Building standards - verifiers management and training and development recording: review

4. Consultations

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 The authorities listed in paragraph 1.13 were selected for further consultation. Authorities were asked if a human resources colleague could also participate in the consultation to provide a wider perspective. A consultation was also undertaken with the Improvement Service (IS). The main areas for discussion focused on:

• The CAS process and its integration into existing systems.
• How CAS could aid the delivery of training.
• How CAS could aid the delivery of a learning and development hub.
• Any suggestions for the future delivery of CAS particularly with regard to digital systems.

4.2 CAS Process and Integration with Existing Systems

4.2.1 As described in Section 2, the authorities participating in the consultation all undertook an annual performance review using generic local authority appraisal forms. Each authority had different names for these reviews, but for easy reference, this section will refer to these existing appraisal processes as PDRs (Performance Development Reviews).

4.2.2 All authorities recorded the output from the process in the individuals PDR form which was usually a Microsoft package. Some authorities consolidated training and development needs into a 'training plan', but this was not universal. Most of the consultation authorities felt the existing process worked well.

4.2.3 Seven of the authorities had undertaken some CAS assessments, although not all authorities had completed the whole process for their team. Consultees offered both positive and negative comments on their initial experience of CAS. The positive aspects of CAS include:

• Giving one authority better awareness of the tasks involved in some standards which are not so relevant to a smaller authority.
• Providing a more structured and strategic approach to identifying training needs.
• Providing a comprehensive breakdown of competencies on the technical side.
• Providing good templates.

4.2.4 In terms of negative aspects, the following points were made:

• Almost all consultees stated that CAS is very time consuming.
• A few consultees mentioned issues with evidence gathering. A question was raised about what should be provided and how much evidence is required. There was concern that more senior officers prove competency through their day-to-day work but that can be difficult to evidence. One consultee felt that little evidence was provided and there was 'agreement in principle' that a competency was achieved while another suggested that individuals felt they achieved the competency but could not provide evidence to substantiate the point. One consultee felt that there was sufficient guidance on what evidence was required but there needs to be a balance between having large volumes of evidence and having enough evidence to validate skills and experience.
• A few authorities mentioned that customising the role profiles took a considerable amount of development work, but it was necessary to develop the profiles to suit the needs of the authority and its staff. There is a need to have different role profiles for different staff at the same level. For example, one authority had developed three profiles for its technicians while another felt they would need seven levels of profile to cover their team and be compatible with their risk assessment approach to building warrant applications and staff competencies.
• It was suggested that further consideration be given to the wording of some parts of the CAS toolkit. Some parts ask if there is an awareness of a certain regulation whereas others ask if there is knowledge of a certain regulation. This has resulted in having to determine what the "spirit of the question" is.
• It is important that completing the CAS meets the needs of the person being assessed and is not just about completing the template.
• A few teething troubles were identified including individuals not completing all the cells to identify their training need if a competency is not achieved.
• It was suggested that the CAS process may be more useful for junior/less experienced members of staff.

4.2.5 More than half the authorities stated that they would consolidate the information relating to skills gaps and training needs identified in an individual's CAS spreadsheet into a 'master' spreadsheet identifying all training needs. For most, this will allow the overall training needs of the team to be integrated into a training plan. One authority highlighted that "common threads" are already emerging regarding training needs.

4.2.6 All authorities retain training and development needs information within the individuals' own assessments. While most authorities retain information on the training and development needs of their staff in Microsoft packages (e.g. Excel, Word) within building standards, one authority had a more integrated system with their PDR form being an online form which could record skills gaps.

4.2.7 Most authorities referred to authority-wide software which usually relates to payroll and other HR processes (e.g. annual leave, flexi-time, absence etc.) but which can also be linked to training needs. When linked to mandatory training and development needs, these systems can track when training is undertaken and the benefit of including building standards specific training into this type of system was recognised. Software included iTrent, MyView, MySelf, Resourcelink online.

