• Home• Index and downloads• Glossary ☎ Contact us

Print this page Find Download

 

Learning and development

This section goes beyond leadership development and examines learning and development more broadly across the APS. Responding to capability needs through effective strategies for managing learning and development is integral to the process of building organisational capability.⁵

The 2003 MAC report, Organisational Renewal, found that structured learning and development is important to building capability and that strategies require adjustment to ensure changing capability needs are met.⁶ The 2004 MAC report, Connecting Government, also examined issues of learning and development in the context of building organisational and wider APS capability.⁷ The report highlighted the need for agencies to support whole of government activities by becoming more responsive to whole of government demands, in particular, ‘through learning opportunities for middle and senior managers in the skills relevant to whole of government activities, including project management, communications, and relationship management’.⁸ Whole of government capabilities are discussed in more detail in Chapter 11.

As a direct response to the 2001–02 performance audit conducted by the ANAO on the management of learning and development across the APS,⁹ in April 2003 the Commission and the ANAO collaborated to produce a better practice guide, Building Capability—A Framework for Managing Learning and Development in the APS.¹⁰ The guide encourages and supports agencies in developing a more strategic approach to planning, delivering, and evaluating learning and development to meet organisational goals and deliver best value for money.

Following on from the better practice guide, the Commission’s APS Learning and Development Guide was released in June 2005 including the publication, Evaluating Learning and Development—A Framework for Judging Success.¹¹ This publication provides agencies with practical guidance in developing effective approaches for evaluating their learning and development initiatives, and is supported by user-friendly evaluation tools and additional resources which are available on the Commission’s website.¹²

Learning and development in the APS has also been the focus of an inquiry by the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee.¹³ While the committee noted that there had been many positive developments in learning and development in the APS, it was critical of the fact that the limited data available on learning and development in the APS hampered its ability to explore trends and assess value for money. The report made a number of recommendations directly related to learning and development in the APS.

In its response to the inquiry, the Government agreed with many of the committee’s recommendations relating to learning and development in the APS. In particular, the Government agreed with the recommendations which reinforced findings from the ANAO audit, including:

• the need to ensure learning and development planning and activities are aligned to the agency’s business directions
• the need for agencies to adopt the Commission and the ANAO’s minimum data set¹⁴ to monitor the cost of learning and development
• the need for agencies to ensure that their learning and development activities include an evaluation plan which outlines evaluation methodology and timing.

Aligning learning and development to business goals

The Commission and the ANAO’s better practice guide states that ‘agency business objectives and capability requirements should drive the subject matter and content of learning options’.¹⁵ The agency survey explored how agencies aligned learning and development with organisational business goals.

Consistent with the ANAO’s 2002 findings, agency responses indicated a strong focus on this issue. Figure 10.4 shows that over the last three years there has been an increase in the proportion of agencies that identified learning and development priorities as part of their performance management system—this year all except one agency reported that they used this measure. In contrast, over the same period of time there has been a decrease in the proportion of agencies including learning and development priorities in CAs and AWAs—this year only 65% of agencies indicated that they used this measure.¹⁶

Figure 10.4: Measures used to align learning and development with organisational business goals, 2002–03 to 2004–05

Source: Agency survey

All agencies reported using at least one measure to align learning and development with organisational business goals, with two-thirds (68%) using at least four measures. Consistent with last year’s findings, the number of measures used was related to agency size. This year there was an increase in the proportion of small agencies that used at least four alignment measures (51% compared to 41% in 2003–04); however, it appears that large and medium agencies continue to be most likely to perceive the need for formal alignment across a broader range of measures.

Learning and development priorities

Agencies were asked to identify their learning and development priorities for different classification levels and for the whole of the agency, and then to indicate the priority level in 2004–05. Table 10.2 outlines the top five priority areas for agencies in 2004–05. The top five priority areas for each classification (or whole of agency) are based on the proportion of agencies that selected the particular area as a learning and development priority for their agency at the relevant classification (or whole of agency) level.

As can be seen in Table 10.2 agencies’ priorities differed by classification (and whole of agency). The top five priority areas for learning and development for APS 1–6 employees tended to reflect other public service capabilities (such as the Values and the Code) and training in an agency-specific ICT system. For SES and ELs the top five priority areas were leadership and management capabilities (such as general leadership development and performance management). At a whole of agency level agencies were most likely to indicate that priority areas for learning and development in 2004–05 were the Values and the Code, performance management and OH&S. The only area of learning and development that emerged as a top five priority at all classification levels (and whole of agency) was performance management. Performance management is covered in detail in Chapter 8.

