Corporate Training
Training is not the deliverable. Capability is.
Aevis delivers practical, role-based training aligned with your technology environment and business needs—helping teams apply new skills with confidence and build lasting capability.
- Delivered by engineers who run production
- Labs on your environment, not a generic sandbox
- Capability measured after, not attendance recorded
10
capability areas under one contract
04
delivery shapes, priced differently
06
practices supplying the practitioners
The challenge
What usually brings a training conversation to us.
Rarely a shortage of available courses. Far more often a gap between what was taught and what the job on Monday actually required.
A platform bought and a team that cannot use it
The licence renews annually and the organisation uses a fraction of what it pays for, because capability was assumed to arrive with the product rather than planned for alongside it.
Generic courseware against a specific estate
The training used a vendor’s reference architecture. Your environment has fifteen years of decisions in it, and the first real task after the course is one the course never described.
No idea what the team can currently do
Training is commissioned against a job title rather than against an assessed gap, so half the room already knew it and the other half needed something earlier.
Certification treated as evidence of capability
People passed. Whether anybody can now perform the task under production conditions is a separate question, and it is usually the one that was actually being asked.
Nothing changed about the work they returned to
The new practice required a change to a process, a permission or a tool that nobody had arranged, so the capability decayed within a month and the training was blamed.
Delivered months before it is needed
A programme trains its teams at kick-off and puts them on the tools a quarter later. What survives that gap is the confidence rather than the skill.
Capability that leaves with individuals
The organisation invested in three people, two moved on, and there is no material, no internal trainer and no documentation to rebuild from.
Attendance recorded, outcome unknown
The report says ninety-four people were trained. Nobody can say what any of them can now do that they could not before, so the next budget conversation has no evidence in it.
The service
Capability built against the work it is for.
Aevis delivers technology training for enterprise teams — service management, cloud and infrastructure, security operations, the workplace estate, software engineering, and data and AI literacy. What makes it different from courseware is not the syllabus, which is broadly public. It is that the people teaching it operate estates for a living, and that the labs run against your environment rather than against a reference one.
Every engagement starts with an assessment rather than a booking, because a course commissioned against a job title trains half the room in what it already knew. The assessment establishes what the team can currently do, what the work will require of them, and — frequently — that the gap is narrower and more specific than the request assumed. We have talked clients out of programmes on that basis, and the assessment usually pays for itself in the sessions it removes.
The design then covers what surrounds the training, which is where most of the failures actually live: the permission that has to exist before the practice can be used, the process that has to change, the moment in the delivery plan when it should land, and how capability is checked afterwards. Training that is delivered into an unchanged environment decays, and no amount of teaching quality prevents that.
- Engagement type
- Assessed programme, embedded enablement, academy, train-the-trainer
- Coverage
- Service management, cloud, security, workplace, software, data and AI
- Delivery mode
- On-site, virtual or blended, in cohorts or embedded
- Governance
- Baseline assessment, post-delivery capability check, named owner
Capabilities
Core capabilities.
Ten capability areas. The first two shape any engagement; the next six are the subject domains; the last two are what makes the difference between having been taught and being able to do it.
Capability assessment and gap analysis
Establishing what the team can currently do against what the work will require, before anything is scheduled — the stage that most often changes the request.
- Assessment against the tasks the role actually performs, not a syllabus
- Individual results held confidentially; the organisation sees the aggregate
- Gaps separated into training, tooling, permission and process causes
- An honest statement where the gap is not a training problem at all
Role-based learning pathways
A sequence per role rather than a catalogue, so that what somebody learns in March is what they will be asked to do in April.
- Pathways built from the role’s real tasks and their order of difficulty
- Prerequisites made explicit so cohorts start from a common floor
- Timing aligned to the delivery plan rather than to trainer availability
- Progression a person and their manager can both see
Service management and ITSM practice
ITIL-aligned practice and platform capability for the people who operate the workflow spine, taught around the platform you actually run.
- Practice foundations and the reasoning behind them, not terminology drills
- Platform administration, configuration and workflow design
- CMDB, discovery and the discipline that keeps a configuration record true
- Reporting and measure design for people who will be asked for evidence
Cloud and infrastructure engineering
Platform, automation and operations capability for teams running cloud estates — including the cost and recovery practices that are usually taught last and needed first.
- Landing zones, guardrails and policy-as-code practice
- Infrastructure as code, pipelines and environment provisioning
- Observability, capacity and cost ownership as one discipline
- Backup, recovery and continuity rehearsed rather than described
Security operations and awareness
Two distinct audiences taught differently: analysts and engineers who operate the controls, and the wider workforce whose behaviour is the largest surface.
