Strategic Review

of the

Tasmania Fire Service

Training Functions

24/6/03By John Kelleher TasTrain Pty Ltd

2

Acknowledgements I am indebted to the following people who provided their time in assisting me produce this review: Steering Committee

Peter Alexander Robyn Pearce Chris Arnol Steve Barber Paul Salter Michael Gallagher Damien Killalea

and all of those individuals who willingly contributed information for this review. Author John Kelleher General Manager TasTrain PO Box 577 North Hobart TAS 7002 Ph 0418 127547 Copyright, Tasmania Fire Service 23rd June 2003 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1998, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the Tasmania Fire Service. Contact Robyn Pearce, Director, Human Services, GPO Box 1526 Hobart TAS 7001

3

Table of Contents Page

Acknowledgements 2

1. Executive Summary 4

2, Background 11

3. Methodology 12

3.1 Benchmarking 12

3.2 Key stakeholder interviews 12

3.3 Document analysis 14

3.4 Steering Committee workshops 15

4. Analysis of Findings 16

4.1 An Analytical Framework to Inform the Data Analysis and

Recommendations 19

4.2 Benchmarking Outcomes 19

4.2.1What can be learnt from the benchmarking process? 21

4.3 Key Stakeholder Interviews and Document Analysis 21

4.3.1 Non-Brigade and/or Non-Uniform Training Structure 22

4.3.2 Comments on the TFS Training System 25

4.3.3 Career Brigade Training System 35

4.3.4 Comments on the Career Brigades Training

Structure 36

4.3.5 Volunteer Brigade Training System 39

4.3.6 Comments of the Volunteer Training Services

Training Structure 42

References 47

Attachment 1 Terms of Reference 48

Attachment 2 Interview Data-Benchmarking 50

Attachment 3 Key Stakeholder Interview Data 53

Attachment 4 List of Acronyms 67

Figure 1 TFS Development and Learning Management Structure 30

Figure 2 Project Proposal and Development Procedure for the Development and Learning Committee 33

Figure 3 Brigade Training Reporting Structure 40

4

1. Executive Summary The following recommendations form the basis of this Review. Through the recommendations, the Review seeks to establish a workable structure within the TFS for the efficient management of training, learning and personal development for all staff. The report presents the raw data in the attachments and proceeds to analyse the data in the context of the Terms of Reference. The TFS, in essence was seeking from this Review a better structure for the management of its training system. Twenty recommendations have been made which address three key aspects of the TFS:

• the career brigade training structure, • the volunteer brigade training structure, • training for all other staff not directly linked with the career and volunteer

brigades. The findings were not surprising, considering the amount of information which was known about the training system prior to the commencement of the Review. Figures 1 and 3 summarise the proposed new training management structure. This structure acknowledges some basic truths associated with attempting to change systems which have been in place for many years-too much change too quickly can be counter productive. With this in mind the training management model suggested should address the immediate problems that the TFS faces. These can be summarised as follows:

• all existing full-time training managers are located in the South, thus presenting a perceived servicing problem in the North and North West of the state,

• an expected increase in volunteer fire fighter numbers over the coming years which will result in more demand on the training infrastructure,

• the introduction of the new Public Safety Training Package and the resource implication that this presents to both the career and volunteer brigades,

• the lack of training infrastructure and support available to those staff within the TFS who are not associated with the career and volunteer brigades,

• the need to make the training more whole of business strategic, rather than focussing on the needs of individuals and groups in isolation of the whole,

• the impact that the new national training arrangements, especially the User Choice arrangements, will have on training opportunities for all staff within the TFS.

In the longer term, the TFS executive management group might like to consider the possibility of creating an integrated training unit which could service the needs of all staff within the TFS, without undermining the control that local managers currently enjoy. The model presented should allow this to happen, if it was deemed appropriated. Such an arrangement however, should only be considered if the direct responsibilities for training and development for staff rest with the brigades, departments and local managers who manage those staff.

5

Recommendation 1 That a Manager, Training Systems be appointed to oversee the strategic development of TFS training policy and systems. This manager should report directly to the Director, Human Services, but have functional responsibilities to the Deputy Chief. An appropriate position description should be developed and should indicate that the manager has at least the following skills, knowledge, experience and qualifications:

• Extensive knowledge and experience in the development and management of training systems,

• Familiarity with adult learning theory and practices, especially in relation to the professional development of staff within a government agency,

• Extensive knowledge of the vocational education and training system, especially Training Packages, User Choice arrangements the AQTF, and how they can benefit the TFS,

• Ability to consult effectively with senior members of the TFS (senior executive group, brigade chiefs, divisional heads, and others) in order to develop and maintain a TFS training plan,

• Extensive management experience, preferably within a modern HRD environment,

• Be capable of adopting modern HRD practices to the TFS in order to develop an integrated HRD strategy,

• Be capable of working cooperatively with training staff responsible for operational training, both career and volunteer,

• Be capable of providing guidance assistance and leadership to groups undertaking training activities, such as training needs analysis, curriculum development, learning resource development assessment and program evaluation,

• Hold appropriate Tertiary qualifications in HRD, or vocational education and training.

The Manager, Training Systems’ role would be to manage a Training Systems team who would provide internal consulting services to all Divisions within the TFS and coordinate the training and development system within each of the divisions in partnership with the respective divisional senior manager. Recommendation 2 That two training coordinators be appointed over the next twelve months, as demand dictates, whose role will be to provide support to the Manager, Training Systems. These staff should be appointed to provide specialised expertise in the following:

• training needs analysis, • curriculum development, • assessment, • instructional design, • learning resource development,

6

• Training Packages, NTF, AQTF and User Choice.

It is recommended that one of these staff provide this specialised expertise to the brigades, especially to support the transition to the Public Safety Training Package, while the other person services the needs of other non-operational Divisions (Community Fire Safety, Firecomm, Corporate Services, etc) who do not currently have access to dedicated training support people. Recommendation 3 That a Development and Learning Committee, chaired by the Deputy Chief, be created to oversee the development and maintenance of a whole of agency training plan. This training plan would be a strategic response to the training needs across the whole agency and be developed in consultation with the Senior Executive Group to support the implementation of the Corporate Plan. The membership of the Development and Learning Management Committee would consist of representatives of the main stakeholders within the TFS:

1. Deputy Chief Officer (Chair) 2. Director, Human Services 3. Manager, Training Systems (Executive Officer to the Committee) 4. VTAC Nominee 5. CTAC Nominee 6. Director Community Fire Safety 7. Director Corporate Services 8. RO North 9. RO North West 10. RO South 11. DO Volunteer Brigades representative 12. DO Career Brigades representative 13. Firecomm Division representative

The Development and Learning Committee would meet quarterly, or as often as need requires, and will provide a forum in which training and development project proposals and policy development could be debated and ultimately approved for implementation. It is recommended that appropriate terms of reference and operating procedures for this committee be developed as soon as possible.

Recommendation 4 That the Training Systems team take responsibility for managing and coordinating, in partnership with the relevant line manager, any outsourcing of training to RTOs outside the TFS.

7

Recommendation 5 It is recommended that senior managers within the all of the divisions, both operational and non-operational, take principal responsibility for the training and development of their staff and they use the expertise of the Training Systems team to establish training and development projects to strategically service their needs and those of the TFS overall. Although the working arrangements between the senior managers within the divisions and the staff in the Training Systems team is problematic, effective project working groups should be established, where the responsibility to undertake the work load and ownership is negotiated and shared between the staff from the relevant division and Training Systems. It is recommended that the Training Systems staff act as internal consultants to the relevant division, providing project-specific guidance and assistance when required. Recommendation 6 It is recommended that new training and development projects should be initiated from within a Division, or by a member of the Training Systems team in consultation with the relevant senior manager within the Division. Once agreement to establish a major project is reached, a three phase process is proposed to activate and complete the work:

Phase 1 Present a proposal to the Development and Learning Committee to justify the project. This would involve presenting information to the Development and Learning Committee outlining the need for the project, expected demand for say, a training program, plus other relevant information. This proposal could be developed by the relevant Divisional/line manager, or a member of the Training Systems team, or both. Phase 2 Once approval to proceed is granted by the Development and Learning Committee, a project work team would be established with a representative from the Training Systems team and other representatives from the relevant division. This team could then take responsibility for the development of a detailed project proposal. Phase 3 The project report is presented to the Development and Learning Committee.

Recommendation 7 That the staff performance appraisal be strengthened to better inform the TFS of its strategic training needs. This should be achieved by establishing the strategic links between performance appraisal outcomes and training need, so that appropriate professional development responses can be initiated.

8

Recommendation 8 That the existing position of District Officer (Logistics) be reclassified as District Officer (Development and Learning North) and that the position of Station Officer (Development and Learning North) be created as part of the Launceston Brigade structure, and that the incumbents be responsible for the coordination of all brigade based training in the North of the State. The incumbents will be expected to liaise closely with their equivalents in the other two brigades to maintain consistency in the delivery of the training service. These positions are similar to those that currently exist in the South and are therefore training positions with limited operational duties. Recommendation 9 That the existing position of District Officer (Burnie and Devonport Brigades) be responsible for the coordination of all brigade based training in the North West of the State, and that the position of Station Officer (Development and Learning North West) be created as part of the Burnie and Devonport Brigades. The incumbents will be expected to liaise closely with their equivalents in the other two brigades to maintain consistency in the delivery of the training service. Recommendation 10 That the existing DO Development and Learning and the Station Officer Development and Learning positions in Hobart Brigade be retained and retitled DO Development and Learning (South) and the SO Development and Learning (South), and that the incumbents work in partnership with their colleagues in the North and North West Brigades to provide an internally consistent training service across the State. These two positions should be restricted to the provision of training services in the South. Recommendation 11 That the positions identified in Recommendations 8, 9 and 10 be considered primarily as training positions with limited operational responsibilities (similar to the current Development and Learning positions in the Southern Brigade) for the next three years, or until it is determined that this level of resourcing is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 12 That the positions descriptions identified in Recommendations 8, 9 and 10 for the DO Development and Learning include at least the following duties:

• Strategic coordination of learning and training for career staff associated with the brigade at both a firefighter level and a middle management /promotion level,

• Liaison with other senior training managers within the TFS who are responsible for the implementation of the new Public Safety Training

9

Package, so that a coordinated, state-wide, strategic response be developed and delivered.

Recommendation 13 That all of the career brigade development and learning officers be provided with the opportunity to develop their instructional design skills and knowledge of Training Packages in general, and the Public Safety Training Package in particular. This would require that an appropriate professional development strategy be developed to enable these staff, some of whom may be very new to this work, to develop the necessary skills to work within a team situation in the development of teaching, assessment and learning resources. Recommendation 14 That the Development and Learning positions within the three brigades be permanent appointments and that it be made clear to the successful applicants that they would be expected to remain in these positions for at least three years. Recommendation 15 That the District Officers and Station Officers (Development and Learning) have line management responsibilities to their respective Brigade Chiefs, but functional responsibilities to the new Manager, Training Systems (refer to Figure 3). Recommendation 16 That the position of District Officer (Training Services) currently based at Cambridge be amended to District Officer (Volunteer Training South). The responsibilities would be restricted to only volunteer-related training and cover the southern based brigades. Recommendation 17 That the new position of District Officer (Volunteer Training North) be created as part of Volunteer Training Services North, and that the appointee be responsible for the coordination of all volunteer based training in the North and North West of the State, based at Youngtown. The successful appointee will be expected to liaise closely with the District Officer (Volunteer Training South) and the brigade chiefs and regional officers in the North and North West. Recommendation 18 That the two District Officers (Volunteer Training) have line management responsibilities to the Deputy Chief, but functional responsibilities to the new Manager, Training Systems (see Figure 3).

10

Recommendation 19 That the two District Officers (Volunteer Training) positions be permanent appointments and that it be made clear to the successful applicants that they would be expected to remain in these positions for at least three years. Recommendation 20 That all training officers responsible for both volunteer and career brigade training be encouraged and supported in their professional development to the extent that they be allowed to undertake specialised training in learning resource development/curriculum development/instructional design, such as the Diploma in Training and Assessment Systems (BSZ50198), or the Batchelor of Vocational Education (BAVE), or customised professional development.

11

2. Background This project report constitutes a strategic review of the way the Tasmania Fire Service (TFS) currently manages the development and training of its staff. Recommendations for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the current arrangements have been presented for consideration. The terms of reference is Attachment 1. It focuses on the scope of the project, some of the issues to be considered and the suggested consultations to be undertaken. The purpose of the review was to make recommendations on the efficiency and effectiveness of Tasmania Fire Service training arrangements. The TFS executive was concerned that the current arrangements did not provide an integrated approach to achieving strategic training and development objectives. The TFS has a Training Services unit of approximately 10 people which services the training needs of both the career and volunteer brigades. Other areas in the TFS such as Corporate Services, Community Fire Safety and Human Services are responsible for co-ordinating their own training and development requirements. The Human Services Division provides strategic human resources advice and systems to the organisation including organisational development, but only co-ordinates and provides training in relation to new HR systems and procedures that are being developed such as occupational health and safety, harassment and discrimination. While some elements within the TFS were perceived to be well resourced for training, other suffered with little training infrastructure to meet their needs. The review was intended to address these anomalies and make recommendations for an improved training management structure.

