Upload
phungdiep
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A Scoping Report into the Changing Requirements of Planning Employers
Mick McLoughlin MRTPI August 2012 August 2012 Dec 2011
Employability Skills for Planners
Contents
Employability Skills for Planners ____________________________________________ 1
Contents ________________________________________________________________ 2
Foreword ________________________________________________________________ 3
Introduction – The changing context for town and country planning, planning education and the
employability skills agenda in planning ________________________________________ 3
Approach to the study ______________________________________________________ 5
The survey findings _________________________________________________________ 6
Key skills for employers ____________________________________________________ 6
Employers’ satisfaction _____________________________________________________ 7 Areas of graduate weakness _________________________________________________ 7
Ideas for improving skills ___________________________________________________ 7
Continuing professional development needs _____________________________________ 8
Part-time/day-release decisions _______________________________________________ 8
Conclusions & recommendations _____________________________________________ 8
References ______________________________________________________________ 9
Appendix - Figures ________________________________________________________ 13
3
Foreword
Mick McLoughlin MRTPI, an Associate of the Higher Education Academy (HEA) and Planning Consultant, has
written this report. The project, carried out during the summer of 2012, was commissioned by Jane Kettle,
Discipline Lead, Built Environment and developed with Professor Ian Strange, Head of the Centre for Urban
Development and Environmental Management (CUDEM) at Leeds Metropolitan University.
Introduction – The changing context for town and country planning, planning education and the employability skills agenda in planning
The election of the Coalition Government in 2010 has brought forward a wave of planning reforms through
the Localism agenda. These include changes to arrangements for the “larger-than-local” scale of planning, local
development plans, neighbourhood planning, development management and enforcement.
These reforms have coincided with a downturn in the UK’s economy. This new economic climate has led to a
reduction in public spending and the funding available to local government and other public sector agencies. It
has also affected the nation’s development industry.
Traditional employers of planning graduates in the public and private sectors have been faced with significant
changes in the way the system is to be operated at a time of reduced resources and business.
With the changing fortunes of the economy and cuts in public expenditure, there has been a decline in job opportunities for new planning graduates over the past few years. This contrasts with the situation during the
mid to late 2000s when the planning sector experienced a shortage of labour and central government and
others took action to increase the supply of planners (Durning 2007, Durning and Glasson 2007, House of
Commons CLG Committee 2008, McLoughlin 2008).
The recent difficulties faced by planning graduates in securing professional planning employment, has given
prominence to the issue of graduate employability skills on the agendas of planning schools and the Royal
Town Planning Institute (McClelland 2012, Parkes 2011, Stewart and Burbridge 2010, Thomas 2011). Thomas
(2011) considers that employability can be understood as a complex outcome of individual attributes, personal
circumstances and labour market conditions. He argues that as the labour market is not under the control of
the graduate job-seeker, this makes it all the more important that the individual gains the greatest possible
advantage from those factors which can be developed through their own action.
However, the planning graduate jobs ‘crisis’ has also re-opened the debate into how far planning schools
should be go in preparing graduates to be ‘oven-ready’ for practice (Maher 2004) and able to hit the ground
running in relation to technical and regulatory aspects of planning such as development management, planning
appeals and enforcement (Budge 2010, McLoughlin 2001, Stewart and Burbridge 2010, Stiftel 2009). The
literature reports on the tensions in academic/ practitioner relationship over ‘practical skills’ and wider issues
including how the two groups tend to perceive each other (Durning 2004, Ellis et 2011).
A related issue is how country/planning-regime specific or otherwise a planning course curriculum should be,
with potential tensions between an international ‘one-world’ approach versus notions of local identity, local
distinctiveness and post-modern diversity. In this respect, it is interesting to note that within England, the
Localism model is intended to move planning away from New Labour’s previous highly prescription and
centralised one-size-fits all approach to planning.
