This discussion has been locked.

You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Skills Shortages

The construction industry (namely services) is suffering from skills shortages without an apparent solution. There has been a flurry of press activity but not much action. How does the industry make itself more attractive to the younger generation? There are short training courses offered but these are not the solution and there are many mature people entering the industry on the promise of a quick buck. The majority of these (that I have encountered) have little passion for the industry and the quality of work can be quite poor. We don't want to end up in a situation whereby these guys are training the next generation.

I think that the apprentice schemes should be made easier for SME's to take part in. Many are small concerns and cannot commit to the burden. However, some of these owner operators have so much experience to offer and it's a shame to let the knowledge pass by. Perhaps the 'apprentice' could be in charge of his/her own portfolio and it to be made easier for them to jump between companies to gain their experience? The colleges could hold a register of approved organisations so that the system is not abused by people wanting cheap labour....

I have met youngsters that have been able to attend and pass the first year of college but unable to progress further because they cannot find companies interested in taking them on. How can this be so with the skills crisis? I presume the bureaucracy is putting off the SME's.

I would guess that other industries have similar issues?

Parents

0 Roy Bowdler over 6 years ago

Andy,

Thanks for the link which led me to The National Citizen Service, I recall that there was government initiative established during David Cameron’s prime ministership, but it had slipped below my radar. This is clearly something positive, but to be successful such initiatives have to make a real difference over the longer-term. The NCS initiative seems to be a one-week “summer camp”, with an optional “community project” of up to three weeks more, with only 12% of those potentially eligible participating. I would certainly hope that those participating develop additional skills, attributes and perhaps some social capital.

Apparently; Research carried out in the spring of 2017 indicated that; affluent individuals are less likely to attend university if they take part in NCS, while poorer individuals are more likely to do so. At that time the cost per participant of NCS was £1,863. So it seems to be doing something? Whether this is any more useful than the YOPS (Youth Opportunities Programme) or the successor YTS (Youth Training Scheme) programmes introduced to help manage youth unemployment from 1978, I don’t know?

When I was an apprentice our company organised a one-week residential outward bound course in the Lake District , but this was a minor element of the investment that went into the training, with a company training centre (built at a cost of £2 million + in today’s prices with a staff of 25), college/polytechnic fees etc. All the major nationalised and large private employers had something similar, although ours was among the best. These are descendants https://www.uniper-engineeringacademy.com/ . https://www.rweukjobs.com/generation-engineering-technician There are other examples, but our national capability for vocational skills training has diminished. An excellent example of an employer college relationship is given here https://www.lcb.ac.uk/employer-services/ng-bailey-case-study/ but note; NG Bailey previously had their own in-house training academy, but changes to both legislation and the way training is funded made out-sourcing a more preferable and cost-effective option. The armed forces have retained their own high quality training establishments (although operation is also outsourced) used by some employers like Network Rail/HMS Sultan. https://www.networkrail.co.uk/network-rail-apprentice/

Clive,

I like your latest post. This forum is hosted by the IET, the largest member of the UK community of Professional Engineering Institutions. We are affiliated to Engineering Council, with connections to Engineering UK. The Royal Academy of Engineering, with organisations like The Engineering Professors Council and others being influential. The IET (through its IIE heritage) has been active in the apprenticeship landscape, with ICE and IMechE now also joining in, but many within the community of professional engineering have been enthusiastic propagators of snobbery. Much of it is simply social in nature, but it also manifests in forms much closer to home, such as the assumption that by virtue of their initial education some engineers are presumed to be “higher” and more competent, than someone trained at length with a more vocational emphasis.

I have repeatedly condemned in the strongest terms this snobbery, as have many others http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/stigma-against-apprenticeships-must-end-says-network-rail-boss . However, in our (those who control the engineering profession) desire to divide ourselves into the “best and the rest”, academic models like Bloom’s Taxonomy have been applied to the vocational practice of engineering and technology. In some respects there is a fit, but often practical intelligence applied in a context (“know how”) is more productive and valuable, than conceptual or analytical thinking (theory knowledge). The time value of experiential learning (often dismissed as “time serving”) may be an equally valid factor in determining competence. I won’t pursue the debate here, but it is an obvious truth that different people have different aptitudes, motivations and capabilities, that evolve in different ways and which tend to optimise them for certain types of technical work. “Horses for courses” if you like.

I drive a computer in a comfortable office now, but was trying to keep the national electricity grid going in the winter of 1982, climbing up 400kv switchgear to clear ice etc. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-38584354

In a sense, I understand your feeling that successive generations have become “softer”, as have I, since my Grandfather served on The Western Front and My Father at Monte Casino, whereas a clipboard and pen was my preferred weapon (probably more useful than early versions of the SA80 especially for left-handers). Perhaps the “snowflake” jibe has some foundation? However, what clever often university developed engineers have done, is to replace much of what was dull, repetitive, dirty and dangerous with safer, faster and cleaner alternatives like robots. Earlier generations had already swiped most of the obvious stuff like bridges, electricity, trains, planes and spacecraft, but their achievements in our “information age”, have been no less remarkable. I take my (hard) hat off to them!

