• The trusted Australian LMS. Build your own learning. Only pay for active users!
STORE

|

LOGIN

Contact Sales

DEMO

Improving knowledge transfer through training relevance

Table of Contents

Most training conversations still start with a “push” question:

  • How do we make this easier to consume?
  • How do we make it engaging?
  • How do we get completion rates up?

Those are fair questions. But they’re only half the equation.

Because training doesn’t fail when people can’t access information — it fails when people don’t use it. And when the goal is behavioural change (do this, not that; follow the process; use the system properly), “push” alone is rarely enough.

Adults are busy. They’re experienced. They’ve already built habits that mostly work. And changing habits can feel uncomfortable: it can imply your current approach is wrong, that you’re behind, or that you’re about to look clumsy while you learn something new.

So, if we push learning at people… they may push back.

That’s why relevance matters. Relevance helps learners pull the training toward themselves.

It’s the difference between:

  • “Here’s a module you should complete”
    and
  • “This was made for the exact situation you’re dealing with.”

In this series of articles, we examine three concepts that improve participant-driven (pull) transfer of knowledge in any form of training:

  1. Relevance (this article)
  2. Context
  3. Accountability

Let’s start with relevance.

Improving knowledge transfer through training relevance

Training relevance speaks your language

When you’re in a foreign country, anything written in your language jumps off the wall — signs, menus, posters, packaging. Your brain filters noise and locks onto what feels familiar.

That’s how adult learners work too.

Adults want to know:

  • Why this matters (to them, not “the business”)
  • Where it fits in their real work
  • How to use it quickly
  • What to do differently on their next shift, call, or job

This aligns with adult learning principles commonly summarised as the “need to know” and “relevance to real-life tasks.”

So yes — microlearning, mobile learning, better UX, better design… all helpful.

But relevance is the thing that makes people turn the volume up.

Why relevance beats polish (most of the time)

Many training solutions struggle with relevance because relevance requires customisation.

When training is developed for mass distribution, it often drifts toward:

  • generic examples
  • broad language
  • “lowest common denominator” scenarios
  • assumptions about tools and workflows

It can still look great — animations, slick video, beautiful templates.

But if learners can’t map it to their day-to-day reality, it becomes consumable but not usable.

And training that’s consumed but not used is just… content.

What relevance actually looks like in workplace training

Relevance isn’t a vibe. It’s specific.

1) The training matches real roles and moments

  • The scenario looks like a real day at work
  • The decisions match what the learner is actually allowed to do
  • The “right answer” isn’t theoretical — it’s what would pass in your workplace

2) The examples sound like the workplace

  • the same tools, systems, and screens
  • the same customers/clients/students/patients
  • the same hazards and pressures
  • the same internal language (without overdoing jargon)

3) The training respects constraints

A lot of generic content assumes a perfect environment:

  • unlimited time
  • ideal staffing
  • clean data
  • managers always available
  • systems that “just work”

Relevant training acknowledges constraints and teaches people how to succeed within them.

4) The actions are immediately usable

A learner should finish thinking:

  • “I know exactly what to do next time”
    not
  • “That was interesting.”

A quick case study: relevance improves knowledge transfer

In an internal review of 1,950 online training modules completed in 2018, we compared modules created by:

  • (a) internal subject matter experts (unique content, high relevance)
  • (b) external instructional designers (generic content, lower relevance)

All modules used standardised polling, including two key questions:

“Did you discover what you expected in this module?”

  • Internal SME modules: 86% said yes
  • Externally created modules: 67% said yes

“Were you successful in implementing on-the-job?”

  • Internal SME modules: 94% reported total or partial success
  • Externally created modules: 56% reported success

Even though the externally created modules often looked more impressive (animations, custom videos, etc.), the more relevant modules delivered materially stronger self-reported transfer.

When someone is speaking your language, you tend to turn up the volume.

The modern relevance problem (2026 edition)

Relevance has become more important, not less.

