COMPETENCE IN TRANSITION
Bob Mansfield
Hammerton Associates Ltd
Bobmansfield@macunlimited.net
Abstract
The former Soviet economies have, for the past twelve years, looked to the
advanced economies in the west for help in reforming their systems of
vocational education and training. These ‘transition’ economies still bear
much of the legacy of the previous system and culture – academic in
orientation, firmly supply led and implemented through vocational schools
which are in economic crisis.
They are offered the western ‘consensus’ – competence based training systems
and the introduction of common or ‘core’ skills. But in introducing these
methods, approaches and concepts, fundamental flaws appear, flaws which
have not been seriously addressed in their countries and cultures of origin.
This paper tries to address the problems in dealing with concepts like
‘competence’ and ‘core skills’, and suggests that we need a coherent,
grounded concept of occupational competence to replace the relatively
unquestioned ‘deficiency model’ which these concepts represent.
The emergence of transition economies
The development of human resources is both a global and local issue. At the global level, we
know about the changes in the world economy which are summed up, rather simplistically, as
the phenomenon of ‘globalisation’. Within each economy, this phenomenon impacts rather
differently depending on the starting point of the particular economy, the history of the
society and the local culture.
In the past, we thought, again rather simplistically, of the ‘three worlds’. The ‘first
world’, comprised the developed economies of Europe, the Americas and the Pacific rim.
The ‘second world’ was represented by the Soviet block and its satellite states, and we also
spoke, rather patronisingly, of the ‘third world’ – those countries of Africa, Asia and South
America which were, and which remain, to put it bluntly – poor.
The political turbulence of the late 1980s and the early 1990s put paid to that
convenient analysis of the world economy. Suddenly, in historical terms, the Soviet Union,
the ‘second world’, fell apart and in its place we found a confusing mixture of tiny states with
populations smaller than a decent sized city, contrasted with vast countries with immense
land masses. What they had in common was a culture and economy which had been
dominated by 70 years of centralised Soviet control, with dependent infrastructures and
economies, which were left fighting to survive in the brutish face of global capitalism. A
criminal act – private enterprise – replaced, overnight, the centralised five year plan of the
command economy and became the new driving force for economic development.
We call these economies the ‘transition’ economies – countries which are trying to
develop market based economies with very little culture, history, skills or competence to
achieve the transition. And because they are a key market, and because they have strategic
importance to the interests of the west, and, hopefully, because we care about the
consequences of the disruption, the poverty, the savings and pensions wiped out by hyperinflation, the disintegrating infrastructure – we offer some help in the form of aid.
Since 1992 I have been involved in the former Soviet states, the transition economies,
helping to develop human resources which are able to meet this incredible challenge. Since
Competence in Transition
Page 1
1998, I have worked with the European Union agency, the European Training Foundation,
which seeks to help the much need reforms with aid projects which aim to rebuild the
systems of vocational education and training (VET) – the system which is designed to
develop competence in the occupations which form the base of the economic pyramid and
which are the drivers of economic growth. This paper, which makes no claim to be
academic, is, rather, a story about the ways in which we are trying to help in this process, and
the shortcomings of our own systems - which are thrown into sharp relief when we try to
apply them outside of the relatively wealthy, stable and developed economies for which they
were designed.
The VET challenge – calculation or equation?
All VET systems face the challenge of matching the skills, knowledge and competence which
are developed in the VET system to the needs of employment - the labour market. This
‘squaring of the labour market circle’ is a familiar issue in the developed economies as we
know from the constant claims that the skills of our workforces are inadequate to meet the
needs of the new, knowledge based economies.
But the challenge in the former Soviet states is much greater. In the centrally planned
economies, VET planning was ‘mechanical’ - a simple calculation. Because production was
forecast and controlled, the numbers of people required in sectors and even specific
enterprises was easy to predict.
As their economies move through the transition phase, the former Soviet states are
facing the problems of meeting labour market demands within the logic of a market economy
– with precious few resources. Many VET schools are crumbling from neglect and lack of
funding. The equipment which was already out of date in 1990 is now a further 13 years old.
Curriculum reform is slow and painstaking, often meeting resistance from VET teachers
schooled in the former system and reluctant to let go of their absolute authority. Changing
teaching methods is a mammoth challenge.
