TRAINING PACKAGE DEVELOPMENT ENDORSEMENT AND ... · VISIBILITY OF THE PROCESS AND STAKEHOLDER ROLES...

TRAINING PACKAGE

DEVELOPMENT, ENDORSEMENT

AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

CURRENT STATE REPORT

PREPARED FOR

THE AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY AND SKILLS COMMITTEE

January 2018

TPDEI Current State Report AISC

Commercial in Confidence Page 2

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................... 2

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................................. 3

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 4

READING THIS REPORT ............................................................................................................... 4

BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 6

METHOD ................................................................................................................................. 7

WORKSHOPS ....................................................................................................................... 7

IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS ........................................................................................................... 7

VALIDATION OF MAPS............................................................................................................ 9

HOW TO READ THE PROCESS MAPS ................................................................................................ 12

PROCESS MAP: CONSOLIDATED END-TO-END TPDEI PROCESS ............................................................ 13

TPDEI PROCESS MAP – KEY OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................... 29

TIMEFRAMES ......................................................................................................................... 29

CONSULTATION ...................................................................................................................... 30

VISIBILITY OF THE PROCESS AND STAKEHOLDER ROLES ................................................................... 31

QA ...................................................................................................................................... 32

INVOLVEMENT OF STAS ........................................................................................................... 32

INVOLVEMENT OF RTOS .......................................................................................................... 33

INVOLVEMENT OF REGULATORS ................................................................................................ 33

STAKEHOLDER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE TPDEI PROCESS ................................................... 34

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING (EDUCATION) .......................................................... 35

INDUSTRY REFERENCE COMMITTEES (IRCS) ................................................................................ 36

SKILLS SERVICE ORGANISATIONS (SSOS) .................................................................................... 38

STATE TRAINING AUTHORITIES (STAS) ....................................................................................... 40

REGISTERED TRAINING ORGANISATIONS (RTOS).......................................................................... 41

QUALITY ASSURANCE PANEL (QA) ............................................................................................ 42

REGULATORS ......................................................................................................................... 42

CONTACT DETAILS ....................................................................................................................... 44



Table of abbreviations

Abbreviations

AISC Australian Industry and Skills Committee

CFC Case for Change

CFE Case for Endorsement

Education Department of Education and Training

IAB Industry Advice Branch, Department of Education and Training

IP Industry Policy teams, Industry Advice Branch, Education

IRC Industry Reference Committee

QA Quality Assurance

RTO Registered Training Organisation

SF&PSW Skills Forecast and Proposed Schedule of Work

SSO Skills Service Organisation

STA State Training Authority

TAG Technical Advisory Group

TGA Training.gov.au

TP Training Package

TPCMS Training Package Content Management System

TPDEI Training Package Development, Endorsement and Implementation

VMI VET Marketing & Information Branch, Education



Introduction

Fyusion was engaged by the Australian Industry and Skills Committee (AISC) to assist it to

map the national Training Package Development, Endorsement and Implementation (TPDEI)

process. In undertaking the project, Fyusion was asked to:

▪ Develop a high level end-to-end process map that reflects the activities and touchpoints of all key stakeholder groups in the TPDEI process, including timeframes for process phases;

▪ Develop end-to-end process maps of the TPDEI process that reflect the activities of the following stakeholder groups in the process:

- Australian Industry and Skills Committee;

- Commonwealth Department of Education and Training;

- Industry Reference Committees;

- Skills Service Organisations;

- State Training Authorities;

- Registered Training Organisations;

- Quality Assurance Panel; and

- Regulators.

▪ Understand the key areas of responsibility and activity for each stakeholder group in the current process; and

▪ Provide analysis and observations relating to the end-to-end process map.

Reading this report

This report provides:

1. An overview of the background to the project, including important drivers for this work;

2. The method undertaken to map the current TPDEI process, including details of stakeholder consultation;

3. An end-to-end TPDEI process map which sets out:

- All key stakeholders in the process and their activities;

- Timeframes for each phase and information on the timeframes for specific steps (where this was provided);

- Touchpoints and areas of shared responsibility between stakeholder groups; and

- Decision points in the process.

4. Key observations based on the end-to-end process map;

5. The roles and responsibilities of each key stakeholder group in the TPDEI process, as these were described by stakeholders; and



6. A PowerPoint version of the consolidated end-to-end TPDEI process map (provided as Appendix A to the Current State Report); and

7. Individual stakeholder process maps to step out, in detail, the activities of each stakeholder group in the TPDEI process (provided as Appendix B to the Current State Report).

This report is accompanied by a supplementary paper entitled Training Package

Development, Endorsement and Implementation Process: Key Themes and

Recommendations, which sets out the key themes from the stakeholder feedback with

regard to issues and opportunities for the TPDEI process, as well as recommendations to

address these. The supplementary paper is intended to be read in conjunction with this

document.



Background

Context

The TPDEI process is the process used by government and industry to develop Training

Packages (TPs). TPs specify the knowledge and skills required by workers to successfully carry

out their duties. TPs also specify how units of competency can be packaged into nationally

recognised qualifications that align to the Australian Qualifications Framework.

TPs are predominantly used for the following reasons:

▪ Employers use TPs to assist with workforce design, development and structure; and

▪ Training providers use TPs to design training courses that are tailored to support individual learner needs, so that they meet the needs of employers and industry on graduating / completion.

Purpose of this project

The purpose of this project is to document the TPDEI process in its current state, providing

the AISC with visibility of activities, stakeholder involvement, and timelines in the end-to-end

process as it is currently carried out. This current state map would then assist the AISC to

build an evidence base to inform deliberations on streamlining and improving the

transparency of the process in future. In order to achieve this, Fyusion has developed a series

of process maps that:

▪ Set out the key steps, stakeholders and products; and

▪ Provide indicative timings for steps in the process.

