This paper sets out a model to measure the medium term benefits of structured workplace training. The specific industry for which the model has been developed is food processing which is of significance for agricultural industry as it value adds to primary production. Many food processing firms are undertaking substantial upgrading in technology and in enterprise organisation to seek to enhance productivity. Training is seen to play an essential role in these changes. The proposed model and the instrument designed to operationalise the model should however have general application for measuring generic benefits of workplace training.

The need for changes in both technology and operations is seen to be self evident to most in the industry, but the cost benefit of training the existing work force is not necessarily self evident. The changes may lead to a substantial reduction in the number of staff required, and a substantial increase in the skills of most operator staff in each firm. The companies therefore have the choice to spend resources on developing the skills of the existing workforce, or to recruit and train new workers with higher levels of literacy and numeracy, to use new technologies as these are implemented. Some of the perceived benefits of continuing with existing staff are the advantage of retained loyalty to the firm, the accumulated knowledge of product characteristics and how to best predict and manage variation in product quality, and corporate citizenship benefits in the local communities in which the firms are located.

While the firms are interested in learning more about the attitudes and about the learning potential of their existing workforce, they also have to survive in an industry where profit margins have been restricted by import competition, making financial viability an immediate focus. Thus, timeframes for training and for data collection have to be adjusted to accommodate production priorities. In the case of the present study, data collection from one firm has been inhibited by other priorities imposed upon the plant by the parent company. In a second, seasonal variations have delayed data collection by three months, while in a third a change in training plans has set back data collection by six months. When the abstract for this paper was submitted it was expected that preliminary results could be tabled for discussion and interpretation. In practice, this paper will address aspects of the model developed for the project and instrumentation will have to await the collection of more data.

Training for operators in the Food Processing Industry is competency based and has been designed around modules at AQF (Australian Qualifications Framework) levels one to three. Level one constitutes entry level training and includes modules that address basic aspects of hygiene, health and safety, and quality assurance. Training at level two addresses a level which in old parlance was described as "semi-skilled", while at level three operators are deemed to be at the level of a tradesperson. The emphasis in the National Training Agenda (NTA) is upon pathways and articulation of training allowing progression for individuals and flexibility in training for firms. Thus use of old parlance to describe levels of training outcomes should not be interpreted as implying necessarily that the old inflexibilities in training opportunities still exist.

The conditions under which training occurs vary considerably. In one firm participating in the study, staff has to complete level one training in order to be eligible for employment. A significant number of those who undertake the free training do not gain employment with the firm. It is possible that most of these people use this training opportunity to enhance their chances of getting work with other food processing firms, and we expect to find out more about the motives and experiences of those who undertake training when we collect data from participants.

In other firms the emphasis is on training existing permanent and seasonal workers under the terms of enterprise bargaining awards. In one case, staff who agree to undertake core training receive a pay rise, with further pay benefits for those who volunteer and succeed in additional training.

There are three broad categories of employee that are likely to undertake operator training. These categories are permanent staff, seasonal staff and casual staff. In many firms there is a core group of permanent staff who have year round employment. Seasonal staff work during the peak period of the year and may well seek employment in another part of the industry at other periods of the year. Thus, an operator may work canning fruit from December to March, processing milk from August to December, and go on to the dole for the rest of year, or relocate for other temporary work. There may therefore be some synergy if training is transferable in part or in whole across the industry. Many firms report high stability among the seasonal staff. Casual staff are hired for short periods to supplement the work force and are required normally to have completed basic training or have prior experience.

The model for training and retention of skills is derived from the work of Baldwin and Ford (1988) and Foxon (1993). Their concepts have been further refined using the outcomes of previous research by the author (Catts, 1996). The model predicts that the characteristics of the trainee, the characteristics of the workplace support for training, and the quality of the training itself will determine outcomes. The essential difference between this model and that advanced by Baldwin and Ford is the inclusion of quality of training as a predictor of outcomes. The aim of the present study is to test the extent to which this model can describe and explain the effects of training and retention of competencies in a cost benefit context. The model is presented in Figure One.

