Publication cover of Engaging more employers in nationally recognised training

Engaging more employers in nationally recognised training to develop their workforce

By Kaye Bowman, Victor J Callan Research report 9 December 2021 978-1-925717-86-0

Description

The national vocational education and training (VET) system is best placed to support employers to meet skills shortages brought about by lower migration and up-turns in economic prosperity involving ongoing technological change. However, data from the Survey of Employers’ Use and Views of the VET System show that, prior to the onset of COVID-19 pandemic, employers’ engagement with the VET system had trended downward over the last 14 years up until 2019. This research examined the factors in the current VET environment that influence whether an employer chooses to engage with the national VET system, in particular, with nationally recognised training.

Summary

About the research

Australia’s economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic depends on the ability of employers to fill the skills shortages resulting from lower migration and upturns in economic prosperity associated with ongoing technological change. The national vocational education and training (VET) system is best placed to support employers to meet these skill needs. However, data from the Survey of Employers’ Use and Views of the VET System show that, prior to the onset of the pandemic, employers’ engagement with the VET system had trended downward over the previous14 years up until 2019.

This research examined the factors in the current VET environment that influence employers’ decisions when choosing training options, in particular, nationally recognised training. The research is based on interviews with a range of peak stakeholder bodies in late 2020 and early 2021 and of employers between March and June 2021. The employers were selected from five industries with comparatively low engagement with the national VET system in 2019. The research was supported by a review of the most relevant national and international literature.

Key messages

  • Employers train their workforces to improve their businesses. They use both nationally and non-nationally recognised training and view these two forms of training as complementary. The training is judged by its relevance to the skills needs of their workers; its flexibility in fitting in with their business cycles; the expertise of its provider; and its cost. These factors are more important to employers than its recognition status; that is, whether it is nationally recognised or non-nationally recognised training.
  • Employers who use nationally recognised training highlight its quality and the ability of registered training organisations (RTOs) to make assessments against the industry-developed national performance standards in training packages and in accredited courses, and that it is mandated in some instances.
  • Nationally recognised training is seen as the logical fit for initial training for entry into the workforce and for upskilling in critical new technical skills, those that need to be formally acknowledged or recorded for certification purposes. The challenge is for RTOs to form closer partnerships with employers to understand their needs more fully and customise the curriculum and training delivery accordingly, including complementing other forms of training.

Executive summary

This report explores employer approaches to training their workforce through the use of nationally recognised vocational education and training (VET) as opposed to other forms of training, with the aim of identifying strategies that encourage more employers to use nationally recognised training. This objective is in response to what was, prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, a downward trend in employer engagement with the national VET system, including employers with jobs that require vocational qualifications, those with apprentices and trainees, and those who use nationally recognised training other than through apprenticeships and traineeships; a trend that had occurred in the previous 14 years up until 2019 (NCVER 2019a). The latest Survey of Employer Use and Views of the VET System shows a break in that trend with a higher proportion of employers having new training requirements in 2021 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (NCVER 2021).

What we did

Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with a range of peak stakeholder bodies and employers, with the questions put to interviewees based on a review of the most relevant national and international literature.

Fifteen interviews were held with peak stakeholder bodies in late 2020 and early 2021 on the motivations they understood to be behind industry and employer engagement with training their workforce, and how the use of nationally recognised training might be increased. Interviews were also held with 35 employers between March and June 2021. The employers represent five industry sectors with comparatively low engagement with the national VET system as of 2019, namely agriculture, retail, transport, warehousing, and information media and telecommunications (NCVER 2019b).

The interviews were preceded by a review of the national and international literature to identify the various forms of training employers are using and their reasons for this. We also hoped to identify potential strategies — which could be tested — for increasing support for nationally recognised training among employers in industry sectors with relatively low current use.

To ensure consistency, we defined ‘nationally recognised training’ as ‘training that leads to vocational qualifications and credentials that are recognised across Australia’, deliverable only by registered training organisations (RTOs); and ‘non-nationally recognised training’ as that which does not lead to nationally recognised certification, such as ‘locally developed programs and non-accredited modules or skill sets that can be delivered by all training providers not just RTOs’ (Naidu, Stanwick & Frazer 2020).

What we found

Employers train their workforces to improve their businesses, and judge training by its relevance to the skills needs of their workers; its flexibility in fitting in with their business cycles; the expertise of the training provider; and its affordability. These factors are more important to employers than whether the training is nationally recognised. Employers use both nationally and non-nationally recognised training to train their workers. They see these two forms of training as complementary.

In favour of nationally recognised training

Employers use nationally recognised training because of its quality and the ability of its providers (that is, registered training organisations) to make assessments against industry-developed performance standards in training packages and in accredited courses. Nationally recognised qualifications are mapped to the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF), providing clear directions on career paths. The ability of nationally recognised training to recognise units and skill sets (below the full qualification level) in statements of attainment adds flexibility and enables the provision of short forms of nationally recognised training. In addition, where there are licensing and regulatory requirements, nationally recognised training is a necessity for employers and the workforce.

The key concern for employers is having employees with the required capability to perform the job. Unless there is a regulatory or legislative requirement, some employers are not concerned about their employees completing qualifications or parts thereof, although these may be considered signals of capability. Completing qualifications or parts thereof is more likely to be of interest to employees, especially when they seek to change jobs and for longer-term careers in a particular industry.

