Tasmanian Public Sector Vocational Education and Training (VET) Providers Review – Implementation

Transcription

Tasmanian Public Sector
Vocational Education and
Training (VET) Providers
Review – Implementation
Project Business Plan
Version No: 5/ 27-05-2013
O ffic e o f t h e Se c re t ary
D e p art me n t o f E d uc at io n
Document Acceptance and Release Notice
This document is Version 5/ 27-05-2013 of the VET Review Implementation Project Business Plan.
The Project Business Plan is a managed document. For identification of amendments, each page contains a
release number and a page number. Changes will only be issued as complete replacement. Recipients
should remove superseded versions from circulation. This document is authorised for release once all
signatures have been obtained.
PREPARED:
Mark Sayer
(for acceptance)
General Manager
ACCEPTED:
Colin Pettit
(for release)
Secretary
Date:
27
-
7
-
12
Date:
31
-
7
-
12
Table of Contents
1 Overview..................................................................................................................................... 6
1.1 Purpose of Business Plan .................................................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Project Title ........................................................................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Project Initiation ................................................................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Background ............................................................................................................................................................ 6
1.5 Summary of VET Review Recommendations ................................................................................................ 7
2 Objectives and Scope ................................................................................................................. 9
2.1 Objectives Hierarchy ........................................................................................................................................... 9
2.1.1 Tasmanian Government Objectives ........................................................................... 9
2.1.2 Tasmania Together ................................................................................................... 9
2.1.3 Corporate Objectives .............................................................................................. 9
2.1.4 Australian Government Objectives.......................................................................... 10
2.1.5 Project Objectives ................................................................................................. 10
2.2 Project Outcomes .............................................................................................................................................. 11
2.2.1 Target Outcomes .................................................................................................. 11
2.3 Outputs ................................................................................................................................................................. 12
2.4 Vision and Definition – VET System and Public Sector VET .................................................................... 12
3 Project Management Plan........................................................................................................ 14
3.1 Governance.......................................................................................................................................................... 14
Corporate Client .......................................................................................................... 15
3.1.1 Project Sponsor .................................................................................................... 15
3.1.2 Project Business Owners ....................................................................................... 15
3.1.3 Business Customers .............................................................................................. 15
3.1.4 Steering Committee .............................................................................................. 15
3.1.5 Project Manager .................................................................................................... 17
3.1.6 Project Team ........................................................................................................ 17
3.1.7 Working Groups ................................................................................................... 17
3.2 Reporting Requirements ................................................................................................................................... 17
3.2.1 Reports to the Steering Committee ........................................................................ 17
4 Workgroups – Objectives & Communication ......................................................................... 18
4.1 Table of work groups ........................................................................................................................................ 18
4.2 Stakeholder Communication and Management........................................................................................... 19
4.3 Industrial Relations Impact ............................................................................................................................... 20
5 Resource Management............................................................................................................. 21
5.1 Budget and Expenditure .................................................................................................................................... 21
6 Risk Management Plan ............................................................................................................. 22
7 Appendices................................................................................................................................ 43
Overview
1 Overview
1.1 Purpose of Business Plan
The Project Business Plan is the high-level management document for the project. It is owned, maintained and
utilised by the Tasmanian Public Sector VET Providers Steering Committee to ensure the delivery of defined
project outcomes. The document will be reviewed and amended to meet changed conditions or objectives during
the project‟s life span.
1.2 Project Title
Tasmanian Public Sector Vocational Education and Training (VET) Providers Review - Implementation
1.3 Project Initiation
The final version of the „Review of the Role and Function of Tasmania‟s public Sector Vocational Education and
Training (VET) Providers‟ was released on 30 April 2012.Government accepted almost all of the review‟s
recommendations and these are outlined under heading 1.5. The Government‟s response to the Review‟s
recommendations will now be implemented.
1.4 Background

Tasmania Tomorrow reforms were introduced in 2008. A primary purpose of the reforms was to increase
the relatively poor educational attainment of learners post year 10 compared to the rest of the nation.

In 2008, as a proportion of the Tasmanian community, only 60.6% attained Year 12 completion or
Certificate ll qualification or above. This compares with the nation at 69.8%. In terms of educational
attainment, Tasmania performs poorly compared with every other State. This level of attainment is a
major contributor to Tasmania‟s relatively low Socio-Economic Status (SES) compared with the rest of the
nation.

In contrast, around that same time TAFE‟s performance in Tasmania compared very well with the nation
and every other State and Territory in terms of VET participation and VET attainment. This result reflects,
at least in part, the demand for vocational education and training by the unique industry sector profile,
employer needs and occupations in Tasmania compared with other jurisdictions in the nation.

To improve the educational attainment of learners post year 10, the reforms focussed attention on
creating greater access to „TAFE quality‟ VET and pre-VET programs, particularly for those younger
learners who might otherwise not continue their post year 10 education. The intention of the Tasmania
Tomorrow reforms was that these programs be provided through the Polytechnic, whilst VET programs
for employed learners be provided by the Tasmanian Skills Institute (TSI), or by private providers
competing in the marketplace.

Statutory Authorities with independent Boards were established as part of the Tasmania Tomorrow
reforms: Academy; Polytechnic; Tasmanian Skills Institute; and Skills Tasmania established just prior to
these in 2007. The independent nature of these entities, in particular the split of TAFE into the Polytechnic
and TSI, combined with private registered training organisations, allowed for policy development and new
approaches to promote competition and participation.

Increased competition and participation are the desired objectives of manipulating the VET
purchaser/provider model. Significant progress has been made towards these objectives through the
Tasmania Tomorrow reforms, and remains with the establishment of TasTAFE.

Prior to the introduction of the Tasmania Tomorrow reforms, many areas of VET delivered by the public
provider, TAFE, were quarantined from competition. In the interests of greater competition, but mindful
of allowing a smooth transition, Skills Tasmania began lifting the quarantine arrangements following the
establishment of the TSI and Polytechnic. The quarantine arrangements have now been completely lifted.
This arrangement will remain.
Overview

There are many factors currently confronting our public VET providers, including a significant national VET
reform agenda, the state‟s challenging budget outlook and the reshaping of traditional provision by higher
education and private VET providers. We need to ensure that our system is well positioned to meet
these challenges.
There are also real challenges in our system and in our state: lifting participation and retention amongst
our young people in education, and lifting productivity and skills levels needed to improve the economy.
The recent reforms that created the Tasmanian Polytechnic and Tasmanian Skills Institute were intended
to address these challenges and have resulted in significant gains, including greater flexibility for industry,
increased pathways for individuals, and better access to VET for year 11 and 12 students.
They have, however, also created some inefficiencies and inconsistencies in our VET system that needed
to be fixed, particularly in light of the state‟s budget outlook and in response to some concerns expressed
by the users of the system.



1.5 Summary of VET Review Recommendations
The VET Review recommendations have been grouped by topic and priority in the following areas:

Government‟s Vision for VET

VET in schools

Legislation

Trade Training Centres

TasTAFE

LINC Tasmania

Skills Tasmania/Department of Education

Data

Implementation

Recommendations not accepted

University of Tasmania/TasTAFE
Of the 11 topic groupings, there are four groupings that are considered critical to meet the 1 July
2013 timeframe. Within the groupings there are seven key recommendations that are the catalyst
for immediate action:




Government‟s Vision for VET (Recommendation 3)
Legislation (Recommendation 4)
TasTAFE (Recommendations 7, 13, 20, 52)
Skills Tasmania/Department of Education (Recommendation 27)
Government’s Vision for VET (Recommendation 3)
Immediate action required. Work to commence ASAP as this is the mechanism to develop the
definition of VET for inclusion in legislation. Longer term – Vision to be finalised to coincide with
introduction of legislation to Parliament.
Legislation (Recommendation 4)
Immediate action required. Establishment of legislation working group, development of project
plan and timeframes.
TasTAFE (Recommendations 7, 13, 20, 52)
Two phases – pre-CEO appointment and post-CEO appointment.

