Continuity and change: employers’ training practices and partnerships with training providers

The nature of the partnerships

Types of partnership

In the RTO questionnaire (Question 8), RTOs were asked: What do you understand by the term ‘VET industry-provider partnerships?

Responses from the three types of RTOs were consistent in that partnerships were seen as collaborative, mutually beneficial, relationships built around the provision of training, as exemplified by the following responses:

Collaborating with industry to meet their workforce development needs

Agreed collaborative arrangements established to enable mutually beneficial strategies to provide specific workforce training and in maintaining skilled employees

Partnerships that are of mutual benefit for both students and industry e.g. graduate outcomes, internships, work experience, access to industry experts

As an organisation that is very much about Industry alignment and industry needs, we are continually partnering with employers and industry to provide strong VET and skills development outcomes for current and potential employees/apprentices. Partnerships can be at an Employer/Apprentice/RTO level or at an Industry Association level whereby we have created strong formal and informal forums for dialogue, improvements to VET outcomes for the sector and general enhancements to Vet delivery including from within school to the workplace. Listening and responding to VET needs in regional locations has positioned our RTO as a provider of choice in a number of locations within this state and beyond

Co-design of curriculum, cooperation in designing delivery models and choice of training products. Industry input into validation of training and assessment products. Collaboration on employment and further education pathways

A relationship with industry to provide more relevant vocational education and training.

However, there was not a consensus among the respondents on the formal/informal nature of partnerships. For some they were formal arrangements; for example, they were reported to be:

A formal arrangement to deliver education services with documented outcomes for all stakeholders

Formal partnerships based on a training needs analysis and strategic plan for workforce development

Partnerships are a formal relationship with MOUs in place

Partnerships traditionally to me are about formal agreements between industry and RTO to provide targeted, ongoing training.

For others both formal and informal relationships were included. For example the following:

Formal and informal training relationship / Local / Engaged with local industry / Upskilling workforce

Formal & informal i.e. / Formal- where we have an MOU / Informal- where we utilise industry facilities, equipment, expertise for practical training days

Partnerships built with employers to support industry hands-on training. Formal and informal relationships have been built

Partnerships in our case are both formal and informal, they are in several regions in NSW and our company can be the lead company but not necessarily so

Partnerships do not demand formality to be recognized by the participants.

There were also a small number of respondents for whom partnerships were informal relationships, for example:

Informal relationships with employers for on job training of trainees, with the hope of employment outcomes

Informal training relationships.

RTOs were asked to indicate the size of enterprises with which they partnered, with three categories of size provided. A strong difference emerged between the TAFE Institutes and private RTOs, with a higher proportion of private RTOs (65%) having partnerships mainly with small (up to 20 employees) or medium size enterprises (21-200 employees), in contrast to the TAFE Institutes (33%). The majority of TAFE Institutes (61%) reported they had a fairly even mix of small, medium and large partners. Only a small number (5%) of RTOs identified that they mainly partnered with large organisations (over 200 employees). Further analysis of those RTOs who identified that they mainly partnered with small or medium enterprises showed that small enterprises (under 20 employees) dominated (approximately 66%) the partnerships for private RTOs.

Attitudes to partnerships

Respondents were asked (Question 9 – RTO survey) to rate on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) a number of statements to indicate their levels of agreement or disagreement about aspects of partnering. Table 15 shows that the vast majority of RTOs agreed to some extent that they had a highly successful track record in partnering with industry (86%) especially in niche markets (89%), that their track record was partly what attracted industry to partner with them (86%), and that their organisational culture was an asset (92%). They felt that they were operating in a highly competitive training market (94%). Interestingly, all TAFE respondents (n=20) believed there was strong support within their organisation for seeking industry partnerships. Approximately 30% of the private RTOs did not believe there was strong support for partnerships within their RTOs.

Around three-quarters of RTOs believed that their organisation had:

a goal of increasing the levels of profitable training partnerships (79%)

a structure (e.g. level of hierarchy, control systems) that was an asset when partnering with industry (79%)

strong internal support for seeking profitable and high profile industry training partnerships (76%)

a clear strategy about how it will build its level of industry partnering (72%).

The vast majority of TAFE Institutes believed they had locational advantages (85%), whilst acknowledging they were still developing a track record in partnering (85%). In contrast, less than half of the private RTOs or saw their location as a competitive advantage (42%). Similarly, the majority of TAFE Institutes were operating as almost the only provider of certain types of industry training (60%); however, less than half of the private RTOs (for-profit 47% and non-profit (38%) believed they had a niche market advantage in this way.

Table 15 RTO partnering characteristics

Per cent of respondents who agree (rated 4,5 or 6 out of 6) Total N - 107	TAFE	For-Profit	Non-Profit	All RTOs
We are operating in a highly competitive training market	95.0	94.5	90.6	93.5
Our organisational culture (e.g. our values, how we relate to people) is proving to be an asset in our partnering with industry	80.0	96.4	90.6	91.6
We see ourselves being successful in particular niche markets of industry training	80.0	89.1	93.8	88.8
We have a highly successful track record in partnering with industry	95.0	83.6	84.4	86.0
Industry is attracted by our track record as a successful partner	90.0	83.6	81.3	84.1
Increasing the levels of profitable training partnerships is a major goal of our organisation	95.0	78.2	71.9	79.4
Our organisational structure (e.g. level of hierarchy, control systems) is proving to be an asset in our partnering with industry	65.0	83.6	81.3	79.4
There is strong support in our organisation for seeking industry training partnerships that will be profitable and high profile	100.0	70.9	68.8	75.7
Our organisation has a clear strategy about how it will build its level of industry partnering	70.0	76.4	64.5	71.7
We are the ‘partner of choice’ for a number of industries	70.0	72.7	62.5	69.2
We are still developing a track record as a good training partner	85.0	69.1	40.6	63.6
Our organisation manages partnerships interstate	75.0	45.5	46.9	51.4
Our geographical location gives us competitive advantages in gaining access to certain key industry partners	85.0	40.0	43.8	49.5
We operate almost as the only provider of certain types of industry training	60.0	47.3	37.5	46.7

Note: n=107

Respondents were asked to classify the percentages of their partnerships that fell under various specified types of partnerships, such as mutual service, joint ventures, fee-for service and provision of government subsidised training. RTOs had on average a higher proportion of partnerships which were fee-for-service (mean=40%) and provision of government subsidised training (mean=29%), compared to mutual service partnerships (mean=15%) and joint ventures (mean=9%). This pattern was reflected across all the types of RTOs. It must be noted, however, that the variation across RTOs was extensive, with some RTOs identifying all their partnerships were within one category. This finding held across all categories.