The Learnership Model of Workplace Training and Its Effective Management: lessons learnt from a Southern African case study
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Journal of Vocational Education and Training, Volume 56, Number 2, 2004
The Learnership Model of Workplace Training
and Its Effective Management: lessons learnt
from a Southern African case study
THERESA-ANNE DAVIES & FIONA FARQUHARSON
National Skills Research Agency (NASRA), South Africa
ABSTRACT Since 1998, the ‘Learnership’ model of workplace training has
been promoted in South Africa as a creative vehicle for addressing high
unemployment rates and a serious skills shortage. This is achieved through
fast-tracking the acquisition of skills and increasing a learner’s chances of
employment. However, because learnerships are a recent innovation, the
body of applied knowledge is small. This article aims to contribute to what
is known through examining a series of pilot projects, implemented between
1997 and 2001 in KwaZulu-Natal. A key finding concerns how learnerships
are managed: the effective delivery of a learnership programme and of its
outcomes requires the involvement of key stakeholders from the outset,
role clarity and a carefully structured and monitored process of
implementation. Using a case study approach, this article situates
learnerships within the context of workplace training; explores four key
lessons learnt and presents a proposed model of effective learnership
management.
Introduction
The South African labour market is currently experiencing a major
unemployment crisis, with formal estimates standing at 29.5% or 4.5
million people (World Economic Forum, 2002-2003). Economic pressures
and downsizing have resulted in the retrenchment of an increasing
number of employees, particularly in medium- and large-scale
enterprises. In addition, the country’s economy has experienced a
structural transformation away from activities based in the primary
sectors of agriculture and mining and towards more knowledge-based
activities in the secondary and tertiary sectors. This shift has had far-
reaching implications for employment patterns and the type of skills
181Theresa-Anne Davies & Fiona Farquharson
required by the labour market. A significant proportion of the population
now lacks the basic competencies or skills required to meet the new
challenges. For example, in 1999 only 4.2% of the total population had a
matriculation, as well as some form of post-matriculation education and
training (South African Institute of Race Relations [SAIRR], 2001; South
African Qualifications Authority [SAQA], 2002). Addressing the skills gap
is therefore high on the national agenda.
The Skills Development Act of 1998 and the Skills Development
Levies Act of 1999 (Republic of South Africa, 1999), introduced by the
Department of Labour, were designed to address this problem.[1] For the
purpose of skills development and quality assurance, the South African
economy has been divided into sectors. All companies and registered
employers are required to pay an annual Skills Development Levy, based
on their total remuneration costs for their employees. From 1 April 2000,
companies with an annual payroll in excess of R250 000 were required to
pay 0.05% of the remuneration. From 1 April 2001, this increased to 1%. In
addition, each of the defined sectors has been required to establish a
Sectoral Education and Training Authority (SETA). It is the role of each
SETA to formulate a sector skills development strategy and to disburse
grants collected from the Skills Development Levies back to employers,
for the purpose of approved skills development programmes. SETAs will
be measured on how successful they are in transforming the skills base in
their sectors through the implementation of targeted learnerships.
However, it is important to recognise that learnerships are still an
emerging field. Furthermore, they exist in a highly-legislated context
(Skills Development Act of 1998; Learnership Regulations of April 2001). In
addition, learnerships tend to be implemented in multiple stakeholder
environments. The combination of these factors provides a project
manager with significant challenges in ensuring the effective delivery of a
learnership and of its outcomes. It is in this context that the article seeks
to address the question: ‘What kind of learnership system or model is
needed to manage multiple stakeholders – and the often complex
relationships between them – in the most effective way?’
The KwaZulu-Natal Pilot Projects of 1997-2001 provide us with a
useful case study opportunity to learn more about learnerships and their
implementation, where we can reflect critically on ‘what happened’, ‘what
worked’ and ‘what could be enhanced in future’. This process has been
facilitated by the production of review reports during the process of
implementation[2] – an explicit output required by the funders of the
projects. These reports are invaluable in providing data for analysis.
However, applying Gibbons’ distinction of Mode 1 and Mode 2 ‘knowledge
production’ (Gibbons et al, 1994), dissemination to date has focused
primarily on a Mode 2 or applied research audience, made up primarily of
practitioners. Furthermore, with the exception of funders, the audience
for the reports has been a South African one. This means that the
182WORKPLACE LEARNING AND ITS EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT
material on the Pilot Projects has yet to be drawn together into journal
articles for dissemination in the academic public domain. There are valid,
practical reasons for this, given the economic imperatives that
learnerships seek to address in South Africa. Nonetheless, the
opportunity exists to add to the body of knowledge internationally,
because learnerships offer an alternative model of vocational education
and training that is particularly appropriate for scarce skills, developing
economy contexts. This article will therefore attempt to address the
Mode 1 knowledge gap that has been identified, and is one of a series on
lessons learnt from the Pilot Projects to be published by the National
Skills Research Agency (NASRA), Durban, South Africa. Other articles will
look at issues such as the recruitment, selection and assessment of
learners; the building of partnerships amongst stakeholders and the
building of service provider capacity.
