Understanding Workforce Development
REPORT | Dr Paul Comyn, for TAFE NSW ICVET
What is Workforce Development?
Workforce development is emerging as a new framework for orienting vocational education and training (VET). It is increasingly used by practitioners, policy makers and commentators involved in skills development both in Australia and overseas. It is also worth noting that it has a central place in the TAFE NSW: Doing Business in the 21st Century paper.
Paul Comyn is a VET practitioner with over 20 years experience in education, training and management gained through varying roles in both the public, private and community sectors.
Recently, Paul has been working as a consultant through his company SmithComyn & Associates, providing a range of research, management and advisory services to VET stakeholders and has worked on a number of AusAID projects supporting VET reform in China, Fiji and PNG.
This article unravels the meaning of workforce development and shows how the concept is driving new ways of approaching skill issues in society today.
Context
In some ways however, the concept of workforce development is not new, drawing as it does on key concepts from human resource development and workforce planning. Indeed, in a recent review of the field, Jacobs & Hawley suggest that workforce development ‘has evolved to describe any one of a relatively wide range of national and international policies and programs related to learning for work’ (Jacobs & Hawley 2007: 3).
In their work on skill ecosystems and workforce development (Hall & Lansbury 2006), Richard Hall and Russell Lansbury from Sydney University suggest that the concept of workforce development first appeared in the mid-1990s, when Harrison, Weiss & Gant (1995) drew a distinction between ‘employment training’, which emphasises the supply of skills, and ‘workforce development’, which looks to understand the nature of employer demand. Building on that work, Harrison & Weiss (1998) advocated ‘workforce development’ as the more relevant approach, focusing on the alliances between employers and various service organisations.
More than training
Consequently, the notion of workforce development extends beyond training to involve human resource management and development activities, and according to Sutton (2001), includes ‘services such as collaborating with other organizations, recruiting job seekers, job matching, mentoring, addressing issues of retention and other follow-up services’ (2001: 3).
This broader view of VET has been embraced locally by writers such as Kaye Schofield and Peter Noonan, who have highlighted the notion of workforce development as an alternative to the dominant conceptions of VET that have emerged in Australia over the last decade (see Noonan 2003).
In a recent review of trends in technical and vocational education and training (TVET), UNESCO observed a broadening of TVET around the world from the narrow task of providing training for industry and occupation specific skills, to the broader task of workforce development and lifelong learning for sustainable development and citizenship (UNEVOC 2006).
An alternative approach
Similarly, Hall & Lansbury argue that there is a need to move beyond narrow ways of thinking about training for particular jobs or firms to adopt the broader notions of ‘skill ecosystems’ and ‘workforce development’. They argue that effective skill formation policy demands an appreciation of workforce development as an alternative to traditional approaches, centred on the provision of training in discrete competencies. They draw on local work in South Australia to define workforce development as:
‘those activities which increase the capacity of individuals to participate effectively in the workforce throughout their whole working life, and which increase the capacity of firms to adopt high performance work practices that support their employees to develop the full range and their potential skills and value’ (Government of South Australia, 2003: 7).
Multifaceted approach
Workforce development therefore necessitates a broad, comprehensive and multifaceted focus. It involves systems, settings and people, and includes: legislation, policy, funding, recruitment and retention, resources, support mechanisms and incentives (TAFE 2008).
The concept of workforce development thus seeks to shift the orientation of adult education, VET and human resource development towards a more integrated and holistic approach to the development of individual and organisational capacity.
The scope of workforce development
Jacobs & Hawley (2007) argue that the emergence of workforce development as a new concept comes from the contemporary intersection of five interrelated streams: globalization, technology, the new economy, political change, and demographic shifts. They suggest that the scope of workforce development can be defined by four key areas of activity:
- How schools and agencies prepare individuals to enter or re-enter the workforce;
- How organizations provide learning opportunities to improve workplace performance;
- How organizations respond to changes that affect workforce effectiveness; and
- How individuals undergo life transitions related to workforce participation.
