Whilst the UK economy is facing challenges at home and aboard the service sector will be the main driver of Britain’s recovery, whilst the manufacturing sector continues to struggle. However as many firms have maintained their skill base and with further support during the recovery, particularly for exporters, the manufacturing sector will gradually continue to rise.
However findings from BCC’s recent skills gap report, cited that gaps around knowing how to take a product to market is holding back potential exporters.
We believe commercial export skills should be central to business education, and help guide entrepreneurs through essential areas of managing finances, cross border supply chains, understanding legal and bureaucratic requirements. The survey also found language skills will be critical to the success of exporters, and currently very few speak the language of their buyer sufficient to do a deal.
Whilst French remains the most commonly spoken language, of 5000 businesses interviewed only 5% had technical French language skills. As the UK continues to drive up exports, and reduce the balance of payments deficit, this is going to be more of a problem. In faster growing markets such as China and Russia, 95% of businesses have no skills in these languages, and yet according to an IMF forecast China will grow by an estimated 7.75% and Russia by 3.4% (IMF)
There is a real need to heighten the importance of languages in the curriculum and skills agenda, and create the next generation of business leaders to be born global, and for businesses to have more incentives to train staff in languages relevant for their International trade.
The Chamber movement has been going for over 200 years, providing businesses with practical support, access to knowledge, skills and encouraging exports through our export seminars, workshops and export documentation and translations services.
For help and advice on export seminars, Country awareness and export documentation please email export@hertschamber.com
Showing posts with label Skills. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Skills. Show all posts
Monday, 24 June 2013
Tuesday, 30 August 2011
Recent history has been littered with schemes...drowned in a sea of mediocrity
I doubt whether many employers will turn their noses up at the government’s contention that there is a need to improve workplace skills and I am certainly not going to join them even if they actually exist. Equally I will not be enrolling into that happy band of people who unquestioningly accept pronouncements, usually put forward by Ministers and their obedient servants, to the effect that qualification alone is the answer to our prayers. Indeed where it is due I intend to be as critical of this government as I was of their predecessors.
Whilst welcoming the government’s commitment to support an increase in skills within the UK workforce I have reservations as to whether the ‘new dawn’ brings with it any more realism than that which accompanied past efforts to do so. Without wishing to be seen to be too curmudgeonly it seems to me that recent history has been littered with schemes posing as the latest panacea which, ultimately, have been drowned in a sea of mediocrity.
Why, despite the enormous investment of public money in recent years, have so many schemes failed to produce little more than short term benefits rather than answer the challenges of a competitive global environment? Could it have been that providers were encouraged by a government obsessed with sound bytes to focus on delivering numbers rather than providing a quality product? Could it be that employers, seduced by the promise of fully funded training, failed to demand the higher standards required to ensure that the training on offer satisfied the needs of their business? Could it be that the whole exercise was about funding and bits of paper? Could it be that many of the schemes were simply designed to reduce the level of the political fallout attached to youth unemployment?
Harsh? Unfair? Maybe, but not entirely I think, but are politicians alone to blame? Not entirely we all have to take some of the rap. In truth many of the schemes were appropriate and well thought out, the fault lies within the execution with the result that many people have regarded some of the qualifications arising from them with a degree of disdain rather than take the trouble to understand how they might contribute to their business plans? How many had been content, simply because they were funded, to take them at face value rather than take the trouble to fully read the curriculum to understand what exactly was involved? The scheme was fully funded, the member of staff got a certificate and the provider got paid. Oh! And the politicians were able to boast about yet another contribution to the wellbeing of mankind.
How many of us have really taken the trouble to understand some of the qualifications on offer and the benefits they offer. I recently read the contents of an NVQ Level 3 in Business Administration and will no longer question its efficacy or usefulness. Properly assessed it is a challenging and comprehensive qualification. Whilst accepting that not all providers have engaged in shortcuts or, indeed, all employers have failed to be sufficiently demanding, too few have been as diligent as they might have been. The result? Despite the merits of various qualifications they have ultimately delivered a great deal less than should have been expected.
The solution? Government should introduce a time served system in which higher standards are sought thus reducing the opportunity for shortcuts to be taken. Employers should be more effectively engaged to ensure that training (particularly that which is funded by Government) actually fits the needs of their business. Finally, we all need to understand that training individuals is not simply a philanthropic exercise, unless we treat it as having real value it will regarded as having none.
It is all too easy to question the credibility of vocational qualifications but the truth is that they are important to the future development of our businesses and the people who work in them. Qualifications alone are not the answer, nonetheless, we all need to do more to ensure that they are challenging and appropriate. We all need to value and support the development of higher level skills, if we do they will be held in higher regard by those achieving them. They in turn will make a greater contribution to the businesses for which they work.
Whilst welcoming the government’s commitment to support an increase in skills within the UK workforce I have reservations as to whether the ‘new dawn’ brings with it any more realism than that which accompanied past efforts to do so. Without wishing to be seen to be too curmudgeonly it seems to me that recent history has been littered with schemes posing as the latest panacea which, ultimately, have been drowned in a sea of mediocrity.
Why, despite the enormous investment of public money in recent years, have so many schemes failed to produce little more than short term benefits rather than answer the challenges of a competitive global environment? Could it have been that providers were encouraged by a government obsessed with sound bytes to focus on delivering numbers rather than providing a quality product? Could it be that employers, seduced by the promise of fully funded training, failed to demand the higher standards required to ensure that the training on offer satisfied the needs of their business? Could it be that the whole exercise was about funding and bits of paper? Could it be that many of the schemes were simply designed to reduce the level of the political fallout attached to youth unemployment?
Harsh? Unfair? Maybe, but not entirely I think, but are politicians alone to blame? Not entirely we all have to take some of the rap. In truth many of the schemes were appropriate and well thought out, the fault lies within the execution with the result that many people have regarded some of the qualifications arising from them with a degree of disdain rather than take the trouble to understand how they might contribute to their business plans? How many had been content, simply because they were funded, to take them at face value rather than take the trouble to fully read the curriculum to understand what exactly was involved? The scheme was fully funded, the member of staff got a certificate and the provider got paid. Oh! And the politicians were able to boast about yet another contribution to the wellbeing of mankind.
How many of us have really taken the trouble to understand some of the qualifications on offer and the benefits they offer. I recently read the contents of an NVQ Level 3 in Business Administration and will no longer question its efficacy or usefulness. Properly assessed it is a challenging and comprehensive qualification. Whilst accepting that not all providers have engaged in shortcuts or, indeed, all employers have failed to be sufficiently demanding, too few have been as diligent as they might have been. The result? Despite the merits of various qualifications they have ultimately delivered a great deal less than should have been expected.
The solution? Government should introduce a time served system in which higher standards are sought thus reducing the opportunity for shortcuts to be taken. Employers should be more effectively engaged to ensure that training (particularly that which is funded by Government) actually fits the needs of their business. Finally, we all need to understand that training individuals is not simply a philanthropic exercise, unless we treat it as having real value it will regarded as having none.
It is all too easy to question the credibility of vocational qualifications but the truth is that they are important to the future development of our businesses and the people who work in them. Qualifications alone are not the answer, nonetheless, we all need to do more to ensure that they are challenging and appropriate. We all need to value and support the development of higher level skills, if we do they will be held in higher regard by those achieving them. They in turn will make a greater contribution to the businesses for which they work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)