12

3. Methodology The methodology for this project was approved prior to starting the project by a steering committee (see Acknowledgements). It involved benchmarking the HRD management structure within the TFS against other organisations with similar needs, to be followed by a key stakeholder interviews and a review of strategic documents that informed the HDR functions within the TFS. This was to be later followed by further consultation to fill in the gaps. These consultations took place with several individuals as well as three forums conducted with members of the steering committee. An analytical framework adapted from Cunningham (1994) assisted with the data analysis and recommendations. 3.1 Benchmarking The benchmarking took place with four organisations:

• Country Fire Authority of Victoria • Aurora Energy • Hobart City Council • Tasmania Police

The purpose of the benchmarking was to compare the TFS training management structure against other organisations, including the Country Fire Authority in Victoria, Tasmania Department of Police and Public Safety, Aurora Energy, and Hobart City Council. These organisations were selected for the following reasons:

1. They each employed a core of highly specialised staff who had specific training needs as well as generalist staff, similar to that which exists in the TFS,

2. Their size was roughly comparable to that of the TFS, 3. Their HR and HRD Managers were available and willing to discuss their HRD

structure and provide data, when requested. It was hoped that the benchmarking would identify any common threads or issues which could inform an improved training management structure for the TFS. Face to face interviews were conducted with Mr Mike Whittle, Manager HRD Aurora Energy, Mr Peter Rodwell, HR Manager, Hobart City Council and Commander Syd McClymont, Human Resources, Police Academy. A telephone interview was also held with Mr Graham Fountain, Executive Manager, HR Development and Planning, Country Fire Authority, Victoria. Each interview lasted approximately 60-90 minutes and ranged over issues associated with their strategic training management system. Attachment 3 summarises the outcomes of the four interviews. 3.2 Key Stakeholder Interviews Interviews were conducted with 52 people, all of whom were deemed by the steering committee to be able to provide useful information about the training system within the TFS. Some people were those who had experienced the training system, while

13

others were trainers, training coordinators or people who influenced the way the training was organised and managed.

• John Gledhill, Chief Officer • Peter Alexander, Deputy Chief Officer • Mike Gallagher, Director Corporate Services, John Thomson, Manager

Administration • Robyn Pearce, Director Human Services • Roland Hill, Regional Officer South, Tony Davidson, Deputy Regional

Officer South • Graham Otley, Regional Officer North, Mike Brown, Deputy Regional Officer

North, David Peck, District Officer Logistics, John Hazzlewood, District Officer Operations North, Mark Dobson, Field Officer, Kevin Robinson, Field Officer, Rodney Read, District Officer South Esk, Rodney Springer, Field Officer, Andrew Comer, District Officer Tamar

• John Streets, Regional Officer North West • Damien Killalea, Director Community Fire Safety • Steve Barber, District Officer Development & Learning • Chris Arnol, A/District Officer Operations Hobart Fire Brigade • Paul Salter, A/District Officer Training Services • Danny Reid, Senior Training Officer, Rob Ratcliffe, Training Officer, Dave

McGuinness, Training Officer • Gerard McCarthy, Training Officer, Jodi Armstrong, Training Officer • Andrew Newell, Human Services Co-ordinator, Gerald Kutzner, Executive

Officer Volunteer Support • Richard Warwick, Secretary, United Firefighters Union • Leon Smith, Manager Engineering Services • Don Mackrill, President Tasmanian Volunteer Fire Brigades Association,

Andrew Taylor, President, Tasmanian Retained Fire Fighters Association • Brett Fazackerly, Training Officer North • Justin Young, Executive Officer Finance • Linda Lacy, Office Supervisor, South, Kelly Taylor, Team Leader Southern

Region, Rod Woodward, Team Leader, Information and Records • Joanne Spencer, Office Supervisor, Cambridge, Debbie White, Clerk Training

Services Cambridge • Jeremy Smith, Station Officer, Development and Learning • Errol Gleeson, Volunteer Group Officer Western Tiers • Lyndy Smith, Volunteer Rosebery Brigade • Don Jones, Volunteer, Brigade Chief Fern Tree • Andrew Johns, Volunteer Ist Officer, Mt Nelson Brigade, VTI • Peter van de Kamp, Supervisor, Firecomm Division, David Macfarlane,

Leading Communications Officer Firecomm • Lindsay Suhr, Volunteer Group Officer Wellington • Leon Berechree, Volunteer Group Officer Circular Head • Carol Davey, Office Supervisor, Launceston Brigade

14

Most interviews were conducted face to face and lasted from 30 to 90 minutes. However, several interviews were conducted by telephone as the respondents were located some distance from Hobart and were unable to meet with the author during visits to the North West and North of the State. The data collected from these interviews were collated using the following framework:

• Data relating to volunteer brigade training, • Data relating to career brigade training, • Data relating to non-uniform staff and/or non-brigade training.

Within each of these three categories the data were sorted into four sub-categories:

1. Strengths of the current training system 2. Weaknesses of the current training system 3. Other significant issues 4. Areas for improvement

Attachment 3 presents the raw data collected from the stakeholder interviews. 3.3 Document Analysis The following documents were provided to the author for consideration:

• State Fire Commission Corporate Plan 2001-2002 • State Fire Commission Corporate Plan 2002-2003 • Position Descriptions for:

o Director, Human Services o District Officer (Training Services) o District Officer (Brigade Operations) o Station Officer (Career Training) o Station Officer (Training) o Training Officer

• VTAC Terms of Reference • CTAC Terms of Reference • Training Services Organisational Chart • TFS Training and Education Expenditure Report 2002 and 2003 • United Fire Fighters Union of Tasmania, Annual Report 2002 • Killalea, Damien 2003, Training Issues in Community Fire Safety • Sing, Margaret, 2002, Community Fire Safety Qualifications, RTOs and

Resources. Internal Report to the TFS. • Position Description: Executive Manager, Learning and Development Country

Fire Authority • Position Description: Education Officer, Police Academy

15

3.4 Steering Committee Workshops Although not envisaged as part of the original proposed methodology, it became apparent after the first steering group meeting to address the interim report that further consultation needed to take place with the members of the steering group. It was decided by the steering group to meet again to discuss various aspects of the project, especially those that related to the draft recommendation in the interim report. Two additional meetings of the steering committee and the author took place to debate the strategic training management structure that was being proposed. The data that emerged from these meetings is also reflected in many of the recommendations and comments made in this report.

16

4 Analysis of Findings 4.1 An Analytical Framework to Inform the Data Analysis and Recommendations Learning occurs at all times in a person’s working life – the issue is how to harness that learning and direct it in such a way that it becomes mutually beneficial to both the learner and his/her employer. One way to direct the learning is to structure it via specific learning experiences to which the individual is exposed. Thus training courses have as their primary objective, the desire for the individual to learn. Training and coursework tend to be driven by content e.g. the need to learn how a bush fire behaves under certain weather conditions. For the TFS then, the issue is how can it harness the learning that its staff acquire every day of the week via training courses, experiences when called out to incidents, experiences when dealing with problems in the office, etc, in order to add order and structure to the process and possible, to be able to map the outcomes? Field and Ford (1995, 110) identified skills that an individual needs to acquire in order to support organisational learning. The TFS long ago acknowledged that having a strong skill base was a crucial part of meeting its responsibilities to the government and the community. The introduction of Training Packages into Australian industry in 1995 is an example of an economic imperative (national skill base) imposing itself on the industrial climate. The Public Safety Training Package has now emerged as a framework for learning and training for fire fighters. Similarly, other Training Packages such as Business Services, support the skill needs of administrative staff. Training Packages thus provide a systemic framework in which an individual’s competencies can be recognised. However, competencies are not merely narrow mechanistic skills that can be learnt and demonstrated. Field and Ford (1995) outlined a more holistic framework for skills development, identifying four sub parts to a skill:

• Task management skills • Work environment skills • Workplace learning skills, and • Communication skills

These under-the-surface skills, that make up each competency in a Training Package, have now been adopted in part by the new national training system and are now referred to as the ‘dimensions’ of competency. Under the Australian Quality Training Framework, holistic, workplace learning and training is considered the most desirable way for an individual to meet a qualification outcome. For organisational learning to be established, line managers need to appreciate the importance of developing employee’s holistic competencies. Doing so helps to establish a solid foundation for sustained change and enables the line manager to co-ordinated the work flow between the staff under his/her control. Here, the development of the individual includes, as well as technical skills enhancement,

17

competencies such as OH&S, leadership, team building/management, communications, etc. Cunningham (1994, 13) identified a framework for organisational approaches to management learning, development and training, against which an organisation can compare itself. This framework has much potential in assisting in the analysis of the data collected in this review, as the fourth element of Cunningham’s framework, the strategic approach, represents that type of training and learning system that would benefit the TFS. It should be noted that the four approaches described below are not exclusive i.e. the same organisation can display some or all of the four approaches to training and development at any given time, and that this author has embellished the descriptors below to focus the framework for this review. The key issue for this project is that the Cunningham’s framework can be used as an effective tool in the analysis of the data, and the orientation of the recommendations. Cunningham’s four approaches are described below.

1. Apathetic and antagonistic approaches to training and development occur in organisations which are characterised by apathy and antagonism towards resourcing training and development programs. Funding is considered a cost to the bottom line, rather than an investment in the organisation’s future. Managers fail to appreciate the benefits that training offers in terms of duty of care to the employee, higher productivity and overall increases in workplace efficiencies. Organisations that adopt this approach are usually short sighted and often have no effective forward planning in place. As a result, such organisations often display reactive tendencies towards training and development. When the business is short of money the training budget is always the first to be cut, as training is perceived as an expense that can be trimmed. This type of organisation often justifies not investing in staff training and development on the grounds that once individuals gets the skills they need, they will leave for a better job, or demand a promotion/pay rise. Training and development, in this type of organisation, is not perceived as a means of increasing efficiency and productivity.

2. Reactive approaches involve organisations who provided support for learning

but only in response to some issue or problem. For example, if the employee pushes hard enough for funding to undertake a course, he/she may get the opportunity to undertake the training. While reactive organisation can sometimes be apathetic towards training and learning, at other times they can be supportive and responsive to an individual’s needs. However, there is usually no strategic direction to the training and little evidence of attempts to evaluate the outcomes in terms of their impact in the workplace. Learning is often hit and miss and little systematic planning takes place. This type of approach can sometimes lead to inequitable training/learning arrangements as well. For example, if some employees are considered to be more important than others, then they may attract a larger share of the training budget. In other circumstances, the person who makes the most noise about training and development is the one who usually enjoys the most benefit. Other staff who are happy to just do their job without complaining continue to miss out on

18

training opportunities, because their employer only responds to those who have the loudest grievances-a reactive approach.

3. Bureaucratic approaches involve organisations (usually large) which tend to

have training budgets and conduct internal training for some staff and often sent others out to undertake external courses. Most overt learning is facilitated through structured training in this type of organisation. Training is often head office-driven, or coordinated by a central and powerful training unit which ‘manages’ the training across the organisation. Line managers under this model, are often disenfranchised, because they lose control of the training and learning needs of their staff - it is being driven from the top down. There is no democracy within the organisation’s training agenda. Other managers are happy to pass all of the training worries to the training department so they don’t have to take responsibility for it, and so that they can blame someone else if an employee fails to perform in their job. This approach to training and development sometimes sees large, expensive training bureaucracies develop within an organisation under the arrogant pretext that they are the only people in the organisation that know anything about training and development needs.

4. Strategic approaches to training and development are characterised by

board/executive level commitment to learning and development of all staff, not just those perceived to be most important. In larger organisations there is often an active personnel/HRD/management development group which has direct access to the chief executive. The people in the HRD unit are energetic, able and committed people who genuinely care for their fellow staff members. They are respected by the line managers who often call upon their expertise to assist in training and development issues that were identified by the line manager. In effect, these HRD staff are internal consultants who only exist because other senior managers respected their expertise and wish to use their services. The staff in this type of HRD unit often have to earn that respect in order to provide the services for which they are employed. They have good networks and have a wide knowledge of training and development issues.

In taking a strategic approach to learning, the organisations would look for a direct linkage between business needs and learning activity (Cunningham, 1994, 15). The emphasis is on learning within the staff and how best to achieve an organisational culture that values learning and achievement. Training is seen as a means to this end, along with a plethora of other approaches (coaching, mentoring, workplace projects, etc). The strategic approach acknowledges all of the many ways an individual could learning and values them all as options to be considered within the context of the organisation’s culture and needs. A key element of the strategic approach is the need for line management consultation. Line managers are expected to take responsibility for their staff’s learning needs so they must understand the importance of proactive planning (training needs analysis, risk assessment, etc) in determining the shape of the training and development response. The HRD team is expected to assist the line manager in this process, providing the necessary expertise to

19

guide, and if requested, to manage, this process. Once the learning program is completed, the line manager in consultation with the HRD team, evaluate the outcomes.

