Developing On-the-Job Training: An Underestimated Pillar

In summary

Structuring internal training is becoming inescapable in the face of production, quality and skills transmission demands, particularly in sectors facing labour shortages or high turnover.

This training already exists in most organisations, but most often informally, for lack of in-house instructional design and professional didactics skills.

Succeeding at this structuring rests on 3 prerequisites: analysing roles and identifying the most instructive work situations, appointing and training a network of field mentors, and accepting a relative drop in productivity during on-the-job training time.

AFEST shouldn't be seen as excluding other training formats (classroom, self-directed learning, distance learning), but rather integrated into hybrid pathways.

In a constantly changing economic environment, the need for companies to invest in structured, in-house on-the-job training is becoming inescapable. Faced with the demands of production, quality, transformation and skills transmission, this approach stands out as a major challenge for human resources, particularly in sectors facing labour shortages and/or high turnover. Yet many organisations find themselves at a loss when confronted with the complexity of this ambitious project.

A question of performance and competitiveness

Effectively rolling out workplace learning makes a real contribution to operational performance. It allows for direct observation and assessment of skills, and therefore of the company's capabilities. And this matters all the more because, in line with GEPP's human capital objectives, well-structured internal training meets not just economic goals but social ones too, contributing to the sustainable development of skills and employability.

A reality that's still largely informal

On-the-job training already exists in most organisations, but very often informally. While companies recognise the importance of workplace-based training for acquiring skills specific to their sector, rolling it out as a structured, industrialised process remains a challenge.

Rearming the company with instructional design capability

Structuring on-the-job training requires instructional design and professional didactics skills that are often missing within internal teams. Companies therefore need to "rearm" themselves, managing a shift towards a mix with more "make" and less "buy", meaning a smaller share of external training.

The 3 prerequisites for success

The difficulty of structuring an internal training system shouldn't be underestimated. Certain prerequisites are needed to guarantee this process succeeds. In particular, it's crucial that operational staff commit, alongside HR and training teams, to an overall project that fully involves them, through:

• Analysing roles and identifying the most instructive work situations.

• Appointing and training a network of field mentors, who act as the transmission belt for the approach.

• Accepting a relative drop in productivity during on-the-job training time, an investment that's all the harder to get accepted since it's rarely budgeted for.

A change project in its own right

With this in mind, it's essential that strategies aimed at structuring and developing human resources, in large companies as much as in mid-sized firms or SMEs, treat this as a change project in its own right, one involving methodology, organisation, tools, and updated processes, budgets included. Bringing in external consultants and experts in this field can be necessary to speed up this transition and help companies become self-sufficient in their approach.

An approach that takes time

For the structuring of internal training to last, time is needed for changes to sink in, along with support over the medium term. The timeframe of this process needs to be taken into account. For example, developing a skill like managing reflective practice among operational managers can take time. Internal training is an important lever for companies' long-term competitiveness, but it's rarely "urgent". In this context, it's worth starting on concrete cases as soon as possible, and sticking with it.

Combining AFEST with other training formats

From a pedagogical standpoint, workplace-based training shouldn't be seen as excluding other training methods. Rather, it should be built into a set of complementary formats. This means moving past the separation between AFEST and other internal training methods such as classroom sessions, self-directed learning or distance learning, to build hybrid pathways.

What Daylindo brings to this structuring effort

The 3 prerequisites mentioned above (analysing roles, a network of mentors, temporarily accepting a drop in productivity) need a methodological framework and a tool to hold up over time, rather than relying solely on teams' goodwill. This is precisely what the Daylindo platform structures: it helps formalise instructive work situations, equip field mentors, and combine AFEST with other training formats within hybrid pathways, in a skills-based organisation logic.

Evidence from companies that have taken on this transformation confirms the point made in this article: structuring internal training is rarely "urgent", but it holds up all the better when it starts early, on concrete cases, with support sustained over time.

Conclusion

Structuring internal training is an essential lever for French companies looking to meet tomorrow's challenges. By investing in this area, they make sure they'll have the skills they need to stay competitive in a constantly changing environment.

FAQ

Why is structuring internal training becoming inescapable for companies?

Because the demands of production, quality, transformation and skills transmission keep intensifying, particularly in sectors facing labour shortages or high turnover.

Why does internal training often stay informal within companies?

Because structuring it requires instructional design and professional didactics skills that are often missing internally, which makes shifting to an industrialised approach difficult.

What are the 3 prerequisites for successfully structuring internal training?

Analysing roles to identify the most instructive situations, appointing and training a network of field mentors, and accepting a relative drop in productivity during training time.

Should AFEST be treated as opposed to other internal training formats?

No. AFEST should be built into a set of complementary formats (classroom, self-directed learning, distance learning) to create hybrid pathways, rather than being treated as exclusive.

How long does it take to structure internal training sustainably?

There's no standard timeframe: the process is rarely "urgent" but requires support over the medium term and time for changes to sink in, particularly for skills like managers' reflective practice.

Is it necessary to bring in external consultants to structure internal training?

It can be necessary, particularly to speed up the transition and help internal teams gradually become self-sufficient in the approach, without replacing the involvement of operational staff.