4.2.8 The extent to which training needs are currently monitored varied across authorities and the systems that they have in place. The authority using the online PDR form also has ISO accreditation and has developed systems to log and monitor training to meet the needs of ISO audits. Other authorities were more dependent on the individuals taking their training needs forward (possibly in conjunction with their manager) and there was often no function for monitoring and tracking training. One of the benefits of some of the HR systems referred to in paragraph 4.8 offer automatic tracking of mandatory training by sending remainder emails to managers when training is due/becomes overdue.

4.2.9 Individuals with professional membership are responsible for logging their own CPD and one consultee suggested that they receive prompts through this mechanism to compete the necessary CPD log. This might be an area worthy of further investigation i.e. how professional bodies manage the demonstration of professional competence by their members.

4.2.10 Opinions were mixed on whether the CAS process is a duplication of existing processes. Two of the authority consultees stated that they felt that CAS was a duplication of processes, reflecting the position that training needs were already being identified through the authorities PDR processes. Other authorities, where CAS was felt to not duplicate existing systems, referred to the CAS as enabling them to take forward issues relating to technical competencies. One authority described the process as being "complementary" with most training identified by the PDR process not being building standards specific. In these circumstances the CAS was seen as an enhancement of existing processes with a much more advanced toolkit. Another authority felt that CAS would enable them to re-start collating information on training needs which had stopped due to budget cutbacks.

4.2.11 It was generally felt that the CAS process can fit relatively easily into the existing local authority systems, although one authority has had to change the timings of the PDR process to allow the CAS assessment to be undertaken. One authority confirmed that the existing system is "person specific" which does not formally collate information across the team. CAS is also person specific but the skills gaps and training needs identified through the spreadsheet may make consolidation easier.

4.2.12 CAS cannot replace the PDR process as this deals with matters other than just building standards competency, but it can feed into the overall process.

4.2.13 Where a HR representative joined the consultations, the consultees felt that the CAS process fitted well with their systems. For example:

• In one authority all training was authorised through the Organisational Development department. The outputs from CAS can easily fit into the PDR form and any training accessed and delivered through existing processes.
• One authority felt that it fitted well with their workforce strategy and as building standards use the HR SharePoint platform, building standards can lead on CAS and still link the outputs to HR.
• HR has moved payroll system to iTrent and there is a learning and development module that could be used to record training and development in the future. This would allow CAS to be tracked alongside the PDR outputs.
• The CAS is a technical competencies assessment which is service led rather than the general competencies identified in the authority-wide PDR, but the two processes can work together. There are examples of other departments having their own competencies e.g., education and social work and these work well with the wider PDR process.
• One authority felt that CAS provided a good set of professional competencies which would also be helpful for workforce planning. The toolkit had already proved useful in developing the job description in a recent recruitment process.
• A more negative point was made in relation to CAS being too labour intensive with HR questioning the 'return' from the process. It was suggested there is a risk that, if not approached in the correct manner, CAS is too off-putting and complex. It would be easy to become too focused on the very specific parts of the technical guidance.

4.3 Delivering Training

4.3.1 There was substantial variation in the availability of training budgets. Some authorities have their own training budgets for building standards, some authorities are competing with other departments for their share of the service training budget and others do not have a specific training budget.

4.3.2 Most authorities rely on internal and CPD sessions (e.g., specialist seminars, toolbox talks, LABSS, suppliers/manufacturers talks etc.) on specific topics rather than formal external courses. Some training was also delivered through LABSS consortia groups using online methods. One authority had a training partnership with the Chartered Institute of Building and have had joint training via this route with other service areas within the authority. There were also examples of authorities sharing training with other authorities and with other services within their own authority to make the training more cost effective.

4.3.3 CAS training needs should fit into authorities processes for delivering training, but concerns were raised about who would pay for the training. One authority hoped to be able to use CAS to develop a business case to put to HR for external training requests. One authority was also concerned about how training gaps will be addressed.

4.3.4 Authorities were not always clear on how training records would be updated using CAS. For most of the authorities, it was currently the responsibility of the individual to update their PDR and CPD records although this was an area which was being investigated by a number of authorities. For example.