This article begins with an overview of the KwaZulu-Natal Pilot
Projects, to set the context. Four key findings in relation to the
management of learnerships are presented and lessons drawn, that is, the
need to identify and consult key stakeholders at the outset, to clarify
stakeholder roles and accountabilities, to put in place an effective
contract management system for Lead service providers and to monitor
learners appropriately. Finally, a model for managing learnerships in a
multi-stakeholder context is presented for further testing and review.
The Learnership Concept
Learnerships as a Form of Workplace Training
The term ‘learnership’ describes a particular model of workplace training
that is used in South Africa. Simply defined, a learnership is ‘a route to a
nationally recognised qualification that relates to an occupation and
consists of a structured learning component and practical work
experience’ (de Jager et al, 2002, p. 21).
The importance of workplace training is widely recognised
internationally, as demonstrated by the extensive research and
publications of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) and the National Centre for Vocational Education
Research (NCVER). Increasingly, companies in modern economies are
involved in supplying a significant amount of vocational training
(Brunello & Medio, 2001, p. 309). However, international comparisons of
different models of training tend to be problematic (NCVER, 2001, p. 29),
because of the institutional and cultural differences that exist between
countries. The meaning assigned to concepts like ‘apprenticeships’ can
vary widely, for example. In addition, the data available often exhibits
poor comparability (Brunello & Medio, 2001, p. 308). Therefore, these
limitations need to be kept in mind when comparing the concept of
183Theresa-Anne Davies & Fiona Farquharson
‘learnerships’ – as it is used in South Africa – with ‘apprenticeships’ or
‘apprentice-type’ models of vocational education and training elsewhere
in the world.
Learnerships and apprenticeships. The Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD, 2000a) has outlined three ‘principal
pathways’ from school to work. These are:
• apprenticeship-type (providing an occupational qualification);
• school-based vocational pathways (providing an upper secondary level
occupational qualification followed by labour market entry);
• general education (preparing learners for tertiary study).
In South Africa, learnerships were introduced for the first time in the
Skills Development Act of 1998. Although modelled on the apprenticeship
tradition (and, therefore, belonging to the first OECD category), there are
some important differences. Unlike apprenticeships, which apply to
selected trades, learnerships apply to any occupation. Furthermore, a
learnership must culminate in a qualification registered by the South
African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) according to the National
Qualifications Framework (NQF).
Vorwerk (2002a, p. 3) has identified two major areas of difference
between learnerships and apprenticeships: first, learnerships tend to be
more flexible, because of the way in which qualifications in South Africa
are now being constructed. For example, ‘learnerships that focus on only
one level of the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) require 1200
notional hours of learning to achieve the requisite number of credits. This
could be achieved in 6-12 months (versus 3 years for a typical
apprenticeship)’. Secondly, ‘the new, more relevant qualifications
currently being constructed, particularly in the technical area, also
provide for more focused sets of skills than the typically blue-collar
trades do’.
Vorwerk (2002a, p. 3) concludes that in the South African context,
learnerships are ‘much more’ than the old apprenticeship system and
that ‘some of the early learnerships registered by the Department of
Labour are at the level of degrees and professional articles.
Apprenticeships themselves will in time be transformed into
learnerships’.
Key Characteristics of Learnerships
Learnerships are different to the ‘course-based’ approaches of the past in
that they focus ‘not on what is presented to people, but on the processes
by which they learn to become competent’ (Vorwerk, 2002b, p. 14).
Learnerships:
• consist of a structured learning component;
184WORKPLACE LEARNING AND ITS EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT
• include practical work experience of a specified nature and duration;
• lead to a qualification that is (a) registered on the National
Qualifications Framework (NQF) and that (b) relates to a specific
occupation.
The key characteristics of the learnership model are:
• Learnerships are demand-led.
• Learnerships cover any occupation/opportunity in which work-based
learning paths are viable.
• Learnerships are intended for a broad group of learners across a broad
range of economic sectors and occupations.
• Learnerships involve partnerships and co-operation between
workplace contexts to provide learners with the necessary spectrum of
work experience. These contexts go beyond the large, corporate
segment of the economy to include, amongst others, Small, Medium
and Micro enterprises (SMMEs) and also the voluntary service context.
• Learnerships aim to integrate theoretical education and skills training
in both the learning programme and in the assessment process.
• Learnerships are future-orientated – they prepare learners not only for
current work, but also for lifelong learning, through including abilities
and skills that are important for any future occupation.
• Learnerships include general educational components, components
that are socially relevant and personally enhancing, as well as
important national issues like HIV-AIDS.
• Structured workplace experience is an integral part of a learnership.
• A learnership must lead to the achievement of a qualification, which is
defined by the SAQA as a minimum of 120 credits, translating roughly
to a 12-month provision period.
Skills Development legislation is firmly embedded in the National
Qualifications Framework (NQF). As a result, learnerships in the South
African context are implemented in a highly-regulated environment. This
is evident in the three core criteria for quality training and learning
practices in the workplace, as defined by the National Skills Board
Regulations (NSB) of March 1998 (Republic of South Africa, 1998) and to
which all learnership programmes are required to adhere:
• Applied competence: the ability to put into practice in the relevant
context the learning outcomes acquired in obtaining a qualification.
• Integrated assessment: assessment that permits the learner to
demonstrate applied competence, which uses a range of formative
(interim) and summative (overall) assessment methods.
