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

Summary

The findings of the RTO survey showed the complex and diverse nature of partnerships and also highlighted the differences between the three types of RTOs, including the geographical spread of partnerships, the size of partnering enterprises, the level of partnership income, the support for partnering within the RTOs, and the drivers for partnering. The examples of successful partnerships reveal variations in purpose, initiation, and benefits to the RTOs and their partners for these partnerships. Although many RTOs identified financial motivations, the reality was that some of the successful partnerships identified brought little financial gain, or even in some instances little or no revenue, to the RTOs. Many RTOs were unwilling or unable to determine the annual revenue from the successful partnerships they identified. This difficulty could be compounded by flux and uncertainty around government funding identified by the RTOs.

The RTOs were operating in a highly competitive environment and whilst they were generally satisfied with their partnership performance a number of areas for improvement emerged. The strengths of the RTOs revolve around the relationship aspects of partnerships, but, weaknesses were identified, particularly for TAFE institutes, around the commercial aspects of partnering and the understanding of legal and contractual arrangements.

The organisational characteristics of RTOs that they thought making them attractive for industry to partner with included, responsiveness, reliability, flexibility, adaptability, quality of training, staff expertise, industry experience, and strong customer service. Interestingly, in addition to improving commercial skills, flexibility was identified by TAFE Institutes as a particular area in need of improvement. The for-profit RTOs saw a need for improvements in marketing and communication and the non-profit RTOs saw a need to develop a more commercial mentality to develop and capture opportunities.

Detailed findings from the interviews

This aspect of the project involved ‘matched-pair’ interviews with employers and RTOs with which they partnered.

Nature of the partnerships

Nine ‘paired interviews’ were undertaken, with the main players in each party to the employer-RTO partnership. The interview questions are provided in Appendix C of the main report. Many of the same questions were asked of both parties.

A range of industry areas, locations and type of provider was sought and achieved (see the research method section of the report). In all cases, one qualification or skill set(s) formed the main raison d’etre of the partnership, and these, together with the main methods of delivery for each, are detailed in Table 27 below.

Table 27 The nine partnerships

Partner-ship no.	Industry area of employer	Main qualifications/ skill sets examined in interview	Type of training (e.g. team/individual)	Delivery model (e.g.: on premises or not; on-line)
1.	Pulp and paper manufacturing	Emergency response training (Skill set)	Group	Face to face mainly in workplace but also at TAFE
2.	Agricultural services	Cert IV in Agriculture	Small group intakes every 6 months	3 x 1 week long workshops at TAFE,& self-directed learning materials
3.	Expedition support (Trades)	Units of competency containing licence e.g. crane operation	Small groups	At TAFE or employer (Block delivery)
4.	Design and engineering production	Engineering apprenticeships in three trades.	Small group; individual.	Primarily on TAFE premises; previously on site
5.	Pathology labs-public system	Cert IV and Diploma from Lab Operations Training Package	Individual-traineeships	Workplace-based with learning materials
6.	Home and community care	Cert III Home and Community Care	Mainly team including regular days off-job	On premises and ‘homework’
7.	Hospitality chain	Cert II Commercial Cookery & Patisserie; skill sets e.g. sommelier	Individual; (Groups when numbers were larger)	Workplace-based learning and at RTO (1 day every 3 weeks)
8.	Wine production	Cert II & III Wine Industry Operations	Individual (Groups when numbers were larger)	Face to face in the workplace & RTO; classroom sessions at workplace
9.	Scientific research	Dangerous Goods by Air certificate (CASA)	Small group	On site, face-to-face for the initial course; online for the refresher course

Table 28 shows how the partnerships started; this table provides, for each partnership, the main training need which was addressed and the processes by which the partnership was established.
Table 28 The establishment of the partnerships

