MEM05 Metal and Engineering Training Package Review. Project Plan for Stage 1 October 2012 June 2013

Transcription

1 MEM05 Metal and Engineering Training Package Review Project Plan for Stage 1 October 2012 June

2 Contents Purpose... 3 Background and strategic context... 3 Project activities and milestones... 4 Stage 1 scope and key deliverables... 5 Assumptions made... 5 Project management... 6 MSA Board sub-committee... 6 Governance... 6 Project team... 6 Key stakeholder consultation... 6 Communications and reporting... 7 Technical Reference Groups (TRGs)... 7 TRG Role... 7 Appendix 1 - Project risk assessment... 8 MEM05 Review Stage 1 Project Plan October 2012 page 2 of 9

3 Purpose The purpose of this project is to redevelop the MEM05 Metal and Engineering Training Package to ensure that it continues to meet the training needs of users, as identified in the Scoping Report recommendations. This includes a full review and redevelopment of the MEM units and qualifications, and streamlining of the units of competency to comply with the new Training Package model. This work will be undertaken in two stages, the first commencing September 2012, with an estimated completion date for Stage Two being December. Background and strategic context MEM05 currently consists of 24 qualifications and 577 units of competency. It is one of the largest Training Packages both in coverage and content. The scope of MEM05 covers the work skills of approximately half of manufacturing industry (at least 500,000 workers) who work in many industry sectors in manufacturing as well as in engineering, building and construction, mining and resource engineering, defence engineering, shipbuilding and boating. MEM05 includes coverage for a range of critical trade and technician occupations and has significant economic importance in meeting skill needs of the resources sector, as well as in manufacturing. There have been many changes to industry, technology and the VET policy environment since the last review of the Metal and Engineering Training Package. While many of the technology changes and other changes have been addressed through continuous improvement projects conducted since the last review, there has not been a structural review of the Training Package for seven years. The need for a structural review of the Metal and Engineering Training Package was one of the key agreed outcomes at the strategic planning meeting held in November This was reinforced by the findings of the research project. MEM05 Review Stage 1 Project Plan October 2012 page 3 of 9

4 Project activities and milestones Activity Schedule Project Action Responsibility Sept 2012 Oct 2012 Nov 2012 Dec 2012 Jan Feb Mar April May June 1. Project plan developed MSA/ 2. Development of initial recommendations for a revised qualification framework for agreement in principle by the BSC 3. Initial streamlining of a range of units for discussion with BSC MSA 4. BSC meeting/workshop MSA / 5. Establish technical reference groups, consult with key stakeholders re packaging, prerequisites, gaps, etc MSA/ 6. Establish technical reference groups, continue initial streamlining of units and seek national feedback MSA/ 7. Finalise and validate proposed new structures, identify changes required to units (gaps, prerequisites, etc) 8. Collate feedback on streamlined units, prepare consultation drafts for for stage 2 MSA 9. Prepare project plan for transition to stage 2 of project / MSA 10. Commence redevelopment work as agreed in stage 1 MEM05 Review Stage 1 Project Plan October 2012 page 4 of 9

5 Stage 1 scope and key deliverables The scope of stage 1 is to develop recommendations and reach agreement for the following: revised structure for all MEM qualifications additional qualifications and pathways including manufacturing technology and preemployment identification of unit requirements and strategy for proposed qualifications including: o New units to meet gaps o Revised units to meet qualifications o Pre-requisite pathways o Banding/grouping o Feedback on streamlining of existing units o Rewriting of trade specialisation units The key deliverables for stage 1 are an agreed draft qualifications framework with recommendations for a revised structure. The work will include an examination of: the core and elective structure of all MEM qualifications packaging rules and pathways, and compliance with new AQF, 21 st Century and flexibility requirements statistics for use of current qualifications and identification of need for changes to pathways other qualification pathways, including o manufacturing technology, o pre-employment and o TCF Mechanic the inclusion of Skill Sets statistics for current units to identify gaps and units that require major change or replacement core unit requirements for each qualification, the overall coverage of foundation skills and other soft skills as well as their alignment to the Australian Core Skills Framework pre-requisites, how they affect packaging and recommendations for prerequisite strategy in a reviewed qualifications structure unit Banding/grouping trade specialisation units. Note that initial streamlining of units of competency is to be undertaken by MSA, in parallel with the contracted work for stage 1. Assumptions made This project plan has been developed on the basis of Training Package and VET policy in place at the time of writing. Any subsequent changes to Training Package policy especially requirements for endorsement of qualifications and units of competency may affect the scope or order of work of the Review. MEM05 Review Stage 1 Project Plan October 2012 page 5 of 9