- Analyst triage, investigation and playbook practice on real telemetry
- Secure configuration, identity and vulnerability ownership for engineers
- Workforce awareness built around your actual threats, not generic phishing
- Incident-response rehearsal, including the decisions nobody wants to make live
Software engineering and delivery practice
Modern delivery capability for teams that build and maintain software, taught by engineers who also have to operate what gets shipped.
- Testing, review and pipeline practice as delivery discipline rather than ceremony
- Secure development practice, threat modelling and dependency hygiene
- Integration, API and modernisation patterns against your own systems
- Operability: what a design costs to run, argued while it is still cheap to change
Platform and product enablement
Getting value from software you have already licensed — the engagement clients most often reach for, and the one with the clearest business case.
- Enablement built around your configuration, not the vendor’s demonstration tenant
- Administrator, power-user and end-user tracks separated properly
- Adoption barriers identified and addressed alongside the teaching
- Handover material that outlives the engagement
Data and AI literacy
What these tools can and cannot be relied on for, taught to the people who will use them — including where a human decision is not optional.
- Practical use, prompt discipline and verification habits
- Data handling: what may be put where, and why it matters
- Where a model’s output must be checked, and what checking means
- Governance for teams adopting assistive tools inside existing controls
Hands-on labs in your environment
The part that decides whether any of the rest transfers. Exercises are built against your estate, its conventions and its awkward parts.
- Labs modelled on your architecture, naming and tooling
- Scenarios drawn from your own incident and change history where permitted
- Non-production environments used, with access scoped and time-bound
- Exercises the learner keeps, so practice can continue after the session
Certification readiness and internal enablement
Preparation for vendor examinations where a certification is genuinely required, and train-the-trainer work where the capability should belong to you permanently.
- Readiness assessment before an exam is booked rather than after a failure
- Preparation separated from capability building, because they are not the same
- Train-the-trainer so your own people can run the material afterwards
- Course material and labs handed over as a deliverable, not retained by us
AI-assisted enablement
AI helps us prepare the material. It does not assess your people.
Two separate things: the AI and data capability clients now ask us to teach, and the assistance we use in building and adapting material. The second has a hard limit, and it is stated below rather than implied.
AI and data literacy curriculum
Practical capability for teams adopting assistive tools — what to rely on them for, how to verify, and what must not leave your environment.
Assisted material authoring
Drafting exercises, scenarios and lab variants faster, so that material can be tailored to one client’s estate rather than reused generically.
Adaptive pathway suggestions
Surfacing where a cohort is diverging from the expected pace, for a trainer to interpret and act on.
What stays human — without exception
Aevis does not use AI to assess an individual, to grade an exercise or to produce a competency judgement about a named person. Every assessment result, capability finding and recommendation is made by a practitioner and remains the accountable judgement of the person who made it. No AI-generated technical content reaches a learner without practitioner review — an incorrect explanation delivered confidently is worse than no training at all.
How value is measured
- Baseline-to-post capability change per cohort
- Task completion under production-like conditions
- Practitioner correction rate on generated material
- Capability retention at ninety days
- Adoption of the practice in live work
Learner data
Assessment results are personal data. They are processed for the agreed enablement purpose only, under the client’s and the individual’s applicable data-protection terms, shared with the organisation in aggregate rather than by name unless the individual agrees otherwise, and are not used to train models.
Outcomes
What changes for the business.
Operational changes rather than promises. Each one is visible in an engagement review, and each is stated as something that can be checked.
A stated capability position
The organisation can say what its teams can do against what the work requires, per role, rather than inferring it from job titles and certificates.
Capability that survives contact with the estate
Labs run against your environment and its awkward parts, so the first real task after the training is not the first unfamiliar one.
More of the software you already pay for, used
Enablement built around your configuration usually recovers value from an existing licence faster than any other intervention available at the same cost.
Capability held by the organisation
Material, labs and — where train-the-trainer is contracted — the ability to run them are yours at the end, so a departure is not a return to the starting position.
Fewer engagements bought to cover a gap
Where a capability can be built internally more cheaply than it can be contracted repeatedly, the assessment says so, and some of those conclusions are worth less revenue to us than the alternative.
Evidence for the next budget conversation
Post-delivery capability checks give the training line an outcome rather than an attendance figure, which is the difference between defending it and justifying it.
Delivery
How an engagement runs.
The same eight stages every Aevis engagement uses, applied to capability rather than to a system. The assessment stage is where most of the value is decided, and it is the stage clients most often want to skip.