Partnership no.	Drivers	Partnership set-up processes
1.	Licensing requirements; previous provider was not specific enough, as well as being too expensive.	A revival of a previous failed partnership, when new people were appointed at both the employer and the RTO. A Service Level Agreement was set up
2.	Need to combine a broad knowledge of the agricultural business with company-specific procedures.	Dissatisfaction with a previous partnership where the RTO only offered on-line training. The new RTO offered a combination of modes of delivery
3.	Needed just-in-time training in specific skill sets for tradespeople going on Antarctic expeditions.	A panel of trainers was established via tender, and the RTO was selected for this particular aspect
4.	Needed to shift the balance of the apprenticeship towards a greater proportion of off-the-job training, to provide more variety of machines.	Discussions about one apprentice led to the whole program being developed.
5.	To provide workers with greater depth of knowledge and to provide a development pathway into a Diploma and higher-level work.	Traineeship program was trialled with small numbers of trainees at a range of providers, and this RTO was selected after the trial. A previous RTO had over-subscribed trainees, leading to high attrition. Partnership brokered by an Australian Apprenticeship Centre.
6.	Rising accreditation requirements in the industry, and a wish to qualify workers prior to a take-over.	A revival of a previous partnership. The relevant manager at the company had previously been trained by the training provider. Partnership brokered by an Australian Apprenticeship Centre.
7.	Wish to provide broad training for workers and to meet identified weaknesses.	A State Government funding program enabled apprenticeship provision by the RTO to expand more broadly.
8.	To develop a training culture, particularly around food safety and OH&S.	Wish for a partnership that would involve shared delivery of the training. Brokered via a peak body in the industry.
9.	An accreditation requirement (CASA)	A limited number of providers of this training and this RTO was local. The relevant manager at the company had previously been trained by the training provider.

Table 28 shows the diversity of training needs which training partnerships were meeting. The set-up processes were also diverse, although there were some common themes: for example, dissatisfaction with a previous RTO, the revival in two cases of previous failed partnerships albeit with new principals in place; the involvement of third parties who ‘brokered’ or introduced the parties to each other; a small-scale initiative which grew into a partnership. An interesting feature of two partnerships was that the principal on the employer side had been trained previously by the trainer; this presumably engendered trust in the quality of provision and indicates the importance of reputation.

Some employers, such as the pathology laboratories (5), had exclusive arrangements with their partnering RTO, while others, like the pulp and paper mills (1) preferred to spread the risk around a few RTOs. All of the interviews were with RTOs who were either the sole provider or the most important provider for the respective employers.

In some cases, partnerships were restricted to the delivery of single qualifications or skills sets to a defined group of employees. However, in other cases, the partnership had extended beyond the delivery of single qualifications to the provision of other nationally recognised training or to other non-accredited training. Examples where additional qualifications or skill sets were added included the home and community care employer (6), where a Diploma in Service Co-ordination was also delivered and the winery (8) where TAE skill sets were offered. The engineering company (4) was working with its partnering RTO on delivery of a Certificate IV in Competitive Systems & Practices. Non-accredited training was sometimes an additional part of the partnerships. The Agricultural Services company (2) had a partnership with a TAFE Institute to deliver the Certificate IV in Agriculture to stock and station agents, but the TAFE Institute offered driver training to the trainees through the Driver Education Centre. The Institute operated as a “spinoff” benefit in the partnership. Employer 6 used its partnering RTO for First Aid training.

Table 29 indicates the size of the partnerships in financial terms. These data should be approached with caution. In some cases, both parties estimated the size, but in other cases only one estimate was provided. Interviewees were given the choice of providing a dollar figure or an answer in certain provided ‘bands’, which were: Up to $10,000 p.a./between $10,000 and $100,000 p.a./over $100,000. This accounts for the different nature of the responses. It is also obvious that sometimes employer and RTO estimates differed. It is possible that the employer was referring only to its own outlay, whereas the RTO probably factored in the government funding received as well. However, the figures do indicate that the partnerships did not generate very large financial returns.

Table 29 Reported financial size of partnerships

Partnership no.	Dollar value of partnership (p.a./other measure)
1.	$300,000
2.	Approx. $70,000 p.a.
3.	RTO states $200,000; Employer states $10,000 - $100,000 range
4.	$10,000-$100,000 range (no exact figures given)
5.	RTO states $10,000-$100,000 range; Employers states $20,000 -$30,000 of employer funds
6.	RTO states over $100,000; Employer states $40,000
7.	$40,000 - $60,000
8.	Currently $10,000 - $20,000 (Scaled back from earlier in the partnership)
9.	$10,000-$12,000 a year

Government funding was not a feature of all of the partnerships. In the cases where some or all training was for specific activities where there was licensing (e.g. partnership 2), the arrangements were purely commercial (fee-for-service). In general, the employers used some government funding but also purchased fee-for-service training as well. Standard ‘traditional apprenticeship’ funding formed part of the partnerships in 1, 4 and 7.

The seven partnerships for which government funding was a factor in the partnership can be divided into those based on traineeships or apprenticeships, and those based on other funding arrangements. The traineeship programs had been particularly affected by the progressive withdrawal for traineeship funding at both State and Commonwealth levels. The short lead-time funding cuts or the introduction of new funding systems were mentioned in two States. Funding cuts did not only affect the employers and their purchase of training; RTOs reported that their own viability and staffing levels had been adversely affected (e.g. the RTOs in partnerships 5 and 8).