.png)
July 28, 2025
In your laboratory, the annual BPF refresh is often done during a 2 or 3-hour training session in the classroom, where everyone in the company is spent in groups of 10 to 30 people.
You do it because it is mandatory, and because it is convenient and fast. Moreover, the apparent cost is low. At least you have proof of annual training to show to your inspector.
But without lying to yourself, the impact of such an approach is low from the learner's point of view.
Of the 3 hours of training, only 20 minutes really concern him. He feels like he's wasting time.
As a Quality Manager, you know it very well, your HR or your training manager too and everyone is happy with it.
Up to a certain point...
When deviations increase, when audits or inspections are carried out more and more painfully, it is also time to rethink the BPF training in the company.
The BPF refresh does not respect the principle of adult learning
Olivier Depardieu
A child naturally learns primarily through mimicry and through play.
An adult learns if he finds a direct interest in the tasks asked of him, and if he can mobilize his experience during the training to go faster.
He also learns all the better if he immediately takes action to implement what he has learned.
At the time of learning, adults also have dozens of other disruptive subjects. And his focus won't be 100% on learning right now. Whereas a college student for example, in the moment and over the long term, can be much more focused. The concept of cognitive load on the moment and accumulated must therefore be taken into account.
The refresh BPF classroom training does not meet any of these criteria:
- It disseminates information in a classroom mode as if it were to students, with little or no immediate action.
- It does not take into account the targeting of personnel or their experiences
- It does not take into account the limitation of cognitive load
The first thing you need to do isDevelop a BPF training course by profile of people.
You should not say the same thing to a manufacturing operator as to a quality technician, or to a member of the management committee.
Simply because their responsibility and their power are not the same. An operator has the main responsibility to perform his action in accordance with procedures. While the director will be responsible for providing sufficient expertise and quantity of resources to ensure compliance with GMP.
By training people in what they can do, you get closer to their interests. BPF training is more effective.
Training a person in many concepts in 3 hours is a risk in terms of cognitive load. The impact of BPF training is lessened.
To be effective, the BPF journey must be staggered over time and in depth.
- Step 1: the 9 basic chapters of BPF. This module is given to the newcomer. However, according to its hierarchical level and its profession, the content is differentiated.
- Step 2: GMP by profession. This module is given when the person joins their department. The GMP requirements for quality control are not expressed in the same way in the packaging department. And for a shopping person, it's even different. The interest of the learner is then stimulated by this concrete application of the rules in his profession.
- Step 3: bring BPF to life in the field. GMP can be learned, but we prefer that they be applied. To be ever closer to the learner, we decided to focus our efforts on the relationship between the team supervisor and his quality assurance counterpart. Together, they learn in the field to detect GMP discrepancies and to find solutions. They can then return with great relevance to each person to give feedback, give explanations...
- Step 4: fight against interpretation biases. The problem with rules is that they can sometimes be overinterpreted or even invented. And whoever wears the rule says “it's marked in the GMP”. The learner will not challenge him on this point, since he benefits from an expert aura vis-à-vis him. BPF training can therefore go so far as to detect and correct interpretation biases, so that learners are aware of them.
This staggering is spread over several weeks or even months. But it is very respectful of the cumulative cognitive load relating to GMP learning.
We still need to deal with instant cognitive load and action-based learning.
Putting people in the room to give them theory is not effective. Learners lose time and are also subject to the variability in the mood or competence of the trainer at the time.
At Sinfony, we organized the BPF training in the following way.
Step 1, out of the 9 basic chapters, is done in digital micro-learning. That is to say with an alternation of videos of less than 5 minutes, quizzes, posters,... available on our training platform. Depending on the profile, the course lasts between 30 and 50 minutes. As it is learning, the course is separable: the learner can consult the beginning, stop, do something else, resume...
The learner is free to complete his course at the time of his choice, or at the choice of his manager who then frees him up the necessary moment.
The videos are made using the same methods as advertising, always to maintain the psychological connection with the learner.
Step 2, on GMP by profession, is also done in micro-learning. However, tools for self-diagnosis or discussion between the same team are available on the platform to encourage action. When customers ask us, we also provide face-to-face coaching, in the field, to increase the competence of the supervisor/quality technician duo.
Step 3 is done with a field coach, of course. The coach can of course be internal or external. The key point here is the profile of the coach, and his posture. When the coach accompanies the supervisor and his quality colleague, he must really take care to question, introduce people, and especially not to act in the place of the coachees. For example, when a GMP discrepancy is noticed on the spot, he should especially refrain from giving feedback himself to the person who was the subject of the violation. He must encourage the supervisor and his quality technician to give feedback. The coach must also be careful not to act like an auditor. The principle of coaching in the field is done in the form of a Gemba Walk. During the field visit, we look for violations that are visible instantly, and we do not look for past violations as an auditor would.
Finally, step 4 can be done with exercises to be done as a team. They can be prepared with video microlearning elements. The hardest thing to do here is for learners to realize that interpretation biases exist and that they may be a victim of them.
Going from useless high school to training that is truly focused on increasing learners' BPF skills may seem like a challenge at first glance.
However, the subject is not technical at all. The content exists, at least at Sinfony, and is available to you.
The real issue is in the head of the company's management committee. Recognizing that BPF can be experienced more than learned, and accepting an approach compatible with adult learning principles is the real intellectual switch.
The economic argument for the cost of a Grand'Messe type approach, which is intended to be less expensive than an approach that respects the learner, will come out. This is why we must look at the cost of increasing the sustainable competence of learners in relation to the cost of deviations, inspection remarks, or quality risks. It's always an arbitration.
But at least with this article, you already have arguments to try to convince the most skeptical that developing people is always better than picking up the trash.