Skills training in the food processing industry: the model exists but are we using it well enough?

For more than 20 years Australia has had one of the world’s best food processing training frameworks. It has cost many millions of dollars to create and is a credit to the many organisations, businesses and unions that have contributed. It has been a work of some complexity but it now focuses on key issues of compliance, technical skill, productivity improvement (including lean management) and formal accreditation.

It differs in its demands from historical attempts at training in the industry which have included “go ask Nellie” or “come and meet our new consultants”. Rather than the sometimes inspiring, one-off efforts that have characterised in-house industry training, the program is now systematic, ongoing, measurable and realistic. It focuses on outcomes not inputs, not on “how many hours of training have you done?” but on “what do you know?” and “have you optimised performance of self, machine and process?”

At the heart of the so-called FDF10 training package (www.training.gov.au/Training/Details/FDF10) is a fabulous list of key competencies and skills describing the progress of an operator from inductee, to skilled operator, to leader/tradesperson and on to project manager and shift coordinator. It is a thoughtful outline, heavily influenced and shaped by the industry and educators.

The 3000 or so pages that make up the FDF10 package are essentially simple but, understandably, more than a trifle forbidding to new entrants. At its centre is the notion of an assessment-driven list of competencies … more comfortably, a list of key knowledge and key abilities required to undertake any component of any food manufacturing plant’s operations.

In effect the training, known as competency based training or CBT, is similar to the way most of us think about a driver’s licence. Basically, you have to know the road rules and be able to control the vehicle. How you learned the skill is not important, applying these skills in a life-like circumstance is our crucial measure. The information in each unit of competency therefore effectively describes the goals and capacities that any professional food processing plant would desire from its employees. The framework is useful for setting SOPs; for developing job descriptions and for establishing Quality, Food Safety and OHS compliance documents. In effect it is a treasure trove of proven statements for the field to use.

Government funding can help

Systematically implementing the program is not quite as simple as one would wish. However, there is government funding! And there are TAFE colleges and some very strong registered training organisations that can help. Fundamentally, a good training agreement is possible when:

• the company provides equipment, policies and procedures, a training champion and well-briefed leadership team,
• the government provides supportive funding,
• the training organisation provides support materials, skilled and experienced on-job trainers and assessors, and
• workers are recognised as reaching national standards through certificates and awards.

Over the past 10 years the food processing program has been trialled by most of the large food companies. The National Food Institute has worked with Streets, Nestlé, Kraft, SPC Ardmona, Simplot and McCain and a raft of other smaller companies as they battle to stay competitive. Results have been patchy for several key reasons:

1. The industrial climate: Unions have been very keen to see that their members achieve recognition for the changing skills demanded by a modern plant. Companies have naturally been concerned that they will be paying extra, not for genuine skill improvement, but for a paper accreditation. Workers who may have suffered from school phobia are concerned that they will be forced to return to a schooling environment to prove their abilities.
2. Costs of training: While the government and taxpayers have been generous in supporting improved skill development in a crucial arm of our threatened manufacturing sector, time off the job for training is a very expensive cost in both labour and loss of production terms.
3. Integrity and ethical issues: Not surprisingly, many of the larger companies are concerned that they may be seen as using the public purse to improve training for their own ends alone.
4. Competitive advantage: Most major companies see that training that they control or contract is most likely to bring them rewards in the marketplace. A general program like FDF is seen to be offering all their competitors the same advantage.

Our experience suggests that there are now great opportunities to develop a systematic program which is good for the company, meaningful for the workforce and great for the country. To be successful the program must:

1. Be built on a coaching model: We firmly believe that traditional training models will fail. At SPCA, Kraft, Community Chef, Vitasoy and at a number of our smaller client companies we have built an ‘imbedded’ model. Our trainers effectively become an extra resource for the company. We are regulars at the plant, attend meetings, visit employees online, help with current issues, chat at lunchtimes, embellish the environment with educational stimuli and help develop SOPs, work on waste targets and the like. Off-job training is done at down times (planned and sometimes unplanned) and most training is through an on-job coaching function that complements and supports the work of supervisors and senior staff. IT resources are also very well developed and we have included food guru Peter Russell-Clarke as our staff cartoonist to ensure learner-friendly materials.
2. Deliver qualifications that are rigorous and meaningful: To ensure genuine engagement from employees, the company needs to accept that qualifications in the current economic environment are crucial to the worker’s status. All company-specific data is protected by confidentiality and each workplace culture is different, leading to different performance outcomes. At the centre of any training program we conduct is the effective use of company systems, equipment and personnel. Accredited training encourages skilled and trained workers. Company organisation determines the outcomes.
3. Systematic workplace improvement orientation: In all places we have worked, we ensure that all workers recognise that their future is dependent on efficient work practices. We understand that skills built up over many years are a worker’s leverage but we also try to ensure that best practices are acknowledged. The exchange between good practices and workplace recognition is often difficult. It is, however, central in the Australian industrial landscape if we are to have a genuine commitment to lean manufacturing programs.
4. Capped career paths: The unions have generally recognised now that Certificate 1 should apply to the manual worker; Certificate 2 to the experienced technical worker operating sophisticated packaging, production or distribution equipment; and the tradesperson level at Certificate 3 should apply to a skilled technical person leading a robust 4- to 8-person team to optimise production. It is also seen that people may qualify at the higher level but only take up these positions on vacancy or as part of succession planning. (Clearly in dispute between industrial parties is the number of such positions that should be available.)

In summary, I argue that the scaffolding necessary to produce world-class efficiencies in the Australian food processing industry is now well established. The next step is for good companies (of all sizes) to work closely with the agencies available to formalise performance measures for their business. The outcomes can be continually improving efficiencies, dedicated and skilled workers and an Australia ready to transport its achievements across the globe.

*Les Cameron is the Executive Director of the National Food Institute and also of Film, Books, Anything - a supplier of learning materials and resources to the food industry. He has worked for over 25 years to improve the quality and status of food industry training.