The reasons cited by Dunberry (2006) from the international (and particularly the American) literature for eschewing training evaluation practices cast light on the low rates observed in firms, and the fact that evaluations often focus only on the satisfaction of the parties involved (level 1). The presence or absence of a continuing adult learning and training culture as an integrated component of the organization's development scheme is not unrelated to the various impediments to the development of a system for evaluating ALT activities in firms. The reasons given are many: lack of express demand ("nobody asked for an evaluation") and lack of interest, fear of the consequences of such practices or the "risk of showing that a poor training decision was made by a senior level of management". Other practical difficulties were referred to, such as "costs, lack of appropriate training and lack of time"; this makes sense, especially for small companies, where these obstacles are more likely to be mentioned.
Of all the practices and forms of ALT in the organizations observed by Bélanger et al. (2004), the types of ALT linked to operators' compliance with externally-imposed standards were virtually the only ones to be systematically evaluated. Again, this evaluation is designed more to check the application of the standards with a view to correcting behaviours that have been poorly "learned" than to introduce an evaluation that is both formative and summative. Systematic introduction of continuous feedback loops throughout the ALT process, in such a way that ALT activities can be adjusted on an ongoing basis with a view to more effective attainment of the objectives, remains a rather marginal practice. It is an impediment to the development of broad and integrated strategies of evaluation and, ultimately, to the development of ALT.
Furthermore, a relationship can be observed between evaluation practices and the sector in which the company operates. Evaluation practices in sectors whose production is regulated tend to be more systematic, albeit narrow, and to indicate deeper integration of ALT activities into the organization. This might suggest real progress in the evaluation practices of the companies studied. However, if companies in these sectors extend the development of evaluation practices as far as level 3 (Figure 5.1), they do so primarily in connection with the application of production standards. The challenge for firms in these sectors involves a now mandatory requirement that allows them to obtain and retain their distribution and export license for the continent as a whole and on a global level. Given the risk that they could lose their licences, these firms tend to develop evaluation practices from the perspective of compliance control. Further and broader feedback on ALT activities at various levels, and ultimately to the very level at which the company pursues its objectives and its strategic plan, still occurs only in quite exceptional cases.
Dunberry observes that in successful firms, "the most structured evaluation practices are designed primarily for operators: training activities for managers are evaluated in far fewer cases" (Dunberry, 2006, p. 35; transl.). Without going so far as to evaluate ALT, some companies that are dependent on high levels of technological knowledge are beginning to follow up on the training and professional development plans for their scientists and professionals (Bélanger et al., 2004): the employee's immediate superior or laboratory head is required to prepare a professional development plan for each member of his or her team linked to the employee's career plan.