Tasmanian Public Sector Vocational Education and Training (VET) Providers Review – Implementation
Tasmanian Public Sector Vocational Education and Training (VET) Providers Review – Implementation Project Business Plan Version No: 5/ 27-05-2013 O ffic e o f t h e Se c re t ary D e p art me n t o f E d uc at io n Document Acceptance and Release Notice This document is Version 5/ 27-05-2013 of the VET Review Implementation Project Business Plan. The Project Business Plan is a managed document. For identification of amendments, each page contains a release number and a page number. Changes will only be issued as complete replacement. Recipients should remove superseded versions from circulation. This document is authorised for release once all signatures have been obtained. PREPARED: Mark Sayer (for acceptance) General Manager ACCEPTED: Colin Pettit (for release) Secretary Date: 27 - 7 - 12 Date: 31 - 7 - 12 Table of Contents 1 Overview..................................................................................................................................... 6 1.1 Purpose of Business Plan .................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Project Title ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Project Initiation ................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.4 Background ............................................................................................................................................................ 6 1.5 Summary of VET Review Recommendations ................................................................................................ 7 2 Objectives and Scope ................................................................................................................. 9 2.1 Objectives Hierarchy ........................................................................................................................................... 9 2.1.1 Tasmanian Government Objectives ........................................................................... 9 2.1.2 Tasmania Together ................................................................................................... 9 2.1.3 Corporate Objectives .............................................................................................. 9 2.1.4 Australian Government Objectives.......................................................................... 10 2.1.5 Project Objectives ................................................................................................. 10 2.2 Project Outcomes .............................................................................................................................................. 11 2.2.1 Target Outcomes .................................................................................................. 11 2.3 Outputs ................................................................................................................................................................. 12 2.4 Vision and Definition – VET System and Public Sector VET .................................................................... 12 3 Project Management Plan........................................................................................................ 14 3.1 Governance.......................................................................................................................................................... 14 Corporate Client .......................................................................................................... 15 3.1.1 Project Sponsor .................................................................................................... 15 3.1.2 Project Business Owners ....................................................................................... 15 3.1.3 Business Customers .............................................................................................. 15 3.1.4 Steering Committee .............................................................................................. 15 3.1.5 Project Manager .................................................................................................... 17 3.1.6 Project Team ........................................................................................................ 17 3.1.7 Working Groups ................................................................................................... 17 3.2 Reporting Requirements ................................................................................................................................... 17 3.2.1 Reports to the Steering Committee ........................................................................ 17 4 Workgroups – Objectives & Communication ......................................................................... 18 4.1 Table of work groups ........................................................................................................................................ 18 4.2 Stakeholder Communication and Management........................................................................................... 19 4.3 Industrial Relations Impact ............................................................................................................................... 20 5 Resource Management............................................................................................................. 21 5.1 Budget and Expenditure .................................................................................................................................... 21 6 Risk Management Plan ............................................................................................................. 22 7 Appendices................................................................................................................................ 43 Overview 1 Overview 1.1 Purpose of Business Plan The Project Business Plan is the high-level management document for the project. It is owned, maintained and utilised by the Tasmanian Public Sector VET Providers Steering Committee to ensure the delivery of defined project outcomes. The document will be reviewed and amended to meet changed conditions or objectives during the project‟s life span. 1.2 Project Title Tasmanian Public Sector Vocational Education and Training (VET) Providers Review - Implementation 1.3 Project Initiation The final version of the „Review of the Role and Function of Tasmania‟s public Sector Vocational Education and Training (VET) Providers‟ was released on 30 April 2012.Government accepted almost all of the review‟s recommendations and these are outlined under heading 1.5. The Government‟s response to the Review‟s recommendations will now be implemented. 1.4 Background Tasmania Tomorrow reforms were introduced in 2008. A primary purpose of the reforms was to increase the relatively poor educational attainment of learners post year 10 compared to the rest of the nation. In 2008, as a proportion of the Tasmanian community, only 60.6% attained Year 12 completion or Certificate ll qualification or above. This compares with the nation at 69.8%. In terms of educational attainment, Tasmania performs poorly compared with every other State. This level of attainment is a major contributor to Tasmania‟s relatively low Socio-Economic Status (SES) compared with the rest of the nation. In contrast, around that same time TAFE‟s performance in Tasmania compared very well with the nation and every other State and Territory in terms of VET participation and VET attainment. This result reflects, at least in part, the demand for vocational education and training by the unique industry sector profile, employer needs and occupations in Tasmania compared with other jurisdictions in the nation. To improve the educational attainment of learners post year 10, the reforms focussed attention on creating greater access to „TAFE quality‟ VET and pre-VET programs, particularly for those younger learners who might otherwise not continue their post year 10 education. The intention of the Tasmania Tomorrow reforms was that these programs be provided through the Polytechnic, whilst VET programs for employed learners be provided by the Tasmanian Skills Institute (TSI), or by private providers competing in the marketplace. Statutory Authorities with independent Boards were established as part of the Tasmania Tomorrow reforms: Academy; Polytechnic; Tasmanian Skills Institute; and Skills Tasmania established just prior to these in 2007. The independent nature of these entities, in particular the split of TAFE into the Polytechnic and TSI, combined with private registered training organisations, allowed for policy development and new approaches to promote competition and participation. Increased competition and participation are the desired objectives of manipulating the VET purchaser/provider model. Significant progress has been made towards these objectives through the Tasmania Tomorrow reforms, and remains with the establishment of TasTAFE. Prior to the introduction of the Tasmania Tomorrow reforms, many areas of VET delivered by the public provider, TAFE, were quarantined from competition. In the interests of greater competition, but mindful of allowing a smooth transition, Skills Tasmania began lifting the quarantine arrangements following the establishment of the TSI and Polytechnic. The quarantine arrangements have now been completely lifted. This arrangement will remain. Overview There are many factors currently confronting our public VET providers, including a significant national VET reform agenda, the state‟s challenging budget outlook and the reshaping of traditional provision by higher education and private VET providers. We need to ensure that our system is well positioned to meet these challenges. There are also real challenges in our system and in our state: lifting participation and retention amongst our young people in education, and lifting productivity and skills levels needed to improve the economy. The recent reforms that created the Tasmanian Polytechnic and Tasmanian Skills Institute were intended to address these challenges and have resulted in significant gains, including greater flexibility for industry, increased pathways for individuals, and better access to VET for year 11 and 12 students. They have, however, also created some inefficiencies and inconsistencies in our VET system that needed to be fixed, particularly in light of the state‟s budget outlook and in response to some concerns expressed by the users of the system. 