Table 10.2: Top five learning and development priority areas for agencies (per cent of agencies), 2004–05

Priority area	APS 1–4 (%)	APS 5–6 (%)	EL (%)	SES (%)	Whole of agency (%)
Leadership
General leadership development			88	71
Strategic thinking			73	65
Cultivating productive working relationships					68
Communicating with influence			72	61
Management
Financial management			73
People management		62	78
Strategic planning/business planning				61
Performance management	49	62	72	61	74
Occupational health and safety					70
Other public service capabilities
APS Values and Code of Conduct	60	61			76
Customer service skills	57
Record keeping	63	60
Technical—relevant to specific jobs
Knowledge of particular legislation (e.g. agency- specific legislation, Freedom of Information)		60
Information/communication technology
Training in an agency-specific IT system	62	70			63

Note: The table only contains percentages for areas that were one of the top five priorities at the relevant classification (or whole of agency) level.

Source: Agency survey

The priority level (i.e. very high, high or medium) allocated by agencies to their learning and development priority areas differed both by classification and by priority area. Of the top five priority areas for APS 1–4 employees, for example, 43% of relevant agencies indicated that performance management was a very high priority in 2004–05, compared to only 34% of relevant agencies that nominated customer service skills as a very high priority. Of the top five priority areas for EL employees, the proportion of relevant agencies rating the five priority areas as very high ranged from 33% (financial management) to 47% (people management).

Learning and development delivery options

One of the key principles identified in the Commission and the ANAO’s better practice guide is that agencies provide appropriate learning and development delivery options. This includes systematically planning learning interventions appropriate to the characteristics of the organisation and those involved in the learning and development.¹⁷ The agency survey asked about the learning and development delivery options adopted for different classification levels.

For most classification levels, external conferences, courses or seminars organised by organisations and/or individuals external to the APS were most likely to be used by agencies. More than 80% of agencies indicated that they used this activity at all levels, with between 63% and 91% of these agencies rating it as one of the three most commonly used. The proportion of agencies using this activity generally increased with classification level: 82% of agencies used this activity for APS 1–4 employees compared to 98% of agencies for EL employees. Other activities likely to be used at all levels included: APS-wide programmes developed by the Commission (used by 73% to 95% of agencies; rated as one of the three most commonly used by 44% to 71% of relevant agencies), and agency organised programmes delivered by external providers that were not brokered by the Commission’s consultancy services (used by 56% to 87% of agencies; rated as one of the three most commonly used by 62% to 83% of relevant agencies).

University was most likely to be used at the APS 5–6 and EL classifications (both 80%), whilst vocational education and training were most likely to be used at the APS 1–4 (45%) and APS 5–6 (44%) levels. There was also variation in the use of other activities (including agency organised programmes delivered by the agency’s own staff and formal networks) between classifications, which suggests that agencies are taking into account the needs of different groups in determining appropriate learning and development options.

Access to learning and development

The employee survey results show that in the last 12 months, half of all APS employees participated in either 3–5 days (25%) or 1–2 days (including part-day) (24%) of off-thejob learning and development activity. A further 14% participated in 6–10 days, whilst 16% participated in more than 10 days of learning and development activity. However, approximately one in five employees (21%) did not participate in these activities at all in the last 12 months. This suggests that APS employees have received an average of about four days’ off-the-job learning and development, or two per cent of employee working days, over the year. These findings are consistent with those reported last year.

This year access to learning and development was related to several factors, including:

• age (employees aged 55 years or older were more likely than employees in any other age group to have spent no time on learning and development)
• agency size (employees working in medium agencies were least likely to have spent no time, whilst employees in large agencies were most likely to have spent more than 10 days on learning and development)
• location (employees not in the ACT were more likely than those in the ACT to have spent no time on learning and development)
• type of agency (employees working in other agencies were more likely than those working in departments to have spent no time on learning and development)
• employment status (non-ongoing employees were more likely than ongoing employees to have spent no time on learning and development)
• views on whether their individual productivity had increased (employees who thought that their individual productivity had not improved in the last 12 months were more likely than employees who thought their individual productivity had improved to have spent no time on learning and development).

