1. Transforming Workforce Development: Key findings from the HEFCE Workforce Development Programme James Kewin, Managing Director Dr Abigail Diamond, Director of Research & Evaluation

2. Origins of the Programme

3. Where to begin? Government has a long history of intervening in the name of workforce development: >1563 Statute of Artificers >1889 Technical Instruction Act >1980s and 90s saw a range of measures aimed at increasing the number of lower level qualifications >But then we went on journey...

4. The journey from Sandy to Mandy

5. A journey characterised by... >Increased attention focused on ‘employer-led’ workforce development and ‘economically valuable skills’ >Employer in the driving seat >Success measured through progress in international qualification league tables >Qualification targets used as measures of success: 40%, 50%, 75%

6. The golden years? “The policy context, exemplified by Leitch, for the development of work-based learning has never been more favourable” Garnett and Young 2008 >Finally an acknowledgement that work-based learning does not end at Level 3 >CFE research proved influential e.g. Known Unknowns, Using Demand to Shape Supply >Considerable investment made in HE infrastructure, largely through the Workforce Development Programme

7. The Programme >£103 million investment in capacity and infrastructure >£45 million to support delivery of employer co- funded entrants to HE >Objectives: –Test the level of demand from employers and employees –Stimulate institutional change –Promote access to and through HE for a wider range of learners –Build a platform within the sector for growth in HE based workforce development

8. Evaluation of the Programme

9. Methods summary >Secondary analysis of programme data and monitoring reports plus HESA, HESES and HE- BCIS data >Online survey of project leads and staff at each HEI (83 HEIs involved in the programme). >30 site visits to HEIs with co-funding/workforce development projects (85 consultations), 24 stakeholder consultations. >10 consultations with HEIs not in the programme. >20 employer and 20 employee consultations.

10. Key findings: access to HE >Targets for additional entrants to higher education and for Foundation Degrees were met. >The programme leveraged significant investment (in excess of £17million) from over 2,706 employers to deliver 35,000 additional HE students. >Increased levels of access to HE by individuals with no prior experience of HE has been partly achieved. >Demand for higher level skills from employers and employees has increased but it is uncertain what impact the new funding arrangements will have.

11. Key findings: lessons for HEIs >Active leadership at the most senior level is critical. >Diverse approaches adopted to bridge the gap between ‘traditional’ academic processes geared to the (majority) undergraduate market, and the very different requirements of engaging employers. >Notable adaptations made to accreditation and quality assurance processes to accelerate validation, APEL and shell frameworks. >Most intend to sustain and develop their workforce development activity. >Considerable innovation is required to develop the right operating model.

12. StandaloneHub and SpokeDistributed Vehicle A wholly owned subsidiary or a separate, largely self contained division within the institution A ‘hub and spoke’ arrangement with varying levels of integration between a centrally co-ordinated business development function and the institution’s academic divisions A decentralised model with academic divisions operating independently and collaboratively (i.e. on a cross-faculty basis), when appropriate Leadership and governance Chief Executive Officer or Managing Director reporting to a Board comprising internal institutional and external (employer) representation Heads of business development and academic divisions reporting through institutional committee structures Dedicated steering or advisory group may be established with external representation Heads or assistant heads of academic divisions reporting through institutional committee structures Human resources Strong commercially experienced staff profile, employed through the wholly owned subsidiary on terms and conditions similar to the private sector Commercially and academically experienced staff profile across the institution’s individual business units, with some use of Performance Related Pay and/or revenue sharing Strong academically experienced staff profile, employed on terms and conditions which are fairly standard across the HE sector Business development Dedicated business development, marketing and sales function which is highly pro-active and sophisticated in approach, supported by a CRM system Central and distributed sector and discipline oriented business development, marketing and sales function, with varying levels of pro-activity and sophistication, generally supported by an institution-wide CRM system Distributed, discipline oriented business development, marketing and sales function with limited resource to support pro-active approaches and possibly supported by an institution- wide or locally deployed CRM system Delivery Dedicated, in-house delivery capability and capacity supplemented by individual associates and third party providers (e.g. private training providers) Delivery capability and capacity provided by academic divisions supplemented by individual associates and third party providers (e.g. FE colleges, private training providers) Delivery capability and capacity provided by academic divisions supplemented by individual associates and collaborative educational partners (e.g. other universities, FE colleges) Processes and systems Dedicated, in-house processes and systems designed to enable flexibility and responsiveness Established institutional processes and systems only used for accounting (e.g. HEFCE returns) and assurance purposes Established institutional processes and systems used, with institution-wide adaptation to improve flexibility and responsiveness Established institutional processes and systems used, with localised and institution-wide adaptation to improve flexibility and responsiveness Branding Distinct branding separate to institution with the option to use the institution’s brand, as appropriate Strong institutional branding supported by a sub-brand oriented to employers Strong institutional and/or academic division branding

13. In summary >It is still a mixed picture with some HEIs able and willing to respond much more than others. >More action is needed to grow the market, and building capacity and capability is a priority for many HEIs. >Concern about the shifting policy and economic agenda but also opportunities – access to loans. >Many HEIs assessing how they can re-orientate their employer-facing operations in a student-fee driven environment. >HEIs are beginning to capitalise on the links made with employers to improve their employability offer to students, and some are exploring the potential to offer Higher Apprenticeships.

14. For more information James Kewin James.Kewin@cfe.org.uk Abigail Diamond Abigail.Diamond@cfe.org.uk 0116 229 3300 www.cfe.org.uk