Recommendation 7 (Establishment of TasTAFE) - immediate action required pre-CEO
appointment. Establishment of small group, development of project plan including
identification of working groups.
Overview

Recommendation 13 (CEO recruitment) - immediate action required – DoE/DPAC to
arrange recruitment process for CEO.

Recommendation 20 (Student management system) – immediate action required. Working
group to be included in project plan under recommendation 7 and to include suggested
membership.

Recommendation 52 (TasTAFE branding) – group to be formed to identify
marketing/branding issues, solutions and priorities for report back to steering committee by
October 2012.
Skills Tasmania/Department of Education (Recommendation 27)
Immediate action required. Secretary, DoE, to convene group comprising DoE, Skills Tasmania and
DPAC, noting timeframe around development of legislation.
Objectives and Scope
2 Objectives and Scope
2.1 Objectives Hierarchy
2.1.1 Tasmanian Government Objectives
2.1.2 Tasmania Together
Goal 3: high quality education and training for lifelong learning and a skilled workforce
Goal 9: increased work opportunities for all Tasmanians
2.1.3 Corporate Objectives
The corporate objectives of the Tasmanian Government for the vocational education and training system are
expressed through three major policy platforms.
Tasmanian Skills Strategy
The first is the Tasmanian Skills Strategy, which is aligned to Tasmania‟s Economic Development Plan. Four
objectives for the vocational education and training system are expressed in the Tasmanian Skills Strategy:




increasing opportunity;
a better system for clients;
workforce development; and
skills for the future.
Importantly, the next iteration of the Tasmanian Skills Strategy, „Skills for Work‟, is currently being developed to
articulate the State‟s skills policy, and to inform and guide the State‟s investment in skills and workforce
development.
Department of Education Strategic Plan 2012-2015
The corporate objectives of the Department of Education in relation to further education and training are:

to lift the retention of our students to Year 12 or equivalent and skill Tasmanians to meet the needs of
enterprise and industry

to build a knowledge-based society and forge stronger links between information and community.
Economic Development Plan
The corporate objectives expressed through the Government‟s Economic Development Plan in relation to further
education and training align with the Tasmanian Skills Strategy and are:

supporting the economy by meeting the training needs of traditional and emerging industries so that
they can take advantage of market opportunities (Goal One – to support and grow businesses in Tasmania)

assisting individual industries by addressing skills gaps and skills shortages (Goal Two – to maximise
Tasmania’s economic potential in key sectors)

contributing to social sustainability and inclusion by improving skill levels that increase workforce
participation to reduce inequality and poverty (Goal Three – to improve the social and environmental
sustainability of the economy)

developing skills that achieve a more resilient and diverse economic base in Tasmanian communities
(Goal Four – to support and grow communities in regions).
2.1.4 Australian Government Objectives

National Partnership on Skills Reform

National Agreement on Skills and Workforce Development
The achievement of these objectives is currently the subject of bilateral negotiations with the State.
The Australian Government’s role
Planning and funding training through the formal training system includes:

Managing national skills policy and national aspects of the training system

Regulation of RTOs

Working with employer peak bodies on skills matters

Contributing training funds to states and territories

Improvements to the national training system

Developing and improving training products and services

Research

Labour market analysis

Skills and training system information

Managing Apprenticeship Centres

Immigration.
Maximizing opportunities and take up of skill development by employers

Regional development programs

Regional skill shortage programs

Stimulating demand for training through subsidies

Skilled immigration programs

Whole of government work on labour market, skills and training analysis.
2.1.5 Project Objectives
The objective of the „Tasmanian Public Sector Vocational Education and Training (VET) Providers Review Implementation‟ project is to act upon those recommendations accepted by the Government from the review. In
particular, a single, public VET entity is to be established.
The objects of the new VET legislation to establish a single, public VET entity will also inform this implementation
project. The objects are currently in draft form and set out below:


Individuals develop the skills necessary to commence and continue to participate in the workforce.
Training is informed by industry to ensure it meets the needs of the labour market.

Pathways for learners between schools-based education and training, higher education and vocational
education and training are developed collaboratively and are clearly articulated.
2.2 Project Outcomes

Implementation of the recommendations in the „Review of the Role and Function of Tasmania‟s public
Sector Vocational Education and Training (VET) Providers‟.

Tasmania aspires to both state and national targets for participation in VET and the attainment of
qualifications, and public providers have a significant role to play in achieving these targets.
2.2.1 Target Outcomes
The following outcomes have been selected as the Target Outcomes for the VET Review Implementation Project:
Through national negotiations, Tasmania has agreed to a target for Year 12 or equivalent attainment of 81.6 per
cent by 2015 through the National Partnership Agreement on Youth Attainment and Transitions. As a state,
Tasmania also has a number of other targets including:

Proportion of 15-64 year olds enrolled in education or training: 20.6% (2015)
Source ABS 6227.0

Proportion of Tasmanians with high level skills/qualifications (Certificate III +): 49% (2015)
Source ABS 6227.
2.3 Outputs
The outputs of the Tasmanian Public Sector VET Providers Review - Implementation Project are:

the establishment of a single, public VET entity, TasTAFE, in July 2013.

a single piece of legislation governing the public VET system

a vision for public sector VET

determining the roles for a centralised VET purchasing and policy function consistent with the needs of
government

establishing a single point of policy advice on VET from DoE to the Minister

a single public VET provider that works with learners who are seeking to participate in the labour market,
and learners seeking to increase their productivity in the workplace.
2.4 Vision and Definition – VET System and Public Sector VET
The following are two draft vision statements and two draft definitions of the VET and public sector VET
The first vision statement is for the public sector VET system, and the second is for the broader VET system, of
which the public sector system is an important and major sub-set.
1. A vision for the Tasmanian public sector VET system where:

all learners gain the skills necessary to meet their workforce aspirations; and

employers and their workforces have the skills needed for businesses‟ success.
2. A vision to develop a VET system in Tasmania where:

Individuals are well informed, ready for nationally recognised vocational education and training and are
able to enrol in a training organisation of their choice;

Employers are engaged with the training system, planning and developing their workforce and
participating in industry skills planning;

The training system is responsive to Industry demand, including skills for innovation and emerging
industries and provides quality learning experiences, quality outcomes, value for money and equitable
access to foundation and higher level skills.
Definition of the VET System
The Reference Group identified the need to clarify the definition of VET (Principle 3) in its deliberations. Using
this as a starting point, here are two succinct descriptions of VET, the first being more generic than the
second, which is more Tasmania specific:
1. Vocational Education and Training (VET) covers the provision of education, training and assessment
activities leading to accredited outcomes offered by Registered Training Organisations (RTOs). It may
occur in any of the following settings:

workplaces

post-secondary institutions (TAFE and Higher Education)

colleges and schools

Trade Training Centres

adult and community education providers.
2. The Vocational Education and Training (VET) system in Tasmania:

comprises a set of Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) that can be divided into public RTOs and
private RTOs. All are registered nationally and all VET training is accredited by national VET
processes.

includes a set of RTOs that enrol students who are entitled to Tasmanian Government subsidy from
training appropriations – the Tasmanian Public Training System

includes the Tasmanian public RTO, TasTAFE. It also includes many interstate public RTOs and many
local and interstate, private RTOs.

where appropriate, also has the capacity to deliver non-accredited training, dependent on the needs of
learners and enterprises that would pay for those services.

