Improving SME access to training

Cedefop — European Centre For The Development Of Vocational Training

Description

Strategies for success: A report on best practice in EC Member States
Education policy
Enterprise

Sujets

• Vocational education
• Member state of the European Union

Informations

• Publié par: CEDEFOP-EUROPEAN-CENTRE-FOR-THE-DEVELOPMENT-OF-VOCATIONAL-TRAINING
• Nombre de lectures: 68
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 2 Mo

Extrait

c
* Improving SME access
3 to training: strategies
o for success
o
A report on best practice in
9- EC Member States
O
Ll-
LII
Q
LU
O European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training Hh* Improving SME access to training: strategies for success
C A report on best practice in EC Member States
Φ
fm Authors:
£^SalvadorGil (Impiva, Valencia, Spain)
Jürgen Allesch and Dagmar Preiß­Allesch (TVA, Berlin,
Germany) o
Q Coordination: o
Africa Melis, Project Manager, CEDEFOP, Berlin o
First edition, Berlin 1994 Q.
Published by: O
LL, CEDEFOP — European Centre for the Development of
Vocational Training
■*■ Jean Monnet House, Bundesallee 22, D-10717 Berlin
Q Tel. (49­30) 88 41 20; Telex 184 163 eucen d;
jFax ) 88 41 22 22
^^ The Centre was established by Regulation (EEC) No 337/75 of
the Council of the European Communities. Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1994
ISBN 92-826-7319-7
Articles and texts appearing in this document may be reproduced freely in whole or
in part providing their source is mentioned.
Printed in Belgium Table of Contents
1. Overview of the study 1
1.1 Summary
1.2 Production team 2
1.3 Acknowledgements 3
2. The report 5
2.1 Background
2.2 Aims of the study
2.3 Definitions 6
2.4 Methodology
2.4.1 Literature survey
2.4.2 Identification of strategies 7
2.5 Structure of the report 8
2.6 The national case studies 9
3. Overview of barriers 11
3.1 Company related barriers2
3.2 Barriers related to the training supply
3.3 Environmental influences on SMEs' access to training 1
3.4 The Comunidad Valenciana (Spain): A regional approach4
4. Trends in and examples of good SME training strategies
In the 12 EC member states5
4.1 Company related barriers to accessing training 1
4.1.1 Factors relating to the entrepreneur
4.1.2sg to the small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) 1
4.1.3 Both the entrepreneur and employees experience the same barriers
to accessing training 16
4.2 Training in SMEs7
4.2.1 Approaches to training
4.2.1.1 Large training systems2 Flexible, open and/or distance training
4.2.1.3 Tailor-made training8
4.2.2 The trainers
4.2.2.1e trainer's professional profile2 Training trainers9
4.2.2.3 Giving recognition to the trainer of the small enterprise entrepreneur 1
4.2.3 Training suppliers 1
4.2.3.1 The providers of training2e Academic and Research Institutions 20
4.2.3.3 Socio-economic and Professional Associations4 The providers of services to SMEs1
4.2.4 Support policies for SMEs
4.2.4.1 Advice and Training Policies
4.2.4.2 Institutes and Developmental Agencies for SMEs2 3 European Programmes 2
4.2.5 Explanation of footnotes on the examples of SME training strategies 2
5. Conclusions/recommendations7
5.1 Recommendations for the development of training
for small enterprise entrepreneurs8 Annexes 33
Annex 1 : Case studies and summary case studies from the 12 EC Member States -
an overview5
Annex 2: The national case studies in detail 37
Belgium9
Germany 4
Denmark
Spain 53
France 61
Greece
Italy 7
Ireland
Luxembourg 85
The Netherlands 9
Portugal
United Kingdom 10
Annex 3. Summary case studies from the 12 EC Member States 109
Annex 4. Bibliography 123
Annex 5. Check list of difficulties 131 1. Overview of the study
1.1 Summary
This study aims to disseminate the findings of a review of the specific problems encountered by
small and medium-sized enterprises in "accessing" training. It considers the following question: Why
does training, which "in theory would be very useful" have little attraction for them and result in low
takeup.
The study has a twofold aim: firstly to identify the major external and internal obstacles which create
a barrier between small enterprises and the training world, and secondly to present strategies and
support programmes which in various Community Member States have shown themselves to be
valid and well thought out ways of bringing the training offer closer to the real world of small
businesses.
To attain the first aim, a list of 70 factors which are most frequently mentioned in the literature was
drawn up, and used to develop a carefully formulated questionnaire. The opinions of a group of