Framework models
Internationally, much of the debate on the most appropriate framework for skills development has been polarized between those who advocate a ‘market’ approach and those who favour a ‘social consensus’ or ‘social partnership’ model (see ILO 1998). Whilst there is evidence of advantages and disadvantages with both approaches, an emerging international trend is the move towards integrated models allowing for both market dynamics and the involvement of social partners.
Cooperation required
Whilst this has been the well established approach in Australia, a shift to workforce development will require a higher degree of cooperation between the various providers of training, industry, government and individual firms. Workforce development approaches rely on strong relationships amongst the social partners to ensure a balance between enterprise, industry and social priorities in education and training.
This view is shared by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW. In its 2006 report Upskilling Australia, IPART argue that ‘workforce development extends beyond the development of workers through training, to the development of the jobs in which workers are employed’ (2006: 45).
However, the extent of cooperation required to support workforce development is different to simply forming good working relationships between training providers and employers. Hall & Buchanan (2003) argue that it is critical to focus on the need for industry to demand, deploy and develop higher skills.
Implications for service delivery
There are strong links between the concept of workforce development and the operation of skill ecosystems, as the broader industry and societal contexts in which skills are utilized take centre stage in both approaches (see ICVET 2006 for further detail on skill ecosystems).
Hall & Buchanan argue that the term workforce development highlights the need to design, develop and sustain jobs and working arrangements that:
- ‘Utilize higher order and more advanced technical and cognitive skills;
- Provide workers with an opportunity to apply and develop higher order skills;
- Facilitate meaningful and regular opportunities for on-the-job training and skills transfer; and
- Encourage the development of skills, competencies and attributes that are of long-term value to the economy, society, industry and region concerned – rather than just in the immediate interest of the employing organization’ (2003: 43).
Similarly, Hartenstein argues that workforce development requires clear career paths and opportunities for employees to deploy higher levels of skill in the workplace: ‘the way in which work and jobs are organized and the ways in which organizations use and deploy skills are obviously critical for ensuring that high skilled jobs are created’ (Hartenstein 2004: 70).
Buchanan & Hall also suggest that ‘seeing skill shortages and training priorities through the prism of skill ecosystems and workforce development highlights the importance of recognizing multiple stakeholders and the interdependencies of multiple forces: work organization, job design, forms of employment, industrial relations, business strategy, inter-firm and inter-organizational linkages, as well as training interventions’ (2003: 45).
Consequently, Peter Noonan argues that a workforce development model involves ‘an extension of VET as it is currently conceived to encompass all of the processes and structures by which workers can develop their skills and capabilities, and a better integration of formal and informal learning, not a shift away from recognised to informal learning’ (Noonan 2003: 4).
In TAFE NSW, the recent discussion paper Doing Business in the 21st Century: Proposals for Consultation argued that ‘offering training without fully understanding economic, business and workforce dynamics can potentially result in skill wastage and misplaced public and private investment’ (2007: 3).
However, to orient VET sector service delivery around workforce development requires more finely tuned responses than most providers currently offer.
To avoid this, Buchanan & Hall also suggest that a focus on workforce development requires ‘the development of regional and industry specific networks that bring together public and private training providers (colleges, universities, other training providers), employers, industry representatives, unions, labour market and training intermediaries, temporary work agencies and group training companies), local and regional government agencies and community representatives’ (2003: 47).
Clearly, then, the goal of workforce development cannot be achieved by the VET sector alone, or even by a broader involvement of government. Instead, it requires ‘a collaborative approach between government, employers and training organisations to achieve viable long-term participation of individuals in the labour market, and sustainable productivity and economic growth’ (IPART 2006: 45).
In considering the challenge of workforce development within the VET sector, ANTA (2004) identified the key features and capabilities required by a quality workforce development program. These have been updated and reviewed in light of current literature to set out the range of features shown below.
