ERP Training Mistakes: Why Your SI’s Train-the-Trainer Approach Fails End-User Training

Author: Krista Schaber-Chan

If your Solution Integrator (SI) tells you they have training covered, ask a few simple questions:

•        How is training tailored to different roles?

•        How are trainers being prepared to teach, not just present?

•        What real business scenarios are included?

•        How does training align to how work is actually performed—not just system steps?

•        What happens after go-live to reinforce learning?

•        How will you measure whether users are ready to perform in the new system?

•        What support structures (e.g., super users, office hours) will be in place post-training?

If the answers are unclear, incomplete, or overly system-focused… that’s your signal.

Why Your Solution Integrator Should Not Dictate Your End-User Training Strategy

In nearly every ERP implementation, the Solution Integrator confidently states:

“We’ll handle training using a Train-the-Trainer approach.”

It sounds efficient. Scalable. Proven. And in some contexts, it can be.

But what the SI calls “Train-the-Trainer” is not the same as effective end-user training – and it rarely drives adoption.

This misunderstanding is one of the most common – and costly – gaps in large-scale transformations. It leads to poorly prepared users, inconsistent learning experiences, and systems that go live but never get adopted.

What Train-the-Trainer Actually Means

At its core, Train-the-Trainer (TTT) is a knowledge transfer model designed to:

1.      Transfer system knowledge from the SI to a smaller group (super users, project team, or internal trainers)

2.      Equip those individuals to train the broader organization

3.      Reduce reliance on external vendors during rollout

In the right context, TTT is valuable. It builds internal capability, extends training reach, and supports scalability.

But Train-the-Trainer is a delivery model – not an end-user training strategy. And that difference matters more than most organizations realize.

What Train-the-Trainer Is Not

Train-the-Trainer does not:

•        Identify what users need to learn

•        Structure role-based learning journeys

•        Account for different roles, learning preferences, or business scenarios

•        Ensure training reflects how people actually do their jobs

•        Drive behaviour change or adoption

TTT tells you who delivers training. It does not define how learning happens.

Yet many SIs present it as a complete solution.

Where the Problem Starts

SIs are exceptional at configuring systems, designing processes, and delivering technical functionality. But end-user training is not a technical activity – it’s a behavioural and learning challenge.

When SIs lead training design and delivery, organizations typically see:

•        Content focused on back-end system steps, not business outcomes

•        Generic materials that don’t reflect real scenarios

•        Overloaded sessions with low retention

•        Trainers who know the system but don’t know how to teach it

Users leave with some idea of where to click, but not how to do their jobs in the new system.

The Illusion of “We’ve Got Training Covered”

Train-the-Trainer creates a false sense of confidence. Leaders hear “training is in scope” and assume the organization is ready. But beneath the surface:

•        Effective training content may not exist

•        Internal trainers may not be equipped to teach effectively

•        Learning is not aligned to real business processes or desired outcomes

•        No reinforcement or sustainment plan is in place

By the time gaps become visible – often weeks before go-live or after – organizations shift into reactive mode: retraining users with the same ineffective materials, managing frustration, absorbing higher support costs, and watching adoption stall.

Why SIs Are Not Equipped to Lead End-User Training

This is not a criticism – it’s a matter of specialization. SIs are experts in systems. Effective training requires expertise in systems and in how people learn and change. These are fundamentally different disciplines.

1. Adult Learning Is a Science

Adults don’t learn effectively through long demonstrations, static slide decks, or one-size-fits-all sessions. They learn through relevance to their role, hands-on practice, real scenarios, and repetition. Designing for this requires deep knowledge of adult learning principles – not just system expertise.

2. Training Must Reflect Real Work

SIs design systems around process flows, configurations, and technical requirements. But end users operate in exceptions, variability, and real-world constraints. Without translating system design into real business scenarios, training falls flat.

3. Facilitation Is a Skill, Not a Given

Knowing a system doesn’t mean someone can teach it. Strong facilitators engage learners, adapt in real time, simplify complexity, and build confidence. Without this, even well-designed content can fail.

4. Adoption Requires More Than Training

Training alone doesn’t drive adoption. Organizations also need reinforcement strategies, leadership alignment, ongoing support structures, and measurement of adoption gaps. SIs are rarely accountable for these outcomes.

What Effective Train-the-Trainer Actually Looks Like

When done properly, TTT focuses on building internal capability – not just explaining how the system works. This means:

•        Teaching trainers how to facilitate learning, manage questions and resistance, and reinforce behaviours post-training

•        Running practice sessions (teach-backs) with coaching on delivery style

•        Equipping trainers with role-based materials, scenario-based exercises, and job aids

In this model, TTT becomes one component of a broader learning ecosystem – not the entire solution.

What Effective End-User Training Looks Like

Organizations that achieve strong adoption treat training as a strategic workstream, not a checkbox. Effective programs include:

Role-Based Learning Journeys. Not everyone needs the same training. Content should be tailored to each role, with a clear picture of how their work changes.

Scenario-Based Learning. Training should answer: “How do I do my job in this new system?”—not just “Here’s how the system works.”

Just-in-Time Delivery. Training delivered too early is forgotten. Timing should align with system readiness and go-live proximity.

Blended Approaches. Effective programs combine instructor-led sessions, hands-on practice, quick reference guides, short videos, and knowledge checks.

Reinforcement and Sustainment. Learning doesn’t end at go-live. Organizations need office hours, floor walking, super user networks, and ongoing communications.

Why Organizations Must Own Their Training Strategy

Place your training strategy in the hands of adult learning and change experts—not your SI.

Your SI plays an important role. But they should not determine how your people learn, how adoption is achieved, or how behaviours change. Because at the end of the day, you, not your SI, live with the outcomes.

The Role of a Change and Learning Partner

To bridge this gap, organizations should engage specialists in change management, learning design, and adoption. These partners bring expertise in adult learning, experience across multiple transformations, and a focus on user experience – not just system functionality. They work alongside the SI with a different mandate: to make the change stick.

A Better Model: Complementary Roles

The most successful transformations clearly define who does what:

Solution Integrator	Change & Learning Partner	Internal Team
· System design & configuration · Technical knowledge transfer · Process documentation	· Training strategy & design · Learning development & delivery · Trainer enablement · Adoption & sustainment	· Business context & ownership · Super user engagement · Long-term capability

When these roles are aligned, training becomes relevant, practical, and sustainable.

The Cost of Getting It Wrong

Organizations that rely solely on SI-led Train-the-Trainer often face low user confidence, increased errors and rework, heavy support team reliance, and delayed ROI. In contrast, organizations that invest in proper training see faster adoption, higher productivity, stronger engagement, and greater return on their transformation investment.

Final Thought: Don’t Confuse Delivery With Strategy

Train-the-Trainer is not the problem. Misunderstanding what it is, and what it isn’t, is the problem.

It’s a useful component of a training approach. But on its own, it is not enough.

Successful transformations are defined not by systems going live, but by people using those systems effectively, confidently, and consistently. That only happens when training is treated as a strategic discipline – when Change Management is properly funded, when learning is designed by professionals, and when adoption is measured not just at cutover, but six months later.

The question is not whether you can afford professional Change Management and Learning. The question is whether you can afford what happens without it.

If this resonates with what you’re navigating, we’d welcome the opportunity to connect.

👉 Get in touch: leadlearnchange.com/contact

📩 Email us: hello@harbinger-scr.com