Consistent with well established models of evaluation such as Stufflebeam et al (1971) this model identifies antecedent, process, and post-training variables that impact on training and the retention of competency. Antecedent variables include those associated with learners (prior content knowledge, motivation to learn, literacy, and self-efficacy), and those associated with the organisation (perceived support for training and training duration). The process variables are the perceived relevance of the training for work roles, and the perceived quality of the training. Actual participation in the training program will be confirmed also for each participant. After training, retention depends primarily upon organisational factors (opportunity to practice skills, support for using skills) as well as the confidence of the individual (self-efficacy).

Thus the model predicts that prior to training the fitness of individual learners is the primary predictor of success in training, and that after training is concluded, factors in the organisation will primarily determine the extent to which staff retain acquired competencies. As organisational support will vary both for individual workers within firms and between firms, there is an opportunity to test the model as a predictor of retention of skills by individual workers within each firm, and for groups of trained staff across firms. A major limitation in testing the model is competency based assessment which perpetuates a myth that workers can be considered as either "competent" or "not yet competent", when in practice supervisors have clear impressions as to the efficiency of various workers. While these perceptions may be subject to systematic bias, they constitute the evidence on which firms rely for hire and fire decisions. Thus, in a practical sense, supervisor opinion is a valid assessment of performance.

There are three points at which data is being collected for each site. Prior to training commencing information is being obtained about antecedent (pre-existing) conditions including prior measures of productivity. As soon as training concludes information is obtained about the learning outcomes and training costs. Finally the level of retention of training outcomes will be obtained and post–training productivity measures will be collected. The data to be collected is summarised below.

1. PRIOR TO TRAINING

Motivation to Learn.

Expectation of Training Retention Support (organisational climate)

Prior Knowledge (Current Competencies)

Industry competencies

Literacy and numeracy

Learning Skills

Productivity Measures (at least two) See Table One below for suggested measures.

2. IMMEDIATE POST TRAINING

 

Duration of Training

 

Competencies Achieved.

 

Learner Perception of Training Process

 

Self Assessment of Industry Competencies Achieved

 

Motivation to Learn

 

Training Costs

 

 

3. RETENTION OF COMPETENCY

Training Retention Support (Organisational Climate)

Workplace Competency Assessment (Supervisor)

Self Assessment

Industry competencies

Learning Skills

Productivity Measures (repeat of at least two from stage 1)

Each firm/site will receive a confidential report about the costs and generic benefits of training for the specific site. A summary report across firms will be prepared to indicate the overall findings about costs and benefits. In addition a general summary report across all sites on the factors that were predicted to affect training will be provided to each firm. Subject to review to ensure that no sensitive information about individual firms can be identified, this report will be presented to the Victorian Food Industry Round Table.

1. Indications that training was well received.

• Staff self reported motivation to learn will be higher immediately after training compared with level prior to training,
• Learning process will be assessed more positively by those with better learning outcomes (both content outcomes and motivation)

1. Determinants of Training Effectiveness

Level of Achievement of training outcomes will be related to prior state of learner with regard to:

• Prior (current) number of industry competencies achieved (ie skills are cumulatively beneficial)
• Prior level of motivation to learn.
• Expected level of organisational support
• Self-efficacy (confidence in own abilities)

It is assumed that the number of competencies achieved will be related to training time, both between individuals within training settings, and between groups of individuals across training settings.

1. Mediation of Training Effectiveness

• Across the four sites, the perceived relevance of the training and the perceived quality of the teaching/learning process will each be related to the level of achievement of training outcomes by groups of trainees across firms.
• Within each site the perceived relevance of the training and the perceived quality of the teaching/learning process will each be related to the level of achievement of training outcomes by individual learners within each firm.

1. Determinants of Retention of Competency

• Across the four sites, the support by supervisors for implementation of new competencies will be related to the level of retained competency.
• Within each site, individual self-efficacy (confidence in own abilities) and level of learning outcomes will each be related to the level of retained competency.

1. Cost benefit analysis

• The learning outcomes will be related to the level of expenditure on training.
• The retention of competencies will be related to the level of expenditure on training.

6. Measures of Productivity

FIGURE ONE IS AVAILABLE FROM THE AUTHOR.