The process maps have been designed to be easily understood by stakeholders to the system

and those with little knowledge of how training products are developed.

The purpose of the consolidated end-to-end process map is to provide an agreed overview

of the TPDEI process, whereas the individual stakeholder maps (provided as an appendix to

this report) are intended to provide a detailed look at the activities of each individual

stakeholder group in the process, as well as illustrating their views of their roles. It is

important to note that:

▪ The consolidated end-to-end map has been developed from the feedback collected from all stakeholder groups, to provide a high-level overview of the entire TPDEI process.

▪ Each validated individual stakeholder map has been developed from the consultation feedback with the relevant stakeholder group only.

Over the course of the project, it became apparent that there was a strong desire by

stakeholders to provide input and feedback on issues and concerns with the current process,

as well as ideas and opportunities for improvement. The project scope was therefore

expanded to include capture and reporting on these key discussion themes. These have been



included in a supplementary paper to this report entitled Training Package Development,

Endorsement and Implementation Process: Key Themes and Recommendations.

Method

This project was based on extensive stakeholder consultation across all key stakeholder

groups involved in the TPDEI process. The main sources of information for the project were:

▪ Background documentation received by Education and stakeholders;

▪ Workshops with Department staff who are involved with the process;

▪ In-depth interviews with key internal and external stakeholders; and

▪ Feedback (verbal and written) received from stakeholders during the validation of the draft process maps.

Workshops

Two workshops were conducted on 2 August 2017 with Education staff who are involved

with the TPDEI process. The first workshop was attended by representatives of the Industry

Advice Branch and the second workshop was attended by representatives of the Quality and

Regulation Branch, the VET Market Information Branch and the Industry Advice branch. The

purpose of the workshops was to map the current state of the TPDEI process. Participants

were questioned about key steps in the process, indicative timings and tools used.

In-depth interviews

Fyusion conducted in-depth interviews in order to gain a detailed understanding of the TPDEI

process. In-depth interviews were completed with 69 stakeholders. Although this represents

a significant consultation program, it is important to note that these feedback providers

represent a limited sample of stakeholders across each group. The exceptions to this are

SSOs (all consulted), STAs (all consulted) and regulators (all consulted).

Australian Industry and Skills Committee members

▪ Dr Don Zoellner

▪ Neil Coulson

▪ Rob Bonner

Department of Education and Training

▪ Industry Advice Branch:

- Director, Strategic Policy Team

- Assistant Director, Strategic Policy Team

- Policy Officer, Strategic Policy Team

- Policy Officer, Industry Policy Team 1

- Director, Industry Policy Team 2

▪ VET Market Information Branch:

- Director, Information Projects Team



- Program Manager, Information Projects Team

- Program Officer, Information Projects Team

▪ VET Quality and Regulation Branch:

- Assistant Director, VET Quality and Participation Policy Team

- Policy Officer, VET Quality and Participation Policy Team

- Director, Foundation Skills and VET Reform Policy Team

- Assistant Director, Foundation Skills and VET Reform Policy

- Policy Officer, Foundation Skills and VET Reform Policy Team

- Director, VET Regulation Policy Team

Industry Reference Committees

▪ Chair, Manufacturing and Engineering

▪ Chair, Culture and Related

▪ Chair, Timber and Wood Processing

▪ Chair, Electricity Supply Industry Generation

▪ Chair, Tourism, Travel and Hospitality

▪ Chair, Construction and Plumbing Services

▪ Deputy Chair, Business Services

▪ Chair, Aerospace

▪ Chair, Complementary Health

▪ Chair, Textiles, Clothing and Footwear

▪ Chair, Transport and Logistics

▪ Chair, Technician Support Services

▪ Interim Chair, Information and Communications Technology

▪ Chair, Aviation, Public Safety and Transport and Logistics

Skills Service Organisations

▪ CEO, Innovation and Business Skills Australia

▪ General Manager, Operations, Skills Impact

▪ CEO, Australian Industry Standards

▪ Industry Manager – Property Services, Artibus Innovation

▪ Partner, PwC

▪ CEO, Skills IQ

State Training Authorities

▪ Senior Project Officer, Training Products Unit, Victorian Department of Education and Training

▪ Strategic Engagement, Skills Investment and Market Strategy, QLD Department of Education, Training and Employment

▪ Manager of National Policy, NSW Department of Education and Training

▪ Manager, Training Products Unit, Victorian Department of Education and Training

▪ Manager, Training Curriculum Services, WA Department of Training and Workforce Development

▪ Manager, Strategic Policy, NT Department of Trade, Business & Innovation



▪ Director of Skills Canberra, ACT, Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate

▪ Manager, Workforce Development and Training, Skills Tasmania

▪ Director, Strategy and Business Coordination, QLD Department of State Development

Registered Training Organisations

▪ President, Enterprise Registered Training Organisation Association

▪ CEO, Australian Council for Private Education and Training

▪ CEO, TAFE Directors Australia

▪ CEO, Open Colleges School of Health

▪ CEO, EQUALS Group

▪ Chief Academic Officer, TAFE Queensland

▪ Executive Project Officer, Federation Training

▪ CMM General Studies & Further Education, Victoria Polytechnic

▪ Student Transition Officer, TAFE Wodonga

▪ CEO, Chisholm TAFE

Quality Assurance Panel Professional Development Consultant

▪ Quality Assurance Consultant

Regulators

▪ Chief Commissioner, Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA)

▪ Manager for Vocational Education and Training, Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority (VRQA)

▪ Chair, Western Australia Training Accreditation Council (WATAC)

The interviews had a duration of between one and two hours each and gathered data on:

▪ The level of involvement, responsibilities and activities of each stakeholder in the TPDEI process;

▪ Key steps undertaken by each stakeholder in the TPDEI process;

▪ Key touchpoints in the process;

▪ Indicative timing for each stage of the process;

▪ Key artefacts/templates used in the process; and

▪ Issues and opportunities for improvement.

