Docking, Russell - Skill Resource Management Systems Pty Ltd

Response:

Industry engagement is a two way process ... industry needs to engage with training (RTOs), and RTOs need to engage with industry.  The relationship is asymmetric because although RTO trainers/assessors have vocational competency, industry skills and VET expertise, industry lacks VET expertise.  For this reason the RTO engagement with industry is potentially more fruitful that industry engaging with the RTO.

To ensure industry can contribute to training, the RTO needs to contextualise training resources (training and assessment strategies, delivery resources, assessment resources) into the jargon and context of industry.  Industry can then provide meaningful input to the RTO's activities.

Of more importance is the need for RTO personnel to go into industry, not necessarily to work, but to observe and learn industry's ways so they can validate their resources, prepare their learners for the real world of work, respond the the variations in industry (beyond the limits of their own work experience) and "exploit" the learning and assessment opportunities the workplace can offer.

Industry engagement also is critical to the creation of qualifications and units of competency.  As an Accreditation Reviewer this respondent is acutely aware of the fundamental role of industry to guide the development of qualifications and units that faithfully reflect their current and probable future activities.

Response:

Yes

Response:

In the past I led a team developing a training package ... the main problem with industry engagement was finding a way to ensure that the whole spectrum of the industry was represented and reflected by the standards, not just the loudest voices.

So to get industry engaged, we need to demonstrate that their engagement will lead to a more productive and safe workforce through better targeted training.

I see this through the development of accredited courses ... these are often motivated by the failure of a training package to reflect a niche of industry ... often the growth edge of the industry.  In this way accreditation is both an indicator of the failure of industry engagement, and also a safety-net for both the industry and the training packages to keep pace with industry needs.

Response:

Part of the answer takes us back to the original conceptualisation of competency (I was there) to be a set of generic transferable qualities of the person that could be deployed across a range of industry contexts.  Initially, these needed to be derived from an  analysis of the work done in the workplace, but instead of using this analysis to distil the essence of competencies, the work itself became the focus and the goal.  Paradoxically, if we can make competency less industry/job specific we might have a better chance of simultaneously meeting the needs of learners and employers.

To take that path would require a demonstration of its effectiveness ... this might be done by creating a kind of "cross industry" training package to sit alongside the current suite.

Response:

It rather depends on how "qualification" is defined ... my observation is that they are largely fit for purpose, but they could be a great deal better, particularly in preparing learners for a future of great personal and industrial change.  The great variety of an industry serviced by a training package does leave many niche industries out of the qualifications structure (see previous comments) ... we need to be more learner-focussed and less industry focussed as it is supporting the learner's working life trajectory that is the critical need rather than reflecting the current temporary state of industry.

Response:

All our VET structures reflect industry silos ... the TAFE departments for example ... and there is a good deal of possessiveness about protected territory between industry councils and representatives, and this is ultimately counter-productive.