ETU-CEPU HIGHLIGHTS MAJOR CONCERNS WITH RELEASE 2.0 ELECTROTECHNOLOGY TRAINING PACKAGE CASE FOR ENDORSEMENT
The ETU-CEPU has released a report that raises serious concerns with the quality and efficacy of the Electrotechnology Training Package revision process (Release 2.0). As the ETU is a member of the Industry Reference Committee (IRC) this is a stinging rebuke of the whole Skill Service Organisation (SSO) model. The model clearly has evolved to segregating well meaning part-time industry representatives who should be project managing the review of Training Packages to being encumbered with trying to learn matters of detailed design and development of Training Package content. They have had little access to, or any support from, professional competent technical personnel with corporate history and full rounded knowledge and understanding of their respective industry Training Package. Training Packages in some instances have been placed with SSOs purely for administrative reasons and the SSOs have embarked on a process development activity rather than a content management, maintenance and development philosophy to ensure integrity, veracity and long-term currency of the respective Training Package content.
The report identifies clearly, major issues that the SSO has been unable to attend to because of its lack of technical expertise. Members of the IRC should not have to engage in an in-depth analysis of the product and find that there a serious issues and defects with it. Moreover, the chronological events as stated in the report demonstrate the SSO has operated at arms length from the IRC, given tendered evidence of repeatedly nothing having been followed through with, when so requested by the IRC.
Given the report is an exception report supported by some members of the IRC, it demonstrates that those who have made the time to review the content in detail have become alarmed at the lack of efficacy, rigour and quality of the final ‘case for endorsement’ product. If members of an IRC have to go to the extent of integrating and formally documenting detailed technical issues, one has to question the validity of the process and the result.
This ITAB too, has repeatedly raised concerns with the quality and efficacy of the revised Electrotechnology Training Package for over a year. Few were prepared to listen, however we now have a formal evidence via an exception report from a key member of the IRC, that brings even more to light of these serious issues.
The process of review has been questionable and discredited. The product clearly, does not meet muster. It lacks understanding of the technical requirements of the respective occupations and how these requirements are to be reflected and manifested into qualifications for competency outcomes reflecting the various workplace requirements in the industry. As well, the industrial and regulatory sensitivities that are associated with these occupations and corresponding qualifications.
The report is attached for you review. If you feel the contents of the report reflect your concerns on the many issues, ensure you advise your State Training Authority (STA) representative, industry representatives, and any AISC members you know that need to learn of the concerns in the industry. COPY OF REPORT BY EXCEPTION