Workforce Development – Program Features
A quality workforce development program would need to provide development for individuals which:
- Is designed to suit all employees and address different learning needs, job categories and employment status;
- Shapes recruitment, retention and retraining initiatives to meet strategic and organisational objectives;
- Addresses the range of generic, professional and leadership capabilities that individuals in that industry require;
- Includes high quality learning products and services and integrates learning with meaningful work;
- Is based on a clear and strategic vision for the enterprise;
- Matches workforce capability to employment trends and skill needs at both national and organisational level;
- Matches job design and employment agreements to current and future work arrangements;
- Provides a balance of tangible and intangible rewards to attract and retain staff;
- Employs recruitment and development strategies to address succession planning and retention issues;
- Incorporates strategies for managing and disseminating knowledge and information, across training, client and partner organisations; and
- Builds in evaluation measures that clearly demonstrate the return on investment from workforce development and management activity, including the impact on client and staff satisfaction
What's needed
For VET providers to deliver workforce development programs with these features requires different skill sets for the VET workforce which has traditionally had a role of supplying skilled labour to industry.
A VET institution focussed on workforce development needs to employ staff or establish alliances that provide expertise in work organization, job design, employment options, industrial relations, business strategy and inter-firm and inter-organizational linkages. This requires a shift away from the traditional role of training provision.
The challenge of improving an organisation’s capacity to support workforce development also requires a considerable degree of freedom, most importantly the freedom of organisations to change and the freedom of managers to implement decisions.
Consequently, the process of re-orientating service delivery to support workforce development requires a coordinated approach to various issues including legislation and policy, management, curriculum, pedagogy, and the training and ongoing professional development of TVET instructors, administrators, policy-makers and managers.
Clearly, such a process requires a staged approach, one that over time will hopefully complement current trends in the evolution of VET organisations in Australia.
Bibliography
Hartenstein, A (2004) ‘Improving Workforce Development Systems: Beyond Legal and Administrative Changes’, International Journal of Vocational Education & Training, Vol. 12, No 1, pp.59-71.
ICVET (2006) What Makes a Successful Skill Ecosystem? TAFE NSW International Centre for VET Teaching and Learning, Sydney.
ILO (1998) World Employment Report 1998–99. International Labour Organisation, Geneva.
(2004) Human Resources Development and Training, International Labour Conference 92nd Session 2004, Report IV (2A), International Labour Organisation Geneva.
IPART (2006) Up-skilling NSW: how vocational education and training can help overcome skill shortages, improve labour market outcomes and raise economic growth: other industries - final report, Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, Sydney.
Jacobs, RL (2002) Understanding Workforce Development: Definition, Conceptual Boundaries, and Future Perspectives, paper presented to the International Conference on VET. UNEVOC Canada, October 17–19.
Jacobs, RL & Hawley, J (2007) Emergence of Workforce Development: Definition, Conceptual Boundaries, and Implications, Centre on Education & Training for Employment, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Noonan, P (2003). Rethinking VET: Some major policy implications, paper presented to the 7th National Conference of the Centre for the Economics of Education and Training, Melbourne, 15 September.
OECD (2008) Going for Growth, Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development, Paris.
Sutton, SA (2001) Corporate-Community Workforce Development Collaborations, Community Development Research Center, New School University, New York.
TAFE NSW (2007) Doing Business in the 21st Century: Proposals for Consultation, TAFE NSW, Sydney.
(2008) Innovation for better business: A capability development framework for TAFE 21st Century, TAFE NSW Workforce Capability Development Guarantee 2008 Initiative, Sydney.
UNEVOC (2008) International Handbook of Education for the Changing World of Work: Bridging Academic and Vocational Learning, UNESCO-UNEVOC International Centre for Technical and Vocational Education and Training, Bonn.
(2006) Orienting Technical and Vocational Education and Training for Sustainable Development UNESCO-UNEVOC International Centre for Technical and Vocational Education and Training, Bonn.