Skip to main content

Fundamentals of Inducting Multiple Awarding Bodies in the Skills Ecosystem



It is always the learner first.

If we keep this in mind, we are less likely to go wrong in making the appropriate policy decisions.
One contagious issue bothering the Indian skills eco-system is the decision to induct Multiple Awarding Bodies in addition to the Sector Skill Councils to certify all the qualifications available in the National Qualification Register (NQR). There is no denying that competition is good for the system provided the desirable result is a better-quality assured certification. On the contrary, unhealthy competition can be counterproductive. 

The basic / fundamental that must not be lost sight of is the fact that all awarding bodies must follow the same set of rules to design, develop, validate, approve, deliver, assess, certify and monitored the qualification.


It is also a fundamental that must not be tempered with is that the Awarding Bodies must design “their” qualifications. The emphasis is on “their” qualifications and not on “borrowed”/ “adopted” qualifications. If, for short term gains, we opt for an easy route of allowing the additional awarding bodies to borrow / adopt qualifications from the NQR, rather than mandating  these awarding bodies to develop customised qualifications as per local / cluster needs the end result will be disastrous.  There are of course, pros and cons of everything, however, the possibility of diluting the existing qualifications now is much higher than ever.

The awarding bodies have roles and responsibilities which they must comply with. Typically, the Awarding body must have ownership of “their” Qualification and hence must be capable of the following:
(a) Develop / customise the qualification based on market needs by  selecting the appropriate National Occupational Standards (NOS) or in  absence of the appropriate NOS include all such competencies that have been validated by alteast the minimum specified number of  industry experts within the sector / sub-sector.
(b)Update, modify or recommend its continuance or closure to maintain market relevance.
(c) Develop an assessment criterion and an assessment strategy for the qualification.
(d) Justify the need of the qualification to the competent authority with all supporting data including international comparability.

The Awarding Body must also be responsible for any QA and or market failure and be ready to face the penalties even as severe as blacklisting.

A Multiple Awarding Body concept works well on a level playing field where the end beneficiary is provided with a choice to select one Awarding Body over the other, which indirectly supports both quality and sustainability.

There is now a fair amount of experience available with all stakeholders at various levels, hence the time has come to the next phase of logical evolution where the National Occupational Standards (NOSs) must be unbundled to be used by various Awarding Bodies to re-create additional qualifications as per local needs since the need for the same / similar job requirement may vary from industry size to cluster requirement to upskilling / re-skilling or to type of educational institute like schools or colleges or formal and informal sectors etc. This is where the Multiple Awarding Body concept will really work well in favour of the learner, where each of the Awarding Bodies will truly design the most relevant qualification for the target segment and offer it within the QA framework.

Yes, the writing of the NOSs requires improvement, which is a human resource capacity issue and can be addressed separately.

The time is now right to ponder and find the best solution, even if it entails a hard decision to make structural changes rather than opting for a easy solution of making incremental changes, which will make the already fragile eco-system more complex.


Labels:
Location: India

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

My Experiences in Afghanistan -Part 3

I am writing this in continuation to my previous articles, viz; Skill Development:  Lessons from Afghanistan (1) and Skill Development:  Lessons from Afghanistan (2) in case you missed them earlier: Read on further…. Another learning from the past. The India Skills centre was approved to be setup on 28 Aug 2005 through a joint statement of the two heads of the States. The entire team was overjoyed imagining what it would be like. The team made several visits to Kabul in quick succession, essentially to establish liaison with the concerned people in the Afghanistan Government, visit the training centres set up by other countries like South Korea, Japan and Iraq, visit several construction sites to understand the live issues and skill needs. These visits gave us good perspective of what must be done and what should be avoided and why. The final go ahead from the Government was received after a detailed process of budgeting and re-budgeting and responding to queries of...
20 comments
Read more

Skilling Offset: Building Skills While Building India

I ndia is building at a historic scale—smart cities, highways, metro systems, logistics hubs, Industrial hubs, airports, renewable energy parks and digital infrastructure, all expanding rapidly. These projects are growth engines, catalyzing sectors like hospitality and tourism, healthcare, manufacturing, renewable energy etc and other supporting essentials. But while we pour concrete, lay tracks, and raise skylines, we must ask: A re we building people relatively at the same scale? India, with all its resources deployed on ground, supported by the National Skill Policies of 2009, 2015 and now with 2025 on the anvil, has not yet been able to achieve its full potential. There are several challenges, which readers are well aware of, however, a few critical ones worth highlighting are, (a) need for a credible Labour Market Information System (LMIS),      (b ) lack of serious Industry connect including industry participation, particularly in the host of Government (both Centr...
Post a Comment
Read more

Passion, Compassion and Empathy

I t was 2 am in the dead of night when my phone startled me awake. I saw it was a call from the hospital where my mother, aged 91, was undergoing treatment in the ICU. My heart raced as multiple thoughts flooded my mind. The hospital staff urgently asked me to come to the radiology department for an immediate MRI of my mother's brain. Earlier that afternoon, she had a pulmonary procedure under general anaesthesia and hadn't fully recovered yet. On reaching the MRI lab, curious about the emergency, I inquired further. The MRI technician explained that his machine was fully booked, so they created emergencies based on available slots rather than the patient's medical condition. Needless to say, his explanation and attitude rubbed me the wrong way. But knowing my mother's history with a brain stroke eight years ago, I decided to proceed with the MRI despite my reservations. Inside the closed doors of the MRI lab, I could hear the technician raising his voice while my mothe...
3 comments
Read more