6 Project management Reporting on a day to day basis will be to the MSA Project Manager, Barbara Wallace. The development will be overseen by an MSA Board Sub-committee made up of major stakeholders. The terms of reference for the Board Sub-committee are to: assist in the identification of stakeholders to be consulted for the project identify and assist in the resolution of industry issues in relation to strategic objectives of the Review provide industry input and advice on: o industrial issues o training and assessment issues o priority areas for industry skills development o appropriate methods for collection, collation and consolidation of industry information o validity of the content of project outcomes provide feedback on MSA s development work undertaken for the area covered exchange information as appropriate between MSA, industry and other relevant professional groups covered provide feedback on the project development work for the area of interest make recommendations to the MSA Board on acceptance of the product of the project. The individuals and enterprises/organisations represented on the MSA Board Sub-committee are listed below. MSA Board sub-committee Name Ian Curry, MSA Board (Committee Chair) Derek Cupp Paul Kennett Megan Lilly, MSA Board Michael Grogan, MSA Board Alex Stanojevic Dave Hicks Enterprise/organisation AMWU Manufacturing Industry Skills Advisory Council (SA) Industry consultant Australian Industry Group Sutton Tools Australian Industry Group Engineering, Automotive Industry Training Council WA (EAITC) Governance MSA Board of Directors (11 industry people appointed by company owners/members) signs off on final project outcomes prior to submission to National Skills Standards Council for endorsement Project team MSA consultant: Richard Jenkins and Associates Other consultants may be engaged by Richard Jenkins and Associates on a needs basis. All consultants will be approved by MSA prior to commencing work on the Review. Key stakeholder consultation Consultations will include but not be limited to the stakeholders listed below. The key stakeholders will be updated as the project transitions to stage 2. Key employer associations and unions Other relevant industry bodies including ITABs / ITCs Identified enterprises and their employees MEM05 Review Stage 1 Project Plan October 2012 page 6 of 9

7 RTOs and group training companies Professional associations Regulatory agencies The following control strategies will be used for management of the project: development of Gantt charts showing activities and milestones for the whole review and individual sub tasks monitoring of feedback via website, , MSA and RJA social networking sites weekly teleconferences between the consultant and key MSA Review contacts regular communications with the Technical Review Groups (TRGs) regular meetings with the MSA Board Sub-Committee to review progress and approve future activities In addition to the above the consultant and MSA staff will regularly undertake targeted consultations with individual enterprises, industry organisations and RTOs to assess awareness and support for the project proposals. Feedback on these consultations will be provided to the MSA Board Sub-committee. Communications and reporting The review of MEM05 will follow an established Training Package redevelopment process of expert technical input into revision of qualifications and units of competency, with a combination of wide consultation through electronic means, targeted face-to-face consultations and national workshops for comprehensive feedback. Advice provided and issues raised by industry, regulators, government and RTO stakeholders from the consultation outcomes will be made available through a public Issues Register and the MSA website. Progress reports and draft materials will be made available electronically via a dedicated web page on the MSA website. Technical Reference Groups (TRGs) A number of Technical Reference Groups (TRGs) will be established to provide technical input to the revision of qualifications and units of competency. Each TRG will focus on a designated technical/competency field and will consist of nominated members from relevant stakeholder organisations. Communications will be managed by , individual phone calls and scheduled teleconferences. TRG Role 1. To be a source of expert advice to the MSA review team on proposed changes to the MEM05 Training Package units of competency and qualifications to ensure they meet the needs of industry. 2. To provide feedback on technical aspects of draft materials developed during the review. 3. To provide advice on, and act as a conduit to, other industry stakeholders that should be engaged by the review. MEM05 Review Stage 1 Project Plan October 2012 page 7 of 9