• A qualification: a planned combination of learning outcomes that has a
defined purpose or purposes, which is intended to provide qualifying
learners with applied competence and a basis for further learning
(Vorwerk, 2002b, p. 14).
185Theresa-Anne Davies & Fiona Farquharson
The core criteria described above change the focus of the learning
intervention from the classroom to the point of application in a ‘real-
world’ context. This requires careful design of an appropriate learning
programme, based on a careful needs analysis of the target market.
This aspect of a learnership is congruent with Billett’s view (1994)
that high quality learning programmes should provide ‘authentic’
learning experiences, with opportunities to learn in real workplace
settings where the outcomes ‘matter’.
Learnerships could also be described as consisting of a set of tools,
aimed at achieving a set of transformations, which include:
• addressing problematic features of the South African labour market by
aligning education and training initiatives more closely with labour
market needs;
• building a relationship between structured learning and structured
work experience, which equips learners with new kinds of
competencies as required by the labour market and for lifelong
learning.
Typically, structured learning takes place at a training institution,
whereas structured work experience takes place in industries, business
or projects. All providers of learnerships have to meet the requirements
for accreditation as outlined by the SAQA regulations, as well as those of
the appropriate Education and Training Quality Assurance body
(ETQA).[3]
On the basis of the extensive learnership implementation experience
accumulated by the German Technical Co-operation Agency (GTZ), de
Jager et al (2002, p. 7) have identified a generic nine-phase process for
implementing learnerships. This is summarised in Figure 1 and will be
referred to at various points in this article.
186WORKPLACE LEARNING AND ITS EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT
Figure 1. The Learnership Implementation Process.
The KwaZulu-Natal Pilot Project Case Study
The KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) Pilot Projects represent one of the earliest
examples of learnership implementation in Southern Africa, commencing
in 1997 and ending in 2001. The Pilot was set up with the specific purpose
of testing out the effectiveness of the National Learnership Programme,
and focused on the unemployed and on job creation within small scale,
medium and micro-enterprises (SMMEs).[4] The project was jointly
funded by the Department of Labour (DoL) and the Danish Government
through the Danish Development Agency (DANIDA) funding agency. A
summary of the project is provided in Table I.
187Theresa-Anne Davies & Fiona Farquharson
Sectors Focus and Learnerships No. of No. of Retention
timeframe learners learners rate
at start at finish
Phase 1 – KZN Four 255 217 85.1%
Building Unemployed learnerships:
and (March 1997 (i) Building
Hospitality to April sector: Face
1999). Bricklaying;
Finishing
Carpentry
(ii)
Hospitality
industry:
Food
Preparation
and Cooking;
Food and
Drink Service
Phase 2 - KZN SMME 76 73 96.05%
SMMEs Unemployed/ Learnership
across all retrenchees Pilot Project
sectors (April 1999 to
March 2001)
Notes:
1. The learnerships in Phases 1 and 2 were identified by a Labour Market Survey
in March 1997, the purpose of which was to identify the occupational areas most
suitable for the learnerships.
2. Source for Phase 1 summary: Bobat & Tandrup, 1999. Provincial Skills
Development Pilot Project, KwaZulu-Natal: Review Report on the Placement of
Learners, (i)-(ii).
3. Source for Phase 2 summary: PSDPP Project Management Team, 2001b.
Provincial Skills Development Pilot Project (PSDPP) Report to the Steering
Committee. 21 June 2001: 7-8.
4. Phase 2 also included a separate Skills Development project for rural women.
However, this is not relevant to this article, and only the SMME Learnership Pilot
details have been included here.
Table I. Summary of the KZN Pilot Projects.
In relation to the effective management of learnerships, four key lessons
from implementing the pilot project have emerged:
• the need to identify and consult with key stakeholders at the outset;
• the need to clarify stakeholder roles and accountabilities;
• the importance of effective contract management with lead service
providers;
• the need to manage the learner monitoring process.
188WORKPLACE LEARNING AND ITS EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT
Lesson 1: the need to identify and consult
with key stakeholders at the outset
Learnerships are, by definition, ‘stakeholder-rich’ interventions. The Pilot
Projects were no exception in that they required participation and
ownership from a variety of stakeholders, amongst others the
Department of Labour (DoL), the Project Management Team, the service
providers, the Workplace Providers and the Learners.
In KwaZulu-Natal, systems of traditional authority still exist and
communities play an active role in informing work practices. However, in
the Building Industry learnership (see Table I), the importance of this
significant stakeholder group was under-estimated until the project was
already underway. When the opportunity to participate in the learnership
arose, only people who lived within the immediate community were
deemed ‘eligible’ to apply for work and successful applicants from other
areas were not regarded as ‘acceptable’ (Koch et al, 1999a, p. 4).
This finding highlights the role of local communities and the critical
importance of engaging them at the outset, involving them in the
recruitment process and encouraging them to take ownership for the
effective implementation of a learnership (Koch et al, 1999b, pp. 14, 27).
Although the example used here is of a learnership in a rural area, the
same holds true for implementing any intervention where the human
factor is involved. People tend to support initiatives they have been
involved in creating and to resist those they have been excluded from.