is able to deliver VET to school students on a negotiated basis with a school, with the training paid by
school appropriations – VET in Schools.
Project Management Plan
3 Project Management Plan
3.1 Governance
Corporate Client
The Corporate Client for the Project Business Plan is the Minister for Education, Nick McKim.
3.1.1 Project Sponsor
The Sponsor for the Project Business Plan is Department of Education Secretary, Colin Pettit.
3.1.2 Project Business Owners
Currently the Business Owner for the Implementation – VET Review project is: the Secretary, Department of
Education. The Business Owner may change as the implementation progresses.
3.1.3 Business Customers
Business customers are other government agencies or business units that will utilise the business outputs, but do
not have management responsibility for their ongoing maintenance or accountability for the realisation of their
outcomes. The Business Customers for the Project Business Plan are Department of Premier and Cabinet,
Department of Economic Development, Tourism and the Arts and the various business reference groups it
supports, Department of Treasury and Finance, and the University of Tasmania.
3.1.4 Steering Committee
Terminology
The Report refers to the Report of the Review of the Role and Function of Tasmania‟s Public VET Providers.
The Project refers to implementing the recommendations of the Report of the Review of the Role and Function of
Tasmania‟s Public VET Providers.
The Secretary refers to the Secretary of the Department of Education. The Secretary has the ultimate
responsibility for the implementation of the Report‟s recommendations.
Introduction
Recommendation 54 of the Report:
An implementation group be established to undertake the necessary work on implementation within agreed time-lines.
In response Cabinet accepted this recommendation and commented;
A high-level steering committee, chaired by the Secretary, Department of Education, will oversee implementation. The group
will include key stakeholders.
A project team will manage and co-ordinate implementation and report to the project oversight group.
Working groups have been formed as per recommendation 56.
The Steering Committee:

Colin Pettit – Secretary, DoE (CHAIR)

Chrissie Berryman – General Manager, Skills Tasmania

Tim Bullard – Director, Policy Division, DPAC

Andrew Finch – Deputy Secretary, Corporate Services, DoE

Kevin Harkins – Secretary, Unions Tasmania

Paul Murphy – General Manager, Tasmanian Polytechnic

Sue Kennedy – Manager, Executive Services, DoE

Mark Sayer – General Manager, DoE

Malcolm Wells – Deputy Secretary, Further Education and Training, DoE

Malcolm White – Chief Executive Officer, Tasmanian Skills Institute

Kathryn Thomas – Interim Chair, TasTAFE Board

Stephen Conway - Chief Executive Officer, TasTAFE
The Steering Committee will:

assist the Secretary with the development and the monitoring of the project‟s implementation plan,

provide advice and support to the Secretary, and

provide strategic oversight of and guidance to the implementation process.
The Project Team:

The Deputy Secretary, Further Education and Training is responsible for the project.

A small team led by the General Manager (Mark Sayer) was established by the Department of
Education to implement the Report‟s recommendations (as per the approved implementation plan).

The General Manager (Mark Sayer) provides both leadership and support to working groups
established by the Steering Committee.

Stephen Conway - Chief Executive Officer, TasTAFE joined the implementation team from 21 January
2013.
Working Groups:

Established by the Steering Committee to progress specific aspects of the project‟s implementation.

Membership to be agreed by the Steering Committee.

Specific terms of reference to be developed to support each working group including timeline,
reporting requirements and expected outcomes.

Additional Working Groups may be established when and as required by the Steering Committee.
‘Standing’ Committees:
Two committees have been formed to address identified issues. Both committees will work outside of the
Steering Committee to resolve issues. Once these have been done they will advise the Steering Committee of
their progress and outcomes. Additional „Standing‟ Committees may be established as determined by the Steering
Committee.
Specific Committees:
1.
Recommendation 27 - Skills Tasmania Transition
Membership:

Colin Pettit – Secretary, DoE (CHAIR)

Malcolm Wells – Deputy Secretary, Further Education and Training, DoE

Rhys Edwards – Secretary, DPAC

Tim Bullard – Director, Policy Division, DPAC
2.

Chrissie Berryman – General Manager, Skills Tasmania

Mark Bowles – Deputy General Manager, Skills Tasmania

Mark Sayer – General Manager, DoE
Recommendation 7 – Senior Management advice on the creation of TasTAFE
Membership:

Malcolm Wells – Deputy Secretary, Further Education and Training, DoE (CHAIR)

Malcolm White – Chief Executive Officer, Tasmanian Skills Institute

Paul Murphy – General Manager, Tasmanian Polytechnic

Mark Sayer – General Manager, DoE.

Stephen Conway - Chief Executive Officer, TasTAFE
3.1.5 Project Manager
The Project Manager for the Project Business Plan is Mark Sayer.
3.1.6 Project Team
It is proposed that members of the core project team will include DoE employees Malcolm Wells, Mark Sayer, Sue
Kennedy, Nicole Jacobs, and Geoff Logan; others may be included dependent on the specific tasks of the project.
Stephen Conway, CEO TasTAFE joined the group on 21 January 2013;
3.1.7 Working Groups
Working groups are established as reflected in the governance diagram, and also identified in 2.4: scope of work.
Each working group will produce a project plan which will inform:
-
communications from the Implementation Team
-
the communication plan for this document
-
the risk management plan of this document by reflecting the highest level risks
-
budget and expenditure tracking
3.2 Reporting Requirements
3.2.1 Reports to the Steering Committee
The General Manager‟s regular report to the Steering Committee will include the following:

status of the project:

milestones for the last reporting period;

milestones for the next reporting period;

milestones for the remaining period of the project.

budget report (with respect to planned expenditure, actual expenditure and the deficit/surplus);

issues report (including areas of concern, specific problems, and any action that needs to be taken by
the Steering Committee); and

