The Decision Tree helps to define the nature of skills issues within industry and to determine when a training package response is needed.
How to use the Decision Tree
This resource can assist to triage skills issues as they are identified and to confirm whether a training package response is required. The decisions related to each node in Decision tree are described below.
There is evidence from quantitative data or from stakeholder feedback that changes in skills are required. The type of change determines the group of questions to follow. These groups are defined in A1, B1, and C1. The questions are directed towards the IRC as the decision-maker for whether training products should be developed.
New job roles emerging
A1. The skills will require definition of new job roles. For example, this may be the emergence of a new industry or technology that does not naturally align with current job roles.
A2. Can the IRC articulate the skills required for the role, and confirm that these skills are not already present in the workforce?
A3. Can the IRC make a clear case for the need for nationally accredited training products to address the skills need? There should be a strong reasoning on why the skills cannot be developed through informal or non-accredited training, or accredited training outside of training packages, Refer to the ‘additional resources’ below.
Existing jobs different skills
B1. The change in skills represent changing requirements for, or evolution of, existing workforce roles. That is, there is evidence that people that are currently doing one role will in the future require a different skill.
B2. Do workers within the job role currently gain their skills from nationally recognised training products (refer to tool one). For example, nationally recognised training products are an entry requirement for the role, or are widely used by workers despite a lack of formal requirement. Importantly, show that the absence of a nationally recognised training product would adversely affect the ability of the workforce to function.
B3. If nationally recognised training products are not currently essential, is there are clear need for these products in the future? Specifically, why does the change in skills mean that nationally recognised training products are required in the future? Refer to the ‘additional resources’ below.
Availability of workers
C1. The skills required to do a job are not changing, but there is a lack of workers with suitable skills for industry needs. This logic pathway may also apply for other issues where the presence of the required skills in nationally recognised training products are not the driving factor.
C2. Can the IRC show that the available training products alone are presenting barriers to workforce entry or training uptake? If nationally recognised training products were to be changed, would this contribute to resolving the identified shortage?
Criteria for determining whether a Training Package response is needed
The below provides a set of criteria that may be applied to determine whether a nationally recognised training product is required. This is intended to assist with decision points A3 and B3.
- Existing regulations or professional registration – the job role sits under a regulator or enterprise bargaining framework that specifies a nationally recognised qualification as a requirement for workforce entry, progression, conditions, or pay.
- Labour mobility – workers are commonly required to work interstate, and require identical skills in those interstate contexts
- Risk mitigation – industry requires workers to have consistent and nationally recognised training to mitigate against a perceived risk that would arise in the absence of a key competency or set of competencies
- Student or policy benefit – other channels of skills delivery are not appropriate, or production of a training package assists with the achievement of policy objectives.
This list is not exhaustive, but it indicates the level of rationale that is required to develop a nationally recognised training product. Many skills needs can be met through the use of informal training or accredited training. Where there is not a strong reason why these other channels are inappropriate, the default should not be a training package product.
Where there are multiple instances of accredited courses available (non-training products), it may be appropriate to introduce a nationally recognised training product to ensure consistency in workforce skills and reduce the number of overall qualifications available.
You should clearly articulate the justification for development or inclusion of a new training product in submissions to the AISC.
Principles to assist with validation and prioritisation of training product solutions
If an adjustment to nationally recognised training products is required, SSOs will typically propose a training product solution, either within the ISF / case for change, or through the development of a case for endorsement. Before signing off on proposed training product solutions, including work schedules, IRC members should be comfortable that the solution meets the following criteria, at a minimum:
- Consistent: The proposed solution consistently addresses the skills requirements across the industry, and there is clear value to employees or employers in using the products.
- Minimal: The proposed solution minimises the development of new units and qualifications. The SSO confirms that units have been imported from elsewhere where appropriate.
- High priority: The issues that prompt action are the highest priority from the perspective of industry. The SSO has demonstrated that the issues proposed to be addressed have the highest economic impacts of those that could be considered.