The RTPI’s policy on planning education does not attempt to prescribe or limit the anticipated future location
of a student’s practice. The Institute sees planning education providing a broad understanding of the main
4
principles relevant to place-making and the alternative ways of applying these in practice. It also expects
planning programmes to communicate that planning is about achieving outcomes and not just the operation of
a set of procedures. Finally, the RTPI views initial planning education as a platform for life-long learning and
the further acquisition of additional skills and knowledge. It notes that planners:
“… need to be well-equipped with diverse skills, some of which are particular to the planning task and
some of which may be considered more generic or transferable in nature.” (RTPI 2012, 10)
The CBI (2009, 2011) consider that all universities have a clear responsibility to equip their students with the
skills they need to succeed in the labour market, whilst acknowledging that the purpose of higher education is
not solely about producing work-ready graduates for employers. Importantly too, the CBI expect employers
to take some responsibility for training the graduates they recruit as well as showing an appetite to help
students develop their employability skills. The Wilson Report1 (Wilson 2012, 4.1) similarly notes that supply-
side strategies by universities to meet the needs of employers:
“ … cannot be implemented in isolation; an active participation by employers is required, not least in
defining the knowledge and skills needs of future employers, but also in providing mentoring,
sponsorship, curriculum advice, work experience and feedback on performance for tomorrow’s
graduates. Without that participation by business, the authority of business leaders to comment on the
qualities of future graduates will be diminished.”
Against this background, the HEA decided in Spring 2012 to investigate the current requirements of planning
employers as far as the skills, competencies and knowledge of new graduates are concerned and their
potential role in helping improve the employability of planners. It engaged the Planning School at Leeds
Metropolitan University (Leeds Met) to conduct a scoping study on this matter.
What is employability?
Before outlining our approach, it is important to look very quickly at what is meant by the term ‘employability’
as this fundamental concept underpins and directs the study. Work undertaken for the HEA (Yorke and
Knight 2006, 3) has defined it as:
“a set of achievements – skills, understandings and personal attributes – that make graduates more likely
to gain employment and be successful in their chosen occupations, which benefits themselves, the
workforce, the community and the economy."
Other definitions are discussed in this study and it has identified 39 aspects of employability that fit within an
overall theoretical model known as USEM: Understanding, Skills, Efficacy beliefs and Metacognition.
The CBI (2009, 8) adopt a slightly different definition:
“A set of attributes, skills and knowledge that all labour market participants should possess to ensure
they have the capability of being effective in the workplace – to the benefit of themselves, their
employer and the wider economy.”
This definition potentially places less emphasis on academic-related skills associated with intellectual
curiosity/capacity such as research, managing complex information and critical thinking.
Pool and Sewell (2007, 280) define employability as:
1 The Wilson Report notes the Coalition Government’s aspiration to create a higher education system within which the
expectation of fee-paying students will encourage universities to increase support for students employability and their transition into
work.
5
“having a set of skills, knowledge and understanding and personal attributes that make a person more
likely to choose and secure occupations in which they can be satisfied and successful.”
Their model emphasises on the value of effective reflection and evaluation to build on skills, knowledge and
personal attributes.
Some of the skills which are identified as “employability skills” by the HEA, the CBI, Pool and Sewell and
others in the wider body of literature on the topic (Archer and Davison 2008, Belt et al 2010, UKCES 2009)
are reflected in both the Learning Outcomes for Initial Planning Education (RTPI 2012) and the Subject
Benchmark Statement for Town and Country Planning (QAA 2008).
Furthermore, others have also mentioned a number of these skills in the ongoing wider debate about planning
skills in recent times (Alexander 2005, Carmichael 2006, Claydon and Chick 2005, Demos et al 2007, Frank
2007, Higgins and Morgan 2000, House of Commons CLG Committee 2008, RTPI 2005, TCPA 2006, TCPA
2010, Turok and Taylor 2006, Kitchen 2006). In relation to this wider skills debate, comments by Kitchen
(2006, 9) and Alexander (2005, 102) are illuminating:
“It is clear from the literature that there is no single agreed approach to describing skills for planning
practice.”
“There is no one answer, then, to the question ‘what do planners need to know to be effective
practitioners?’ There are only contingent answers that vary between types of planning practice and that
change over time as practice and its contexts change. If the kinds of planning we know (and perhaps
other, new ones) continue as professional practices, this question will always be asked, and answered
again.”
We might add usefully to these observations by Kitchen and Alexander, by saying that the skills planners need
with vary over time depending on the stage they are at in their careers and the roles they undertake (Durning
et al 2010, Mayo and Johnson 2011). Our focus is on the entry-level planning graduate.
