Industry Engagement Models

1. Industry Engagement Models • Matching expectations of industry and RTOs • No Frills Conference, July 2011 A collaboration between: Rebecca Hall: IER Group Dr Greg McMillan: ProVoc Australia Pty Ltd

2. Introduction • Presentation Context (Greg) • Domestic Perspective (Greg) • Tensions between RTO and enterprise needs • Competency alignment to AQF outcomes – an alternate view • RTO-Enterprise partnering models – an overview • International Perspective (Rebecca) • Model of strategic engagement of Australian VET • Global engagement models – RTOs • Key questions for the future and Close (Rebecca)

3. Tensions Between a RTO Focus and an Enterprise Need RTO Focus (qualifications and units of competence) National Training Packages ↓ ↓ ↓ Qualifications and Units of Competence ↓ ↓ ↓ How/Does the RTO meet these ‘competency’ requirements? disconnect Match in Focus and Need disconnect Training Package UofC not required but can be ‘Added Value’ ↑ ↑ ↑ Enterprise TP Competency Needs ↑ ↑ ↑ Enterprise Specific Competencies Required for Specific Roles but not in any UoC Enterprise Focus (standard operating procedures, skill s critical tasks, site specific requirements) Source: ProVoc Australia Pty Ltd: McMillan, 2010) Tensions between RTO and Enterprise Needs

4. Competency Alignment to AQF Outcomes – an alternative view Source: Greg McMillan

5. Relationship C Relationship A Relationship E Relationship D Relationship B • Enterprise • establishes an enterprise RTO • Enterprise • Establishes in-house Training unit with trainers and Assessors for core Enterprise Training • Partners with RTO to Access government /funds • Enterprise • Identifies need for Training • Supports individual attendance at RTO by employees OR • Contracts with RTOs for a range training assessment services • Enterprise • Fully Implemented/Requires RTO as Q.A. Assurer Only • Enterprise • As with Relationship B plus • Enterprise aligns operating practices to AQTF conditions and standards • RTO • As with Relationship B RTO • RTO as QA assurer • RTO • Controls timing of training • Controls context of training • Controls quality of training • Accesses full funding from Government (if any) • RTO • Controls timing and quality of training done outside of Enterprise in-house Trainers • Provides Co-Provider to Enterprise for in-house training and assessment done by Ent. • Advantages • RTO specialist at providing training and assessment (core business) • Expertise in meeting AQTF compliance standards • Disadvantages • Enterprise has less control over timing and quality of training • Difficulty for RTO to provide ‘context’ • Difficult for RTO to provide outcomes for Enterprise competence (ie: non-aligned to AQF) • Enterprise pays full cost of training with no or little off-set; less control over costs • Advantages • Enterprise has total control over full range of training and assessment activities • Full access to government funds to off-set training • Potential to revenue generate from other Enterprise Divisions or industry wide training • Disadvantages • Full responsibility for AQTF compliance • Will still need some partner RTOs for specialist areas • Advantages • As with Relationship B plus • Establishes Australian contextualised quality assurance standards within Enterprise competency assurance activities • Starts to shift the relationship with RTO’s so that Enterprise has the dominant position and the RTO provides a range of services (ie: issues results) • Disadvantages • Still dependent upon third party RTO for AQTF compliance • Advantages • Enterprise has greater control over timing, quality and contextualised training • Enterprise has access to government funds to off-set cost of training • RTO holds requirements to meet AQTF compliance standards • Disadvantages • Still dependent upon third party RTO for AQTF compliance • RTO maintains dominant contractor/partner relationship (funds and cost) • Advantages • Enterprise has total control over full range of training and assessment activities • Full access to government funds to off-set training • Enterprise contracts with RTO’s (EOI process – ‘best price’) • Disadvantages • Ongoing cost of Q.A. Assurance through RTO (controllable through contract arrangements) • Will still need some partner RTOs for specialist areas RTO-Enterprise Partnering Models (overview)

6. Framework – Global Engagement Source: Rebecca Hall

7. Global Engagement Models RTOs Source: Rebecca Hall

8. Concluding Point • Recent access to a potential collaboration between university and several VET providers. • The potential list of research topics were all ‘internally’ focuses issues: • Pathways, teacher development, IR issues, aging workforce. • There was not one potential research topic that related to the external activities that VET provider engages in. • Engaging with industry, developing partnerships, improving industry standards.

9. Contact Details Rebecca Hall (Biazos) Director  International Education Resources Group Phone    0407 550 180 Email      rebeccahall@iergroup.com.au Web       www.iergroup.com.au Dr Greg McMillan Director ProVoc Australia Pty Ltd Phone: 0408 078 258 Email: greg.provoc@bigpond.com Web: www.provoc.com.au