risk management report (which will specify any changes to the major risks identified since the previous
report and modification to the strategies put in place to manage them).
Workgroups – Objectives & Communication
4 Workgroups – Objectives & Communication
4.1 Table of work groups
Working Group/ Committee
Members
Assets
Andrew Finch*, Karen Strikis, TBD. To commence activity in 2013.
Branding and Communications
Mandy Denby*, Jackie Merrett, Lisa Burstall, Irena Blissenden, Sarah Williams, Tom Burton,
Helen Tyzack, Nicole Jacobs
HR and OHS
Mark Watson*, Paul Gourlay, Mark Sayer, Spring Duncan, James Synnott, TBD. To
commence activity in 2013.
IT
Trevor Hill*, David Briggs**, Scott Ashton, Kris Klasen, Greg Curtis, Lisa Baker, Phil Dilger,
Paul Gourlay, Marg Carr, Peter Higgs, Kim Foss, James Synott, Geoff Logan
QL-S Operations Subgroup:
 Marg Carr*, Gail Eaton-Briggs, Jess Nation, James Synnott, Kris Klasen, Lynne
Wood, Mandy Stubbs, Paul Veldhuis, Skills Tasmania representative
Legislation
Sue Kennedy*, Tim Bullard, Keith Thompson.
Kerrie Moss, Rex Calvert and Helen Tyzak in respect of teacher registration.
Organisational Design
Mark Sayer*, Malcolm Wells, Paul Murphy, Malcolm White, Anne Blythman, Michelle
Eastman, Maree Gerke, Christy-lee Hunt, Kevin Hyland, James Synnott, Bruce Morley,
Wilson Forward, Andrew Harris, Jamie Dodd, Geoff Logan, Gail Eaton-Briggs, Kim Foss,
Jon Grant, Paul Lennard, Lee Leon, Jackie Merrett, Peter Henderson
Recommendation 7
Mark Sayer*, Paul Murphy, Malcolm White, Malcolm Wells, Sue Kennedy, Geoff Logan.
Leanne McLean to advise on VET reform as required.
Skills Tasmania Transition
Colin Pettit*, Mark Sayer, Malcolm Wells, Skills Tasmania senior management.
Strategic & Emerging Demand
Mark Sayer**, Malcolm White, Paul Murphy, Chrissie Berryman, DPaC and DEDTA
nominees, Geoff Logan. To commence activity in 2013.
Teaching, Learning and
Assessment
Gail Eaton-Briggs*, Michael Higgins, Kevin Hyland, Kim Foss, Michelle Eastman, David
Gutteridge, Rod Mason, Nicole Jacobs. Leanne McLean to advise on VET reform as
required.
Subgroups:
 Scope: Michael Higgins*, Sonia Cook, Rod Mason, Andrew Mellas, Kerryn MeredithSoteris
 Quality and Compliance: Gail Eaton-Briggs*, Annette Park, Rosemary Lyne, Rod
Mason, Annie Saunders, Jhodi Yovich, Simone Loone
 Enrolment and transition: Michelle Eastman*, Mandy Stubbs, Lynne Wood, Jess
Nation
 Student support: Kim Foss*, Janine Crawford, June Mezger, Ben Crothers, Paul
Hardy, Alison Hawke
 eLearning: Kim Foss*, Kate Hayes, Jacqueline Williams, Janet Fearns
Union Consultative
Committee
VET Finance
Malcolm Wells, Mark Sayer, Kevin Harkins, AEU/CPSU representatives, Mark Watson
Nick May*, Jacqui Wilson, Mark Sayer, Lee Leon, Kevin Hyland, Karen Strikis. Mark
Bowles to advise on Skills Tasmania issues as required.
*Chair **Interim Chair Stephen Conway, TasTAFE CEO, joins work groups as required.
= Active workgroup
4.2 Stakeholder Communication and Management
4.2.1
Summary
Consultation sessions and discussions with stakeholder groups have shown that effective communication is seen as
critical to the successful transition from the Tasmanian Polytechnic and Tasmanian Skills Institute to the new
entity, TasTAFE.
The objectives of the project team‟s stakeholder communication and management plan are to:
•
ensure ongoing communication is provided to all key stakeholders on the project and its progress
(until the CEO is appointed and more specific information is available for distribution)
•
build confidence and support with current and future students (and parents)
•
build confidence and support with staff so that they become active, positive participants in the
formation of the new organisation, TasTAFE
•
acknowledge and alleviate any fears key stakeholders may have
•
demonstrate the Government‟s commitment to raising qualification rates, skills development and
ensuring that more Tasmanian students stay in education and training
•
minimise potential risks to the successful establishment of TasTAFE.
The collaborative and consultative approach undertaken with the series of statewide sessions at the beginning of
the VET Review project will mirror the approach for future open channels of communication.
Communication will be timely and appropriately target the full range of stakeholder groups including current and
future students, parents, industry, staff and the wider Tasmanian community.
Frequent newsletters and easy access information on the department‟s new public website will form the basis of
the project team‟s approach. Other more targeted approaches to specific groups will be considered as budget
allows.
4.2.2
Approach
A range of communication methods are used to ensure stakeholder groups receive timely information that is
targeted to their particular needs. See the Communications Plan at Appendix C.
The Communication Services Unit is responsible for all media enquiries.
4.2.3
Risks
A series of communication risk mitigation strategies have been developed and have been enacted throughout the
life of project:
Potential risk
Negative „trial by media‟ with establishment of TasTAFE
as yet another change to the public VET system
Employees and unions become loud opponents of the
reform
Tasmanian education (including non-teaching staff) are
Communication actions to mitigate
 Brief editors regularly and offer minister interviews
 Engage with media commentators and back with facts
supporting new approach
 Create media opportunities
 Communicate through media releases what the model
delivers and its benefits
 Seek trusted community supporters and „champions‟
 Use language that reinforces that this change is positive for
Tasmania‟s VET system and is building on past successes
 Ensure education audiences are fully briefed, engaged and
up to date on the project
 Provide the information they need to support the change
and to inform parents
 Ensure the educational community can get the answers to
any questions/concerns
 Involve and engage educators in the project implementation
 Develop employee specific communications that addresses
Potential risk
not fully engaged in the reform
Parents and students become load opponents of the
reform
Confusion about a „return to TAFE‟
Business is not engaged with the reform
4.2.4
Communication actions to mitigate
their issues and concerns
 Ensure they can get the answers to any questions/concerns
 Communicate what the new model means for them
 Keep information flowing and building on the
implementation of the reform
 Communication what the new model means for students –
explain pathways and options
 Hold parent/student focus groups to identify issues
 Provide plain English information and communicate directly
to students/parents
 Do not assume target audiences immediately understand
the reforms
 Explain the differences
 Ensure the business community have information on the
advantages and benefits of the new TasTAFE organisation
 Clearly articulate the services that will be provided
 Develop specific information for business/industry
Stakeholders
The stakeholder and communication register is at Appendix D.
4.3 Industrial Relations Impact
The single VET entity will employ both registered teachers with a school background and trainers with a trade
background.
A Heads of Agreement drafted by DoE has been circulated by Unions Tas, to the CPSU, AEU and United Voice
will be kept advised by progress.
The IR workgroup meets regularly to progress industrial relations issues leading to the establishment of TasTAFE.
Resource Management
5 Resource Management
5.1 Budget and Expenditure
For financial year 2012-13 the Tasmanian Government has allocated $1.4 million to the Department of Education
to fund the costs incurred in implementing the Report‟s recommendations as per the approved implementation
plan. These costs include Project Team salaries, CEO appointment and salary, and project running costs such as
marketing, administration, signage, consultant fees and the drafting of the legislation.
5.1.1 Budget Allocations
Item
Allocation ($)
Salaries
696,000
Chief Executive Officer and Board
117,000
Marketing
100,000
Signage
250,000
Drafting Legislation
140,000
Other Costs
96,000
Total
1,399,000
5.1.2 In-kind Support
Significant in-kind support is provided by the Department of Education, Skills Tasmania, the Tasmanian Polytechnic
and the Tasmanian Skills Institute to form the Steering Committee, „Standing‟ Committees and Working Groups,
and to assist the Project Team where required.
Risk Management Plan
6 Risk Management Plan
Department of Education Risk Management Plan
Last RMP Update: May 2013
Reference http://wwweducationtasgovau/dept/legislation/risk
1
Next higher RMP/Level:
Outcome if the risk occurred
Existing risk treatment actions
• Affects ability to meet
timeframes

Ensure communication and
consultation channels remain
open

Work with Teaching
Learning and Assessment
group on combined risk
mitigation activity

Early identification of issues
requiring decision through
working group.

Regular updates to steering
committee.

Ensure Implementation
Team and the Steering
Committee are fully aware
of impacts of delayed policy
decisions.
1. LEGISLATION
Opposition to teacher
registration provisions
1.1
Delay with legislation
• Delayed implementation
1.2
Make policy decisions
1.3
1
• Hinders project commencement
and ability to meet timeframes
Affect ability to meet timeframes
Target area2:
Risk rating5
Risk / Failure to….
Level1:
Consequence4
#
VET Reform
Implementation Team
Likelihood3
Business Unit:
M
H
B
M
H
B
M
H
B
Details of proposed (additional) risk
treatment actions (ARTA) 6
Additional
resources
required to
implement
ARTA
As a general guide, the following levels apply: Office of the Secretary –Level 1; Division – L 2; Branch – L 3 – Section L 4. Do not insert a level if Template is used for an independent project
Activities in respect of which designated management area has full or partial control over
3
ibid
4
Go to „Risk Rating‟
5
Go to „Risk Acceptance/Risk Appetite‟
6
Aimed at reducing risk to lower risk levels (e.g. to Medium or Low)
7
Target date for implementation of additional treatment actions & person responsible for implementation
2
Person responsible
for ARTA & target
date7
1.5
Parliament significantly amends
an aspect of the legislation
(outside of project team‟s
control)
 Potentially affect ability to
meet timeframes.

Delays with amendments to
subordinate legislation (a
number of pieces of sub leg to
be amended)


Work is underway to
complete prior to 1 July
2013.

Monitor progress to ensure
is completed in time.