But the fundamental basis of vocational education – that of identifying and meeting the
real demands of the labour market – is the most pressing need. A supply led model still
dominates – with the associated assumptions that new equipment, refurbished schools,
retrained teachers – all supply side factors - will hasten in economic growth. In many former
Soviet states, the reality of the market economy is still not properly understood.
In a market economy, the motivation to produce products and services comes from the
desire to generate surplus value by producing those goods and services which customers will
buy - within an environment where other companies are competing for the same customers.
As customer demand fluctuates, influenced by a number of social and economic factors, the
demand for the quantity of labour and particular skills and knowledge will also change. The
change will impact on the economy as a whole and on individual enterprises. VET planning
cannot work from a mechanical model in these circumstances - within a marketplace which is
in a state of continuous change. From a simple calculation, VET planning becomes a
complex equation, balancing and taking account of many factors which vary considerably in
their predictability.
Responding to the VET challenge
The experience of the western European economies in meeting this challenge has been to
improve the clarity and accuracy of the information needed for both parts of this equation.
Improvements have been made in the quality of the economic and statistical information
which is used to describe and predict the labour market. Improvements have also been made
to the ways in which the VET system describes the learning process and the learning
outcomes - so that the skills, knowledge and competence which are developed can be clearly
Competence in Transition
Page 2
matched to labour market needs. An important feature of this change has been the
development of vocational standards (Kunzmann, Laur-Erst and Hoene, 1998) - a move away
from a concern with the structure of the curriculum, the ‘supply side’ model which asks ‘what
should we teach?’ towards a demand focus which asks ‘in this economy, what does the
student need to learn?’. Added to this we have seen the development of those fundamental
skills – core skills and key skills – which underpin occupational competence and allow for
flexibility in response to change.
But what are these changes which have motivated our developed economies to reform
their VET systems – reform models which we now offer to our partners in transition
economies? Much has been written about globalisation and the knowledge economy – and
much of what has been written is vague, riddled with incomprehensible jargon and of little
use to support action.
I believe that the new needs of employment, which emerged in the 1970s, and still
continue throughout the world, can be described quite simply. Here is a summary of the main
changes and their consequences for people at work.
A decline in:
An increase in:
the manual control of manufacturing
operations - using traditional ‘craft’
skills
continuous ‘mass’ production - resulting
in fragmented division of labour into
small tasks
externally imposed quality control
systems designed to identify defects
monitoring and managing complex
manufacturing systems, usually with a high
IT and knowledge content
small batch and 'batch of one' production resulting in far less division of labour and
increased responsibilities
internally managed quality assurance systems
designed to continuously improve products
and processes
manufacturing systems determined by the
needs of the customer and the market (the
‘customer logic’)
manufacturing systems determined by
the needs of the product and the
production process (the ‘engineering
logic’)
low-cost, marginal quality, low margin
products
limited product ranges to maximise cost
effectiveness and ease system
management
slow response to change - long product
life with long planning and lead times
an economy based on product manufacture
direct and control management hierarchy
high-cost, high quality, high value added
products
large and constantly changing product ranges
to maximise customer satisfaction - resulting
in complex system management
rapid response to change, anticipation of
change, innovation to force change - short
product life with decreasing lead times
an economy based on service delivery
‘flatter’ organisational structures with fewer
management levels and greater responsibility
devolved to practitioners
The consequences are:
•
more multi-skilled workers are needed - people who are capable of adapting quickly to
new skills demands and changing methods of work organisation;
Competence in Transition
Page 3
•
less low skilled manual labour is needed in industry - more highly skilled labour is
required, particularly at technician levels;
•
with the decline in traditional manual skills, more knowledge and conceptual content is
needed to manage automated, computer controlled systems – computer systems also
affect the service sectors;
•
industries which continue to rely on mass production systems with semi and unskilled
labour are ‘exported’ to developing, low labour cost economies;
•
people increasingly become directly responsible for quality assurance and improvement
and the control of their own work activities;
•
there is more direct contact with customers and clients, and customer service standards
continue to increase;
•
as systems become more complex, coordination of work activity is required at every
occupational level - which increases the need for effective team working and
cooperation.
In response to these changes, many countries in Europe have reformed their VET systems.
The type of reform varies, but there are common patterns which can be identified. Here are
examples of the changes that have been made in many countries (Mansfield, 2000).
The change
Examples
Broader descriptions
of occupations.
There is a tendency for occupations to be grouped into broader
occupational groupings or ‘families’ for training purposes - rather
than narrow occupations and jobs.
