The 3-P Model of Workplace Learning and how to make your Enablement activities stick
- Martin Griffin
- Feb 16
- 4 min read
Most workplace learning conversations in GTM sound like this:
“We need a training on discovery.”
“We should run a certification.”
“Let’s create a playbook.”
“We need managers to coach more.”
All of these might be true but in many cases it may not be the best learning intervention to drive performance.
The 3-P model of workplace learning gives you a cleaner way to diagnose what’s really going on—before you invest time, budget, and credibility in another “enablement initiative.”
At its core, the model says workplace learning can be understood through three lenses:
Presage (what exists before learning happens)
Process (what people do while learning)
Product (what changes because of learning)
This framing has roots in Biggs’ “Presage–Process–Product” model, and has been adapted and used in workplace learning research (including Tynjälä’s workplace learning framing, and later applied in HRD/workplace learning measurement and studies).
It's value lies in the fact that it stops you treating learning like an event—and starts treating it like a system.
Presage: The conditions that shape learning before it starts
Presage factors are the “setup.”
They include both learner and context factors.
Learner factors (GTM examples)
Tenure and prior experience (new AE vs seasoned enterprise closer)
Beliefs and motivation (“this methodology is admin work”)
Confidence, identity, and risk tolerance (fear of coming across poorly on calls)
Capacity (time, headspace, competing priorities)
Context factors (GTM examples)
Role clarity (what “good” looks like at each stage)
Manager capability and expectations (coaching skill, inspection cadence)
Incentives (what comp and recognition actually reward)
Tools and friction (CRM hygiene, call recording, AI tooling, enablement stack)
Culture and psychological safety (can reps admit they’re stuck?)
Market reality (budget freezes, longer buying cycles, new competitors)
Oftentimes Enablement teams launch training into a context where it seems irrational.
If discovery quality is poor, but:
the stage definitions are fuzzy,
managers don’t inspect,
reps are rewarded for speed/volume,
and pipeline pressure is high…
…then the presage conditions will quietly kill your intervention.
Process: The learning activity that actually happens at work
This is where most enablement teams think they operate—but often too narrowly.
Workplace learning process includes:
practice, feedback, reflection
observation and imitation (shadowing)
coaching and guided problem-solving
peer learning in deal teams
sensemaking after wins/losses
on-the-job experimentation
And critically informal learning is often the main driver of success and performance improvement.
A 60-minute presentation style session is rarely the best mechanisim for learning transfer—application, feedback loops, and manager reinforcement are. Enablement teams who are still measuring learning by attendance and completion rate often find the intervention to be ineffective.
This is exactly why studies using the 3-P model often look at learner factors + context + process together, rather than isolating “training.”
A useful GTM question is:
Where does practice happen, and who gives feedback—today?
If the honest answer is “nowhere” and “no one,” you don’t have a learning system, you have content
Product: What changes as a result of learning
Product is the outcome and looked at across different levels, Individual, performance and organisational:
Individual products
knowledge (what I understand)
skill (what I can do)
judgment (what I choose to do in messy situations)
identity/agency (“I can run an executive-level conversation”)
Performance products (GTM)
stage conversion improvements
win rate shifts in a defined segment
cycle time reduction
higher-quality pipeline
forecast accuracy
lower discounting
faster ramp and time-to-first-deal
Organisational products
consistent operating cadence
shared language and decision rules
better cross-functional execution (sales ↔ marketing ↔ CS)
Enablement teams can mistakenly pick outcomes that are too far downstream (e.g., “increase revenue”) without tracking the proximal products that learning should change first (e.g., stage 2→3 conversion, discovery depth, mutual plan adoption).
Why the 3-P model is so useful in GTM (and why most programs stall)
Because it reframes the real question from:
“What training should we run?”
to:
“Which presage and process factors are preventing the product we want?”
This is also why the model is used as an organizing framework in workplace learning measurement and research—because outcomes depend on the interaction between learner, environment, and learning activities, not just the “intervention.”
A practical GTM example: “Discovery is weak”
The usual response may be "Run a discovery workshop, add a question bank, create a call scorecard"
The 3-P diagnosis
Presage (setup):
ICP is blurry; reps don’t know what “qualified” means
Managers avoid coaching because they feel under-skilled
Reps are rewarded for logging meetings, not progressing opportunities
Process (learning mechanism):
No weekly deal coaching rhythm
No structured feedback on real calls
No safe practice environment (reps only “practice” in live deals)
Product (outcome):
Stage 2→3 conversion is low
Opportunities stall after first call
Forecast is volatile
What changes when you see the system?You stop “doing enablement to reps” and start designing the learning environment:
tighten stage definitions + qualification decision rules
enable and inspect manager coaching
add live-call feedback loops
build practice into the workflow (not as an event)
A 3-P “Enablement Design Checklist” you can steal
Before launching anything, answer these:
Presage
Who exactly is the target population (tenure, segment, role)?
What will make the desired behavior hard, risky, or irrational?
What manager expectations + inspection mechanisms exist today?
What incentives contradict the behavior we want?
Process
Where will reps practice this skill, and how often?
Who will give feedback, using what rubric?
What will managers do differently next week—not next quarter?
What workflows will reinforce the behavior (CRM, MEDDICC fields, deal reviews)?
Product
What immediate leading indicators should move in 2–6 weeks?
What lagging indicators should move in 1–2 quarters?
What would “no impact” look like—and what would we change then?
Workplace learning is not a series of events - It’s an operating system.
The 3-P model gives GTM leaders and enablement teams a shared language to talk about why learning works—or doesn’t.
When your next initiative stalls, don’t ask:
“How do we get reps to care?”
Ask:
“Which presage conditions are blocking learning?”
“Which process loops are missing?”
“Which product outcomes are we actually expecting to change?”
That’s how you move from content to performance. Use the following customisable template to structure your next learning intervention using the 3-P Model before saving it as a PDF working doc ( example below).
Comments