Your conclusion Multi-skilling is the key to future employment security. The more we can do the more we will be needed Is a very valid one. It is one of the reasons that I have strongly supported both further and higher education, but also strongly criticised, some of the negative effects of education policies over recent decades. I think that we have to be careful about “rose-tinted spectacles”. Those of a more academic persuasion may argue that fundamental maths and science are the most important foundations of adaptability, whereas those from a more vocational perspective will point to practical initiative and inventiveness. I find it something of a paradox that we have expended much effort over recent years dividing engineers on the basis of “creativity and innovation” (superior) versus “established good practice” (lesser), when those claiming the former are often the most change resistant. In my opinion most engineers and technicians are capable of demonstrating the attributes expected of graduate, although they don’t all get there in the same way at the same speed. Our traditional model prefers to stick them in silos from early teens , mainly through mathematics and later by discipline, department etc. I came across a job advert in E&T news recently using the term “T-shaped person” since this wasn’t part of my lexicon, I had to look it up https://trydesignlab.com/blog/how-to-get-hired-understand-if-youre-an-i-t-or-x-s/
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 6 years ago

Andy,

Thanks for the link which led me to The National Citizen Service, I recall that there was government initiative established during David Cameron’s prime ministership, but it had slipped below my radar. This is clearly something positive, but to be successful such initiatives have to make a real difference over the longer-term. The NCS initiative seems to be a one-week “summer camp”, with an optional “community project” of up to three weeks more, with only 12% of those potentially eligible participating. I would certainly hope that those participating develop additional skills, attributes and perhaps some social capital.

Apparently; Research carried out in the spring of 2017 indicated that; affluent individuals are less likely to attend university if they take part in NCS, while poorer individuals are more likely to do so. At that time the cost per participant of NCS was £1,863. So it seems to be doing something? Whether this is any more useful than the YOPS (Youth Opportunities Programme) or the successor YTS (Youth Training Scheme) programmes introduced to help manage youth unemployment from 1978, I don’t know?

When I was an apprentice our company organised a one-week residential outward bound course in the Lake District , but this was a minor element of the investment that went into the training, with a company training centre (built at a cost of £2 million + in today’s prices with a staff of 25), college/polytechnic fees etc. All the major nationalised and large private employers had something similar, although ours was among the best. These are descendants https://www.uniper-engineeringacademy.com/ . https://www.rweukjobs.com/generation-engineering-technician There are other examples, but our national capability for vocational skills training has diminished. An excellent example of an employer college relationship is given here https://www.lcb.ac.uk/employer-services/ng-bailey-case-study/ but note; NG Bailey previously had their own in-house training academy, but changes to both legislation and the way training is funded made out-sourcing a more preferable and cost-effective option. The armed forces have retained their own high quality training establishments (although operation is also outsourced) used by some employers like Network Rail/HMS Sultan. https://www.networkrail.co.uk/network-rail-apprentice/

Clive,

I like your latest post. This forum is hosted by the IET, the largest member of the UK community of Professional Engineering Institutions. We are affiliated to Engineering Council, with connections to Engineering UK. The Royal Academy of Engineering, with organisations like The Engineering Professors Council and others being influential. The IET (through its IIE heritage) has been active in the apprenticeship landscape, with ICE and IMechE now also joining in, but many within the community of professional engineering have been enthusiastic propagators of snobbery. Much of it is simply social in nature, but it also manifests in forms much closer to home, such as the assumption that by virtue of their initial education some engineers are presumed to be “higher” and more competent, than someone trained at length with a more vocational emphasis.

I have repeatedly condemned in the strongest terms this snobbery, as have many others http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/stigma-against-apprenticeships-must-end-says-network-rail-boss . However, in our (those who control the engineering profession) desire to divide ourselves into the “best and the rest”, academic models like Bloom’s Taxonomy have been applied to the vocational practice of engineering and technology. In some respects there is a fit, but often practical intelligence applied in a context (“know how”) is more productive and valuable, than conceptual or analytical thinking (theory knowledge). The time value of experiential learning (often dismissed as “time serving”) may be an equally valid factor in determining competence. I won’t pursue the debate here, but it is an obvious truth that different people have different aptitudes, motivations and capabilities, that evolve in different ways and which tend to optimise them for certain types of technical work. “Horses for courses” if you like.

I drive a computer in a comfortable office now, but was trying to keep the national electricity grid going in the winter of 1982, climbing up 400kv switchgear to clear ice etc. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-38584354

In a sense, I understand your feeling that successive generations have become “softer”, as have I, since my Grandfather served on The Western Front and My Father at Monte Casino, whereas a clipboard and pen was my preferred weapon (probably more useful than early versions of the SA80 especially for left-handers). Perhaps the “snowflake” jibe has some foundation? However, what clever often university developed engineers have done, is to replace much of what was dull, repetitive, dirty and dangerous with safer, faster and cleaner alternatives like robots. Earlier generations had already swiped most of the obvious stuff like bridges, electricity, trains, planes and spacecraft, but their achievements in our “information age”, have been no less remarkable. I take my (hard) hat off to them!

Your conclusion Multi-skilling is the key to future employment security. The more we can do the more we will be needed Is a very valid one. It is one of the reasons that I have strongly supported both further and higher education, but also strongly criticised, some of the negative effects of education policies over recent decades. I think that we have to be careful about “rose-tinted spectacles”. Those of a more academic persuasion may argue that fundamental maths and science are the most important foundations of adaptability, whereas those from a more vocational perspective will point to practical initiative and inventiveness. I find it something of a paradox that we have expended much effort over recent years dividing engineers on the basis of “creativity and innovation” (superior) versus “established good practice” (lesser), when those claiming the former are often the most change resistant. In my opinion most engineers and technicians are capable of demonstrating the attributes expected of graduate, although they don’t all get there in the same way at the same speed. Our traditional model prefers to stick them in silos from early teens , mainly through mathematics and later by discipline, department etc. I came across a job advert in E&T news recently using the term “T-shaped person” since this wasn’t part of my lexicon, I had to look it up https://trydesignlab.com/blog/how-to-get-hired-understand-if-youre-an-i-t-or-x-s/
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

No Data

Skills Shortages

Community Rules & Guidelines