Certified: The ISACA CGEIT Audio Course

In this episode, we’re going to talk about a pattern that looks responsible on the surface but often produces disappointing results: the organization publishes a training calendar, people attend classes, and yet delivery problems and risk problems keep happening. Most beginners assume that more training automatically creates more capability, but capability is not measured by attendance, and it is not created by a schedule alone. When training is treated like a yearly list of courses, it often becomes disconnected from the real work people must perform and the outcomes leaders actually need. The result is predictable: learners forget content they never apply, managers cannot explain why training mattered, and the enterprise remains weak in the same places that cause outages, compliance failures, and slow delivery. What we want instead is targeted capability development, where the organization identifies which skills and behaviors are limiting outcomes, then builds a plan that closes those gaps with purpose. That approach turns people development into a governance tool that strengthens performance rather than a well-intended activity that fades into the background.

Before we continue, a quick note: this audio course is a companion to our course companion books. The first book is about the exam and provides detailed information on how to pass it best. The second book is a Kindle-only eBook that contains 1,000 flashcards that can be used on your mobile device or Kindle. Check them both out at Cyber Author dot me, in the Bare Metal Study Guides Series.

The central idea is that a training calendar is an input, while capability is an outcome, and governance cares about outcomes because outcomes determine value and risk. A training calendar typically answers the question of what classes are available and when they happen, but it rarely answers the question of what the enterprise will be better able to do afterward. Capability development, by contrast, answers the question of what work will become more reliable, safer, faster, or more consistent as a result of investment in people. Beginners can think of this like learning to cook, where watching videos is not the same as consistently producing meals people enjoy under real time constraints. The enterprise needs people who can execute key tasks under pressure, such as handling incidents, making good change decisions, governing data correctly, or managing vendors responsibly. Those tasks require practice, feedback, and context, not just exposure to information. When development is targeted, it starts with the tasks and outcomes the enterprise must deliver, then builds learning and practice around those tasks. This is how governance turns people development into a measurable strengthening of enterprise capability rather than a collection of unrelated training events.

Generic training calendars fail for several common reasons, and understanding those reasons helps you design something better. One reason is that generic calendars are usually one-size-fits-all, meaning they offer the same training regardless of role, current skill level, or the specific weaknesses causing enterprise pain. Another reason is that calendars are often built around what is easy to schedule, like popular classes or vendor offerings, rather than what is necessary to improve business outcomes. A third reason is that training is frequently not connected to real performance expectations, so learners do not know what success looks like and managers cannot reinforce it afterward. Beginners sometimes assume that learning happens during training time, but in professional settings, most learning that changes outcomes happens when people apply concepts to real situations and receive feedback. If the calendar does not create that application loop, skills decay quickly and behavior does not change. Finally, generic calendars often ignore constraints like time availability, operational load, and competing priorities, so training becomes something people squeeze in when they can, which reduces engagement and reduces retention. Targeted plans address these failures by starting with specific outcomes and designing development to fit the enterprise context.

Targeted capability development begins with identifying the business outcomes that matter most and the capabilities that most influence those outcomes. Outcomes might include reducing service outages, improving recovery speed, delivering changes more safely, protecting sensitive data, improving audit readiness, or increasing delivery throughput for strategic initiatives. A capability is the enterprise’s repeatable ability to achieve such an outcome, and people skills are one of the major components of capability alongside process and technology. The key is that you do not start by asking what training people want, you start by asking what the enterprise needs to be able to do reliably. From there, you ask which roles and teams influence that capability and what behaviors and skills are required for consistent performance. This is where a competency assessment becomes useful because it reveals gaps in readiness, not just gaps in knowledge. Beginners might worry that assessment sounds judgmental, but in governance it is a planning tool, like checking the condition of equipment before committing to a long journey. If you want predictable delivery, you need an honest view of whether the right skills exist at the right depth. Targeted plans are built on that honest view, and they focus investment where it will change outcomes.

A crucial step is translating skill needs into role-based expectations, because capability is achieved through roles executing responsibilities, not through a generic set of traits. For example, a person responsible for incident coordination needs competencies in triage thinking, clear communication under pressure, and structured decision-making, while a person responsible for data stewardship needs competencies in definitions, quality control, and lifecycle governance. If everyone receives the same generic training, the most critical role-specific skills remain weak, and the enterprise still struggles. Role-based expectations also reduce confusion because people understand what they are expected to do differently after development. This is one reason targeted plans outperform calendars, because calendars often describe topics while targeted plans describe performance. Beginners can think of this as learning a musical instrument, where the goal is not to attend a lesson but to play a piece at a specific level of accuracy and expression. Governance benefits from role-based expectations because they support accountability, meaning leaders can ask whether a role has the competency to execute critical tasks. When expectations are clear, training can be chosen and designed as a tool to reach those expectations rather than as a routine activity that may or may not help.

