Starting my London-based career in an ‘Information Services’ team has led to me always having quite an interest in the semantics of support departments. Information has become a hugely overused term since then, closely associated with the ‘Knowledge Economy’, as business and academia have worried about the growth of technology and overload of web content in the last 20 years. However, whilst information teams have often dwindled in the face of ‘free’ material on the open web other support services continue along.
At a CILIP event about 5 years back there was an agitated former Institute of Information Scientists member who was furious at perceived continued dumbing down, in other words, a focus on libraries rather than information science. The challenge, of course, is that ‘information’ is a term largely usurped by technology, either as IT or ICT. In this respect the BCS and other groups have usurped the second I in CILIP and there were valid opinions expressed that the CILIP renaming debacle could of done worse than to embrace the old ‘Library Association’ moniker. However, the risk with this would be to alienate members, such as myself, who have long moved on from physical spaces whilst still using an information orientated mindset (I tend to avoid ‘skills’ here as I fear that might be over-egging my pudding!).
So if “information” has become synonymous with technological solutions and support departments what for those with an information mindset? In many cases they will be found embedded within another traditional department such as research, HR, marketing or training/learning. They may (like me) or may not have formal academic credentials in these areas but do have the option of engaging with professional bodies and potentially seeking professional status such as MCILIP, CMALT, etc.
Of course the challenge is that in ‘knowledge’ (and many other) roles ICT solutions are essential, and I include the C to recognize the role of communication and collaboration tools.
So what of all these support teams? Well, whilst ICT and the currently vogue ESN have tried to break silos they often still exist. This often is not helped by the splits to C-Suite reporting across various groups including COOs, Heads of People and (of course) the CIO.
What I’m going to suggest today though is that disciplinary focus doesn’t help. Instead let’s pick the best elements to create a single support structure. But what to call it? Well how much your (and I’m largely talking office based support here) support make up of your workforce will impact.
However let’s adopt “Productivity and Performance”. In this model, Ullrich-esque HRBPs can become performance consultants and help identify where things need to improve and have full scope of measures (finance and other data) versus solutions (digital solutions for marketing and learning), etc.
Obviously organisations will vary but it’s starting to feel like claiming the ‘productivity’ name is a solution – as recognised by Microsoft, Apple and others who recognise software by that name. Indeed if one looks at the latest top 100 tools for learning many are not ‘learning’ specific but productivity/office focused. Many on this list would appear for a lawyer, finance, marketing and other pros. Let’s recognize the value in the tech and bring together the support staff with different mindsets, strengths and expertise.
I’ve drafted a few brief reflective pieces for the site of late – only for referendums, snippets of policy and other articles to make me pause and reflect again. This is an attempt to capture some of the excellence points being made about apprenticeships as the future for UK (well English) skills development (as well as linking back to old articles on the topics). I’m well aware that elements will be made out-of-date between typing and publication!
Whilst partly being driven by (and carried along in the tsunami of) Brexit news – the potential implications and the importance of the changes to Apprenticeships are also being drowned out by the huge stories in Europe, Syria, America and elsewhere. This is a shame as whilst the potential for new Grammar Schools has managed to grab headlines, the apprentice changes have struggled to. This is particularly striking considering the levy policy largely amounts to Government intervention in workplace people development and, therefore, a potentially more important change. This is especially so for a Conservative government that continues to talk of free trade opportunities whilst having changed minimum wages, pension laws and other cost of business regulations.
Reflections on the emergent policy
The Apprenticeship Levy and related policies (or at least information on them) have been delayed at virtually every stage. This is not helped, as anyone who has tried to work through the process will find out, that the related gov.uk pages have no real help, support contacts or feedback (beyond formal consultations). I know it is better than it used to be, as they aim to move to the one site, but there are still plenty of errors on existing sites (see image from an example link on the Skills Funding Agency registration process).
