A training manager opens their dashboard: requests are heavily focused on artificial intelligence, but the signed purchase orders still concern technical job training and regulatory modules. This gap between what teams are asking for and what the company is actually purchasing summarizes the tension that runs through professional training today.
The gap between stated priorities and actual training purchases
The data compiled by Zola from Medef, France compétences, DARES, and CSA/Centre Inffo document a structural gap. AI and data are the top transformation priority for 68% of HR managers, and 72% of employees using AI report wanting to be trained in it. However, these trainings only account for 7% of actual training purchases.
On the other hand, technical job skills remain the largest category by volume with 24% of purchases. Mandatory training (QHSE, safety, regulatory) constitutes the non-negotiable foundation: 84% of companies rank them at the top of their priorities, accounting for 14% of purchases.
A classic pattern is observed on the ground: the skills development plan remains structured around job adaptation and regulatory compliance, while transformation topics (AI, data, ecological transition) struggle to translate into budget lines. Several industry players offer resources to analyze these dynamics, notably on https://www.pratiques-de-la-formation.fr/, which addresses training practices and systems.
For training managers, the consequence is direct: balancing regulatory compliance and strategic skill development requires rethinking budget allocation, not simply adding an AI catalog as a supplement.
CPF reform and tightening of individual training rights
The regulatory framework of the personal training account has changed faster than many companies have integrated it. Since 2024, a co-payment of 100 euros has been imposed on CPF holders (excluding job seekers). This mechanism has led to a significant decrease in training requests through the system.
The government is preparing a deeper transformation: the CPF could shift from a “personal” right to a “professional” right, conditioned by the employer’s project. France compétences reports in its 2025 activity report a global tightening of the system, between caps and a reorientation towards certifications listed in the RNCP or the specific directory.
In practice, three effects are observed on the ground:
- Employees who used the CPF for training unrelated to their job (licenses, personal language courses) see their access limited by the co-payment and caps.
- Companies regain a lever for co-constructing training paths, as employer contributions become almost mandatory for costly training.
- Training organizations must revise their offerings to align with recognized certifications, under penalty of falling outside the eligible scope.
For HR teams, the CPF is no longer an autonomous individual device but a tool to be managed within a broader training policy.
Microlearning and anchoring: what completion rates show
Microlearning has been discussed for years, but field feedback is starting to produce actionable data. The ISTF 2026 barometer confirms that short formats (less than ten minutes per module) show significantly higher completion rates than traditional long courses.
The challenge is not to slice a three-hour course into five-minute segments. A short module that does not integrate into the workflow remains ignored. What makes the difference is anchoring: spaced repetition, contextual reminders when the employee needs it.
Companies that achieve good results generally combine three elements:
- Microlearning capsules accessible on mobile, directly linked to a specific task or business process.
- Memory anchoring sequences scheduled at regular intervals (quizzes, flash scenarios) to combat the forgetting curve.
- Follow-up by the immediate manager, who integrates skill development into team rituals rather than fully delegating it to the platform.
Feedback varies on this point: some teams see a real operational gain, while others find modules accumulating without real ownership. The difference lies less in the tool than in the involvement of middle management.
Training budget 2026: internalize or outsource skill development
According to the 4th Barometer of professional training (Lefebvre Dalloz Compétences, 2026), 43% of companies maintain their training budget stable and 35% increase it. The share of those reducing it rises to 22%, which is 5 points higher than in 2025. Funding has become the primary concern for training decision-makers (64%, up 7 points).
In the face of this budget pressure, the internalization of training is gaining ground. Training internal experts as occasional trainers is cheaper than hiring an external provider for recurring job skills. This is particularly evident in industry and services, where structured mentoring and communities of practice are gradually replacing catalog sessions.
Outsourcing remains relevant for highly technical subjects (cybersecurity, precise regulatory compliance, vendor certifications) or when the volume of employees to be trained justifies a turnkey solution. The right decision depends on the ratio between the frequency of need and the availability of expertise internally.
The most effective training plans in 2026 do not seek to internalize everything or outsource everything. They map critical skills, identify those that can be taught internally, and reserve the provider budget for areas where external expertise provides value that the organization cannot produce alone.