Defining and specifying competence needs in tailor-made
continuing education
Bente Nørgaard, Flemming K. Fink
Centre for CPD, Aalborg University, Denmark ben@es.aau.dk
Abstract
CPD Aalborg, the Centre for Continuing Professional Development at Aalborg University, has
several years of experience in offering continuing education (CE) to enterprises. This experience
has clearly indicated that the collaboration process concerning specification of an enterprise’s
competence needs very often is a difficult process. However, in tailored courses this process is
indispensable. The difficulties lie partly in the enterprises’ lack of strategies concerning competence development, and partly, in the lack of methodology aiming at specifying competence needs.
In our work we have looked into the process related to tailor-made CE. How are, defined needs of
competences specified and transferred into learning objectives? How enterprises, employees and
universities collaborate by putting into words the competence need of the enterprise and herby
allowing the most optimal CE course to take place. The process of specifying competence needs
covers the process from the initiated contact between the enterprise, employee and university until
the course is developed. This process is very important, as effects and a result of a given CE
activity is highly dependent on the specified competence needs and their relevance in relation to
enterprise strategy as well as the preferences of the individual learner. This paper will give a
presentation of the dialogue process which will be the leading methodology in specifying
competence needs.
Keywords: Tailor-made CE, competence needs, knowledge transfer, dialogue process
1. INTRODUCTION
CPD Aalborg has several years of experience in offering continuing education (CE) to enterprises primarily
within the disciplines of the Faculty of Engineering, Science and Medicine at Aalborg University. In
addition, CPD Aalborg offers a range of courses in cooperation with the Faculties of Humanities and the
Faculties of Social Science. The portfolio of activities is broad and span from traditional pre-defined
courses (3, 4, 5... days) to customized education activities and into individually tailor-made courses
developed to meet current needs from both enterprises and learners. This span requires different degree of
collaboration between enterprises and course supplier ranking form almost no interaction till a thorough
dialogue process. The idea is to offer the relevant knowledge and competences - at the right time and pace.
Experience with customized and especially tailor-made courses has clearly indicated that very often it is
difficult to specify an enterprise’s competences needs. The difficulties lie partly in the lack of strategic
focus on competence development, and partly, in the lack of methodologies for collaboration on how
competences are made explicit in order to be described and further developed into courses. We distinguish
between customized and tailor-made courses. To customize a course is a relative simple process for both
the education supplier and the enterprise. The course will often be put together from already existing course
elements and the enterprises have only to choose from the shelf. But if the course has to be tailor-made and
match strategic goal as well as preferences of the individual learners, a thorough dialogue is required
among the enterprise, learner and the educations supplier. In tailor-made courses the collaboration process
is indispensable, as here the seeds are sowed for the success of the course.
Traditionally CPD supplier often offers short pre-defined courses with professional contents defined by the
teacher and with background in his professional know-how. Enterprises, however, claims that it can be very
difficult to estimate the relevance of this kind of courses in advance and to make use of the professional
theoretical contents in their every day work. In other words a pre-defined course may very well not be the
most optimal solution for the enterprise. Most likely conditions in the enterprise will make pre-defined
courses less profitable for example; parts of the course material can be known knowledge, the level may
not be the right one, part of the course material is beside the point; and finally it is often very rewarding to
include cases from the enterprise.
The expectation or the ideal situation is that the enterprises are aware of their needs of competences. And
based on this knowledge they try to get a 100 % match between needs and course contents. But in real life
this expectation is far from realistic. Our research 1 shows that only a few enterprises have a strategy for
competence development and according to ‘Center for Ledelse’ enterprises are investing in education of
their employees but they do not analyze the results of the course activities 2 . A research introduced to 200
enterprises concluded that 1/5 of the enterprises wandered blind folded around when it comes to
competence development. This is rather odd, as most enterprises at the same time recognize that human
resources are the enterprise’s most important resource, and it is strange that so important and strategic
issues as competence development is left to freak chance. However, literature has focus on analyzing
results of course activities such as Effect Measuring 3 ; Return On Investment (ROI), HR-effect e.g. all
conceptual which aim at the results of the course. It is interesting to analyze the results of a given course
but as Donald Kirkpatrick 4 indicates in his book ‘The Four Levels’, the evaluations are very often
questionnaires carried out by the course supplier and therefore only reaches the top level which uncovers
how satisfied the learner has been with the course and the lecturer. To reach a satisfactory feed-back on a
course it has necessarily to be the enterprise itself which defines and carries out the evaluation as it may be
expected that the enterprise alone can evaluate the internal effect on the course.
Focusing on output and results are naturally interesting but the circumstances in a given output or result has
necessarily to be looked upon in the light of the goal with the actual activity or course. Therefore the
enterprise needs to have at least very much focus on defining and specifying the content of the course
(learning objectives) - what is measuring the output worth, if the starting point was incorrect in relation to
needs and preferences. In this paper we will look into the process of how learning objectives are defined
and specified in relation to CE.
