The authors point out that their analysis of vocational qualification development processes in other countries \u201cshows no international process is more efficient or effective than Australia\u2019s, but there are elements that could be adapted to improve Australia\u2019s approach.\u201d<\/p>\n

Unlike other countries, our VET regulators in Australia \u201chave little or no involvement in the training package development process, but they do accredit courses.\u201d They also suggest that Australia\u2019s federated system has an effect on the speed of the development process too, but further work is needed to look at how better collaborative practices and conflict resolution processes could contribute to reducing the overall length of the development process, which can take up to four and a half years! And then the package and the associated qualifications have to be rolled out and delivered by RTOs, which can take yet more time.<\/p>\n

To meet the needs of a qualification\u2019s many stakeholders, consultations with a variety of interest groups, such as employers, employees and educators, are common in the qualification development processes across the range of countries examined. \u201cHowever, it is important to ensure the groups are appropriately represented,\u201d or feel they have been.\u201cEducators and educational institutions are readily involved in the qualification development process overseas,\u201d the report concludes.<\/p>\n

However, there is a perception in Australia that educators and educational institutions have little involvement in developing vocational qualifications, but NCVER suggests that this may not actually be the case, and \u201cthat they are more involved than generally believed.\u201d While this may be the case, I think, industry – broadly conceived – may have the view that all their voices have not been heard. It\u2019s important to get the range and balance of voices right without overdoing things and slowing the whole process down.<\/p>\n

Lessons and possible improvements<\/h2>\n

The Australian model of qualification development supports extensive and phased consultations which can lead to potential conflicts between bodies and their particular interests, the report\u2019s authors point out. In Australia \u201cthe case for endorsement is reviewed by state and territory governments and the Commonwealth Government, after which the AISC approves cases for endorsement to progress to skills minister.\u201d This can affect the extent to which rapid changes in skill needs can be addressed, and \u201cthe value placed on occupational mobility in Australia makes it important for the system to consider where efficiencies can be made.\u201d<\/p>\n

Accredited courses and shorter skill sets and micro credentials are a way forward, but the Finns emphasise units rather than qualifications as the central product and the Dutch support\u00a0 the use of \u201coptional modules, which are jointly developed by companies and educational institutions to respond quickly to emerging skill needs or regional needs, have the capacity to be revised every three months and be delivered to students immediately.\u201d Maybe these approaches are worth a thought?<\/p>\n