Because the content of jobs and work tasks change so rapidly, there
is a trend for work activities to be expressed as functions or
outcomes, which allows for changes in technology and work
organisation. The UK method, ‘functional analysis’, was designed
for this purpose. Germany describes ‘work tasks and functions’ in
its training curricula.
Core skills are the general requirements of employment and include
the use of number, communication, problem solving, decision
making and learning to learn skills. They are specified as part of
the vocational curriculum to prepare people for future change and
adaptability. Examples – the UK ‘Key Skills’, ‘Compétences
Transversales’ in France, ‘Schlüsselqualifikationen’ (Key
Qualifications) in Germany.
Curricula and qualifications are broken into ‘modules’ or ‘units’
which can be combined in different ways to give flexibility in
learning design. Combinations of modules can be developed to
meet local, company, sector or national needs.
Open and distance learning is encouraged by the development of
computer technology. Work based learning, combining vocational
education with on job training, becomes more important as
technologies change so rapidly that vocational schools and colleges
Broader descriptions
of work activity.
Core skills.
Flexible learning
design – modules.
Flexible learning
delivery open/distance learning
and work based
Competence in Transition
Page 4
learning.
Flexibility in the
development of VET
Standards.
Analysis of labour
market needs in terms
of the content of
occupations.
are unable to keep pace with the rate of change.
VET Standards have, in the past, been inflexible and slow to
respond to changes in labour market requirements. However, there
are approaches and methods which are designed to allow standards
to be updated quickly. For example, German employers and trade
unions, assisted by VET researchers of the Federal VET Institute
(BIBB), designed four new VET Standards in less than one year in
the field of Information and Communication.
Although accurate statistical information is critical to VET
planners, it is important to review and update the content of
occupations to inform VET curriculum design. The traditional
processes of VET design, focusing on the curriculum, may be too
slow for periods of rapid change.
This overview of economic change and the VET reforms of developed countries act as
models for our colleagues in the transition economies. The modes and types of support and
help vary in detail – some counties eagerly adopt the German dual system, many are inclined
towards the UK NVQ model – but the common feature is that the transition economies, like
the developed economies are realising that they need to move towards a competence based
system of vocational education – a demand driven model to replace the school based systems
modelled on traditional (general) educational practice.
Let’s take a moment to think about what a competence based system of VET looks like.
If we take a number of features found in all VET systems we can map them against two
‘ideal types’ – traditional, school-based systems and competence based systems. Here is a
list of key features identified recently by colleagues working on a VET reform project in the
Russian Federation. These features were selected for analysis as targets for reform.







Vocational standards
Assessment
Certification
Length of training programme
Syllabus/curriculum model
Delivery of training
Methods of training
Now we can characterise them against the ideal types:
Vocational Standards
(major content)
Assessment
Certification
Length of training
programme
Syllabus/curriculum
model
Delivery of training
Methods of training
Competence in Transition
Competence Based VET
Needs of employment
(performance based)
Can/do – Can’t do yet (Go – No
Go system)
Modular accreditation
Flexible – depends on needs
Traditional VET
Educational requirements,
procedures and regulations
Grading, scales, pass, fail
Modular
Courses – whole programmes
within defined occupations
Institution based
Traditional, lectures, show/tell,
Multiple methods and locations
Active, learner centred, self
Diploma
Fixed period
Page 5
managed and project based
demonstrations
In competence based systems, the focus is on students, learners and employment needs.
In the traditional model, the focus is on institutions, civil servants and teachers. The chart is
also a good example of the difference between demand and supply led training.
So what have we got so far? We know that the global economy is changing – and we
know that transition economies have to ‘leapfrog’ the 30 years of painstaking development in
developed economies to meet international standards and economic demands. That’s hard
enough! We also know that there are a number of consistent responses in VET systems to
global economic change. Finally, we can sum all this up in the attractive sounding term
‘competence based training’.
Introducing competence based systems in transition economies – a legacy of confusion
Since 1998 I have been involved in reform projects in a number of transition economies
where the competence based message has underpinned our work.
In 1999 I worked with ETF on the ‘Standards 2000 project’ in which eight former
Soviet states developed VET standards which were more closely linked to the labour market.
In many projects our partners have recognised the importance of core/key skills – I have
just completed some work in Kazakhstan in which we identified a list of core ‘learning
outcomes’ which have been incorporated into work related activities which develop core
skills within the context of technical training.