Ultimately, there seems to be a shift from the government or individuals deciding ‘whose education is it anyway?’ to what business and employers determine is appropriate. However this is within a government structure of shifting the financial cost to business in return. Yet discussion continues over if some form of central linking of growth strategy and apprenticeships is needed, independent of the market forces of employer led levy policy.
The challenge may be more for universities. With a clear challenge on how to keep relevant when charging huge fees. To massively simplify – why would anyone want to study for 3 years for £40,000+ of debt when you could get an equivalent qualification whilst working? Whilst the American Dream has been challenged as unattainable (as you can no longer work your way through college – but the universities and other interested parties dont want you to know that), apprenticeships are effectively challenging the ‘traditional’ UK model that started to take shape pre-Blair and was accelerated by his administrations. Universities are going to have to become more responsive and imaginative in the design of degree-level apprenticeships.
Whilst a university education allows mobility, albeit I am an example of someone who chose a location for my undergraduate university (in part) as it was relatively close to home and cheap, there is the question of social value versus gaining efficiency through competition. Of course, UK HE has some approaches that make entry to the market difficult (and better use of economies of scale, perhaps through mergers, could be made). JISC could, for example, support degree apprenticeships through technology in a way that would be difficult for employer providers.
Fundamentally, there is also the question over why universities have failed to adopt wider competency models. The US focus on competency based education in HE has shifted the model somewhat towards a more broken down skill profile assessment, akin in some ways to our apprenticeships. Inevitably UK HE will have to move away from the vagueness of 1st, 2nd and 3rd class degrees. Of course a lot of this is not new, I even presented on related issues at a conference in 2010. There were also sessions on competency based learning beyond the standard curriculum at the same conference. You have to presume that changes to traditional degree models will be accelerated by the ‘competition’ with new apprenticeships.
And to the future…
The arguments over graduate skills (or lack there of) will continue. The shift to the Levy means employers paying to the levy have three real options it seems to me:
do nothing – accept the loss as a tax
work with vendors – accept apprenticeships as your career development pathways but also accept the “loss” of the levy money
A key feature to the planned changes with the apprenticeship policy, throughout the planning, has been the promise of a shift to them becoming (more) ’employer led’. There will be less of an education-sector focus in their organisation, especially in the change to allow people to be an apprentice at a lower or equal level to past qualifications (a big change).
The presumption seems to be that larger employers, who already have L&D resources, can consider the provider route. This makes sense, not least as apprenticeships focus on learning across the 70/20/10 spectrum. However, the enforcement of L&D teams working within rules they might not have worked on themselves (depending on if they worked on the standard or not) will be a challenge to many – not least when there has been such a focus on informal elements and recognising the value of learning achieved away from credentialing (this also being part of the challenge for HE). There have also been lots of questions over supporting smaller companies in supply chains (aka ‘extended enterprise’) and the need to apply as a full provider to train other companies’ staff may be too much of a logistical burden for many organisations. However, again, there is potential here for L&D departments to really transform their position within their organisations and their relation to partner companies.
Indeed the options for what levy money can be used for, by employer providers, are quite comprehensive:
“Employer-providers will be able to use funds in their digital account to pay for the following: • training to achieve the apprenticeship, which could include qualifications, elearning (as part of a broader training package), vendor qualifications • registration, assessment, materials and examination • administration related to the delivery of the apprenticeships. • accommodation for residential trips if necessary for all apprentices to achieve • costs for use of premises where these are used for the apprenticeship • wages and associated costs (such as pension and National Insurance contributions) for employees directly involved in the delivery of the apprenticeship.”
and it is difficult to see quite how the government will regulate and audit against ‘misuse’, even if their attempts are mostly logical:
“To claim eligible costs, employer-providers are required to input the price of these costs on the digital apprenticeship service and through the Individualised Learner Record. As detailed below, employers must retain evidence of these costs. This evidence may be requested as part of the SFA’s audit and assurance checks.