In my analysis of the TFS training management system, the details of which comes later in this report, I have attempted to move the TFS towards a more strategic model of training and development, via the recommendations. My analysis has uncovered elements of all four of Cunningham’s organisational approaches to the management of learning, development and training described above. The findings have revealed examples where apathy about learning and training exist, where training is always reactive in response to some issue or crisis, where the bureaucratic approach has driven training from the top down on occasions. In contrast I have found numerous examples where committed and skilled training staff have organised programs to meet the needs of local managers and their staff in a strategic way, and the learning outcomes were achieved were significant. In effect, the findings have revealed that the TFS, like most organisations, contains elements of all four approaches in the way it manages its training system. The findings and recommendations that follow are an attempt to highlight some of the deficiencies that were discovered, but more importantly to consolidate and restructure the training management system within the TFS so that it can move more towards a strategic approach. To achieve this outcome, four core principles have underpinned the recommendations:

1. The training management system needs to be democratic – all of the principal stakeholders need to be able to influence the key training/learning decisions. There needs to be good communications within the organisation to facilitate effective change.

2. Line managers know what is best for their staff, so it is natural that they should also know what they need to learn in order to do their jobs well. Thus the line manager should always play a pivotal role in taking responsibility for training and development outcomes.

3. Although line managers may know what knowledge and skills their staff need, they often don’t know the best way to impart those skills and knowledge. Thus, there is a role for internal HRD specialists who can advise on how to identify learning need, structure programs to match those needs and evaluate the outcomes.

4. All training and development needs to be accountable and focussed. Thus the training and development strategies need to complement and reinforce the organisational goals, as expressed in the Corporate Plan. Only then, can the training/learning be truly strategic.

4.2 Benchmarking Aurora Energy 840 FTE staff spread across the State CFA Victoria 1200 FTE staff, and 28,000 active volunteers. Hobart City Council 720 FTE staff Tasmania Police 1450 FTE staff

20

The key finding emanating from the benchmarking was the significant importance each organisation placed on the strategic nature of training. Training was seen as a way of improving skills development and supporting the strategic initiatives of the organisation. Training thus formed part of the organisational planning process and needed to be proactive rather than reactive. Although each organisation examined as part of the benchmarking had different structures and needs, there was surprising commonality:

1. All organisations had a dedicated training/HRD manager who reported to a

HR manager or senior officer. 2. The training/HRD manager was seen as a specialist HRD manager with strong

skills in training, policy development and management. 3. The training manager, was indirectly controlled be a strategic management

group which provided advice and direction for the organisation’s training planning processes.

4. The strategic management group varied in size within each organisation, but generally represented stakeholder and interest groups who had both a commitment and need for training/professional development. In the case of the CFA in Victoria, their Board of Studies was made up of the Divisional Directors, whereas Aurora Energy’s Strategic HRD Group used the Managers for IR, HRD, Safety and Remuneration/Benefits. Hobart City Council appointed their six divisional heads as the representatives on their HRD Committee. Tasmania Police had a HR strategic planning group made up of senior managers.

Other interest groups also sat on these committees such as union representatives (e.g. CFA Victoria).

5. The purpose of these strategic HRD management groups was to inform and monitor how training and development was managed and resourced across the whole of the organisation. In each case training was linked to the business needs of the organisation, not the personal needs of individuals.

6. In some cases technical skills training was managed by a local in house training school (CFA at Ballarat, Aurora Energy at Mornington) where specialised training was conducted. In some cases, the training school manager was managed by a divisional head (Aurora Energy) whereas in other cases the school formed part of the delivery arm of the HRD group (CFA, Victoria).

7. Each of the organisations’ strategic HRD Committees were responsible for the development of a strategic plan which outlined the training initiatives to be undertaken on an annual basis. In some cases performance appraisals (CFA Vic, Tasmania Police, Aurora Energy) were the basis for the training planning process.

8. Annual training budgets provided a focus for the panning process and the resources to deliver the outcomes required.

21

4.2.1 What can be Learnt from the Benchmarking Process?

1. A centralised training unit does not need to be large to be effective, but it does need to have a capable manager who can work across the whole organisation.

2. Narrow, technical skills training is best managed by the respective divisions/units to which they relate, thus creating ownership and responsibility.

3. The training manager needs to be broadly skilled, especially in learning, training and people management. The model most favoured by the organisations examined saw the training manager being supported by senior technical experts with specialised expertise. The people were expected to work as part of a training team with each member contributing in his/her own specialised way.

4. Local trainers and training managers can be managed both directly and functionally by different people, provided that the organisation establishes the process correctly. Thus a regional manager can directly manage a local training manager and the local trainers, while they can show functional responsibility to a training manager with whole of organisation training authority. The key is to have an effective communication process to allow all of the stakeholders to express their views.

5. For the training across the organisation to be strategic, it first needs to be proactive. This means that the planning process, and the infrastructure to support it, must enable the training needs of the workforce to be efficiently identified based on organisational needs. Most organisations examined used their performance appraisal and risk management strategies to identify training needs and then link these data into a strategic training plan. To achieve this type of outcome, training needs to be centrally coordinated without undermining local line management arrangements.

4.3 Key Stakeholder Interviews and Document Analysis The outcomes from the key stakeholder consultations has been summarised in Attachment 3 under the following headings:

• strengths of the current system, • weaknesses of the current system, • other significant issues, • suggested improvements,

and cross referenced to the group about which the data related. When participants were asked to comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the current training system, most respondents were greatly influenced by their own personal experience with the TFS training in relation to their specific work area (e.g. within a brigade or non-operational work area). This sometimes resulted in one person’s strength being another’s weakness. This apparent conflicting data is not

22

uncommon with this type of review and has been accommodated in the way the author has analysed and interpreted the information. In addition, much of the data recorded in Attachment 3 does not directly relate to this Review’s terms of reference. Many people wanted to comment on their personal training/learning experiences rather than on the training structure/system within the TFS. These data were recorded but have not necessarily been analysed as part of the findings.

4.3.1. Non-Brigade and /or Non-Uniform Training System

This group of stakeholders represented Corporate Services, Human Services, Community Fire Safety, Engineering Services and Firecomm. A significant comment that one respondent made was:

“…we have a strong commitment and recognition of training’s value to the individual and the organisation within the TFS”.

Another comment was: “…there is a feeling in the TFS that if you are not in operations, it is impossible to achieve extra skills on-the-job.”

These two comments seem to sum up the training system within these Divisions- a strong commitment to training but no real structure or system to make it happen in an effective way. As there were no training support people servicing the needs of this group, these staff have had to fend for themselves. This has resulted in a certain level of independence, ownership, frustration and envy of the brigades’ training resources. Community Fire Safety has initiated several projects in recent years using the expertise of outside consultants in order to develop its training system. This had resulted in resourcefulness and stakeholder ownership, but much frustration because management time has been devoted to coordinating these projects when this time could have been spent on other work. These projects have involved systemic training needs analysis and training system design work, leading to accredited qualifications and delivery models with appropriate quality assurance. In effect, Community Fire Safety has been proceeding to develop its own Training Package. Firecomm has gone down a similar path in the past 12 months, as the Public Safety Training Package did not have the qualification and full range of Units to accommodate its needs. There are now approximately 80 endorsed Training Packages of which several have qualifications that overlap into the work being undertaken by Corporate Services staff. Examples include Finance and Business Services, among others. Most of the staff interviewed indicated that they were aware of these

23

programs, as many had completed some qualifications, or were undertaking the program with an outside RTO. The biggest frustration being experienced by these groups was that they didn’t know what they didn’t know in relation to their training needs and responses, as no real needs analysis had been done.

“Agency is committed to PD for its staff-all you have to do is ask. The down side is that staff don’t know what is available to suit their needs.” Corporate Services staff member “We are unfamiliar with the Commonwealth and State grants that are available under the national traineeship system, so because of this, we don’t access the funds and hence don’t get the training.” Corporate Services staff member

This meant that because they were not fully familiar with the new National Training Framework (NTF) and the Australian Quality Training Framework (AQTF) that underpins it from an RTO viewpoint, they have been unable to articulate their needs concisely and suggest appropriate training strategies to meet those needs. Under a new system called User Choice, a feature of the NTF, users of the national training system, such as the TFS, can choose such things as an RTO, training on- or off-the-job, the level of flexibility of the training, and so on. This means that the organisations who wish to use the training system are far more empowered to negotiate with RTOs on the nature of the servicing that they require. The TFS, to a large degree, has so far not taken full advantage of this User Choice arrangement because there has been no central training unit who could negotiate with RTOs on behalf of the whole organisation. In effect, because there has been no TFS ‘training manager’ familiar with the NTF and the AQTF, to which they could seek advice and assistance, individuals within the TFS have tended to fumble their way through a complex and confusing plethora of training issues, or buy in the advice from outside consultants. The net result has been a wide variety of internal and external training arrangements, none of which have been strategically linked into a whole of business training plan. Some of the many suggested improvements that were indicated by those interviewed included:

• “Structure Training Services better-Put in a training manager with general management and education skills, supported by specialised curriculum developers.”

• “Need a permanent officer in Training Services to deal with the Training Package agenda.”

• “Appoint a Director Training with a DO North and South responsible to the Chief or Deputy Chief.”

24

• “Probably need a training specialist in charge of training and development, responsible to the Director HR.”

• “Training Services should be able to manage the outsourcing of training in any Training Package for any employee, provided it was resourced accordingly. Training Services needs to expand its horizons so that it can be a broker, facilitator, organiser and deliverer of training services, and thus allow other units to focus on service delivery.”

• “Need a training manager with good customer focus.” • “Training Services needs to take a proactive leadership role in

training and development.” • “Both DO training positions need to answer to a single training

manager.” • “Appoint people with expertise in curriculum development to help

develop the mountain of learning resources required to support the new Training Package.”

• “Training must be made to be more strategic, using a centralised unit.”

• “Need a better training infrastructure where everyone doesn’t pull in different directions.”

• “Corporate Services needs access to someone who can help with Training Package advice, that can be related back to the staff’s needs.”

• “Link personal development plans to Training Package qualifications for Corporate Services staff.”

• “Want continuity of a training management system across the whole agency.”

• “Need people with expertise to develop materials relevant to Firecomm’s needs.”

• “We need people with generic curriculum development skills to work with the best specialists to develop our course materials.

• Training support needs to be a separate division separated from the operational side.”

• “Need more training specialists to work in Training Services, not just firefighters who are mainly interested in promotion.”

It was interesting to note that many of the respondents to the interviews felt that Training Services, being the only training unit with an identity recognised by those outside the brigades, should be the vehicle to facilitate their own training needs. Most people interviewed acknowledged that Training Services had not been established nor resourced to provide this service, but nevertheless, because it had an infrastructure, training facilities and staff, it was the obvious choice. Many recurring themes emanated from the data, most of which reflected on the uncoordinated manner in which training was managed across the agency:

• much of the training tends to be reactive rather than proactive,

25

• non-operational training tends to be ad hoc and non-strategic, • the various training units across the organisation tend to work in

isolation, with little strategic resourcing, • no training plan has been produced that links with, and complements

the corporate plan. • operational training is always being weakened by its inability to

maintain staff. The TFS needs a core of permanent staff with specialised skills, as well as firefighters who can rotate in and out.

• there is no strategic policy framework that governs HRD. This information overwhelming supported:

1. the appointment of a training manager who has strong training credentials and wide management experience within a training environment, and

2. the appointment of addition training staff with skills in curriculum development, instructional design, program evaluation, etc, to assist staff with special project work, help with the transition to the Public Safety Training Package and provide general training support services.

4.3.2 Comment on the TFS Training System Because the training agenda within the TFS has been addressed by each individual group with a training need (e.g. brigades), they have tended to work in isolation while other Divisions such as Firecomm and Community Fire Safety have purchased the services of consultants. Corporate Services, has established relationships with RTOs and negotiated training services for its staff, although there appears to be no strategic training plan guiding the decision making. What seems to be missing is a common training link between all of the agency’s Divisions:

1. A person to manage and coordinate the whole of agency training, and 2. A strategic learning and development management committee through

which training decisions would be made to service the Corporate Plan. The benchmarking data also strongly supported this conclusion. This was earlier summarised by item 5 on page 21.

For the training across the organisation to be strategic, it first needs to be proactive. This means that the planning process, and the infrastructure to support it, must enable the training needs of the workforce to be efficiently identified based on organisational needs. Most organisations examined used their performance appraisal and risk management strategies to identify training needs and then link these data into a strategic training plan. To achieve this type of outcome, training needs to be centrally coordinated without undermining local line management arrangements.

In essence this conclusion suggests that the TFS needs to establish a strategic management group responsible for learning and development of all staff and

26

appoint a Training Systems Manager supported by two training coordinators who can provide curriculum development and general training support to both the operational and non-operational divisions. Recommendation 1 That a Manager, Training Systems be appointed to oversee the strategic development of TFS training policy and systems. This manager should report directly to the Director, Human Services, but have functional responsibilities to the Deputy Chief. An appropriate position description should be developed and should indicate that the manager has at least the following skills, knowledge, experience and qualifications:

• Extensive knowledge and experience in the development and management of training systems,

• Familiarity with adult learning theory and practices, especially in relation to the professional development of staff within a government agency,

• Extensive knowledge of the vocational education and training system, especially Training Packages, User Choice arrangements the AQTF, and how they can benefit the TFS,

• Ability to consult effectively with senior members of the TFS (senior executive group, brigade chiefs, divisional heads, and others) in order to develop and maintain a TFS training plan,

• Extensive management experience, preferably within a modern HRD environment,

• Be capable of adopting modern HRD practices to the TFS in order to develop an integrated HRD strategy,

• Be capable of working cooperatively with training staff responsible for operational training, both career and volunteer,

• Be capable of providing guidance assistance and leadership to groups undertaking training activities, such as training needs analysis, curriculum development, learning resource development assessment and program evaluation,

• Hold appropriate Tertiary qualifications in HRD, or vocational education and training.

