Annex 2 - Summary of the Aubrey Carter Lucas Report on Investors in People Assessment and Recognition Practice Introduction and objectives for the review This study looked at delivery arrangements for Investors in People (IiP). It took place in the context of proposals for the introduction of a national Learning and Skills Council (LSC), local Learning and Skills Councils (LSCs) and the Small Business Service franchises (SBSs), to replace the current TEC/Business Link infrastructure. The objectives for the review were to: map the type and range of existing IiP assessment and recognition arrangements; consider "good" and "bad" practice in the design of local IiP assessment and recognition centres; identify the issues around existing IiP delivery arrangements which may impact on the design of future arrangements; AND make recommendations on the generic issues which need to be considered whatever arrangements are put in place for IiP assessment and recognition under the LSC structure. Fieldwork for the study comprised face-to-face discussions with: IiP UK; Government Offices; managers of twenty IiP assessment and recognition units; TECs associated with assessment and recognition units; IiP committed and recognised employers and a number of other "interested parties". Interviews took place between December 1999 and February 2000. Current approaches to assessment and recognition Three broad types of assessment and recognition unit which (with the national unit) currently deliver the IiP assessment and recognition process under license from IiP UK can be identified – i.e.: single TEC assessment and recognition units – both assessment and recognition functions are provided by an individual TEC, generally for its own (exceptionally for another TEC's) employers; independent (multi-TEC) assessment and recognition units – assessment and recognition functions are provided by a central unit (established as either a company limited by guarantee or a partnership) for a number of TECs (generally in the same Government Office region); and collaborative (multi-TEC) assessment and recognition units – individual TECs retain their own assessment (and in some cases recognition) functions; a central unit co-ordinates service delivery for the participating TECs and is the licensed unit for IiP UK purposes. Using these broad categories, the current picture of assessment and recognition practice can be broadly summarised as follows: a common approach to assessment and recognition across all TECs in a particular Government Office exists in two regions (Eastern and the North East); nineteen TECs operate their own assessment and recognition unit – an additional two TECs operate their own recognition units (Bradford and Wight); TECs participating in Assessment West Midlands's (AWM) collaborative arrangment and Assessment South West's (ASW) independent unit also have their own recognition panels but these are regarded as satellites of the central, IiP UK-licensed, (i.e. AWM or ASW) unit rather than units in their own right; single TEC units are common in the south east and the North West region – elsewhere only one or two TECs have opted out of some form of collaborative arrangement. Generally these are large TECs – either geographically (Lincolnshire, Cumbria) or in terms of the relative size of their local economy (Birmingham); fifty-four TECs are covered by some form of collective arrangement with other TECs (i.e. an independent or a collaborative unit). Generally these arrangements operate within a single Government Office region; only three TECs use the services of a unit which is based outside their region; one region (the South East) has no form of collective arrangement for IiP assessment and recognition covering its TECs. In practice, within the three broad categories specified above, the fieldwork has identified nine approaches for delivering IiP assessment and recognition in addition to the national unit. These are: single TEC assessment and recognition units – the principal variants are defined by reference to delivery: either largely in-house (model 1) or largely sub-contracted (model 2); independent (regional) assessment and recognition units (operating as limited companies) – the principal variants are defined by reference to geographical coverage: whole Government Office region "plus" (model 3); whole Government Office region (model 4); "almost" whole Government Office region (model 5) and sub-regional (model 6); independent (regional) assessment and recognition units (operating as partnerships) (model 7); collaborative units (model 8); TECs using the assessment and/or recognition services of one of the above units whilst not formally being part of the unit (model 9). Based upon the fieldwork, no single model emerged as "the most effective in all circumstances". In an IiP context, standardisation would appear to be most important in terms of process (i.e. that there is a guarantee that a service of consistent quality is being delivered across the country – and therefore that the notion of a national Standard has credibility) and less important in terms of the design of the unit delivering assessment and recognition services. Key findings and recommendations The issues and related recommendations covered in the following paragraphs are generic in the sense that they are key elements which, on the basis of the research, need to be considered when designing future arrangements for IiP delivery. This is the case regardless of the actual structure for delivery which is ultimately adopted. Concerns regarding the potential for conflicts of interest to arise in the IiP process (and as a consequence for the integrity of the Standard to be brought in to question) were raised in relation to the operation of single TEC assessment and recognition units. In essence these doubts arise because, in the case of single TEC units, the organisation which has performance targets in relation to IiP (i.e. the TEC) is also responsible for undertaking the advice and assessment roles. The potential for a conflict of interest to arise would appear to be greatest in case where both advice and assessment are delivered by the TEC in-house. Although no one was suggesting that anything untoward had happened to date, to reduce the risk of conflicts of interest occurring in future, wherever practical, under future arrangements the situation where one organisation employs on its staff both assessors and advisers whilst it also has delivery targets in relation to IiP should be avoided – the purchaser-provider relationship needs