Join

WIL Diagnostic Tool Instruction Guide

Purpose of This Tool

This diagnostic tool is designed to support partners in developing a clearer understanding of how to select and sustain effective work-integrated learning (WIL) models – from low intensity to high intensity designs. It is intended primarily as an educational resource rather than a comprehensive prescriptive instrument.

While the tool generates model recommendations, its primary value lies in helping users examine the underlying factors that influence successful WIL models. These include alignment across employer needs, learner characteristics, and institutional capacity. By making these considerations explicit, the tool supports more informed and realistic decision-making and helps identify potential constraints or areas for development.

Click here to download the tool.

Read on for guidance on putting this tool to use.

Intended Audience

This tool has been developed for use by faculty and higher education administrators, small business leaders, and human resources or talent development professionals within larger organizations. It may also be useful for intermediaries and workforce partners who support collaboration between education and industry.

Because WIL partnerships inherently involve multiple stakeholders, the tool is designed to be accessible to individuals operating from different perspectives while still maintaining a shared framework for analysis.

Approaches to Completion

The diagnostic may be completed by a single individual who has sufficient visibility across the employer, learner, and institutional dimensions of a WIL partnership. This approach may be appropriate for program leads, workforce development staff, or HR leaders who are responsible for designing or managing WBL initiatives.

However, the tool can have increased effectiveness when used in a collaborative setting. Completing the diagnostic as a group can help surface differing assumptions, align expectations, and build a shared understanding of what is feasible. In many cases, the discussion generated through the process is as valuable as the results themselves.

Note: If the tool is being used to consider potential WIL models across multiple employer partners, it should be completed for each employer separately. The most frequent recommended model may be the best starting point for a pilot initiative.

Core Domains Assessed

The diagnostic is structured around three core domains that collectively shape the viability of a work-based learning model:

  1. Employer capacity and motivation: This includes the employer’s hiring intent, ability to supervise and mentor learners, capacity to define meaningful work, and ability to provide compensation. These factors are central to determining whether a partnership can move beyond exploratory engagement into more structured or sustained models.
  2. Learner profile: Rather than relying solely on educational level, the tool considers the learner’s proximity to workforce entry (“speed to workforce”), current level of workplace readiness, and primary goals for participation. Together, these elements provide a more nuanced view of how learners are likely to engage in and benefit from different types of WBL experiences.
  3. Institutional capacity: This includes faculty engagement, administrative infrastructure, and the institution’s ability to coordinate and support placements or projects. These elements are critical for ensuring that a chosen model can be implemented consistently and sustained over time.

Guiding Questions for Inputs (Column C)

The diagnostic tool is designed to translate a set of structured inputs into model recommendations and visual outputs. To ensure that the tool functions correctly, users should enter responses only in Column C of the primary worksheet.

For each row, users should select the response option for each guiding question that best reflects their current context.

Employer Questions

  1. What is your hiring intent for full-time roles within the next 12 months?
    • Not hiring
    • Exploring
    • Likely hiring
    • Actively hiring
  2. What level of supervision can your company provide?
    • Occasional
    • Weekly
    • Dedicated
  3. What is your ability to define work/projects with clear skills or learning outcomes?
    • None/Limited
    • With support
    • Fully scoped
  4. Are you able to provide compensation for WIL?
    • Cannot pay
    • Yes, stipend
    • Yes, market rate

Learner Questions

  1. How soon with learners likely enter the workforce?
    • Exploring careers/2+ years away
    • 1-2 years from entering workforce
    • Within 12 months of entering workforce
    • Immediately job-seeking/career transition
  2. What level of workplace readiness best represents participating learners?
    • Early-stage
    • Developing
    • Workforce-ready
  3. What is the primary goal of the WIL experience for participating learners?
    • Career exploration
    • Skills development/application
    • Employment

Institutional Questions

  1. What best describes faculty engagement in WIL?
    • Low
    • Moderate
    • Strong
  2. At what level can the institution provide administrative support (e.g. hosting job postings, promoting opportunities, work/project scoping, maintaining the partnerships, collecting data, etc.)?
    • Minimal
    • Moderate
    • Full-service
  3. Can the institution help match learners to WIL opportunities?
    • No
    • Yes, ad hoc/decentralized process
    • Yes, established/centralized process

Note: It is important that no other cells in the worksheet are edited, as the remaining columns contain formulas that calculate scores, generate recommendations, and populate the radar chart. Editing cells outside of Column C may disrupt these calculations and affect the accuracy of the results.

Understanding the Results

Based on the inputs provided, the tool generates a primary and secondary model category. These categories are not intended to be definitive prescriptions, but rather indicators of alignment between current conditions and model complexity.

Low Intensity: Light-touch Engagement models typically emerge when capacity is limited in one or more domains or when learners are at an early stage. These models emphasize exposure and exploration and are often appropriate as entry points for new partnerships. Examples include:

  • Job shadowing
  • Site visits
  • Industry panels
  • Short-term or exploratory projects

Moderate Intensity: Structured Project-Based models are recommended when there is sufficient capacity to support defined work and when learners are prepared to apply skills in a more sustained way. These models require coordination across partners but do not necessarily depend on long-term hiring commitments. These models can include:

  • Employer-led capstone projects
  • Industry-driven projects
  • Microinternships

High Intensity: Embedded Talent Pipeline models are indicated when there is strong employer demand, high learner readiness, and robust institutional support. These models involve deeper integration and are often associated with:

  • Internships
  • Co-ops

The inclusion of both primary and secondary recommendations is intentional. In some cases, the secondary model may represent a more aspirational or future state, while the primary model reflects what is most feasible under current conditions.

In addition to model recommendations, the tool highlights potential risk factors that may affect the feasibility or sustainability of a selected model. A risk flag appears when there is a meaningful imbalance across domains. For example, when a high intensity model is indicated but one or more underlying components, such as employer supervision capacity or institutional support, fall below a minimum threshold. The presence of a risk flag does not preclude implementation but it can signal areas that may require additional planning, resource allocation, or phased development to ensure success.

Interpreting the Radar Chart

The radar chart provides a visual representation of the partnership’s profile across the three core domains: employer capacity, learner readiness, and institutional capacity. This visualization is intended to highlight relative strengths and gaps rather than to provide a precise measurement.

When viewed alongside the recommended model category, the chart can help partners assess whether their current capacity aligns with the expectations of that model. It may also indicate where targeted investments or adjustments could enable movement toward another set of WIL models.

Using the Results

The results of the diagnostic are best used as a starting point for discussion and planning. Partners may wish to consider whether the recommended model is realistic given additional constraints and dynamics, and if not, which factors are limiting feasibility. In many cases, beginning with a low intensity model provides a more stable foundation for future expansion.

It is also useful to consider how the partnership might evolve over time. Many successful WIL initiatives begin with a lighter-touch engagement and progress toward more structured or embedded models as trust, capacity, and infrastructure develop.

Ultimately, this tool is intended to support more intentional, transparent, and collaborative decision-making. By clarifying the factors that influence model selection and sustainability, it helps partners move from initial interest to actionable, realistic strategies for engagement.