They won’t be able to use it for: • costs that are the employer’s responsibility, for example health and safety requirements, wages, travel, commercial choices (e.g. CSCS cards) • wages for line managers or other colleagues supporting the apprentice 16 • wages of the apprentice • profit or employee bonuses • capital purchases • more than one apprenticeship at a time for an individual apprentice • re-taking qualifications or assessment where no additional learning takes place • apprentice recruitment • anything that has received other government funding (for example European Social Fund)”.
The 20% rule
Historically the opposition to apprenticeships has often focused on the 20% rule:
“All apprenticeships must include 20% off the job training. It is up to you to decide at what point during the apprenticeship the training is best delivered (for example, one day a week throughout, 1 week out of every 5, a proportion at the beginning, middle and end). This will depend on what is best for your organisation and the apprentice. You need to ensure that all apprentices receive all of the training.”
Overall, there remain many grey areas over how the FY17 model will work but the support being given to apprenticeships does seem to be hugely important and something for all L&D departments to consider in their strategies – even if to say the ‘brand’ of apprenticeships (one of the outstanding issues according to the CIPD) still isn’t strong enough to work for them. Many useful links still haven’t made it into this reflective piece so I may well add to the comments.
Tool 1: Name and (optionally) reason for choice: Old Reader – personal RSS reader of choice for news, sharing and current awareness.
Tool 1: How do you use it?: Workplace Learning, Personal & Professional Learning
Tool 2: Name and (optionally) reason for choice: Xmarks – bookmarking for personal knowledge library and sharing of folders/topics with contacts and colleagues
Tool 2: How do you use it?: Workplace Learning , Personal & Professional Learning
Tool 3: Name and (optionally) reason for choice: YouTube – still most used video platform in terms of access to recorded webinars, tutorials, etc.
Tool 3: How do you use it?: Workplace Learning , Personal & Professional Learning
Tool 4: Name and (optionally) reason for choice: Articulate Storyline 2 – authoring tool of choice for content distribution and for developing support tools.
Tool 4: How do you use it?: Workplace Learning
Tool 5: Name and (optionally) reason for choice: Totara – simplifies our L&D management requirements for regulators, government, etc allowing more of our time on performance support and career development.
Tool 5: How do you use it?: Workplace Learning, Personal & Professional Learning
Tool 6: Name and (optionally) reason for choice: LinkedIn – learning via groups and 1-2-1 communication. A source for news and useful links (but less so than Old Reader or YouTube).
Tool 6: How do you use it?: Workplace Learning , Personal & Professional Learning
Tool 7: Name and (optionally) reason for choice: WordPress – for reflection and sharing my learning.
Tool 7: How do you use it?: Workplace Learning , Personal & Professional Learning
Tool 8: Name and (optionally) reason for choice: Prezi – started using it again this year to share messaging where the templates/zooming helps.
Tool 8: How do you use it?: Workplace Learning , Personal & Professional Learning
Tool 9: Name and (optionally) reason for choice: Firefox – as the entry point to other tools remains essential. Used over other tools for speed, plugins, etc.
Tool 9: How do you use it?: Workplace Learning, Personal & Professional Learning
Tool 10: Name and (optionally) reason for choice: Grover Pro – Podcast app of choice for learning on the go.
Tool 10: How do you use it?: Workplace Learning, Personal & Professional Learning
Last week around 50 learning professionals braved the hotest day of the year and a room with no air con to listen to an update on apprenticeships, mostly from Sue Husband from the Department of Education (recently moved over from BIS).
The overwhelming message was really “we’re not quite there yet, there will be more soon” – the latest raft of levy information unsurprisingly being held up by the changes resulting from the referendum result. Therefore, I wont include everything from the day here as a lot was what we already knew.
There were positives though – rough notes below [with some of my comments included]:
Focus is on apprenticeship quality [although you suspect that will be under challenge from the ‘claim back’ employers – no doubt a test for the new Institute for Apprenticeships].
NI contributions abolished for under 25 apprentices.
2.3% of workforce target now in place for government to encourage them to support the policy. Recommended that people look up the 5% Club.