1.5 Summary of VET Review Recommendations The VET Review recommendations have been grouped by topic and priority in the following areas: Government‟s Vision for VET VET in schools Legislation Trade Training Centres TasTAFE LINC Tasmania Skills Tasmania/Department of Education Data Implementation Recommendations not accepted University of Tasmania/TasTAFE Of the 11 topic groupings, there are four groupings that are considered critical to meet the 1 July 2013 timeframe. Within the groupings there are seven key recommendations that are the catalyst for immediate action: Government‟s Vision for VET (Recommendation 3) Legislation (Recommendation 4) TasTAFE (Recommendations 7, 13, 20, 52) Skills Tasmania/Department of Education (Recommendation 27) Government’s Vision for VET (Recommendation 3) Immediate action required. Work to commence ASAP as this is the mechanism to develop the definition of VET for inclusion in legislation. Longer term – Vision to be finalised to coincide with introduction of legislation to Parliament. Legislation (Recommendation 4) Immediate action required. Establishment of legislation working group, development of project plan and timeframes. TasTAFE (Recommendations 7, 13, 20, 52) Two phases – pre-CEO appointment and post-CEO appointment. Recommendation 7 (Establishment of TasTAFE) - immediate action required pre-CEO appointment. Establishment of small group, development of project plan including identification of working groups. Overview Recommendation 13 (CEO recruitment) - immediate action required – DoE/DPAC to arrange recruitment process for CEO. Recommendation 20 (Student management system) – immediate action required. Working group to be included in project plan under recommendation 7 and to include suggested membership. Recommendation 52 (TasTAFE branding) – group to be formed to identify marketing/branding issues, solutions and priorities for report back to steering committee by October 2012. Skills Tasmania/Department of Education (Recommendation 27) Immediate action required. Secretary, DoE, to convene group comprising DoE, Skills Tasmania and DPAC, noting timeframe around development of legislation. Objectives and Scope 2 Objectives and Scope 2.1 Objectives Hierarchy 2.1.1 Tasmanian Government Objectives 2.1.2 Tasmania Together Goal 3: high quality education and training for lifelong learning and a skilled workforce Goal 9: increased work opportunities for all Tasmanians 2.1.3 Corporate Objectives The corporate objectives of the Tasmanian Government for the vocational education and training system are expressed through three major policy platforms. Tasmanian Skills Strategy The first is the Tasmanian Skills Strategy, which is aligned to Tasmania‟s Economic Development Plan. Four objectives for the vocational education and training system are expressed in the Tasmanian Skills Strategy: increasing opportunity; a better system for clients; workforce development; and skills for the future. Importantly, the next iteration of the Tasmanian Skills Strategy, „Skills for Work‟, is currently being developed to articulate the State‟s skills policy, and to inform and guide the State‟s investment in skills and workforce development. Department of Education Strategic Plan 2012-2015 The corporate objectives of the Department of Education in relation to further education and training are: to lift the retention of our students to Year 12 or equivalent and skill Tasmanians to meet the needs of enterprise and industry to build a knowledge-based society and forge stronger links between information and community. Economic Development Plan The corporate objectives expressed through the Government‟s Economic Development Plan in relation to further education and training align with the Tasmanian Skills Strategy and are: supporting the economy by meeting the training needs of traditional and emerging industries so that they can take advantage of market opportunities (Goal One – to support and grow businesses in Tasmania) assisting individual industries by addressing skills gaps and skills shortages (Goal Two – to maximise Tasmania’s economic potential in key sectors) contributing to social sustainability and inclusion by improving skill levels that increase workforce participation to reduce inequality and poverty (Goal Three – to improve the social and environmental sustainability of the economy) Objectives and Scope developing skills that achieve a more resilient and diverse economic base in Tasmanian communities (Goal Four – to support and grow communities in regions). 2.1.4 Australian Government Objectives National Partnership on Skills Reform National Agreement on Skills and Workforce Development The achievement of these objectives is currently the subject of bilateral negotiations with the State. The Australian Government’s role Planning and funding training through the formal training system includes: Managing national skills policy and national aspects of the training system Regulation of RTOs Working with employer peak bodies on skills matters Contributing training funds to states and territories Improvements to the national training system Developing and improving training products and services Research Labour market analysis Skills and training system information Managing Apprenticeship Centres Immigration. Maximizing opportunities and take up of skill development by employers Regional development programs Regional skill shortage programs Stimulating demand for training through subsidies Skilled immigration programs Whole of government work on labour market, skills and training analysis. 2.1.5 Project Objectives The objective of the „Tasmanian Public Sector Vocational Education and Training (VET) Providers Review Implementation‟ project is to act upon those recommendations accepted by the Government from the review. In particular, a single, public VET entity is to be established. The objects of the new VET legislation to establish a single, public VET entity will also inform this implementation project. The objects are currently in draft form and set out below: Individuals develop the skills necessary to commence and continue to participate in the workforce. Training is informed by industry to ensure it meets the needs of the labour market. Objectives and Scope Pathways for learners between schools-based education and training, higher education and vocational education and training are developed collaboratively and are clearly articulated. 2.2 Project Outcomes Implementation of the recommendations in the „Review of the Role and Function of Tasmania‟s public Sector Vocational Education and Training (VET) Providers‟. Tasmania aspires to both state and national targets for participation in VET and the attainment of qualifications, and public providers have a significant role to play in achieving these targets. 2.2.1 Target Outcomes The following outcomes have been selected as the Target Outcomes for the VET Review Implementation Project: Through national negotiations, Tasmania has agreed to a target for Year 12 or equivalent attainment of 81.6 per cent by 2015 through the National Partnership Agreement on Youth Attainment and Transitions. As a state, Tasmania also has a number of other targets including: Proportion of 15-64 year olds enrolled in education or training: 20.6% (2015) Source ABS 6227.0 Proportion of Tasmanians with high level skills/qualifications (Certificate III +): 49% (2015) Source ABS 6227. Objectives and Scope 2.3 Outputs The outputs of the Tasmanian Public Sector VET Providers Review - Implementation Project are: the establishment of a single, public VET entity, TasTAFE, in July 2013. a single piece of legislation governing the public VET system a vision for public sector VET determining the roles for a centralised VET purchasing and policy function consistent with the needs of government establishing a single point of policy advice on VET from DoE to the Minister a single public VET provider that works with learners who are seeking to participate in the labour market, and learners seeking to increase their productivity in the workplace. 2.4 Vision and Definition – VET System and Public Sector VET The following are two draft vision statements and two draft definitions of the VET and public sector VET The first vision statement is for the public sector VET system, and the second is for the broader VET system, of which the public sector system is an important and major sub-set. 1. A vision for the Tasmanian public sector VET system where: all learners gain the skills necessary to meet their workforce aspirations; and employers and their workforces have the skills needed for businesses‟ success. 