There is little doubt that to stay competitive businesses have to make sure that their staff are given the skills needed to do their job in the most effective way. This in turn means that they just have to invest in training programs, but the question is, do they get their staff to attend a public course, or arrange for an instructor to run a course on their premises, so called in-house training. There are quite a few differences between the two, which has led to HR professionals and managers grappling with the decision between in-house training and public seminars.
Understanding In-House Training and Public Seminars
Before delving into the advantages and disadvantages of each option, it’s important to understand the nature of in-house training and public seminars.
In-House Training: In-house training refers to a dedicated course that is specifically designed for a particular company or organisation. It is not open to the public or individuals from other organisations. In-house training can be delivered by the organisation itself or by a training institution. The main advantage of in-house training is its ability to address the specific learning needs of the organisation and its employees.
Public Seminars: On the other hand, public seminars are classroom-based training sessions that are open to anyone, regardless of their organisational affiliation. These seminars are usually held on a regularly scheduled basis, and individuals or employees from different organisations can register and attend them on a per-person fee basis. Public seminars offer a wide range of topics and subjects, providing a more general approach to training.
Now that we have a clear understanding of the two types of training programs, let’s explore the advantages and disadvantages of each.
Advantages of In-House Training
Cost Savings
One of the major advantages of in-house training is the potential for cost savings. In-house training typically has a lower cost per delegate compared to public seminars. This is because the training company only needs to send a trainer to the organisation’s premises, eliminating the need for additional expenses such as venue / equipment rental and travel costs. In-house training becomes even more cost-effective when there are more than four participants, making it the break-even point for the organisation.
Focused Training
In-house training allows for a more focused approach to training, this being especially important when it comes to coding and programming training as it allows the course to be built around the problems the staff in the organisation are trying to solve. Basically, since the course is tailored specifically to the organisation’s needs, the training can address the specific subjects and skills that are relevant to the business. This level of customisation ensures that the training is directly applicable to the employees’ roles and responsibilities, resulting in a higher level of engagement and effectiveness, all of which is impossible in a public course.
Use of Current Work Examples
Another advantage of in-house training is the ability to use current work examples. Because the training is conducted within the organisation, the course can be prepared to address the individual issues and challenges faced by the employees. This personalised approach allows the delegates to work on real-life examples and apply the concepts directly to their roles, making the training more impactful and relevant. This can be especially important when dealing with programming languages. For examples of courses see https://www.frameworktraining.co.uk/courses/
Team Building
In-house training provides a unique opportunity for team building. Having a room full of delegates from different departments and levels encourages teamwork and collaboration. The social learning environment allows for the exchange of ideas and experiences, fostering a sense of camaraderie and mutual understanding among team members. This team-building aspect can have long-lasting effects on employee morale and overall productivity.
Disadvantages of In-House Training
Extra Administration
While in-house training offers several advantages, it also comes with additional administrative responsibilities. Unlike public seminars where the training company handles all the logistics, in-house training requires the organisation to take care of arrangements such as the training room, equipment, and other necessary resources. This extra administrative burden can be time-consuming and may require careful planning and coordination.
Potential Interruptions
In-house training runs the risk of interruptions and distractions. Since the training takes place within the organisation’s premises, participants may be pulled away from the training to attend to other work-related activities. This can disrupt the flow of the training and hinder the participants’ ability to fully engage and absorb the content. To mitigate this risk, it’s important to communicate the importance of uninterrupted participation and create an environment that encourages focused learning.
Perceived Lack of Dedication
Some employees may perceive in-house training as less serious or impactful compared to external training programs. The familiarity of the environment and the convenience of staying within the office premises may lead to a mindset that the training is just a break from regular work. This perception can affect the level of commitment and engagement from participants, potentially diminishing the effectiveness of the training.
Limited Networking Opportunities
Unlike public seminars where participants come from various organisations and backgrounds, in-house training limits the opportunity for networking. Participants will interact only with colleagues from their own organisation, missing out on the chance to learn from individuals in different industries and gain insights from diverse perspectives. Organisations should consider whether networking is an important aspect of the training goals before opting for in-house training.
Considerations for Choosing the Right Training Program
When deciding between in-house training and public seminars, organisations should consider several factors to make an informed decision.
Quantity of Participants
The number of employees requiring training is a significant factor in determining the suitability of in-house training. In general, if there are four or more employees with similar learning needs, in-house training becomes a cost-effective option. However, for smaller groups with diverse learning needs or for ad hoc training requirements, public seminars may be more suitable. It’s essential to strike a balance between the benefits of personalised training and the cost-effectiveness of group training.
Varying Training Approaches
While in-house training offers tailored and focused learning, it’s important to consider the benefits of external training programs as well. Varying employees’ training experiences between in-house and public seminars allows them to stay updated with industry best practices and exposes them to different perspectives and approaches. This balance ensures a well-rounded and comprehensive training experience for employees.
Preparation and Communication
To maximise the effectiveness of in-house training, adequate preparation and communication are crucial. Organisations should engage with the training provider well in advance to discuss specific needs, objectives, and desired outcomes. This allows the trainer to customise the training content and delivery methods to align with the organisation’s goals. Clear communication with employees about the value and importance of the training will help set expectations and ensure their full participation.
Training Value and Commitment
To derive maximum value from in-house training, it’s essential to emphasise its importance and value to the employees. This involves discouraging interruptions and distractions during the training sessions and creating an environment that fosters deep learning and engagement.
In Conclusion
In conclusion, choosing between in-house training and public seminars requires careful consideration of the organisation’s specific needs, budget, and overall training objectives. In-house training offers cost savings, focused learning, customisation, and team-building opportunities, but it requires additional administrative responsibilities and may lack networking opportunities.
Public seminars provide a broader perspective, networking opportunities, and convenience, but may not address the organisation’s specific learning needs. By evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of each option and considering the unique requirements of the organisation, HR professionals and managers can make an informed decision that will maximise the impact of their training programs.
