Qualiopi indicator 17 (human and technical resources): expected evidence and mistakes to avoid

Resources advertised on your website but nowhere to be found on audit day, a virtual classroom with no assistance procedure: indicator 17 sanctions the gap between what you promise and what you show. Attached to criterion 4 of the framework (educational, technical and supervisory resources), a gap here is classed as a major non-conformity. Here is what the auditor actually checks, the evidence that convinces, and the mistakes that appear most often in audit reports.

What indicator 17 requires

The official indicator 17 fact sheet requires you to mobilise human resources (trainers, supervision, support functions) and technical resources (premises, equipment, digital tools) genuinely adapted to each service, and to demonstrate their existence and consistency with your commercial commitments. Three points structure the requirement:

• adequacy between the announced resources and the actual nature of the service — a standard meeting room is not suited to a manual-handling course;
• demonstrability: what matters is not how rich the resources are, but your ability to prove they exist and work on the day;
• documentary consistency between your programmes, your website, your agreements and what the auditor observes on site.

You can place this requirement within the framework as a whole using the table of the 32 indicators, and gauge its real weight with our article on indicators carrying a major non-conformity. Good news for anyone setting up a training organisation: this indicator does not call for heavy investment, only demonstrable consistency between what you sell and what you actually deliver.

What the auditor checks on the day

The auditor starts from your programmes, your commercial materials and your agreements, then verifies that the announced resources actually exist and work. In particular, they examine:

• the premises used (owned rooms, occasional rental, delivery at the client’s site) and their suitability for the number of participants;
• teaching equipment: projector, flipchart, computer workstations, technical platforms for practical courses;
• remote-learning tools: LMS platform, virtual-classroom licence, technical prerequisites communicated to learners and assistance in case of connection issues — a point directly tied to our detailed obligations on distance learning (FOAD);
• human resources: number of trainers, supervision ratio, support functions (administrative management, disability referent);
• the overall consistency between commercial documents, programmes and what is observable during the audit.

At an initial audit, the auditor reasons on the resources planned for your first sessions. At a surveillance or renewal audit, they check against real learner files, backed by invoices and schedules. If your courses take place in dedicated premises, also keep in mind the obligations that come with them: our guide on training rooms and ERP obligations usefully complements this indicator.

The resource table: the centrepiece

The central piece of evidence for indicator 17 is a resource table per service — a document that, on its own, structures most of the audit interview on this point. Building it, step by step:

1. List your services, then, for each one, the human and technical resources actually required.
2. Formalise your room solutions: a room rental contract or agreement, a coworking-space access certificate, or an explicit mention of on-site delivery at the client’s premises.
3. Document remote learning: the platform used, the technical prerequisites sent before the session, the technical assistance procedure during the course.
4. Describe your human resources in an organisation chart, even a simplified one if you work alone: delivery, administrative management, sales, quality monitoring.
5. Reflect these resources in your programmes, your internal regulations and your agreements — the auditor systematically cross-checks documents against each other.

This table is not just an audit requirement. The consistency between mobilised resources and a course’s objectives is a documented determinant of its real effectiveness: a study by Tracey, Tannenbaum and Kavanagh, published in 1995 in the Journal of Applied Psychology and conducted among 505 store managers across 52 establishments, shows that the work environment — the transfer climate and organisational support available when applying newly learned skills — strongly conditions whether training is actually put into practice (see the study on Google Scholar). An adapted environment is therefore not just an audit requirement: it is a condition of pedagogical effectiveness itself.

The evidence that passes the audit

Here are documents actually presented at audit and judged convincing for indicator 17:

• The resource table per service, one row per course, resources in columns — the document the auditor asks for first.
• A standard room rental agreement, backed by two or three invoices from past bookings: proof that an organisation without its own premises can mobilise suitable rooms.
• A screenshot of the LMS platform with the active licence, or the corresponding subscription invoice.
• The standard email of technical prerequisites sent before each virtual classroom: minimum configuration, connection test, assistance link.
• A functional organisation chart, even a single-person one: delivery, administration, sales, quality — four boxes and one name are enough for a sole trader.
• The technical assistance procedure for distance learning: contact point, response time, fallback solution (replay, catch-up session).

The mistakes that cost a major non-conformity

Gaps found on indicator 17 tend to look alike from one audit report to the next:

• announcing resources that do not exist: an “equipped technical platform” or a “state-of-the-art LMS” the organisation cannot show on the day;
• forgetting technical assistance for remote courses, even though it is the point auditors probe most with digital organisations;
• presenting premises unsuited to the nature of the service or the number of participants;
• providing no proof of the ability to rent rooms (no agreement, no invoice);
• inconsistencies between the website, the programmes and the training agreements;
• neglecting support human resources (administrative, disability referent) in the organisation chart.

Each of these mistakes can be fixed within days if you start from your existing programmes. An honest Qualiopi self-assessment, indicator by indicator, remains the best way to spot an incomplete resource table before the auditor does.

What changes with the 33-indicator framework

Decree n° 2026-728 of 1 August 2026, published in the Official Journal on 4 August 2026, moves the National Quality Framework from 32 to 33 indicators as of 1 November 2026, without renumbering the existing indicators. Indicator 17 therefore keeps its number and content in the new version of the framework: the compliance work presented here remains valid after that date.

Take action

Indicator 17 can be prepared in a few days if you start from your programmes: an up-to-date resource table, a standard room rental agreement and a technical assistance procedure are enough in most cases. The Complete Kit Certif (€297, 14-day guarantee) includes the resource table template, the resource-mobilisation procedure and the expected evidence for the 32 indicators. The ebook “Setting up your training organisation in 30 days” (€67) helps you size your resources from day one, and the Full Pack (€347) combines both.