Discovery
The work the capability is for — what the team will be asked to do, by when, under what constraints, and what has already been tried.
OutputA description of the capability gap, not a course request
Assessment
What the team can currently do, established against real tasks. Gaps are separated into training, tooling, permission and process causes, because only one of those is fixed by teaching.
OutputBaseline capability position with the causes separated
Design
Pathways per role, cohort composition, delivery shape and timing against the delivery plan — plus what has to change in the environment for the capability to be usable.
OutputAgreed pathway design and the environment changes it depends on
Build
Material and labs built against your estate: your architecture, your naming, your conventions and, where permitted, scenarios from your own history.
OutputClient-specific material and working lab environments
Delivery
Sessions run by practitioners from the relevant practice, in cohorts or embedded alongside live work, with the exercises retained by the learner.
OutputDelivered cohorts with completed exercises
Application
The period that decides whether it worked: supported use of the new practice in real work, with the practitioner reachable while it is still unfamiliar.
OutputThe practice in live use, with support available
Capability check
A post-delivery check against the baseline, under production-like conditions rather than as a quiz, reported to the organisation in aggregate.
OutputBaseline-to-post capability report
Handover or continuation
Material and labs handed over, train-the-trainer completed where contracted, and any remaining gap named honestly rather than converted into a follow-on by default.
OutputHanded-over material, or a next stage with a stated reason
Engagement models
The same sequence, contracted three ways. The split of responsibility is written down before the service starts.
Assessed programme
Assessment, design, delivery and a capability check as one priced engagement against a defined gap. The shape for a specific capability the organisation has decided it needs.
Embedded enablement
A practitioner working alongside the team on live work, teaching as it happens. Slower per person and considerably more durable, and the right shape where the gap is judgement rather than knowledge.
Cohort academy
A recurring intake — graduates, career changers or a ramp cohort — taken along a defined pathway to a stated operating standard, usually against a hiring or transition plan.
Train-the-trainer
Your own people enabled to run the material, with the material handed over. The shape to choose when the capability should belong to you permanently rather than be repurchased.
Platforms
Subjects and technologies.
What we teach and the environments we teach it in. Depth is concentrated where Aevis also operates, because that is where a practitioner can teach the awkward parts rather than the documented ones.
Service management
- ServiceNow
- Jira Service Management
- ITIL 4 practice
- Service catalogue and CMDB
Cloud and infrastructure
- Microsoft Azure
- AWS
- Terraform
- Kubernetes
Security
- SOC analyst practice
- Microsoft Defender and Sentinel
- Identity and access
- Vulnerability management
Workplace and endpoint
- Microsoft Intune
- Configuration Manager
- Jamf
- Microsoft 365 administration
Software engineering
- .NET
- Java
- Node.js and TypeScript
- React
DevOps and automation
- CI/CD practice
- Infrastructure as code
- Git and review discipline
- Observability engineering
Data and reporting
- SQL and data modelling
- Power BI
- Data engineering practice
- Integration and API design
Practice and literacy
- AI and assistive tooling
- Secure development
- Incident-response rehearsal
- Technical documentation
Industries
Where this work lands.
The same capability, constrained differently. What a sector requires of a trained person is often a stricter question than what the technology does.
Banking and Financial Services
Control and evidence practice taught alongside the technical skill, so that a newly capable engineer does not become a newly capable source of undocumented change.
Insurance
Platform enablement around policy, claims and document systems, where the capability gap is usually in the integration layer rather than in the core product.
Healthcare and Life Sciences
Change discipline in validated environments taught explicitly, because ordinary IT practice applied to a qualified system is a deviation rather than a rollback.
Manufacturing and Automotive
Site-based delivery around shift patterns, and IT/OT boundary awareness for enterprise teams whose work now touches plant environments.
Hi-Tech and Semiconductor
Depth at short notice for engineering platforms, with material built against the toolchain in use rather than against a vendor’s reference stack.
Consumer Goods and Retail
Cohort readiness ahead of the trading peak and inside the change freeze, when teaching is one of the few interventions the freeze permits.
Energy and Utilities
Capability transfer on long-lived systems, where recovering undocumented behaviour into teachable material is frequently the more valuable half of the work.
IT, BPO and Professional Services
Academy intakes and ramp cohorts taken to a stated operating standard, so that scaling a delivery floor does not mean scaling its variation.
Why Aevis
Why Aevis for training.
Service-specific differentiation. These are the reasons this practice is structured the way it is, not general company claims.
Taught by people who operate estates
The trainer comes from the practice that does the work, so the questions that begin "but in our environment…" get an answer rather than a note to follow up. That is also the constraint on our capacity, and we would rather be constrained than staff it with career trainers.
