Understanding Workforce Development: International Trends and Examples

Understanding workforce development: international trends and examples

REPORT | Dr Paul Comyn, for TAFE NSW ICVET

In order for us to better understand the challenges of orienting Vocational Education and Training (VET) service delivery around workforce development, it is worth considering some key international developments.

Paul Comyn 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. Paul is currently working in Bangladesh on a VET reform project.

This is the second of three articles by Paul on Workforce Development and VET.

However it is worth noting, as does King in her recent review of the UK higher education sector’s involvement in workforce development, that ‘because workforce development is difficult to define, it is also difficult to measure and make relevant comparisons for effective benchmarking across countries’ (King 2007: 4). A case in point is the aptly named US based International Commission for Workforce Development. The Commission delivers online ICT training to developing countries, and whilst no doubt a laudable activity, it doesn’t really involve the holistic engagement and service delivery that differentiates traditional VET from workforce development.

Regardless, sifting through international examples of genuine workforce development initiatives reveals that VET providers across the globe are grappling with the challenges of making their products and services more effective and relevant to workforce development.

United States of America (USA)

According to Jacobs & Hawley (2007), whilst the USA had historically very few education and training interrelationships amongst government, business, and unions, with the emergence of workforce development discourses, partnerships between industry, government and providers are becoming more common.

Jacobs & Hawley (2007) observed that several recent pieces of state and federal legislation in the USA use the term workforce development to describe various youth vocational training, adult training and retraining, and related employment initiatives.

However, Hall & Lansbury (2006) suggest that workforce development in USA policy discourses now appears to have lost much of its original potency, with it currently being defined to include ‘a very wide range of activities, policies and programs, many of which are indistinguishable from vocational education and training’ (2006: 577).

The Californian Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) suggests that ‘at the regional and institutional level, there is evidence of effort to review the role that postsecondary education must play in workforce development and to identify systemic changes and strategies that will enable it to do so’ (CPEC 2006: 2). However, in identifying this new focus, CPEC claims that whilst collaborative effort is being made at the institutional and sometimes regional level, ‘there is too little evidence of adequate success that can inform state-level policy. This need for a state-level collaborative approach is not new, but it has yet to be fully addressed’ (CPEC 2006: 1).

In its review of workforce development initiatives in New York, the Workforce Strategy Centre observed that ‘the mantra of partnership and collaboration dominates the field of workforce development in the USA ie: the need to link disparate training providers and colleges, to better connect employers with training courses and to unite public and private sector funding’ (WSC 2006: 1).

One example is the New York Information Technology Career Ladders. Involving Local Workforce Investment Boards (LWIBs) and key service providers, this ‘groundbreaking collaborative consortium has evolved around a philosophy of career progression and pooled services that exceeded its planned enrolments and met all other placement and wage gain targets’ (WSC 2006: 2). Another example is the New York based “Wildcat” program which has trained entry level financial services workers for a number of years, working both with business and social service organisations. Whilst predominantly a welfare to work program, the “Wildcat” approach has been successful at meeting the needs of its business partners and supporting the development of new innovative technology based enterprises in the local area.

Career Pathways Initiatives – USA Workforce Development in Action

‘To launch a career pathways initiative, partners choose a sector that is growing and has both good entry-level and mid-career positions available, such as health care or information technology. Next, they identify the workforce needs of that sector through an intensive research process. With these industry needs in mind, the next task is to identify the best community-based organisations and colleges, and to support their activities through an array of public and private funding streams. Finally, based on a firm understanding of the sector, the partners design pathways that will allow job-seekers to both enter the field and gain the skills necessary to advance.

A successful career pathways project enjoys the support of all workforce training providers, government agencies, foundations and businesses working together with a wide range of partnerships and linked funding streams (WSC 2006: 8).