Validation of maps

Following the consultation, Fyusion developed a draft process map for each stakeholder

group. These were distributed to all interviewees and feedback sought to amend (where

required) and validate the draft maps. Stakeholders provided clarification around timings

and process steps, as well as supplementary information where relevant. A total of 30

stakeholders validated the process maps provided in this report (a complete list is provided

as an Appendix to this report).



Project constraints

There were a number of constraints and challenges in delivering this project which are

important to note.

▪ There is a wide range of stakeholders and stakeholder groups involved in the TPDEI process, with varying degrees of involvement at different stages, and differing levels of visibility of the process. This challenge was addressed by consulting very broadly with all stakeholder groups in order to build a complete picture of the end-to-end process.

▪ There were many instances of stakeholders providing information during the consultation program which contradicted the information offered by other stakeholders. These differing views have been documented in the Training Package Development, Endorsement and Implementation Process: Key Themes and Recommendations Report. The process maps provided in this report show only those activities and timeframes agreed by most or all stakeholders.

▪ The TPDEI process can be seen to be in transition to some extent, with some roles recently re-established and certain parts of the process recently redesigned or under review. Some stakeholders have not yet seen the process carried out from end-to-end, so were able to provide feedback only on those parts of the process they had been involved in to date.

▪ The principles and approaches described by SSOs during the consultation varied considerably. For this reason, the SSO process map provided does not contain the same level of detail as other stakeholder maps as it has captured only common activities carried out by most or all SSOs. Further detail on the variations across SSOs is provided in the Training Package Development, Endorsement and Implementation Process: Key Themes and Recommendations Report.

▪ While most stakeholders were very happy to provide detailed information on their processes, some stakeholders engaged more than others in the process.

▪ Not all stakeholders were available to validate their relevant stakeholder map following consultation.

▪ Stakeholders were in many cases reluctant to attach concrete timeframes to the process, process phases or process steps. Stakeholders reported that there is significant variation in the length of time required to complete activities or phases, which is impacted by a large number of factors. The timeframes provided in the process maps are therefore as accurate as possible based on the feedback provided, and are often represented as a time range rather than a consistent timeframe.

▪ There was a natural tendency for stakeholders to describe the ‘ideal’ or approved process rather than the actual process as it is currently carried out. As far as possible, this has been addressed by consulting as broadly as possible across all stakeholder groups, and being clear with stakeholders around the purpose if this consultation, in order to develop an understanding of the ‘true’ state of the TPDEI process.

▪ Stakeholders involved in the process may have competing interests which should be carefully considered when reviewing this report.

▪ The policies and practices in the Training Package Development process are dynamic and may have changed since the consultation process was initiated. It is likely that some issues have been or were being addressed at the time of consultation.



Value add

One of the objectives of the Review was to measure the value added to the overall process

by each activity phase. However, any assessment of value add is dependent on being able to

define a clear and shared understanding of the purpose and objectives of a process. Value is

measured against the expectations of stakeholders. In other words, it is not possible to

measure the value of any activity without a clear picture of what success looks like for a

process.

During consultation, it emerged that there are varying interpretations of the purpose and

objectives of the TPDEI process, and conflicting views as to which outcomes and parties the

process should be serving. While most stakeholders described the process as ‘industry-

driven’, there was no shared understanding of what this should mean in terms of concrete

outcomes and measurable indicators. It was therefore not possible to fully ascertain the

extent to which particular parts of the TPDEI process add value for stakeholders. While the

table provided on page 13 lists some suggestions of where process stages may add value,

these are indicative only and should not be seen as agreed by all stakeholders.



How to read the process maps

Process maps have been provided as an appendix to this document. Processes have been

mapped at level 2. The diagram below explains the different levels of process mapping.

Symbols have been used on the end-to-end maps to demonstrate points in the process

where actions are required or further information is available. Examples include:

▪ Decision points – a point where the process may split into two or more channels; and

▪ Consultation points – indicates a process step which requires several stakeholders to work together to complete.

An explanation of all the symbols used is provided at the beginning of each process map.



Process map: consolidated end-to-end TPDEI process

































TPDEI Process map – key observations

The following section of the report sets out Fyusion’s key observations, based on analysis of the end-

to-end consolidated TPDEI process. These observations are directly linked to the process map

provided in the previous section, and were also substantiated by the commentary provided by

stakeholders during the consultation program.

Timeframes

▪ A key consideration for this project was the length of the end-to-end TPDEI process, as well as the timeframes involved with particular stages, activities and stakeholder groups. The process maps included in this report provide detail around these timeframes, as reported by stakeholders during the consultation.

▪ The table on the following page illustrates the significant duration and complexity of the TPDEI process. Given the number of stakeholders involved in this process and the natural complexities involved in managing a process such as this on a national scale, it was anticipated that the process would be of a long duration. However, the number of steps in the process do indicate that, in its current form, the process is convoluted and must result inevitably in poor speed-to-market of TPs.

▪ There appears to be significant activity and complexity concentrated around particular phases of the process, including:

- Development and endorsement of CFCs;

Fyusion understands that this is one of the steps undergoing transition to simplify and streamline arrangements.

