Creating a new standard of training consistency

Training is a critical factor in ensuring that workers are able to carry out their activities effectively and safely. So, it stands to reason that a question that every purchaser or consumer of training should ask themselves is: “How do I know that I am getting the best training possible?”

Early one morning, ‘Joe’ watched a group of new workers as they readied themselves to go to work on a bridge project that he was managing. This was the crew’s first day on his project and Joe was pleased that he could pull together a crew that was able to provide all the necessary safety certificates without having to send anyone back. However, what was bothering Joe, as the site manager, was the discussion during the induction the day before. As part of the company’s induction, new workers had to sit through a very brief discussion on height safety specific to the site (even though they had to provide a valid and current height safety ticket). During the discussion, it became apparent that the workers were not all ‘on the same page’ regarding protection systems and even legislated requirements. Joe’s concerns increased as he watched the work crew start to put on their harnesses the following day, and realised that consistency of education was not apparent from the display before him.

Joe’s predicament isn’t unique. In the construction industry particularly, workers are more and more transient and often move from job to job in the span of their career. Gone are the days of the ‘lifetime employee’ who has been trained from the ground up with the company’s selected training providers and/or own courses. These days, workers will often show up with certificates from a variety of training providers from across the country. These certificates are the workers’ proof that they have attended the course in question and have the skills to conduct themselves in the job that they are showing up to do. For a site owner/manager, there is a level of implicit trust that the certificate actually represents an accurate representation of the individual’s knowledge and skill level. But does it?

Here in Australia, we are relatively unique within western nations when it comes to vocational education and training (VET). We have the advantage of a government-directed system to ensure quality training programs are available to all citizens. This system is built around the Australian Quality Training Framework (AQTF) which outlines the operation and delivery of training through registered training organisations (RTOs). Each state will endorse and enforce the standards set out in the AQTF through a state-based registration body. Any company that wishes to become an RTO and deliver ‘nationally recognised’ training must adhere to the standards and provide training and assessment in accordance with the AQTF and under the auspices of the registering body. Courses must be based upon recognised competencies that are normally developed from industry skills councils and accepted as the typical way an individual would conduct themself (skills based) in a specific job or vocation.

For employers and company owners, the term nationally recognised provides an assurance that individuals are properly trained. However, we too often have to deal with the dilemma that Joe had to face.

Let’s revisit our bridge crew. Each member of the crew showed up to the induction with a Statement of Attainment received as proof that they are competent to work at height. Upon closer inspection, it was identified that the competencies that formed the basis of these Statements of Attainment ranged from MNMG237A - Work Safely at Heights from the metallifeurous mining training package, to BCPRF2001A: Work Safely on Roofs from the roof plumbers training package and others in-between. Despite all workers being deemed competent, based upon very similar competencies and attending courses of the same name, the level of knowledge of the separate workers appeared quite diverse. The difficulty for those who are purchasing the training remains that the AQTF sets out the system to ensure that RTOs are conducting competency-based training and that certain checks and balances are in place to meet those standards. It is not the role of the AQTF and/or the regulatory bodies to ensure that the content of the courses is accurate or necessarily consistent from RTO to RTO. What one RTO calls ‘Work Safely at Height’ may actually be quite different from what another RTO calls ‘Work Safely at Height’.

As the competency does not dictate what a good and/or bad protection system is, nor does it dictate exactly how the delivery of the course should be structured, the actual design and content is left up to the RTO. While it is the requirement that trainers have experience in the subject matter, it becomes very subjective as to whether that experience makes the information correct or not. Unfortunately, it is not within the mandate of the state regulatory body, nor would they be able to accommodate the diversity of courses, to determine if the RTO actually knows its subject matter or not.

This brings us back to Joe’s dilemma - how do you determine what is an acceptable level of knowledge? While the fact that the training is nationally recognised is critical to ensure that the RTO and the courses themselves meet a quality standard, it is in fact only the first step.

Purchasers of training must do more than just accept a nationally recognised Statement of Attainment. They must ensure that the competencies that those courses are built upon actually meet the needs of the workers on that site. Furthermore, it is important that they understand how the RTO has interpreted the competency to achieve a coherent and accurate course. Good RTOs will be able to provide prospective clients with the competency that their course is built upon; and should be able to detail how their course addresses the components of that competency in relation to the client’s work issues. If an RTO can’t explain how the course was designed, then it’s likely the depth of knowledge regarding the subject matter will not be strong enough to ensure that it is accurate and current. It is a common practice, when RTOs add competencies to their scope (the registered national competencies or short courses that they are authorised to teach), to purchase a completed course from another RTO or course developer. While this may not necessarily indicate a lack of knowledge on the RTO’s part, it certainly warrants the discussion of how the RTO can ensure accuracy of content if they are not the author.

While the AQTF provides a standard for the design and delivery of training within the country, purchasers of training should look to the other standards bodies and industry-specific associations for specific applications of that training. Standards Australia, as an example, has often outlined training requirements based upon workers requirements. Within the recent revision of AS/NZS 1891.4 (2009) Industrial fall-arrest systems and devices - Selection use and maintenance, the standards committee, made up of end users, government representatives and manufacturers, has outlined training requirements for users of height safety systems. Courses which are nationally recognised and compliant to the requirements of this standard will better reflect the learning needs of workers expected to be at height. Similarly, industry associations are recognising a need to establish a baseline of acceptable training that often requires the endorsement of that association to be acceptable to its member companies. In this way, individual companies can be assured that the training supplied is relevant, accurate and current in relation to the company’s industry and job requirements.

Finally, as more and more training groups enter the market, it is critical that the companies purchasing these services look beyond the marketing material of the providers, RTO or not. Ask for past references, course competencies and course materials as examples. Ask why the RTO has chosen the competencies they have on scope and why they are the leaders in the field. When it comes to the education of workers, the time invested into selection of the providers may make all the difference. Ensure that the RTO has the capability to determine the validity of the content and that, if necessary, they can customise the training to the needs of a specific site.

As Joe is running his new crew through the proper fitting of a harness and use of the supplied fall-protection systems, he is formulating his plan for future site requirements. No longer will he accept a training certificate simply on the merit of the certificate itself. He is planning to investigate the competencies available and the courses that have been developed from them. Further, he has decided that, if his industry hasn’t set a standard or criteria for acceptable training, he will put forward to his bosses that his company should lead the industry. While it will take some effort to determine a way to evaluate potential suppliers and their courses, he feels that the end result - consistent, accurate and timely training of his crews - will be well worth it.