Insights for HR and Training Managers

Training is about transferring knowledge. Building capabilities is about turning that knowledge into real, usable capacity. Most organisations invest heavily in one-off training, but far less in continuous development—and that is where the maturity gap between teams becomes clear.

Traditional training provides theoretical understanding. But when an incident, an audit or a regulatory change happens, what sets a prepared team apart is the ability to apply what it learned. That requires practice, follow-up and exposure to day-to-day scenarios.

For this reason, Behaviour courses are practice-oriented and designed for immediate application of the knowledge being acquired. This approach aligns with the perspective of José Pacheco, a Portuguese educator recognised for advocating transformative learning: “Knowledge that does not transform reality does not produce development.”

In professional training, this means the value is not in the theory delivered, but in the participant’s ability to use what they learn to improve processes, decisions and results in their working context.

Building capabilities implies creating a year-round pathway across layers: essential and foundational → professional → specialist → excellence and leadership. It also means choosing training aligned with roles and responsibilities, instead of distributing generic courses for everyone.

Teams that build capabilities become more autonomous, respond better to audits, make better decisions and reduce external dependency. For HR, this approach avoids unnecessary repetition and accelerates internal maturity.

Training is the first step. Building capabilities is what truly transforms.

Adult learning does not depend on exposure to content, but on how knowledge is integrated into the real work context. Experienced professionals know that retention is not in the training itself, but in the relationship between what is learned and what is done. This principle—widely recognised in education sciences and reflected in Behaviour’s training guiding principles—is central to any effective pathway.

Retention increases when there is intentionality: the participant knows why they are there, what problem they want to solve and how new knowledge connects with the processes and responsibilities they already hold. Without that link, any training—short or long—becomes information without impact.

Another key factor is activation during learning. Adults retain more when they analyse, discuss, apply and decide. That is why purely lecture-based approaches have limited impact. What truly consolidates knowledge is confronting the trainee with credible situations: case analysis, decision-making exercises, audit simulations or identification of real risks—aligned with lifelong learning principles.

However, the strongest determinant of retention is not the training moment itself, but what happens in the following 72 hours. Small reinforcements, practical application or structured reviews significantly reduce the forgetting curve and increase transfer to the workplace.

Retention does not result from the amount of training, but from relevance, participation and application. Consistent pathways have impact not because they teach more, but because they enable better use of what is learned, at the right time and in the right context.

Intensive training can be useful in very specific contexts: when the goal is to quickly build a high-level view, align essential concepts, or prepare teams for a certification with fixed dates. However, it does not replace continuous learning processes, nor does it guarantee, on its own, effective transfer to the workplace.

Teams learn better when there is time for absorption, practice, reflection and application. Therefore, before enrolling employees in intensive formats, it is essential to clarify the purpose: is the aim rapid literacy or operational capability? The former fits an intensive format; the latter requires a more progressive pathway.

Another relevant point is ensuring participants arrive with adequate foundations. One limitation of intensive courses is the high volume of information over a short period. Without prior framing, retention may decrease and the training impact is reduced.

It is also important to set realistic expectations: intensive training can prepare someone to understand the main concepts, but execution capability is built through practice, follow-up and reinforcement over time.

When there is clarity about the goal, the context and team needs, intensive training can be integrated appropriately within a broader professional development pathway.

Implementing DORA may feel heavy, but it does not need to create anxiety within teams. The key is to align training with real priorities—not with long checklists of requirements. The first step is to identify critical roles: risk, business continuity, IT operations, cybersecurity and third-party/supplier management. Training “everyone at once” is not effective; training the people who execute is.

Then, it is essential to separate strategic training from technical training. Strategy comes first: the regulatory context, responsibilities, reporting flows and impact awareness. Only then does it make sense to go deeper into technical topics such as metrics, testing, scenarios and audits.

The third key point is pace. Teams absorb better when training is distributed across quarters instead of being concentrated into a single month. Small reinforcements produce better outcomes than overly long courses. Behaviour courses are short and intensive, from 1 to 5 days, enabling teams to progress in stages without interrupting operations and to consolidate knowledge progressively.

Preparing for DORA is about aligning clarity with focus. It is not about the quantity of training, but the right training for the right roles, at the right pace—ensuring teams are confident, informed and prepared to meet the regulation’s demands.