2. A vision to develop a VET system in Tasmania where: Individuals are well informed, ready for nationally recognised vocational education and training and are able to enrol in a training organisation of their choice; Employers are engaged with the training system, planning and developing their workforce and participating in industry skills planning; The training system is responsive to Industry demand, including skills for innovation and emerging industries and provides quality learning experiences, quality outcomes, value for money and equitable access to foundation and higher level skills. Definition of the VET System The Reference Group identified the need to clarify the definition of VET (Principle 3) in its deliberations. Using this as a starting point, here are two succinct descriptions of VET, the first being more generic than the second, which is more Tasmania specific: 1. Vocational Education and Training (VET) covers the provision of education, training and assessment activities leading to accredited outcomes offered by Registered Training Organisations (RTOs). It may occur in any of the following settings: workplaces post-secondary institutions (TAFE and Higher Education) colleges and schools Trade Training Centres adult and community education providers. Objectives and Scope 2. The Vocational Education and Training (VET) system in Tasmania: comprises a set of Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) that can be divided into public RTOs and private RTOs. All are registered nationally and all VET training is accredited by national VET processes. includes a set of RTOs that enrol students who are entitled to Tasmanian Government subsidy from training appropriations – the Tasmanian Public Training System includes the Tasmanian public RTO, TasTAFE. It also includes many interstate public RTOs and many local and interstate, private RTOs. where appropriate, also has the capacity to deliver non-accredited training, dependent on the needs of learners and enterprises that would pay for those services. is able to deliver VET to school students on a negotiated basis with a school, with the training paid by school appropriations – VET in Schools. Project Management Plan 3 Project Management Plan 3.1 Governance Project Management Plan Corporate Client The Corporate Client for the Project Business Plan is the Minister for Education, Nick McKim. 3.1.1 Project Sponsor The Sponsor for the Project Business Plan is Department of Education Secretary, Colin Pettit. 3.1.2 Project Business Owners Currently the Business Owner for the Implementation – VET Review project is: the Secretary, Department of Education. The Business Owner may change as the implementation progresses. 3.1.3 Business Customers Business customers are other government agencies or business units that will utilise the business outputs, but do not have management responsibility for their ongoing maintenance or accountability for the realisation of their outcomes. The Business Customers for the Project Business Plan are Department of Premier and Cabinet, Department of Economic Development, Tourism and the Arts and the various business reference groups it supports, Department of Treasury and Finance, and the University of Tasmania. 3.1.4 Steering Committee Terminology The Report refers to the Report of the Review of the Role and Function of Tasmania‟s Public VET Providers. The Project refers to implementing the recommendations of the Report of the Review of the Role and Function of Tasmania‟s Public VET Providers. The Secretary refers to the Secretary of the Department of Education. The Secretary has the ultimate responsibility for the implementation of the Report‟s recommendations. Introduction Recommendation 54 of the Report: An implementation group be established to undertake the necessary work on implementation within agreed time-lines. In response Cabinet accepted this recommendation and commented; A high-level steering committee, chaired by the Secretary, Department of Education, will oversee implementation. The group will include key stakeholders. A project team will manage and co-ordinate implementation and report to the project oversight group. Working groups have been formed as per recommendation 56. The Steering Committee: Colin Pettit – Secretary, DoE (CHAIR) Chrissie Berryman – General Manager, Skills Tasmania Tim Bullard – Director, Policy Division, DPAC Andrew Finch – Deputy Secretary, Corporate Services, DoE Kevin Harkins – Secretary, Unions Tasmania Paul Murphy – General Manager, Tasmanian Polytechnic Project Management Plan Sue Kennedy – Manager, Executive Services, DoE Mark Sayer – General Manager, DoE Malcolm Wells – Deputy Secretary, Further Education and Training, DoE Malcolm White – Chief Executive Officer, Tasmanian Skills Institute Kathryn Thomas – Interim Chair, TasTAFE Board Stephen Conway - Chief Executive Officer, TasTAFE The Steering Committee will: assist the Secretary with the development and the monitoring of the project‟s implementation plan, provide advice and support to the Secretary, and provide strategic oversight of and guidance to the implementation process. The Project Team: The Deputy Secretary, Further Education and Training is responsible for the project. A small team led by the General Manager (Mark Sayer) was established by the Department of Education to implement the Report‟s recommendations (as per the approved implementation plan). The General Manager (Mark Sayer) provides both leadership and support to working groups established by the Steering Committee. Stephen Conway - Chief Executive Officer, TasTAFE joined the implementation team from 21 January 2013. Working Groups: Established by the Steering Committee to progress specific aspects of the project‟s implementation. Membership to be agreed by the Steering Committee. Specific terms of reference to be developed to support each working group including timeline, reporting requirements and expected outcomes. Additional Working Groups may be established when and as required by the Steering Committee. ‘Standing’ Committees: Two committees have been formed to address identified issues. Both committees will work outside of the Steering Committee to resolve issues. Once these have been done they will advise the Steering Committee of their progress and outcomes. Additional „Standing‟ Committees may be established as determined by the Steering Committee. Specific Committees: 1. Recommendation 27 - Skills Tasmania Transition Membership: Colin Pettit – Secretary, DoE (CHAIR) Malcolm Wells – Deputy Secretary, Further Education and Training, DoE Rhys Edwards – Secretary, DPAC Tim Bullard – Director, Policy Division, DPAC Project Management Plan 2. Chrissie Berryman – General Manager, Skills Tasmania Mark Bowles – Deputy General Manager, Skills Tasmania Mark Sayer – General Manager, DoE Recommendation 7 – Senior Management advice on the creation of TasTAFE Membership: Malcolm Wells – Deputy Secretary, Further Education and Training, DoE (CHAIR) Malcolm White – Chief Executive Officer, Tasmanian Skills Institute Paul Murphy – General Manager, Tasmanian Polytechnic Mark Sayer – General Manager, DoE. Stephen Conway - Chief Executive Officer, TasTAFE 3.1.5 Project Manager The Project Manager for the Project Business Plan is Mark Sayer. 3.1.6 Project Team It is proposed that members of the core project team will include DoE employees Malcolm Wells, Mark Sayer, Sue Kennedy, Nicole Jacobs, and Geoff Logan; others may be included dependent on the specific tasks of the project. Stephen Conway, CEO TasTAFE joined the group on 21 January 2013; 3.1.7 Working Groups Working groups are established as reflected in the governance diagram, and also identified in 2.4: scope of work. Each working group will produce a project plan which will inform: - communications from the Implementation Team - the communication plan for this document - the risk management plan of this document by reflecting the highest level risks - budget and expenditure tracking 3.2 Reporting Requirements 3.2.1 Reports to the Steering Committee The General Manager‟s regular report to the Steering Committee will include the following: status of the project: milestones for the last reporting period; milestones for the next reporting period; milestones for the remaining period of the project. budget report (with respect to planned expenditure, actual expenditure and the deficit/surplus); issues report (including areas of concern, specific problems, and any action that needs to be taken by the Steering Committee); and risk management report (which will specify any changes to the major risks identified since the previous report and modification to the strategies put in place to manage them). Workgroups – Objectives & Communication 4 Workgroups – Objectives & Communication 4.1 Table of work groups Working Group/ Committee Members Assets Andrew Finch*, Karen Strikis, TBD. To commence activity in 2013. Branding and Communications Mandy Denby*, Jackie Merrett, Lisa Burstall, Irena Blissenden, Sarah Williams, Tom Burton, Helen Tyzack, Nicole Jacobs HR and OHS Mark Watson*, Paul Gourlay, Mark Sayer, Spring Duncan, James Synnott, TBD. To commence activity in 2013. IT Trevor Hill*, David Briggs**, Scott Ashton, Kris Klasen, Greg Curtis, Lisa Baker, Phil Dilger, Paul Gourlay, Marg Carr, Peter Higgs, Kim Foss, James Synott, Geoff Logan QL-S Operations Subgroup: Marg Carr*, Gail Eaton-Briggs, Jess Nation, James Synnott, Kris Klasen, Lynne Wood, Mandy Stubbs, Paul Veldhuis, Skills Tasmania representative Legislation Sue Kennedy*, Tim Bullard, Keith Thompson. Kerrie Moss, Rex Calvert and Helen Tyzak in respect of teacher registration. Organisational Design Mark Sayer*, Malcolm Wells, Paul Murphy, Malcolm White, Anne Blythman, Michelle Eastman, Maree Gerke, Christy-lee Hunt, Kevin