The Manager, Training Systems’ role would be to manage a Training Systems team who would provide internal consulting services to all Divisions within the TFS and coordinate the training and development system within each of the divisions in partnership with the respective divisional senior manager. Recommendation 2 That two training coordinators be appointed over the next twelve months, as demand dictates, whose role will be to provide support to the Manager, Training Systems. These staff should be appointed to provide specialised expertise in the following:

• training needs analysis,

27

• curriculum development, • assessment, • instructional design, • learning resource development, • Training Packages, NTF, AQTF and User Choice.

It is recommended that one of these staff provide this specialised expertise to the brigades, especially to support the transition to the Public Safety Training Package, while the other person services the needs of other non-operational Divisions (Community Fire Safety, Firecomm, Corporate Services, etc) who do not currently have access to dedicated training support people. Recommendation 3 That a Development and Learning Committee, chaired by the Deputy Chief, be created to oversee the development and maintenance of a whole of agency training plan. This training plan would be a strategic response to the training needs across the whole agency and be developed in consultation with the Senior Executive Group to support the implementation of the Corporate Plan. The membership of the Development and Learning Management Committee would consist of representatives of the main stakeholders within the TFS:

1. Deputy Chief Officer (Chair) 2. Director, Human Services 3. Manager, Training Systems (Executive Officer to the Committee) 4. VTAC Nominee 5. CTAC Nominee 6. Director Community Fire Safety 7. Director Corporate Services 8. RO North 9. RO North West 10. RO South 11. DO Volunteer Brigades representative 12. DO Career Brigades representative 13. Firecomm Division representative

The Development and Learning Committee would meet quarterly, or as often as need requires, and will provide a forum in which training and development project proposals and policy development could be debated and ultimately approved for implementation. It is recommended that appropriate terms of reference and operating procedures for this committee be developed as soon as possible. Figure 1 outlines a proposed training management structure for the TFS in line with the recommendations made in this report. The proposal does not seek to undermine or dismantle any existing training arrangements within the career and volunteer brigades. The operational staff need to take ownership and

28

control of their own learning and training needs and this proposal supports that concept. However in order to avoid duplication of effort and maximise the training resources that are available, the proposal seeks the appointment of a Manager, Training Systems, who as the title suggests, would take management responsibility for the TFS training system, but not the nuts and bolts, day-day delivery of local training which is best managed by the Brigade Chiefs, Regional Officers, Divisional Directors and local line managers. Supporting this manager would be two training coordinators who would provide generic HRD skills and form the basis of a Training Systems team within the Human Services Division. The Manager, Training Systems, would act as executive officer to the Development and Learning Committee which initially, would meet quarterly, but should determine the frequency of its meetings as experience dictates. The purpose of proposing the establishment of this group is primarily to provide a strategic, consultative forum of senior TFS staff and other nominees, so that concerns and issues regarding learning and development can be aired, debated and ultimately actioned. Decisions made by this group will ultimately guide the office of the Manager, Training Systems in the development and maintenance of the agency’s training plan in support of the Corporate Plan. As was illustrated by the benchmarking results, centralised training units like the one being proposed here do not necessarily need to control the local training agenda within the organisation’s divisions or branches. Models where large training units are established usually result in a lack of support from the rest of the organisation, as the training power base moves from those who need the training to those who supply it. Like the User Choice arrangements within the National Training Framework, we need to move from a supply driven model of training to a user driven model. This is why local control within the TFS of all training and development should remain with the appropriate division, and be discussed via the Development and Learning Committee. The role that the Training Systems Manager would play under this proposal is somewhat problematic at the moment, however it is appropriate to suggest a possible working arrangement between the Training Systems staff and the other Divisions within the TFS. The four key principles that underpinned the analytical framework need to be reflected here in the way the Training Systems staff service the needs of other Divisions within the TFS: 1. The training management system needs to be democratic. 2. Line managers know what is best for their staff in terms of learning need. 3. There is a role for internal HRD specialists who can advise on how to

identify learning need, structure programs to match those needs and evaluate the outcomes.

4. All training and development needs to be accountable and focussed. The Training System team needs to work in a cooperative and democratic way. Whilst Figures 1 and 3 articulate the line and functional responsibilities

29

between the Manager, Training Systems and the brigades, the relationship with the divisional heads of Community Fire Safety, Firecomm, Human Services and Corporate Services needs some clarification. It is proposed that the staff within the Training Systems team act as in an advisory and consultative way to these other divisions. It is not proposed that these Training Division heads merely hand over responsibility for their internal training to this team. As indicated in the analytical framework, line managers know what is best for their staff, so it is natural that they should also know what they need to learn in order to do their jobs well. Thus the line manager should always play a pivotal role in taking responsibility for training and development outcomes. Ownership for the learning outcome needs to be shared equally between, the learner, the learner’s manager and the trainer/training systems coordinator. There are several ways that the staff in the Training Systems team and a non-operational Divisional can work to achieve effective training and development outcomes. One approach could see a small staff development group established within a Division, (say Community Fire Safety or Corporate Services). This group would consist of a person from the Training Systems team and some staff from the Division. They would meet on a regular basis to identify training and development needs within the Division and agree on establishing training and development projects to be approved by the Development and Learning Committee. Following approval to proceed, work could be allocated to specific people and the role that the Training Systems team person plays would depend upon his/her expertise, workload, and the nature of the project. Another model that could be adopted would see the divisional head approach the Manager, Training Systems for support to implement a specific training and development program/project. The arrangements would be discussed and the role that the Training Systems team member plays would be agreed upon. A proposal would be developed for approval by the Development and Learning Committee, following which a project team could then be established. Depending upon work load commitments, it is envisaged the Manager, Training Systems would take a hands on role in some training and development projects. For example, much of the non-operational training could be outsourced to other RTOs whose scope includes the relevant qualifications. Because of the complexities associated with the Australian Quality Training Framework, it may be appropriate that liaison with these RTOs regarding the management of Commonwealth Incentive payments

Figure 1

Development &Learning Committee Chairman Deputy Chief Officer

Human Services

Training Systems Unit Manager, Training Systems 2 x Training coordinators (curriculum, instructional design, training needs analysis, program evaluation, etc)

VTAC & CTAC& other

stakeholder groups

1 Deputy Chief Officer, Chairman 2 Director, Human Services 3 Manager Learning & Development, Executive Officer to the Committee 4 VTAC Nominee 5 CTAC Nominee 6 Community Fire Safety Director 7 Corporate Services Director 8 Northern Region RO 9 North West Region RO 10 Southern Region RO 11 DO Volunteer Brigades Rep 12 DO Career Brigades Rep 13 Firecomm Rep

Annual Training

Plan

Corporate Plan

Role

TFS Development & Learning Management Structure

Volunteer Training 1 x DO N/NW Volunteer 1 x DO South Volunteer 9 x Trainers Cambridge & Youngtown

Career Brigade Training 1 x DO & 1 x SO Dev & Learning N 1 x DO & 1 x SO Dev & Learning South 1 x DO & 1 x SO Dev & Learning NW Directly managed by Brigade Chiefs

Non Operational Corporate Services Community Fire Safety Firecomm Human Services Others

Line Management Responsibilities Functional Responsibilities

30

31

reside with the Training Systems team. Experience by this author suggests that most line managers do not understand the Commonwealth paperwork associated with traineeships and much revenue could be lost to the agency if it is not managed effectively. I know of examples where tens of thousands of dollars in Commonwealth Incentive payments have been lost to an organisation because its staff did not invoice the Commonwealth by certain dates. Some RTOs also have a habit of assuming that their client’s know nothing about training and development and proceed to tell them what they think they need. If the RTOs are required to liaise with the agency via the Training Systems team, then a standardised approach could be adopted to maintain quality of service. More accountability for learning/training outcomes can also be accomplished if this process is centralised through one office, as evaluation data can be collected and analysed to determine the success or otherwise of the programs. Recommendation 4 That the Training Systems team take responsibility for managing and coordinating, in partnership with the relevant line manager, any outsourcing of training to RTOs outside of the TFS. Irrespective of what working arrangement is established between the Training Systems team and the Divisions to which it provides services, all training and development needs to be accountable and focussed. Thus the training and development strategies need to complement and reinforce the organisational goals, as expressed in the Corporate Plan. A pivotal role to be played by the Training Systems staff is to ensure that all training and development projects lead to strategically important outcomes. This group, more than any other, will be across all aspects of the TFS’ training agenda and hence, will have a big picture view that may not be shared by other people within the agency. It is envisaged that the Training Systems staff and the divisional heads would be the prime catalysts for the development of training-related project proposals for approval by the Development and Learning Committee. Project proposals could range across a variety of subject matter, and could include training needs analysis, assessment projects, workplace mentoring programs, evaluation of existing programs, recording of training data, establishment of systemic programs across the whole agency (e.g. OH&S), policy development and so on. Systemic training that permeates through all Divisions, such as leadership and management development would be approved via a proposal presented to the Development and Learning Committee. The proposal, among other things, would outline why the program is required, who should manage it, how it will be funded, and who is to be involved in its delivery. It is not expected that the Training Systems team staff deliver training within the agency, unless no better options are available.

32

An effective model that this author has used in this type of situation would see a two phase proposal approval mechanism used by the Development and Learning Committee for all new training and development projects. Phase One is to establish need and demand for a training and development initiative. This would normally be a small project report presented to the Development and Learning Committee by the appropriate manager, in consultation with the office of the Manager, Training Systems, outlining the justification for allocating resources to the project. Once approval in principle to proceed is granted by the Development and Learning Committee, a more detailed Phase Two project proposal is developed by a project working party, outlining the project methodology, roles and responsibilities. This model maintains a high level of accountability, ensures resources are spent wisely, encourages transparency via the two proposal phases and allows all of the members on the Development and Learning Committee to have input into the project’s parameters. The Phase Three report would present the outcomes of the project to the Development and Learning Committee. A hybrid of this administrative approach could see Phases One and Two combined to allow an urgent project to get started early, in case the next meeting of the Development and Learning Committee is scheduled for many months into the future. How the administrative arrangement are to work is likely to be dependent upon the wishes of the Development and Learning Committee. Training projects can be coordinated in a number of ways, but the approach most likely to succeed would see a working group established with appropriate expertise. A typical working group would be two to four people of whom one would come from the Training Systems team and the others from the relevant division or interest group. They would work cooperatively in partnership, sharing the work load, but being lead by the training and development expertise of the Training Systems team representative. Other members of the team could contribute technical information, help collect data for a training needs analysis, or assist with the administration of the project. It is this project team, working in partnership, that produces the project outcome as specified in the original project proposal. Thus the Phase Three report can be compared to the Phase Two proposal to provide some degree of accountability for the resources used. Figure 2 below outlines a suggested approvals structure for the orderly development of training and development projects via the Development and Learning Committee

Proposed training and development project discussed between Divisional Manager/Senior Manager and Manager, Training Systems.

Project working party is established to develop the detailed Phase II proposal for approval by the Development and Learning Committee.

Manager, Training Systems nominates a member of the Training Systems team to assist in the development of a Phase I proposal. Proposal is developed and presented to the Development and Learning Committee. Approval in principle is given.

Phase II proposal is approved for implementation by the Development and Learning Committee

Projected is activated, and interim report(s) are presented to the Development and Learning Committee as per their instructions.

Phase III final project report is presented to the Development and Learning Committee by the relevant senior manager.

Figure 2 Project proposal and development procedure for the Development and Learning Committee Using this approach, the job of the Training Systems team member would principally be that of team leader/member to several training and development projects running concurrently across the TFS. Such a person might participate in up to 10-15 projects at any given time, depending upon his/her work load within each project. Recommendation 5 It is recommended that senior managers within the all of the divisions, both operational and non-operational, take principal responsibility for the training and development of their staff and they use the expertise of the Training Systems team to establish training and development projects to strategically service their needs and those of the TFS overall. Although the working arrangements between the senior managers within the divisions and the staff in the Training Systems team is problematic, effective project working groups should be established, where the responsibility to undertake the work load and ownership is negotiated and shared between the staff from the relevant division and Training Systems. It is recommended that the Training Systems staff act as

33

34

internal consultants to the relevant division, providing project-specific guidance and assistance when required. Recommendation 6 It is recommended that new training and development projects should be initiated from within a Division, or by a member of the Training Systems team in consultation with the relevant senior manager within the Division. Once agreement to establish a major project is reached, a three phase process is proposed to activate and complete the work:

Phase 1 Present a proposal to the Development and Learning Committee to justify the project. This would involve presenting information to the Development and Learning Committee outlining the need for the project, expected demand for say a training program, plus other relevant information. This proposal could be developed by the relevant Divisional/line manager, or a member of the Training Systems team, or both. Phase 2 Once approval to proceed is granted by the Development and Learning Committee, a project work team would be established with a representative from the Training Systems team and other representatives from the relevant division. This team could then take responsibility for the development of a detailed project proposal. Phase 3 The project report is presented to the Development and Learning Committee.

