Why Ad Hoc Training Fails Corporate Technology Teams

There is something deeply reassuring about the idea that your engineers can sort themselves out. Point them at a good online platform, encourage a spot of self-directed browsing, and leave them to it. The budget stays comfortable, the learning management system shows satisfying numbers, and nobody has to make any difficult decisions about what the organisation actually needs from its technology teams. Unfortunately, as approaches to professional development go, this one is rather barking up the wrong tree.

Informal, ad hoc learning has genuine value in the right context, and nobody is suggesting that curiosity-driven reading or the occasional conference talk lacks worth. However, when you need a team of engineers, product owners, or scrum masters to operate cohesively within a defined methodology, whether that is SAFe, Scrum, Disciplined Agile, or any other framework, self-directed online learning falls short in ways that are both predictable and costly.

The quality problem nobody talks about until it's too late

The content quality on most online course platforms varies enormously, because it depends on individual instructors and independent uploaders rather than any meaningful vetting process. There is no reliable way to know whether a course is genuinely good until your team has already invested time in it, and even then, the fact that one course proved excellent gives you no confidence whatsoever about the next one. For a team that needs to work together using shared principles and a common vocabulary, this inconsistency is particularly damaging. Two engineers who have both "done a SAFe course" through different online platforms may well come away with meaningfully different, sometimes contradictory, understandings of the same concepts. That is not a recipe for cohesion; it is a recipe for quiet, persistent dysfunction.

Learning that teaches, but never quite transfers

Online courses are, on the whole, rather good at delivering content. They can surface knowledge about a given skill or framework, and for pure information transfer they are perfectly serviceable. What they almost never do, however, is help people apply that knowledge, or assess whether they actually can. In a well-designed instructor-led course, application is built in from the start; teams work through real scenarios, facilitators challenge assumptions, and participants leave having practised the skills they need rather than merely having watched someone explain them. Without that applied element, organisations find themselves in a persistent and frustrating gap: technically, the training happened; in practice, the capability was never quite transferred.

No curation means no coherence

With informal learning, there is no practical way to curate a consistent, high-quality body of content for your teams, at least not without the kind of manual effort that defeats the purpose of the approach entirely. Moreover, even where useful content has been identified and catalogued, there is no guarantee it will still be available in three or six months' time. Uploaders, not platforms, control whether content remains accessible, which means that the carefully assembled list of recommended courses you send to new joiners today may be a collection of dead links by the time next year's cohort arrives. Structured training, by contrast, is built around a stable curriculum and stable delivery, making it possible to build a genuine learning pathway, a deliberate sequence of development that builds capability in a coherent direction, rather than a patchwork of whatever individuals happened to find useful at any given moment.

Nobody is running the show

Perhaps the most significant failure of ad hoc learning is structural. With self-directed online training, there is no one in charge, and that matters rather more than it might initially appear. Engineers and technologists largely identify courses they believe are relevant; managers approve or decline individual requests; and no one maintains a centralised view of what training is actually happening across the organisation, or whether any of it aligns with the business objectives the organisation is supposed to be pursuing. This is not a criticism of individuals; it is an inevitable consequence of placing learning decisions at the individual rather than the organisational level. Organisations undergoing an agile transformation, scaling with SAFe, or building a new engineering practice need training that is directly aligned to those initiatives. Without that alignment, even the most diligent self-directed learner may be developing entirely the wrong things, however enthusiastically.

What good looks like instead

The alternative is not simply more expensive training; it is training designed around the outcomes your organisation actually needs. That means consistent delivery, so that every participant in a cohort leaves with the same foundational understanding and can work from shared principles. It means application built into the design, so that learners practise skills rather than simply absorb content. It means alignment with strategy, so that training can be scoped, sequenced, and delivered in direct support of the organisation's current priorities rather than floating free of them. And it means stability, so that a trusted training partner can deliver the same high-quality programme repeatedly as the organisation grows, rather than having to reinvent the wheel every time a new team needs bringing up to speed.

For organisations running SAFe transformations, this means ensuring that teams attending Leading SAFe or SAFe for Teams do so with certified practitioners who can contextualise the material to your organisation's specific situation, not a recording made for a generic audience of strangers. For Scrum teams, it means Certified Scrum Master and Certified Scrum Product Owner training that works through real backlogs and real sprint dynamics, with an experienced facilitator in the room. And for the leadership teams responsible for overseeing these efforts, it means programmes like Certified Agile Leader that address the organisational and cultural dimensions of agility, not merely the mechanics of delivery.

Let's not beat around the bush: the appeal of informal online learning is largely financial, and the cost appears low precisely because the full cost, in teams that can't quite work together, in capability that was never actually built, is rarely measured. Structured, instructor-led training is not the expensive option. It is the option that works.

← Back to all posts