Hyland, James Synnott, Bruce Morley, Wilson Forward, Andrew Harris, Jamie Dodd, Geoff Logan, Gail Eaton-Briggs, Kim Foss, Jon Grant, Paul Lennard, Lee Leon, Jackie Merrett, Peter Henderson Recommendation 7 Mark Sayer*, Paul Murphy, Malcolm White, Malcolm Wells, Sue Kennedy, Geoff Logan. Leanne McLean to advise on VET reform as required. Skills Tasmania Transition Colin Pettit*, Mark Sayer, Malcolm Wells, Skills Tasmania senior management. Strategic & Emerging Demand Mark Sayer**, Malcolm White, Paul Murphy, Chrissie Berryman, DPaC and DEDTA nominees, Geoff Logan. To commence activity in 2013. Teaching, Learning and Assessment Gail Eaton-Briggs*, Michael Higgins, Kevin Hyland, Kim Foss, Michelle Eastman, David Gutteridge, Rod Mason, Nicole Jacobs. Leanne McLean to advise on VET reform as required. Subgroups: Scope: Michael Higgins*, Sonia Cook, Rod Mason, Andrew Mellas, Kerryn MeredithSoteris Quality and Compliance: Gail Eaton-Briggs*, Annette Park, Rosemary Lyne, Rod Mason, Annie Saunders, Jhodi Yovich, Simone Loone Enrolment and transition: Michelle Eastman*, Mandy Stubbs, Lynne Wood, Jess Nation Student support: Kim Foss*, Janine Crawford, June Mezger, Ben Crothers, Paul Hardy, Alison Hawke eLearning: Kim Foss*, Kate Hayes, Jacqueline Williams, Janet Fearns Union Consultative Committee VET Finance Malcolm Wells, Mark Sayer, Kevin Harkins, AEU/CPSU representatives, Mark Watson Nick May*, Jacqui Wilson, Mark Sayer, Lee Leon, Kevin Hyland, Karen Strikis. Mark Bowles to advise on Skills Tasmania issues as required. *Chair **Interim Chair Stephen Conway, TasTAFE CEO, joins work groups as required. = Active workgroup Workgroups – Objectives & Communication 4.2 Stakeholder Communication and Management 4.2.1 Summary Consultation sessions and discussions with stakeholder groups have shown that effective communication is seen as critical to the successful transition from the Tasmanian Polytechnic and Tasmanian Skills Institute to the new entity, TasTAFE. The objectives of the project team‟s stakeholder communication and management plan are to: • ensure ongoing communication is provided to all key stakeholders on the project and its progress (until the CEO is appointed and more specific information is available for distribution) • build confidence and support with current and future students (and parents) • build confidence and support with staff so that they become active, positive participants in the formation of the new organisation, TasTAFE • acknowledge and alleviate any fears key stakeholders may have • demonstrate the Government‟s commitment to raising qualification rates, skills development and ensuring that more Tasmanian students stay in education and training • minimise potential risks to the successful establishment of TasTAFE. The collaborative and consultative approach undertaken with the series of statewide sessions at the beginning of the VET Review project will mirror the approach for future open channels of communication. Communication will be timely and appropriately target the full range of stakeholder groups including current and future students, parents, industry, staff and the wider Tasmanian community. Frequent newsletters and easy access information on the department‟s new public website will form the basis of the project team‟s approach. Other more targeted approaches to specific groups will be considered as budget allows. 4.2.2 Approach A range of communication methods are used to ensure stakeholder groups receive timely information that is targeted to their particular needs. See the Communications Plan at Appendix C. The Communication Services Unit is responsible for all media enquiries. 4.2.3 Risks A series of communication risk mitigation strategies have been developed and have been enacted throughout the life of project: Potential risk Negative „trial by media‟ with establishment of TasTAFE as yet another change to the public VET system Employees and unions become loud opponents of the reform Tasmanian education (including non-teaching staff) are Communication actions to mitigate Brief editors regularly and offer minister interviews Engage with media commentators and back with facts supporting new approach Create media opportunities Communicate through media releases what the model delivers and its benefits Seek trusted community supporters and „champions‟ Use language that reinforces that this change is positive for Tasmania‟s VET system and is building on past successes Ensure education audiences are fully briefed, engaged and up to date on the project Provide the information they need to support the change and to inform parents Ensure the educational community can get the answers to any questions/concerns Involve and engage educators in the project implementation Develop employee specific communications that addresses Workgroups – Objectives & Communication Potential risk not fully engaged in the reform Parents and students become load opponents of the reform Confusion about a „return to TAFE‟ Business is not engaged with the reform 4.2.4 Communication actions to mitigate their issues and concerns Ensure they can get the answers to any questions/concerns Communicate what the new model means for them Keep information flowing and building on the implementation of the reform Communication what the new model means for students – explain pathways and options Hold parent/student focus groups to identify issues Provide plain English information and communicate directly to students/parents Do not assume target audiences immediately understand the reforms Explain the differences Ensure the business community have information on the advantages and benefits of the new TasTAFE organisation Clearly articulate the services that will be provided Develop specific information for business/industry Stakeholders The stakeholder and communication register is at Appendix D. 4.3 Industrial Relations Impact The single VET entity will employ both registered teachers with a school background and trainers with a trade background. A Heads of Agreement drafted by DoE has been circulated by Unions Tas, to the CPSU, AEU and United Voice will be kept advised by progress. The IR workgroup meets regularly to progress industrial relations issues leading to the establishment of TasTAFE. Resource Management 5 Resource Management 5.1 Budget and Expenditure For financial year 2012-13 the Tasmanian Government has allocated $1.4 million to the Department of Education to fund the costs incurred in implementing the Report‟s recommendations as per the approved implementation plan. These costs include Project Team salaries, CEO appointment and salary, and project running costs such as marketing, administration, signage, consultant fees and the drafting of the legislation. 5.1.1 Budget Allocations Item Allocation ($) Salaries 696,000 Chief Executive Officer and Board 117,000 Marketing 100,000 Signage 250,000 Drafting Legislation 140,000 Other Costs 96,000 Total 1,399,000 5.1.2 In-kind Support Significant in-kind support is provided by the Department of Education, Skills Tasmania, the Tasmanian Polytechnic and the Tasmanian Skills Institute to form the Steering Committee, „Standing‟ Committees and Working Groups, and to assist the Project Team where required. Risk Management Plan 6 Risk Management Plan Department of Education Risk Management Plan Last RMP Update: May 2013 Reference http://wwweducationtasgovau/dept/legislation/risk 1 Next higher RMP/Level: Outcome if the risk occurred Existing risk treatment actions • Affects ability to meet timeframes Ensure communication and consultation channels remain open Work with Teaching Learning and Assessment group on combined risk mitigation activity Early identification of issues requiring decision through working group. Regular updates to steering committee. Ensure Implementation Team and the Steering Committee are fully aware of impacts of delayed policy decisions. 1. LEGISLATION Opposition to teacher registration provisions 1.1 Delay with legislation • Delayed implementation 1.2 Make policy decisions 1.3 1 • Hinders project commencement and ability to meet timeframes Affect ability to meet timeframes Target area2: Risk rating5 Risk / Failure to…. Level1: Consequence4 # VET Reform Implementation Team Likelihood3 Business Unit: M H B M H B M H B Details of proposed (additional) risk treatment actions (ARTA) 6 Additional resources required to implement ARTA As a general guide, the following levels apply: Office of the Secretary –Level 1; Division – L 2; Branch – L 3 – Section L 4. Do not insert a level if Template is used for an independent project Activities in respect of which designated management area has full or partial control over 3 ibid 4 Go to „Risk Rating‟ 5 Go to „Risk Acceptance/Risk Appetite‟ 6 Aimed at reducing risk to lower risk levels (e.g. to Medium or Low) 7 Target date for implementation of additional treatment actions & person responsible for implementation 2 Person responsible for ARTA & target date7 1.5 Outcome if the risk occurred Existing risk treatment actions Parliament significantly amends an aspect of the legislation (outside of project team‟s control) Potentially affect ability to meet timeframes. Delays with amendments to subordinate legislation (a number of pieces of sub leg to be amended) Work is underway to complete prior to 1 July 2013. Monitor progress to ensure is completed in time. Strong and sustained leadership application by the senior management team Task forms part of Phase 3 TasTAFE Exec responsibility HR Strategy must include management of the SSA in a manner that aligns corporate business model Affect capacity of TRB to charge a fee for specialist VET registration Some potential