Once expectations are defined, targeted plans select development methods that match the type of skill being built, because not all skills are built the same way. Some competencies are knowledge-heavy, such as understanding governance principles and risk concepts, while others are performance-heavy, such as conducting access reviews, managing changes safely, or leading incident response. Performance-heavy skills require practice in realistic scenarios, review of actual work outputs, and feedback that helps people adjust. Beginners might assume the fastest path is to assign online modules, but modules alone rarely build performance because they do not create the friction and decision-making pressure of real work. A targeted plan therefore blends learning with practice, such as coaching, guided walkthroughs of real processes, and structured on-the-job application where a learner performs tasks with supervision until competence is demonstrated. This is not about creating a lab environment; it is about embedding development into the normal work flow in a controlled way. When development is embedded, people learn in context, managers see progress, and the enterprise receives immediate improvement rather than waiting for training completion. The development method is chosen because it creates performance, not because it fills a calendar slot.

Targeted plans also recognize that capability development must be sequenced, because trying to build everything at once creates overload and shallow learning. Many enterprises have multiple capability gaps, but not all gaps have the same impact, and some improvements are prerequisites for others. For example, if the enterprise lacks disciplined change management skills, it may struggle to improve reliability because unstable changes keep causing incidents. In that case, building change-related competencies first may unlock progress elsewhere by reducing rework and creating a more stable environment. Beginners sometimes interpret sequencing as delay, but sequencing is often what makes progress possible because it concentrates effort where it will produce visible improvement. Targeted plans make sequencing explicit by choosing a small set of high-impact competencies to improve first, then expanding once those gains stabilize. This approach also respects capacity constraints because people cannot learn deeply while being overloaded with urgent operational work. Governance supports sequencing by aligning development priorities to enterprise priorities and by protecting time for high-impact development. When sequencing is intentional, capability grows steadily instead of appearing in short bursts that fade.

Another advantage of targeted plans is that they connect development to measurement, which is necessary for governance because governance needs evidence that investment is producing value. A training calendar is easy to measure in terms of attendance, completion, or hours delivered, but those measures do not prove capability improvement. Targeted plans define measures that reflect outcomes, such as fewer incidents caused by change, faster recovery times, improved quality of governance evidence, fewer access exceptions, or improved data quality consistency. Those measures do not require perfect precision, but they do require consistency, so leaders can see trends and decide whether development is working. Beginners might wonder how you can measure something like improved judgment, but judgment often shows up in outcomes like fewer repeated mistakes, clearer documentation, and better decision consistency under pressure. Targeted plans can also include proficiency checks, such as reviewing work outputs against a defined standard, because output quality is a practical indicator of capability. When measurement is part of the plan, people development becomes a managed investment rather than a hopeful expense. This also builds trust because leaders can see improvement and teams can see recognition for real performance gains.

Targeted capability plans must also address reinforcement, because learning that is not reinforced quickly decays and behavior returns to old patterns. Reinforcement means the environment encourages the new behavior through management expectations, feedback, and routine practice. If someone learns a new approach for classifying and handling data but returns to a workplace where shortcuts are rewarded and rules are ignored, the new skill will not stick. This is why targeted plans involve managers and process owners, ensuring that after development, the person is expected to apply the skill and is supported in doing so. Reinforcement can include reviewing decisions, mentoring, and regular check-ins focused on performance rather than on completion status. Beginners may think reinforcement is micromanagement, but in capability development it is closer to coaching, where feedback helps the learner consolidate new habits until they become natural. Reinforcement also includes removing barriers, such as unclear processes or missing access, because people cannot apply skills if the system blocks them. When reinforcement is designed intentionally, development becomes durable, and the enterprise sees sustained improvement rather than temporary enthusiasm.

A targeted plan should also address knowledge transfer and continuity, because enterprises often suffer capability loss when experienced people leave or when responsibilities shift. Training calendars do not usually solve this because they provide generic content, not enterprise-specific knowledge about how things actually work. Targeted capability development includes capturing essential operational knowledge, documenting decision patterns, and building depth so multiple people can perform critical tasks. Beginners can think of this like a team sport, where you do not want only one person to know the playbook. Continuity planning is part of governance because it reduces key-person risk, which is a real operational risk when critical systems depend on a few specialists. Targeted plans therefore include cross-training and planned rotation of responsibilities where appropriate, so competence is distributed rather than concentrated. This does not mean everyone learns everything, but it does mean that critical functions have backup coverage. Knowledge transfer also includes building shared language and standards so people can coordinate more smoothly, which improves speed and reduces errors. When continuity is planned, capability becomes resilient, not fragile, and governance becomes more confident in committing to strategic initiatives.