Approach to the study
Leeds Met used a sample survey of planning employers in the Yorkshire and Humber Region as the basis of its
investigation. A short questionnaire was devised following:
- a review of literature around the topic of employability skills generally as well as in the planning field (Archer and Davison 2008, Belt et al 2010, CBI 2011, Bolden et al 2010, CBI and NUS 2011, CBI and
Universities UK 2009, Holmes 2006, Maher 2004, Moon 2004b, Pool and Sewell 2007, RTPI 2005,
Turok and Taylor, UKCES 2009, Wilson 2012);
- semi-structured interviews with the chief officers of two local planning authorities in West Yorkshire
about their experiences of employing planning graduates, and;
- consultation with the Education Department of the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) about proposed survey questions and the Institute’s Learning Outcomes for Initial Planning Education (RTPI
2012).
The literature review helped to identify a series of themes for discussion with the two local planning
authorities at the interviews. Some of the key points to emerge from these follow. Neither authority have
recruited planning graduates recently or sent staff on day release. One indicated that in the past if staff went
to Sheffield Hallam University’s Planning School rather than Leeds Met it was because the location of this
school was more convenient for them in terms of travel. The same authority has experienced some sporadic
requests for placements by students resident in their patch and considered planning graduates from two of
the Region’s Planning Schools to be very similar. They also considered that students perhaps get too much
6
theory and not enough consideration of how it all applies in the workplace. The same authority thought that
what students learn in individual modules might not be sufficiently interlinked/connected up.
In terms of new graduate recruits, the following attributes/skills were favoured:
good decision-making/judgment skills with candidates able to find, weigh up evidence and understand and honestly communicate/explain the effects of development proposals.
absence of "pure/rigid" planning doctrine thinking that blinds individuals in terms of considering the
merits of proposals.
flexibility to change roles and work across different areas of planning and with other disciplines e.g. housing, economic development.
knowledge of other disciplines and comfort with/appreciation of the need for the pursuit of
economic/social well-being.
ability to use planning tools to secure economic development (and other) aims
understanding of the different motivations of other stakeholders in planning, regeneration,
development and place-making – what makes them tick, how to negotiate with these interest and how
to deal with the different drivers involved.
appreciation of the need to remember the desired outcomes of planning i.e. to improve the quality of
people’ lives.
candidates with good people/communication skills able to get on with people at any level and explain issues to them e.g. the public, other disciplines.
lack of any superior ‘I am a planning expert, you aren’t’ attitudes – so, customer/people-oriented
candidates not technocrats.
not necessarily highly academically gifted individuals (these types of recruit were considered likely to not stick around for the long term and contribute to the organisation).
The questionnaire that was prepared following on for the literature review and the two exploratory
interviews, was sent by email to all 24 planning authorities in the Region (including National Parks), all 56
planning consultancies in the Region listed in the RTPI’s Directory and the regional offices of the Homes and
Communities Agency and the Environment Agency. Fourteen completed questionnaires were returned by the
deadline of 27 July 2012 (six from local planning authorities, seven from private sector planning consultancies
and one from a government agency employing planners).
The survey findings
Key skills for employers
Figure 1 (see Appendix) provides a graphical presentation of the responses to the first survey question on the
key skills/attributes that the planning employers who responded to the survey look for in new graduates.
Skills considered either very important or important by employers (with responses totalling 100% across the
two categories) were: communication, drive/motivation, decision-making/judgment, problem-solving/analytical
skills, literacy, use of evidence/argument, people skills, customer care/empathy, confidence and self-
management.
These skills were followed by: working with others, negotiating/influencing, versatility/flexibility, commercial awareness and Information Technology (IT) proficiency: all mentioned as either very important or important
in 93% of the responses.
7
Employers regarded the following skills/attributes as very important when recruiting: communication (78% of
responses), drive/motivation (64%), decision-making/judgment (64%), working with others (50%), problem-
solving/analytical skills (50%) and literacy (50%).
No employer regarded design skills or Geographical Information System (GIS) skills as very important. They
were only mentioned as important in 28% and 7% of responses respectively.
Past planning work experience was mentioned as either very important or important in 64% of responses.
Respondents were given the opportunity to add other skills/attributes. Five employers did so. Two employers
mentioned enthusiasm and political awareness/working with councillors as very important. None mentioned
knowledge of topics specific to Localism, touching instead on general issues such as urban and countryside
planning and development economics.