Strong and sustained
leadership application by the
senior management team

Task forms part of Phase 3 TasTAFE Exec responsibility

HR Strategy must include
management of the SSA in a
manner that aligns corporate
business model

Affect capacity of TRB to
charge a fee for specialist
VET registration
Some potential exposure for
TasTAFE in regard to some
sub leg
Monitor passage through
Parliament and consider any
actions if necessary.
Risk rating5
1.4
Consequence4
#
Likelihood3
L
H
C
L
M
D
M
H
B
M
H
B
M
H
A
2. ORGANISATIONAL DESIGN
Change fatigue slows capability • Potential of the new
to create new organisation
organisation is not realised
2.1
Organisational design model
can‟t be implemented
• Business fails
2.2

Task forms part of Phase 3 TasTAFE Exec responsibility

Engage in a close working
relationship with other
working groups, particularly
the Organisational Design
Working Group
The new models must
effectively capture all funding
streams
Ensure Skills Tas
involvement in Working
Group
Incorporate particular focus
on VET In Schools to ensure
TasTAFE is adequately
3. VET FINANCE
3.1
The TasTAFE revenue
streams are insufficient to
support the organisational
design, operations and
structure of TasTAFE



Decrease in the financial
viability of TasTAFE
Student training outcomes
are compromised
Political fallout



Additional
resources
required to
implement
ARTA
Person responsible
for ARTA & target
date7
Risk rating5
Consequence4
#
Likelihood3
Work with management on
developing a process that
effectively analyses and
monitors the workforce
Imbed “classification profile”
concept, where possible,
within budget plan
Optimise use of SAWM and
management and monitoring
tool
L
H
A
Engage in a close working
relationship with Skills
Tasmania to ensure all
funding sources are captured
Participation by two
Working Group members in
the Steering Committee
overseeing the Skills for Work
reforms
The VET Finance Working
Group membership includes
a Skills Tasmania
representative
M
H
A
Work to be finalised for
Treasury to establish the
financial basis of the existing
deficits
Consideration of
requirement by Budget
Committee of Cabinet
Seek resolution as quickly as
possible for the sake of
incorporating the
consequences of a negative
response from the Budget
Committee into the 2013 14
budget planning process
M
H
A
resourced for their role


3.2
Workforce analysis is
inadequately performed and
lacks ongoing management



The workforce cannot be
supported
are compromised
Political fallout due to job
losses



The current and future Skills
Tasmania funding model is
incompatible with the
TasTAFE operational model.
3.3
TasTAFE initially will be reliant
on Government revenue and
any amendments will impact
on the operations



are compromised
Loss of industry investment




3.4
Treasury don‟t provide
funding for legacy cash deficits
from the TSI and/or
Polytechnic



are compromised
Reduction in service delivery
Possible reduction in staffing
levels


Additional
resources
required to
implement
ARTA
Person responsible
for ARTA & target
date7

Establish contingency plan if
support is not forthcoming.

Separate identification of
TSI‟s existing financial plan
for the repayment of the
loan
Ongoing analysis of
cashflows
Consideration of
requirement by Budget
Committee
Seek resolution as quickly as
possible for the sake of
incorporating the
consequences of a negative
response from the Budget
Committee into the 2013-14
budget planning process
Factor existing repayment
schedule into initial 13-14
budget plans


3.5
The Treasury loan to TSI
remains as a liability to
TasTAFE

are compromised






3.6
Relationship between
TasTAFE and VET in Schools
requirements is not clarified


3.7
Auspicing arrangements that
include cost recovery
considerations are not
established

are potentially compromised
Funding model to support
VIS cannot be delivered
Financial implication to
TasTAFE cannot be
addressed
Future relationships with
TasTAFE can be
compromised
Funding does not align with
the true cost of VET
delivery



TasTAFE to remain engaged
with Skills Tas on VIS
strategy.
Ensure
engagement
by
school and college sector in
any adopted funding model.
Careful implementation of
the model to prevent
selective interpretation.
Clarify
Trade
Training
Centre responsibilities.
(Generally not being managed
within this Working Group)

A clear flexible model that
can be easily adapted

Ensure that model can be
applied uniformly in all
Risk rating5
Consequence4
#
Likelihood3
M
H
A
M
H
A
M
H
B
Additional
resources
required to
implement
ARTA
Person responsible
for ARTA & target
date7



are compromised
Future relationships with
TasTAFE can be
compromised


3.8


Inaccurate financial
reporting
Lack of budget control and
planning


3.9
The provision of corporate
services is inadequately
defined and consequently the
charge does not meet the
costs of delivery


Confusion in service
delivery
Expectations and / or
obligations may not be met



3.10
Lack of clarity over what type
of budgetary and financial
support will be given and who
will be providing it


planning
Expectations and / or
obligations may not be met
Consultations and training
forums with financial staff
and managers
Regular staff bulletins that
communicate the expected
changes and that encourage
open feedback to the
changes
Where possible, maintain
the status quo and consult
with financial staff to develop
a robust reporting
framework that supports
effective decision making
M
M
B
Thorough definition of
Corporate Service model
required
Complete costing of
Corporate Services model
required
Corporate
Services
commitment to service
delivery standards
M
H
A
Clarification of roles
required including
articulation of
responsibilities that reside
within CSD and those that
reside within TasTAFE
Working Group to work
with the Organisational
M
H
B

Staff are averse to changes in
financial policies and
procedures, and to changes to
the Financial and Budget
systems
Risk rating5
Consequence4
#
Likelihood3

settings
Require colleges to meet
auspicing costs
Additional
resources
required to
implement
ARTA
Person responsible
for ARTA & target
date7
Risk rating5
Consequence4
#
Likelihood3
New TasTAFE structure to
encompass responsibilities
for identified financial and
budget management
responsibilities
Design Working Group
L
H
B
with legislation work group
– review of drafts to identify
issues
Clarification of the
implications of TasTAFE
being and „agency‟
L
H
B
Consideration of risk and
controls in the
implementation of the
financial management and
budget management models
Close consultations between
TasTAFE management and
Working Group to clarify
system requirements and
strategies
Prioritisation of investment
in system improvement for
DoE‟s Financial Services
systems
M
H
B
Inclusion of risk register in
project management plan
Establishment of a formal
risk management group
within TasTAFE
L
H
B
Articulation of TasTAFE‟s
involvement in DoE and
M
H
B

3.11
Lack of resources to
effectively monitor the budget
and financial performance

planning


3.12
New legislation introduces
complexities into financial
policy and reporting as well as
funding requirements


Staff effectiveness
compromised by
impractical financial policies
May need to fund for more
than what was initially
expected



3.13
Finance and budget systems
do not adequately support the
TasTAFE operational model




Increased pressure on staff
and management
Inefficiencies created
Inaccurate financial
reporting
planning
Opportunity for fraud




3.14
Inadequate risk management
control procedures and
mechanisms are in place
3.15
The inability to respond to the
deterioration of assets


are compromised
are compromised


Additional
resources
required to
implement
ARTA
Person responsible
for ARTA & target
date7

3.16
The TasTAFE board expects
that the government will
always provide a guarantee of
viability for TasTAFE






3.17
Future decisions by
Polytechnic and TSI that might
have significant negative
implications for TasTAFE



3.18
Implementation of the new
student management system is
delayed


3.19
TasTAFE does not have the
required agility to cope with
fluctuating economic demand



Risky decisions that might
expose TasTAFE to
diminished revenue streams
and/or unnecessary costs
Lack of industry confidence
and loss of investment
are compromised
System inefficiencies will
continue with reliance on
two financial management
systems to record student
management information
are compromised
are compromised
M
H
B
Monthly meetings to be held
between the Polytechnic, TSI
and Skills Tasmanian/DoE
identifying any Polytechnic
and TSI major commitments
and high risk projects that
may affect future TasTAFE
operations
Inclusion of senior TasTAFE
staff and CEO on working
group.
M
H
B
M
M
B
M
H
A
State Budget capital planning
processes
Reduced effectiveness of
assets in training delivery
services
Diminished accountability
and responsibility for the
financial viability of TasTAFE
Distraction from core
business of TasTAFE
Political fallout
Lack of industry confidence
and loss of investment
TasTAFE management to
provide regular and timely
advice to the board on the
current and projected
financial performance of
TasTAFE
Build on the budget liaison
model being developed for
the Skills Tasmanian and TSI
relationship for 2013


