Abstract:

Within the UK there is a growing need to up-skill its workforce to facilitate the move to a knowledge lead economy, which requires an effective strategic partnership between Universities and Industry with a clear and shared vision, as well as an effective operational model that develops lasting relationships: a set of specific agreed and underpinned inputs and outputs.

This paper considers tactics to overcome this gap and the resulting operational challenges, focusing on the processes used by business partners namely employers and suppliers who were working together to establish business needs with a view to contracting to provide workplace learning interventions. A risk already exists when people within internal business partnerships meet around mismatched expectations and perceptions. At least here, both parties have knowledge of the organisational needs because they work for them. But still, problems arise when it comes to precisely establishing learning needs that align strategically. The perception is left that training is based on a reactive, responsive and unthinking attitudes.

Take this outside of the organisation going externally where employers meet suppliers to buy-in a learning intervention, and then if the established needs are not precise or misunderstood the problem is exemplified. Line managers or learners who do not feel that the solution met their needs can label it as a “waste of time” and this reflects negatively on both the person who commissioned it and the one who delivered it. Whilst employers “step outside into the dark” suppliers “step inside into the dark” and both need a “torch” to light up the way of establishing needs. If both could meet half way at least, it may be dim, but something could be seen.

The paper examines this issue in greater detail and provides the findings from research undertaken with suppliers and employers to establish the mechanisms that are employed and how these marry together to ensure one process and that this type of situation does not occur. Explicit and implicit expectations are highlighted. The systematic theory model is challenged as being one- dimensional and a “Thought Pad” is proposed together with the need for more detailed research into this area. Getting it wrong is costly from many angles.