The place of recognised qualifications in the outcomes of training

• Employers do not significantly value qualifications in the same way as the vocational education and training sector. The approach taken to 'qualifications' by enterprise managers is generally to seek recognition only of a small number of competencies, not a whole Australian Qualifications Framework qualification. However, this point of view varies significantly in relation to a number of variables, including the job under consideration, and types of competencies being contemplated.
• The main types of competencies that employers target for recognition through part qualifications in the form of statements of attainment include: competencies associated with specific licences; permits and tickets conferred by non-training bodies; competencies associated with occupational health and safety; and competencies associated with training and assessment.

Project brief

The purpose of this study was to identify the relationship between requirements for the performance of particular jobs and that specific part of the competence requirement that is needed, in the opinion of employers, to be formally recognised. A large number of competencies were identified by employers as required for jobs to be performed well. Generally, this was significantly in excess of those needed to obtain a qualification at an Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) level appropriate to the job. It was also found that almost all competencies identified by managers were covered by training packages. This research set out to explore the following areas:

• the relationship between the various recognised and non-recognised competencies that form the 'total competence' of an employee

• the types of competencies most likely to fall within the different competency groups

• patterns in the way in which competence is achieved and recognised for different enterprises and industry groups

• competency outcomes recognised and valued by enterprises in ways other than through national recognition or qualification, such as promotion and higher salary

• structural, procedural or other impediments to the recognition of competence achieved in the workplace, but not at present assessed or recognised.

Methodology

Given the exploratory nature of the project, the data collected were primarily qualitative, gathered through interviews with managers (sometimes in conjunction with supervisors and experienced workers) during a site visit to 23 organisations from five different industry sectors. Two instruments supplemented the case-study approach, one of which collected detailed quantitative data on the competencies of selected jobs. Thus, observations could be made at two different levels of analysis- the enterprise or case level and the unit of competency level. Quantitative demographic data were collected through a survey administered during the site visit.

The competencies from each of the different training packages were divided into two categories- 'defining' or 'industry' competencies and 'enabling' or 'support' competencies. Industry or job-specific units of competence are those that help define the industry or sector in which the competence is to be employed (for instance, plastic versus rubber) and/or the type of job the competent worker is able to perform (for instance, injection moulding versus vacuum forming). Examples of enabling competencies are 'apply quality principles' and 'provide service to customers', covering common areas such as occupational health and safety and business management. The 'enabling' competencies from all training packages used were combined into a common list and the duplicates deleted. The 'defining' competencies were kept in their specific industry sector.

Managers were asked to describe several jobs within their organisation by identifying from lists of competencies those competencies they believed were needed to perform each job at a competent level. In addition, interview subjects were asked to nominate competencies, outside those provided to them in the competency lists, which they believed were important to the performance of the chosen jobs. Once these lists were completed, interview subjects assigned the selected competencies to four groups according to the required approach to assessment:

• requiring recognition (formally assessed competencies based on endorsed industry standards)

• assessment (based on enterprise standards)

• informal assessment (generally not involving a structured process)

• no assessment (may not be assessed at all or employer chooses not to assess).

Findings

A large number of competencies was identified by employers as required for jobs to be performed well. Generally, this was significantly in excess of those needed to obtain a qualification at an Australian Qualifications Framework level appropriate to the job. There were few competencies identified by managers as required by workers to properly perform the selected jobs which were not covered by training packages.

Competency type

Competencies could be earmarked into two main classes of competence-'defining' competencies or 'support' competencies. Employers and trainers refer to support types of units of competence as 'soft' skills. These are more generic competencies that could easily be adopted across a range of industries and jobs.

In the jobs surveyed, it was found that the number of defining competencies was usually much fewer than the number of support competencies. There are relatively few (defining) units of competency distinguishing one job from another.

The types of competencies selected to comprise a job are influenced by a number of enterprise factors. A higher proportion of defining competencies was identified as required by managers for jobs in enterprises that are:

• high technology

• public sector

• locally owned

• small

• with a history of recognising competencies/qualifications.

Level of assessment

Competencies are not considered equally by employers in terms of firms' training needs, and especially in their requirement to be assessed. Assessment of competence in general is important to managers, with 57.7% of all identified units of competence perceived as requiring at least formal and structured assessment. However, only a small proportion (15.9%) of units of competency identified for the performance of selected jobs (for example, forklift driver) was judged to require formal recognition. At the other extreme, an equal proportion (15.9%) of competencies (for example, communication competencies), while considered necessary for the job, are determined by employers not to require any assessment.

There are four main types of competencies that employers target for recognition:

• competencies associated with 'tickets' and licences conferred by non-training bodies

• competencies associated with training and assessment

• competencies associated with occupational health and safety

• job-specific or 'defining' competencies.

Assessment effort should be seen as a continuum (from no effort, to assessment for competence recognition) with variation not only between organisations but also between different jobs within an organisation. It appears that employers apply a risk-management approach to determining the required level of assessment effort, where the financial, legal and human consequences of incompetence in a unit of competency are weighed against the cost of the assessment of that unit of competency. The higher the appraised risk (in terms of consequences), the greater the assessment effort likely to be committed.

Several enterprise factors have an influence on the level of assessment embraced by managers. The enterprises where the managers ascertain a need for greater levels of competency assessment are likely to:

• have a higher level of technology

• have a history of qualifications

• be in the private sector

• be foreign owned.

The effect of organisation size is different for each type of competency with small organisations having higher levels of assessment of enabling competencies and large organisations assessing more defining competencies.

Use of training packages

A comparatively high proportion (40%) of the case-study enterprises claimed to be using or about to use a relevant industry training package. The reasons given for using a training package were:

• to qualify workers

• to train workers

• to structure the workforce (industrially or in terms of remuneration).

Conclusion

Employers, as outcomes of (their own) enterprise-based training efforts, do not significantly value qualifications in the same way as the vocational education and training (VET) sector. The approach taken to 'qualifications' by enterprise managers is generally to seek recognition only of a small number of competencies, not a whole Australian Qualifications Framework qualification. However, this point of view varies significantly in relation to a number of variables, including the job under consideration, and types of competencies being contemplated. Alternative ways of measuring the uptake of training packages, although less available than recognised qualifications, might be more appropriate.

These could include:

• increased competence in areas designated as critical to a business, either in defining or support competencies

• increased use of competency standards as a basis for performance appraisal, and improved performance outcomes using this tool

• increasingly strong relationships between qualifications frameworks and systems of reward.

An area for further research identified through this study concerns the degree of structure and effort committed to acquiring and assessing of competencies, and how this might vary according to enterprise and job context as well as inherent qualities of the competency itself. These issues have great significance for VET policy, since it is possible that industry (at least enterprise managers) is thinking in quite different ways from VET planners.