Risk rating5
Consequence4
#
Likelihood3




with IT Working Group to
identify issues that may delay
the implementation of the
new student management
system, and to ensure that
the new system links into
Finance One
A flexible model is
established to ensure that
TasTAFE has the
opportunity to capture
viable commercial revenue
streams
Prior to July 13 TasTAFE
Additional
resources
required to
implement
ARTA
Person responsible
for ARTA & target
date7
The available workforce is not
compatible with the courses
to be delivered

Missed opportunities to
generate additional revenue

are compromised
Missed opportunities to
generate additional revenue




CEO and GMs of
Polytechnic and Skills
institute liaise on emerging
opportunities.

3.21
Reforms do not deliver
efficiencies




3.22
The postponement of the
decision to bring on TasTAFE
assets and depreciation do not
reflect the costs of TasTAFE.



3.23
There is no overarching
infrastructure process.


are compromised

viability of TasTAFE when
assets and depreciation are
brought on
are compromised

Cannot maximise asset
rationalisation opportunities
M
M
B
M
M
B
M
M
D
M
M
C
(Generally not a Finance Working
Group issue)


Risk rating5
3.20
Consequence4
#
Likelihood3


Establish efficiency as a
specific target
Introduce measures of
efficiency into Performance
Management
The design of Performance
Management is sufficiently
granular to reflect the true
costs within delivery teams.
Establish appropriate interim
accounting treatment to
minimise any subsequent
decision about ownership of
assets (if required).
Establish an overarching
infrastructure process.
(Not a Finance Working Group
responsibility)
Additional
resources
required to
implement
ARTA
Person responsible
for ARTA & target
date7
Risk rating5
Consequence4
#
Likelihood3
Alteration to contracts
Scope management subgroup
established
Not seen as a current
priority – to be resolved
pending direction from the
Project Team.
L
L
D
Letter to be sent from DoE
Secretary to Commissioner
requesting exemption to
progress registration prior
to the passage of legislation –
i.e. permission to lodge
incomplete application and
begin the process pending
finalisation of legislation
Written confirmation from
Commissioner that
incomplete application is
permissible.
As per email between Mark
Sayer and Peter Cribb of 13
February, it is not expected
that this is a significant risk.
L
H
C
Include a disclaimer notice
on enrolment form for 2013
Poly/TSI - body of work to
be done to ensure
timeframes are met
Sub group established led by
ME
Sufficient resourcing for
SIMS, IT and student services
QL-S working group is
keeping a register of risks
and issues. The TLA working
group has had input into this
register, and believes all
L
H
C
4. TEACHING LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT
4.1
Criteria not established to
determine the scope of
TasTAFE

Consequence of applying for
qualifications impact on
students – implications on
contractual arrangements





4.2
Registration of TasTAFE not
achieved by 1 July 2013
Damage to Minister‟s
reputation and Tasmania‟s
public VET system




4.3
Enrolment processes not
smooth and associated
timelines not met


Negative student experience
Reputation of organisation



Additional
resources
required to
implement
ARTA
Person responsible
for ARTA & target
date7
Risk rating5
Consequence4
#
Likelihood3
M
H
B
Get staff involved
TasTAFE project team
newsletters
Other communication
channels
Sub groups to use any
opportunity to engage with
staff
Link on Phoenix
All teaching staff have been
involved in the selfassessment against NVR
standards (Feb/Mar 2013).
L
M
D
Identify other support
L
H
C
enrolment matters are in
hand via the QLS working
group.

4.4
Transitions processes for
existing students not smooth


Ensure SIMS and Client
Services Team are involved
 Ensure legislation is written
to assist this and enable
interchange of entity titles
 Sub group established and
led by ME
 Sufficient resourcing for
SIMS, IT and student services
 QL-S working group is
keeping a register of risks
and issues. The TLA
working group has had
input into this register, and
believes all enrolment
matters are in hand via the
QLS working group.
 Communication to students
is required – GEB to refer to
Branding and Comms
working group.



4.5
4.6
Staff not involved and engaged
Lack of staff to provide


Disengaged staff/lack of buy
in/ resistant to change
Disconnect between ASQA
submission and on site
Non-compliance





Additional
resources
required to
implement
ARTA
Person responsible
for ARTA & target
date7
support to the entire student
population



Unsupported students
Reputation
Risk rating5
Consequence4
#
Likelihood3
M
H
B
TLA Working Group
member David Gutteridge
(GETI) to develop SLA
Meeting to be held between
Secretary of DoE and
Commissioner, ASQA
Further discussion between
GETI and ASQA contact
David Congreves required
Mark Sayer advises this is in
hand.
L
L
N
TSI/Poly to identify and
progress as many students as
possible by the end of June
2013
M
H
B
mechanisms for apprentices
etc. – including external
providers
 Sub group established and
led by KF
 TLA has provided advice to
CEO
 CEO has decided to operate
a hybrid model of student
support until 2014.

4.7
Participation and productivity
agendas subsume each other/
the framework does not meet
student/industry needs




Tasmania‟s outcomes won‟t
be met
Disengaged students, staff
Political backlash
Declining student numbers
Continue to assess against
participation and productivity
agenda‟s
 Organisation Design group
 At the 4 April meeting of
the TLA group, members
identified issues for
consideration including the
difference in delivery
models between the
Polytechnic and TSI. The
TLA group will take this
matter forward.

4.8
Arrangements not established
between the Department of
Education and TasTAFE to
support CRICOS registration


Non-compliance and breach
of contracts


4.9
Current students in
superseded qualifications


Non-compliance

Additional
resources
required to
implement
ARTA
Person responsible
for ARTA & target
date7



4.10
Not all staff achieve teacher
registration by 30 June 2013


Not enough teachers
qualified to teach
Anxious staff
Impact on students





4.11
Vocational competency and
currency

Non-compliance



4.12
Non-compliance training and
assessment strategy

Non-compliance
Clear process needed for
TSI staff
TRB need to acknowledge
support needed
Message/s need to go out to
staff ASAP
Highlight risk with Legislation
Group
Discussions with TRB in
December 2013. Information
sessions to be held in the last
half of 2013 led by TRB.
M
H
B
Ongoing focus by Poly/TSI to
continue with continuous
improvement approach
GEB and MH to work with
Poly and TSI staff – Blitz
RM to analyse and provide
information on gaps to TLA
group
Both organisations report
that they are actively
analysing and working on
vocational competency and
currency matters.
M
H
B
Ongoing focus by Poly/TSI to
continue with continuous
improvement approach
GEB and MH work with Poly
and TSI staff – Blitz
Newsletter item
Agenda item for the TLA
M
H
B


Risk rating5
Consequence4
#
Likelihood3



Sub group led by Mike
Higgins
TLA group to receive
briefing from each
organisation by end of May
2013.
Additional
resources
required to
implement
ARTA
Person responsible
for ARTA & target
date7
meeting in May.

