Qualiopi indicator 30 (gathering feedback): expected evidence and mistakes to avoid

Indicator 30 opens criterion 7 of the Qualiopi framework, devoted to feedback and complaints: it is the starting point of the quality loop. It looks simple — gather opinions — and that is precisely what makes it treacherous: many providers reduce it to the trainee satisfaction questionnaire, whereas the framework targets all the stakeholders. A gap is sanctioned as a major non-conformity and the indicator applies to all categories of action: training providers (OF), apprenticeship centres (CFA), VAE and skills assessments (CBC). Here is what the auditor expects, the evidence that hits home and the mistakes that keep appearing in reports.

What indicator 30 requires

The indicator 30 fact sheet sums up the obligation: gather feedback from the stakeholders — beneficiaries, funders, companies and teaching teams — and be able to present the results. Two distinct requirements, therefore:

• organised gathering: tools, a distribution circuit, a schedule — not opinions picked up at random in the corridors;
• presentable results: compilation, analysis, a summary per session. Handing out questionnaires is not enough; you must show what they say.

As the first indicator of criterion 7, it feeds everything that follows: the handling of complaints and the continuous improvement process. Deficient gathering derails the whole chain — which is what justifies the classification as a major non-conformity. In other words, the auditor does not look at this indicator in isolation: they check that your feedback genuinely nourishes the rest of your quality approach. To place the indicator within the framework as a whole, see the table of the 32 indicators.

Stakeholders in the plural

The classic mistake is reducing the indicator to the trainee satisfaction survey. The framework speaks of stakeholders in the plural, and the auditor checks that your gathering covers those that actually exist in your activity:

• beneficiaries: trainees, apprentices, VAE candidates, skills-assessment beneficiaries;
• funders: OPCO, client companies, the Caisse des Dépôts for CPF-funded courses;
• host companies, where relevant: employers of apprentices, companies hosting work-study or immersion trainees;
• teaching teams: in-house or subcontracted trainers, whose feedback is a source of improvement in its own right.

The expected coverage depends on your actual activity: an independent trainer working directly with client companies does not have the same scope as a CFA. What matters is being able to justify the scope chosen — and not having forgotten an obvious stakeholder in your model.

The hot / cold pairing: the expected standard

The framework does not explicitly impose the hot / cold questionnaire duo, but it has become the expected standard at audit:

• the hot evaluation, at the end of the session, measures immediate satisfaction: content, delivery, organisation, perceived achievement of objectives;
• the cold evaluation, a few weeks or months later, measures the transfer of learning into the work situation.

This pairing also secures indicators 11 and 32: it provides evidence on the achievement of objectives and feeds the measurement of results. A structured satisfaction questionnaire template, possibly supplemented by an NPS in training, gives a consistent frame from one session to the next.

A useful clarification for understanding the framework’s logic: the meta-analysis by Bob Uttl, Carmela A. White and Daniela Wong Gonzalez published in 2017 in Studies in Educational Evaluation (« Meta-analysis of faculty’s teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related ») shows that the satisfaction ratings given by learners are not correlated with their actual learning. The satisfaction questionnaire measures a perception, not learning outcomes — which explains why the framework distinguishes the gathering of feedback (indicator 30) from the assessment of learning (indicator 11), and requires the gathering to be extended to all stakeholders rather than relying solely on trainees’ impressions.

The evidence that convinces the auditor

On audit day, prepare a file that shows the tools, their actual use and the exploitation of the data all at once:

• the hot and cold questionnaires, with their distribution arrangements (QR code at the end of the session, automated email, follow-up at D+90…);
• the feedback templates for funders and commissioning clients: a short form or a review-meeting outline is enough, if it is genuinely used;
• the trainers’ session reports, or self-review session reports for the independent trainer;
• the compilation table per session: response rate, averages per item, striking verbatims;
• examples of genuinely completed questionnaires, proving that the source data exists;
• evidence of chasing non-respondents: reminder emails, a procedure for monitoring the response rate.

The compilation table is the piece that makes the difference: it turns scattered questionnaires into presentable results — exactly what the indicator requires. No need to multiply sophisticated tools: a spreadsheet kept up to date, session after session, is worth more than a survey platform that is never exploited. The auditor prefers a modest but living arrangement to an over-engineered system that has remained theoretical.

New entrant: a ready arrangement, in lieu of results

A provider going into its initial audit without any completed session benefits from the new-entrant accommodation: the auditor assesses the arrangement, not yet its results. Three elements to present:

1. ready-to-use questionnaires (hot, cold, funder template);
2. the planned distribution circuit: who sends what, when, through which channel;
3. the prepared compilation table, even if empty, with its monitoring indicators.

Beware: actual implementation will be checked at the surveillance audit. An arrangement still theoretical eighteen months after certification then becomes a gap. The right reflex is therefore to trigger the gathering circuit from the very first session, even with a single trainee, and to feed the compilation table as you go rather than reconstructing everything the night before the next audit.

The frequent mistakes on indicator 30

• Gathering only the trainees’ opinions, forgetting funders, companies and teaching teams — the most common gap.
• Distributing without compiling: well-designed questionnaires, never analysed or summarised. Without presentable results, the indicator is not satisfied.
• Displaying satisfaction rates without source data: the figures published under indicator 2 must be traceable back to the questionnaires; see how satisfaction rates and results indicators fit together.
• Changing the scale at every session: mixed rating scales (out of 5, out of 10, smileys…) make any synthesis impossible.
• Presenting only blank templates when sessions have taken place: the auditor expects completed questionnaires and a populated table.

Take action

The Complete Kit Certif (€297, 14-day guarantee) includes the hot and cold questionnaires, the funder feedback template, the trainer session report and the compilation table for indicator 30. The ebook “Create your training organisation in 30 days” (€67) builds the feedback arrangement in from creation, and the full pack (€347) bundles both.