Employers’ satisfaction
Figure 2 is a pie chart illustrating the responses to the second survey question about employers’ satisfaction
levels towards planning graduate recruits. It shows that 50% of employers were either very satisfied/satisfied
with these employees. 21% were not satisfied. (During the exploratory meetings with the two West
Yorkshire planning authority chief officers, they did indicate that they hadn’t actually recruited for a few years due to budget constraints. It is possible that some employer views may not relate to recent graduates. This
was confirmed by one private sector employer – see below.)
Areas of graduate weakness
The third survey question asked employers to identify very important/important skill areas where planning
graduates have performed weakly. These are illustrated in graph form in Figure 3. The top four
skills/attributes mentioned were: commercial awareness, decision-making/judgment, negotiating/influencing
and the use of evidence/argument. These top four areas were followed by communication, customer
care/empathy, drive/motivation, literacy and self-management.
Ideas for improving skills
The fourth survey question asked planning employers for their views about some possible ideas/proposals for
improving graduates’ skills. Figure 4 shows their views. The following ideas were the most popular:
practitioner input to teaching, employment of teaching staff with practical experience, work experience
opportunities and practice-based student projects.
In addition to offering a set of ideas/proposals for their consideration, the employers were asked to make
their own suggestions. One suggested better awareness of rural issues/balance between rural and urban planning topics in students’ teaching, whilst another proposed more involvement of students in live local
planning casework. One respondent expanded on their questionnaire response in their covering email with
the following remarks:
“Whilst we haven’t employed many graduates for a while, I undertake mock interviews with feedback
sessions at XXX which seem to be well received by the students and would encourage such an approach if
you do not already do it. These interviews, and our involvement in the ‘client based project’ for XXX Uni,
goes to show that there appears to be a lack of understanding amongst emerging students of some of the
basics of the planning system – preparing and submitting an application, undertaking a policy review, the
difference between different types of application etc – involving practitioners in these elements of planning
and using real life examples would be of benefit in my opinion if not already implemented. Finally, planning
based work experience can be vital but as employers we appreciate how hard this is to come by. We also
8
consider that office experience is really useful and can count for a lot on what can other be a sparse CV at
graduation...”
All but one employer indicated that they would actively support one or more of the ideas/proposals that they
had identified as good ones (subject to work and financial pressures).
Continuing professional development needs
As part of the survey, we took the opportunity to ask employers about the training needs of their existing
staff in relation to current planning practice. Several employers did mention a number of topics where
Continuing Professional Development (CPD) training would be helpful to enhance the skills of existing staff.
Three employers identified development economics/viability, the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and
planning policy/law updates. Otherwise it was difficult to determine any general patterns in the responses.
Other CPD topics/issues mentioned included: Local Economic Partnerships and the links to/relationship with
planning; the relationship between housing, economic development, transport and planning; flood risk; report
writing; personal management; project management; time management; business/commercial awareness;
facilitating and adding value to development; updates on current/emerging practice; the National Planning
Policy Framework and its implementation; GIS; master-planning; design appreciation; sustainability/low carbon
planning; renewable energy technologies; retail planning best practice; the 5 year housing supply
issue/prematurity; expert witness training for senior staff, and; neighbourhood planning. Several of these CPD topics are clearly linked to Localism.
Part-time/day-release decisions
The final survey question asked employers what factors they considered to be important to their decision to
send a staff member on a part-time/day-release course to qualify as a planner. Figure 5 provides a graphical
presentation of the responses. Employers considered course content (96%), teaching reputation (96%),
positive feedback (89%), course fees (89%) and links with practice (63%) as significant factors - either very
important/important. Of these, course fees were cited as very important by 45% of respondents.
Conclusions & recommendations
This part of the report sets out a series of skills requirements identified from the analysis of the survey data
and some recommendations for consideration by planning schools with reference to the RTPI’s Learning
Outcomes for Initial Planning Education.
Although the number of responses was low, the survey has provided data about employability skills from a
sample of planning employers.
The analysis confirms the findings of previous general surveys of employers on graduate employability skills
with similar levels of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with graduates’ skill levels (21% of our respondents said they were not satisfied with planning graduates’ performance in relation to key skill requirements).