There are many success stories, but most, if not all, have been achieved through a fog of
cultural clashes and sheer misunderstanding. And that misunderstanding is down to us, not
them. Just consider for a moment two of the key terms which drive VET reform –
competence and core skills. Lets’ start with ‘competence’ – and beware, for we are about to
open Pandora’s box!
First of all, we are still beset with debates over narrow and broad views of competence.
A narrow view of competence is based on the idea that efficiency and effectiveness involves
little more than following rules and procedures and performing limited and routine tasks. It is
typical of mass production industries and highly bureaucratised administrative systems. It is
also typical of a very limited and narrow view of people.
This view of competence prevailed in industries which were dominated by mass
production, engineered production systems, piece rates, short job cycles. It was favoured in
de-skilled administrative and retail environments as well. Competent people were those who
followed rules and procedures without question – competence meant compliance. The focus
in VET was on developing specific occupational skills and instruction in isolated tasks which were identified and standardised through task analysis. This approach has recently reemerged in the blossoming call centres where customer service has now been placed on a
production line.
A broad view of competence co-existed with the narrow model. The broad view
suggests that people need to take more responsibility within the work environment - variously
described as ‘flexibility’, ‘adaptability’, ‘multi-skilling’ and ‘versatility’ – the characteristics
I have previously ascribed to changes in the economy and which is reflected in the general
trend to develop occupational breadth. It is the concept which those involved in the VET
business assume to be the basis of a competence based system.
The problem is that nobody told the training instructors, the traditional curriculum
designers and the existing VET schools and colleges about this shift in meaning and
intention. Well into the 1980s, VET students and apprentices were still being trained and
educated using methods which were entirely appropriate for the economic realities of the
Competence in Transition
Page 6
1960s – a narrow view of competence involving instruction in routine tasks and isolated
technical skills.
But the realities of economic change could no longer be delivered through instruction in
manual tasks. As economies changed, attention turned to ‘higher level’ work roles – those
involving greater responsibility and accountability and which could not be described
adequately using the narrow model.
This led to the view that there needed to be two ways of describing competence - one
for narrow and routine jobs and the other for broader and more responsible jobs. The
‘competency’ (personal characteristics) approach quickly filled the gap by claiming
ownership of managerial and professional occupations.
Various attempts have been made to broaden the description of competence. The Job
Competence Model (Mansfield and Mitchell, 1996) is one, as are the various versions of core
and key skills which are added to the routine technical skills to account for the deficit implicit
in the narrow view of competence. But the problem lies deeper. The fact is that the very
term ‘competent’ creates confusion. In the UK, for example, it is used in five different ways:
Competent (adjective): As in ‘a competent person’. In this context, competent means the
ability to perform to the requirements of employment. Particular sectors and industries often
have an implicit concept of what competent performance means for particular occupational
groups. Consequently, ‘competent’ is often taken to imply a minimum level of performance
across a very narrow range of activities, such as in the use of the terms ‘barely competent’ or
‘threshold competence’. By contrast the concept can also mean the ability to meet ‘best
practice’ requirements.
Competence (noun): the state of being competent - in English usage, can only be used as
part of a noun phrase - eg ‘management competence’, ‘the competence of a manager’.
Competence/s (noun): a task which someone performs (US usage).
Competence/ies (noun): An underlying characteristic of a person which results in effective
or superior performance. This refers to specific behaviour and may be expressed as a motive,
trait, skill, aspect of self image, social role or body of knowledge which is applied. Widely
used in American and UK literature on management training.
Competence/s (noun): The term originally used to describe an element of competence (a
competence ...) in the UK. Superseded by the terms ‘outcome’, ‘standard’ and ‘element of
competence’ - but still used (even by the UK VET agency, QCA!).
So we have five terms are trying to describe, using the same grammatical root, three
quite different things. A hotch potch of behavioural, holistic and psycho/social models which
are essentially contradictory which are expressing (Mansfield, 1999):



outcomes - or vocational standards which describe what people need to do in employment
tasks that people do - they describe what happens - now
personal traits or characteristics which describe what people are like
Small wonder there is confusion! And this confusion, unexplored, unresolved, even in
our own systems, is then exported to transition economies as the basis for country wide
reform programmes.
