Review of Business qualifications, 2012
Governance Group responses (in green italics) to the
summary of comments to the proposal for qualifications and their relationships, September 2012
The proposal for future Business qualifications and their relationships was distributed to
stakeholders on 26 July 2012, and published on the review webpage shortly after
(http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/qualifications-standards/qualifications/business-qualifications/review-ofbusiness-qualifications/). Submissions were invited by 13 August.
This summary is intended for the Governance Group, to help focus discussion at the meeting on
24 August which will result in a brief for the working groups to develop an outcome statement for
each qualification, 29-31 August and 13-14 September, and the GG responses are for publication
for the information of stakeholders.
Submissions
45 separate submissions were received (totalling over 100 pages), including 30 from the ITP
sector:
- 16 ITP institutions responded, sometimes with one response on behalf of the entire organisation
and sometimes with several responses – 6 responses were received from one ITP for example,
including 3 from one staff member.
- both NBAF (National Business Administration Forum) and ABEF (Applied Business Education
Forum) contributed comments.
The remaining 15 submissions include:
- 4 from three ITOs, 2 from PTEs, and one from a wānanga
- 3 national organisations or peak bodies: Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU), NZ Defence Force,
Association of Administrative Professionals (AAPNZ)
- 5 individuals.
General issues
While the broad thrust of the proposal is supported in the main, respondents provide a range of
helpful comment.
The explicit inclusion of "soft skills" in these qualifications is widely supported.
There are requests for the needs analysis, the basis for this proposal, to be published.
The needs analysis has now been published, and is available on the review webpage,
http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/qualifications-standards/qualifications/business-qualifications/review-ofbusiness-qualifications/.
Issues are raised that will be addressed by the working groups who, in drafting an outcome
statement for each qualification, will provide more detail of the qualification's relevance and
outcomes, as well as pathways between the qualifications.
There is widespread concern that 40-credit qualifications may have unwelcome effects on:
 programme design
 funding mechanisms
 inclusion of sufficient breadth of content, especially in relation to 'soft skills’.
ITPs in particular favour 60 credits for discrete qualifications, and/or aggregated blocks of 15
credits.
In considering the design of new qualifications, the Governance Group has tried to strike a balance
between the needs of domestic students wishing to undertake full-time study, international
students, and the needs of employers and those students wishing to undertake part-time study
only. The Governance Group was also mindful when considering the design of new business
qualifications of completions data related to many of the most popular existing qualifications that
1
Review of Business qualifications, 2012
Governance Group responses (in green italics) to the
summary of comments to the proposal for qualifications and their relationships, September 2012
suggest that many students want to gain subject specific skills and are not interested in gaining
qualifications of significant credit value. Hence the proposed design attempts to address these
issues. However, as indicated in the original proposal, credit values were indicative only and
would be assigned once the qualifications outcomes weere determined. As such the Governance
Group instructed the working groups to focus on developing outcomes prior to considering credit
value.
Some submissions discuss the proposed qualifications in terms of changes to the existing
qualifications.
The proposed qualifications do not necessarily have any link to existing qualifications, as the new
qualifications are based on the needs analysis rather than current practice.
The needs of business owners (especially SMEs) and self-employed are raised as having
apparently been ignored in the proposal. One submission in particular proposes an entire suite of
qualifications, levels 3 to 6, for this audience.
The two “Business Management” qualifications at level 4 were intended for this audience. The
proposal document is deficient in not pointing this out explicitly.
However the Governance Group has reassessed these qualifications and they are now intended
for people who are or who wish to become self-employed. There is not enough evidence available
at this stage to justify separate qualifications for owners/managers of businesses, including SMEs.
Level 2
The proposal not to develop a business qualification at level 2 is a major issue, especially with
ITPs.
Of the 18 organisations and groups in the ITP sector who responded, 14 addressed the proposal
not to have a level 2 qualification in Business. All are opposed except for one whose
organisational response (as opposed to staff members' responses) accepts the proposal, provided
foundation and specialist skills are included in the level 3 qualification.
The two PTE responses are divided about this proposal, as are the two individuals who responded
on this topic.
NZCTU recommend retention of a level 2 qualification "to cover the skills and knowledge of
participating in a workplace team". This is echoed, sometimes implicitly, in other submissions, and
reflects an issue raised in connection with the NZCB Team Leadership, level 3 (see below).
