Proactive Technologies Report™ – November, 2025

Is an Apprenticeship Without Structured On-The-Job Training an Apprenticeship?

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

Career and vocation-focused training is a pivotal point in every current and future worker’s life. This world is overwhelmed by forces that make the effort more difficult for the education and training providers, more urgent and critical for the learner, more scrutinized by the employer and constantly measured against time; how long the training takes (which determines costs) and the relevance of the skills acquired to the targeted job which is always moving to the next level of technology. If the training is not “continuously improved” and maintained to be predominantly current and accurate, the graduate may find that jobs for which the new-found skills were targeted now marginally or, even worse, no longer exist.

The European apprenticeship systems are well-established and are often offered as a comparison to the U.S. menagerie of approaches, standards, acceptance and credibility. Employers in Europe have had the time to reap the benefits and adapt to the established frameworks to determine a pragmatic role they could play that is most advantageous to the enterprise, apprentice and community. For example, the apprenticeships in Germany are revered for their clarity, personal growth options, participation rates and successful outcomes. Some have embraced apprenticeships to the extent to make money while cultivating a workforce with close relevance and proven talent that they have the option to draw on.

In theory, apprenticeships offer a promising approach for traditional trades and crafts. As of 2008, more jobs can be registered as apprenticeships with new models accepted by the U.S. Department of Labor. If the program is based on a sound structure and methodology (one that can work for any type of job classification), an apprenticeship capstone – the job-related, employer-based training – would be maintained current and accurate for at least the employer apprenticeship host. Without this component, an apprenticeship experience may be as hollow as some of the for-profit educational chains which are often criticized for high costs and low placement rates.

“No one would ride in a plane flown by a pilot with only classes and simulator time, have surgery by a surgeon that hasn’t yet operated on a live human, or receive a root canal from a dentist with no “live-patient” time. Certified mastery of the tasks that define each of these jobs is what makes the ‘license to practice’ credible. And there is a difference between ‘a pilot” and ‘the pilot.’ Having a pilot license certifies you to fly planes, not a specific plane; you still have to have training and be certified to apply your craft to flying that particular plane. With other technical jobs,  the hybrid approach to apprenticeships, both are accomplished at the same time.”

The term “apprenticeship” has taken on many new meanings in the rush to increase the number of apprentices in the United States. Some 2-year community college programs that have been around a while have been re-branded in an effort to give new life to the same programs of worker development. Some have been thrown together to position an organization for the anticipated flood of grant dollars to find apprentices. Many of these are less “employer-centric” and more “industry-friendly” in spirit only. Yet, it is important to remember that the ultimate beneficiaries of an apprenticeship should be the apprentice, the employer, the community, the industry and then the workforce development community, in that order. This should always be the focus and priority. Read More

---

Has Your Organization Captured The Expertise of Your Critical Hourly and Salary Positions?

by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

Starting in the late 1980’s, employers became increasingly concerned with succession planning; ensuring salary workers were being groomed to replace critical senior employees in the event of retirement or voluntary/involuntary separation. It was realized that the potential disruption – direct and the ripple effects – caused by an unplanned void in the leadership chain might be perceived as a threat to shareholder value. Shareholders, too, wanted assurances that maximizing a firm’s performance was not tied to one or two invaluable people.

Compounding the concern was the realization that the workforce was aging at all levels, and that retirements were a certainty. Prior to the Crash of 2008, employer’s concern over this was amplified by anecdotal reports from other employers already experiencing the impact. A movement toward a remedy began to take shape, and not just for high-ranking salary positions, but technically critical salary positions and even hourly positions that with a loss of one or a few technical experts might disrupt operations and impair a firm’s viability.

For decades prior to the Crash of 2008, Proactive Technologies, Inc. worked with a lot of employers by job/task analyzing their critical job classifications – initially hourly positions but a growing salary class of positions as well. This approach “captured the expertise” of the aging workers to use it to develop the tools which would allow the company to train nearly anyone with a sufficient core skill base, replicating experts as needed.

Then the Crash of 2008 happened and employers found themselves unexpectedly and unwillingly accelerating the loss of technical experts at all levels. For employers late to the game, there was no longer time to capture expertise; it had already left the building. We saw this phenomenon repeating itself with the Covid-19 pandemic. Read More

---

Knowledge Gap v. Skills Gap, Core Skill Gap v. Task Skill Gap – Important to Know Which You Are Trying To Close

by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

One common, ongoing theme that all of us in workforce development and related disciplines are familiar with is that our educational and workforce development institutions are not, despite the tremendous resources at their disposal. adequately addressing the issue of the “Skill Gap.” A lot has been written about the concern over the billions of dollars spent by employers and education to address the skill gap each year, but after 30 years we still are consumed with concern. Many employers have either learned to discount education as a viable partner in workforce development or have lost their confidence in these institutions all together and moved on. How hard would it to bring them back?

Some have suggested that educational institutions seem preoccupied with controlling the definition of the challenge so the solutions they prescribe can be pulled from their shelf. They have a powerful lobbying presence in Washington D.C. and state capitals to guide their proposals to steer grant money targeted for workforce development to their institutions. In some cases it is what sustains the schools…but for how long without significant outcomes?

