Anonymous - 11

Response:

Industry engagement can be interpreted to be at several levels. For instance at corporate level where decisions are made to align vocations to an industry. My current industry sector is in automotive with a strong focus on heavy machinery and mining plant. This segment was not included in the industry sector at the start of this survey.

Industry engagement is also at vocational level where skills and knowledge is determined for employment functions and roles. This assists the training package developing bodies to determine which performances must be included in a unit of competency and aligned to a qualification.

Thirdly, industry engagement is at industry level there the training provider collaborates with businesses and employers to determine that their suggested training product meets the need of the client.

Response:

Yes

Response:

In my opinion the current system works reasonably well, however experience with development of competency and training package arrangements in the CPC TP indicated that large bodies can over-influence the decision making processes resulting in outcomes that do not reflect the industry need, but the need of the major stakeholding body/bodies.

In this instance, a large number of small businesses where engaged by the training organisation to obtain support and/or feedback on the suggested TP changes and nearly all disagreed with the suggested changes. However as small businesses are generally not focused on training products they do not voice their opinion. Hence the silent majority does not have any input and the vocal minority enforces the changes.

Industry engagement should indicate changes to performances in a unit of competency and only units of competency that have sufficient changes should be updated. An example of poor revision and updating of competencies is in the AUR TP where our RTO must update some 30 units, but only 3 have an actual change to performance requirements. This process must be reviewed to improve business outcomes for RTO's by reducing the large worktime input to meet administrative requirements, which have no impact on training processes.

Current processes work in the structured model, but not in reality as only a small segment of stakeholders has time to invest in input processes. Hence key stakeholders with a full focus on TP development, not necessarily with any interest in industry, obtain the greatest input and dictate outcomes that are driven by processes, but not by vocational requirement of the industry they support.

Response:

Operating models and support systems must meet the requirements of the audience. e.g in an automotive of construction environment the great majority of businesses are SME's. Their core focus is on running a business, hence input for non core functions - such as vocational training - must be presented in a manner that requires minimum impact on the core business. Such a system will generate improved input from the 'silent majority' resulting in an improved outcome for all stakeholders.

Response:

If the business that receives the training is well informed by the training provider, then yes, qualifications are fit for purpose. However if the business is not well informed and the training provider has its own agenda e.g. they do not have the ability to provide certain training needs, but can meet the TP requirements by use of other competencies, then the system is flawed.

Business place their trust in the training provider and they may not have a good understanding of the VET system. 

Business will look for a certain skill set, however the need for funding may require training in a full qualification. As a result, the program delivers competencies outside the interest of learners and need for the business. As business must make profit, they will try to reduce cost through funding incentives. Incentive programs need to be more flexible.

Response:

Yes, but I have no time now