It is likely that many learning and training initiatives will emerge from the performance appraisal system currently being implemented within the TFS. In order to make training more strategic across the whole Agency, it is proposed that better use be made of staff performance appraisal strategies linked to individual training plans. The benchmarking data collected as part of this report clearly identified this link as an essential component of effective staff training and I understand (based on personal communication from Robyn Pearce), that such initiatives are under development across a wider spectrum of staff within the TFS. Recommendation 7 That the staff performance appraisal be strengthened to better inform the TFS of its strategic training needs. This should be achieved by establishing the strategic links between performance appraisal outcomes and training need, so that appropriate professional development responses can be initiated.

35

4.3.3. Career Brigade Training System

There was general acceptance from those associated with career brigade training that the on-the-job training model, where brigades take responsibility for their own training, was working reasonably well. The need to develop learning resources to support the introduction of the Public Safety Training Package was seen as the biggest challenge which had not yet been adequately addressed. The training system within the brigades was seen by most people outside the brigades as being well resourced, although there was continued frustration by many about the lack of learning resources to support the introduction of the new Public Safety Training Package. Training up to pay point seven was generally considered by most to be good, but the training services provided to people above pay point seven, or that related to promotion, was acknowledged by many as needing improvement. One senior career brigade officer commented:

“On station training is both good and bad - it is better resourced. Training up to pay point 7 is good, above this it is very ad hoc.” Interview data

CTAC was seen by all those who were familiar with the group as being an effective training advisory committee, as it had both a bottom up and top down representation. One of the most significant concerns relating to the training structure within the career brigades was the level of servicing that was being provided by the Development and Learning Unit. Both the North and the North West Brigades felt that their training needs were often not adequately addressed by the current system, where this unit is housed within the Southern Brigade. Several people commented that the DO Development and Learning was often required for operational or other duties and could not service their training requirements adequately. Although they acknowledged that this position should be within a Brigade, the tyranny of distance prevented adequate and equitable servicing across the whole state from the Hobart base. The North and North West Brigades commented that the DO Development and Learning only visited their regions three to four times per year. “The DO Development and Learning does not service the North West very well. He visits only two to three times per year. The perception is that Steve is DO Hobart only and doesn’t get time to service the North West.” No criticism of the individual was inferred by these comments-rather it is a statement of fact that the job is too big for just two people based in Hobart. The DO Development and Learning acknowledged that he had a significant operational range of duties on top of his training responsibilities (e.g. after

36

hours on call responsibilities), which often took him away from his training role. A comment made by the DO Development and Learning reinforces this point: “…..my job focuses mainly on day to day issues rather than big picture planning.” Several criticisms were also levelled at the short term duration of the DO Development and Learning (and the DO Training Services). Several people felt that the two DOs were just learning to do their job when they move back into operational positions and this has been the history of these appointments. The career brigades place much emphasis on basic skills training for new recruits, skills maintenance for experienced firefighters and higher level training for promotion purposes. This skills development enables the brigade to maintain and improve its standards. Given the importance of this agenda, it is surprising that the DOs in the North and North West, who have training responsibilities, are primarily operational. Several recommendations below address this issue. Other concerns related to the transition to the Public Safety Training Package. Comments were made relating to the ‘apparent’ uncoordinated manner in which learning resources were being developed and delivered “…..training across the TFS is not integrated-too many people working by themselves uncoordinated.” Similar comments were also made in relation to the same agenda from within the volunteer brigade interviewees. The biggest concern comes from training officers both within the brigades and Training Services. There was a serious plea for help from these people, all of whom felt that expert curriculum developers/instructional designers needed to be employed to support the resourcing of the new Public Safety Training Package units. 4.3.4. Comments on the Career Brigade Training Structure Some of the data presented appeared to be contradictory. On the one hand, respondents commented that the brigade-based training was good although there was room for improvement. On the other hand, there was criticism of the way the position of DO Development and Learning operates, especially from respondents in the North and North West. Most respondents agreed that there was more right than wrong with the brigade-based training system, but felt that it could be greatly improved with the appointment of specialist curriculum development people and more dedicated training staff whose job was primarily training rather than operations. Given the new Public Safety Training Package is now here and that it has not been resourced nationally, there is a strong case to recommend the appointment of additional brigade senior training officers in the North/North West and that their role needs to be better defined in terms of their training responsibilities. The DO who is allocated the training responsibilities for the brigade is usually considered to be primarily an operational person who picks up the training job on the side. This model can no longer be sustained within the brigades if the new Public Safety Training Package is to be implemented effectively.

37

Of concern here also was the expectation that senior training officers stayed only two years in the position. Like fire fighting, training is a profession which takes many years to learn. If staff are only expected to stay for two years, the training will always be managed by inexperienced trainers, which must negatively impact on the operational readiness of the brigade. It is acknowledged that a senior officer must be allowed, and encouraged to maintain his/her operational fire fighting skill set, in order to maintain competence and credibility. However, the training strategy that the brigades employ, especially in the non-fire seasons, greatly influences the ability of the brigade overall to respond to incidents in a timely and effective manner. If the brigade only has a part-time training coordinator with little training management experience at a system level, then this response could be undermined. In addition, as has been outlined above, the need for dedicated training coordinators within the brigades who can shepherd through the resource development to support the introduction of the new Public Safety Training Package is imperative. The compromise is to encourage the training officer to stay for at least three years in training, while also having the obligation to attend incidents, especially during the Summer months. In addition, staff that choose to stay longer than three years in training should be accommodated, if appropriate for the brigade and the individual. With this in mind, the following recommendations have been made. Recommendation 8 That the existing position of District Officer (Logistics) be reclassified as District Officer (Development and Learning North) and that the position of Station Officer (Development and Learning North) be created as part of the Launceston Brigade structure, and that the incumbents be responsible for the coordination of all brigade based training in the North of the State. The incumbents will be expected to liaise closely with their equivalents in the other two brigades to maintain consistency in the delivery of the training service. These positions are similar to those that currently exist in the South and are therefore training positions with limited operational duties. Recommendation 9 That the existing position of District Officer (Burnie and Devonport Brigades) be responsible for the coordination of all brigade based training in the North West of the State, and that the position of Station Officer (Development and Learning North West) be created as part of the Burnie and Devonport Brigades. The incumbents will be expected to liaise closely with their equivalents in the other two brigades to maintain consistency in the delivery of the training service.

38

Recommendation 10 That the existing DO Development and Learning and the Station Officer Development and Learning positions in Hobart Brigade be retained and retitled DO Development and Learning (South) and the SO Development and Learning (South), and that the incumbents work in partnership with their colleagues in the North and North West Brigades to provide an internally consistent training service across the State. These two positions should be restricted to the provision of training services in the South. Recommendation 11 That the positions identified in Recommendations 8, 9 and 10 be considered primarily as training positions with limited operational responsibilities (similar to the current Development and Learning positions in the Southern Brigade) for the next three years, or until it is determined that this level of resourcing is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 12 That the positions descriptions identified in Recommendations 8, 9 and 10 for the DO Development and Learning include at least the following duties:

• Strategic coordination of learning and training for career staff associated with the brigade at both a firefighter level and a middle management /promotion level,

• Liaison with other senior training managers within the TFS who are responsible for the implementation of the new Public Safety Training Package, so that a coordinated, state-wide. strategic response be developed and delivered.

Recommendation 13 That all of the career brigade development and learning officers be provided with the opportunity to develop their instructional design skills and knowledge of Training Packages in general, and the Public Safety Training Package in particular. This would require that an appropriate professional development strategy be developed to enable these staff, some of whom may be very new to this work, to develop the necessary skills to work within a team situation in the development of teaching, assessment and learning resources.

39

Recommendation 14 That the Development and Learning positions within the three brigades be permanent appointments and that it be made clear to the successful applicants that they would be expected to remain in these positions for at least three years. Recommendation 15 That the District Officers and Station Officers (Development and Learning) have line management responsibilities to their respective Brigade Chiefs, but functional responsibilities to the new Manager, Training Systems (refer to Figure 3). Figure 3 outlines the proposed reporting structure within the brigades, where line management and functional management responsibilities are articulated within the training management structure. It is essential however that that Volunteer Training Services staff and the Development and Learning training officers within the career brigades work cooperatively with the new Manager, Training Systems in providing the most efficient and cost effective learning and development solutions across the agency, and that functional control of training system within the TFS be managed by the new Manager, Training Systems. 4.3.5 Volunteer Brigade Training System From the evidence available, the training structure currently in place to service the volunteer brigades is adequate, but being stretched as the resource implications of the new Public Safety Training Package are better identified. There appears to be sufficient training officers in place in the three regions, but their time is being increasingly diverted to resources development, rather than management of their local VTI network and service delivery. The same issue confronts the career brigades, as already outlined. The Acting DO Training Services indicated that he felt that his work load was increasing significantly and that his ability to service other areas of the TFS is almost non-existent at the moment. This has been reinforced by several other divisions and branches of the TFS who indicated that recent requests to Training Services for help in coordinating their internal training have been met with a polite negative response. Training Services was established to service the needs of volunteer brigades, but, as it has been the only resourced training unit in the TFS outside the brigade structure, other branches of the agency (e.g. Community Fire Safety) have naturally assumed the unit was able to also help them. This issue has been addressed in this report in section 4.3.1.

Brigade Training Reporting Structure Figure 3

Director Human Services

Manager, Training Systems

2 x Training Coordinators

Deputy Chief

DO Development & Learning

(North) SO

Development & Learning

(North)

DO Development & Learning

(North West)SO

Development & Learning

(North West)

DO Development & Learning

(South) SO

Development & Learning

(South)

DO Volunteer Training (South)

Cambridge

DO Volunteer Training (North &

North West)

Youngtown

Brigade Chiefs

Regional Officers

Training function responsibility Line management responsibility 40

41

With the importance of the VTI network growing as a strategic response to the delivery of training to the volunteers, the need for more senior management coordination in the North and North West is apparent and the resource implications for the new Public Safety Training Package has now brought this to a head. Comments about the risk assessment work on each volunteer brigade are interesting:

“The risk analysis work re training is meant to be managed by the DOs, but it tends to be ad hoc and only done when thought necessary.” “Training needs analysis for volunteer brigades in the North West is inadequate.” “There is little training needs analysis work done for volunteers.” “Training needs analysis work is not done well in the North, and thus the training is not as strategic as it should be.”

The risk profile work being undertaken within the volunteer brigades is a strategic way of managing their learning and development, but the above criticism suggests that the workload is extensive and appears to be inconsistent across the state. The criticisms above are mainly coming from the North and North West where there has been high staff turnover of training officers, thus leaving inexperienced people to manage the situation. As it takes at least six months for the Training Services staff to learn the job (personal communications from interviews), it is not surprising that some negative comments have been made. Staff turnover in Training Services state-wide has been very high, with most officers staying for a few months up to two years. Even the District Officer position has been unable to attract a permanent officer for more than two years in recent times. It was interesting to note that there are two schools of thought on the longevity of tenue of a Training Services training officer. One school argues that the person must be encouraged to stay for no more than two years, while also allowing the individual to return to the career brigades early, having achieved their station officer promotion. The other school is heavily critical of the inexperienced training staff and high turnover, saying that the system encourages this as the operational skills of a firefighter are more highly valued that his/her training skills. While this mind set continues, Training Services will always be staffed with competent firefighters who are always learning to be trainers, and the unit will continue to suffer because of the disruptive nature of this high staff turnover. This theme is succinctly summarised by the followed quotes from respondents to the interviews:

“The TFS is much better at fighting fires than providing training-most

42

officers have little knowledge of training methodology when they start their training jobs.” Interview Data “Allow trainers to be seconded into the training service for a minimum of three years. Make training be seen as a benefit to promotion, not a hindrance.” Interview Data

I suspect the solution lies somewhere in the middle, as a less than perfect compromise between the training officer maintaining his/her skill set and being useful and efficient at doing the training job. Recommendations 19 and 20 address this theme. The evidence collected strongly indicated that the workload associated with the DO Training Services position has now grown to the extend that the position needs to be split between the North/North West and the South and that the roles be restricted to servicing only the needs of the volunteer brigades. Currently, approximately 5%-10% of the work being undertaken by the DO Training Services is related to recruit training, which could now be managed by the DO and SO Development and Learning (South), possibly supported by their colleagues in the North and North West Brigades. The strategic management of the VTI network was generally supported by most people interviewed, although many respondents acknowledged that the volunteer training agenda was huge and would never be adequately serviced while volunteers could choose to attend or not attend a course at short notice. Like CTAC, VTAC was considered to be a very effective group for communicating training needs to the senior executive. The two volunteer association presidents felt that Training Services was under-resourced, given the size and importance of training to the volunteer network, especially when the agency’s duty of care is appreciated. They reinforced their support for VTAC and strongly supported a more holistic approach to training, where soft skill training, such as conflict management and communication, could be integrated into the technical skills training where the units in question supported such an arrangement. This supports comments made earlier in Section 4.1 regarding the importance of holistic training. 4.3.6. Comments on the Volunteer Training Services Training Structure Training Services, responsible for all volunteer training across the State, operates from Cambridge under the leadership of the Acting District Officer (Training Services). Staff are also located at Youngtown and in Burnie. The majority of the nine training officers were interviewed, and all indicated that they enjoyed working in the unit. Very few had more than two years experience as a full-time training officer with only one officer having more than two years full-time, continuous service in training. The biggest, immediate challenge confronting Training Services’ staff was the introduction of the new Public Safety Training Package, and the delivery and