exposure for TasTAFE in regard to some sub leg Monitor passage through Parliament and consider any actions if necessary. Risk rating5 1.4 Risk / Failure to…. Consequence4 # Likelihood3 Risk Management Plan L H C L M D M H B M H B M H A 2. ORGANISATIONAL DESIGN Change fatigue slows capability • Potential of the new to create new organisation organisation is not realised 2.1 Organisational design model can‟t be implemented • Business fails 2.2 Task forms part of Phase 3 TasTAFE Exec responsibility Engage in a close working relationship with other working groups, particularly the Organisational Design Working Group The new models must effectively capture all funding streams Ensure Skills Tas involvement in Working Group Incorporate particular focus on VET In Schools to ensure TasTAFE is adequately 3. VET FINANCE 3.1 The TasTAFE revenue streams are insufficient to support the organisational design, operations and structure of TasTAFE Decrease in the financial viability of TasTAFE Student training outcomes are compromised Political fallout Details of proposed (additional) risk treatment actions (ARTA) 6 Additional resources required to implement ARTA Person responsible for ARTA & target date7 Outcome if the risk occurred Risk rating5 Risk / Failure to…. Consequence4 # Likelihood3 Risk Management Plan Work with management on developing a process that effectively analyses and monitors the workforce Imbed “classification profile” concept, where possible, within budget plan Optimise use of SAWM and management and monitoring tool L H A Engage in a close working relationship with Skills Tasmania to ensure all funding sources are captured Participation by two Working Group members in the Steering Committee overseeing the Skills for Work reforms The VET Finance Working Group membership includes a Skills Tasmania representative M H A Work to be finalised for Treasury to establish the financial basis of the existing deficits Consideration of requirement by Budget Committee of Cabinet Seek resolution as quickly as possible for the sake of incorporating the consequences of a negative response from the Budget Committee into the 2013 14 budget planning process M H A Existing risk treatment actions resourced for their role 3.2 Workforce analysis is inadequately performed and lacks ongoing management The workforce cannot be supported Decrease in the financial viability of TasTAFE Student training outcomes are compromised Political fallout due to job losses The current and future Skills Tasmania funding model is incompatible with the TasTAFE operational model. 3.3 TasTAFE initially will be reliant on Government revenue and any amendments will impact on the operations Decrease in the financial viability of TasTAFE Student training outcomes are compromised Loss of industry investment 3.4 Treasury don‟t provide funding for legacy cash deficits from the TSI and/or Polytechnic Decrease in the financial viability of TasTAFE Student training outcomes are compromised Reduction in service delivery Possible reduction in staffing levels Details of proposed (additional) risk treatment actions (ARTA) 6 Additional resources required to implement ARTA Person responsible for ARTA & target date7 Outcome if the risk occurred Existing risk treatment actions Establish contingency plan if support is not forthcoming. Separate identification of TSI‟s existing financial plan for the repayment of the loan Ongoing analysis of cashflows Consideration of requirement by Budget Committee Seek resolution as quickly as possible for the sake of incorporating the consequences of a negative response from the Budget Committee into the 2013-14 budget planning process Factor existing repayment schedule into initial 13-14 budget plans 3.5 The Treasury loan to TSI remains as a liability to TasTAFE Decrease in the financial viability of TasTAFE Student training outcomes are compromised 3.6 Relationship between TasTAFE and VET in Schools requirements is not clarified 3.7 Auspicing arrangements that include cost recovery considerations are not established Student training outcomes are potentially compromised Funding model to support VIS cannot be delivered Financial implication to TasTAFE cannot be addressed Future relationships with TasTAFE can be compromised Funding does not align with the true cost of VET delivery TasTAFE to remain engaged with Skills Tas on VIS strategy. Ensure engagement by school and college sector in any adopted funding model. Careful implementation of the model to prevent selective interpretation. Clarify Trade Training Centre responsibilities. (Generally not being managed within this Working Group) A clear flexible model that can be easily adapted Ensure that model can be applied uniformly in all Risk rating5 Risk / Failure to…. Consequence4 # Likelihood3 Risk Management Plan M H A M H A M H B Details of proposed (additional) risk treatment actions (ARTA) 6 Additional resources required to implement ARTA Person responsible for ARTA & target date7 Outcome if the risk occurred Decrease in the financial viability of TasTAFE Student training outcomes are compromised Future relationships with TasTAFE can be compromised 3.8 Inaccurate financial reporting Lack of budget control and planning 3.9 The provision of corporate services is inadequately defined and consequently the charge does not meet the costs of delivery Confusion in service delivery Expectations and / or obligations may not be met 3.10 Lack of clarity over what type of budgetary and financial support will be given and who will be providing it Lack of budget control and planning Expectations and / or obligations may not be met Consultations and training forums with financial staff and managers Regular staff bulletins that communicate the expected changes and that encourage open feedback to the changes Where possible, maintain the status quo and consult with financial staff to develop a robust reporting framework that supports effective decision making M M B Thorough definition of Corporate Service model required Complete costing of Corporate Services model required Corporate Services commitment to service delivery standards M H A Clarification of roles required including articulation of responsibilities that reside within CSD and those that reside within TasTAFE Working Group to work with the Organisational M H B Existing risk treatment actions Staff are averse to changes in financial policies and procedures, and to changes to the Financial and Budget systems Risk rating5 Risk / Failure to…. Consequence4 # Likelihood3 Risk Management Plan settings Require colleges to meet auspicing costs Details of proposed (additional) risk treatment actions (ARTA) 6 Additional resources required to implement ARTA Person responsible for ARTA & target date7 Outcome if the risk occurred Risk rating5 Risk / Failure to…. Consequence4 # Likelihood3 Risk Management Plan New TasTAFE structure to encompass responsibilities for identified financial and budget management responsibilities Working Group to work with the Organisational Design Working Group L H B Working Group to work with legislation work group – review of drafts to identify issues Clarification of the implications of TasTAFE being and „agency‟ L H B Consideration of risk and controls in the implementation of the financial management and budget management models Close consultations between TasTAFE management and Working Group to clarify system requirements and strategies Prioritisation of investment in system improvement for DoE‟s Financial Services systems M H B Inclusion of risk register in project management plan Establishment of a formal risk management group within TasTAFE L H B Articulation of TasTAFE‟s involvement in DoE and M H B Existing risk treatment actions Design Working Group 3.11 Lack of resources to effectively monitor the budget and financial performance Lack of budget control and planning 3.12 New legislation introduces complexities into financial policy and reporting as well as funding requirements Staff effectiveness compromised by impractical financial policies May need to fund for more than what was initially expected 3.13 Finance and budget systems do not adequately support the TasTAFE operational model Increased pressure on staff and management Inefficiencies created Inaccurate financial reporting Lack of budget control and planning Opportunity for fraud 3.14 Inadequate risk management control procedures and mechanisms are in place 3.15 The inability to respond to the deterioration of assets Decrease in the financial viability of TasTAFE Student training outcomes are compromised Student training outcomes are compromised Details of proposed (additional) risk treatment actions (ARTA) 6 Additional resources required to implement ARTA Person responsible for ARTA & target date7 Outcome if the risk occurred 3.16 The TasTAFE board expects that the government will always provide a guarantee of viability for TasTAFE 3.17 Future decisions by Polytechnic and TSI that might have significant negative implications for TasTAFE 3.18 Implementation of the new student management system is delayed 3.19 TasTAFE does not have the required agility to cope with fluctuating economic demand Risky decisions that might expose TasTAFE to diminished revenue streams and/or unnecessary costs Lack of industry confidence and loss of investment Student training outcomes are compromised System inefficiencies will continue with reliance on two financial management systems to record student management information Student training outcomes are compromised Decrease in the financial viability of TasTAFE Student training outcomes are compromised Reduction in service delivery Loss of industry investment M H