As early as the 1980’s, surveys of employers showed a growing “schism of trust” in existing institutions helping meet the skills gap challenge. Today, educational institutions and workforce development groups seem more inclined to defend the institution and its programs. They are less interested in understanding the clear dichotomy between the core skills needed to master an employer’s tasks, and the employer’s de facto role in providing task-based training to ensure core skills are not lost, but are put to a good use that reinforces their utility.

Most “customized training coordinators” at community colleges and career centers would tell you their understanding of customized training can range anywhere from providing classes onsite or offsite to recommending a credit or non-credit course. Their educational training did not prepare them to seek out such an invasive role in an employer’s internal training. As they try to justify their engagement to that degree, they often provide evidence that they have little to offer that is specific to an employer’s needs. Read More

---

Enterprise Expansion/Contraction and Worker Development Standardization

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.^®

One challenge faced when expanding, contracting or acquiring an enterprise is adjusting the scale of the workforce development strategy(ies) that already exist(s) to the increase/decrease in the number of workers while maintaining a consistent ratio of output, quality yield, safe performance and process compliance. Contrary to an accountant’s perspective on staffing level adjustment, there should be serious consideration given to the range and depth of each worker’s acquired skills; an “inventory” of each employee prior to the official act of expanding or contracting. We take a physical inventory of product, equipment, parts, etc. to assess value, so why would we treat a human asset any different?

Obviously, an expansion strategy is different than a contraction strategy, but when it comes to determining the value of a worker it is similar for both strategies. How an organization addresses the development, measurement and maintenance of that value may differ widely. Let’s look at both scenarios.

For companies expanding, if a sound structured on-the-job training infrastructure is in place it is simply a matter of scaling. More work means more employees that have to be trained before adding value to the operation. Sometimes expansion includes a segue from straight-line scaling, such as new products and services requiring new equipment, which in turns requires new/improved core skills before structured, task-based on-the-job training can be implemented to build upon incumbent worker skill sets. A solid structured on-the-job training infrastructure can easily adapt to new work, new tasks, new technologies and new trainees.

For companies contracting, one would think this would just be scaling but in a negative direction. It usually ends up more complicated than that when work for three different areas are consolidated on top of the work performed by the workers in the fourth area. Read More

---

Proactive Technologies’ Turnkey Package Offers for Returning Clients

by Proactive Technologies, Inc.^® – Staff

The world has been through a lot in the last few decades. Employers finding themselves making decisions and changing their mind – willingly or unwillingly – for the most unexpected reasons. Economic downturns, pandemics, mergers and acquisitions often lead to short-term decision making. Since classifying a “worker” and “worker training” as a “variable cost” rather than an investment is still the norm, unconsciously shooting oneself in the foot with regard to maintaining a qualified and optimized workforce is the norm, too.

Proactive Technologies, Inc.^® wants to accommodate and support those workforce development decisions in the best way it knows how. This introduction for returning clients of its turnkey worker development package is one example. 

Value comes in many forms. Sometimes value stares us in the face but we may not realize it…or fully realize it. Like a software we purchase but only use 10% of its functions, a car that we seldom drive, or the treadmill that sits in its original packaging. Underutilized value not only represents a minimal return on an investment, it is a lost opportunity to maximize its potential and an inefficient use of capital.

Undeveloped or under-developed worker capacity is a lost opportunity to increase return on worker investment and reduce labor costs. Multiply this experience by the number of employees you have and the loss can be substantial! This is a fact that should be obvious and continually frustrates many a CEO or Operations Manager. It doesn’t have to be that way.

Every employer conducts a massive amount of informal, unstructured and undocumented on-the-job, task-based training every year. The significant cost (especially if you have a lot of retiring experts, revolving new-hires and marginally trained residents), as well as the effectiveness, usually goes unmeasured. If you doubt this point, ask yourself one question; Do I know which tasks each of my employees have mastered, and which they have not? If you draw a blank, you are not alone.

PTI’s approach to worker development has, for many years, been a solution that can provide a great impact on a company beyond quickly developing workers to full capacity with such a simple, sensible and economical approach designed specifically for your jobs, your specifications, your company and culture.

Whether you had to cut your training budget, or never had one in the first place, this structured on-the-job training system makes it possible for you to train every worker to “full job mastery, full capacity” quickly, efficiently, effectively and credibly. So much so that all projects have been eligible for training grant funds that offset – in large part or in whole – the employer’s investment to set-up the SOJT infrastructure and implement training!

Returning Clients: 

The Crash of 2008, the Covid-19 Pandemic, mergers/ acquisitions caused a lot of disruption for manufacturing and lead to following years of disarray. Several of Proactive Technologies client’s structured on-the-job training programs, most funded by state training grants, were set-up, incumbent workers assessed for the training gap and the training materials for new-hires and incumbents produced. Read More

---

Read the full November, 2025 Proactive Technologies Report™ newsletter, including linked industry articles and online presentation schedules.