• HR in one authority has moved to a new payroll system which has a learning and development module. There is potential for this module to be used to record and monitor training and development in the future for both the PDR and CAS. It was also noted that HR send prompts to managers on matters unrelated to training and development such that this could possibly be developed for training and development matters.
• HR are working in one authority to implement a different approach in building standards which would allow the service manager to access individual CPD requirements thus enabling more formal tracking using existing systems. It was not clear exactly how CAS would fit into this process.
• One authority has a very streamlined process whereby the building standards manager identifies an appropriate supplier and applies to the training budget holder for funding. When the training is complete, the employees record on the payroll/HR system is automatically updated.

4.3.5 All authorities have a corporate learning and development team which facilitate wider training and development across the whole organisation. These courses tend to be mandatory courses for all employees and not technical courses specific to building standards e.g. data protection, customer service, understanding the council, general management. Most of these courses are delivered through an e-learning platform.

4.3.6 Where CAS identifies a more general training need, it could fit well with the corporate learning and development team courses. One authority referred to their digital build team who can develop online courses, but they felt it would not be cost effective for them to build e-learning courses for building standards. Another authority stated that HR had worked with some service teams to deliver service-specific modules as part of their e-learning offer.

4.3.7 One authority was also part of a partnership of authorities using the same e-learning platform and sharing some general training and development modules.

4.4 Learning and Development Hub

4.4.1 At present, there is no need to share training and development needs outside the authority and most authorities did not envisage a problem with this as long as it was only training themes/gaps and the general level of training that was shared i.e. there would be no need to identify a specific individual. One consultee suggested putting a data sharing agreement with external partners in place and ensuring staff were aware that any training and development needs could be collated and shared externally.

4.4.2 Almost all authorities felt that the CAS provides a platform for the development of a learning and development hub as it enables the documentation of training needs and the bringing together of these needs across authorities. The CAS provides the opportunity to identify topics where training is required and where there is a shortfall in provision. These topics could be covered by on-line learning via learning and development hub modules and matched to an individual's identified training gaps.

4.4.3 Developing the modules and linking to the CAS was recognised by one consultee as a substantial piece of work but suggested that the LABC hub in England and Wales may be helpful while another consultee questioned if there was any material from the Glasgow Caledonian University courses delivered by LABSS which could be used.

4.4.4 CAS was generally considered to be a good opportunity for the centralised management and ownership of learning delivery. The provision of any additional training was considered a positive with the benefits from a learning and development hub identified as:

• Structured training and the ability to organise regular CPD events.
• Economies of scale in delivery training.
• Consistency of training across Scotland.
• As more staff move to hybrid working, online delivery is necessary and offers more flexibility.

4.4.5 Although recognising the opportunity for a centralised learning and development hub, a couple of potential concerns were identified:

• How would the hub be funded?
• Authorities would have to be upfront about training needs and sharing skills gaps, but some authorities may not want to be seen as having skills gaps.
• Issues around consistency in the application of the toolkit in different types of authorities with the needs of a city surveyor being different to those in a more rural authority.
• The hub should not be too prescriptive.

4.4.6 There was not however, universal support for a learning and development hub amongst the consultees. It was suggested that there was no benefit from having a national perspective. All local authorities are appointed as verifiers in their own right, but all are resourced differently and have different needs. If a national building standards service is needed, then there should be a national service. It was felt that competency had not been an issue before and that there were other things that needed addressing before competency e.g. the lack of degree provision for building standards.

4.4.7 In terms of developing the learning and development hub, decisions are required on where to focus resources. Is it events, briefing papers, e-learning courses, discussion groups that are to be provided? The approach needs to reflect the topics required and the likely number of people using the resources.

4.4.8 Different approaches to learning delivery will generate different issues to consider. For example:

• If developing an e-learning topic module, does the participant have to 'prove' knowledge at the end i.e. is an assessment/test required?
• If holding a discussion forum, does the 'host' have the appropriate specialist knowledge?

4.4.9 Discussions suggested that approaches to delivering e-learning are changing with different formats and more creative use of technologies to deliver the content e.g. videos with workshops at the end, more "bite-size" content. Microsoft Teams has considerable functionality and would be compatible across authorities. It can cater for relatively large numbers of participants and can provide a record of participants.

