Research was carried out within Australian enterprises in the second
half of 2003 in order to gain a greater understanding of how and
why enterprises use nationally recognised training for their existing
workers. Nationally recognised training means training based on
national training packages or courses/programs that have been formally
accredited through state or territory accreditation bodies. Existing
workers are those who are not newly recruited from outside. In this
study such training includes various levels of the certificates
in hospitality delivered to all the food and beverage workers of
a hospitality company, and the introduction of call centre qualifications
for all customer service operators in a call centre.
The findings of the case studies concurred to a great extent
with those of the survey and focus group. However, since they
involved the views of line managers, trainers and workers, as
well as human resource and training staff, the enterprise case
studies provided greater depth. A reference group representing
stakeholder groups provided advice at several stages of the project.
Findings
While to some extent it is difficult to separate training in
general from nationally recognised training, the research participants
in both the qualitative and quantitative phases of the study were
able to discuss ‘nationally recognised training’ as
a specific type of training. Some of the findings relating to
the nature of enterprises using nationally recognised training,
however, are also findings that might be expected of enterprises
that are heavy users of training in general.
Enterprises that used nationally recognised training were likely
to:
- have large numbers of staff in particular occupations
- have significant geographical concentrations
- have established training infrastructure and some evidence
of a training culture
- know a great deal about most aspects of nationally recognised
training.
Enterprises that took the ‘extra step’ to become
enterprise registered training organisations were likely to:
- have highly specialised skill needs for large groups of workers
- be in service sector industries
- not be subject to rapid organisational or technological change
- not utilise vendor or proprietary training, or training from
industry associations to any large extent
- involve unions in training decisions
- need flexibility in training delivery.
Decisions by enterprises to adopt nationally recognised training
were complex and were not once-only decisions. While companies
made an initial decision either to become an enterprise registered
training organisation or to purchase training from an external
registered training organisation(s), every time a new training
requirement presented itself, enterprise registered training organisations
needed to make decisions afresh about whether to use their registered
training organisation status or to seek training externally. Further
decisions were then made by all enterprises using nationally recognised
training about whether the training should be in the workplace,
or (in cases of purchasing) at the registered training organisation
premises, and (if in the workplace), whether it should be on the
job or off the job. In the final chapter of the report, a model
is presented which illustrates these decision-making processes.
The process of embedding nationally recognised training within
enterprises is described in the report as a three-phase process
of engagement, extension and integration. In order to extend the
use of nationally recognised training within an enterprise beyond
the initial phase (which often involved mass training of shopfloor
workers), training staff needed to be able to sell the concept
and use of nationally recognised training to senior managers.
The complexity of the vocational education and training (VET)
system and the high cost of compliance with VET quality requirements
meant that wide-scale use of nationally recognised training was
not a step to be taken lightly. There needed to be a ‘VET
evangelist’ who could persuade management that nationally
recognised training would benefit the enterprise as well as individual
workers. The success of initial engagement and the availability
of suitable nationally recognised training were important factors
here. In the ‘integrated’ phase, competency standards
were used as the basis for many human resource management processes,
such as performance management and recruitment. The use of nationally
recognised training was fragile in the first two phases and could
be abandoned if experiences with a partnering registered training
organisation were poor, or if the nationally recognised training
evangelist left the company. Once nationally recognised training
was fully embedded, it was less likely to be abandoned.
The benefits of nationally recognised training could be clearly
articulated by training and human resource management personnel.
They included:
- a structured approach to training and to career progression
- the opportunity to integrate training with normal work and
to customise training packages to enterprise needs
- confidence in the quality of work undertaken by employees
and the ability to demonstrate this to external parties
- a competitive edge in attracting and retaining staff
- access to funding to help cover training costs
- the ability to reward and motivate employees and validate
their working experiences
- a basis for reshaping human resource management systems around
competency standards.
There was clear evidence that nationally recognised training
was extending the ‘reach’ of enterprise training to
groups of workers who had not previously received structured training
and certainly had not previously received employment-related qualifications.
This opportunity was clearly related to the availability of training
packages covering new industry areas and a broader range of qualifications.
Enterprises reported some difficulties with nationally recognised
training, including the perceived complexity of the system and
the jargon associated with VET. Purchasers were assisted in their
understanding by external registered training organisations (although
information provided was not always complete), while enterprise
registered training organisations were more likely to know how
to get information directly from the Australian National Training
Authority (ANTA) or state training authorities. Registered training
organisations generally reported unsatisfactory experiences with
state accreditation bodies, with many complaints about ‘bureaucracy’
and ‘red tape’. Such experiences appeared to reflect
more than the necessarily stringent requirements of the Australian
Quality Training Framework. Enterprises and their workers reported
problems with training packages and with delivery methods; some
workers did not like on-the-job delivery, while in other cases,
it suited working environments well.
Implications
The project findings indicate that nationally recognised training
has much to offer enterprises, and that many enterprises take
full advantage of the availability of both training packages and
government funding to support and extend their training activities.
However, there appears to be a need for increased national promotion
of nationally recognised training, as not only were some non-users
completely unaware of suitable training packages and qualifications,
but even those who used nationally recognised training were sometimes
unaware of many of the subtleties involved in using packages.
Their complaints about nationally recognised training seemed in
some instances to be related to a lack of understanding of, rather
than deficiencies in, training packages. Increased promotion of
nationally recognised training would also assist evangelists for
nationally recognised training in persuading their senior managers
to accept nationally recognised training. Promotion of this type
of training could include its potential for use in many areas
of human resource management.
Nationally recognised training appears to be suited to meeting
mass training needs, and these are so vital to enterprise needs
that meeting niche training requirements is less important. Niche
training needs are less readily met by nationally recognised training
but appear to be well served by strategies already well known
to enterprises (such as vendor training and proprietary courses).
For enterprise registered training organisations, difficulties
with registration and additions to scope of registration could
be assisted by a body which deals with applications from enterprise
registered training organisations only, or at the very least,
by a one-stop shop of information for enterprises wishing to become
enterprise registered training organisations or to purchase training
from registered training organisations. A disinterested body might
be preferable to the current system, where enterprises that are
not registered training organisations access much of their information
from external registered training organisations whose motivations
may be primarily financial.
It is clear that the use of nationally recognised training by
enterprises is strongly influenced by availability of funding.
However, this study showed that funding could be more closely
targeted to the start-up phase, and consideration could be given
to tapering off funding once nationally recognised training becomes
embedded.
More research is required to examine whether the customisation
of qualifications by or for enterprises compromises the integrity
of the qualifications. If the training becomes too firm-specific,
issues arise, not only about portability of qualifications, but
also about the use of government funding.