Subsequent learnership implementation experiences also support this
finding. As Brendan Pearce, CEO of the Manufacturing SETA (Merseta),
has observed: ‘one of the most important elements of a learnership
succeeding in a company is to have buy-in from all parties before the
learnership commences’ (cited in de Jager et al, 2002, p. 5). For this
reason, the generic learnership implementation process described earlier
(see Figure 1) includes the establishment of ‘implementation
partnerships’ as a critical second step.
In future, it is recommended that, where learnerships are being
developed, a rigorous ‘stakeholder mapping’ exercise should be carried
out at the outset. This serves the purpose of identifying who should be
involved and what their roles should be. It also provides a ‘checkpoint’ to
ensure that important role-players are not left out. Consultations with the
relevant structures should also take place at this stage. This practice
ensures that the final candidates are acceptable to that community. Great
care should also be taken to ensure that the process of selecting and
recruiting learners is an inclusive one (Bobat & Tandrup, 1999, p. 21).
Without detracting from the importance of the above, it is also
important to acknowledge that the balance, timing and extent of
stakeholder involvement should be carefully considered, to avoid
189Theresa-Anne Davies & Fiona Farquharson
creating a stakeholder management process that is unnecessarily
bureaucratic and cumbersome.
Lesson 2: the need to clarify stakeholder roles and accountabilities
The challenge for the learnership implementation team does not end
once appropriate stakeholders have been identified and consulted.
Relationships between stakeholders (e.g. workplace and training
providers, assessors and mentors) are often very complex and a number
of different role arrangements may exist. In the case of the Pilot Projects,
this contributed to a lack of role clarity amongst key role-players and was
clearly an issue needing to be addressed in future learnerships (Koch et
al, 1999b, p. 25). Lessons relating to the Steering Committee, Management
Team, Project Management Team and Lead service providers are
explored further below.
The role of the Steering Committee, and Management and Project
Management teams: lessons from the Pilot Projects. The management
structure used in the Pilot Projects consisted of a three-tier structure of
Steering Committee, and Management and Project Management Teams.
Generally, it was felt that the structure was a success and made a
valuable contribution to the success of the Learnerships (Provincial Skills
Development Pilot Project II Project Management Team, 2002, p. 1).
However, the view was also expressed that either/both the Project
Steering Committee and Management Team should have been more
directly involved in the day-to-day running of the learnership. An
additional recommendation was that there should be a strong working
committee or Board, mandated to deal with issues arising from a large-
scale learnership implementation exercise (Provincial Skills Development
Pilot Project II Project Management Team, 2002, p. 1).
The three-tier structure was also experienced as being cumbersome,
particularly in cases that required rapid decision-making. The option of a
two-tier structure was suggested as a means of overcoming this – that is,
a Project Board and a Project Management Team, with discretionary
management powers (Provincial Skills Development Pilot Project II
Project Management Team, 2002, p. 1). In addition, closer co-ordination
between management and provider was found to be desirable. A more in-
depth understanding of the system on the part of the service provider
would be a practical way of enhancing the quality assurance and financial
management processes of the learnership (Provincial Skills Development
Pilot Project II Project Management Team, 2002, pp. 6-7). This could be
readily accomplished by giving service providers information on how the
system works in respect of payments, problem-solving and decision-
making.
190WORKPLACE LEARNING AND ITS EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT
The role of the lead service provider: lessons from the Pilot Projects. Phase
II of the KZN Pilot Learnerships opted for a ‘consortium’ model, with Lead
Service Providers (LSPs) being appointed to take on the management of
the learnerships (Provincial Skills Development Pilot Project II, 2001a,
p. 5). The concept was a new one at that stage and was felt to be
particularly well suited to complex projects, such as learnerships, where
it had become necessary for the DoL to outsource management,
administration and quality assurance responsibilities. The model also
addressed the need for the ongoing scheduling of activities and direct
day-to-day monitoring of the implementation of activities (which is
particularly important in cases where services are not implemented in a
strictly sequential fashion). It was believed that the LSPs would fulfil an
important role in managing this process on behalf of the Department.
While the model was successful in most respects (Provincial Skills
Development Pilot Project II Project Management Team, 2001a, p. 5,
2001c, p. 3), there were some cases where service providers found that
working in consortia was not always the best solution. For example, while
the learnerships were being implemented, financial indicators and profit
predictions could change. This meant that the Lead Provider continually
had to renegotiate terms with consortia partners, which could be time-
consuming and frustrating for all parties (Provincial Skills Development
Pilot Project II Project Management Team, 2002, p. 2). This led to the
piloting of the alternative ‘Lead Service Provider without Consortia’
model (Provincial Skills Development Pilot Project II Project Management
Team, 2001b, p. 15), which was favoured by some service providers
because it provided them with the flexibility, ability and mandate to shift
budget lines, and to re-negotiate with other service providers as required,
on the basis of available funds and project needs.
Another area where existing consortia arrangements could be
improved was identified by a survey, conducted amongst consortia
members and learners (Provincial Skills Development Pilot Project II
Project Management Team, 2001c, p. 3). The participants recommended
that a communication mechanism be established to ensure that relevant
information flowed freely and in a streamlined way amongst consortium
members, and also between the consortium members and the learners. In
addition, a request was made for a better information flow from the
Project Office and the Department of Labour (DoL) through the LSPs
(Provincial Skills Development Pilot Project II Project Management Team,
2001c, p. 3).
