The governance of regional and local VET systems is recognized as a complex task because contradictory interest, expectations from stakeholder, like trainers, teachers, students, managers etc. and VET organisations, such as companies, craft trade, unions, governmental bodies, need to be taken into consideration, be moderated or balanced (Busemeyer&Trambusch 2012). Our point here: How to bundle such expectations and how to perform a more integrative governance strategy and approach which can meets educational and labour market goals? An sustainable governance strategy would mean that different stakeholder have to be coordinated and this in such a way that they are willing to perform in a complementary way and interested to support each other. This means to align own action and interest with the interest of others and develop a collective understanding beside market competition. In other words the companies are normal market competitors but the may cooperate on the training level.

The article discusses implication of different governance models for the steering and coordination of vocational education and training systems. The particular strength and weakness of three different kind of VET system frameworks (as mainly state, market and mixed driven systems) are analysed in terms of input versus output orientation and coordination versus fragmentation orientation. In stakeholder workshops in European VET countries, such as Germany, Switzerland, Danmark and Austria, the governance structures (e.g. intensity of cooperation with Learning venues; broad or narrow occupations) were evaluated by using a Governance evaluation tool. Finally it is discussed whether such approaches can be transferred to non-European countries, such as India (Roy 2012). I will argue that the evaluation instrument is open and flexible towards different industrial cultures insofar that it allows adaptation into other VET systems.

Busemeyer M. R., Trampusch C. (eds.), The Political Economy of Collective Skill Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. INAP (International Network on Innovative Apprenticeship). Memorandum ‘An Architecture for Modern Apprenticeships’. Standards for Structure, Organisation and Governance. INAP Commission “Architecture Apprenticeship”, In: Deitmer, L.; Hauschildt, U.; Rauner, F.; Zelloth, H. (eds). The Architecture of Innovative Apprenticeship. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 1-23. Rauner, F.; Wittig, W.; Deitmer, L. (2010). Plural Administration in Dual Systems in Selected European Countries. In: Rauner, F.; Smith, E. (eds). Rediscovering Apprenticeship: Research Findings of the International Network on Innovative Apprenticeship. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 31-43. (Technical and Vocational Education and Training Series, Vol. 11). Rauner, F., Wittig, W., (2013) Differences in the Organisation of Apprenticeship in Europe: Findings of a Comparative Evaluation Study. In: Deitmer, L.; Hauschildt, U.; Rauner, F.; Zelloth, H. (eds). The Architecture of Innovative Apprenticeship. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 243-255. Roy, B. (2012). ‘India’, In E. Smith & R. Brennan Kemmis (Eds). Compilation of country case studies for the ‘Possible futures for the Indian Apprenticeships system’ project. Ballarat, Australia: University of Ballarat Toner, P. Workforce Skills and Innovation: An Overview of Major Themes
in the Literature, OECD Directorate for Science, Technolg and Industry, Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Paris http://www.oecd.org/sti/work-papers; p 54 ff.