43

resource implication for volunteer brigades. The same issue was confronting the career brigades, and I understand the DOs Development and Learning and Training Services were working cooperatively together on an appropriate strategy. However, the message from the interviewees was that the development of teaching and learning resources suitable for both volunteers and career fire fighters was a significant issue which would eat into the time of the training officers, possible to the detriment of the delivery process. I have not commented on the adequacy, or otherwise, of the strategy in place to address the implementation of the new Public Safety Training Package, as it was not part of this Review’s brief. However, the work being generated to meet this need was currently affecting the ability of Training Services to service its clients’ needs. Comments by the Acting DO Training Services, and supported independently by other training staff in Training Services, indicated that the work required to adequately service all of the volunteer brigades’ training needs is significant and likely to increase over the next few years. There are approximately 5000 volunteers, with the number needing training likely to double over the next five to ten years (personal communication, Peter Alexander, 18/3/03). Although there were still issues relating to the type of training required, and being delivered, again, this was not part of this project’s brief. However, the data are presented in the Attachments for the reader’s consideration. The notion of holistic assessment and training is an integral part of most Training Package implementation strategies, and has been since 1995 (there are approximately 80 Training Packages endorsed for delivery across Australia). However to accommodate such a concept, the person developing the training and learning resources needs to be highly competent and experienced in instruction design techniques, as these skills are not merely learnt in a few weeks of training. For example, comments by a training officer in the North of the State indicated that the computer skills of new staff who recently joined the unit were very basic. Today, people who develop learning resources require exceptional computing competencies, because the framework for most of the curriculum development is based around specialised software with templates. In addition, one also needs to have a good understanding of adult learning theory to achieve the integration and holism in the training resource. Curriculum projects tend to be undertaken in teams as no one person usually has all of the knowledge to create the teaching and learning package. This requires the technical expert (firefighter) to also have substantial knowledge of curriculum design. Although I have recommended the appointment of generic curriculum specialists earlier in this report (see Recommendation 2), these people will often get involved in many projects concurrently and will need to assume that the other half of the team (technical specialist), with whom they are working, understands the basics of adult learning theory and curriculum design, otherwise the work would become very time consuming and inefficient.

44

For example, if the training manual to be developed was on pump maintenance, the question to ask first is where to start? One approach is to start with a pump and outline where it needs maintenance and why. An alternative approach is to examine a faulty pump and ask the trainee to discover the problem using a range of predetermined fault finding procedures, and then work out a maintenance procedure. Both approaches to the curriculum design require knowledge of adult learning theory as it would apply to say a young inexperienced firefighter and knowledge of curriculum design models suitable for this application. It is only when all members of the curriculum team share their collective wisdom on this matter are you able to get a quality product. It was indicated by the data that a minimalist approach was being adopted by Training Services in the training qualifications that trainers were expected to acquire. Most indicated that the Training Package only required a Certificate IV in Assessment and Workplace Training (BSZ40198). Although this was true, this qualification was designed to provide only basic teaching and assessment skills, but the job also requires substantial curriculum development and instructional design skills, as already discussed. This can only be attained via specialised courses such as the Diploma in Training and Assessment Systems (BSZ50198), or a Batchelor of Vocational Education (BAVE) from the University of Tasmania, or by undertaking customised professional development. The Certificate IV is a prerequisite to the Diploma (BSZ50198) and provides substantial credit into the BAVE. Exposure to a qualification such as this, or its equivalent, would give a message to the TFS trainers that their job was highly valued and that there were career opportunities within the TFS for highly qualified and competent trainers/educationalists. Extending from this was the need to encourage the DO (Training Services) to stay in the position longer than the usual two years. My comments here are similar to that already expressed in relation to the career brigade DOs (Development and Learning). If the Recommendation is accepted that the TFS encourage DOs responsible for training to become professionally qualified as a training manager, then this assumes that the longevity of the appointment would extend beyond two years, and this would be required as their training as training managers would take most people more than two years to complete part-time. The strategic nature, or otherwise, of the training was a recurring theme. Much of the data were contradictory as there were just as many people who indicated that the training being delivered was strategic, as those who felt it wasn’t. Strategic training here means that proper training needs analysis work has been conducted beforehand, and that the training plan is a reflection of the needs of the key stakeholders-individuals, brigades and the agency overall. Non-strategic training is that which often evolves when the pre-planning is not undertaken and the training that results is opportunistic i.e. the opportunity to attend a course presents itself to the volunteer, so he/she attends the course,

45

because it was assumed that this was the right thing to do. Whereas strategic training tends to be measured by training outcomes achieved (e.g. units passed, or workplace benefits), opportunistic training statistics tend to reflect inputs rather than outcomes (e.g. hours of training delivered or courses attended). Please refer back to the analytical framework (pages 16-19), where opportunistic training tended to be more associated with the Reactive and Bureaucratic Approaches. Although I suspect that the training, not only within the volunteer brigades, but also in most other areas is a combination of all four of Cunningham’s approaches, the key issue is whether the TFS has the correct human resource development expertise to provide an integrated whole-of-agency training response to meet its current and emerging needs. Recommendation below address this issue. Finally, the title Training Services is too generic for a service that is restricted to volunteers only. The recommendation below relating to volunteer training suggests a name change for the positions to Volunteer Training, to make it clear to others that the officer’s role is restricted to training relating to volunteers. Recommendation 16 That the position of District Officer (Training Services) currently based at Cambridge be amended to District Officer (Volunteer Training South). The responsibilities would be restricted to only volunteer-related training and cover the southern based brigades. Recommendation 17 That the new position of District Officer (Volunteer Training North) be created as part of Volunteer Training Services North, and that the appointee be responsible for the coordination of all volunteer based training in the North and North West of the State, based at Youngtown. The successful appointee will be expected to liaise closely with the District Officer (Volunteer Training South) and the brigade chiefs and regional officers in the North and North West. Recommendation 18 That the two District Officers (Volunteer Training) have line management responsibilities to the Deputy Chief, but functional responsibilities to the new Manager, Training Systems (see Figure 3). Recommendation 19 That the two District Officers (Volunteer Training) positions be permanent appointments and that it be made clear to the successful applicants that they would be expected to remain in these positions for at

46

least three years. Recommendation 20 That all training officers responsible for both volunteer and career brigade training be encouraged and supported in their professional development to the extent that they be allowed to undertake specialised training in learning resource development/curriculum development/instructional design, such as the Diploma in Training and Assessment Systems (BSZ50198), or the Batchelor of Vocational Education (BAVE), or customised professional development.

47

References

1) Cunningham, Ian (1994). The Wisdom of Strategic Learning. McGraw Hill.

2) Desome, RL; Werner, JM; Harris DM (2002) Human Resource

Development, 3rd Edition Harcourt College Publishers. 3) Dixon, N (1994) The Organisational Learning Cycle. McGraw Hill. 4) Field, L and Ford, W (1995). Managing Organisational Learning.

Longman. 5) Rylatt, A (1994). Learning Unlimited. Business and Professional

Publishing.

48

Attachment 1

Strategic Review of Tasmania Fire Service Training Functions

Terms of Reference Purpose: To review and make recommendations on the efficiency and

effectiveness of Tasmania Fire Service training arrangements. Scope: All Divisions of Tasmania Fire Service

- Volunteer Brigades - Career Brigades - Training Services - Field - Community Fire Safety - Human Services - Corporate Services, including Engineering

Services, Communication Services, Finance, Admin and IT

- Firecomm Output: Report to Steering Committee making recommendations on

strategic Agency wide inhouse training.

• Strategic policy • Systems including processes • Roles and responsibilities • Delivery and co-ordination • Training and Development systems

- Training packages - Leadership and management development - Learning and development needs

Timeframe:

• Initial briefing – as soon as possible • Initial report – end February 2003 • Final report – end March 2003

Issues to consider:

• Work in progress • Structures in similar agencies (ES & Public Sector) • Mix of operational and specialist skills • Ownership of training and delivery • Committee structures • On the job/Off the job training mix • Impact of being a statewide service

49

- Geographic complexities - Regional differences - RTO status

Sources:

• Statements of Duties for “Training” positions People:

• Executive Management Team members • District Officer Training Services • Training Services Staff • District Officer Development and Learning • District Officers Operations, Field • Managers/Employees

Organisations:

• United Fire Fighters Union • TVFBA • TRVFFA • TAFE • AFAC

Not to address:

• RTO Registration • Commercial Training • Training needs analysis • Career streams • Classification levels and employment conditions

50

Attachment 2

Interview Data-Benchmarking Interviewee Mr Mike Whittle, HRD Manager, Aurora Energy

• Aurora Energy employs approximately 840 staff. • Training is undertaken by each Division using internal staff. There is no

centralised training unit that services the whole business. • A training unit exists at Mornington which is part of a Division which looks

after the overhead lines infrastructure and the technical trades training. • Each employee has a personal development plan and is assessed against core

competencies that the business has developed. • Training springs out of the performance appraisal system where the personal

development plans represent action arising from the performance appraisal. • Training is facilitated by on line training, where modules address performance

appraisal outcomes. • Generic skills training, such as leadership, is coordinated by the HRD

Manager and delivered in house. • Training is controlled by a HR group made up of the Managers for IR, HRD,

Safety and Remuneration/Benefits and reports to the CEO. • Training is linked to the business needs of the organisation. • Annual training budget is approximately $2.2 M. Local managers are allowed

to allocate training expenditure to their own budgets. Interviewee Graham Fountain, Executive Manager, HR Development & Training, Country Fire Authority, Victoria. • The Country Fire Authority (CFA) has proposed a new training structure

where a Board of Studies (BOS) controls the strategic training arrangements across the organisation. The BOS will have various sub committees to identify training needs. The BOS is made up of the Divisional heads.

• Currently there is a Training and Development Consultative Committee chaired by Graham Fountain with representatives from stakeholder groups.

• Brigade training is linked to the risk profile of each brigade. • Training committees exist for Operations, Community Fire Safety, Human

Resources, Support Services and Finance/Administration. • The Executive Manager, Training and Development has 11 regional training

managers together with other staff such as instructors and project officers. The regional training managers have line management responsibilities to their regional superiors but functional responsibility to the Executive Manager, Training and Development.

• The Ballarat Training College has two managers and 14 other staff. • The Executive Manager, Training and Development’s head office team

includes a training and development manager, a manager, field training, a manager, learning systems and a professional development manager (generic

51

training). • The Executive Manager, Training and Development is to be advertised and the

position requires someone with strong management and training skills. • All training managers in the organisation have PDs that are non-operational,

whereas all instructors have PDs that are operational. • Volunteers and career staff generally receive the same training from the same

instructors. Interviewee Peter Rodwell HR Manager Hobart City Council

• The Council has five divisions each controlled by a director. The HR unit is part of Corporate Services. The HRD section is part of the HR Unit with one full-time coordinator.

• There is a training and development policy (2 x pages) which is linked to the Council’s strategic plan. The Council is an RTO and delivers mainly via external providers.

• A Training Plan is developed annually with a discretionary budget of about $200,000. Bids are invited from the six Divisions and a HRD Development Committee manages the allocation of the funding in proportion to the need and the size of the Division. The HRD Committee has representatives from all six Divisions on it and is managed by the HRD Coordinator.

• There are no other training officers in the Divisions. All decisions are fed into the HRD Committee for discussion and action.

• The HRD Coordinator has a training and development background, a relevant tertiary qualification and extensive experience in HRD. The PD did not require the person to have prior knowledge of HCC policies and procedures. It was assumed that this knowledge could quickly be acquired.

• The HRD Coordinator was required to evaluate programs and review/monitor the annual Training Plan.

• The HCC does not, at present, benchmark itself against other organisations in relation to HRD. There are no HRD performance indicators used to monitor performance. However, it is the Council’s intension to instigate a benchmarking process within the near future.

Interviewee Commander Syd McClymont, Dept of Police and Public Safety

• Training starts with a performance appraisal where training needs are outlined by local managers.

• Eight regional commanders are required to identify their staff’s training needs, both uniformed and support, via the annual performance appraisal process.

• This leads to a course list being developed for delivery at the Rokeby Police Academy and locally, if required.

• The academy staff help develop and deliver the training. • The academy has 1 x commander, 3 x inspectors (cadet, promotions and in

service training), 12 x operations instructors, 2 x non-uniformed education advisors (curriculum development, learning needs analysis, etc), 1 x librarian, 1 x business manager. All senior training staff are rotated every 2-3 years in

52

line with normal policy for senior staff. This creates a disruptive influence on the management of the academy.

• There is no career path for the training staff at the academy. The districts receive the benefit when the staff return to their units.

