Methodology

=Methodology: = = = The methodology for engaging stakeholders in co-designing the e-learning in the renewable energy sector workforce development plan is a “participatory outcome mapping strategy”.

An Outcome Hierarchy or Map is similar to a program logic approach to program design. It involves identifying a current State of the field in which a program is intervening, and working through a series of steps to consider Needs and Responses to the identified needs. The responses are then given the benefit of imagined implementation and impact, to consider the Immediate, Intermediate and Ultimate Outcomes from successful delivery. In this way a program is given a very high strategic power, value addition and risk minimization. Additionally, when this process is carried out participatively as a co-design approach requires, engagement with the proposed program increases as each stage progresses. This engagement results in a strong level of credibility and viability of the final program.

In our proposal, the Outcome Mapping approach is not carried out in one event. This is because there is too much complexity in VET engagement and E-learning within the emerging and highly diversified renewable energy field. Good representation of this field through multiple stakeholder participation could not work through a complete hierarchy in one short event without building in unstated assumptions and compromising participant engagement. Such liabilities would diminish the ultimate outcome of the e-learning workforce development strategy.

Instead, the Consultancy Team has broken up the stages over the consultancy program. This allows for higher quality engagement in each step, with a greater variety of participants, to ensure the most credible and robust result.

We present the approach in diagrammatic form as an “up hierarchy” as it would be worked in a single co-design event.

We next provide a table that breaks up the steps and identifies the participants and deliveries.

Finally we present the schema, in separated steps and laid out horizontally to aid the reader to follow the co-design strategy from start to finish (left to right). We draw the reader’s attention to the suggestion that the Ultimate Outcome is already decided by the COAG targets, and that this information will be developed into a brief discussion paper to inform stage 1 participants in their “current state” mapping.

An outcome hierarchy or map (Read from the base line)
** Outcome Hierarchy ** |||| ** Evaluation Measures ** || ** Information Sources ** || A table describing our proposed use or outcome mapping in the WERP co-design strategy ** Outcome Hierarchy ** |||| ** Mapping activities ** || ** Deliveries ** ||
 * ^  ||  ** Evaluation questions **  ||  ** Indicators **  ||^   ||
 * **// 7. Ultimate outcomes //** – estimated impact of the reactions to the reactions to the outputs or activities over time – the impact on the overall problem and ultimate goals (biophysical, social/economic, organisational, communications) ||  ||   ||   ||
 * **// 6. Intermediate outcomes //** – estimated impact the reactions to the outputs or activities could have over time: changes in individual and group knowledge, attitudes, skills; changes in aspirations, intentions, practices and behaviour ||  ||   ||   ||
 * **// 5. Immediate outcomes //** - reactions to the outputs/activities by participants/stakeholders ||  ||   ||   ||
 * **// 4. Impact //** – Difference made to the current state once the response has been made (eg: decisions made, program delivered) ||  ||   ||   ||
 * **// 3. Response - //**outputs and activities, products and services the program needs to offer to meet the needs ||  ||   ||   ||
 * **// 2. Needs //** – priority issues evident in the current state that the program must respond to: (physical issues, social, organisational, communications) ||  ||   ||   ||
 * //1. Current State // – a description of the current state of the field being developed by the initiative based on existing or new information (policies, data, consultation, research, field experience). ||  ||   ||   ||
 * ^  ||  ** Participants **  ||  ** Guiding questions **  ||^   ||
 * **// 7. Ultimate outcomes //** – estimated impact of the reactions to the reactions to the outputs or activities over time – the impact on the overall problem and ultimate goals (biophysical, social/economic, organisational, communications) || COAG, other authorities || What are 2002 targets for e-learning, workforce development, renewable energy economy and carbon reduction? || Targets that the workforce development plan contributes to ||
 * **// 6. Intermediate outcomes //** – estimated impact the reactions to the outputs or activities could have over time: changes in individual and group knowledge, attitudes, skills; changes in aspirations, intentions, practices and behaviour || Investors || How will the renewable energy economy respond to the immediate outcome being delivered? || Final draft blended e-learning workforce plan ||
 * **// 5. Immediate outcomes //** - reactions to the outputs/activities by participants/stakeholders || Industry leaders, potential investors || How will the renewable energy sector respond to these impacts? || Third iteration blended e-learning workforce plan ||
 * **// 4. Impact //** – Difference made to the current state once the response has been made (eg: decisions made, program delivered) || Learners, trainers, broad stakeholder feedback || If the workforce plan is implemented what immediate impact will it have? || Second iteration blended e-learning workforce plan ||
 * **// 3. Response - //**outputs and activities, products and services the program needs to offer to meet the needs || E-learning specialists || How can blended e-learning progress the workforce development plan? || A first iteration blended e-learning plan to support the workforce development strategy ||
 * **// 2. Needs //** – priority issues evident in the current state that the program must respond to: (physical issues, social, organisational, communications) || Respected change leaders in renewable energy and e-learning fields || What kind of workforce development needs to take place to meet the ultimate outcomes? || A draft workforce development plan from a whole of industry point of view ||
 * //1. Current State // – a description of the current state of the field being developed by the initiative based on existing or new information (policies, data, consultation, research, field experience). || E-learning ready stakeholders identified on the stakeholder map (see attached): industry, peak bodies, learners, RTOs etc || What is the current state of workforce development in the renewable energy sector in your experience? || A schematic of the current state of workforce development in the renewable energy field from multiple points of view ||