1. WHY LABOUR COMPETENCIES? KEY ELEMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED

Fernando Vargas Zúñiga
Cinterfor Consultant
e-mail: fvargas@cinterfor.org.uy

Herein is a summary of some ideas that justify the purpose of labour competencies. They are submitted as a basis for discussion and have been used to promote awareness in groups of entrepreneurs and workers at the start of competency standardisation projects.

1.1 Which is the polestar?

This is the key question. You ask it within a logical process of reasoning whenever you decide to do something. Or whenever someone suggests you do something. Many of the workers under you may also ask this question regarding their work. Some of them reply in terms of the actual work they do, others in terms of the business that they presume the shareholders are doing, and, to a large extent, they never ask themselves about the main frame (or larger framework).

In this case the reply must be sought as a team. Specifically, the fact that occupational competencies are applied must imply that they are solving some problem for the enterprise. Certainly, occupational competency programmes must be rooted in the conviction that human talents are to be developed as a foundation for competitiveness.

The reply to the question we ask is often couched in these terms: to improve productivity and maintain the competitiveness of the enterprise. The managerial viewpoint almost always aims to fulfil the organisation’s mission (at this level it is very clear) and to keep operations within expected or standardised levels to achieve goals.

1.2 What, then, is the challenge?

Productivity can be improved in relative terms, by producing the same with less, or also in absolute terms, by producing more with the same. The former is the most frequent. The waves of change and restructuring of Latin American businesses have occurred and continue to occur through organisational changes entailing reductions in the amount of resources, basically human labour.

Productivity increases were achieved by resorting to technological modernisation. This was aided by the invasion of intensive technologies in microelectronics and information. However, the extent to which these technologies have spread is nowadays quite large. Many businesses have taken the road of organisational reform, reduction in concentrated levels, organisational re-design, total quality labour and technological modernisation.

Little has been done along these lines regarding the management of human talent, not in terms of quantity, nor of effort, but rather in terms of the impact of the care taken to improve management of the most valuable resource, i.e., people.

ILO studies in Latin America during the last three years on the incidence on people of modernisation and industrial restructuring have shown that the lack of adequate training is the main shortcoming in attempts to improve competitiveness. In Colombia, 72% of entrepreneurs in the manufacturing sector and 81% in the food industry express a need for training to sustain their competitiveness strategies. In Argentina, firms in the same sectors complain about the lack of qualified staff and how difficult it is to retain it. In Chile and Mexico the main problem regarding the introduction of technological change is the inadequate supply of appropriately trained workers.

Thus, the immediate challenge, once technological and organisational efforts to improve productivity and assure competitiveness have been made, is to act decisively regarding the improvement of human talent. When the needs and actions required to improve its contribution to the achievement of organisational objectives are reviewed, it will be seen that not all has been done.

Many products obtained as a result of modernisation policies become, in time, symbolical languages or reference points of an institutional instance. In Brazil it has been documented that no more than 1% of efforts made to certify quality have been successful.

If changes do not have a bearing on "organisational architecture" it is very unlikely that they will be sustainable and absorbed by the organisation and that they will permeate its customs and uses. A change must be so entrenched in the day to day that it is capable of penetrating the language and culture of the enterprise.

However, if the change is perceived as a temporary doctrine of management, that has no staying power beyond its being imposed, it is very likely that once the effort ceases its inspirational philosophy will be abandoned. Thus technological changes make more of an impact, a new machine implies from the start that its adaptation to use will have to be forcibly planned. On the other hand, concepts such as quality, safety, autonomy, teamwork, will not transcend if they are not internalised and made bearers of change, and not of discourse. It is easier to install a machine than to change the way people think and the culture of the organisation.

Training breeds quality, which is sustained by continuous training efforts. Training is a prior requirement to any attempt to improve quality. In many cases the poor results of production are associated with problems that can be remedied by on-the-job training programmes and by the level of performance of workers.

1.3 And, how do competencies fit into this scenario?

Enterprises need to create an organisational architecture that enables them to gain a competitive advantage. This advantage clearly does not lie in technology, or in geographical location. It must be created by combining technological and organisational factors with the contributions of human labour.

The organisational structure becomes a construct in which the interaction of the technology and design of the firm with the contribution of people defines changes in the cultural patterns of the organisation. It is in that case that it becomes true that competitive advantages are generated. The deciding factor in the creation of these advantages are the people. Thus the quality of the latter, their level of participation and commitment, define and will define in large measure the endurableness of the organisations.

However, the main concern when speaking of the human factor has been its contribution to production. Traditional job analysis models were very concerned with the quantity of labour, the magnitude of effort, the work environment, the educational level, the complexity of the tasks involved, and not with the direction in which the effort was applied and the quality of the results obtained.

