In-house vs. open-enrolment training: what changes for your organisation

Many people setting up a training organisation build their catalogue without clearly deciding between in-house and open-enrolment training — then discover the choice runs through pricing, the training agreement, the needs analysis Qualiopi expects, and even how the annual pedagogical and financial report (BPF) gets filled in. Here is how to tell the two modes apart and structure your offer accordingly.

In-house vs. open-enrolment: the difference in one sentence

In-house (intra) training brings together only employees (or learners) from a single client organisation, in a dedicated session. Open-enrolment (inter) training gathers trainees from different employers, or even individuals, in a catalogue session open to anyone.

The confusion often comes from the venue: an in-house session doesn’t have to take place on the client’s premises — it can run in your own venue or online. What defines “in-house” is the composition of the group — a single client — not the address of the room.

Criterion	In-house (intra)	Open-enrolment (inter)
Group composition	Employees of a single company	Trainees from different companies or statuses
Programme	Often adapted to the client’s business context	Standardised, published in the catalogue
Pricing	Flat fee per session or per group	Per-trainee price
Agreement	One agreement with the client company	One agreement (or contract) per trainee or per employer
Dates	Set with the client	Fixed calendar, published in advance
Venue	Client’s premises, your own venue, or remote	Usually your own venue or remote

Impact on pricing and quotations

For open-enrolment training, your price list shows a per-trainee price, identical for everyone — that transparency is exactly what indicator 1 of the Qualiopi framework (public information) requires you to make available before any enrolment.

For in-house training, the logic changes: you typically charge a flat fee per session, independent of the exact headcount within an agreed range. The quotation must then clearly state the bounds of that headcount (for example “4 to 12 participants”), the content of the service, and the terms if the company exceeds the agreed ceiling — otherwise billing disputes are common once the session ends.

Needs analysis: indicator 4 is not handled the same way

Indicator 4 of the National Quality Framework requires analysing the beneficiary’s need, taking into account the expectations of the funder and, where relevant, the company. For open-enrolment sessions, this analysis stays largely individual: each trainee is positioned against the prerequisites and objectives of an already-fixed programme.

For in-house sessions, the needs analysis takes on another dimension: it covers the client company’s context as much as each participant — its processes, its tools, sometimes its own regulatory constraints. Qualiopi auditors expect a trace of this upfront exchange (a scoping summary, the client’s brief, structured email exchanges) that justifies the adaptations made to the standard programme. The entry-level positioning assessment is mandatory in both cases, but its content differs: generic for open enrolment, contextualised for in-house.

Another point specific to in-house sessions: when the session takes place on the client’s premises, the provider must ensure the venue is suitable for the training action (accessibility, equipment, physical conditions) — a point auditors check just as they would for your own rooms.

The agreement: one document, two different logics

For open-enrolment training, each employee-trainee is covered by a separate training agreement with their employer (or, for an individual, a consumer training contract with its own withdrawal period). Every agreement carries the same programme and the same session dates.

For in-house training, a single agreement is signed with the client company, but it must name the enrolled employees — directly or in an appendix — and specify the exact venue, dates, total duration and overall price. If the company draws on its OPCO to fund all or part of the course, the agreement must also provide for the resulting payment subrogation formalities.

BPF: a filing by funder, not by mode

This point is often misunderstood: the pedagogical and financial report has no “in-house” or “open” line. Revenue is declared according to who pays, not the composition of the group. An in-house session billed directly to the company is recorded under “revenue from companies”, exactly like an open session paid through the same channel. What changes is the volume of trainee-hours declared and, potentially, the breakdown by teaching mode (in-person, remote, blended) that the BPF also asks you to report.

Building a hybrid offer: catalogue and bespoke

Most training organisations that last don’t choose between the two: they build a catalogue of open-enrolment programmes that serves as a showcase and pricing base, then offer the same expertise as a bespoke in-house session “on request” for companies that prefer a dedicated course. This strategy has a documented pedagogical advantage: a classic research framework in workplace training, Baldwin and Ford’s (1988) work on transfer of training, shows that training design and the trainee’s work environment strongly condition whether what is learned is actually applied on the job — a factor that in-house training, by drawing on the company’s real context, can leverage more directly than a generic open-enrolment programme.

In practice, to turn an open-enrolment session into an in-house one:

• use the catalogue programme as a base and adjust it (case studies, examples, industry terminology) to the client’s context;
• redo the needs analysis with the company, not only with the future participants;
• issue a flat-fee quotation rather than a per-person price, with a clear headcount range;
• draft a new agreement listing the employees and the chosen venue;
• if the venue changes, check that the hosting conditions remain compliant.

Take action

Structuring a coherent in-house and open-enrolment offer — pricing, template agreements, a needs-analysis framework adapted to each mode — is part of the templates included in the Complete Kit Certif (€297, 14-day guarantee). Just starting out and want to build this catalogue from day one? The ebook “Create your training organisation in 30 days” (€67) guides you step by step, or choose the full pack (€347) that combines both.