In any HR or transformation manager’s office, you’ll hear the same frustrations: “We are spending millions on skills development and enterprise supplier development (ESD) programmes. Our compliance scores look great, but we still cannot fill critical positions and our ESD beneficiaries are not becoming viable suppliers.” Money and commitment are not the problem. Rather, it’s that most skills development and ESD programmes are designed to satisfy compliance requirements rather than address business problems.
As a SETA- and QCTO-accredited training provider specialising in integrated B-BBEE implementation,Eruditio Skills Development Consultantshas reviewed dozens of such programmes and noted that the same five execution gaps tend to emerge time and again. Here, Eruditio highlights these issues and outlines what’s needed to fix them. Usually, HR gets pressure to improve the skills development scorecard.
They often open the SETA catalogue, find programmes offering decent points and enrol beneficiaries. And then three years later, those graduates are unable to fill positions the business actually needs. Before selecting any programme, answer these three questions: Which roles have the company struggled to fill in the past six months?
Read Full Article on TimesLIVE
[paywall]
What skills will growth plans require in 18 months? Where do retirements create gaps? Only after mapping these needs should you evaluate programmes.
If standard offerings don’t align, customise programmes that address actual gaps while maintaining accreditation. Learnerships require workplace components and most companies treat this as box-ticking. Often learners get dumped in departments that don’t want them, are assigned busy jobs, and are kept away from tasks deemed too important.
Treating learners like apprentices are the way to go. Assign specific mentors who get training allowances and have mentoring in their objectives. It is best to create clear learning plans with monthly progress checks and give learners real work that contributes to the business value.
This is where failure is experienced. Learners complete programmes, and get certificates without further success. There was never a plan for employment because the programme was designed for compliance, not talent development.
HR tends to celebrate completion rates, line managers often complain about unfilled positions, and graduates battle to find jobs. Everyone misses the connection. It is better to define specific positions graduates should fill – not “finance”, but “accounts payable clerk”, for example. Do the math on realistic absorption based on turnover and vacancies.
[/paywall]