- QA;

- Publishing content on TGA; and

- Implementation of TPs by RTOs.

▪ Other phases absorb a great deal of time, although the process itself may not be as complex. For example, the drafting of TPs consumes a large amount of time in iterative consultation with Industry and other stakeholders for most SSOs. This was reported to be the result of difficulty in engaging stakeholders quickly, as well as the need to mediate and resolve conflicting positions.

▪ Based on how long and involved the process appears in this map, it was expected that stakeholders would provide extensive feedback on speed-to-market and the need to simplify the process. However, while this feedback was received from a number of sources (particularly IRCs and RTOs), it is interesting to note that many stakeholders were more concerned with the quality of the process outputs than its duration. Quality emerged as the strongest priority for most stakeholders consulted, particularly IRC and STA stakeholders.

▪ It was also reported that there is a wide range of factors which can impact timelines. These include:

- The complexity of the industry/sector involved, including:

Number of stakeholders;

Diversity of stakeholder groups;

Geographic location of stakeholders; and



Profile of stakeholders.

For example, an industry largely comprised of small business owners located in remote areas will naturally present challenges for consultation, which may create time delays, compared with an industry comprised a small number of large enterprises located in major cities.

- Whether changes relate to a highly regulated or licensed occupation;

- The complexity and degree of change being made. This has particularly significant impacts during the implementation phase when RTOs are required to redesign their offerings, update their systems and transition students to new or updated qualifications;

- The degree of controversy or dissension around a change to a TP. SSOs reported that the expectation to align all stakeholders in agreement on changes can create delays in the development of outputs; and

- The urgency of the change. For example, changes relating to safety or legislative requirements are generally ‘fast-tracked’ through the process, while those with no clear imperative or driver may lag.

The following table outlines durations for all phases in the TPDEI process as set out in the Consolidated

end-to-end TPDEI Process Map, provided on p. 13 - 28 of this report.

Phase Duration

Develop the Skills Forecast and Proposed Schedule of Work – AISC to approve National Schedule

up to 11 months

Develop and approve Case for Change 4.5-10 months

Training Package products drafted 3 months – 18 months

Industry validation of draft Training Package material 1-2 months

Quality assurance and gathering evidence of stakeholder support for change

3 weeks - 6 months

Compile and submit Case for Endorsement for AISC approval up to 2 months

Upload Training Package content and publish on TGA 1 - 5 months

Develop plan to transition to new/updated training package 6 - 12 months

Update scope; redesign, pilot and publicise new offering 6 – 24 months

Begin teaching based on new training package content -

Consultation

▪ The map suggests that there is significant time and effort invested in consultation at several points in the process:

- During development and validation of the SF&PSW;

- During the development and validation of CFCs; and

- During the development and validation of TPs and associated products.



▪ The consolidated end-to-end process map does not provide a great deal of detail on the activities that comprise this consultation. This is largely due to the fact that both SSOs and IRCs reported undertaking these phases quite differently across the group. There were few specific consultation activities that all SSOs reported undertaking at any given point in the process.

▪ Individual SSO discussions illustrate these differences in consultation approach in terms of depth, channels used, and the extent to which consultation is tailored to the audience and the requirements of the process phase. There were also variances in the timeframes for SSOs in consulting at different points in the process.

▪ While the same key milestones are being met by SSOs and IRCs e.g. preparing CFCs, the process of reaching these milestones varies. It was noted that this is impacted by several factors, including:

- The relative complexity of different industries: This may have a significant impact on how the SSO and IRC consult, the channels used for consultation, and the length of time it takes to engage all relevant stakeholders and gain agreement.

- IRC leadership: At appears that some IRCs have chosen to take on an approval role and give SSOs freedom to lead the consultation process. Other SSOs will be directed by their IRCs to fulfil more of a purely secretariat support role, where IRCs direct the work of the SSO and complete the ‘legwork’.

- The knowledge and experience of the SSO: Despite changes to the TPDEI process which were implemented in 2016, more experienced SSOs are able to navigate the process with more efficiency and flexibility by leveraging their knowledge and contacts, compared to less experienced SSOs who have not yet developed close relationships with industry. Newer SSOs are widely seen to be ‘finding their feet’ to some extent.

▪ While Activity Orders generated by the AISC Secretariat for SSOs do stipulate that meaningful stakeholder consultation must occur, there is significant room for interpretation around this. The understanding of SSOs of what this means does not always align.

▪ IRCs also appear to be operating quite differently across sectors. In particular, the level to which the IRC is directing the work of SSOs appears to vary significantly, with some IRC Chairs reporting that SSOs are effectively driving the process. Although this appears to be the exception rather than the rule, it is clear that SSOs and IRCs’ ways of working are diverse, with the relative responsibilities in leading industry consultation particularly different in different instances.

Visibility of the process and stakeholder roles

▪ The map reveals a number of interesting points in relation to how stakeholders are connecting to, or not connecting to, other stakeholders in the process.

▪ Overall, the map illustrates that there are many stakeholders involved in the process who are not connected to, or interacting with, other stakeholder groups. This in itself does not represent an issue; however there was extensive feedback from stakeholders that they believed that their roles should be more clearly linked to others, both for visibility and efficiency of the process.

▪ In particular, it is clear that there is little visibility for stakeholders of AISC’s role in the TPDEI process, with most interaction occurring with or through the Secretariat. Although the Committee receives many of the key outputs of the process for endorsement, it does not have many points of direct connection to the process or to stakeholders, which may limit visibility across the process and impact decision-making. A number of stakeholders gave feedback to support this, suggesting they would like better visibility of decision making at the Committee level.