• The most stable employees at the academy are the education advisers who are not required to rotate as they are non-uniformed. They operate at about Level 8 on the Administrative and Clerical Employees award.

• Training is managed by a HR Strategic Planning Group made up of the Assistant Commissioner, Director Corporate Services, Commander HR, and the Police Psychologist. The group meets twice yearly to review and approve the HR strategic plan.

Attachment 3 List of Interviewees John Gledhill, Peter Alexander, Robyn Pearce, Chris Arnold, Steve Barber, Richard Warwick, Tony Davidson, Roland Hill, David Peck, Graham Oatley, Mike Brown, John Hazzlewood, Mark Dobson, Kevin Robertson, Rodney Read, Rodney Springer, Andrew Comer, John Streets, Jeremy Smith Paul Salter, Danny Reid, Dave McGuiness, Robert Radcliff, John Streets, Roland Hill, Gerard McCarthy, Jodi Armstrong, Don Mackrill, Andrew Taylor, Brett Fazackerley, Errol Gleeson, Lyndy Smith, Don Jones, Andrew Jones, John Streets, Lindsay Suhr, Leo Berechree, Damien Killalea, Phil Oakley, Leon Smith, Justin Young, Andrew Newell, Gerald Kutzner, Mike Gallagher, John Thompson, Linda Lacy, Rod Woodward, Kelly Taylor, Joanne Spencer, Debbie White, Peter van de Kamp, Carol Davey.

Interviewee Data Associated with Career Brigade Training

Strengths of the Current Training System

Weaknesses of the Current Training System

Significant Issues Suggested Improvements

• Good acceptance and understanding of the Public Safety Training Package.

• Personal development plans linked to performance management.

• Mobility of staff moving through the training unit and then back to the brigades. It opens people’s view to the wider picture. However there is still a need for stability within the unit for special roles e.g. curriculum development, policy.

• Lower level training to the masses is working well, but it tends to break down at the middle levels.

• Opportunity with Training Packages

• Not a full commitment to training within middle management.

• People development is not recognised fully.

• Development of middle managers/supervisors.

• North-South tension still exists. • Lack of integration within the

Training Services Unit. • Transition to Training Packages is

disjointed. Handled by too many people. An example is that recognition policy for career officers is different to that for volunteer people.

• Need more HRD support state-wide.

• The UFU representative would not be prepared to sit on a higher level training committee, if one was to be proposed, in case the Union was seen to be part of a decision that went wrong.

• Operations training needs to be kept separate from non-operational training. Do not see the need for a single training unit to service the whole organisation.

• Training Package will require more resources.

• There are 5 x crews in the North and 5.5 x crews in the South, but much of the training resource is in the

• If a training manager was appointed the person should be managed by the Deputy Chief, because there may be a credibility issue.

• DO in NW is too busy with operational duties to devote much time to training. Appoint a dedicated training officer in the NW who doesn’t need to worry about operational duties.

• Whatever we get in the future, we need a good consultative process so that the brigades can advise Training Services of their training needs. Training Services must be a support service. Appoint a training manager.

53

Strengths of the Current Training System

Weaknesses of the Current Training System

Significant Issues Suggested Improvements

to provide career mobility. • Training is aligned and driven by the

pay point system for career brigades. • CTAC, with its top down, bottom up

structure. • Training for career brigades is

delivered in house and is owned and managed by the brigades.

• Training is done on shift and not off-the-job.

• Training is strongly focussed and structured.

• Since CBT, the culture has shifted to stations accepting responsibility for their own training.

• Training is managed overall by the Deputy Chief.

• People in brigades are broadly skilled and thus are able to provide training at the local level.

• Training for both volunteer and career brigades is often integrated.

• On station training is both good and bad-it is better resourced. Training up to pay point 7 is good, above this it is very ad hoc.

• Career training tends to be based on the pay point system and development plans-tends to be strategic.

• CTAC-has top down and bottom up representatives, so everyone is

• Training data base is too old and needs to be replaced. Continual cause of frustration by staff who cannot get up to date data from it.

• Have a divided operational training system where responsibilities are shared by the two training DOs.

• Validation of assessment system needs to be reviewed-too few validators to do the job.

• The career training DO’s job focuses mainly on day to day issues rather than big picture planning.

• DO Learning and Development is often unavailable for training issues due to other commitments.

• Training across the agency is not integrated-too many people working by themselves uncoordinated.

• Training is reactive rather than proactive.

• DO Development & Learning doesn’t get adequate support. SO position hasn’t helped.

• Career training always has a Hobart focus.

• Lack of continuity in the two DO training positions.

• Structure for the allocation of human resources is vague.

• No formal training for trainers that is adequate for the job.

South. • DO Learning and Development does

not service the NW very well. He visits only about two to three times per year. The perception is that Steve is DO Hobart only and doesn’t get time to service the NW Coast.

• Training is the most important issue on the horizon for the TFS.

• The Training Package will present a big challenge re its introduction.

• The training calendar tends to be a reflection of what training needs have been previously identified.

• Need people in career brigades training to commit for more than two years-should be for 3-5 years as it takes at least 12 months to learn the job.

• Because the NW crews are limited in number, they are reluctant to release crews for training as it reduces their response time.

• Training for operational staff is mainly driven from the bottom up, but also needs to be top down.

• There appears to be some confusion between the roles of Paul Salter and Steve Barber.

54

Strengths of the Current Training System

Weaknesses of the Current Training System

Significant Issues Suggested Improvements

represented. • Strong commitment to training,

especially in the operational areas. • Delivery has moved to meet the

needs of individuals. • TFS is an RTO who can provide

nationally endorsed qualifications with portability.

• A mind set change has occurred and training is now a part of the culture.

• Wide acceptance of the new IT platform and the training that is needed to support an IT based training system.

• Hobart focus for the 2 x DOs affects the servicing levels in the North.

• The data base that records the training information for both volunteers and career staff is a mess. Cannot access up to date data from it.

• Do not have good support in the North for training in the career brigades.

• Validating every assessment is neither efficient nor needed.

• Lack of alignment between the pay point system and the Training Package Units.

• Most of the energy in training is directed to emergency fire fighting.

• The system has evolved whereby the culture and priorities have never moved beyond the operational divisions.

• Most of the training is Hobart based and half needs to be beyond Southern Tasmania.

• The training culture is still parochial.

55

Interviewee Data Associated with Volunteer Brigade Training

Strengths of the Current Training

System

Weaknesses of the Current Training System

Significant Issues Suggested Improvements

• Fire fighters who come into Training Services for a short time usually benefit from the experience, but it creates instability within the unit.

• Able to do the job with the resources.

• All Training Services staff want to be in training-they see it as an opportunity for personal growth and development.

• Training services staff are able to work in operational areas during January/February is a real bonus as it helps maintain skills and credibility.

• Training Services high staff turnover is both a plus and a minus-officers enjoy being able to return to their brigade, but it disrupts the unit severely. It takes at least six months to find your way in the job.

• The VTI model is a real strength as it allows training to be delivered to far more people.

• Training in the NW is more mobile as there is no bricks and mortar training facility.

• There are adequate resources to do

• The risk analysis work re training is meant to be managed by the DOs, but it tends to be ad hoc and only done when thought to be necessary.

• VTAC is often driven by strong personalities on the committee. Most volunteers did not know it existed prior to Paul Salter’s appointment.

• Staff turnover in Training Services is very high.

• The DO, Development and Learning is often unavailable because of operation commitments.

• DO Training Services role overlaps too much into career brigade training.

• High staff turnover in Training Services.

• Management structure at Training Services is too low-DO position is too low.

• Training within the TFS is under resourced.

• The training officers in Training Services are very inexperienced, especially those in the North.

• No research and development money is spent on training.

• Training Services is very operationally centred.

• Training Services is not resourced to accommodate non-operational staff.

• Only about 5% of Training Services’ time is devoted to brigade training issues.

• DO Training Services would like to see staff stay for a minimum of two years.

• Because the DO Training Services’ role also extends into servicing the brigades, the work load is too high, especially with the introduction of the new Public Safety Training Package.

• The Training Package competencies for the volunteers are a high priority.

• Training must be decentralised to allow volunteers to attend in their local area.

• The role of a training officer is very demanding within Training Services. This is sometimes not appreciated by some in the career brigades.

• Volunteer training is inadequate and doesn’t match the specific designated tasks that volunteers are

• Need additional support from people who can develop learning resources to support the Training Package

• Structure Training Services better-Put in a training manager with general management and education skills, supported by specialised curriculum developers.

• Need a DO Volunteer North and South.

• Develop an adequate training facility in the NW similar to Youngtown and Cambridge. Volunteers will not travel out of their district to attend training.

• Need a permanent officer in Training Services to deal with the Training Package agenda.

• Appoint a Director Training with a DO north and South responsible to the Chief or Deputy Chief.

• DO North and South should be responsible for all operational training for volunteers and career staff.

• If a strategic training committee is created, volunteer associations want equal representation with the career

56

Strengths of the Current Training System

Weaknesses of the Current Training System

Significant Issues Suggested Improvements

the job in the NW. • VTI model is working well, but

there is room for improvement. Training available is always limited to the skill set of the VTI instructor in the region.

• Level of support provided by DO Training Services in the NW is very good. Have regular coordination meetings.

• VTI system is one of the strengths but needs more funding to support their activities.

• Courses are matched to individual’s needs.

• The PS Training Package-it provides relevant training that is easy to understand with little jargon.

• The PS Training Package creates a blueprint for the future.

• Have a core of VTIs who are keen and skilled in their fields.

• VTAC achieves much. • Able to have regular meeting with

the central Hobart Brigade to discuss training issues.

• The risk profile work done on each brigade has helped identify training needs.

• Training Services staff and resources are always available to assist when requested.

• The volunteer record keeping is inadequate.

• Training needs analysis for volunteer brigades in the NW is inadequate. Much of the training is not very strategic. People are invited to participate, but cannot be compelled to attend.

• Many volunteers will not fill out the skills evidence sheet to prove competence.

• There are no good training plans for volunteers.

• Volunteer training is not holistic i.e. where safety, leadership etc are woven into the technical skills component. The courses tend to be discrete.

• Generic soft skills courses (conflict resolution, communications, etc) are poorly delivered to the volunteer brigades.

• There is little training needs analysis work done for volunteers.

• Training in the North has traditionally been under-recognised and thus has been a place to avoid.

• There is no career path in Training services in the North so there is little incentive to stay long.

• Training is ad hoc. • Training is only focussed on fire

asked to do. • There is a lack of good

communication re transition strategies to the Training Package.

• It takes at least six months to learn the training officer job. It is high stress and high pressure so most people won’t stay for more than two years.

• The volunteer system needs some pay back and this in part, can be achieved by providing all volunteers who want it with training in first aid and chain saw operations.

• The TFS is much better at fighting fires than providing training-most officers have little knowledge of training methodology when they start their training jobs.

• Training hardware (e.g. OHTs) needs to be available in the regions all of the time to support volunteer training.

• If a new training manager is appointed, the volunteer associations want a representative on the selection panel.

• It takes a Training Services officer six months to learn the ropes (PC skills, training skills, communication skills), and then they start to think about their next move.

brigades. • Training officers in the North need a

guarantee of a career path in order to stay in Training Services.

• Training Services needs an induction course for new training with appropriate professional development on top of their Certificate IV Assessment & Workplace Training qualification.

• Provide more administrative support in the North for Training services.

• Appoint a DO Training North to do the job for both volunteer and career brigades.

• Allow potential trainers to be seconded into the training service for a minimum of three years. Make training be seen as a benefit to promotion, not a hindrance.

• Curriculum development/learning resource development needs to be done more efficiently with a feedback loop for quality improvement.

• Need more access to basic skills training, say every two months, so that new recruits don’t have to wait up to 6-7 months to do their training. This is a duty of care issue which needs addressing.

• VTAC needs its people better

57

Strengths of the Current Training System

Weaknesses of the Current Training System

Significant Issues Suggested Improvements

• The PS Training Package will enable volunteers to have their skills recognised.

• VTI system is working well, and provides a good opportunity for VTIs and career trainers to work together cooperatively.

• VTI system is good however it still needs improvement.

• VTI system, as it exists at the moment, provides a common link to the AFAC modules and the Training Package.

• VTI model is good. • Support for Training Services is

transparent and public. • Good training resources at

Cambridge and Youngtown. • VTI system is a real strength. • New PS Training Package is

welcome. • Chris Arnold’s TNA work. • The volunteer training structure is in

place but needs further development. • Volunteers are eager for training and

willing to participate.

fighters. • Staff trainers rotate quickly and this

causes disruption. • Training for volunteers in the North

is under resourced. • VTI System in the North is not fully

utilised to maximum advantage. • Line of command in training in the

North is too long and looses much in the translation.

• Training needs analysis work is not well done in the North and thus the training is not as strategic as it should be.

• Our volunteer brigade is in an isolated region and we are not consulted as to what training we want. They assume what we need without asking.

• Training Services staff don’t visit us on training nights very often, as our brigade is so isolated, so we have to muddle through the best we can. We need more guidance on training nights.

• There are few VTIs on the West Coast so there is little quality training taking place.