Competence in Transition
Page 7
Now let us consider the second icon of VET reform in developed economies – core skills.
Here I will nail my colours to the mast and risk charges of heresy. My belief is that the
concept of core skills comes from a profoundly reactionary, deficiency model of competence.
The deficiency model of occupational competence argues that merely describing
specific occupational skills and the performance of tasks is inadequate to meet the demands
of broader, changing work roles – in short, it is deficient. What is needed are the
occupational skills plus ‘something else’. The exact nature of the ‘something else’ was a key
topic for educational research during the 1970s and 80s. The search was on for additional
skills to ‘bolt on’ to the occupational skills. The solution, common to almost all VET
systems is the concept of core skills.
This model is attractive, particularly to our partners in transition economies. The
concept of core skills seems to offer almost a holy grail, a single ‘magic bullet’ which will
immediately transform VET systems. Now if you thought that the term ‘competence’ was a
Pandora’s box, then meet the can of worms! What, our partners might reasonably ask, are
these ‘core skills’ on which so many hopes and ambitions are based?
Let’s start with the statement that core skills are all the skills which are not specific
technical or occupational skills. Then we can look at the different ways in which such skills
are described and categorised – here are some of them:
Basic skills
Broad skills
Common learning outcomes
Common skills
Core skills
Employment (or employability) skills
Enterprise skills
Entrepreneurial skills
Extra functional skills
Generic skills
Key qualifications
Key skills
Life skills
Non technical skills
Personal competences
Personal effectiveness
Personal skills
Process skills
Process independent skills
Soft skills
Social competence
Social and life skills
Transferable skills
Transversal competences
To make life even more complicated each category can vary depending on who developed it
– ie there are different version of core skills, personal effectiveness etc.
There is considerable consensus – but there is also enough variation to cause confusion.
For example, the UK developed a list of core skills in the early 1980s to support a national
training programme. Core skills were developed by consulting with employers in the five
areas of:
Competence in Transition
Page 8





Application of Number
Communications
Problem Solving and Decision Making
Practical Skills
Information Technology.
Thirty five sub categories were developed containing a total of 103 core skills – phrased
as learning outcomes – eg ‘plan the order in which work is to be carried out’. This list was
used in foundation training programmes up until the early 1990s.
The UK agency, QCA, also has a list of core skills – but they are different. There are
six sub categories;






Application of Number
Communications
Problem Solving
Working with others
Improving learning and performance
Information Technology
… and they are at four different levels – with 216 core skill statements in all. They are
also phrased as learning outcomes – eg ‘listen and respond appropriately to what others say’.
In 1997, QCA changed the title from ‘core skills’ to ‘key skills’ – but Scotland (part of
the UK) changed the categories slightly and kept the term ‘core skills’. So in one country
there are three official versions of core skills with two different titles!
But the plethora of different categories is only part of the problem. If we look at the
lists of skills which have been developed we find that, as with the concept of ‘competence’,
they mix up different things. Here, for example, is an extract from a list which is described
as ‘skills for self employment’ (Shaw, 1998):







Communication
Information processing
Adaptability
Languages
Initiative and creativity
Critical ability (reasoning)
Rights and duties of a citizen and consumer
These are different things. Communicating, information processing and speaking a
foreign language are things that people are able to do. Adaptability could be a skill or an
aspect of personality. Initiative and creativity are personal qualities. Critical ability
(reasoning) is an intellectual ability. Rights and duties of a citizen and consumer is
knowledge.
This list also shows another problem with many core skill lists – the descriptions are
extremely vague and generalised. What, for example, does ‘communication’ mean?
Communicate with whom, using what methods, for what purpose?
So we have two fundamental concepts – ‘competence’ and ‘core skills’ which are
ambiguous and cause confusion because they are used to describe quite different aspects of
behaviour. Now translate these innocent sounding terms into Russian – and then try to
Competence in Transition
Page 9
convince your partners that these are clear and unambiguous concepts which will be used as
the foundation for a VET reform programme!
Back to basics
These difficulties and ambiguities in the language we use to describe VET systems are not
unknown. But it is in the application of these concepts in transition economies that they are
thrown into sharp relief. Our partners in the transition economies need our help, and what
they expect is a degree of certainty in the processes and systems which we offer them.