Traditional approaches to scientific administration tried to manage the details of job content and minimise losses in each based on time and movement analyses. Nonetheless, in practice, there occurred a paradox in mass production, i.e., a successive accumulation of losses and waste among the different phases of the productive process. This led to proving that in assembly line labour groups, even though each worker knows what he or she has to do, the total speed of the line is imposed by the slowest. Thus, from a focus centred on jobs and what each one does, an approach has developed that is centred on what each one achieves within the framework of a systemic view of the organisation.

This advance has now been coloured by clear features such as the lack of job autarchy and the low incidence of the scenario in which everything is done under orders. Many case analyses show that there is a great difference between work mandated and work done. Many workers have demonstrated to the point of satiation the ability to contribute to the solution of problems that no designer would have had any insight into at his or her worktable.

Knowledge regarding a large part of what goes on in the process lies with the worker, and the huge potential of his or her ability to contribute is often hidden behind enormous and obsolete process rationalisation manuals that nobody reads or uses.

When an attempt was made to find a clearer way to prove the contribution of workers, numerous studies discovered that there were new concepts which to date have been totally deactivated. Intellectual skills became evident that were erstwhile cast aside in the mere measurement of effort.

Ease of communication, ability to understand symbols, interpret plans, report novelties to co-workers or superiors, read, calculate, foresee, raise and solve problems: all of these attributes began to be acknowledged and studied. At the same time it became evident that work increasingly began to involve more brain and less brawn. The educational level of workers has grown due to conditions required for entry into jobs and older people and those less qualified have become vulnerable to unemployment.

The real concept of performance was set in motion around the ability of the worker to obtain results in his job, and not the potential capacity of achievement certified in an educational diploma. Many job results refer to scenarios in which unsuspected events appear. How to proceed if…? What to do in the event that…? The replies cannot very well be included in task evaluations.

Many of you have been able to observe how the best collaborators stand out because of their contribution under unforeseen circumstances, as a result of their interest in improving, their discernment, their commitment. If this is what can improve the competitiveness of the firm, why are the jobs not described on the basis of achievements rather than compliance with daily working hours? It is thus quite clear that the improvement of productive capacities needs more from workers than all that can be said in Taylorist descriptions of their jobs.

The occupational competency approach tends to resolve the issue of workers’ contributions in terms of results achieved and not only by what is claimed, and also by developing the organisational chart of the firm and recording it in established standards of performance on the job, all of which are linked to the achievement of the ultimate objective of the firm.

1.4 Is it to the advantage of the workers?

Of course. Workers who know what is expected of them are more efficient and motivated than those who are assigned jobs and are not clued into the general framework of the organisation. The training plans in which the worker will take part will be much more suitable to meet his or her improved performance needs, and evaluations will make more sense in terms of his or her contribution to the objectives than those of simple compliance with working hours.

Incentive mechanisms can be linked much more easily to achievement of levels of competence and will be clear to the worker and the enterprise. Job mobility possibilities can be judged more evenly when the competencies required in other areas of the enterprise are known. Even some competencies in present job areas are totally transferable to new jobs, if they are known and certified. Decisions on promotions are taken faster and motivate people who seek them to make new training efforts that allow them to be eligible for those new positions.

1.5 The general process of competency standardisation

This can be described in several general stages, i.e., conceptualisation, qualitative analysis of work, standardisation, evaluation and training.

Conceptualisation: Conceptualisation seeks to bring together the enterprise and the workers to clarify what is sought, as well as time, attitude and dedication commitments, when becoming involved in a competency standardisation process.

This stage will be developed, per agreement with a firm or an entire occupational sector, by holding sessions between plant managers and workers’ representatives. It is expected that the managerial and supervisory level will later clarify to the operational level the characteristics and philosophy of the work and its integration into the innovating effort of the firm.

Once the sector and workers are completely aware of the characteristics and benefits of this methodology, functional analysis is undertaken. This allows the competency standardisation process to be developed, and followed by clarification of certification mechanisms and, lastly, by taking the training actions needed to place workers on a level with the required competencies.

Qualitative analysis of labour

This stage involves the identification of the labour content that is part of an occupation. That content is often specified according to different methodologies. In that context we can start with the traditional Occupational Analysis, the most well known versions of which are at present the so-called DACUM family (Developing a Curriculum), AMOD (A model) and SCID (Systematic Curriculum and Instructional Development). For the purposes of this document we shall focus on Functional Analysis.

Functional analysis

This methodology organises the occupational information of the enterprise ordered around its main function, i.e., the raison d’être, what the business does and what it achieves. With a systems approach, functional analysis successively disaggregates the main function into key functions, following the logic of replying to: "What should be done to achieve this function?" It is an interactive process, without the rigour of a mathematical formula, nor are there any mandates to carry it out. At the end of the exercise a functional chart is obtained, i.e., an outline of the functions of the enterprise that, interrelated, achieve the final objective.

It does require the participation of workers who are fully knowledgeable of the areas analysed and the functions performed. It is built on the basis of a group made up of people who know the context of the process in general and of the occupational area under study in particular. These people are structured in a technical group that works regularly until the functional chart is finished and can be validated by the firm.

