Context

The Dual IVET-System in Germany is highly regarded by the international community (OECD 2010). Less known is the maturity level of Continuing Vocational Education and Training (CVET) in Germany.

Abstract

This research paper will initially compare CVET in Germany with other European countries. That will be followed by a recording and analysis of the state of development in CVET at German companies (N=133).

European comparison

Research Question 1: What similarities and differences exist between the various European approaches of CVET?

Research Approach: CVET is in most European countries weakly regulated and it is difficult to systematize CVET as it consists a wide range of formal, non-formal and informal learning activities. For the European comparison, use was made of data from the European comparative studies "Adult Education Survey (AES 2011/2012)" with respect to participation rates (Eurostat and single studies such as Bilger et al. 2013) and data from the "Continuing Vocational Training Survey (CVTS4)" (Eurostat and single data such as e.g. German Federal Statistical Office 2013) with respect to the modes of in-company managing CVET (e.g. education planning).

State of development

Research Question 2: What is the state of development with respect to CVET in German companies?

Research Approach: The second research question is directly connected to the data from the CVTS4. In the CVTS4, the state of development is recorded by means of separate items: e.g. “annual training budget”, "review the skill and training needs", "written training plan or programme”, “Evaluation/assessment of training outcomes”. This approach was refined in the form of the so-called "quality model for company education management" (EuPD Research Sustainable Management & TÜV Süd Akademie // Germany Technical Inspection Agency South Academy 2013).

Theoretical framework

In the "quality model", a differentiation is made between three dimensions for recording and evaluating the state of development with respect to CVET in companies respectively company education management: strategic education management, structural education management and operative education management.

In the organisation theory, the dimensions of "strategy" and "structure" have been central design and analysis dimensions for the development of organisations since the 1950s/60s (among others, Chandler 1962). In the 1970s this approach became a target of criticism: On the one hand, the assumed connection "structure follows strategy" (see Mintzberg 1990 for a extensive critique) and on the other hand the focus on two dimensions were criticised. Waterman, Peters and Phillips published an extended model in 1980, which includes both the basic dimensions of "strategy" and "structure" as well as the dimensions of "systems", "style", "staff", "skills" and "subordinate goals". The dimension of "subordinate goals" was later amended to "shared values". "Shared values" together with the dimensions of "style", "staff" and "skills" form the "soft factors". "Strategy", "structure" and "systems" are described as the "hard factors". While the hard factors can be recorded and evaluated relatively well, the evaluation of the soft factors is difficult since these are largely immaterial (Bradach 1996).

In the initial “quality model” 2013, only the hard factors "strategy", "structure" and "systems" were incorporated, whereby the dimension "systems" was renamed "operative education management" for the purpose of better understandability.

On the one hand, the model takes up the existing ideas of organisation theory; high retest reliability and feasability were therefore expected. With regard to the validity, on the other hand, the model is only capable of making statements to a limited extent: The "soft facts" such as “shared values” and “environmental factors” such as “competition” were not considered. Since further surveys are planned, the focus on "hard facts" is viewed as sustainable for the testing of the approach and for the comparison across sectors and company size.

Bilger, F., Gnahs, D., Hartmann, J., Kuper, H. (Eds.) (2013): Weiterbildungsverhalten in Deutschland. Resultate des Adult Education Survey 2012 (Continuing Education Behaviour in Germany. Results of the Adult Education Survey 2012). Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag/Publishing House. Bradach, J. (1996): Organizational Alignment: The 7-S Model. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School. Chandler, A.D. (1962): Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press. EuPD Research Sustainable Management, TÜV Süd Akademie (2013): Jahrbuch Bildungs- und Talentmanagement 2013 (Yearbook for Education and Talent Management 2013). Bonn/Munich: EuPD/TÜV Süd. Eurostat: Adult Education Survey. Online under: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/microdata/adult_education_survey Eurostat: Continous Vocational Training Survey. Online under: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Continuing_vocational_training_statistics Mintzberg, H: (1990): The Design School. Reconsidering the Basic Premises of Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 171-195. OECD (2010): Learning for Jobs. Synthesis Report of the OECD Reviews of Vocational Education and Training. Paris: OECD Publishing. Statistisches Bundesamt // German Federal Statistical Office (2013): Berufliche Weiterbildung im Unternehmen (Continuing Vocational Education and Training Education in Companies). Vierte europäische Erhebung über die berufliche Weiterbildung im Unternehmen (Fourth European Survey on Continuing Vocational Training in Companies) (CVTS4). Wiesbaden: destatis.