Enterprises' commitment to nationally recognised training for existing workers

• Nationally recognised training has improved the distribution of training within companies, as it tends to be delivered to lower-level workers for whom this may be their first opportunity to access qualifications. It may also increase the incidence of non-accredited training for lower-level workers and improve access to training for part-time and casual workers. In this respect, the implementation of training packages has had a very positive effect.

• The industry-endorsed competency standards associated with nationally recognised training are also increasingly being used in human resource procedures and practices, such as performance management systems and the preparation of job descriptions. In some enterprises, the standards are fully integrated into human resource management systems.

• Because the recognised training system is complex, a company ‘evangelist’ is required. The evangelist should have previous knowledge and experience of nationally recognised training. Their job is to persuade management to accept this form of training. This role is different from a more general ‘training champion’. If the evangelist leaves before nationally recognised training is fully embedded in the enterprise, then this form of training may disappear.

• A number of the regulatory procedures of state accreditation bodies cause concern among enterprises seeking to be registered training organisations.

• There may be an argument for governments to use funding to kick-start nationally recognised training in enterprises. While government funding is a critical factor in the initial implementation of nationally recognised training for existing workers, it becomes less critical when this training is embedded within enterprises and the benefits have become apparent.

• The ability to customise nationally recognised training is more commonly used by enterprises which are registered training organisations than by enterprises which purchase such training. High levels of customisation may reduce the portability of the skills gained and have the potential to affect the integrity of the qualifications.

• There is a need for increased promotion of nationally recognised training throughout Australia. Criticism by enterprises sometimes seemed to result from a lack of understanding or knowledge about the training packages, rather than deficiencies in the packages themselves.

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 research questions were as follows:

• Why do some employers (and not others) use nationally recognised training, either in partnership with registered training organisations or by becoming enterprise registered training organisations? What are the perceived benefits of such training for the enterprise?

• What is the nature of the nationally recognised training (generic vs technical; lower level vs higher level; delivery mode)?

• What are the perceived benefits for different groups of workers (permanent vs casual; Australian-born vs migrant etc.)?

• What are the obstacles to be overcome in the establishment of nationally recognised training? What are facilitating factors?

• What are the links between such provision and the availability of government funding?

• How have training packages affected the provision of, and attitude to, nationally recognised training in enterprises?

Research method

The research was carried out in the following ways:

• Focus groups were conducted with employers and other industry stakeholders in two capital cities and one rural city.

• Case studies were undertaken in 12 enterprises in four states and territories: three enterprises with differing levels of engagement with nationally recognised training in each of four industry areas. The industry areas were: hospitality, manufacturing/process manufacturing, call centres and arts/media.

• A survey was conducted of all 195 enterprises which became registered training organisations in their own right (based on the National Training Information Service listing), as was a sample of medium-to-large companies (from the Dun & Bradstreet database) employing human resource managers and therefore might be expected to have some commitment to training. Just over a quarter of enterprise registered training organisations (51) responded, together with 73 other companies. Respondents were divided into three groups: enterprise registered training organisations, enterprises which had purchased nationally recognised training from registered raining organisations (termed ‘purchasers’ in this report) and non-users of nationally recognised training.

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:

• be large organisations

• 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.