Given the points that have already been made about stakeholder
roles and responsibilities, it becomes apparent that defined
‘accountability mechanisms’ are a key priority in the implementation of
learnerships, particularly in relation to service providers and the DoL. In
the Pilot Projects, there was a clear requirement for service providers to
account to the DoL, but responsibilities for the different aspects of the
191Theresa-Anne Davies & Fiona Farquharson
project were not always well defined, and the project manager did not
always have the authority to solve problems and to make decisions. This
indicates the requirement for a clear mandate to be given to the project
manager by the Project Management Team (Provincial Skills Development
Pilot Project II Project Management Team, 2002, pp. 6-7).
It is also recommended that a ‘feedback loop’ be put in place to
ensure that the relevant parties are kept appraised of progress and
problems as they emerge. This could include the establishing of a forum
that meets regularly (e.g. twice a month) to ensure that no gaps develop
(Provincial Skills Development Pilot Project II Project Management Team,
2002, p. 7).
Lesson 3: the importance of effective contract
management with lead service providers
The effective managing of contractual agreements was found to be an
essential component of Quality Assurance in the Pilot Project
learnerships. Despite the success of the new LSP model of contracting,
there were some important lessons to be learnt about how contracting
should be handled.
First, contracts should be ‘signed and sealed’ before a learnership
begins. Owing to the piloting nature of the KwaZulu-Natal projects, it was
agreed that the service agreements with the individual LSPs would be
finalised only after formal approval was received from the National Skills
Fund (NSF). Prior to this, it was agreed that the LSPs would be involved in
Project activities on the basis of trust. This did not always work, and it
became apparent that the timely signing of contracts was critical
(Provincial Skills Development Pilot Project II Project Management Team,
2002, p. 6). It is recommended that, as with any project, a contract should
be signed before work begins and delivery against contract should be
closely monitored as an integral part of the learnership’s Quality
Assurance component.
Secondly, the Pilot Projects demonstrated the need for ongoing
monitoring of delivery against contract. The type of contract drawn up
meant that the DoL’s role was to monitor the contractual obligations
between itself and the LSPs and vice versa. An implication was that the
DoL relied on each LSP to do the same in relation to the sub-contracted
service providers. Based on the experience of the Pilots, it is
recommended that the DoL should perform regular ‘spot-checks’ at the
individual service provider level to determine the extent of adherence to
sub-contracting agreements (Provincial Skills Development Pilot Project II
Project Management Team, 2001a, p. 11).
192WORKPLACE LEARNING AND ITS EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT
Lesson 4: the importance of managing the learner monitoring process
The Pilot Projects also highlighted the need for the DoL to devise
adequate systems and procedures for learnership monitoring. In the early
stages of the Pilot Projects, no monitoring systems were in place.
Monitoring happened in an incidental manner, if at all. This resulted in
distrust developing between the Department of Labour (DoL) and the
providers. Furthermore, had there been a clear process at the outset,
there would have been no need for the DoL to monitor individual learners
(Provincial Skills Development Pilot Project II Project Management Team,
2002, p. 7).
On the basis of lessons learnt during the Pilot Projects, learner
monitoring should have three dimensions, that is:
• the over-all monitoring of the general progress of the project, which is
undertaken by the DoL;
• the DoL’s monitoring of service providers and other external people
who are involved in the project’s implementation;
• the monitoring of individual learners (which includes a learner
administration system).
All of the above are part of a learnership’s overall Quality Assurance
system.
General monitoring. Regular monitoring would allow problems to be dealt
with as they arise and not when they have reached an advanced stage.
The Department of Labour (DoL) could choose to do the general
monitoring or to employ an agent. This is particularly the case with large-
scale Learnership Programmes, where it is impossible for the DoL to
monitor each learner. It is also recommended that a standardised
reporting format be developed for all dimensions.
Monitoring of external implementation agents. Service providers should be
contracted to monitor each learner. The role of the DoL is to conduct
questionnaire-based or random monitoring. This model allows the DoL to
check up on the service provider, and on its quality of service and
eliminates duplication of effort.
Monitoring of learners. For learnership monitoring to be possible, an
effective administration system has to be in place. This is an integral part
of the quality assurance process that should underpin all learnership
implementation.
As part of Phase 5 of the generic GTZ learnership implementation model
(‘develop the capacity to facilitate and assess the learning’), de Jager et al
193Theresa-Anne Davies & Fiona Farquharson
(2002, p. 16) have identified what administrative systems are needed to
facilitate proper learnership monitoring. These are:
• recruitment and selection;
• tracking of learner facilitation and assessment;
• tracking of learner rotation;
• recording of learner achievements against the learning programme’s
desired outcomes;
• monitoring and managing of budgets and finances during the
learnership’s implementation.
All of the above activities presuppose the availability of adequate
resources, including staff who need to be trained in the systems to be
implemented.
Finally, follow-up at the end of the project is also an important
aspect of learnership monitoring. For example, the service provider
should inform learners of the availability of follow-up services and where
those services can be obtained.