Some employees provided comments on learning and development, with the majority of comments fairly negative. A sample of both positive and negative comments included:

Learning and development data

In 2002, an ANAO report found that the collection of data on learning and development expenditure and staff development days was patchy across the APS.¹⁸ The 2003 better practice guide published by the Commission and the ANAO highlights the need for agencies to collect meaningful data on learning and development inputs, as well as outcomes, to ensure that agencies have the necessary information to assess value for money arising from learning and development investments. It recommends a minimum data set for agencies, including:

• the number of days of formal learning and development per person per year
• expenditure on formal learning and development as a percentage of running costs
• expenditure on outsourced providers
• expenditure on learning and development consultants
• qualitative views (by key stakeholders such as the executive, management and others) on changes in organisational and individual capability and performance.¹⁹

As noted above, the Government, in its response to the Senate inquiry, reiterated the need for agencies to adopt the ANAO and the Commission’s minimum data set and performance indicators of learning and development.

Agencies’ investment in off-the-job learning and development

The last two State of the Service reports have highlighted the problematic nature of agencies’ collections of data on learning and development against some of the key items in the data set. It is pleasing to report that this year over three-quarters (78%) of agencies indicated that they could estimate their investment in off-the-job learning and development—up from 63% in 2003–04. Large agencies (86%) were more likely than either medium (73%) or small (77%) agencies to be able to estimate their investment.

The remainder of the questions in this year’s agency survey that examined agencies’ investment in formal off-the-job learning and development were modified from those used in previous years. As previous data is not comparable, the following analysis is limited to 2004–05 data.

Of the 64 agencies that could estimate their investment in off-the-job learning and development, almost all (63 agencies) could estimate the number of days of formal learning and development per person in their agency. Of the 63 agencies that could estimate the number of days of formal off-the-job learning and development per person in their agency, half (51%) reported 3–5 days, whilst a further 38% of agencies reported 1–2 days (including part-day). Relevant large (56%) and medium (53%) agencies were more likely than relevant small (44%) agencies to report an average of 3–5 days per person. Conversely, relevant small (48%) agencies were most likely to report an average of 1–2 days (including part-day) than relevant medium (37%) and large (22%) agencies.

Agency and employee data on this issue varies—only one-quarter of employees indicated that they had accessed 3–5 days of formal off-the-job learning and development—yet half of agencies reported this figure on average per person in their agency. It should be noted, however, that this data is not directly comparable (agency results are not weighted by employee numbers).

Almost all relevant agencies (62 agencies) indicated that they could estimate their overall expenditure on off-the-job learning and development.²⁰ Of these 62 agencies:

• half (48%) spent $500,000 or more
• 15% spent between $250,000 and $499,999
• 21% spent between $100,000 and $249,999
• the remainder (16%) spent less than $100,000 on formal off-the-job learning and development in 2004–05.

Not surprisingly, expenditure on formal off-the-job learning and development was related to agency size. All relevant large agencies spent $500,000 or more compared to 58% of relevant medium and 4% of relevant small agencies. Relevant small agencies were most likely to have spent between $100,000 and $249,999 (36%) or $250,000 and $499,999 (20%) during 2004–05.

Relevant agencies were also asked to report their total expenditure as a percentage of departmental operating expenses during 2004–05.²¹ As Table 10.3 shows, relevant agencies were most likely to report that their expenditure as a percentage of departmental operating expenses was between 1.00% and 1.49% (28%) or between 0.50% and 0.99% (25%). It can also be seen that expenditure as a percentage of departmental operating expenses varied by agency size, with 28% of large agencies reporting their expenditure to be 3.50% or more.

Table 10.3: Relevant agencies’ expenditure on formal off-the-job learning and development as a percentage of departmental operating expenses, 2004–05

Expenditure as % of operating expenses	Small agencies (%)	Medium agencies (%)	Large agencies (%)	All agencies (%)
Less than 0.50%	12	11	6	10
0.50 to 0.99%	32	17	22	25
1.00 to 1.49%	24	28	33	28
1.50 to 1.99%	12	28	6	15
2.00 to 2.49%	12	11	6	10
2.50 to 2.99%	0	0	0	0
3.00 to 3.49%	8	6	0	5
3.50% or more	0	0	28	8

Source: Agency survey

This suggests that, not only are large agencies spending more on formal off-thejob learning and development, they are also dedicating a larger proportion of their departmental operating expenses to these activities. It would appear, therefore, that employees in large agencies have more access to formal off-the-job learning and development opportunities than the employees of smaller agencies, which is partially supported by the findings of the employee survey.

These results do not necessarily indicate that large agencies place a greater importance than small and medium agencies on employee development, as off-the-job learning and development represents only one method available to agencies to invest in employee development. The differences reported above may reflect different strategies being used by agencies to invest in the development of their employees and may also reflect agencies’ different business and capability needs, rather than a lack of investment in employee development by small and medium agencies.

