Training completion does not prove teams can deliver

Execution readiness requires funding, skills and organizational support

A funded platform and a team that has completed training can still leave a chief information officer (CIO) without evidence that a project is ready to proceed. Execution readiness means employees can apply the required skills and have the organizational support to do the work. The financial exposure is substantial: Pluralsight found that 84% of technology leaders say skills gaps push projects over budget at least some of the time.

The risk spans several major areas of technology investment. Pluralsight identifies cloud, cybersecurity and artificial intelligence (AI) projects as particularly vulnerable to disruption from missing skills, while most enterprise technology leaders see a gap between the abilities they expect and those employees possess. Pluralsight sells technology-skills training, so it benefits when companies invest in closing those gaps. For leaders approving projects, the immediate question is what evidence shows that a team can deliver the planned work.

Training records show participation; delivery requires applicable skills

The readiness problem can begin with how companies divide their investment. A Randstad Digital study found that companies routinely spend more on AI platforms than on preparing their workforces to use the technology. Randstad Digital provides technology and workforce services, giving it a commercial interest in spending on implementation and employee capability. Its finding points to a planning risk: platform purchases can move ahead while the people expected to use them receive less investment.

Limited understanding can make that imbalance harder to manage. Forrester research found that only 16% of knowledge workers had a high understanding of AI tools. Forrester sells research and advisory services that help companies make technology decisions, so demand for guidance on AI adoption benefits its business. For a deployment leader, the practical question is how much familiarity the project plan assumes employees already have.

Even with training, employees must turn familiarity into an ability to do the work. More than three-fourths of technology executives said they had encountered employees who completed training or earned certifications yet remained unable to apply those skills at work. Recognized development steps had still left employers facing problems with workplace application. A learning record therefore leaves performance in the delivery setting an open question.

Organizational support adds another requirement. A report Microsoft published in May found that only one in five workers had both high AI capabilities and the organizational readiness needed to succeed. Microsoft sells AI tools and services, so it benefits when organizations prepare to adopt and use them. Its finding connects employee capability with organizational conditions, which makes support for using skills part of the readiness decision.

These findings call for different checks. Forrester’s figure concerns knowledge workers’ understanding of AI tools, while Microsoft’s concerns workers who have both AI capability and organizational readiness. Executives’ experience with trained or certified employees raises a further question about workplace application. A leader assessing a team therefore needs to distinguish what employees understand, what they can do and what their organization enables them to do.

Skills assessment must connect to the planned work

Making those distinctions requires a clear view of the workforce. Gajdalo of Pluralsight told CIO Dive that many CIOs and technology leaders do not know where skills are missing within their organizations. Her argument favors investment in workforce development, which also serves Pluralsight’s training business. The operational problem is specific: without knowing where gaps lie, leaders cannot direct development toward the work that depends on those skills.

The consequences become immediate when leaders approve a project on an assumption of team capability. “While the eagerness to rush into new projects is understandable, there is significant risk in blindly assuming that teams have the skills needed to complete the project,” Gajdalo told CIO Dive. Her warning concerns the basis for approval: enthusiasm for starting work can exceed what leaders know about the people expected to complete it.

A practical response starts with identifying the capabilities the planned work requires. A broad requirement for AI skills gives leaders too little detail to judge readiness for a particular deployment. They need to connect the intended work with the abilities it requires, then assess where the team has those abilities and where development is needed. Locating the gaps comes before choosing how to address them.

Once the requirements are clear, the assessment needs evidence of application. Executives’ experience with trained employees who struggled at work shows why completion records leave that question open. Leaders should ask what the available evidence demonstrates about employees’ ability to use the required skills in the project’s working conditions, so they can choose development that addresses the work ahead.

Gajdalo argues that workforce talent can become an organization’s strongest competitive advantage when CIOs can identify missing skills and invest sufficient time and resources. Assessment is the starting point. Identifying a gap gives leaders an opportunity to act before delivery depends on the missing capability, giving development spending a defined purpose tied to the intended work. Assessment becomes useful through the decisions it changes.

Management must make room for skill development

Those decisions must also address the conditions under which employees learn. Reported barriers include difficulty finding time, low engagement and insufficient leadership support. When employees must implement technology while struggling to make time for development, the workload conflicts with the preparation needed to handle it. Making courses available leaves that scheduling problem unresolved.

Gajdalo places responsibility for addressing these barriers within executive control. Leaders determine whether development receives time, resources and support, while employees remain responsible for acquiring and applying skills. Low engagement also needs management attention because access to training does not establish meaningful participation. An assessment limited to individual capability would leave these organizational constraints outside the decision.

As enterprises introduce AI into their workflows, workforce experts regard upskilling, the development of employees’ skills, as a significant part of adoption. The workflow gives that development a purpose. Employees need abilities they can use in their assigned tasks, so a CIO can connect development spending to those tasks and examine whether employees have opportunities to practise and apply what they learn. This keeps training decisions close to the technology’s intended use.

The response then depends on the constraint leaders identify. A missing skill calls for capability development; difficulty finding time calls for changes to how learning fits into the workload; insufficient leadership support calls for executive action. Keeping these needs separate helps managers direct effort toward the problem affecting delivery. Where management controls the constraint, assigning employees another course leaves the management decision unfinished.

Key takeaways for leaders

• Verify readiness before funding delivery: Skills gaps push projects over budget at least some of the time, according to 84% of technology leaders surveyed by Pluralsight. CIOs approving projects need evidence that employees have the required capabilities and organizational support.
• Test skills in working conditions: More than three-fourths of technology executives have encountered trained or certified employees who could not apply their skills at work. Project owners need evidence of practical ability when assessing readiness.
• Tie assessments to project requirements: CIOs need to define the capabilities each project requires, locate gaps within the assigned team and direct development spending toward those gaps. Assessments create value when their findings change staffing, training or approval decisions.
• Make time for development: Management controls key barriers to learning, including workload, resources and leadership support. Managers need to allocate time for development and give employees opportunities to practise skills in their assigned work.