A Proposed Way Forward: the ‘lead agency’ model
for managing multiple service provider learnerships
Up until now, this article has looked at learnerships as a model of
vocational education and training in the South African context, how they
differ from other workplace training initiatives like apprenticeships and
what lessons may be learnt from the Pilot Projects. The focus will now
shift to a model for managing learnerships in a multi-stakeholder context,
designed specifically to address the need for stakeholder role clarity that
arose in the Pilot Projects. This model seeks to provide a practical
answer to the question posed earlier: ‘What kind of system is needed to
manage multiple stakeholders, and the often complex relationships
between them, in the most effective way?’
Davies (2001b) proposes a model where a training provider serves
as the Lead Agency and arranges with one or more enterprises to use
their workplaces to deliver the workplace components of a nationally
recognised qualification. The training provider takes full responsibility for
training and assessment, but may draw on the expertise of employees in
those workplaces. The training provider may also customise the
qualification to meet the needs of the workplace. The benefits of this
model for the multiple service provider context are:
• Clearly distinguished roles and responsibilities.
• External summative assessment and mentoring. This increases quality
control, the maintenance of standards, and ensures greater levels of
co-operation and integration in the delivery of both on- and off-the-job
194WORKPLACE LEARNING AND ITS EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT
training, because both providers seek to equip learners with the
required key competencies.
• Management Committee Structure/Project Steering Committee. This
structure facilitates formal and informal communication between and
across the service providers, thus ensuring a better flow of
information, better responsiveness to problems, and the
standardisation of delivery and assessment across learner groups and
workplaces.
Table II summarises the four core stakeholder groupings or components
of the model.
SETA-funded Learnership Coordinator Lead Agency
Responsible for: Responsible for:
– Learner recruitment – Project management
– Employer recruitment – Quality control
– Cross-SETA relationships – Materials development
Training Institution Employer ‘Hosts’
Responsible for: Consisting of:
– Programme coordination – Workplace trainers
– Communication – Mentors
– Standardisation – Workplace training
– Record keeping – Workplace assessment
– Monitoring
Table II: The four core components of the lead agency model.
The roles and responsibilities of the four key stakeholders and the
relational arrangements between them are illustrated diagrammatically in
Figure 2.
195Theresa-Anne Davies & Fiona Farquharson Figure 2. Key players, roles and responsibilities in the Lead Agency Model. 196
WORKPLACE LEARNING AND ITS EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT
Roles and Responsibilities of Key Stakeholders
in the Lead Agency Model
The Lead Agency, the Learnership Management Committee, the Lead
Training Provider and the Lead Employer each has an important role to
play in ensuring the successful implementation of a learnership. This is
explored in further detail below.
The Role of the Lead Agency
In the Lead Agency model, a SETA-appointed Lead Agency undertakes
responsibility for overall project management and deliverables. The
general activities of the Lead Agency are:
• conceptualisation and development of the qualification;
• appointment of the lead training provider;
• appointment of external assessors and mentors where appropriate;
• securing of employer commitment;
• appointment of a Management Committee;
• joint marketing to corporate bodies in order to secure workplaces for
learners;
• provision of resource material and curricula;
• researching of workplace and legislative requirements;
• project reporting.
The Lead Agency is required to involve employers and industry partners
from the beginning, to encourage a sense of ownership and to foster
commitment to the programme. Employers and industry partners are
invited to participate in the Management Committee; negotiate
competencies and/or modules to be addressed through on-the-job
training, and those to be addressed through off-the-job training prior to
the commencement of the work placement. These are outlined further in
a training plan for both the work placement and theory/institutional
components of the Learnership programme. In addition, the SETA
learnership coordinator and the Lead Agency are encouraged to evaluate
the work placement formally, in conjunction with the workplace
supervisor. The outcomes of this evaluation help to ensure that the
quality of work placements is continually evaluated and improved as
required.
The Role of the Management Committee
Throughout the life of the Learnership Programme, its success also
depends on the involvement and commitment of industry and community
representatives and training organisations. The Management Committee
(sometimes known as the Project Steering Committee) has to balance the
197Theresa-Anne Davies & Fiona Farquharson
needs of all partners and is tasked with providing overall direction,
management, leadership and strategic planning for the learnership
programme. Below is a suggested checklist of the attributes that make a
Learnership Management Committee successful:
• represents a genuine, joint industry/education partnership;
• has established decision making procedures and organisational
structure;
• has an active approach to promoting the ideals and values of
Learnership programmes;
• demonstrates collaborative leadership through actively seeking to link
and network across industries, and with community representatives
and organisations;
• has established consistent operational procedures, including a
monitoring and evaluation procedure;
• has members with the collective skills to lead and to extend the
programme;
• actively determines the scope and direction of the programme through
planning, policy making and supporting the work of the programme
coordinators;
• has a written statement of vision, mission and objectives, supported by
long-term strategic plans;
• implements a continuous quality improvement process in order to
evaluate initiatives, problem solve and plan for the progression of
areas requiring attention.
The generic learnership implementation model proposed by de Jager et al
(2002, p. 9) also supports the need for an appropriate management
structure – which they see as an essential component of ‘Establishing
Implementation Partnerships’ (see Phase 2 of Figure 1). Their model also
advocates the formation of a ‘Learnership Management Committee’,
consisting, at the minimum, of representatives from the Lead Employer,
the Lead Training Provider, the SETA (or relevant SETA structure, e.g. the
regional office or chamber) and the relevant trade union/s. The main
functions of the Management Committee are to:
• develop a project plan and plan the budget;
• agree on the terms of reference (responsibilities and activities) of the
project manager and appoint a suitable person for the job;
• decide on an appropriate communication strategy.