Like other employers, planning organisations place value on:
- basic generic/transferable skills such as good communication, literacy and IT proficiency;
- “soft skills” including working with others and influencing/negotiating, as well as;
- personal attributes like drive/motivation, confidence and self-management.
From a Town and Country Planning subject perspective, the survey highlights the importance of some skills
long-regarded as relevant for planning practice such as problem-solving, decision-making/judgment and the
ability to use evidence/ argument. These are reflected in the RTPI’s Learning Outcomes (2, 11 and 12).
9
In addition, the data suggests that today’s planning graduate needs to be versatile and flexible, commercially
aware and sensitive to customer needs whether they wish to work in the public or private sector.
It was clear too, that the planning employers who responded to our survey also place importance on
graduates having gained practical experience of planning prior to seeking an entry-level position post-study.
Our survey respondents saw merit in a number of potential ways of helping students improve their
employability skills. They also showed a definite willingness to assist planning schools with developing these.
The RTPI’s concept of an “effective” planning school is one with a good relationship with the Institute’s
Regions and Nations, strong links with planning practice and a commitment to invest in student-centred
activities including the facilitation of their active involvement in local affairs, provision of guidance about career
paths and assistance that prepares them for entry into the profession.
Given the state of today’s jobs market, planning schools should be capitalising on their links with practice to
develop initiatives to help strengthen their students’ employability skills. They should also be looking at how
their own institution’s existing corporate policies and activities towards employability, enterprise strategy and
relationships with local employers/communities can be exploited for the benefit of planning
students/graduates.
Possible specific actions might include:
- introducing employability skills diagnostics early on as part of planning courses, supported by skills development planning alongside use of the Higher Education Achievement Records (HEAR) method
(CBI/NUS 2011, Universities UK 2012, Wilson 2012);
- sourcing, supporting and sign-posting of work opportunities for planning students (and graduates)
(Askew 2004, Frank 2012, McClelland 2012, Thomas 2010, Stewart and Burbridge 2010);
- thinking creatively about how experiential learning and reflection/integration elements already embedded within planning courses and the formal learning environment can be maximised for the
improvement of students’ employability skills, especially the ability of students to articulate how their
skill sets are of value to employers (Moon 2004b, UKCES 2009, Stewart and Burbridge 2010).
References
Alexander, E. R. (2005) What do planners need to know? Identifying Need, Competencies, Methods and Skills.
Journal of Architectural and Planning Research. 22 (2), 91-106.
Archer, W., and Davison, J. (2008) Graduate Employability: What do employers think and want? London, The
Council for Industry and Education (CIHE).
Askew, J. (2004) The Agency Project: a Case Study. CEBE Transactions. 1 (1), 8-26.
Belt, V. et al (2010) Employability Skills: A Research and Policy Briefing. London, UK Commission for Employment
and Skills.
Bolden, R. et al (2010) Strategies for Effective HE-Employer Engagement. A South West Higher level Skills Pathfinder
Research Report. London, The Council for Industry and Higher Education.
Budge, T. (2009) Educating Planners, Educating for Planning or Planning Education: the Never-Ending Story. Paper
delivered at the ‘The Future of Planning Education’ Conference, University of South Australia, Adelaide, 13
February.
10
Carmichael, S. (2006) Pan-Professional CPD for Sustainable Communities - A Research Report. Manchester, RIBA
North West & Renew North West.
Claydon, J. and Chick, M. (2005) Teaching Negotiations. Planning Practice and Research. 20 (20), 221-234.
Confederation of British Industry. (2011) Building for Growth: business priorities for education and skills. Education
and skills survey 2011. London, CBI.
Confederation of British Industry and the National Union of Students. (2011) Working towards your future –
Making the most of your time in higher education. London, CBI.
Confederation of British Industry and Universities UK. (2009) Future Fit: preparing graduates for the world of
work. London, CBI.
Demos et al (2007) Future Planners: Propositions for the Next Age of Planning. London, Demos.
Durning, B. (2004) Planning academics and planning practitioners – two tribes or a community of practice
Planning, Practice and Research. 19 (4), 435-446.
Durning, B. (2007) Challenges in the recruitment and retention of professional planners in English planning
authorities. Planning, Practice and Research. 22 (1), 95-110.
Durning, B. and Glasson, J. (2007) Delivering the planning system in England – skills capacity constraints. Town Planning Review 77 (4), 457-484.