The persons selected to carry out this work will receive training and study materials to develop capacities for occupational analysis.

To implement all the stages it is desirable that there be an expert who is in charge of general co-ordination of the pilot experience and also of training the technical group of the enterprise.

The enterprise or sector must appoint a general co-ordinator, someone who has knowledge of the overall view of the project and is thus aware of its progress. This co-ordinator must be thoroughly trained in occupational competencies but he/she also provides the nexus with the organisational overview and keeps it to the fore.

The functions of the co-ordinator of the enterprise include:

• Establishing jointly with the consultant a general schedule for the project.
• Defining a specific agenda of staff training meetings at the conceptualisation stage.
• Defining the work schedule of the technical groups in charge of standardisation,.
• Informing management and the workers in general regarding project progress.
• Monitoring and evaluating the pilot experience.

In turn, each of the technical groups established to standardise competencies in the areas defined will have a group co-ordinator who facilitates and directs the discussions. He/she can also interact with the enterprise co-ordinator for monitoring and evaluation purposes. The group co-ordinator must conform to the following profile:

• Be thoroughly aware of the characteristics of the jobs in the plant.
• Be highly committed to the occupational competencies methodology.
• Be capable of leading, negotiating and aiding progress.
• His/her dedication in terms of time must allow for preparation of the final documents of the group even outside the meetings.

The group co-ordinator must:

• Facilitate and direct the technical group sessions.
• Assure the achievement of the products of the group (competency standards).
• Interact with the general co-ordinator and the consultant to ensure progress.
• Assure the preparation of the final products resulting from the work of the group.

 

Standardisation of competencies: The disaggregation of functions occurring in the first stage does not usually exceed four or five levels. When the last level is analysed it will be found to include competencies, functions that at that level can already be performed by people capable of doing so (i.e., who are competent). When these different functions can already be performed by people and they describe actions that can be achieved and summarised, they are called competency elements.

Competency elements are the basis for standardisation. Several similar elements that signify some concrete achievement in the productive process can be grouped. These sets of elements are called competency units.

Competency units are already modules with a clear meaning and value concerning work. Grouping of different units yields occupational qualifications.

Occupational competencies are not job names. They are sets of competencies that can serve as a reference point for performance in the jobs of the organisation. Competency units shall clearly be specified for every job and must be certified for their competent implementation. A qualification of competencies may include units applicable to more than one job, thus beginning to aid labour mobility.

To summarise, for each occupational qualification there are different competency units. The competency units are made up of competency elements and these, in turn, are specified in performance criteria, range of application, proof of knowledge and proof of performance.

Evaluating and certifying competencies

At this stage concepts that apply to checking on the basis of standards will be included. It involves determining the manner and amount of proof that has to be collected to define an individual as competent or not competent.

Different methods may be used, such as:

• Proof of performance by observation in the workplace
• Proof through simulated exercises
• Proof obtained via surveys
• Proof obtained via written tests
• Proof of reports on previous achievements

The proofs of performance that workers accumulate must be associated to the qualifications they belong to and be included in the file or portfolio of evidence of performance of each worker. In this manner, each worker will know what competency units have been certified in his/her regard, to what qualifications they belong and what jobs require those units for performance.

Training by competencies

At this stage training activities will be carried out with a view to achieving levels of competency for successful performance to supplement those that the workers already possess. It will include identifying sources of training, developing teaching materials to support actions and carrying out actions with training providers.

Training programmes will be executed on the basis of needs detected and expressed in occupational competency standards. Thus enterprises will be able to evaluate competencies and establish easily areas of competence that need to be strengthened via training.

Training processes may involve different types of institutional organisation. Each country can choose the ways in which its demand for training can best be met. The best in this regard lies in not wasting efforts, integrating in the best manner possible public and private supply so that, in the matter of competency standards, larger scale effects may be achieved in the whole workforce.

If a reference point has been developed, such as occupational competency standards, programme design will have a clear commitment vis-à-vis occupational needs, it will aid in learning what is necessary for good performance, redound in improvements regarding job mobility of workers and in the longer term unify the quality expected by the programmes.

Training actions that target groups vulnerable to unemployment will have a greater impact on training in competencies than short courses apparently validated by the intention to aid practice but that are unlikely creators of competencies for employability.

Some countries are already thinking of supplementing their expenses that target training (as, for example, programmes to train youth or to certify in a specific sector) with the requirement that the training be implemented by bodies that have curricula based on competencies available and that it can be certified by bodies having high performance and technical capacity requirements so that the quality and relevance of training may be raised.

 

The Inter-American Centre for Knowledge Development in Vocational Training (ILO/Cinterfor)
Avda. Uruguay 1238 - Montevideo - Uruguay - Tel: (5982) 908 6023 - 902 0557 - 908 0545 - Fax: (5982) 902 1305
webmaster@cinterfor.org.uy

Copyright © 1996-2008 International Labour Organisation (ILO) - Disclaimer