In favour of other forms of training

Factors cited by employers that deter their use of nationally recognised training included: outdated training packages; training not tailored to employer needs; a lack of continuity in public funding for training; the complexity of the nationally recognised training system; and no requirement for nationally recognised qualifications or parts of the training.

Employers use non-nationally recognised training because of its ‘ability to be bespoke’, as some employers labelled it; namely, tailored to specific job skills or organisation-specific skills development needs. The availability of quality and expert vendor training delivered by highly experienced professionals is a major factor in the uptake of non-nationally recognised training, with employers typically seeking greater skills and productivity benefits by skilling employees in the use of new equipment, machinery and technologies. Non-nationally recognised training is also used for training in business-specific processes, leadership training and bespoke initiatives associated with building organisational culture.

Potential strategies to facilitate use of nationally recognised training

Strategies that might encourage employers to make more use of nationally recognised training were identified by asking interviewees for their ideas on this issue, as well as for examples of good practice. Interviewees pointed to a range of innovative employer—RTO partnerships as examples of good practice, whereby RTOs work collaboratively with employers to identify their needs, consequently enabling them to respond accordingly. In these partnerships, RTOs find ways of meeting training needs through nationally recognised training.

Interviewees also discussed the disruption to workforce training caused by COVID-19, but also the positive trends in VET provision the pandemic has accelerated. Interviewees generally praised VET providers and some industry associations for the agility shown during the pandemic. With their rapid responses, they have led the way in their pivot to a greater application of online modes of delivery, with short forms of skill sets training used to promote upskilling, reskilling and cross-skilling to meet new and ongoing employment demands. This success has positively impacted on employers’ thinking, prompting them to contact their industry associations and RTOs more frequently for assistance with training in the future.

Interviewees favoured increasing employer—RTO partnerships for improved collaboration in adapting nationally recognised training products and their provision to better meet workforce needs. A parallel suggestion was for more focused and relevant promotion of nationally recognised training to employers.

What we concluded

Now is the time for ensuring that nationally recognised training takes more responsibility for better supporting the skills development of existing workers and preparing new entrants to the workforce. Economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic depends in part on nationally recognised training playing its role in restoring employment levels. Many of the peak bodies interviewed emphasised that filling the skills shortages resulting from lower migration, as well as from recent uplifts in economic prosperity will depend on nationally recognised training continuing to upskill workers to cope with technological advancements, greater digitalisation and other innovations.

Stronger relationships between RTOs and employers are key to the effectiveness of this essential upskilling. RTOs are the major source of knowledge about nationally recognised training for employers: they look locally first for training assistance, and this is where better partnerships need to flourish. VET providers need to be encouraged to build their skills in working collaboratively to identify employer workforce needs and to improve their ability to reach out to local employers and industry experts. This outreach is crucial to ensuring the customisation of training and delivery according to employer needs.

The need for the co-creation of training by employers, with RTO assistance, was frequently mentioned, along with an increase in the incidence of special industry—VET partnerships, including the creation of applied research partnerships to further build engagement between employers and RTOs. Engaging directly with professional associations or industry sector peak bodies, those that represent groups of employers, is seen to be particularly valuable for raising the levels of engagement by small and medium-sized employers, who face unique barriers.

The need for additional skill sets with links to training package competencies to provide more specific training for the upskilling of the existing workforce was also proposed, the aim being to encourage the use of nationally recognised rather than non-nationally recognised training for workforce development, thus reversing the recent trend. These training package skill sets offer many advantages, in that they are aligned with nationally recognised training; they also compete favourably with unrecognised professional development models, by offering highly targeted courses designed to help improve a specific skill, which can be verified with evidence of competence.

Some interviewees acknowledged that VET professionals need broader skills to enable them to engage more fully with employers. By way of example, they need to: have a better understanding of workplace environments and their industrial relations arrangements; conduct training in the workplace, tailoring it to meet employee and enterprise skills needs; and customise assessment to workplace contexts. Systematic approaches are required to prepare VET teachers, including mentor support and continual professional development.

According to the peak bodies and employers interviewed, the development of more skill sets is linked to the need to reduce the number of existing training packages. Also acknowledged is the reality that many employers have a limited understanding of nationally recognised training, underlining the requirement for improved messaging as a starting point for better engagement. More communication to impart the value of nationally recognised training is required for employers of all sizes, in ‘business speak’ not ‘VET speak’. This issue is central to the strategies being considered for worker progression in their jobs, as well as for improved career pathways in an industry and for productivity gains.

The establishment of the National Careers Institute was highlighted as an exemplar for promoting nationally recognised training to individual learners. It was believed that something similar is required to promote nationally recognised training to employers. Such an initiative would require follow-up from RTOs through outreach and partnerships to ensure the provision of nationally recognised training is better tailored to employer needs.

Download

TITLE FORMAT SIZE
Engaging more employers in nationally recognised training to develop their workforce .pdf 636.6 KB Download
Engaging more employers in nationally recognised training to develop their workforce .docx 1.1 MB Download
Support document 1: literature review .pdf 472.3 KB Download
Support document 1: literature review .docx 178.4 KB Download
Support document 2: peak body interviews .pdf 369.8 KB Download
Support document 2: peak body interviews .docx 143.0 KB Download
Support document 3: employer interviews .pdf 676.0 KB Download
Support document 3: employer interviews .docx 316.1 KB Download

Related items

Closer partnerships between employers and registered training organisations (RTOs) is essential in u… Show more