91��Ƶ

Rachel Adams sees the same pattern play out in her restoration courses. A student arrives speaking little to no English and is gripped by a bucketload of test anxiety through four intense days of back-to-back training.

The final exam looms, and the student knows they’ll soon have to face a gauntlet of 137 questions. When that day eventually comes, the student relies on pure memorization, anything to reach that passing threshold.

“They really struggle just to barely squeak out a passing score,” Adams said.

But something shifts when that same student steps into the field. “Those same individuals, if I were to tell them to go out and build me some containment for a mold job, they would be rock stars,” she explained.

This disconnect—between academic performance and practical competency—sits at the heart of restoration training challenges today.

, Adams joined KnowHow’s Cole Stanton and Leighton Healey to explore why traditional approaches often miss the mark, and what’s emerging to bridge the gap.

How Knowledge Bottlenecks Form

Healey explained how most restoration companies accidentally strangle their workers’ natural desire to learn. “They become bottlenecks for curiosity, meaning that the only way that you really learn anything is you spend time shoulder-to-shoulder with someone on the crew, or you get some time with the owner or with your supervisor.

When learning depends entirely , workers stop seeking knowledge, and ultimately, they become passive receivers instead of active learners.

This bottleneck is particularly damaging because today’s workforce processes information differently. A point Stanton expanded on by explaining that companies are hiring people “raised on tablets and iPhones and TikTok” who have a shorter attention span and expect immediate access to knowledge when they need it.

Yet, most training systems force modern learners to wait for scheduled sessions or hope their supervisor has time to take them through the ropes.

Healey shared the paradox that exposes this bottleneck most clearly: “You struggle to get a technician to sit through, say a one-and-a-half-hour workshop offered by a company, but they’ll crush like a three-hour Joe Rogan podcast on quantum physics.”

The difference isn’t attention span; it’s access and format. Workers avoid mandatory workshops but devour podcasts because they are available when curiosity strikes, are designed for engagement, and don’t require permission to access.

Meanwhile, company training happens only when scheduled, often in formats designed for previous generations, and requires supervisor approval to begin.

This bottleneck kills the worker’s natural desire to learn.

Adams observed how the industry’s approach to training further tightens these learning funnels: “Some organizations look at training as we just need that piece of paper. I don’t even know that they really care about the information being given to their people.”

Companies send one person for certification, then expect informal knowledge transfer to carry everyone else. When workers inevitably struggle with this method of learning, it reinforces the belief that modern employees simply aren’t capable learners.

But Adams’ classroom experience tells a different story. Students who struggle with written exams often excel at hands-on work, meaning most people are not lacking in curiosity or ability; they’re trapped by systems that don’t match how they learn.

Breaking the Bottleneck

All three guests agreed that the solution involves opening multiple pathways for knowledge access. Healey specifically advocated providing “.”

Instead of making workers wait for permission or supervisor availability, give them immediate access when curiosity strikes. “They’re going to read ahead, and they’re going to become curious, and they’re going to recognize that there is so much to learn in this fascinating industry,” Healey said.

Adams suggested restructuring training itself: “Let’s deliver the book information in smaller sections, smaller segments, or shorter segments. At the end of each one of those modules, let them perform it hands-on and let’s measure the competency so they can actually demonstrate that they actually understood what they just learned.”

Stanton said he sees technology as key to eliminating bottlenecks: “ and retain the results of those quizzes immediately after the knowledge is delivered” creates ongoing learning rather than single-point access.

Over time, this builds “a scorecard that this particular worker is like a five-star Uber driver”—someone who consistently demonstrates both knowledge retention and practical application because they have continuous access to learning opportunities.

Healey framed the stakes through a grandmother whose home has been damaged by flooding or mold. That grandmother doesn’t care about test scores. She needs technicians who truly understand their work, not workers who have memorized enough to pass a test but lack deep knowledge.

This human reality highlights the gap between what the industry tests and what matters for successful outcomes.

Opening the Flow

Companies don’t need complex solutions. The goal is to remove barriers between workers and knowledge. Make training accessible when curiosity strikes, not just when schedules allow. Provide multiple content delivery formats to accommodate different learning styles. Create systems where questions get answered immediately rather than requiring supervisor availability.

Most importantly, remember that the goal isn’t producing workers who can pass exams. It’s developing technicians who can confidently tell someone’s grandmother, “Your home will be safe again.”

For an industry built on helping people to return to normal after disruption, ensuring that training develops competent technicians isn’t just good business. It’s keeping promises that matter most.