Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Building the case for innovation in the Flemish ESF: PCM for innovation projects.
Louis VervloetDirector Flemish ESF Agency
Background
Lack of focus: what do we want to change for whom do we want to change
What is the real policy link, at local, regional or national level, let along European
Improving, replacing, completely new WHO IS WAITING FOR THIS Chances on mainstreaming
Background
Good things that end up in the cupboard, somewhere on a shelf
Transferability is not checked in advance Dissemination: to little to late and to close
Linked with organization only What’s a sector Labour marked players
Novelties
Innovation has to start from Where are they (intermediaries) waiting for What do they need What is the added value in quantitative and
qualitative terms Cost/benefit analysis What could be the net effect(s) Who are our stakeholders in the marked
Prior 4
Job seekers Workers
LABOUR MARKET
Prior 1
¨Prior 2
Prior 3
GENERAL LOGIC OF ESF PROGRAMME
INTERMEDIARIES
=broadly speaking eg. also employers
Development,testing, validating,
dissemination
Preparatoryaction
INSTRUMENTS
=broadly speaking eg. something that can be used by intermediaries to improve their
capacity to better serve the labour market eg. a method, training, process description, manual
etc.
Extra adjustm
ent +
disseminatio
n
outside targeted
group of interm
ediaries
Difference in logic with mainstreamA
ctiv
ities
Ope
ratio
nal
obje
ctiv
es
Project contributes to carrying out better training activities for job
seekers and finding a jobGlo
bal
obje
ctiv
es
Develop new method for training job seekersTests with small group
Lessons + adjustment methodValidation
Dissemination
Training processes and skills/attitudes of trainers improved
Spec
ific
obje
ctiv
e Intermediaries capable of training jobseekers better “Jobseekers find work”
Train the trainer: innovation
Target=group ofintermediaries!!
Training for trainers yieldsimproved knowledge and attitudes
for trainerTrainers uses in
trainings for job seekers
Train the trainer: mainstream
Job seekers have better skills and attitudes
Project contributes to employment goals
Target=Job seekers
Difference in logic with mainstreamA
ctiv
ities
Ope
ratio
nal
obje
ctiv
es
Project contributes to carrying out better training activities for job
seekers and finding a jobGlo
bal
obje
ctiv
es
Develop new method for training job seekersTests with small group
Lessons + adjustment methodValidation
Dissemination
Training processes and skills/attitudes of trainers improved
Spec
ific
obje
ctiv
e Intermediaries capable of training jobseekers better “Jobseekers find work”
Train the trainer: innovation
Target=Dintermediaries!!
Training for trainers yieldsimproved knowledge and attitudes
for trainerTrainers uses in
trainings for job seekers
Train the trainer: mainstream
Job seekers have better skills and attitudes
Project contibutes to employment goals
Target=Job seekers
MAX 3 years, incl. prepratoryaction and 1 year
active dissemination (if validated)
MAX 2 years
Output(provided by
intermediaries)
Quality (eg appropriateness of new skills or speed in acquiring them etc.) of services, knowledge, attitudes, practices (eg. level of qualification
gained) from intermediaries for number of clients
Results(for clients of
intermediaries)
-Qualitative level of benefit (eg better paid jobs)-Time (eg. in months) to gain benefit (eg. work) -Number of clients that gain benefit (eg. more unemployed find job)
Impact(policy)
Contributing to policy goals
Input(means)
Financial and other means for implementing activities for clients
Focus for testing: what is the business case for introducing the instrument with internediaries?
Solution that will be active when instrument is implemented
Existing solution
Negative: 1000 EUR extra cost per participant
-20 days training per employee with on average: monthly wage of 2000 EUR bruto = 2000 EUR-Tuition of 1000 EUR per employeeTotal= 3000 EUR
-30 days training per employee with on average: monthly wage of 2000 EUR gross = 3000 EUR-Tuiton of 1000 EUR per employeeTotal: 4000 EUR
Input
Positive: 30% extra qualified
50% of the participants is qualified
80% of the participants is qualified
Output
///Result
///Impact
/Training employeesTraining employeesActivity
Difference if new alternative is chosen
Old alternativeNew alternative
Cost per qualified participant of the new alternative is 5000 EUR pp (40000/8 for a group of ten people) compared to 6000 EUR pp (30000/5) in the old alternative!
The case would be strenghtened if the results would also be compared. In any case,it is reasonable to assume results under the new option will be better.
Judging innovation Level of innovation in terms of the developed
instrument: Completely new instrument (highly innovative)
New instrument that builds on an existing instrument (innovative)
Adaptation of existing instrument (average innovation)
Use existing instrument with little adaptation (little innovation)
Judging innovation
Level of innovation in terms of the activities/solutions the intermediaries offer to their clients: Very innovative: instrument builds capacity for totally new
activity
Innovative: … to radicvally renew and existing activity
Average innovation: … incremental improvement of existing activity
Little innovation: … small improvement of existing activity
Synthetic judgement is based on both dimensions
Questions
For some I will be able to answer Some will take some time Some will never get an answer
BUT
You must always asked them
More information
ESF-Agentschap Vlaanderen Louis Vervloet Benedict Wauters Director Deputy Director Gasthuisstraat 35 5th floor
B 1000 BRUSSELST. +32 2 546 22 39F. +32 2 546 22 [email protected]@esf.vlaanderen.bewww.esf-agentschap.be
