Executive Summary

Working together: Industry and VET provider training partnerships

Purpose of the research

• What is the nature of the training partnerships?
• What is the training model being used, including the extent to which training models vary in their levels of flexibility, customisation, administrative arrangements, and the formality of the training relationship?
• What are the people skills being required by VET providers to build and maintain these partnerships?
• What are partners learning and needing to improve?
• What are some practical guidelines that VET and other professionals can use in setting up and managing successful industry–provider training partnerships?

Findings

What is the nature of the training partnerships?

• were set up and/or managed in the VET sector by senior managers, heads of school, and business development managers/partnership development managers or persons of similar title
• involved a core group of provider and industry staff who managed the partnership or multiple partnerships
• were mostly multiple smaller partnerships worth less than $200 000 gross annually, with a small percentage generating a million dollars or more in gross income annually. Overall, there was a ‘break-even’ attitude about many partnerships, in that the financial benefits were being viewed
• against a range of non-financial returns which made continuing the relationships worthwhile
• involved one industry partner and one provider in the vast majority of cases, but in a small number of cases, multiple players were involved, sometimes as consortia
• involved predominantly a local industry partner and provider situated within close geographic
• proximity to each other, although some partnerships were interstate and others were based off shore
• were ongoing relationships, often involving more than just direct delivery of training and, as a result, often had no defined end date.

In relation to providers, the three major drivers for establishing training partnerships were to generate additional revenue, to provide staff with stronger links with industry, and to build additional capabilities in their staff. For industry and employers, the gains included an enhanced industry capacity to focus on their core business, and to deal with a skills shortage. Financial benefits included access to a range of funds which allowed support for specific training. State government support packages were often major drivers for the growth of training partnerships.

Partnerships were spread fairly evenly across three types of partnering—those involving the poolingof existing resources, joint ventures combining the training capability of the partners, and partnerships based upon various enhancements to training models. Most operated under some form of formal partnership agreement. Providers wanted to expand into more partnerships involving joint ventures with various industry bodies and organisations. They believed that joint ventures allowed them to demonstrate their ability to work with a variety of partners in a commercial environment.

Providers considered that there was strong support in their organisations for seeking training partnerships with industry, and developing profitable partnerships was a major objective of the VET providers. However, in a number of instances, VET providers were less clear about the strategic objectives of industry–training partnerships. Industry, for its part, identified a number of barriers to partnering. These barriers included procedures, structures and accountability mechanisms within training organisations which slowed down the establishment of partnerships, as well as their day-today management.

What is the training model being used, including to what extent do training models vary in their levels of flexibility, customisation and administrative arrangements?

The research investigated the ability of training organisations to respond to industry needs through adjustments in their approach to training.

The findings demonstrated that:

• Training involved substantial levels of flexibility and the use of a variety of modes of delivery.
• Methods of delivery included the use of in-class material, self-paced material, (which was predominantly computer-based and website learning), ‘chalk-and-talk’ classroom teaching, and intensive blocks or staggered attendance programs. Other modes included multiple offerings to allow for shift workers, or ‘tag-team teaching’ with a theory-based technical and further education (TAFE) lecturer and practice-oriented business worker both delivering the same course. Experienced employees were being trained at Certificate IV in Workplace Assessment and Training level to provide further flexibility for delivery options and training schedules.
• High levels of customisation were a key feature of these larger training partnerships. Businesses wanted the training to be highly customised and contextualised to meet their requirements.
• Partners used a variety of administrative mechanisms to maximise the levels of communication within the partnership and, in turn, to build upon levels of trust. The advisory committee, comprised of representatives from industry and the training provider, was a major device used to manage the partnership and to maintain high levels of communication.
• As a result of the flexibility of the training, many industry respondents rated the level of training as world class.

What are the people skills being required by VET providers to build and maintain these partnerships?

Both providers and industry highlighted the importance of having high levels of mutual trust within the partnership, with mutual trust being a major driver for extending the partnership. Industry partners in particular believed that the strength of their personal relationships with training managers and the teachers at the training institution was central to creating a sustainable and continuing partnership.

Employers wanted a long-term relationship where possible. As far as employers were concerned, the best partnerships grew over time, were dynamic and evolving, and often operated on a three-year cycle.

Successful partnerships were sustainable financially, but partnerships were not expected to be highly profitable; rather, employers and training providers talked about a ‘break-even’ outcome initially being the primary goal, whereby a mix of financial and non-financial outcomes was realised from the training partnership.

The most successful partnerships were characterised by high levels of cooperation between the two organisations which basically relied on the good relationships and communication between several key people from both sides. Both parties were interested in supporting each other and in meeting their existing and emergent business objectives. They were using each other’s contacts to increase business opportunities, and were investigating the possibility of joint bidding approaches in several countries and in other states.

What are partners learning and needing to improve?

Training organisations believed that they were performing well in their partnerships. They were especially positive about the people and relationship management skills of VET staff, and the ability of the institution to customise and to be flexible in its training approach.

Providers were positive about the performance of their respective industry partners. Over three-quarters of providers believed that staff were comfortable with sharing new ideas which would improve future partnerships. However, the communication across the institution about what was being learned from these larger training partnerships left room for improvement.

Businesses were concerned that many TAFE trainers still did not possess the up-to-date industry knowledge and commercial ‘savvy’ necessary to assist them to stay current with industry best practice. Training organisations and employers alike wanted those involved in partnering to have a more hard-edged attitude to financial risk management, a greater understanding of commercial issues, especially where ventures and risks were being shared between partners, and a better knowledge of pricing, costing and valuing of intellectual property.

What are some practical guidelines that VET and other professionals can use in setting up and managing successful industry–provider training partnerships?

Based upon the findings of the research, the following general guidelines emerge for training providers:

• Recognise the competitive realities businesses are facing as they try to build training and ongoing skills development into their organisations or industries.
• Build as much flexibility and customisation into the training as is feasible and manageable within the allocated budget.
• Given the time involved in establishing a larger training partnership, support the establishment of longer-term partnerships.
• Accept that a ‘break-even’ outcome initially may be the best financial result that a training provider may achieve, particularly since some outcomes may not be realised in financial terms.
• Find and then develop staff who have special responsibilities for initiating and managing the start-up stages of larger training partnerships.
• Assemble a core of individuals who want to be responsible for the successful management of the partnership and the achievement of its training objectives.
• Ensure that senior management becomes committed early to the partnership. This can be achieved by demonstrating evidence of the financial and non-financial returns to the training organisation and the industry partner through an investment in training.
• Build a learning environment within the partnership where individuals are encouraged to seek and provide regular feedback and review.
• Build staff capability in the many skills which support partnering, particularly communication and entrepreneurial skills.
• Assume that, over time, the quality of the relationship developed will prove to be a more important issue to the industry partner than the actual financial cost of the training to them.

Copyright © NCVER 2003-2008    ABN 87 007 967 311