Agencies’ investment in on-the-job learning and development

For the third consecutive year, very few agencies reported that they had developed a process to measure the cost of on-the-job learning and development. DEWR and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel (OPC) were the only agencies that reported having developed a process to measure the cost of on-the-job learning and development, with an additional 12 agencies (15%) currently developing such a process.²² Of the 17 agencies in 2003–04 that reported they were developing a process to measure the cost of on-the-job learning and development, none had developed, and only six continued to develop, such a process. These findings are consistent with previous years, and suggest that measuring the cost of on-the-job learning and development remains a challenge for almost all agencies.

Evaluation of learning and development strategies

The 2002 ANAO report found that, in general, agencies were not evaluating learning and development strategies. Consequently, they were not in a position to determine how successful learning and development outcomes had been in assisting them to achieve their business outcomes. Performance indicators used were generally measures of activity rather than effectiveness. Responding to this finding, the better practice guide recommended that agencies maintain a minimum data set covering outputs and outcomes of programmes, as well as inputs.²³ The Commission’s 2005 learning and development evaluation guide provides further practical support and guidance for agencies evaluating their learning and development.²⁴

The agency survey showed that for the third consecutive year agencies continue to focus substantially on evaluating the content of programmes and the effectiveness of their delivery. Table 10.4 shows that evaluating the benefits of learning and development to the individual and agency performance remained a challenge for agencies, although an increasing proportion of agencies were evaluating the degree of capability acquired by the individual in 2004–05 (37%) compared to 2003–04 (31%).

Table 10.4: Aspects of learning and development evaluated by agencies, 2002–03 to 2004–05

	2002–03 (%)	2003–04 (%)	2004–05 (%)
Effectiveness of presenters/facilitators	83	91	90
Relevance and currency of programme content	80	89	85
Effectiveness in meeting identified learning and development objectives	76	76	83
Appropriateness of investment to the desired culture, needs of target audience and required outcome	53	67	67
Value for money	44	59	57
Improvement in performance of the individual	38	40	40
Degree of capability acquired by the individual	35	31	37
Improvement in performance of the agency	15	13	15
Other	1	5	9

Source: Agency survey

---

5 Learning and development as discussed in this section refers to learning activities on-the-job as well as more formal off-the-job activities. Seminars, conferences, classroom training courses, leadership programmes, academic study, in-house programmes are all included.

6 Management Advisory Committee 2003, Organisational Renewal, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

7 Management Advisory Committee, Connecting Government: Whole of Government Responses to Australia’s Priority Challenges.

8 ibid., p. 5.

9 ANAO, Management of Learning and Development in the Australian Public Service, Performance Audit Report No. 64, June 2002, <http://www.anao.gov.au>

10 Australian Public Service Commission and ANAO, Building Capability—A Framework for Managing Learning and Development in the APS, April 2003, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>

11 Australian Public Service Commission, Evaluating Learning and Development—A Framework for Judging Success, June 2005, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>

12 See <http://www.apsc.gov.au/learn>

13 Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee, Recruitment and Training in the Australian Public Service,18 September 2003, <http://www.aph.gov.au>

14 Australian Public Service Commission and ANAO, Building Capability—A Framework for Managing Learning and Development in the APS.

15 Australian Public Service Commission and ANAO, Building Capability—A Framework for Managing Learning and Development in the APS, p. 16.

16 Agencies were asked to indicate all measures used to align learning and development with the business goals of the organisation.

17 Australian Public Service Commission and ANAO, Building capability—A Framework for Managing Learning and Development in the APS, p. 16.

18 ANAO, Management of Learning and Development in the Australian Public Service.

19 Australian Public Service Commission and ANAO, Building Capability—A Framework for Managing Learning and Development in the APS, p. 22.

20 Total expenditure was defined as ‘the sum of all costs associated with learning and development activity including venue costs, catering, presenter fees, travel expenses, development and design costs, material, salary costs+oncosts of participants etc.’.

21 Departmental operating expenses were defined in the agency survey as including employee, supplier, depreciation and other expenses. It does not include administered items.

22 For comparative purposes, the Australian Antarctic Division’s responses have been removed from the 2003–04 data.

23 Australian Public Service Commission and ANAO, Building Capability—A Framework for Managing Learning and Development in the APS, p. 24.

24 Australian Public Service Commission, Evaluating Learning and Development—A Framework for Judging Success.

go to top of the page