Every year various SETAs recruit external SDFs to assist with their organisations in submitting their WSP and ATR reports. These are mostly companies who never submitted this before, like small or medium organisations.
Every year we see the same thing, over and over and over. Most of the guys they recruit are not qualified. (don't have the unit standards required), so why even doing the course? I know the requirements is that people must either be qualified or have the experience, but surely this cant apply when the SETA recruit them to represent them + pay for their services.
I know that one or two SETAs added this as minimum requirements for the new year and already appears on the BEE scoring cards, but what about the rest?
Good discussion Ezra. Let's talk about what should be required (qualifications and experience) to be registered as an SDF with a SETA. The MICT SETA has communicated that in the new year it is going to require SDFs to have: a degree - including a CA - or attendance at an SDF programme, and also they will require every SDF to attend the roadshows in February next year.
Now, technically there are no regulations about what the requirements for an SDF are - the original regulations that set the requirement for an SDF were repealed many years ago. So we have a situation where every SETA can set it's own requirements.
BUT - the Mandatory Grant regulations are clear - all that is required is: submission of a correctly completed WSP & ATR in the correct format by the submission date 30 June. So are there going to be new regulations on SDFs or are all the SETAs going to do there own thing?
And should there be a limit on the number of companies an SDF serves?
Totally agree and already seen this on earlier discussions, but what about the rest of the SETA's?
Just cant understand how a big SETA can pay for their services, to represent them on behalf of the SETA and they dont have the qualification/Unit Standards required. (Trainers, Assessors, Moderators all must have the required unit standards.) I know this is nothing to do with the Provider accreditation or any aligned programmes, but you expect a bit more from a body who manage these processes.
"Hello, my name is Piet and I get paid by the SETA to assist you with your WSP/ATR. I'm not qualified, but I do have some experience, -eg: I completed it for 4 other companies before."
SDF's only require experience, and how do we measure that?
Interesting quote - 10 out of 10 for honesty. But experience? We all have experience - relevant experience is something entirely different. Questions: What sector, what size company, what skills development activities?
Also if you look at the SDF related unit standards, which were at level 5/6 if I recall correctly - what level of education?
How did the SETA allocate the work? Via tender? Or is the person employed on a piecework basis. The trouble I have always had with this concept is that they target small companies who really do need assistance, but the money paid and the method of payment means that the company gets an hour if they are lucky. On a piecework basis getting to the most companies gets the most money.
There is also no transfer of skills so the company has no idea what has been done on their behalf. And from personal experience of subsequently visiting these companies, the quality of what is done is not good. It is simply a "tick box" for the SETA.
somebody in the SETA's brother, sister,cousin, aunt, uncle is with the SDF and is getting a kickback...
Good day skills universe
Not all SETAs require the services of external skills development facilitators. those that require these services, advertise every year for consultants to apply against a set criteria. Most setas also include a monitoring clause in their contract to verify to some extend that these consultants are doing the correct job. The W&R Seta for a example, go to an extend of contacting employers to confirm whether the consultant did visit them and also verify the correctness of the information supplied. And more than 99% of these consultant actually do a decent job.
The other reality to consider is that most of these smaller companies that need the seta's to sent external sdfs'are actually difficult to deal with with. For all sorts of reasons, they are still skeptical and suspicious. You struggle to get an appointment and even after securing the appointment, you struggle to obtain the information. Even when you do get the information required for the WSP and ATR, it is often not easy to verify because they do not keep records. To compound the problem, you provide them with an option to keep training and development records for them, they are reluctant.
I am simply saying, do not be hasty to criticize fellow consultants who are trying their best to contribute to the success of Skills Development just because you had one bad experience.
The comment about brother, sister and the rest is tasteless...
I started my ETDP journey as an internal SDF for a large-ish organisation and ended up booking myself on formal courses to ensure that I knew what I was doing!
Since then I have come to realise that a large part of the problem is that the people steering the companies (including HR) don't really know what they are talking about, but it is a classic case of "we don't know what we don't know". So as Benjamin says they are reluctant to pay for the full service and ISDFs only get handed stats to report on and minimal company info to try and pull a WSP together.
In order to do an effective job that goes beyond "ticking the boxes", SDFs need a combination of formal training, relevant experience, but also an insight into the organisation's objectives, short-term and long term goals, their learning pathways and incentives to learn. it is very difficult to instil a learning culture and implement a well thought out WSP if the organisation sees you as an external consultant instead of someone integral to their development as a company to be greaterthan the sum of their parts (employees!).
I don't plan to consult as an ISDF, but I hope that I can contribute to the large picture by facilitating quality SDF courses!
I noted the discussion - INTERESTING!
Well the ASDSA - Association for Skills Development SA - is currently in process of registration as professional body for SDFs and we try to lobby with all the SETAs as well- where a SET standard of criteria - you will register with us as either a SDF Administrator or Practitioner according to professional designations having specific skills, qualifications and Experience required. The idea is that we professionlise this profession and then Setas would be required to ONLY utlise SDFs that have been professionally registered by teh ASDSA. this will help in standarising the QUALITy and standards of WSp submissions. There is alot of GIGO - garbage in and garbage out submitted WSP to the Setas because of incompetent people that still conduct paperbased exercises withur proper skills audits and career pathway analysis of the emplyee profiles - Please view www.asdsa.co.za for more information on the ALMOST registered prof Body... We are working on this matter! Hope to have positive feedback on our SAQA registration soon!
ERROR!!! www.asdsa.org.za thanx
Qualified or just experienced, the contribution of an I /SDF should be based on the results s/he was employed / contracted to achieve. Clearly defined objectives, and well monitored performance appear to be the way to go rather than getting embroiled in a debate about qualifications versus experience? If we insist on a qualification and undermine the experience many I /SDF's have, then do we not run the risk of ending up right back where we started?