8 Appendix 1 - Project risk assessment Risk Likelihood Impact Mitigation/Elimination Approach Key stakeholders may not be prepared to be directly involved in the redevelopment as a member of a Technical Reference Group due to perceived time required or other issues Low Medium Every effort will be made to gain direct involvement but if this is not forthcoming stakeholders will be targeted and provided with opportunities to be involved by receiving draft materials for information and comment as required. Use of well-structured proforma response forms and user-friendly presentation of draft Package components on the MSA website to encourage feedback and allay concerns about the time required to be involved in the redevelopment. Stakeholders in the same industry sector may have divergent views on what the redevelopment should change in the Package components and/or quality of feedback is not high quality Medium to High High When they arise, divergent industry views will be managed by discussing the underlying assumptions or needs with each stakeholder and proposing a compromise position that satisfies these without negatively affecting the overall quality and outcomes of the Training Package. Quality of feedback constantly evaluated and validated widely. Source file problems Medium Low Maintain quality of documentation utilising correct templates for training.gov.au. Industry and RTO stakeholders may have conflicting imperatives for the final design of the Package and/or there are gaps in feedback Virtual communication and use of the website for accessing draft redeveloped components not suited to some stakeholders or responses too slow/limited. Medium to High Medium Most Training Packages reflect a design middle path between specifying industry skill needs exactly as used in workplaces and a product which is understandable and usable by training providers. Because of the structural changes to all Packages that impact on this project there will inevitably be some arising issues about content utility. The redevelopment approach will be to keep both industry and RTO representatives involved so any conflicting positions or gaps in feedback can be identified and dealt with in formative stages rather than a major dispute later. As a general protocol the industry position should prevail if a decision has to be made on a fundamental design factor. Low to Medium Low Not everyone is comfortable with on-line communication systems, often not because of technical ability but lack of human contact. Any stakeholder indicating issues of this kind will be directly contacted by the consultant or MSA to discuss issues with draft material and provide MEM05 Review Stage 1 Project Plan October 2012 page 8 of 9

9 Risk Likelihood Impact Mitigation/Elimination Approach verbal feedback. This will be utilised in the re-drafting in exactly the same way as electronic feedback eliminating the problem and keeping stakeholders involved. Some stakeholders complain about lack of consultation New/different issues arise in the validation workshops than those considered by Technical Reference Groups and supported in the consultation phase and some remain unresolved Medium Low Stakeholder database, Issues Register and other communication strategies for the project to minimise overlooking individuals. Medium Medium Any new/different issues coming out of the validation workshops will be recorded, fed back to and confirmed with participants to ensure they are valid and held by significant or multiple industry participants. If the issues appear to be high priority redevelopment requirements they will be taken back to relevant TRGs and stakeholders for discussion and possible change. Outcomes will be provided to those raising the issues. Where issues fall outside of the priorities identified in overall redevelopment consultation those putting them forward will be informed that they will not be actioned in the redevelopment but considered in future continuous improvement of the Package. Final product is not accepted by key stakeholders Medium High Ensure communication with stakeholders is encompassing, report regularly to the Board Sub-Committee so outstanding issues can be fully considered and validate all draft materials widely. Project timelines and outcomes are not met Medium High Ensure regular progress reporting and evaluation of activities to remain within budget while achieving outcomes. -End- MEM05 Review Stage 1 Project Plan October 2012 page 9 of 9