Imagine if the same degree of confusion and ambiguity were to exist in other areas in which
we offer aid and support. Can we imagine working in the financial management sector and
having to admit that fundamental terms like ‘balance sheet’ and ‘cash flow’ had five different
meanings, or that there were twenty different approaches to auditing.
In our worthy attempt to develop a system of VET which is based on the real needs of
employment, what we have done is to take a model based on past practices and try to modify
it to meet new economic circumstances. We have taken the assumptions of task based
instruction, a model suited to the ‘Taylorist’ notions of division of labour, and ‘bolted on’
some additional skills – the core skills – to correct the deficit.
My proposition is that we revisit the notion of competence. In essence, we know what
we mean by a competence based system of education and training – it is one which is geared
to meeting the current and future needs of the labour market. I have already suggested some
ways to characterise those needs – what we now need is to translate those needs into a model
of competence.
Some years ago, I, together with my colleague Lindsay Mitchell, proposed an approach
called the Job Competence Model (Mansfield and Mathews, 1985, Mansfield and Mitchell,
1996). This approach side-steps the ‘additional skills’ debate by simply asking ‘what is the
competent person expected to be able to do in the modern work environment?’.
Based on an analysis of economic and social change, the Job Competence Model
proposes that there are four interrelated aspects of occupational competence, all of which are
present in all work activity - the components are described as:
1
Technical expectations - achieving the expectations of the work role which characterise
the occupation (eg producing manufactured items, processing information, promoting
health, treating illness).
2
Managing contingencies - recognising and resolving potential and actual breakdowns in
processes and procedures (this may include coping with emergencies).
3
Managing different work activities - achieving balance and coordinating a number of
different and potentially conflicting activities to lead to the successful conclusion of aims
and goals.
4
Managing the interface with the work environment - achieving the expectations which
arise from natural constraints, the quality measures which are applied, the nature of work
organisation and the nature of working relationships.
This is a much simplified version of the full model - but the intent is clear. The Job
Competence Model applies to all work roles - the significance of each component may vary but managing contingency and coordinating different work activities is as important to a
garment assembler as it is to a factory manager. It is also based firmly on a view of what
work roles should be like. When first developed, some people complained that it was far in
Competence in Transition
Page 10
excess of what was expected for many industrial and service workers - who were not
expected to resolve breakdowns or balance different activities. The Job Competence Model
proposes that this is inadequate for a modern economy - that this is precisely what it means to
be flexible and adaptable.
There are other models available – in Germany for example, there is a ‘holistic’ model
of a skilled worker which describes work roles in terms of an entire activity cycle, from
planning, through resource allocation, execution of the activity, evaluation, review and
monitoring.
To meet the competitive demands of our economy, our view of competence needs to be
firmly based on a broad and strategic view of the competent workforce, one which can be
converted in into practical approaches which will lead to improvement and development - not
a replication of a former world and outdated concepts which we already know to be
inadequate.
And it is this kind of approach which we need to offer to our colleagues and partners in
the transition economies. They are struggling with vast reform programmes which overturn
the entire base of their educational systems, they are fighting against entrenched attitudes and
values, they are starved of funding and resources. They want to move forward into the
twenty-first century – and they need the tools to do it. They need the best we have to offer –
not our outdated goods.
They deserve no less.
References
De Grip, A. (1998) ‘Labour market forecasts on behalf of the vocational education and
training system’, Linking Labour Market Analysis and Vocational Training, European
Training Foundation, Turin, 1998.
Kunzmann, M., Laur-Erst, U. and Hoene H (1998) Development of standards in vocational
education and training, European Training Foundation, Turin,1998.
Mansfield, B. and Mathews, D, (1985) The Components of Job Competence, Further
Education Staff College, Blagdon,1985.
Mansfield, B. and Mitchell, L. (1996) Towards a Competent Workforce, Gower, Aldershot,
1996.
Mansfield, B. (2000) ‘The Impact of Labour Market Information on VET Standards’
Qualification and Training Methods – Manual Volume 3 - The Labour Market and VET
Standards, European Training Foundation, Turin, June 2000.
Mansfield, B. (1999a) ‘What is Competence all About’, Competency: The Quarterly
Journal, Spring 1999
Mansfield, B. (1999b) ‘What Competence is all About’, Competency: The Quarterly
Journal, Summer 1999.
Shaw, S. (1998) Development of Core Skills Training in Partner Countries, European
Training Foundation, Turin, 1998.
Competence in Transition
Page 11