We assess before we schedule
A course commissioned against a job title trains half the room in what it already knew. The assessment usually narrows the request, and it has more than once removed it — the gap turned out to be a permission nobody had granted.
Labs on your environment, not a sandbox
Material is built against your architecture, naming and conventions, including the parts that are not clean. The alternative teaches a reference implementation nobody in the room will ever meet.
We design what surrounds the training
The permission, process and timing that let a new practice be used are part of the engagement, because capability delivered into an unchanged environment decays and the teaching gets blamed for it.
Capability checked, not attendance recorded
A post-delivery check against the baseline, under production-like conditions, reported in aggregate. It is the only way the training line survives a budget review on evidence rather than on faith.
The material is yours
Course material and labs are handed over as a deliverable rather than retained as our asset, and train-the-trainer is offered rather than resisted. A supplier whose commercial model depends on you not keeping the capability is the wrong supplier for this.
We will tell you not to buy training
Where the gap is tooling, staffing or a process nobody owns, the assessment says so and recommends the thing that would actually work — including, sometimes, a service we do not sell.
We do not sell certificates as capability
Aevis prepares people for vendor examinations where one is genuinely required and separates that from capability building, because passing an exam and being able to perform the task under production conditions are different achievements.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions.
Answers are written to the same discipline as the rest of the page: they describe what the service does and, where the honest answer is "no provider can", they say that instead.
Do you certify our people?
No. Aevis is not an accredited examination body and holds no vendor-authorised training partnership unless a specific engagement says otherwise. We prepare people for vendor examinations where a certification is genuinely required, and the exam, the voucher and the certificate come from the vendor. We also keep preparation separate from capability building, because passing an exam and being able to do the job are different achievements and conflating them is how organisations end up with certified teams that cannot yet operate.
Why do you insist on assessing first?
Because a course commissioned against a job title trains half the room in something it already knew, and because a surprising proportion of what arrives as a training request is not a training problem. Permissions, tooling and an unowned process all present as a capability gap. The assessment separates those, and it routinely makes the engagement smaller than the one that was asked for.
Should we train our team or hire the capability?
It depends on how long you need it and how transferable it is. A capability the organisation will need indefinitely is usually cheaper to build than to contract repeatedly; a specialist skill needed for one six-month programme rarely is. The assessment gives a view on which of those you are looking at, and where the answer is hiring we will say so — Staffing Solutions is a different practice and a different purchase.
Do the labs really run on our environment?
In non-production environments, yes, and it is the design decision that most affects whether the training transfers. Access is scoped to what the exercises require and time-bound to the engagement. Where an environment cannot be made available we build the closest representation we can from your architecture and conventions, and we say plainly what that representation does not cover.
How do you show it worked?
A baseline before and a capability check afterwards, both against real tasks under production-like conditions rather than as a quiz. Results reach the organisation in aggregate; individual results stay with the individual unless they agree otherwise, because an assessment that people believe is a performance review stops measuring capability and starts measuring caution.
Who owns the material afterwards?
You do. Course material and labs built for your engagement are handed over as a deliverable, and train-the-trainer is available so that your own people can run subsequent intakes. We are aware that this makes repeat business less automatic; a supplier whose model depends on you not keeping the capability is the wrong supplier for this work.
On-site or virtual?
Either, and blended for most programmes. Virtual works well for content and badly for the exercises where a trainer needs to see somebody hesitate. Where the cohort is distributed we usually recommend virtual delivery with on-site or embedded lab time, and we will tell you when a subject genuinely needs the room.
What size are the cohorts?
Small enough that everybody does the exercises, which in practice means single figures to low teens for hands-on work and more for content sessions. We would rather run three cohorts than one large one, and we price it that way rather than quoting a per-head rate that quietly rewards filling the room.
When should the training happen?
As close to the work as the delivery plan allows. Training delivered a quarter before the tools arrive leaves confidence rather than skill, which is worse than nothing because it hides the gap. The design stage places the sessions against your plan, and if that plan makes good timing impossible we would rather say so than deliver into a gap.
Do we have to use your other services?
No. Training is contracted entirely on its own terms and a single-service relationship is a completely normal outcome. Where Aevis also runs your estate the benefit is that the trainers already know it — an argument for taking more, never a condition of this working.
Corporate training enquiry
Start with the gap, not the course.
The most useful first conversation is not a syllabus. It is what your team will be asked to do, by when, and what happens today when they try — because that is what decides whether this is a training problem at all.
- Response
- One working day, Monday to Friday