The Role of the Lead Training Provider and the Lead Employer
The training provider in a learnership has to deliver the theoretical, off-
the-job learning and provide the learner with opportunities to apply basic
skills to new situations. The role of the employer is to provide the learner
with the opportunity for practical work experience. Consequently, a key
198WORKPLACE LEARNING AND ITS EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT
role for the Lead Training Provider is to create and support structures
and information flows designed to enhance the integration of on- and off-
the-job learning and assessment. This requires a significant investment of
time, and the active support of trainers and mentors from both training
provider and workplace.
The Lead Training Provider also provides support to the workplace
provider (or employer) by handling the induction of learners and
workplace supervisors, and by providing regular opportunities for them
to provide feedback regarding the work placement and the Learnership
Programme, both formally and informally. In addition, the training
provider has to ensure that effective monitoring processes and
communication channels are in place.
The institutional provider also has to understand and integrate the
role and function of the mentor and assessor into the learnership
programme. Whereas coaching tends to focus on the development of
techniques, specific skills, the ability to ‘read’ the environment and
problem solving skills, mentoring in the context of a learnership has a
broader purpose – that is, to help the learner to integrate theoretical and
practical learning, and to initiate the learner into the community of expert
practice. The role of assessors in the workplace is also critical to the
success of the learnership system. Effective assessment maintains
standards, focuses on learning outcomes and provides timely feedback to
the learner.
Figure 1 demonstrates the close partnership and integration that
needs to exist between the Lead Training Provider and the Lead
Employer if all of the above activities are to be implemented successfully.
One way of facilitating this is through appointing a Learnership
programme coordinator for each participating workplace and
institutional provider. Their role is to monitor the day-to-day
implementation of the learnership, and to coordinate all learning and
assessment activities.
As a further integration and coordination mechanism, de Jager et al
(2002, p. 13) have advocated the establishment of Implementation Teams
at both the Lead Employer and the Lead Training Provider (see Phase 5 of
Figure 1). This develops the capacity to facilitate and assess the learning
that is taking place, and also provides a mechanism for integration and
quality control. Each implementation team should consist of at least
three members, made up of people who will be directly involved in
implementing the learnership and undertake the following activities:
• to champion the learnership at the implementation sites through
obtaining buy-in from key stakeholders (e.g. management, existing
staff, trade unions, community);
• to ensure implementation of the learnership in accordance with the
project plan;
199Theresa-Anne Davies & Fiona Farquharson
• to develop the appropriate policies, procedures and mechanisms to
implement the learnership at each site;
• to plan and oversee capacity building of members of Lead Employer
and Lead Training Provider;
• to resolve problems arising during implementation;
• to ensure the relevant flow of information to participating providers;
• to communicate relevant information on progress and obstacles to the
Learnership Management Committee;
• to align the learnership strategy, policies and procedures with the
overall education and training strategy. (Source: de Jager et al, 2002,
p. 14)
Conclusion
Learnerships provide an alternative model of vocational education and
training that is particularly appropriate for a high unemployment and low
skills context. However, they require intensive coordination and planning
in order to manage the range of stakeholder inputs required for
implementation. The KwaZulu-Natal Pilot Learnership Projects have
confirmed the view that learnerships are best viewed as projects, where
implementation is managed at various levels (de Jager et al, 2002, p. 6).
In response to the lessons learnt from the Pilot Projects and from
personal experience of implementing learnerships, Davies (2001a,b) has
proposed the adoption of a Lead service provider model, which is
particularly appropriate for situations where multiple service providers
are involved. An additional feature of the model is that it creates a
‘system’ that embeds quality assurance into every aspect of a
learnership’s implementation.
The lessons that have been learnt and the proposed model for
learnership implementation all make a contribution to what remains a
scarce skills and knowledge area in South Africa. However, a major issue
still requiring debate is the question of learnership definition, and where
and how learnerships ‘fit’ into the South African labour market scene. As
Koch et al (1999a, p. 5) ask: ‘Are learnerships mainly to be seen as a tool
for corporate employers to increase industrial productivity, or should
they also be a tool for the Department of Labour and others to ‘activate’
unemployed persons through employment and self-employment?’
The KwaZulu-Natal Pilot Project demonstrates that it would be
difficult to achieve the broader objectives described above within a
learnership definition that is too narrow. Learnerships should be flexible
enough to accommodate and support local labour market conditions,
special sector requirements, work opportunities and demands. This
objective may not easily be achieved if learnerships are identified (or
made available) only through SETA structures (Koch et al, 1999a, p. 5).
200WORKPLACE LEARNING AND ITS EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT
The official view that a learnership should begin only once a formal
‘workplace’ has been secured also tends to restrict the application of the
learnership model to the employer–employee scenario of the South
African labour market (Koch et al, 1999a, p. 5). If learnerships are to
become more widely used as models of workplace training in South Africa
and elsewhere in the world, alternative and innovative interpretations
both of the ‘workplace’ concept and of how learnerships should be
constituted are required.
