Interview with Learnation

In a conversation with Agathe Dubuquoy-Ortiz, Brand Content Manager at Groupe Learnation, we review the key findings of a study examining how working professionals and students view continuing education. From a lack of time to the need for flexibility and the importance of personal support, she breaks down learners’ expectations and barriers and shares the insights that are now shaping Groupe Learnation’s thinking about the future of training.

Agathe, you are the brand and content manager at Learnation Group, whose mission is to design innovative learning experiences to address the new challenges of skills development. What motivated you to conduct this survey on how working professionals and students view continuing education? And are there any common misconceptions or assumptions that the results have led you to reconsider?

We interact with learners and human resources professionals on a daily basis. This close relationship allows us to fully understand their expectations and to identify the best ways to foster engagement and maintain motivation throughout a training program.

But our role goes further: as a provider of B2B training, we serve as a strategic partner to human resources (HR) departments and executives. In fact, we see our role as also helping them better understand their audiences so they can offer training programs that are effective, relevant, and cost-effective.

The survey allowed us to refine our understanding of the realities and motivations of the workforce, as well as to better understand how constraints vary depending on individual profiles. A lack of time, for example, is a widely shared challenge, but it does not manifest with the same intensity or at the same times for everyone. Among women in particular, this constraint tends to be a long-term issue, persisting throughout their working lives, and can directly limit access to training.

This more nuanced perspective is particularly valuable for our clients. It allows us to move beyond an overly homogeneous view of learners and to better take their individual situations into account when designing learning pathways.

The study did not fundamentally challenge our convictions, but it did provide objective confirmation of an observation that is sometimes underestimated: technological sophistication alone is not enough to foster engagement. The quality of the pedagogical framework and the support provided throughout the program remain crucial, even though these aspects are often given less prominence than technological innovation.

How do the findings of this study influence—or will they influence—the way Learnation Group designs its training programs?

Above all, these findings encourage us to refine the design and management of our programs. This involves, in particular, better identifying barriers to starting training, points where participants fall behind, and early warning signs indicating a risk of dropping out.

The challenge is not simply to offer more flexibility, but to understand for which learner profiles, at what times, and in the face of which constraints it becomes a decisive factor. This leads us to design learning paths that can better adapt to learners’ daily realities, with differentiated delivery methods and levels of support.

The question, therefore, is not to pit humans against technology, but to precisely define their respective roles. Technology—and artificial intelligence in particular—can facilitate access to content, personalize certain interactions, or help identify difficulties. Human intervention, on the other hand, must focus on the stages where it adds the most value: building connections, overcoming obstacles, offering encouragement, and restoring a sense of purpose.

It is with this approach in mind that we have chosen to embrace digital learning and “blended learning” (a combination of instructor-led sessions and self-directed work): not to impose a one-size-fits-all model, but to strike a more refined balance between autonomy, flexibility, and human presence. Engaging training is training that fits into everyone’s daily life, rather than being an additional burden. This approach should enable us to sustainably strengthen learners’ engagement, as well as the trust of our clients and stakeholders.

Beyond the results themselves, how has this collaboration with Sociovision (Ifop Group) contributed to your strategic thinking about the future of training?

This collaboration allowed us to compare our interpretation of the market with an outside perspective, backed by recognized expertise in societal transformations. Sociovision’s (Ifop Group) contribution has been particularly valuable in placing the results within the broader context of sociological changes and in better understanding what they reveal about new relationships with work, time, and learning.

This broader perspective helps us distinguish underlying trends from more short-term phenomena and better anticipate their implications for training. It thus enriches our strategic thinking and provides us with a solid analytical framework for engaging with our clients on future trends in skills development.