▪ Equally, the maps shows that activities for many stakeholders are concentrated in particular sections of the process, with few participants involved in all process phases. This goes some way to explaining the feedback received from numerous stakeholders that participants do not have visibility or understanding of the end-to-end TPDEI process or the roles of other stakeholders in the process. There was extensive feedback regarding the broader need to clarify the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders across the process. This is despite the existence of policy outlines and guides that are readily available to stakeholders.

QA

▪ QA appears to be duplicated in the process, with the following roles all involved in undertaking some quality assurance activities:

- SSOs;

- AISC Secretariat; and

- The QA panel.

▪ There is a level of interrogation of documentation expected by IRCs and the AISC prior to providing sign-off on SFs and PSWs, CFCs and CFEs.

▪ This duplication around QA appears to extend the duration of the TPDEI process significantly. The process for engaging QA panel members, in particular, and actioning their advice creates some delays for SSOs in finalising documentation.

▪ At the same time, the map demonstrates that there is no point in the process at which a deep level of QA is occurring, with all stakeholders relying on other checks in the process to provide a quality final product. This is supported by feedback from stakeholders that suggested there is a gap in ‘true’ QA in the process, which may be resulting in quality issues for process outputs (TPs).

▪ The role of the AISC Secretariat in advising the AISC on documentation, in particular, is not clear from the perspective of stakeholders.

▪ The map outlines the general activities undertaken by QA Panel members in the process. However, in practice, the level of input and scrutiny provided by panel members varies. While some panellists provide a deep level of review of the quality of documentation and the consultation undertaken to develop it, others are currently providing a ‘lighter’ review of documents with a stronger focus on formatting and wording. This inconsistency was attributed to the varying levels of skill and experience of Panel members. It is understood that the AISC Secretariat has recently introduced measures to support professional development of QA Panel members and ensure greater consistency across the group.

Involvement of STAs

▪ STAs do not seem to be involved in the drafting or implementation of TPs apart from the consultation process.

▪ STAs suggested that they receive little opportunity to provide feedback in the process, and that the timeframes for this feedback are very restrictive. Some SSOs reported that STAs often do not take up opportunities to engage in the process when these are offered.

▪ It appears that the extent of an STA’s role in the process will often depend on their capacity and resourcing.

▪ It was widely reported that the role of STAs in the current TPDEI process and the value added given their minimal involvement is unclear.



Involvement of RTOS

▪ The map shows clearly that all RTOs become involved in the process at the point at which TPs have been published on TGA. Following this, there is intensive activity for RTOs to implement the Package and manage any transitions (teach outs).

▪ Many RTOs are members of TAGs.

▪ While some RTOs are involved (as members) on IRCs, this involvement has been reduced in recent years following the most recent round of refreshed IRCs across all industries. Similarly, while some RTOs are engaged in providing feedback during consultation on TPs, this involvement was reported by RTOs to be minimal.

▪ RTOs reported that they have little visibility of changes that are occurring in the system, resulting in a lack of understanding of what has driven changes to TPs. This impacts the ability of RTOs to deliver training in line with the objectives of decision-makers.

Involvement of VET Regulators

▪ According to VET Regulators, their actual role in the TPDEI process can often be depend on how they and RTOs are involved in the initial consultation and development stages of the process.

▪ Regulators uphold their function to ensure RTOs can meet the necessary TP requirements, and will not approve RTOs to deliver endorsed packages where TP learning outcomes do not seem realistic or meaningful for the student. Feedback indicated that this may occur as result of inadequate consultation with the regulator and RTO stakeholder groups, who are responsible for implementing the package, ensuring the quality of the overall product, and securing learning outcomes for the end user.

The following section of this report sets out the roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder group

in the TPDEI process, and provides detailed process maps to describe this involvement.



Stakeholder roles and responsibilities in the TPDEI

process

Fyusion met with individuals from eight stakeholder groups to map the ‘as is’ process within their

organisations. Each stakeholder group has a distinct function within the TPDEI process, and each is

engaged at a more detailed level during specific phases of the process. The section below gives an

overview of:

▪ The core function of each of the stakeholder groups;

▪ Key phases in which they are involved; and

▪ Their main tasks and responsibilities within each phase of the process.

Australian Industry and Skills Committee (AISC)

The AISC was established by the COAG Industry and Skills Council (CISC). They are the appointed

industry-led body that gives advice on the implementation of national VET policies. As outlined in the

Training Package Development and Endorsement Process Policy (2016), the Committee’s role is:

▪ To ensure that the directions taken by the CISC are informed by an industry-based perspective focused on the quality and relevance of the national training system; and

▪ To approve industry-defined TPs for implementation.

Key activities

The AISC is primarily responsible for:

▪ Analysing the SF&PSWs which are developed by IRCs/SSOs, and deciding which TPs will advance through the TPDEI process;

▪ Working to identify common elements within TPs in order to create opportunities for the development of cross-sector projects;

▪ Reviewing and approving CFCs;

▪ Reviewing and approving for implementation CFEs; and

▪ Advising the Minister for Education and Training.

The AISC operates as a board and comes together approximately every six weeks, with out-of-session

meetings held as required. Because the AISC cannot represent all areas of industry or hold specialist

expertise across all subject areas, the Committee relies on other parties in the process to provide

detailed analysis and quality assurance. The AISC is supported by a Secretariat within Education.