experts from the 12 Member States were sought on the relative importance and relevance of these
70 factors.
The 70 factors (barriers) identified in this way can be grouped into three categories: those which
relate to demand (i.e. company characteristics); those relating to the offer (i.e. features of the training
offered); and those relating to the environment, (i.e. the socio-economic environment and the
legislative framework).
As can be seen below, the opinions of the experts, irrespective of their country of origin, contained
a number of common elements.
• Among the demand related barriers, the lack of training infrastructure in the trade associations,
the classic view of traditional training adopted by small enterprises, and the individualistic nature
of the small and medium-sized enterprise were cited.
• Among the barriers related to the offer, almost all experts pointed to inadequate training
methods, the lack of qualified teachers and instructors and/or advisors and consultants, the lack
of tailor-made training and the lack of facilities for identifying and satisfying the training needs
of SMEs.
With regard to the second aim, a large variety of strategies have been identified which can be
grouped into three major categories:
1. Development of infrastructure and services for "creating opportunities". Such "opportunities"
should promote information on training and a flexible training offer with particular attention being
paid to the training of trainers.
2. Strategies for "marketing" training to the enterprise through activities which increase awareness
linked to real incentives, i.e. providing the means to implement training.
3.s to improve the quality of training and bring the training offer into line with real needs,
giving priority to tailor-made training at the local and company level and applying methods which
are suited to the particular situation.
Case studies provide 36 examples of good practice throughout the Community, illustrating the way
in which a certain number of barriers have been tackled successfully by implementing the above
mentioned strategies. Only one case per country is described in detail.
In this way, the various aspects are drawn together, one by one, to form the complex framework of
factors influencing the process of matching the training offer to training needs.
-1 -It is important to note that there is a high level of agreement amongst the experts as far as the
identification of barriers is concerned. Support strategies, on the other hand, differ significantly
depending on the degree of sophistication of, and trends in training. If, for example, we take the aim
of support institutions for SMEs to provide "quality training", this common aim is tackled in a variety
of ways:
• creating support networks and supporting existing ones;
• diversifying and segmenting the training offer to the greatest extent possible;
• developing quality education material;
• making use of new technology...
It is impossible to generalise about the validity and applicability of particular models; whilst in certain
cases costly tailor­made training would be the best strategy, in others creation of support
infrastructures should be the priority.
1.2 Production team
The following national experts (a) carried out an analysis of the problems of SMEs in their own
countries and the major barriers to training, (b) responded to the questionnaire used to classify
replies and (c) proposed three case studies, one of which is examined in depth:
Β Belgium: André Buyst (EROV, Gent)
Jürgen Allesch and Dagmar Preiß­AIIesch (TVA, Berlin) D Germany:
Winston Paakjaer Pedersen (Technologiparken, Aarhus) DK Denmark:
Salvador Gil girones (IMPIVA, Valencia) E Spain:
F France: Philippe Albert (ESC, Lyon)
G Greece: Sofia Chronopoulou (EOMMEX, Athens)
I Italy: Claudio Dondi (SCIENTER Bologna)
Barra o'Cinneide (UNIV. LIMERICK, Limerick) IRL Ireland:
L Luxembourg: Paul Sunnen (CHAMBRE DE METIERS, Lux)
NL Netherlands: Anton Duijnhouwer (IEVHMK, Zoetermeer)
PT Portugal: Eduardo Figueira (UNIV. EVORA, Evora)
UK United Kingdom: Allan Gibb (DUBS, Durham)
The technical support group from IMPIVA (Spain), responsible for preparing all documents and
for their translation into English, for the literature review prior to drawing up the questionnaire, and
for carrying out subsequent modifications, was composed of:
Vicente Gasent, IMPIVA, Valencia e Frances, ADEIT, a
Consuelo Garcia, IMPIVA, Valencia
Ma. del Mar Roldan, IMPIVA, Valencia
The authors of the report and the coordinators of the two working groups were:
Salvador Gil Girones, responsible for the analysis of national reports from Greece, Italy, Ireland,