It is also important to recognize that targeted plans work best when they are integrated with sourcing and staffing decisions, because sometimes the enterprise cannot build capability fast enough internally to meet urgent needs. In those cases, governance may decide to source expertise temporarily while building internal competence over time. Beginners sometimes assume sourcing is a failure of internal development, but sourcing can be a responsible strategy when used with clear outcomes and knowledge transfer expectations. The key is to avoid creating permanent dependency where the enterprise never builds its own capability and remains vulnerable if the provider relationship changes. A targeted plan can include internal development goals alongside sourced support, such as pairing internal staff with external experts to accelerate learning through real work. This makes the sourced relationship an accelerator of capability rather than a substitute for it. Governance also benefits because it can choose sourcing strategies that match risk and criticality, while still maintaining a path to internal resilience. When targeted plans consider sourcing, they become realistic under constraints, and they avoid the false choice between train everyone or outsource everything. The enterprise can choose a balanced path that strengthens capability steadily.

Targeted capability development must also be coordinated with enterprise planning cadence, because people capability is a constraint and an enabler that should shape what the enterprise commits to. If strategic planning approves multiple initiatives that require skills the enterprise does not have, delivery will either fail or rely heavily on risky shortcuts. By integrating targeted development plans into planning, leaders can sequence initiatives based on readiness and can fund capability building as a prerequisite when needed. Beginners might assume people development is always a long-term effort that cannot influence near-term plans, but targeted development can deliver near-term improvements when it focuses on specific behaviors and uses embedded practice. For example, improving incident coordination practices can reduce outage impact within weeks if the plan includes coaching and structured application. Planning integration also ensures that development is not treated as an optional extra, because it becomes part of the portfolio of work required to achieve outcomes. This is where governance logic is important because it ties development to value, risk, and constraints leaders already understand. When people capability is visible in planning, the enterprise becomes more honest about feasibility and more disciplined about sequencing. That honesty improves credibility and reduces the cycle of overcommitment.

Another element that makes targeted plans superior is that they encourage differentiation, meaning different groups receive different development investments based on their role in delivering enterprise outcomes. In a generic calendar, everyone might receive a baseline set of courses, which can feel fair but often produces little impact. In a targeted approach, the enterprise invests more deeply in the capabilities that are most critical and most constrained, such as roles that support reliability, security governance, data stewardship, or strategic architecture decisions. Beginners sometimes confuse differentiation with favoritism, but governance treats it as risk-based investment, similar to how you reinforce the strongest parts of a bridge where the load is highest. Differentiation also supports morale when communicated well because people can see that development is tied to responsibility and to enterprise needs, not to personal preference. It also creates clearer career pathways because skills are linked to the outcomes a role delivers, and progress can be measured. When targeted plans are designed thoughtfully, they create a culture where learning is purposeful and respected, not random and performative. This culture shift is one of the most important long-term benefits because it changes how the enterprise thinks about capability. Capability becomes something the enterprise builds intentionally.

Targeted plans must also address the governance challenge of proving that people development is worth sustained investment, because training budgets are often among the first things cut when cost pressure rises. A calendar approach is easy to cut because its impact is hard to prove, while a targeted plan is easier to defend because it is linked to measurable outcomes and visible risk reduction. For example, if targeted development reduces incidents or improves audit readiness, leaders can see the value directly in fewer crises and fewer findings. This creates a virtuous cycle where successful capability building increases willingness to fund further improvement. Beginners might assume leaders are indifferent to training, but leaders often want to invest in people and simply need evidence that the investment will improve outcomes. Targeted plans provide that evidence by defining what will change, how it will be reinforced, and how success will be measured. They also support accountability because managers can be held responsible for enabling skill application and for maintaining performance standards. When accountability is paired with support, capability improves rather than remaining stuck at the level of intent. This is how governance turns people development into a strategic asset.

As we close, developing people capabilities using targeted plans rather than generic training calendars is fundamentally about shifting from activity to outcomes and from exposure to performance. Targeted plans start with enterprise priorities and capabilities, identify the specific skills and behaviors needed to deliver those outcomes reliably, and then choose development methods that build real proficiency through context, practice, and feedback. They sequence effort to respect constraints, reinforce learning to make it durable, and build continuity to reduce key-person risk. They also integrate with sourcing and strategic planning so capability building is realistic, timely, and aligned with what the enterprise is trying to accomplish. For brand-new learners, the key takeaway is that training calendars can make an organization look busy, but targeted development plans make an organization measurably better at doing the work that matters. When governance treats people capability as a managed investment, leaders can commit with more confidence, teams can perform with more consistency, and risk becomes more controllable because critical skills are built where they have the greatest impact. That is how people development stops being a generic schedule and becomes a reliable engine for enterprise performance and resilience.