Phase and key tasks Stakeholder

group Duration


▪ AISC meetings to review recommendations from Industry and agree to the National Schedule

▪ AISC meetings occur (6 times a year)

▪ Determine if a CFC is required

Education Up to 11 months

Develop and approve Case for Change

▪ Review CFCs and recommendations

▪ Approve package to proceed to Training Package Development phase

Education 4.5 - 10 months

Compile and submit Case for Endorsement for AISC approval (up to 2 months)

▪ Review CFEs and recommendations

▪ Approve package to proceed to be implemented

Education Up to 2 months

Department of Education and Training (Education)

Education is responsible for:

▪ Providing support to the AISC and its network of IRCs;

▪ Managing funding agreements for SSOs;

▪ Providing structured input to the TPDEI process; and

▪ Actively engaging with stakeholders to identify and resolve any national issues.

▪ Engaging with IRCs and SSOs on procedural issues.

Key activities

As the AISC Secretariat:

▪ Receiving and checking (for compliance) CFCs and CFEs that are submitted to Education by SSOs;

▪ Assessing CFCs and CFEs against the IRC’s priorities as identified in their most recent SF, the standards outlined in the Standards for Training Packages (2013) policy document, and ministerial priorities;

▪ Presenting CFCs and CFEs to the AISC;

▪ Developing Activity Orders to commission SSO work;

Education is also responsible for

▪ Managing, maintaining and advising SSOs on use of the TGA website, the national register for the VET sector;



▪ Maintaining policy and legislation for the VET sector with regards to the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011;

▪ Receiving feedback from students and RTOs related to TPs and passing this feedback onto regulators; and


group Duration


▪ Analyses SF&PSW document to ensure all information is included

▪ Consult with SSO if more information is required

▪ Develop recommendation for the AISC including across SF&PSWs

▪ Submit to SF&PSW to AISC

IRC

AISC

SSO

Up to 11 months


▪ Update the National Review Schedule

▪ Develop and negotiate Activity order with SSO

▪ Approve final Activity order

▪ Review case for Change documentation

▪ Develop recommendation cover sheet

▪ Send documentation to AISC

SSO 4.5 – 10 months

Training Package products drafted

▪ Develop and negotiate Activity Order with SSO

▪ Approve and sign off on Activity Order

▪ Monitor progress of work as per activity order

SSO 3 – 18

months

Compile and submit Case for Endorsement for AISC approval

▪ Receive CFE documentation

▪ Complete analysis and develop recommendations for AISC

▪ Publish decision to proceed to implementation

▪ Coordinate CISC endorsement at next opportunity (does not prevent implementation)

SSO

AISC

Up to 2 months

Upload Training Package content and publish on TGA

▪ Receive enquiries from RTOs / students and direct them to the relevant stakeholder for assistance

▪ Input classifications in TPCMS and respond to technical issues

SSO

Regulator

RTO

1 -5 months

Industry Reference Committees (IRCs)

According to the Training Package Development and Endorsement Process Policy (2016), IRCs are

responsible for:

▪ Gathering industry intelligence to inform advice on TP development and review;

▪ Directing SSOs to ensure that TPs contain the correct industry content;



▪ Providing sign off for Industry SF&PSWs, CFCs, CFEs and other submissions for consideration by

the AISC;

▪ Reporting to the AISC on the progress of their work; and

▪ Promoting the use of VET in the sectors they represent.

Key activities

Although activities vary across IRCs, they are generally responsible for the following tasks:

▪ Providing advice and contacts to SSOs to support industry consultation;

▪ Engaging in some level of consultation with relevant industry stakeholders;

▪ Advising and assisting the SSO on the development of SF&PSWs and prioritising pieces of work within the SF&PSW;

▪ Advising and assisting the SSO to develop a CFC;

▪ Advising and assisting the SSO to develop a CFE; and

▪ Nominating and/or participating in TAGs to assist with TP development.


group Duration of

phase


▪ Review SSO research

▪ Consult with Industry

▪ Invite stakeholder feedback and review feedback

▪ Review draft SF&PSW, sign off for submission to AISC via Secretariat

SSO

Education

Industry

Up to 11 months


▪ Consult with Industry

▪ Review feedback

▪ Consult with SSO on CFC, sign off for submission to AISC via Secretariat

SSO

Education

Industry

4.5 – 10 months

Industry validation of draft Training Package material

▪ Oversee TPD

▪ Be updated by SSO on consultation progress

▪ Consider completed CFE and QA reports

▪ Review and sign off for submission to AISC via Secretariat

SSO 1 – 2 months



Skills Service Organisations (SSOs)

The Training Package Development and Endorsement Process Policy (2016) outlines the SSOs main

duties as the following:

▪ Support IRCs in their engagement with industry/employers/enterprises and other stakeholders to identify the skills required for jobs, and drive the TP development and review process so that skills, standards and competencies align with modern work-practices;

▪ Develop compliant TPs that are relevant to a modern Australian economy, are embraced by industry and maximise the potential for individuals to access employment; and

▪ Provide technical, operational and secretariat support to IRCs.

Key activities

According to stakeholder feedback, SSOs are responsible for the following tasks within the TPDEI

process:

▪ Assisting the IRC in developing a SF&PSW;

▪ Assisting the IRC in developing a CFC;

▪ Assisting the IRC in developing a CFE;

▪ Engaging in consultation with relevant industry stakeholders regarding TPs;

▪ Analysing industry feedback;

▪ Publicising TP materials online, on their own website and on training.gov.au; and

▪ Coordinating the establishment of a Technical Advisory Group which is nominated by the IRC.