Enterprises often have a wish for tailor-made CE courses, and they like the idea that they can decide on
(tailor) a course which exactly meets their needs and preferences. But fundamental for tailoring CE it is to
specify the competence needs and describe this need into learning objectives. During the past 8 years CPD
Aalborg has developed a methodology for tailor-made courses, based on the pedagogy of problem based
learning 5 . The methodology Facilitated Work Based Learning 6 (FWBL) is a new learning method
emphasizing the integration of new knowledge into the day-to-day work. The learning process is an
integrate part of the daily work and there will be direct use of the acquired knowledge in work-defined
tasks. FWBL not only delivers new knowledge, but also develops new competences on the enterprise’s
terms. The methodology of FWBL embraces the process of specifying learning objectives therefore this
work primarily is initiated by FWBL.
2. FROM DEFINED COMPETENCE NEEDS TO SPECIFIED LEARNING OBJECTIVES
In the following we will look into the process of how learning objectives are defined and specified in
relation to CE. How companies, employees and universities collaborate by putting into words the
competence need of the company allowing the most optimal CE course to take place. The process of
specifying learning objectives covers the process from the initiated contact between the company,
employee and university, identification of competence needs until the course is developed. This process is
very important as effects and a result of a given CE activity is highly dependent on the specified needs and
their relevance in relation to company strategy and the preferences of the individual learner.
We will now give a presentation of the dialogue process which will be the leading methodology in
identifying competences needs and specifying learning objectives.
First we will introduce an illustration of the dialogue process as a spiral; see figure 1. The entrance or
access to the spiral is the defined competence need. The reason for using the words ‘defined’ and
‘specified’ are due to the delimitation. The process takes off in the needs ‘defined’ by the company. These
needs will often be defined in terms of tools, platforms, solutions or products, but in order to be able to
describe the learning process the needs have to be specified in terms of professional learning objectives.
The spiral illustrates the gap between the defined need and the specified learning objectives. The defined
needs can be those obvious to all or they can be latent and more like a feeling of a need. In both cases the
needs have to be specified in relation to resources, the learner’s professional level and preferences,
timeframe, strategy e.g. to be able to describe the learning objectives.
Defined competence need
Specified learning
objectives
Dialog process in specifing learning objectives
The process is dialogue based through different phases. The dialogue process is illustrated as a wavy road
where questions become deeper and more precise in relation to the learning objectives as the spiral moves
towards the center - a specified learning objective. The spiral illustrates the process where questions and
given answers will open new questions and answers which again will open new questions and in that way
put the spiral into movement until the involved parties decide that the learning objectives are specified and
a course can be developed. No companies are alike and therefore the process of specification will be
different from company to company; for instance the time spent on the process and the number of persons
involved.
3. THREE PHASAS OF DIALOG
In figure 2 the dialog spiral is viewed sideways and now illustrated as a funnel, again with defined needs
seeking the outlet specified learning objectives. As illustrated the dialog runs through three different phases
depending on the depth of the definition process. As entrance to the spiral lies the ‘opening and practical
questions and subsequently the dialog moves to wards ‘uncovering questions’ and eventually ends up in a
dialog which has more character of coaching to ‘clarifying and analyzing’ the competence need. The dialog
will through the three phases move from mutual interaction between equal partners to dialogue with power
asymmetry for in the clarifying and analyzing phase to move back to dialogue between mutual partners. 7
Defined competence need
Opening / practical
question
Uncovering
question
Clarifying / analyzing
sparring
Phases in dialog process
Specified learning objectives
3.1 Opening / practical questions
This phase is important as the contact between company and university is often new for both parts, or at
least the situation might involve new persons. To ensure a fruitful collaboration it is very important to
ensure everyone involved is in agreement. Therefore, the time used on harmonizing wishes, expectations
and request is often very well refunded. The partners get to know each other and develop mutual respect
which is necessary as work on competence development very often has a strategy important to the
company. To develop tailor-made courses knowledge of products and processes are required which very
often has confidential character and therefore demands non-disclosure agreement between the partners.
This agreement is important to prepare and sign as early in the process as possible to be able to have an
open dialogue. Therefore the future collaboration is very dependent on the success of this phase.
A partnership without confidence and mutual trust would never work for any party. The dialogue process in
this phase bear the impress of mutual interaction between equal partners working on the topics outlined
below. These relatively simple topics would in connection to the defined need, form a secure and trusting
fundament for moving on to more uncovering questions.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Resources, economic, time and human recourses are introduced.
Needs, the defined needs are discussed in relation to product, project and working team (learners)
and the university lectures research based knowledge is matched to the defined needs.
Administration, decisions are made on the practical level, secretary assistance, accommodation
e.g.
IT, relevant IT support, IT platform e.g.
Confidentiallity, the non-disclosure agreement are prepared and signed
Purview, the field of responsibility are introduced to the partners
Time frame, clarification of time frame and consequences if partners fail to fulfill.
Tasks in process, the process of specifying learning objectives are discussed - the two remaining
levels of the funnel is described/introduced to the partners.
Mutual trust, before moving on to the deeper level ‘uncovering question’ these more superficial
areas for discussions hopefully have contributed to a mutual understanding and respect.