B Monthly meetings to be held between the Polytechnic, TSI and Skills Tasmanian/DoE identifying any Polytechnic and TSI major commitments and high risk projects that may affect future TasTAFE operations Inclusion of senior TasTAFE staff and CEO on working group. M H B M M B M H A State Budget capital planning processes Reduced effectiveness of assets in training delivery services Diminished accountability and responsibility for the financial viability of TasTAFE Distraction from core business of TasTAFE Political fallout Lack of industry confidence and loss of investment TasTAFE management to provide regular and timely advice to the board on the current and projected financial performance of TasTAFE Build on the budget liaison model being developed for the Skills Tasmanian and TSI relationship for 2013 Existing risk treatment actions Risk rating5 Risk / Failure to…. Consequence4 # Likelihood3 Risk Management Plan Working Group to work with IT Working Group to identify issues that may delay the implementation of the new student management system, and to ensure that the new system links into Finance One A flexible model is established to ensure that TasTAFE has the opportunity to capture viable commercial revenue streams Prior to July 13 TasTAFE Details of proposed (additional) risk treatment actions (ARTA) 6 Additional resources required to implement ARTA Person responsible for ARTA & target date7 The available workforce is not compatible with the courses to be delivered Outcome if the risk occurred Missed opportunities to generate additional revenue Decrease in the financial viability of TasTAFE Student training outcomes are compromised Reduction in service delivery Loss of industry investment Missed opportunities to generate additional revenue Existing risk treatment actions CEO and GMs of Polytechnic and Skills institute liaise on emerging opportunities. 3.21 Reforms do not deliver efficiencies 3.22 The postponement of the decision to bring on TasTAFE assets and depreciation do not reflect the costs of TasTAFE. 3.23 There is no overarching infrastructure process. Decrease in the financial viability of TasTAFE Student training outcomes are compromised Reduction in service delivery Loss of industry investment Decrease in the financial viability of TasTAFE when assets and depreciation are brought on Student training outcomes are compromised Reduction in service delivery Loss of industry investment Decrease in the financial viability of TasTAFE Cannot maximise asset rationalisation opportunities M M B M M B M M D M M C (Generally not a Finance Working Group issue) Working Group to work with the Organisational Design Working Group Risk rating5 3.20 Risk / Failure to…. Consequence4 # Likelihood3 Risk Management Plan Establish efficiency as a specific target Introduce measures of efficiency into Performance Management The design of Performance Management is sufficiently granular to reflect the true costs within delivery teams. Establish appropriate interim accounting treatment to minimise any subsequent decision about ownership of assets (if required). Establish an overarching infrastructure process. (Not a Finance Working Group responsibility) Details of proposed (additional) risk treatment actions (ARTA) 6 Additional resources required to implement ARTA Person responsible for ARTA & target date7 Outcome if the risk occurred Risk rating5 Risk / Failure to…. Consequence4 # Likelihood3 Risk Management Plan Alteration to contracts Scope management subgroup established Not seen as a current priority – to be resolved pending direction from the Project Team. L L D Letter to be sent from DoE Secretary to Commissioner requesting exemption to progress registration prior to the passage of legislation – i.e. permission to lodge incomplete application and begin the process pending finalisation of legislation Written confirmation from Commissioner that incomplete application is permissible. As per email between Mark Sayer and Peter Cribb of 13 February, it is not expected that this is a significant risk. L H C Include a disclaimer notice on enrolment form for 2013 Poly/TSI - body of work to be done to ensure timeframes are met Sub group established led by ME Sufficient resourcing for SIMS, IT and student services QL-S working group is keeping a register of risks and issues. The TLA working group has had input into this register, and believes all L H C Existing risk treatment actions 4. TEACHING LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT 4.1 Criteria not established to determine the scope of TasTAFE Consequence of applying for qualifications impact on students – implications on contractual arrangements 4.2 Registration of TasTAFE not achieved by 1 July 2013 Damage to Minister‟s reputation and Tasmania‟s public VET system 4.3 Enrolment processes not smooth and associated timelines not met Negative student experience Reputation of organisation Details of proposed (additional) risk treatment actions (ARTA) 6 Additional resources required to implement ARTA Person responsible for ARTA & target date7 Outcome if the risk occurred Risk rating5 Risk / Failure to…. Consequence4 # Likelihood3 Risk Management Plan M H B Get staff involved TasTAFE project team newsletters Other communication channels Sub groups to use any opportunity to engage with staff Link on Phoenix All teaching staff have been involved in the selfassessment against NVR standards (Feb/Mar 2013). L M D Identify other support L H C Existing risk treatment actions enrolment matters are in hand via the QLS working group. 4.4 Transitions processes for existing students not smooth Negative student experience Reputation of organisation Ensure SIMS and Client Services Team are involved Ensure legislation is written to assist this and enable interchange of entity titles Sub group established and led by ME Sufficient resourcing for SIMS, IT and student services QL-S working group is keeping a register of risks and issues. The TLA working group has had input into this register, and believes all enrolment matters are in hand via the QLS working group. Communication to students is required – GEB to refer to Branding and Comms working group. 4.5 4.6 Staff not involved and engaged Lack of staff to provide Disengaged staff/lack of buy in/ resistant to change Disconnect between ASQA submission and on site Non-compliance Details of proposed (additional) risk treatment actions (ARTA) 6 Additional resources required to implement ARTA Person responsible for ARTA & target date7 Outcome if the risk occurred support to the entire student population Unsupported students Negative student experience Reputation Risk rating5 Risk / Failure to…. Consequence4 # Likelihood3 Risk Management Plan M H B TLA Working Group member David Gutteridge (GETI) to develop SLA Meeting to be held between Secretary of DoE and Commissioner, ASQA Further discussion between GETI and ASQA contact David Congreves required Mark Sayer advises this is in hand. L L N TSI/Poly to identify and progress as many students as possible by the end of June 2013 M H B Existing risk treatment actions mechanisms for apprentices etc. – including external providers Sub group established and led by KF TLA has provided advice to CEO CEO has decided to operate a hybrid model of student support until 2014. 4.7 Participation and productivity agendas subsume each other/ the framework does not meet student/industry needs Tasmania‟s outcomes won‟t be met Disengaged students, staff Political backlash Declining student numbers Continue to assess against participation and productivity agenda‟s Organisation Design group At the 4 April meeting of the TLA group, members identified issues for consideration including the difference in delivery models between the Polytechnic and TSI. The TLA group will take this matter forward. 4.8 Arrangements not established between the Department of Education and TasTAFE to support CRICOS registration Non-compliance and breach of contracts 4.9 Current students in superseded qualifications Reputation of organisation Non-compliance Details of proposed (additional) risk treatment actions (ARTA) 6 Additional resources required to implement ARTA Person responsible for ARTA & target date7 Outcome if the risk occurred 4.10 Not all staff achieve teacher registration by 30 June 2013 Not enough teachers qualified to teach Anxious staff Impact on students 4.11 Vocational competency and currency Non-compliance 4.12 Non-compliance training and assessment strategy Non-compliance Clear process needed for TSI staff TRB need to acknowledge support needed Message/s need to go out to staff ASAP Highlight risk with Legislation Group Discussions with TRB in December 2013. Information sessions to be held in the last half of 2013 led by TRB. M H B Ongoing focus by Poly/TSI to continue with continuous improvement approach GEB and MH to work with Poly and TSI staff – Blitz RM to analyse and provide information on gaps to TLA group Both organisations report that they are actively analysing and working on vocational competency and currency matters. M H B Ongoing focus by Poly/TSI to continue with continuous improvement approach GEB and MH work with Poly and TSI staff – Blitz Newsletter item Agenda item for the TLA M H B Existing risk treatment actions Risk rating5 Risk / Failure to…. Consequence4 # Likelihood3 Risk Management Plan Sub group led by Mike Higgins TLA group to receive briefing from each organisation by end of May 2013. Details of proposed (additional) risk treatment actions (ARTA) 6 Additional resources required to implement ARTA Person responsible for ARTA & target date7 Outcome if the risk occurred Existing risk treatment actions meeting in May. 4.13 