Please note that the durations listed below are based on averages. The varying scope and complexity

of individual projects and the processes of different SSOs mean that different phases can have different

durations.


group Duration of

phase


▪ Conduct desktop research and analysis

▪ Develop Draft SF&PSW

▪ Publish Draft SF&PSW on website for feedback

▪ Facilitate stakeholder consultation and capture feedback

▪ Consult with STA and consider feedback

▪ Incorporate feedback into SF&PSW and send to IRC for sign off and submit to AISC via Secretariat

▪ If not approved by AISC, consult with IRC / Industry for further feedback and clarification

IRC

Industry

STA

Up to 11 months




▪ Negotiate Activity Order with AISC Secretariat

▪ Receive Activity Order from AISC Secretariat and advise IRC of CFC

▪ Review research, legislation and current data

▪ Schedule consultations with Industry and IRC

▪ Review feedback and Develop CFC under IRC direction

▪ Refine CFC and send to IRC for sign off

▪ Submit to AISC via Secretariat

IRC

Education

Industry

4.5 – 10 months

Training Package products drafted

▪ Negotiate Activity Order with AISC Secretariat

▪ Draft TP products in line with Activity Order

▪ Review research, legislation and current data

▪ Schedule consultations with Industry and IRC

▪ Run workshops with Industry and SMEs

▪ Develop project plan

▪ Post on the SSO website invite Industry feedback

▪ Set up Technical Advisory Committee (where necessary)

▪ Undertake broader consultation with Industry and STAs

▪ Publish first draft of CFE on website for feedback and collect and analyse the data

▪ Develop companion volumes

Education

IRC

Industry

STA

3 – 18 months

Industry validation of draft Training Package material

▪ Develop validation draft and send to IRC for review

▪ Publish on website and collate stakeholder feedback

▪ Finalise validation draft and proof

▪ Source a QA member and send final documentation

▪ Receive completed CFE and QA reports

▪ Review and submit to IRC

▪ Write Reports by Exception (where required) and submit to the AISC

IRC

QA

SSO

Education

AISC

1 -2 months

Upload Training Package content and publish on TGA

▪ Submit content in TPCMS

▪ Publish Training Package products and companion volumes on VETNet

▪ Publish notification on SSO website

▪ Alert stakeholders via email and newsletter

Education

IRC

Industry

RTO

Regulator

1 -5 months



State Training Authorities (STAs)

According to the Training Package Development and Endorsement Process Policy (2016), state and

territory governments support the TPDEI process through:

▪ Canvassing stakeholder views to identify and resolve any relevant jurisdictional issues;

▪ Providing implementation advice, including advice about downstream impacts of proposed TP

changes and the best way of managing those impacts;

▪ Developing purchasing guides for training providers (generally modelled on the purchasing guide

developed by Victoria); and

▪ Identifying any outstanding issues for inclusion as a ‘report by exception’ in the CFE.

Key activities

According to stakeholder feedback, STAs are responsible for the following tasks within the TPDEI

process:

▪ Reviewing the CFC;

▪ Reviewing and making recommendations on the CFE; and

▪ Consultation with state-specific industry and community stakeholders.


group Duration of

phase


▪ Review the SF&PSW documentation

▪ Consult with Industry for feedback

▪ Collate feedback and send to SSOs

SSO

Industry

Up to 11 months


▪ Review CFC documentation (2 week turnaround)

▪ Determine any issues for states

▪ Suggest other stakeholders to consult with

SSO 4.5-10

months


▪ Review completed CFE and QA reports from the SSO

▪ Provide formal support, and if not, provide reasoning to SSO.

SSO

QA

3 weeks – 6 months



Registered Training Organisations (RTOs)

As outlined on asqa.gov.au, the core roles of an RTO are to:

▪ Deliver nationally recognised courses and accredited Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) VET qualifications; and

▪ Apply for Australian, state and territory funding to deliver vocational education and training.

Key activities

The vast majority of activity for RTOs in the TPDEI process begins once TPs have been through the development and endorsement phases and are released on training.gov.au. The key activities described by RTOs in the TPDEI process were:

▪ Assessing amended or new TP or requirements to decide whether they will offer the new or updated course;

▪ Altering or redesigning their training offering to satisfy changes to TPs;

▪ Administrative tasks associated with updating their organisational information and systems following changes to TPs;

▪ Managing the transition of students to new qualifications or to meet new requirements following changes to TPs (teach-out period);

▪ Applying to regulators to have non-equivalent units added to their scope; and

▪ If necessary, appealing decisions made by regulators regarding additions to scope.

As RTOs can deal with one of three regulators, depending on what state or territory they are based in,

where they deliver courses, and whether they enrol international students. Processes around contact

with regulators can vary. The Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) regulates all states and

territories in Australia apart from Victoria and Western Australia, which are regulated by the Victorian

Registration and Qualifications Authority (VRQA) and the Western Australian Training Accreditation

Council (WATAC), respectively.


group Duration of

phase

Develop plan to transition to new/updated training package

▪ Decide how to implement the TP based on if it is equivalent or non-equivalent

▪ Redesign offering and work with Regulator to have scope updated

Regulator 6 – 12

months

Update scope; redesign, pilot and publicise new offering

▪ Implement redesigned offering

▪ Notify students of requirements and transition arrangements

▪ Update information on the relevant regulator website

In the case non-equivalent packages not passing the Risk Assessment involved during the Regulator audit, the RTO may need to apply for a review of decision.

6 – 24

months



Quality Assurance Panel (QA)

As outlined in the Training Package Development and Endorsement Process Policy (2016), the key

function of the QA processes is to:

▪ Assure the AISC and IRC that the TP components are of high quality and meet all requirements set out in the Standards for Training Packages (2012), the Training Package Products Policy (2015) and the Training Package Development and Endorsement Process Policy (2016); and

▪ Build stakeholder confidence that products approved by the AISC are fit for purpose and ready for implementation.