Because today, your people are dealing with:

  • constant system changes (HRIS, CRMs, service platforms)
  • compliance creep (new policies, refreshers, audits)
  • higher turnover and more casual/contractor mix
  • distributed teams and hybrid work
  • AI-generated content everywhere (some helpful… some bland)

If training feels generic now, it’s competing with an endless stream of other generic content.

Relevance is what cuts through.

How to Build a Consistent Volunteer Onboarding Pathway

How to build relevance without rebuilding everything from scratch

Here are practical levers you can apply even if you’re short on L&D resources.

1) Start with “What problem are we solving?”

Don’t start with “We need a module on X.”

Start with:

  • What mistakes are happening?
  • What risks are showing up?
  • What outcomes are we trying to change?
  • What does “good” look like in the real job?

A simple training needs analysis process helps you define relevance before you write a single slide. (Related: 6 step training needs analysis for modern organisations) Internal linking reference shee…

2) Use “day-in-the-life” scenarios

Build training around moments learners recognise:

  • Logistics: “It’s 6:10am, the dock is already behind schedule…”
  • Early learning: “A parent raises a concern during drop-off…”
  • Law firms: “A client email comes in with an attachment you weren’t expecting…”
  • Retail: “A customer escalates, your manager is on break…”

The goal: remove the mental translation work.

3) Write in the organisation’s voice

This is where relevance becomes felt.

  • Use the terms your teams use
  • Reference your systems and forms
  • Use your internal standards (not generic ones)
  • Make the examples local and realistic

4) Design for “next shift” behaviour

At the end of a module, ask learners to commit to something concrete:

  • “What will you do differently next time?”
  • “Which step will you apply today?”
  • “What’s one thing you’ll stop doing?”

(And yes — tracking those responses matters, which is where accountability comes in later.)

5) Make relevance scalable with templates + editable content

If relevance requires customisation, you don’t want customisation to mean “start from a blank page every time.”

A practical approach is:

  • start with a solid base module (policy/compliance/process)
  • edit the examples, screenshots, and scenarios
  • tailor by role, site, or audience type
  • keep version control tight so training doesn’t drift

This is also where platforms with guided authoring and editable module libraries can make relevance achievable for teams without dedicated instructional designers.

A simple relevance checklist (steal this)

Before publishing any module, sanity-check it:

  • Role: Is this clearly written for a specific role (not “everyone”)?
  • Situation: Does it describe a real scenario learners recognise?
  • Language: Does it sound like your workplace, not a textbook?
  • Tools: Does it reference the systems and forms people actually use?
  • Constraints: Does it acknowledge real-world limitations?
  • Action: Can the learner name one concrete behaviour they’ll apply?

If you can’t tick most of these, you don’t have a content problem — you have a relevance problem.

A practical next step

If you’re exploring platforms: Tribal Habits is built for exactly this kind of custom, workplace-specific training (especially when you don’t have a big L&D team). Book a demo and we’ll show you how teams keep training relevant without starting over every time.

Financial services compliance training

This article originally appeared in Training & Development magazine, December 2018 Vol. 45 No. 4, published by the Australian Institute of Training and Development. It has since been updated to ensure the guidance remains relevant for today’s workplace training environment.

FAQ

What’s the difference between “engaging” training and “relevant” training?

Engaging training holds attention. Relevant training changes behaviour because the learner can immediately see themselves in it. Ideally you want both — but relevance is what drives transfer.

Why do internally-built modules often outperform externally-built content?

Internal SMEs naturally use the organisation’s language, systems, and scenarios. That familiarity reduces friction and increases “I can actually use this” energy.

Doesn’t customisation make training slower and more expensive?

It can — unless you use a repeatable approach: templates, editable base modules, and small changes focused on scenarios, language, and tools (instead of rebuilding everything).

How do I make compliance training feel relevant?

Tie rules to real moments: what triggers risk, what “good” looks like on the job, and what happens when someone gets it wrong. Replace generic examples with your actual workplace situations.

What’s one fast way to lift relevance this week?

Rewrite the first 60 seconds of your most important module: name the real scenario, name the real consequence, and speak in your team’s language. You’ll feel the difference immediately.

Further Reading