4.14 4.15 Identifying a scope of registration that is accurate and contains only current products. Incomplete application reliant on the provision of information from other working groups An appropriate learning platform to replace WebCT is to be found. Fronter may not be suitable. General Direction - retention of student assessment items Non-compliance L N Chairs Group Rod‟s Project Plan Resolved. M H B Students not able to access eLearning Stephen Conway to discuss with Trevor Hill. H H A Inability of TasTAFE to comply with ASQA‟s General Direction re the retention of student assessment items Sub-group established to make recommendations to TLA group. H H A H H A Non-compliance with ASQA General Direction 4.17 L Application not lodged 4.16 Not having enough resources to complete the Policy and Procedure work that underpins the QMS and other teaching and learning functions This work should commence ASAP in 2012 to provide sufficient time to address gaps. Where superseded products are likely to be required, a genuine reason must be provided to support the application process. Sub Group – Michael Higgins Not seen as a current priority – to be resolved pending direction from the Project Team. Risk rating5 Risk / Failure to…. Consequence4 # Likelihood3 Risk Management Plan Staff will not have guidance they need to maintain quality teaching and learning: will lead to inconsistent practice CEO to identify a resource. Details of proposed (additional) risk treatment actions (ARTA) 6 Additional resources required to implement ARTA Person responsible for ARTA & target date7 Outcome if the risk occurred 5. BRANDING AND COMMUNICATIONS Timeframes not met in visual identity project 6.1 Timeframes not met in signage project, specifically installation 6.2 Budget not met in visual identity project Physical locations not appropriately identified Additional unbudgeted expense Budget not met in signage project Additional unbudgeted expense 6.4 6.5 6.6 Timeframes not met in implementation of communication strategies, specially establishment of internet and intranet No acceptance of recommendations for resourcing the communications and marketing function Effective management of the contract to ensure timeframes are met, including regular reporting by consultant L H C Effective management of the contract to ensure timeframes are met, including regular reporting by consultant M H B Accurate brief to set appropriate expectations of deliverables Effective management of the contract to ensure timeframes are met, including regular reporting by consultant L L N Prioritise implementation according to budget Effective management of the contract to ensure timeframes are met, including regular reporting by consultant L M D Secure appropriate human resources for management and implementation of strategies, specifically online development M M C Consultation with decisionmakers throughout development phase Consultation with/feedback from Organisational Design Working Group Provide considered rationale for M E A Existing risk treatment actions Delays implementation of visual identity, including signage update 6.3 Risk rating5 Risk / Failure to…. Consequence4 # Likelihood3 Risk Management Plan Absence of major internal and external communication presence/tool Inadequate communications and marketing resources Details of proposed (additional) risk treatment actions (ARTA) 6 Additional resources required to implement ARTA Person responsible for ARTA & target date7 Outcome if the risk occurred Existing risk treatment actions recommendations Risk rating5 Risk / Failure to…. Consequence4 # Likelihood3 Risk Management Plan L L N M L D M L D M L D 6. HR AND OHS – COMMENCE DURING PHASE 3 7. IT 7.1 Consolidation of computer and user accounts Secure to Education is delayed and not complete by Jan 2013 7.2 Consolidation of some business applications into Education is not complete by Jan 2013 7.3 Lack of interaction and engagement from Polytechnic and Skills Institute Team Leaders in working with ITS to migrate computer accounts \ usernames and required applications to Education 7.4 Lack of understanding and use of Vkey for existing staff in the Polytechnic and Skills Institute This process has been completed in all transition colleges earlier in the year. Local IT staff are communicating and liaising closely with team leaders. Issues will be dealt with at the local level and then escalated centrally as required ITS is currently engaging additional external vendors to assist with achieving the timeframe required. If this is not achieved then for some systems existing SECURE accounts maybe be required to be used in the interim Detailed email has been sent to all team leaders by local IT staff outlining the processes involved in the migration. Raise the profile and importance of Vkey for in particular team leaders in the Polytechnic and Skills Institute. This to be done through further targeted emails and the preparation of appropriate professional learning tools. (Eg Details of proposed (additional) risk treatment actions (ARTA) 6 Additional resources required to implement ARTA Person responsible for ARTA & target date7 Outcome if the risk occurred Existing risk treatment actions documentation and video tutorials). 7A. IT SUB GROUP – QLS OPERATIONS VET Entitlement: Implementation of an entitlement model for VET students as defined in the National Skills Reform Agreement, and the system implications that go with this. 7a.1 Information slow to filter down. Lack of clarity as to how initiative will be implemented Unknown funding to undertake system change Limited staff resources Time running out System Vendor Availability to implement changes required 7a.2 VET Variable Fee Rates: Investigate the likelihood of variable fee rates for VET Courses and qualifications and how the system will be able to implement such a solution Information slow to filter down. Lack of clarity as to how initiative will be implemented Unknown funding to undertake system change Limited staff resources Time running out Discussions to be held with Skills Tasmanian and relevant stakeholders. Chrissie Berryman is scheduling a meeting for after Easter. Vendor advised of pending changes to the Student Management System. Polytechnic and TSI have submitted a combined grant request to Skills Tasmania for funding to assist with System Modifications. Advice has been received that there may be some National Partnership Funding available. This is currently being explored. The Polytechnic and Tasmanian Skills Institute are aware of the funding issues, as is the CEO of TasTAFE. Discussions to be held with Skills Tasmanian and relevant stakeholders. Chrissie Berryman is scheduling a meeting for after Easter. Vendor advised of pending changes to the Student Management System. Polytechnic and TSI have Risk rating5 Risk / Failure to…. Consequence4 # Likelihood3 Risk Management Plan H H A H H A Details of proposed (additional) risk treatment actions (ARTA) 6 Additional resources required to implement ARTA Person responsible for ARTA & target date7 Outcome if the risk occurred Existing risk treatment actions System Vendor Availability to implement changes required. VET Fee Help: Implementation of a new VET Assistance Scheme for students undertaking Diploma and Advanced Diplomas, as defined in the National Skills Reform Agreement. Information slow to filter down. Lack of clarity as to how initiative will be implemented Unknown funding to undertake system change Limited staff resources Time running out System Vendor Availability to implement changes required 7a.3 submitted a combined grant request to Skills Tasmania for funding to assist with System Modifications. Advise has been received that there may be some National Partnership Funding available. This is currently being explored. The Polytechnic and Tasmanian Skills Institute are aware of the funding issues, as is the CEO of TasTAFE. Discussions to be held with Skills Tasmanian and relevant stakeholders. Chrissie Berryman is scheduling a meeting for after Easter. Vendor advised of pending changes to the Student Management System. Polytechnic and TSI have submitted a combined grant request to Skills Tasmania for funding to assist with System Modifications. Advise has been received that there may be some National Partnership Funding available. This is currently being explored. Skills Tasmania has advertised a position that will sit inside TasTAFE to help with the implementation. The Polytechnic and Tasmanian Skills Institute Risk rating5 Risk / Failure to…. Consequence4 # Likelihood3 Risk Management Plan H E A Details of proposed (additional) risk treatment actions (ARTA) 6 Additional resources required to implement ARTA Person responsible for ARTA & target date7 Outcome if the risk occurred Existing risk treatment actions are aware of the funding issues, as is the CEO of TasTAFE. USI Implementation: Implementation of the Universal Student Identifier, how it will be managed, verification of data provided to the agency, integration into systems etc. Unknown funding to undertake system change Limited staff resources Time running out System Vendor Availability to implement changes required Decisions required to determine how best to implement solution. 