The main reasons advanced for retaining a level 2 Business qualification are:
 the popularity of current programmes and their beneficial effects for learners
 providing pathways to employment and to further study, to BusAdmin and to other more
diverse opportunities
 meeting the foundation needs (including literacy and numeracy) of a range of groups, including
people returning to work, minority groups, ESOL learners, ...
 providing a "safe" reintroduction to education for people and building their confidence on
educational success.
These reasons all seem to be general work-ready skills and knowledge and so relate to wider
foundation issues, rather than to matters specifically relating to business. The Governance Group
believes that the needs of learners at levels 1 and 2 on the framework should be addressed by
foundation programmes with a focus on assisting priority learners to gain literacy, language, and
numeracy skills, and to prepare them for work or further study. The Governance Group is also
aware of significant changes to Government policy with respect to the funding of both providers
and learners for qualifications at levels 1 and 2. For these reasons the Governance Group does
not see a need currently for a business-specific qualification at level 1 or 2, and will recommend a
2
Review of Business qualifications, 2012
Governance Group responses (in green italics) to the
summary of comments to the proposal for qualifications and their relationships, September 2012
level 2 workplace/foundation skills qualification to the General Education (including foundation
skills and knowledge) qualifications review that begins later in 2012.
Levels 3 and 4
Many respondents question whether Financial Skills (currently at level 3) and Application of
Business Technology (currently at level 4) are at the right level and/or whether they should be at
both levels 3 and 4. A financial skills pathway from levels 3 to 6 requires a level 4 qualification.
Because Business Administration uses a wide range of software applications, the boundary with
Application of Business Technology is not clear to some. It is also suggested that business
technology be included in other qualifications, rather than being certificated separately.
There is general support for the proposed Business Administration qualifications at all levels.
The title and focus of the proposed Team Leadership (level 3) qualification are queried. As
proposed, it appears to be relevant to someone with actual team leadership responsibilities.
Respondents identify a need for team working and allied skills for people without a leadership role.
This is a significant gap for some respondents.
The focus of this qualification has been changed to include relevance for people who aspire to
team leadership roles, without necessarily already acting in such a role.
Some respondents suggest that this qualification should be flexible enough to be relevant in all
team contexts, while others suggest greater contextualisation – even to individual work roles.
Respondents question the proposed Customer Service (level 3) qualification as a separate
qualification on two grounds:
 a focus on sales/selling will invalidate it as a generic business qualification and will focus on a
specific context (the intention is that this is much wider than sales/selling)
 customer service can be seen as one of the ‘soft skills’ that will be made explicit throughout the
business qualifications.
This qualification is withdrawn, with customer service to be included as relevant in other
qualifications.
The proposed First Line Management (level 4) qualification is generally well supported.
Suggestions promote the inclusion of leadership skills and greater contextualisation for specific
work roles.
In relation to the two proposed Business Management qualifications (level 4), respondents queried
their purpose and relevance. Refer above.
Levels 5 and 6
The proposal for levels 5 and 6 has been amended in response to this feedback, to include one
Diploma at each level, with a 60-credit core with strands (also 60 credits). The strands will include
a generalist strand and specialist strands:
 the generalist strand will recognise developed all-round ability in business
 specialist strands will include Māori business, accounting, business administration and
technology, and management / leadership.
Concerns are expressed about the “Applied” certificates:
 “applied” is interpreted in a range of different ways and is generally unclear
 some respondents question whether such a concept can and/or should be certificated
separately
3
Review of Business qualifications, 2012
Governance Group responses (in green italics) to the
summary of comments to the proposal for qualifications and their relationships, September 2012
 it is asked whether this can include the application of specialist skills / knowledge.
The ‘Applied’ certificates have been withdrawn.
A range of further specialist areas was suggested.
Further strands can be added in time (pending needs analysis), as the qualifications are reviewed.
The credits ratio at level 6 between core and specialist is queried, with the suggestion being that
80 credits is too much at that level for core skills. It is suggested that this be reduced to 60 or 40
credits, with the specialist areas being correspondingly increased.
Concerns are expressed about whether the aggregation of two qualifications to become a third are
possible under NZQA requirements. This proposal has been amended to avoid this issue.
Aligning the level 6 qualifications to suit pathways into degree programmes is advocated.
The NZ Defence Force and AgITO suggest outcomes for applied leadership and agribusiness
respectively.
A diploma with 240 credits is not supported, subject to the acceptability of proposed arrangements
for immigration requirements for international students.
4