Training or capacity building: Does it really matter?

Over the years, I have seen many organisations investing in what they call “training”, but what they really do is bring in an external expert, run a few workshops, maybe provide certificates, and hope their teams come out transformed. To tell the truth, sometimes it truly helps; however, what I see more often is that after a few weeks, people return to their usual routines, and little actually changes. Like nothing even happened. This situation has a clear answer, i.e., training and capacity building are not the same thing.
And to understand it better, I suggest we dive a bit deeper into the difference between capacity building and training. What is the key point of training? It focuses on transferring knowledge. On the other hand, capacity building focuses on transferring capability, that is, the ability to apply knowledge in real-world situations, sustain it, and then multiply it across the team. Think of it this way: training gives you skills.
Capacity building gives you ownership. When building capacity, you do not just teach someone but give them a deeper understanding of how to adapt, lead, and teach others. In the technology sector, this difference plays a crucial role and becomes even more visible. For example, young engineers complete traditional training programmes that teach programming languages or frameworks. After that, they start working on real projects, but at that very point, we can see all the issues.
These engineers have a mess in their heads, from the codebase and deadlines to constant change. The point that I want to share is that they’ve completed training, not built up capacity. It’s not that they lack intelligence yet lack real problem-solving. On the other hand, with capacity building, engineers are placed directly into a working environment to deal with the project firsthand.
Engineers see a real project where technology, teamwork, and business come together. This capacity building gives them the possibility to spend months working on a real project, solving real issues, and understanding how the development process works. This “learn, adapt, and then multiply” model creates a cycle of growth that no standard training can achieve.
It’s how true capacity grows — from inside the product, not outside it. I have seen this approach work especially well in tech initiatives that understand the long game. For example, some academies today follow a hybrid model where engineers start by learning fundamentals and then join actual client projects for a period of immersion.
One such approach is what is done at Introduct Academy. There, engineers deal with real products and development in the short term. The main point of this approach is that after learning and working on real projects, these engineers return as mentors for the next group. This helps expand the company’s capacity based on genuine product knowledge.
That is called capacity building in action. The main difference with traditional training is that it teaches how the real ecosystem works, not just classroom lectures.
Today, we see more about how technology changes and develops. It happens so fast that traditional classroom lectures become outdated. Software tools, frameworks, and platforms – they change and evolve faster than any curriculum.
The only sustainable advantage a company can have is people who know how to learn continuously — and who can pass that mindset to others. That is what capacity building is about: constant learning and a never-stopping culture. One more thing that I wanted to share is that capacity building is not just about learning to solve real-time problems but also about communicative skills.
When people spend time inside a working environment, they learn how to communicate with the team and how to pick up ownership. From the start, they learn how to think about problem-solving, not task-taking. At this point, the person becomes a contributor, not just an employee. You might think that it will take more time to learn this way than through traditional training. And here you’re right.
But we need to remember the difference and the result this capability building gives us. Of course, it requires mentorship and patience, as we all make mistakes, and it’s okay. But at the end of the day, engineers who have finished the capability building get much more experience than those with traditional training. Investing in your employees' capability building pays off.
As a result, companies get a future-proof workforce that evolves with technology. So next time you hear someone say they are planning a training programme, ask them this: Are you training people, or are you building capacity? Until we catch up again next week, stay alert!