Post code of person will be determining factor on which pot money goes to – so good for English people working in Scotland/Wales, not so much the other way around [so employers may be forced into decisions that go against equal opportunities].
Funds will expire after 18 months – system is clever enough to know how ‘old’ a pound is and move into general pot at correct time.
Levy online tool is available for people to pilot [still awaiting my access after requesting last week following the event]. April 2017 will only be available to levy payers – smaller orgs later [makes sense and should help with stability].
Pooling funds and granting to supply chain are on road-map [potentially] but issues with potential for misuse of funds [payments for favours, etc].
They expect employers running own apprenticeships to grow [good that not just about supporting a market for the FE and skills sector].
The current advertising [which is all over my train route in South London at least] is young person orientated – the next raft will highlight that it is about all ages and current employees too.
Graduations now underway for people coming through apprenticeships designed to new standards [presumably a good thing but no doubt some questions over quality versus the old frameworks in some areas].
Acknowledged higher qualification [degree] cap does not make sense, as funding going from government to employers now looking at it from different perspective. More in next publications. [Might be a real game changer if this removes the blocker on graduates training into a career via an apprenticeship].
About half of all standards in development are at degree level [watch out HE!].
‘Use levy wisely’ was the response to the question from the room about why the levy is being forced on those who already do good people development. [Guess the challenge might be that the room was clearly people engaged with the agenda – no doubt the % of employers who currently under invest in L&D will be the more vocal in complaining about the levy]. 20,ooo firms will be paying in; 5,000 of those will be new to apprenticeships.
Definitely don’t have to have ‘apprentice’ or similar in your job title [but good for your apprenticeship brand if people realise that is what they are doing – plus they do have to know they are an apprentice as part of the rules].
20% off work can be blended, do not think about as 20% in classroom. They recognise that continuous learning makes the best programmes [yay!].
Will be information coming for employers looking to do some of the training and back charging to provider.
Brexit may be good for apprenticeships [if cuts on immigration].
May encourage permanent employment [this is me extrapolating from the amount of people in the room unhappy that their temporary staff will be included in the levy tax but not in those who can be apprentices – presumably also the likes of SportDirect wont be happy with that one].
Digital Apprenticeship Service screenshots [It’s Alive!! Will comment more on this when I get access].
Somewhat under the radar in the UK, well in England at least, we seem to be facing a fundamental decision point for what workplace learning means.
The government’s apprenticeship levy is threatening to create, from my current perspective at least, what looks like a three-tier system:
small organisations who will take on apprentices over other training as they dont have to pay into the levy so its ‘free money’ reducing the need for their own L&D
medium to large employers who see the levy as a substantial cost and feel they need to ‘claim back’ as much of the money as possible via shifting their learning focus to apprenticeships.
large employers who can live with the cost of the levy and will continue as they were.
Overall though it seems the main feeling is one of confusion. The slow feed of clarification from the government means that forward planning is tricky and at the recent 70/20/10 event I spoke to a number of people who felt apprenticeships were fast becoming their number one issue, without any real discussion in the L&D press. The issue perhaps being that if an organisation shifts to the ‘claim back’ or ‘free money’ mentality they will be impacting on a number of traditional disciplines including finance, L&D, recruitment and more. Perhaps the problem is that, as no single discipline ‘owns’ this issue, apprenticeships remain somewhat out-of-scope for many (at least in their own perceptions of their role).
There is, of course, a very recent precedent for government policy increasing the so called ‘cost of business’. That so many organisations are being accused of cut backs to benefits to pay for the living wage, raises the suspicion that L&D budgets face a similar cull in the face of such a training related ‘tax’. The CBI have already warned that successful learning initiatives will suffer in the face of the levy.
There are some fundamental issues for workplace learning is how apprenticeships can align with wider trends. Modern apprenticeships will need to focus on bringing in certifying skills from a range of experience, exposure and education. This will almost certainly have to include some formalisation of the informal, blurring the lines therein (such as staff using tools such as Lynda’s learning paths).