4.13
4.14
4.15
Identifying a scope of
registration that is accurate
and contains only current
products.
Incomplete application reliant
on the provision of
information from other
working groups
An appropriate learning
platform to replace WebCT is
to be found. Fronter may not
be suitable.
General Direction - retention
of student assessment items

Non-compliance


L
N



Chairs Group
Rod‟s Project Plan
Resolved.
M
H
B
Students not able to access
eLearning

Stephen Conway to discuss
with Trevor Hill.
H
H
A
Inability of TasTAFE to
comply with ASQA‟s
General Direction re the
retention of student
assessment items
Sub-group established to
make recommendations to
TLA group.
H
H
A
H
H
A
Non-compliance with ASQA
General Direction


4.17
L
Application not lodged

4.16
Not having enough resources
to complete the Policy and
Procedure work that
underpins the QMS and other
teaching and learning functions
This work should commence
ASAP in 2012 to provide
sufficient time to address
gaps. Where superseded
products are likely to be
required, a genuine reason
must be provided to support
the application process.
Sub Group – Michael Higgins
Not seen as a current
priority – to be resolved
pending direction from the
Project Team.
Risk rating5
Consequence4
#
Likelihood3
Staff will not have guidance they
need to maintain quality teaching
and learning: will lead to
inconsistent practice

CEO to identify a resource.
Additional
resources
required to
implement
ARTA
Person responsible
for ARTA & target
date7
5. BRANDING AND COMMUNICATIONS
Timeframes not met in visual

identity project
6.1
Timeframes not met in signage
project, specifically installation

6.2
Budget not met in visual
identity project


Physical locations not
appropriately identified

Additional unbudgeted
expense


Budget not met in signage
project

Additional unbudgeted
expense


6.4
6.5
6.6
Timeframes not met in
implementation of
communication strategies,
specially establishment of
internet and intranet

No acceptance of
recommendations for
resourcing the
communications and
marketing function

Effective management of the
contract to ensure
timeframes are met,
including regular reporting
by consultant
L
H
C
contract to ensure
timeframes are met,
by consultant
M
H
B
Accurate brief to set
appropriate expectations of
deliverables
contract to ensure
timeframes are met,
by consultant
L
L
N
Prioritise implementation
according to budget
contract to ensure
timeframes are met,
by consultant
L
M
D
Secure appropriate human
resources for management
and implementation of
strategies, specifically online
development
M
M
C
Consultation with decisionmakers throughout
development phase
Consultation with/feedback
from Organisational Design
Working Group
Provide considered
rationale for
M
E
A
Delays implementation of
visual identity, including
signage update
6.3
Risk rating5
Consequence4
#
Likelihood3
Absence of major internal
and external communication
presence/tool

Inadequate communications
and marketing resources



Additional
resources
required to
implement
ARTA
Person responsible
for ARTA & target
date7
recommendations
Risk rating5
Consequence4
#
Likelihood3
L
L
N
M
L
D
M
L
D
M
L
D
6. HR AND OHS – COMMENCE DURING PHASE 3
7. IT

7.1
Consolidation of computer
and user accounts Secure to
Education is delayed and not
complete by Jan 2013

7.2
Consolidation of some
business applications into
Education is not complete by
Jan 2013
7.3
Lack of interaction and
engagement from Polytechnic
and Skills Institute Team
Leaders in working with ITS
to migrate computer accounts
\ usernames and required
applications to Education


7.4
Lack of understanding and use
of Vkey for existing staff in the
Polytechnic and Skills Institute
This process has been
completed in all transition
colleges earlier in the year.
Local IT staff are
communicating and liaising
closely with team leaders.
Issues will be dealt with at
the local level and then
escalated centrally as
required
ITS is currently engaging
additional external vendors
to assist with achieving the
timeframe required. If this is
not achieved then for some
systems existing SECURE
accounts maybe be required
to be used in the interim
Detailed email has been sent
to all team leaders by local
IT staff outlining the
processes involved in the
migration.
Raise the profile and
importance of Vkey for in
particular team leaders in
the Polytechnic and Skills
Institute. This to be done
through further targeted
emails and the preparation
of appropriate professional
learning tools. (Eg
Additional
resources
required to
implement
ARTA
Person responsible
for ARTA & target
date7
documentation and video
tutorials).
7A. IT SUB GROUP – QLS OPERATIONS
VET Entitlement:

Implementation of an
entitlement model for VET

students as defined in the
National Skills Reform
Agreement, and the system

implications that go with this.



7a.1
Information slow to filter
down.
Lack of clarity as to how
initiative will be
implemented
Unknown funding to
undertake system change
Limited staff resources
Time running out
System Vendor Availability
to implement changes
required




7a.2
VET Variable Fee Rates:
Investigate the likelihood of
variable fee rates for VET
Courses and qualifications and
how the system will be able to
implement such a solution





down.
initiative will be
implemented
Unknown funding to
Time running out



Discussions to be held with
Skills Tasmanian and
relevant stakeholders.
Chrissie Berryman is
scheduling a meeting for after
Easter.
Vendor advised of pending
changes to the Student
Management System.
Polytechnic and TSI have
submitted a combined grant
request to Skills Tasmania
for funding to assist with
System Modifications.
Advice has been received
that there may be some
National Partnership
Funding available. This is
currently being explored.
The Polytechnic and
Tasmanian Skills Institute
are aware of the funding
issues, as is the CEO of
TasTAFE.
Easter.
Management System.
Risk rating5
Consequence4
#
Likelihood3
H
H
A
H
H
A
Additional
resources
required to
implement
ARTA
Person responsible
for ARTA & target
date7

required.

VET Fee Help: Implementation
of a new VET Assistance
Scheme for students
undertaking Diploma and
Advanced Diplomas, as
defined in the National Skills
Reform Agreement.






down.
initiative will be
implemented
Unknown funding to
Time running out
required



7a.3


Advise has been received
The Polytechnic and
TasTAFE.
Easter.
Management System.
Advise has been received
Skills Tasmania has
advertised a position that
will sit inside TasTAFE to
help with the
implementation.
The Polytechnic and
Risk rating5
Consequence4
#
Likelihood3
H
E
A
Additional
resources
required to
implement
ARTA
Person responsible
for ARTA & target
date7
TasTAFE.
USI Implementation:
Implementation of the
Universal Student Identifier,
how it will be managed,
verification of data provided
to the agency, integration into
systems etc.





Unknown funding to
Time running out
required
Decisions required to
determine how best to
implement solution.



7a.4


7a.5
Rate of current Contract for
the final six months (January
to June 2014) to be
negotiated: Contract rates are
set for current support
arrangements until the end of
2013. The last 6 months of
support to be provided by
TechnologyOne will need a
rate of service attached for
the first 6 months of 2014

Costs associated with
remaining 6 months of
contract


Discussions have been held
with
Information
Technology Services on the
pending implementation.
Options for obtaining the
USI from the USI Task
Force Database are being
explored, along with how
this will be returned to the
Student
Management
System.
Briefing to be prepared on
the options available for key
stakeholders to make an
informed decision
Vendor is aware of pending
modifications to the system
for the USI
The
Polytechnic
and
TasTAFE.
Negotiations to commence
early August on the rates
for the last 6 months of the
support contract. This will
give TasTAFE time to seek
alternative
support
arrangements if required.
Go to tender if contract
rates cannot be agreed to.
Risk rating5
Consequence4
#
Likelihood3
H
E
A
H
H
A
Additional
resources
required to
implement
ARTA
Person responsible
for ARTA & target
date7
7a.7
Contractual Arrangements
from 1st of July 2014: Current
support contract for QL-S
expires on the 30th June,
2014. It is likely that a new
contract will need to be
negotiated. Context to be
given in light of a new system
being investigated. This is
contingent on the rate of current
contract risk as identified above.

AVETMISS 7 Standard:
Managing the changes that will
be coming in for AVETMISS 7
standards for 2014 and what
needs to be undertaken in
terms of system modifications.

Current system issues (Aging
Technology): Uniface, Oracle
and Crystal technology in QLS is causing IT issues with
maintenance of a stable
solution.