7a.4 7a.5 Rate of current Contract for the final six months (January to June 2014) to be negotiated: Contract rates are set for current support arrangements until the end of 2013. The last 6 months of support to be provided by TechnologyOne will need a rate of service attached for the first 6 months of 2014 Costs associated with remaining 6 months of contract Discussions have been held with Information Technology Services on the pending implementation. Options for obtaining the USI from the USI Task Force Database are being explored, along with how this will be returned to the Student Management System. Briefing to be prepared on the options available for key stakeholders to make an informed decision Vendor is aware of pending modifications to the system for the USI The Polytechnic and Tasmanian Skills Institute are aware of the funding issues, as is the CEO of TasTAFE. Negotiations to commence early August on the rates for the last 6 months of the support contract. This will give TasTAFE time to seek alternative support arrangements if required. Go to tender if contract rates cannot be agreed to. Risk rating5 Risk / Failure to…. Consequence4 # Likelihood3 Risk Management Plan H E A H H A Details of proposed (additional) risk treatment actions (ARTA) 6 Additional resources required to implement ARTA Person responsible for ARTA & target date7 7a.7 Outcome if the risk occurred Contractual Arrangements from 1st of July 2014: Current support contract for QL-S expires on the 30th June, 2014. It is likely that a new contract will need to be negotiated. Context to be given in light of a new system being investigated. This is contingent on the rate of current contract risk as identified above. AVETMISS 7 Standard: Managing the changes that will be coming in for AVETMISS 7 standards for 2014 and what needs to be undertaken in terms of system modifications. Current system issues (Aging Technology): Uniface, Oracle and Crystal technology in QLS is causing IT issues with maintenance of a stable solution. 7a.8 Vendor‟s willingness to engage, especially if a tender process is underway/concluded Time before new system can be implemented. Durability of existing system Existing risk treatment actions System Vendor Availability to implement changes required Unknown funding to undertake system change Limited staff resources System Vendor Availability to implement changes required Durability of system without modifications Other system modifications crossing over in relation to time, staff and costs Continue current communication process with the Vendor Explore options for seeking an extension of the current support arrangements as early as possible, including talking to Treasury Go to tender early 2014 if an extension is not approved, or if either the Vendor or TasTAFE, does not wish to extend support Vendor is aware of pending modifications to the system for AVETMISS 7 The first submission of AVETMISS 7 files for TasTAFE will not be until late March, 2014 giving additional time for system modifications to be made The Oracle upgrade is currently being progressed with the vendor, Information Technology Services and local database support The Uniface upgrade is dependent on resource availability with the vendor. They have recently advertised a position, which is expected to be filled by mid-April, 2013. Discussions are continuing with the Vendor The Oracle upgrade is a Risk rating5 7a.6 Risk / Failure to…. Consequence4 # Likelihood3 Risk Management Plan H H A H M B H M B Details of proposed (additional) risk treatment actions (ARTA) 6 Additional resources required to implement ARTA Person responsible for ARTA & target date7 Outcome if the risk occurred Existing risk treatment actions Chart of Accounts: Modifications to the financial chart of account to suit/match the new structure for TasTAFE, also to be considered against how the DoE COA is structured in FinOne. Potential mismatches in how Chart (GL Code mapping for fees) can be presented in QL-S to what might be 7a.9 required in e5. Placement of student debt management functions and fees 8. STRATEGIC (EMERGING DEMAND) – COMMENCE DURING PHASE 3 9. ASSETS – COMMENCE DURING PHASE 3 10. PROJECT WIDE Insufficient stakeholder Stakeholder confusion consultation Political backlash Negative media 10.1 10.2 10.3 Ensure we have adequate resources for the complexity, scale and speed of change required Project delays Failure to deliver project milestones Manage political priorities and support for the model Project delays Failure to deliver project milestones precursor to the Uniface Upgrade, Crystal Upgrade and any further system modifications e.g. VET Fee Help, AVETMISS 7. The Polytechnic and Tasmanian Skills Institute are aware of the funding issues, as is the CEO of TasTAFE. Early communication process to be adopted with the establishment of the 2014 Enrolment Working Group Working groups accountable for communication messages. Implementation team accountable for centralised message handling. Communication strategy for 2013 Allocated budget Implementation team accountable for centralised message handling. Project Manager prioritises political relationships through weekly discussion with Secretary. Risk rating5 Risk / Failure to…. Consequence4 # Likelihood3 Risk Management Plan H M B L H C L H C L M D Details of proposed (additional) risk treatment actions (ARTA) 6 Additional resources required to implement ARTA Person responsible for ARTA & target date7 Outcome if the risk occurred Existing risk treatment actions Provide strong leadership pre and post implementation Staff feel disconnected from new organisation Low staff morale Culture of TasTAFE does not gel CEO commences five months prior to 01 July 2013 Recommendation 7 work group provides expertise and direction Risk rating5 10.4 Risk / Failure to…. Consequence4 # Likelihood3 Risk Management Plan M H B Details of proposed (additional) risk treatment actions (ARTA) 6 Additional resources required to implement ARTA Person responsible for ARTA & target date7 7 Appendices Appendix A: Summary of the Tasmanian Government’s Response and Implementation Plan – available here: https://www.education.tas.gov.au/documentcentre/Documents/Tasmanias-Public-VET-ReformImplementation-Plan-2012.pdf Appendix B: Project Plans by workgroups - available from the Implementation Team 7 Appendices Appendix C: Communication Plan COMMUNICATION METHODS Project team newsletter/updates Consultation sessions – staff Steering committee Communique Staff email Current students – email to Poly /TSI Current students – poster/flyer Current students – message Poly/TSI website Letter to parents and information sheet Newsletter item for college and high schools email – college and high school staff email – pathway planning officers Briefing for pathway planning officers Industry – letter to business and industry Sep 2012 Oct 2012 Nov 2012 Dec 2012 Jan 2013 Feb 2013 Mar 2013 Apr 2013 May 2013 June 2013 7 Industry posters/flyers – hand outs for workplace/s Website information updated Media releases Media announcements Appendices 7 Appendices Appendix D: Stakeholder Communication Register Stakeholder group Target audience Students and parents Current Year 10 students Current Year 11/12 students Current Polytechnic students Current TSI students Current mature aged students Future mature aged students Parents of current Year 10 and 11 students Parents of high school aged students (Years 7-9) Schools/colleges teachers Pathway Planning Officers/Guaranteeing Futures College teachers and principals High school teachers and principals Tasmanian Independent and Catholic Teachers and Principals Polytechnic, TSI and Skills Tasmania staff Polytechnic teachers TSI teachers Polytechnic non-teaching staff TSI non-teaching staff Skills Tasmania staff Tasmanian Education participants College non-teaching staff University of Tasmania Department of Education corporate employees Association of Independent Schools Tasmania Catholic Education Office Government Education and Training International Tasmanian Academy Tasmanian Principals Association Tasmanian Secondary Colleges Registered Training Organisation Teachers Registration Board Priority Mechanism/Event Key message/s Due date 7 Stakeholder group Target audience Tasmanian business and industry Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs Council Tas Australian Council for Private Education and Training Australian Education Union Colony 47 CPSU Department of Justice, Corrections Directorate Group Training Australia – Tasmania Inc Handweavers, Spinners and Dyers Guild of Tasmania Huon LINC Community Advisory Board Independent Schools Tasmania LINC Tasmania Manufacturing Industry Advisory Committee National Disability Coordination Officers Tasmania Primary Employers Tasmania Secondary Colleges Committee of Management Skills Tasmania Tasmanian Building and Construction Industry Training Board Tasmanian Council of Social Service (TasCOSS) Tasmanian Education Association Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association Tasmanian Hospitality Association Tasmanian Library Advisory Board Tasmanian Small Business Council Tasmanian State School Parents and Friends Inc TCCI (taken from submissions) Tasmanian politicians Members of the government in the Upper House Independents in the Upper House Members of the House of Representatives Government backbenchers Local Government Association Tasmania Local Government Mayors and Aldermen Priority Mechanism/Event Key message/s Appendices Due date 7 Stakeholder group Target audience The broader Tasmanian community Tasmanian News Editors Media commentators – Saul Eslake, Greg Barnes Welfare groups – TasCOSS, Colony 47, Youth Arc General community Priority Mechanism/Event Key message/s Appendices Due date 7 Appendix E: Gantt Charts Teaching Learning and Assessment Appendices 7 Legislation Organisational Design Appendices 7 VET Finance Appendices 7 Appendices IT Also refer Microsoft Project 2007 version stored https://myplace.education.tas.gov.au/initiatives/IT-Projects/TasTAFE_IT_Working_Group/SitePages/Home.aspx 7 Branding and Communications Appendices
© Copyright 2024