4.5 Future Improvements to CAS Delivery

4.5.1 There was general support for the digital delivery of CAS with the following points raised as areas for improvement:

• The CAS is very complex so a digital tool is almost a necessity. It would be good to link the CAS to training opportunities and solutions to meet any identified gaps.
• A simplified version using a straightforward digital tool would be useful.
• CAS has almost 700 lines of information for each profile and you have to go through each line during set-up, assessment and the discussion i.e. three clicks per line for 700 lines. Any process to make this quicker would be welcomed.
• It would be good to have a function for completing multiple cells for "no training needed" instead of having to complete each individual cell. This is particularly relevant for more experienced staff who may have competence across all the lines of a particular standard.
• The spreadsheet is good, but development of an Access database may be better for collating overall training needs.
• It would be good to link the traffic light assessment spreadsheet within CAS to the skills gap spreadsheet so that information is pulled through from one to the other.

4.5.2 An assessment will be needed to determine whether it would be cost effective to digitise the CAS spreadsheet. Factors to consider include the number of entries per person, the number of people completing it and the frequency with which it is completed. Initial discussions suggest that digitising the spreadsheet could be a substantial task and that software may have to be developed to consolidate the outputs from CAS.

4.5.3 A number of different e-learning and management platforms are used by authorities and one consultee suggested that not all platforms "talk" to each other, but as long as the system can produce outputs in excel, authorities should be able to bulk upload information. However, having systems which could be linked automatically would be preferred. There were limited suggestions of software/packages that could be used for the digital delivery of CAS, but the following were referred to by consultees:

• Firmstep (from Granicus) was used by one authority to manage the training budget which was previously held on Excel. Firmstep allows questions to be asked (useful for filtering) and can be linked automatically to email (to confirm training is approved) and finance (to generate a PO number). It is hoped to also link it to Resourcelink online which is used for recording training.
• Always Learning, iLearn and LEON were mentioned as systems for e-learning. The need to be able to access the platform from any computer was emphasised to support the move to flexible working.

4.5.4 There was however general agreement amongst authorities that a digital system would fit within their existing systems.

4.6 Final Comments

4.6.1 Most consultees were supportive of CAS, but made a number of final comments, both positive and negative. On the negative side:

• There is a danger that there is less scrutiny of the competency of managers as their line managers may be from another service and lack detailed building standards knowledge. This depends on the structure of the authority and where the building standard service sits with other services.
• It has taken a long time to go through the CAS process with the whole team, so PDRs have been delayed. If your CAS assessment was at the beginning of the process, it could be many months before any identified training is delivered.
• There are some concerns about the time and cost involved in implementing CAS, particularly for more junior staff. There is also no funding to support the roll-out.
• There is a need to recognise that assessing building warrants and site inspections are two different skill sets. There is a need to ensure that shadowing/mentoring provides the opportunity to understand what is happening on a site e.g. is a product being used correctly?
• It was hoped that any sharing of data would not be used to monitor authorities' completion of CAS.
• There is a potential public confidence issue if it comes to light that there are gaps in building standards services' knowledge and skills. Could gaps come to light that mean an authority is no longer able to meet its requirement as a verifier?
• It is a positive tool, but perhaps it could be more streamlined which would reduce the time commitment required to complete it.
• The current system is not reasonable and, in light of resources constraints, would you rather have people delivering the service or filling out a form?

4.6.2 In terms of positive comments, the following points were made:

• CAS deserves praise and meets a need for the service. It is a valuable addition to the authority-wide appraisal system and is more technically specific.
• It is important to sell the benefits of CAS to the team to encourage buy-in from staff.
• A digital solution may make it easier to identify common issues across authorities.
• CAS will bring benefits from the identification of skills gaps and the opportunity to deliver training solutions nationally.
• It is hoped that spending time and effort setting up CAS correctly in the first year will make it easier and quicker to use in future years.
• Hopefully, authorities will see progress in future years as training and development needs turn from red to amber then green.