Key activities

According to stakeholder feedback, QA personnel are responsible for the following tasks within the

TPDEI process:

▪ Reviewing CFEs;

▪ (Not compulsory) If engaged to do so, producing an Editorial and Equity report that analyses whether the TP is fair and impartial, and satisfies rules around editorial compliance; and

▪ Producing a QA Report that analyses whether the TP meets the qualities defined in Standards for Training Packages (2013).

A QA panel member is engaged directly by an SSO, and the selected QA member must sign an

Independence Declaration form demonstrating that there is not a conflict of interest in steering the

CFE process towards a particular outcome through the delivery of QA services.


group Duration of

phase


▪ Receive TP from SSO and Complete Edit and Equity report (if engaged for this purpose

▪ Complete independence declaration for and undertake Quality Assurance report

▪ Consult with SSO to rectify noncompliance issues

▪ Advise when TP meets requirements and send to STA for consideration

SSO

STA

3 weeks – 6 months

Regulators

Three regulators are responsible for ensuring that the overall delivery, resourcing and practices of

RTOs meet the requirements of endorsed TPs. As a result of this, processes can vary. The three

regulators are:

▪ The Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA);

▪ Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority (VRQA); and



▪ Western Australian Training Accreditation Council (WATAC).

The key role and responsibilities of regulators, as outlined in the in the Training Package Development

and Endorsement Process Policy (2016), are to:

▪ Regulate the training and assessment strategies and practices of RTOs (including the amount of training they provide) to ensure consistency with the requirements of the endorsed components of TPs;

▪ Enable each learner to meet the requirements for each unit of competency or module in which they are enrolled; and

▪ Approve VET Accredited Courses that address niche or emerging skills requirements for industry, enterprises and the community where they are not already covered by a TP.

Key activities

In the current TPDEI process, regulators are responsible for the following tasks:

▪ Liaising with STAs to provide feedback on CFEs;

▪ Completing audits on RTOs;

▪ Regulating changes to RTOs’ scopes; and

▪ Undertaking risk assessment audits for RTO to deliver non-equivalent TP material.

As described earlier, there are three regulators responsible for ensuring that the overall delivery,

resourcing and practices of RTOs meet the requirements of endorsed TPs. As a result of this, processes

can vary across jurisdictions. The three regulators are:

▪ The Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA);

▪ Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority (VRQA); and

▪ Western Australian Training Accreditation Council (WATAC).


group Duration of

phase

Develop plan to transition to new/updated training package

▪ Review the RTOs application forms and update scope of the product

▪ In the case of non-equivalent package, undertake risk assessment audit, to assess RTO ability to deliver upon the training Package requirements

▪ Consult with RTO to rectify requirement issues

RTO 6 – 12

months

Current State Report The Australian Industry and Skills Committee


Contact details

This document was compiled by Fyusion Asia Pacific on behalf of the Australian Industry and

Skills Committee. For more information on the contents of this document, please contact:

Lisa Koch Director Fyusion Asia Pacific Pty Ltd T: 02 9906 6440 M: 0419 875 775 E: [email protected] NSW: PO Box 528, Crows Nest, NSW 1585 VIC: PO Box 3113, Dendy, VIC, 3186

Disclaimer and Limit of Liability

To the extent permitted by law, Fyusion Asia Pacific makes no representations about the suitability of

the content of this report for any purpose. All content is provided "as is" without any warranty of any

kind. Fyusion Asia Pacific hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to the content,

including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a

particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Fyusion Asia Pacific be liable for any

special, indirect, exemplary or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever, including but not

limited to loss of use, data or profits, without regard to the form of any action, including but not

limited to contract, negligence or other tortious actions, arising out of or in connection with the use,

copying or display of the content.

Although Fyusion Asia Pacific believes the content to be accurate, complete and current, Fyusion Asia

Pacific makes no warranty as to the accuracy, completeness or currency of the content. It is your

responsibility to verify any information before relying on it. The content of this report may include

technical inaccuracies based on the data available.

mailto:[email protected]

Current State Report The Australian Industry and Skills Committee


Appendix 1 – Stakeholder maps

As part of this project, Fyusion has developed individual stakeholder maps which have been

verified by stakeholders in each group. These groups include:

▪ Australian Industry Skills Committee;

▪ Department of Education and Training;

▪ Industry Reference Committees;

▪ Skills Service Organisations;

▪ State Training Authorities;

▪ Registered Training Organisations;

▪ Quality Assurance Panel; and

▪ VET Regulators.

The maps are included as attachments in PowerPoint format.

Each stakeholder map was developed as a result of consultation with the relevant

stakeholder group. The maps were also validated by these stakeholders. As a result of this,

individual stakeholder maps may have slight differences in process and emphasis as

compared to each other, as well as the consolidated end-to-end map, which is intended to

be a general agreed overview of the process as a whole. It is important to consider how

individual maps vary and how this reflects the attitudes and knowledge of individual

stakeholder groups.

The individual stakeholder maps are intended to only show the activities of the relevant

stakeholders and are not intended to represent the process as a whole. As a result of this,

many maps begin and end at different stages of the process, reflecting the involvement of

each stakeholder group. It is also important to recognise that many process steps in the

stakeholder maps will have greater or lesser levels of detail as compared to the consolidated

end-to-end map. This is based on the relevant stakeholders’ level of involvement in the

particular step.

Date post:	11-Feb-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	1 times

TRAINING PACKAGE DEVELOPMENT ENDORSEMENT AND ... · VISIBILITY OF THE PROCESS AND STAKEHOLDER ROLES...

Documents