Durning, B. et al. (2010) The Spiral of Knowledge Development: Professional Knowledge Development in
Planning. Planning Practice and Research. 25 (4), 497-516.
Ellis, G. et al (2011) The Future of the Planning Academy. London, RTPI.
Frank, A. (2007) Entrepreneurship and enterprise skills: A missing element of planning education? Planning
Practice and Research. 22 (4), 635-648.
Frank, A. (2010) Making a Case for Complementarity of Student Learning from Year-long Work-based
placements in Town Planning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. 4 (2), 21-45.
Higgins, M. and Morgan, J. (2000) The Role of Creativity in Planning: The Creative Practitioner, Planning
Practice and Research. 15 (1), 117-127.
Holmes, L. (2006) Reconsidering Graduate Employability: Beyond Possessive-Instrumentalism. Paper delivered at the
Seventh International Conference on Human Resource Management Research and Practice Across Europe,
University of Tilburg, 22-24 May.
House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee (2008)
Planning Matters– labour shortages and skills gaps. Eleventh Report of Session 2007–08, Volume I, London, The
Stationery Office Limited.
Kitchen, T. (2006) Skills for Planning Practice. Basingstoke. Palgrave Macmillan.
Maher, A. Oven-ready and self-basting? Taking stock on employability skills. The HE Academy Hospitality,
Leisure, Sport and Tourism Network Newsletter, No. 11, 7-9..
11
Mayo, J. M. & Johnson, B. J. (2011). A Role Dynamics Theory of Planning. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 28 (2), 91-103.
McClelland, Z. (2012) Placements, Internships and Secondments. The Scottish Planner. June 2012 Edition, 16.
McLoughlin, M.J. (2001) Breaking the stranglehold of the statutory code – a Kiwi perspective. Newsletter of the Commonwealth Association of Planners. Issue 2 February 2001. 87-28.
McLoughlin, M.J. (2008) Growing your own planners- the Yorkshire and Humber way, Root and Branch Newsletter of RTPI Yorkshire. Spring 2008. 6-7.
Moon, J. (2004a) Employability and Experiential Learning, The HE Academy Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism
Network Newsletter, No. 11, 2-3.
Moon, J. (2004b) Reflection and Learning - No.4 of the ESECT/LTSN Generic Centre "Learning and Employability" series. York, Higher Education Academy
Parkes, K. (2011) About to Graduate? Here are Five Ways to Boost your Prospects. Planning. 29 March
Edition, 36.
Pool, L. and Sewell, P. (2007) The key to employability: developing a practical model of graduate employability.
Education and Training. 49 (4), 277-285.
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2008) Subject Benchmark Statement for Town and Country
Planning. Gloucester, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
Royal Town Planning Institute (2005) A Survey of Discipline Knowledge and Generic Skills of RTPI Corporate
Members. London, RTPI.
Royal Town Planning Institute (2012) Policy Statement on Initial Planning Education. London, RTPI.
Stewart, J. and Burbridge, V. (2010) Supporting Planning Graduates into Work: the way forward in Scotland.
Edinburgh, Royal Town Planning Institute in Scotland.
Stiftel, B. (2009). Planning the Paths of Planning Schools. Australian Planner, 46(1), 38-47.
Town and Country Planning Association and PricewaterhouseCoopers (2006) Permission to Plan. London, TCPA. Town and Country Planning Association (2010) The Future of Planning Report: Distilling the TCPA Roundtable
Debates. London, TCPA. Thomas, H. (2011). Supporting graduate employability: a role for short-term internships. Cardiff, School of City and
Regional Planning, University of Cardiff.
Turok, I. and Taylor, T. (2006) A skills framework for regeneration and planning. Planning Practice and Research.
21 (4), 497-509.
UK Commission for Employment and Skills. (2009) The Employability Challenge Full Report. London, UKCES.
Universities UK (2007) Beyond the honours degree classification Burgess Group Final Report. London, Universities
UK.
12
Wilson,T. (2012) A Review of Business-University Collaboration. London, Department for Business, Innovation and
Enterprise.
Yorke, M. and Knight, P.T. (2006) Embedding employability into the curriculum. York, The Higher Education
Academy.
14
Figure 2: Satisfaction of planning employers with graduates
Figure 3: Skill areas where employers consider planning graduates have been weak