, the reminder and escalation cadences, the version-bound acknowledgement record, the evidence-pack generator and the completion dashboard
The learning-system API (SAP SuccessFactors Learning or comparable) and SAP SuccessFactors Employee Central for joiner, mover and leaver events, through UiPath Integration Service or robots where no connector exists
How the automated process works
- AutomationA new course, a new policy version or a joiner, mover or leaver event updates the obligation matrix overnight; leavers drop out and new people are covered the same night
- SystemAssignments are created in the learning system for whatever the person's current role and site require, with no CSV and no coordinator
- AutomationEach person receives a personal Adaptive Card in Microsoft Teams listing what is due, with the date and a button that enrols or launches
- AutomationPolicy acknowledgements are collected on the SharePoint policy page, binding the person to the document version and the timestamp with a Purview audit record
- AutomationReminders follow the agreed cadence; if the item is still overdue it escalates to the line manager and then to the site lead, naming the individual
- PersonExemptions and deadline extensions are requested and approved in Action Center by a named owner, with a reason and an expiry
- AutomationPower BI shows completion by site, role and obligation, and the evidence pack for any population and date range is generated on request
Human-in-the-loop model
Automation handles
- Maintaining the obligation matrix from role, site and HR events
- Enrolling joiners and movers the night their record changes
- Personal reminders and manager escalations in Microsoft Teams
- Version-bound acknowledgement records, dashboards and evidence packs
People decide
- Which curricula are mandatory for which roles and sites
- Exemptions and deadline extensions, with a reason and an expiry
- What happens to the persistently overdue, which is a conversation, not a card
- What the auditor is told, using the evidence the system produced
Before and after
Systems and integrations
The stack is deliberately short: one engine, one execution layer, one place where a person decides.
Inputs
- joiner, mover and leaver events from the HR system
- the learning system's course catalogue and completion records
- policy versions published on SharePoint
Automation layer
- UiPath Orchestrator
- UiPath Robots
- UiPath Integration Service
- UiPath Action Center
Target systems
- the learning system (assignments and enrolments)
- the SharePoint acknowledgement record
- Microsoft Purview retention and audit
- Power BI
Human touchpoints: the personal due card in Microsoft Teams; manager and site-lead escalation cards; Action Center exemption approvals
Technologies used
maintain the matrix nightly, create assignments, drive the reminder and escalation cadences, keep the audit trail
Aconnectors and, where none exists, the learning system's own API through Connector Builder
Aexemption and deadline-extension approvals, completed inside Microsoft Teams
Athe personal card of what is due with one-tap enrolment; manager and site-lead escalation cards
Athe acknowledgement bound to the exact document version the person read
Aretention labels and the audit log that make the acknowledgement record defensible
Acourses and completions; roles, sites and joiner, mover and leaver events
Acompletion by site, role and obligation, with overdue lists that name the manager as well as the employee
AIllustrative economic model
Numbers you can check against your own data.
Everything below is an annual duty pressed into a monthly shape, so that one calculator can hold four different jobs. Chasing course assignments: 12,600 a year (1,400 people × 9 courses), 35 in 100 needing a reminder at six minutes each, or 441 hours. Chasing acknowledgements: 8,400 a year, 40 in 100 at five minutes, or 280 hours. Those 721 coordinator hours cost €35 each. Manager escalations: 4,410 at three minutes is 221 hours at €74. Audit evidence: four packs of 30 hours at €35. Together that is 1,062 hours and about €45,700 a year, which makes the blended rate €43 and turns 7,770 chased items into 648 a month at 8.2 minutes each. What this process actually carries, a failed audit or an untrained person on the floor, is deliberately absent: we will not put a number on your regulatory risk. Nothing here was measured at a client.
Run the numbers on your data
An illustrative estimate from your own inputs. It models released capacity; it is not a promise of savings.
Business benefits
- Audit evidence takes minutes instead of days, because completions and acknowledgements are recorded against people, versions and dates continuously
- Joiners and movers are never missed, since assignment follows an HR event instead of somebody noticing a new face on the floor
- Completion rises before the deadline rather than after it, because a personal card with a button outperforms a bulk email to four hundred people
- Acknowledgements become defensible, each tied to the document version the person read and to the moment they confirmed it
- The obligation matrix acquires an owner and a definition, so it survives a coordinator's departure
The management view
- Completion by site, role and obligation is visible continuously, with overdue lists naming the responsible manager as well as the employee
- The CISO gets the same view for security training, on the same plumbing, without a second project
- Escalations are logged, so "what did you do about it" has a dated answer instead of a recollection
- Which curricula generate the most exemptions becomes visible, usually a signal about the course rather than the people
Board-level KPIs
Security and governance
Where the data sits and who can see it.
