In service roles, skills transfer represents a major operational risk that is still too often underestimated. This strategic requirement directly affects the quality of the customer experience, business continuity and the real autonomy of local teams. Without structured transfer, performance weakens — even in the most well-resourced organisations.
A restaurant slowing down after the departure of a key chef. A regional insurance agency losing advisory quality after a poorly prepared internal move. A local authority facing a service disruption due to a lack of handover in a technical role. These situations, seemingly ordinary, share one thing in common: skills transfer left to chance.
Ensuring service continuity
In service roles, skills are context-specific. They are exercised within a specific place, context, relationship and territory. These skills are acquired through experience, strengthened through practice, and passed on through proximity and human interaction.
Research on knowledge transfer clearly distinguishes between:
- explicit knowledge (procedures, tools, formalised rules),
- and tacit knowledge, derived from experience, professional judgement and mastery of complex situations.
These tacit forms of knowledge are precisely the hardest to transfer, yet also the most critical for operational performance and user or customer satisfaction. When they are not transferred, they disappear. And with them, part of the value created by the organisation or public organisations — a decisive factor in the quality of the service delivered.
Why skills transfer determines service quality
Service delivery relies on deeply embedded, experience-based know-how. An experienced employee knows how to respond to unexpected situations, adapt their approach and prioritise actions in the field. This knowledge is not always written down, rarely formalised and often tacit. Yet it is critical.
In many organisations, initial training and procedures are not enough. Interns, new hires or employees moving internally learn mainly through observation, mentoring and on-the-job guidance. When this natural process is not supported by a structured approach, the real level of competence across teams becomes uneven. The impact is immediate on the customer experience, as well as on business continuity.
How many network directors realise, too late, that they were relying on isolated experts rather than truly autonomous teams. This phenomenon is frequently observed during:
- unanticipated departures,
- poorly prepared internal moves,
- or rapid workforce turnover.
An issue intensified by changes in the nature of work
The current context heightens the risk. Retirements, turnover, new ways of working, increased professional mobility. In large organisations as well as in local public authorities, the question is no longer whether skills will be lost, but when — and with what level of preparation.
The regulatory framework itself underlines the importance of this transmission.
Across many jurisdictions, employers are expected to maintain and develop employees’ employability. This responsibility includes not only training actions, but also the effective transfer of critical skills over time.
In the public sector, responsibilities are often distributed across multiple levels of government and public bodies. Over time, reforms and reorganisations have multiplied transfers of responsibilities between central authorities, regional entities and local organisations. Each transfer of responsibility brings a human and operational challenge: ensuring continuity of public service through the effective transfer of know-how.
This transmission also acts as a direct lever for skills development among those involved. By taking ownership of practices, operating frameworks and partnership dynamics, teams strengthen their ability to act autonomously and consistently.
The resulting skills development directly shapes the effectiveness of public action and service delivery. It enables social programmes, economic initiatives and sustainability efforts to be adapted to local realities, while ensuring continuity over time.
When the absence of skills transfer weakens the organisation
The classic mistake is to assume that this transmission will happen “naturally”. Without structure, transmission depends on individuals. It becomes uneven and, at times, risky.
A common example in service roles: a recognised expert lead leaves their position. No mentor has been appointed, no learning guide has been formalised, no skills tracking tool has identified what needed to be transferred. The newcomer learns on the job, under pressure. Quality declines, customer relationships become strained, and the team compensates as best it can.
In local authorities, the pattern is similar. A local government officer responsible for a complex scheme leaves after many years in the role. Knowledge of the local network, implicit rules and room for manoeuvre disappears. Service continuity is threatened, despite procedures that are fully compliant with the law.
Structuring skills transfer without dehumanising
Structuring does not mean rigidifying. It means making what matters visible. Identifying critical skills, distinguishing between what belongs to general principles and what depends on local context, and organising explicit moments of knowledge transfer.
Several levers are well known, yet still underused:
- skills mapping through a skills matrix, to make the real state of know-how visible and anticipate departures;
- mentoring and tutoring, particularly for new hires, interns or employees in transition;
- ongoing skills tracking, to assess what has actually been acquired, transferred or is at risk;
- integrating skills transfer into training and development plans, rather than treating it as a one-off action.
These practices reflect a simple principle: skills are a flow. They either circulate, or they fade away.
A strategic issue, not just an HR one
Reducing skills transfer to a training issue would be a mistake. It involves senior leadership, frontline management and organisational culture. It challenges the collective ability to secure what creates the value of the service delivered.
In service roles, local performance depends less on tools than on teams’ ability to act autonomously, within a shared framework. This autonomy cannot be improvised. It is built through transmission.
And then?
Organisations that take this issue seriously start by asking the right questions: which skills are truly critical? Where are they held? What happens if those people leave tomorrow?
To take the reflection further, content on intergenerational skills or on the role of data and AI in skills management provides useful insights, particularly on how to make this transfer measurable and sustainable. At its core, skills transfer is a condition for continuity, retention and performance — today and tomorrow.
FAQ – Skills transfer
Does skills transfer only concern retirements?
No. It applies to all forms of mobility, whether internal or external, as well as the integration of new profiles.
Can the effectiveness of skills transfer be measured?
Yes, through indicators of proficiency, autonomy and operational continuity, provided there is structured tracking in place.
Why are service roles more exposed?
Because skills in these roles are closely tied to experience, relationships and local context, making them harder to formalise.