to be clear. A key feature of IiP is that it is a national Standard, consistently applied across the country. Consistency of the assessment and recognition process is currently assured through a variety of means - internal (employed by the assessment and recognition units) and external (employed by IiP UK) verifiers, training and development for assessors (advisers are also often included – either by invitation or because they are also assessors), work shadowing, regular assessor forums etc. In addition all units have to have a procedures (quality assurance) manual which has been approved by IiP UK. It is important that national and local quality assurance procedures are retained to provide continued assurance that assessment and recognition practices are producing consistent results (in terms of the standard reached by IiP-recognised employers) across the country. In general quality assurance arrangements in relation to advice are currently less formalised than those that apply to assessment and recognition. Based on feedback from assessment and recognition units and employers, there is a need for quality assurance procedures to cover those offering IiP advice. These should start at the adviser registration stage, include training and development requirements and focus on the quality of advice received by the candidate organisation both pre- and post-recognition. Concerns were raised by some employers regarding the experience (and therefore suitability) of advisers and assessors. This suggests that there may be a need for adviser and assessor registration to be more tightly prescribed – in terms of the type of organisation that individuals are "qualified" to work with on IiP – in future. There is scope for doing this at a fairly high level – on the basis of an organisation's size (small, medium or larger in terms of employee numbers), type (public, private or voluntary) and/or complexity (single or multiple site) – whilst still adding value. Notwithstanding the above, the ability of organisations to continue to use non-registered advisers should be retained on a caveat emptor basis. Advisers benefit from assessing and vice versa – individuals should therefore be encouraged to do both roles (but not at the same time for the same organisation). The distinction between the roles of adviser and assessor should be retained under future arrangements for IiP delivery. It is important that, at key points in the process, both adviser and assessor are involved in order to ensure that the client organisation receives a seamless IiP service. In particular the adviser needs to be involved before, during and after the assessment. Although in the recent past there has been considerable pressure for Recognition Panels to be retained, their role is not always clear to employers about to be recognised. There is a need to reconsider the Recognition Panel's remit - in particular to determine where and how Panels can best add value to the process and to tailor their input accordingly. Currently assessment and recognition units are either: very small – less than (often considerably less than) 100 assessments/reviews per annum (the smaller single TEC units); medium sized - between 300 and 400 assessments/reviews per annum (the larger single TEC units, sub-regional and smaller regional units); large – over 700 assessments/reviews per annum (the larger regional units). Looking to the future, there must be doubts over the future of the smallest units on efficiency grounds – although there may be other pressures/considerations (e.g. relative remoteness/rurality) which make them an effective means through which to deliver IiP. The larger TEC units and some Regional units currently appear to enjoy comparable levels of efficiency (approximately 100 assessments/reviews per member of staff at the unit). Some sub-Regional and larger Regional units appear to be more efficient than this on a straight staff to number of assessments/reviews basis, however the extent to which economies (and diseconomies) of scale apply with larger units remains largely untested. A note of caution in relation to the above should be sounded. Following the changes to the post-recognition review process, the feedback received during the course of this study suggests that the majority of assessment and recognition units are expecting the length of time between recognition and post-recognition reviews to shorten (typically to between twelve months and two years). One consequence of more frequent reviews is that the number of employers handled by assessment and recognition units each year will increase significantly year on year. This represents a major change in the employer-assessment and recognition unit relationship – as a result what has gone before, in terms of assessment and recognition experience, may not provide an appropriate basis upon which to make decisions on appropriate delivery arrangements. Currently IiP UK licenses assessment and recognition units to ensure full geographical coverage. Competition between units for business tends to happen only in relation to larger regional and national employers. This lack of direct competition between units for local business should be retained. National employers are likely to present different challenges to those posed by smaller, more locally/regionally based employers. In addition to being able to work with local/regional units, national employers should have the option of having IiP advice and assessment co-ordinated by a national unit. This would need to be subject to the same integrity considerations as more local delivery units. Because national employers present different challenges, advising and assessing them is a different task to advising and assessing local employers. There is a need for a different type (or calibre) of adviser/assessor to undertake this role. This would suggest that a separate register of advisers and assessors who are able to deliver IiP to national employers needs to be established. The fieldwork for this study also found that IiP delivery to national employers can be "patchy", with certain parts of the employer pursuing IiP recognition in isolation from the rest of the organisation rather than as part of a considered strategy. There is a need for greater coordination of work with national employers (who is doing what with whom). In this context, the option of building a national database for IiP activity, possibly incorporating a central helpline which routes enquiries to the appropriate local agency, is also worth considering.

Back

Home

Next