- Acknowledgement records are immutable and bound to a document version and a timestamp, held under a Microsoft Purview retention label, so what an auditor receives is what the system holds
- The robot reads the learning system and the HR system with service accounts limited to assignment and organisational fields; secrets live in a credential store integrated with Orchestrator, and the robots run in the EU region of UiPath Automation Cloud
- Escalation cards show a manager only their own reports, and the dashboard exposes an individual's record to nobody who has no reason to see it
- Exemptions require a named approver, a written reason and an expiry date, and each one is logged; there is no route by which an obligation quietly disappears
- Evidence packs are generated rather than edited. Nobody assembles a spreadsheet for the auditor, which also means nobody can improve one
Why now
Regulators and certification bodies now ask for training evidence at the level of the individual and the date, not a completion percentage on a slide, and customer audits in regulated distribution have followed them
Version-bound acknowledgement with an audit record is a configuration in SharePoint and Microsoft Purview rather than a document-management project, and learning and HR systems expose the events that keep a population current
The administrative case is modest and honest: €3,808 a month, about €45,700 a year, which is worth doing but is not the reason to do it; the reason is that the exposure between an obligation and its evidence is carried every single day
Relevant executive roles
An obligation process that survives turnover, evidences itself and no longer depends on one coordinator's spreadsheet
A live answer to who is overdue, and an evidence pack for any population and date range in minutes
Security training tracked to the individual, with an escalation that happens and a record that stands up
Coordinator time moves from exports to curriculum design and the conversations that need a person
Common questions and objections
It reminds people about courses it knows about. It does not know who joined yesterday, who changed role last month or who has not signed the new policy version, and its bulk emails are filtered out by everyone who receives them.
A card naming two of their own people with a button is acted on far more often than a list of thirty names in an email, and where it is not, the escalation to the site lead does the rest.
The system records completion of obligations the company already has and nothing else. What is stored is a short list of fields, the works council can see exactly what they are, and no behavioural data is collected.
When this is not the right solution
- Mandatory training is a handful of courses for a stable population that a single owner can hold in a list
- Policies are not versioned, or the workforce has no Microsoft 365 identity, so an acknowledgement cannot be bound to a document or a person
- The problem is really expiry of permits, licences and health clearances from external providers, which is a different register and a different solution
- The learning system is being replaced within the year, in which case wait and integrate once
A question for the next management meeting
An auditor will not ask whether we sent reminders; they will ask who was overdue on a named date and what we did about it, so how long would that answer take us today?
Implementation approach
A scope without ambiguity, before anything is signed.
We deliver
- An inventory of every mandatory course and policy with its population rule, agreed with compliance, security and HR
- A one-off reconciliation of the learning system and HR populations, which usually finds the gap by itself
- The obligation matrix, enrolment logic, reminder cadences and the escalation ladder to manager and site lead
- The version-bound acknowledgement page with its Purview retention and audit configuration
- The evidence-pack generator and the completion dashboard
- A pilot on one site and two curricula, then rollout, training and handover to compliance
We need from you
- API access to the learning system and the HR system
- Named owners for each curriculum and a decision on who may approve exemptions
- A pilot site and the policy library with version discipline in place
Stages
Discovery
Course and policy inventory, population rules, the current completion gap and the audit questions you are asked
Design
Matrix model, cadences, escalation ladder, acknowledgement record, retention and security
Build
Robots, learning-system and HR integrations, Teams cards, acknowledgement page and dashboard
Validation
One site, two curricula, measured on completion at deadline and evidence-pack time
Go-live
Site by site, curriculum by curriculum, with the coordinators supervising
Optimisation
Cadences tuned on measured response, exemption patterns reviewed with curriculum owners
Quick win. Effort is driven mainly by how many population rules the curricula really need and whether the learning system exposes assignments through an API; the Microsoft side is configuration.
Two names on this year's completion list left in March; three joiners were never added.
Send us your mandatory-training matrix, roles against courses, with last quarter's completion export, and we return the overdue list your systems already contain and the evidence pack the automation would produce.
Match your obligation matrix to your peopleThe neighbouring process usually has the same problem
Your training register is only as current as the last time someone remembered to update it.
View solution Other solutionsThe same right answer to every HR policy questionTwo advisors answer the same handbook questions all year, from different versions of the handbook.
View solution Other solutionsInterviews booked and feedback collected the same dayNine emails to book one interview, and feedback that arrives after the candidate has accepted elsewhere.
View solution Other solutionsDay one ready: accounts, access and kit from one HR triggerNew hires wait days for roles and laptops because onboarding is five processes held together by email.
View solution Case studyThe HR agent on TeamsAn employee asks on Teams about leave, a certificate or a benefit.
View case study Case studyAutomated new-hire onboardingNew hires ready to work sooner — less paperwork for HR.
View case studyIndustries we deliver this in most oftenManufacturing & industryRetail & e‑commercePublic sectorServices & ITShared services