7a.8
Vendor‟s willingness to
engage, especially if a tender
process is
underway/concluded
Time before new system can
be implemented.
Durability of existing system

required
Unknown funding to
required
Durability of system without
modifications
Other system modifications
crossing over in relation to
time, staff and costs






Continue
current
communication
process
with the Vendor
Explore options for seeking
an extension of the current
support arrangements as
early as possible, including
talking to Treasury
Go to tender early 2014 if
an
extension
is
not
approved, or if either the
Vendor or TasTAFE, does
not wish to extend support
Vendor is aware of pending
modifications to the system
for AVETMISS 7
The first submission of
AVETMISS 7 files for
TasTAFE will not be until
late March, 2014 giving
additional time for system
modifications to be made
The Oracle upgrade is
currently being progressed
with
the
vendor,
Information
Technology
Services and local database
support
The Uniface upgrade is
dependent on resource
availability with the vendor.
They
have
recently
advertised a position, which
is expected to be filled by
mid-April, 2013.
Discussions are continuing
with the Vendor
The Oracle upgrade is a
Risk rating5
7a.6
Consequence4
#
Likelihood3
H
H
A
H
M
B
H
M
B
Additional
resources
required to
implement
ARTA
Person responsible
for ARTA & target
date7

Chart of Accounts:
Modifications to the financial
chart of account to suit/match
the new structure for
TasTAFE, also to be
considered against how the
DoE COA is structured in
FinOne.

Potential mismatches in how
Chart (GL Code mapping
for fees) can be presented in
QL-S to what might be
7a.9
required in e5.

Placement of student debt
management functions and
fees
8. STRATEGIC (EMERGING DEMAND) – COMMENCE DURING PHASE 3
9. ASSETS – COMMENCE DURING PHASE 3
10. PROJECT WIDE
Insufficient stakeholder

Stakeholder confusion
consultation

Political backlash

Negative media
10.1




10.2
10.3
Ensure we have adequate
resources for the complexity,
scale and speed of change
required


Project delays
Failure to deliver project
milestones

Manage political priorities and
support for the model


Project delays
Failure to deliver project
milestones

precursor to the Uniface
Upgrade, Crystal Upgrade
and any further system
modifications e.g. VET Fee
Help, AVETMISS 7.
The
Polytechnic
and
TasTAFE.
Early
communication
process to be adopted with
the establishment of the
2014 Enrolment Working
Group
Working groups accountable
for communication
messages.
Implementation team
accountable for centralised
message handling.
Communication strategy for
2013
Allocated budget
Implementation team
accountable for centralised
message handling.
Project Manager prioritises
political relationships
through weekly discussion
with Secretary.
Risk rating5
Consequence4
#
Likelihood3
H
M
B
L
H
C
L
H
C
L
M
D
Additional
resources
required to
implement
ARTA
Person responsible
for ARTA & target
date7
Provide strong leadership pre
and post implementation




Staff feel disconnected from
new organisation
Low staff morale
Culture of TasTAFE does
not gel

CEO commences five
months prior to 01 July 2013
Recommendation 7 work
group provides expertise
and direction
Risk rating5
10.4
Consequence4
#
Likelihood3
M
H
B
Additional
resources
required to
implement
ARTA
Person responsible
for ARTA & target
date7
7
Appendices
Appendix A: Summary of the Tasmanian Government’s Response and Implementation Plan
– available here:
https://www.education.tas.gov.au/documentcentre/Documents/Tasmanias-Public-VET-ReformImplementation-Plan-2012.pdf
Appendix B: Project Plans by workgroups - available from the Implementation Team
7
Appendices
Appendix C: Communication Plan
COMMUNICATION
METHODS
Project team
newsletter/updates
Consultation sessions –
staff
Steering committee
Communique
Staff email
Current students – email to
Poly /TSI
Current students –
poster/flyer
Current students –
message Poly/TSI website
Letter to parents and
information sheet
Newsletter item for college
and high schools
email – college and high
school staff
email – pathway planning
officers
Briefing for pathway
planning officers
Industry – letter to business
and industry
Sep 2012
Oct 2012
Nov 2012
Dec 2012
Jan 2013
Feb 2013
Mar 2013
Apr 2013
May 2013
June 2013
7
Industry posters/flyers –
hand outs for workplace/s
Website information updated
Media releases
Media announcements
Appendices
7
Appendices
Appendix D: Stakeholder Communication Register
Stakeholder group
Target audience
Students and parents
 Current Year 10 students
 Current Year 11/12 students
 Current Polytechnic students
 Current TSI students
 Current mature aged students
 Future mature aged students
 Parents of current Year 10 and 11 students
 Parents of high school aged students (Years 7-9)
Schools/colleges
teachers
 Pathway Planning Officers/Guaranteeing Futures
 College teachers and principals
 High school teachers and principals
 Tasmanian Independent and Catholic Teachers
and Principals
Polytechnic, TSI and
Skills Tasmania staff
 Polytechnic teachers
 TSI teachers
 Polytechnic non-teaching staff
 TSI non-teaching staff
 Skills Tasmania staff
Tasmanian Education
participants
 College non-teaching staff
 University of Tasmania
 Department of Education corporate employees
 Association of Independent Schools Tasmania
 Catholic Education Office
 Government Education and Training
International
 Tasmanian Academy
 Tasmanian Principals Association
 Tasmanian Secondary Colleges Registered
Training Organisation
 Teachers Registration Board
Priority
Mechanism/Event
Key message/s
Due date
7
Stakeholder group
Target audience
Tasmanian business and
industry
 Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs Council Tas
 Australian Council for Private Education and
Training
 Australian Education Union
 Colony 47
 CPSU
 Department of Justice, Corrections Directorate
 Group Training Australia – Tasmania Inc
 Handweavers, Spinners and Dyers Guild of
Tasmania
 Huon LINC Community Advisory Board
 Independent Schools Tasmania
 LINC Tasmania
 Manufacturing Industry Advisory Committee
 National Disability Coordination Officers
Tasmania
 Primary Employers Tasmania
 Secondary Colleges Committee of Management
 Skills Tasmania
 Tasmanian Building and Construction Industry
Training Board
 Tasmanian Council of Social Service (TasCOSS)
 Tasmanian Education Association
 Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association
 Tasmanian Hospitality Association
 Tasmanian Library Advisory Board
 Tasmanian Small Business Council
 Tasmanian State School Parents and Friends Inc
 TCCI
(taken from submissions)
Tasmanian politicians
 Members of the government in the Upper House
 Independents in the Upper House
 Members of the House of Representatives
 Government backbenchers
 Local Government Association Tasmania
 Local Government Mayors and Aldermen
Priority
Mechanism/Event
Key message/s
Appendices
Due date
7
Stakeholder group
Target audience
The broader Tasmanian
community
 Tasmanian News Editors
 Media commentators – Saul Eslake, Greg Barnes
 Welfare groups – TasCOSS, Colony 47,
Youth Arc
 General community
Priority
Mechanism/Event
Key message/s
Appendices
Due date
7
Appendix E: Gantt Charts
Teaching Learning and Assessment
Appendices
7
Legislation
Organisational Design
Appendices
7
VET Finance
Appendices
7
Appendices
IT
Also refer Microsoft Project 2007 version stored https://myplace.education.tas.gov.au/initiatives/IT-Projects/TasTAFE_IT_Working_Group/SitePages/Home.aspx
7
Branding and Communications
Appendices

Tasmanian Public Sector Vocational Education and Training (VET) Providers Review – Implementation

Transcription

Similar documents

Stakeholder Communiqué 1

THE SCOOP BEHIND

SREDNJA ŠKOLA Matje antuna reljkovića

Family Playground HOLIDAY TOURS SG

VENTRILOQUIST - entertainment group

here - YOUTHCOACH project

BT Tasmanian Species Brochure

modern. intriguing. seductive. VENUE RENTAL

www.nycacc.org - Animal Care Centers of NYC

Cover Page – Stay tuned…