Correspondence
Fiona Farquharson, PO Box 760, Hilton 3245, South Africa
(fionaf@discoverymail.co.za)
Notes
[1] For further information on the South African Qualifications Authority
(SAQA) and the legislative framework within which learnerships are
situated, see the SAQA website: www.saqa.org.za
[2] A list of the major review reports consulted appears in the References
section.
[3] Each Education and Training Quality Assurance body has been accredited
in terms of section 5(1)(a)(ii) of the Skills Development Levies Act
(Republic of South Africa, 1998), and is responsible for monitoring and
auditing achievements in terms of national standards and qualifications.
Specific functions relating to the monitoring and auditing of national
standards and qualifications have been assigned to each ETQA in terms of
section 5(1)(b)(i) of the Act.
[4] The Skills Development Levies Act of 1998 states that the development of
skills should promote self-employment. The White Paper of the
Department of Trade and Industry in South Africa of March 1995
emphasizes the role of SMMEs in achieving this objective.
References
Billett, S. (1994) Situated Learning – a Workplace Experience, Australian Journal of
Adult and Community Education, 34, pp. 112-130.
Bobat, S. & Tandrup, S. (1999) Provincial Skills Development Pilot Project,
KwaZulu-Natal: review report on the recruitment and selection of learners.
RambØll, in association with the Danish Ministry of Labour and a group of
South African Consultants. Unpublished draft document.
Brunello, G. & Medio, A. (2001) An Explanation of International Differences in
Education and Workplace Training, European Economic Review, 45,
pp. 307-322.
201Theresa-Anne Davies & Fiona Farquharson
Davies, T.A. (2001a) Assessor Guides for Learnerships, working paper,
unpublished. Durban: Centre for Skills Development and Technology
Transfer, Durban Institute of Technology.
Davies, T.A. (2001b) Guidelines for the Effective Management of Institutional and
Workplace Learning in the Generic Business Learnership, working paper,
unpublished. Durban: Centre for Skills Development and Technology
Transfer, Durban Institute of Technology.
De Jager, S., Hattingh, S. & Hüster, E. (2002) How to Implement a Learnership: a
guide for employers and training providers, Commissioned by the German
Technical Co-operation in partnership with MERSETA. Pretoria: GTZ.
Department of Trade and Industry (1995) White Paper on Small, Medium and Micro
Enterprises. South Africa: DTI.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P & Trow, M.
(1994) The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and
Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.
Koch, F., Tandrup, S., Borroughs, E., Le Roux, F., Theron, A. & Griffin, C. (1999a)
Provincial Skills Development Pilot Project, KwaZulu-Natal: review report on
the implementation of learnerships, prepared by RambØll, in association with
the Danish Ministry of Labour and a group of South African Consultants. Draft
document, unpublished.
Koch, F.; Tandrup, S.; Borroughs, E.; Le Roux, F.; Theron, A. & Griffin, C.
(November 1999b) Provincial Skills Development Pilot Project, KwaZulu-
Natal: review report on the placement of learners, prepared by RambØll, in
association with the Danish Ministry of Labour and a group of South African
Consultants. Draft document, unpublished.
NCVER (2001) Australian Apprenticeships: facts, fiction and future. Adelaide:
NCVER. www.ncver.edu.au
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2000) From Initial
Education to Working Life: making transitions work, preliminary edition. Paris:
OECD.
Provincial Skills Development Pilot Project II Project Management Team (2001a)
Provincial Skills Development Pilot Project: report to the Project Steering
Committee, Conference Proceedings held at the Riverside Conference Centre,
Johannesburg, South Africa, 7 March. Unpublished.
Provincial Skills Development Pilot Project II Project Management Team (2001b)
Provincial Skills Development Pilot Project: report to the Steering Committee,
21 June. Draft document, unpublished.
Provincial Skills Development Pilot Project II Project Management Team (2001c)
Provincial Skills Development Pilot Project: report to the Steering Committee.
18 October. Draft document, unpublished.
Provincial Skills Development Pilot Project II Project Management Team (2002)
Lessons Learned – Final Version, October. Unpublished document.
Republic of South Africa (1998) National Skills Board Regulations (NSB).
Republic of South Africa (1998) National Skills Development Act.
Republic of South Africa (1999) Skills Development Levies Act.
202WORKPLACE LEARNING AND ITS EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT
Republic of South Africa (2001) Learnership Regulations.
South African Institute of Race Relations (2001) The 2001 Survey of South Africa.
Johannesburg: SAIRR.
South African Qualifications Authority (2002) SAQA Report (September): the state
of skills in South Africa. South Africa: SAQA. Available at: www.saqa.org.za
Vorwerk, C. (2002a) Implementing Learnerships in the Workplace, Equity Skills-
Development Newsletter (e-zine), 3(2), pp. 2-4. Available at:
www.equityskillsweb.co.za.
Vorwerk, C. (2002b) Implementing Learnerships in the Workplace, Equity Skills-
Development Newsletter (e-zine), 3(22):13-18. Available at:
www.equityskillsweb.co.za.
World Economic Forum (2002-2003) Global Competitiveness Report. Available at:
www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/GCR_2002_
03/ South_Africa.pdf.
203Theresa-Anne Davies & Fiona Farquharson 204
You can also read