In a recent review of community/industry partnerships more broadly, the USA Department of Labour documented a range of partnership models involving the recruitment, training, and retaining of employees. The report found that there are ‘multiple ways for businesses to partner with community organisations to meet business goals of increased overall productivity, cost-competitiveness, and bottom-line sales and profitability’ (Soukamneuth & Harvey 2006: 3).

The report also suggested that the examples they documented were able to be grouped as models relating to:

Recruitment;
Training;
Work-based learning;
Post-placement support/retention; and
Corporate philanthropy (Soukamneuth & Harvey 2006).

Europe and the United Kingdom (UK)

In Europe, the concept of workforce development has yet to significantly influence policy dialogue in the European Union (EU), with funded programs predominantly driven through the European Commission’s Lifelong Learning Programme 2007-2013. This program includes discrete components for vocational training (Leonardo da Vinci program) and adult education (Grundtvig program). Extensive reports and resources from projects are available here.

However, at the national level within the EU, governments have adopted very different policies in their attempts to move away from the low skills trap and focus on workforce development. (Ashton et al 2003) Some of these are shown below.

Elements of Workforce Development in the EU & UK

In Denmark the trade unions play a very significant role in helping to identify the skill needs of the individual employee and the company. Unions and employers agree on an annual plan for developing the skill needs of every employee. Those requiring outside help in the form of courses are agreed with the sector association and the unions then work with employers translating those needs into appropriate programmes which are then delivered through local colleges.

In the UK, the latest pilot schemes in the Investors in People program recognise that what micro-enterprises require is business advice related to the immediate and short–term needs of the business. Once the advice is delivered then resources can be introduced to deal with any skill gaps that are apparent.
(see here for further information).

In Germany the central apprentice curriculum authority (BIBB) is experimenting with leading employers to develop new techniques for delivering more effective workforce learning. One such technique is the use of “Learning Islands”. These are areas in the factory, adjacent to the main production line, where apprentices can work in a sheltered environment, to learn both the technical skills and new soft skills required for the job. They work in teams to resolve real production problems, but are under the guidance of a trained teacher. This reduces the amount of classroom training (and hence the cost of training), brings the learning closer to the realities of the workplace so there is less loss of skill in the process of transfer, and enables the apprentices to acquire the new soft skills of teamworking, problem solving and communication.

In the UK, governments have sought to train entrepreneurs and managers in SMEs. In general, courses directed at entrepreneurs in micro enterprises have not been very successful, as those managers prefer to learn through experience. In the East Midlands however, owners of SMEs have designed a programme (the BITE programme) which aims to raise awareness among entrepreneurs of their learning and business development needs. The next step is to signpost such entrepreneurs to areas where these learning needs can be met (Ashton et al 2003).

Beyond these discrete mechanisms, some national governments in the UK, Europe and Asia have started to use the term workforce development in policy dialogue and to consider its implications for VET policy and programs. In particular, the notion of workforce development has proven to be most influential in the United Kingdom.

In early 2002, the Workforce Development initiative of the UK Learning and Skills Council encouraged adults to participate in structured learning. As a consequence, local agents of education and training were known as workforce development bodies.

However, more recently the Leitch Review sought to direct the UK towards a revamped skills system by 2020. The Review called for a more demand led skills system for workforce development, shifting the emphasis of policy making from increasing supply to stimulating demand from employers and individuals. The Review also set the ambitious objective of more than 40% of the adult population being qualified to higher skill levels (Level 4 and above) against the level of 29% in 2005 (Leitch 2006).

The new Commission may prove to be pivotal development, as Ashton argues that the diffusion of knowledge or intelligence can be seen as one of the key drivers of co-ordination throughout workforce development systems. He notes that the ‘international literature stresses the importance of the ability to identify cutting edge skills from multi-national corporations, higher education institutions and progressive SMEs and then to diffuse knowledge of them through the relevant sectors/industries’ (Ashton et al 2007: 12).