3.2 Uncovering questions
In this phase the hard core learning objectives are uncovered through dialogue. The university lecture will
in a dialogue with the strategic leaders of the company establish a very precise description of their
preferences and requirements for the learning objectives. This precise description will partly be based on
what is needed and its time frame and partly on the learners involved in the course. Based on the definition
by the strategic leaders the university researcher will carry out interviews with each individual learner to
expose the professional competences of the learners and try to match it to the learning objectives defined by
the leaders
This dialogue will have a power asymmetry as the university researcher defines the situation, introduces the
theoretical subject to be discussed and guides the learning objective specification process by asking
predefined questions. However, the university researcher must be aware that the aim is not to meet
objectives for academic reasons but for the learner to obtain competences and skills needed to solve day-today work. Therefore, a certain insight into the company’s products and processes is necessary to match
specified needs to daily work. Here the dialogue will have a power asymmetry the other way around as the
company defines the situation by introducing and describing the company’s products and processes. These
below topics may form a background for discussion.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Strategy, the learning objectives match the competence strategy of the company
Skills, uncover skills and levels of skills with the individual learner - related to the learning
objectives
Preference, the overall learning objectives are specified by the company the idea is to try
matching the individual learner’s preferences to the learning objectives in a way that the learner
feels an ownership for the tailor-made course.
Motivation, the lecturer need to read if the learner is motivated for the course
Support, relevant IT support and given IT platform.
Design, dialogue on didactic
Facilitator, the lecture describe his role as the facilitator - not the consultant
Acceptance, the learner must accept the analyzed professional level and the weight on his
preferences in the specified learning objectives.
Products, the company describe the product or the project on which the learning objectives are
tied.
Process, the company describe the process in which the learning objectives are born and also the
room for the course the fit in the processes.
3.3 Clarifying / analyzing questions
The last and most narrow phase of the funnel is the clarifying and analyzing phase. Here the dialogue is
back to mutual interaction between mutual partners and it may even have an incentive of coaching. This
phase is at a very high strategic level in the company and now answers to questions are given. Therefore, in
this phase the university researcher or consultant are opening questions for the company to be inspired to
reflect upon. But companies may as well inspire the university researcher and consultant in moving forward
to new methods for knowledge sharing.
•
•
•
•
Commitment, the specified learning objectives require commitment for all involved in the tailormade course; company, learners and lecturers.
Mentor, if possible it is rewarding that the superior to the learners are involved in the learning
process as mentors to the learners, and to keep the process on track
Anchoring, dialogue on how to ensure the knowledge in anchored in the organization on not only
in the employees evolved in the course.
Knowledge sharing, dialogue on how to ensure that the knowledge obtained in the course is
shared within the company.
4 CONCLUSION
Time and resources spent on the dialogue process of specifying competence needs are very important and
rushing trough this process may result in poorly specified competence needs which undoubtedly will result
in learning objectives which are not a 100% match of the competence needs of the company. Going
through the process there are no short cuts. The phases of the dialogue will provide a structure to the
process, but the company, the employees and the university will have to decide between themselves when it
is time to move on the next phase. No companies are alike so no processes will be alike.
The reason for developing tailor-made CE courses is no doubt to match competence needs and to do so the
dialogue process in specifying competence needs is indispensable.
References
1
Leonardo-project (2003). Continuing Engineering Education as Work Based Learning (CEE_as_WBL).
Leonardo da Vinci Community action programme on vocational training, Pilot Project. No. 2003DK/03/B/F/PP-145.311 Fink, Flemming K,& Nørgaard, Bente, ELITE, Aalborg University, Chisholm, C.U
& Davis, M General Academic and Professional Studies, Glasgow Caledonian University, Continuing
Engineering Education as Work Based Learning - Results from an EU Leonardo Project (2005)
Fink, Flemming K., Nørgaard, Bente ELITE, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark Obermüller, Eva,
ELearning Centre, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria, Understanding Work Based learning
(2006)
2
Center for Ledelse, Rapport, København 2006
3
van Hauen, Finn & Denager, Mette; Læring med Bundlinjeeffekt, ledelse af læreprocesser. Børsens
Forlag 2006
Phillips, Patricia Pulliam: ROI - på bundlinjen. Future Factor Media 2004
4
Kirkpatrick, Donald: Evaluating Training Programs. The Four Levels. Berrett- Koehler Publishers Inc.,
1994
5
Kjersdam, F. and Enemark, S. (1994) The Aalborg Experiment – Project Innovation in University
Education, Aaalborg University Press, 1995
Kolmos, A., Fink, F. K. and Krogh, L. eds. (2004) The Aalborg PBL Model - Progress, Diversity and
Challenges, Aalborg University Press, ISBN 87-7307-700-3
6
Burns, G 2001 ‘Work Based Learning and Manufacturing Management’ Harold Armstrong Memorial
Lecture, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Fink, Flemming K., Nørgaard, Bente ELITE, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark, The
methodology of Facilitated Work Based Learning; 10th IACEE World Conference on Continuing
EngeneerinEducation, Vienna, April 2006
7
Kvale, S.(2005) Interview, An introduction to qualitative research interview. Sage Publications, London