• VTIs are under-qualified. They need the Certificate IV in Assessment & Workplace Training.

• Volunteers often fail to turn up to

• Once a volunteer is into his/her third year of service they don’t have the motivation to do extra training on top of their basic skills development done earlier in their first two years. You need to do the bulk of the training in their first years of service as a volunteer, otherwise it won’t happen.

• The recording in the database of the skill outcomes is still not being done well.

• Career trainers often ignore the “other” skills a volunteer brings to the job of a volunteer e.g. teaching skills communication skills.

• Training is still too southern based. Volunteers won’t travel to Hobart for training.

• Training Services struggles to meet our training needs on a regular basis.

• DO Training Services never seems to appear in the region (far North West). Only contact is with the local VTI or training officer.

• The five year plan to implement the new standards for volunteers is not working, because of a lack of resources. It is believed that volunteers will be afforded recognition for competencies based on limited fire fighting experience.

exposed to training and professional development on a regular basis.

• More training of volunteers in the South could be undertaken by career fire fighters, similar to that in the North.

• Need more training specialists to work in Training Services, not just fire fighters who are mainly interested in promotion.

• Training Services needs to be resourced to enable it to take on the management responsibilities for traineeships across the whole agency, not just the operational side.

• Training Services should be able to manage the outsourcing of training in any Training Package for any employee, provided it was resourced accordingly. Training Services needs to expand its horizons so that it can be a broker, facilitator, organiser and deliverer of training services, and thus allow other units to focus on service delivery.

• DO Training Services needs to report to a training manager.

• VTI system needs to be run more efficiently.

• Need a focus on trying to get a stable training workforce within the Training Services unit. This could be

58

Strengths of the Current Training System

Weaknesses of the Current Training System

Significant Issues Suggested Improvements

classes so their courses are often not full.

• Not enough courses to meet the demand in this region (NW).

• TFS does not often recognise the experience of some VTIs in relation to what they can deliver.

• Not enough emphasis on VTIs’ prior skills (RCC) before delivering their training e.g. a forest worker often has chain saw skills but they are still required to do the training.

• A lot of training is delivered to volunteers which is not required (e.g. chain saws and first aid). It is not strategic and is too ‘bottom up’ driven, to meet personal needs rather than TFS needs.

• Cannot keep quality people in Training Services for any reasonable length of time.

• Need better VTI trainers. • Need curriculum development skills

in Training Services. • Volunteer training tends to be ad hoc

and not strategic. The bottom end VTIs are great, but the top end needs major restructuring.

• Training Services and other training units are not integrated.

• Training Services has been very hierarchal.

• Staff need to rotate regularly through Training Services.

• Some people stay in Training Services too long. They need to get back in the Brigades.

• CTAC and VTAC are the only real training committees and have, by default, become policy development groups in the absence of a more systemic group.

• Training officers appointed to Training Services go there from their brigades on the expectation that they will return after about two years.

• Training Services was never set up to provide training beyond the volunteers and brigades.

• Weekend courses are not popular with volunteers as they want to spend time with their families. The courses should be run mid-week in the evenings. Enough weekend work is done during the fire season for most volunteers.

• Strong focus on operational staff training (both career and volunteers).

• Because most volunteers only attend one or two fires per year, they don’t get the exposure required to demonstrate their skills re Training

achieved by having some permanent positions and others that people are allowed to rotate in and out. This would allow stability of skills to be retained, thus allowing the permanents to be more system focussed.

• We need a training manager with a good education and management background who reports to the right office.

• People have regularly transferred from career brigades to Training Services and back to career brigades. Training is seen as a stepping stone to a promotion. The training staff have to be available to train seven days a week, whereas operational staff in the Brigades work a four day on four day off shift which is more family friendly. Maybe the solution is to recruit both internally and externally, not just internally. We need more stability within the Training Services Unit. Maybe we could appoint a permanent trainer from outside to service the needs of non-operational staff.

• Appoint a training manager as part of HR Services.

59

Strengths of the Current Training System

Weaknesses of the Current Training System

Significant Issues Suggested Improvements

• Volunteer training needs to be more rigorous.

• Career staff don’t understand the needs of training for volunteers.

• Staff rotate through Training Services too quickly, which causes disruption from an outsider’s viewpoint.

Package competencies.

60

Interviewee Data Associated with Non-Brigade and/or Non-Uniform Training

Strengths of the Current Training

System

Weaknesses of the Current Training System

Significant Issues Suggested Improvements

• Strong recognition of the value of training by most.

• Well resourced, especially amongst the ranks.

• Organisation is prepared to introduce a training system that is nationally acceptable e.g. Training Package.

• Have stakeholder groups that are prepared to identify needs.

• Organisation is moving forward regarding the way it is addressing training.

• Our specialised training needs can be outsourced to TAFE and other providers when required.

• Training Services has always been able to service our limited needs well.

• Strong commitment and recognition of training’s value to the individual and the organisation within the TFS.

• Agency is committed to PD for its staff-all you have to do is ask. The down side is that staff don’t know what is available to suit their needs (Corporate Services team).

• We have willing managers who

• Training Services didn’t have the resources to help us when we needed a training related project undertaken.

• When Community Fire Safety and Firecomm wanted to develop their own competency framework and qualifications, they had to employ outside consultants to do the development work as Training Services didn’t have the expertise or resources to assist.

• There is no real training policy framework.

• There is a disparity of emphasis across the organisation-many units do not develop learning and development plans.

• Has not been strategic across the whole organisation.

• Piecemeal approach-each unit does its own thing.

• Some groups in Corporate Services, for example, have no training system in place.

• Have trouble getting RCC undertaken within the TFS.

• No assistance to get training plans developed.

• Have been forced to use outside consultants regularly to get the job done.

• Need more senior management training at a systemic level in such things as communication, team building, performance management, business development, financial management.

• Currency of competencies is a real issue-it drives most of the brigade training.

• Strong imbalance between operational staff who are allowed to train on-the-job and others who are not.

• The training data management system for operational staff is well supported, but this is not the case for other staff.

• Our training system is not strategic. • Shouldn’t need to pay outside

consultants to do curriculum development when such talent can be part of a training and development unit.

• It is extremely frustrating working with the Training Services because

• Probably need a training specialist in charge of training and development, responsible to the Director HR.

• Need a training manager with good customer focus.

• Training Services needs to take a proactive leadership role in training and development.

• DO Learning and Development needs to be at Cambridge.

• Both DO training positions need to answer to a single training manager.

• Appoint people with expertise in curriculum development to help develop the mountain of learning resources required to support the new Training Package.

• Training must be made to be more strategic, using a centralised unit.

• Need a better training infrastructure where everyone doesn’t pull in different directions.

• Corporate Services needs access to someone who can help with Training Package advice, that can be related back to the staff’s needs.

• Link personal development plans to Training Package qualifications for

61

Strengths of the Current Training System

Weaknesses of the Current Training System

Significant Issues Suggested Improvements

want to help us with our training needs (Corporate Services team).

• Local managers always get a training resource in their budgets.

• People in training have an understanding of what is needed.

• Strong commitment towards training.

• Strong recognition of the value of training.

• Cannot get adequate servicing within the TFS.

• There is a feeling within the TFS that if you are not in operations, it is impossible to achieve extra skills on-the-job.

• Managers are working in isolation re training and development.

• Recording of skills in the data base is inadequate.

• Corporate Services has no training system in place, nor performance appraisal system.

• Corporate Services PD is ad hoc-no guidance or assistance is given compared to the operational division.

• Corporate Services training tends to be reactive all the time.

• Corporate Services training is opportunistic rather than strategic i.e. when opportunities arise, the chance to do the training will be taken-it is often not pre-planned to meed business needs.

• Training is not well linked to performance appraisal in Corporate Services.

• Training across the Corporate Services unit tends to be unstructured and not strategic-tends only to respond to immediate needs

the DOs are always rotating out and there is no stability.

• Need to look across the organisation in relation to management training in communication, conflict resolution and planning skills.

• Most training in Corporate Services stems from the need to introduce new technology.

• For Corporate Services staff, training tends to be what people perceive they need.

• Courses need to be paid for personally for later reimbursement, but this doesn’t seem to apply to senior officers.

• Cannot do any training during the Summer months as we are too busy.

• Cannot release staff for off-the-job training easily because of the way the shift roster is organised.

• The operational side of training do not know what Firecomm needs in terms of training.

• Firecomm should not have to go to outside providers to access the expertise required to develop our training framework.

• We need to work with other fire agencies to share resources.

• There needs to be more emphasis on basic skills development for

Corporate Services staff. • Want continuity of a training

management system across the whole agency.

• Need people with expertise to develop materials relevant to Firecomm’s needs.

• We need people with generic curriculum development skills to work with the best specialists to develop our course materials.

• Training support needs to be a separate division separated from the operational side.

• If a training manager was to be appointed, he/she should be managed by the Deputy Chief to maintain credibility.

• Appoint general staff with curriculum development and resource development skills.

• Training needs to be agency wide, especially in relation to management training-communications, planning, conflict resolution, etc.

• Need an integrated approach linked to the strategic needs of the TFS, its people and the needs of operational requirements.

62

Strengths of the Current Training System

Weaknesses of the Current Training System

Significant Issues Suggested Improvements

e.g. GST when it was introduced. • When Corporate Services outsources

training to an outside provider, feedback is rare-the impact back on the job is never measured.

• Training tends to be ad hoc, opportunistic and reactive.

• Training is weighted towards informed staff mainly.

• Training for our Corporate Services team tends to be reactive and not driven by organisational needs. Emails are sent out to see who wants to go on a course. We have to find our own training courses and then apply to attend.

• There are no real strengths in the current training system for Corporate Services staff.

• PS Training Package did not fit Firecomm well.

• Could not access support from Training Services as they didn’t have the resources.

• Skills recognition for volunteers is too hard to get.

• Training is not adequate for administrative staff. It has improved lately, because course information has been emailed to us.

• Not attracting all of the Commonwealth incentive payments

volunteers e.g. black out/mopping up.

• Administrative staff don’t know what courses are available-need to liaise better with senior management.

• Having trouble with the local DO getting permission to spend money on our non-operational training.

• We are unfamiliar with the Commonwealth and State grants that are available under the national traineeship system, so because of this, we don’t access the funds and hence don’t get the training.

• Fire Equipment, Community Fire Safety and Firecomm have all benefited from the investment in operational training support.

• Need a training structure that is better able to deliver training across the whole agency.

• For non-uniform staff, it is up to the local manager to identify staff training needs.

• No training plan has been developed that links directly with, and complements, the corporate plan.

• Need to look across the whole agency regarding management supervision training re communications, planning, conflict

63

Strengths of the Current Training System

Weaknesses of the Current Training System

Significant Issues Suggested Improvements

as we could. • Structure is wrong. • Lack of appreciation of User Choice

options and all of the background work that is needed to be done to support it.

• Induction training for new staff needs to be better managed.

• No performance measures for training.

• Divided organisation where operations are seen to get all of the resources.

• Non-operational budgets tend to be underspent, whereas the operational training budgets are often over spent.

• Non operational training tends to be ad hoc and not strategic, or spins out of special projects e.g. OH&S, harassment.

• No systemic coordination. • Training overall tends to be reactive,

rather than proactive. • Focus is more on training rather than

learning-hence the need for certification via Training Packages.

• Training is often seen as a quick fix for workplace problems.

• On-the-job learning is acknowledged but not strategically managed.

resolution.

64

Strengths of the Current Training System

Weaknesses of the Current Training System

Significant Issues Suggested Improvements

• Behaviour management is often overlooked.

• The various training units across the TFS tend to work in isolation. There is no strategic resourcing.

• Identification of a training arrangement (e.g. a new Training Package) comes via the HR Director as part of say an enterprise agreement. There is no one who can strategically coordinate such activities, especially if they are agency-wide.

• There is no strategic policy framework that governs HRD.

• The training system is inequitable. • Often, the wrong people are making

decisions about training. • Training is not as structured as it

should be. It is often reactive. • Training has no identity across the

agency and is managed by an operational DO.

• Training across the TFS is not integrated-too many people working by themselves.

• Non-operational staff have been largely ignored in relation to the provision of training and development support.

• No training system. • Training is ad hoc.

65

Strengths of the Current Training System

Weaknesses of the Current Training System

Significant Issues Suggested Improvements

• Training is only focussed on fire fighters.

• The training data base is not maintained.

66

67

Attachment 4

List of Acronyms AQTF Australian Quality Training Framework BAVE Batchelor of Vocation Education-University of Tasmania BOS Board of Studies CEO Chief Executive Officer CFA Country Fire Authority CTAC Career Training Advisory Committee DO District Officer FTE Full-Time Equivalent HCC Hobart City Council HR Human Resource(s) HRD Human Resource Development IR Industrial Relations NTF National Training Framework OHT Overhead Transparency PD Professional Development or Position Description PS Training Package Public Safety Training Package RCC Recognition of Current Competencies RPL Recognition of Prior Learning RO Regional Officer RTO Registered Training Organisation SO Station Officer TFS Tasmania Fire Service TNA Training Needs Analysis UFU United Firefighters Union VTAC Volunteer Training Advisory Committee VTI Volunteer Training Instructor