Since the Leitch Review completed its work in 2006, the UK government has followed one of the Review’s recommendations and established an over-arching institution to ensure national co-ordination and guidance on workforce development. The UK Commission for Employment and Skills aims to ‘benefit employers, individuals and government by advising how improved employment and skills systems can help the UK become a world-class leader in productivity, in employment and in having a fair and inclusive society’ (UKCES 2008).

However, workforce development initiatives in the UK have been criticised for continuing to focus overwhelmingly on the supply of skills and on improving the mechanisms by which employer preferences for skills can be efficiently communicated to providers (Hall & Lansbury 2006).

Limitations of the UK’s approach have also been identified in a recent review of the higher education sector’s engagement with workforce development. The Council for Industry and Higher Education noted that ‘we know little about the current amount of work-based learning being undertaken with providers, or even latent demand at higher levels. Neither do we know how best to increase employer demand even if the sector had the ability and motivation to meet that demand. There is little shared knowledge across the sector, or even within most institutions, as to what works and why’ (King 2007: 4).

However, developments in employer engagement with universities, particularly over the provision of higher level workforce development, have been well documented by a range of organisations and authors. The Council for Industry and Higher Education (CIHE) has published several papers in this field , with research also undertaken by the University Vocational Awards Council (UVAC) and the Higher Education Academy (HEA).

Furthermore, regional studies, such as Workplace Learning in the North East by the KSA Partnership, provide a more detailed analysis of how policies and patterns of provision operate within a local context which has particularly challenging skills and further education participation issues. As noted by King, this report offers detailed analyses of what exists and what policy changes have to take place in order to address economic and cultural barriers to workforce development (King 2007).

Singapore

The Singapore Workforce Development Agency (WDA) is a unique example of a national agency established to enhance the competitiveness and employability of workers and jobseekers by helping them adapt to a changing economy. To achieve this, WDA works with various industry leaders, labour unions, employers, economic agencies, professional associations and training organisations to develop and implement programs to support Singapore’s economic development. WDA also supports the growth of Singapore industries by building a pipeline of competent workers through the constant upgrading of workers' skills and raising industrial performance standards (WDA 2008). A sample of the programs managed by the WDA is shown below.

Singapore Workforce Development Agency (WDA)

Skills Development Fund (SDF): This program provides funds to encourage employers in upgrading the skills of the workforce. Funds are accumulated through a skills development levy.
Skills Development Levy (SDL): Under the Skills Development Levy, it is a statutory requirement for employers to make SDL contributions for employees who fall within the salary ceiling for levy contributions. The levy rate is 1% and the SDL is also payable for casual, part-time, temporary and foreign workers rendering services in Singapore.
SDF EasyNet (SEN): The SDF EasyNet is a web-based one-stage application system which allows all SDF transactions to be made via the Internet. This system links up all users of the system, ie: companies, training providers and SDF for more efficient services.
Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund (LLF): Its objective is to enhance the employment and employability of Singaporeans through initiatives that promote and facilitate the acquisition of skills. Besides employer-based training, LLF can be used to support individual-based or community-based training. LLF would focus on initiatives related to employment and employability. Programmes are developed in partnership with industry/trade or employer associations, community organisations, self-help groups etc and priority will be given to programmes targeted at those who face greater challenges coping with the structural changes in the economy and labour market. http://www.wda.gov.sg/

Whilst these program initiatives can be seen to support workforce development in its broadest sense, it is not clear whether VET providers in Singapore are reorienting their approach to embrace the more holistic provision of services required to engage with industry and address the various challenges of workforce development.

Conclusion

Around the world, the notion of workforce development continues to act a powerful driver of VET policy and reform. Whilst the engagement of VET providers with industry and the local community in our changing society requires ongoing cultural and operational change, to engage on the level of workforce development involves a more significant shift in the products, services and orientation of VET providers. These issues will be explored in more detail in the third paper of this series on workforce development.

ICVET Promoting Emerging Practice, TAFE NSW International Centre for VET Teaching and Learning

Understanding workforce development: international trends and examples