Harmonising training and development across an industry: the case of Australian rail

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to explore why harmonisation, given its potential, is so difficult to achieve. It analyses the issues and challenges in achieving harmonisation of training and development across an industry. Design/methodology/approach The approach was a meta-analysis of six research projects undertaken in the Australian rail industry. These projects varied in duration from 12-24 months. Between 2009 and 2013, rail employees in varying roles and levels of seniority, including middle managers, front-line supervisors, rail incident investigators, track workers and drivers, were interviewed (n = 176) and surveyed (n = 341). Findings The meta-analysis identified a range of characteristics associated with harmonisation. It uncovered three categories of harmonisation, seven types of risk modelled in a layered risk pyramid and analysed key structural, environmental and organisational barriers to harmonisation. The paper concludes that harmonisation struggles to gain strategic significance and is hampered by operational pragmatism. Research limitations/implications There are few published papers examining harmonisation across companies or based on meta-analyses, especially qualitatively. Despite limitations of insufficient detail to allow close analysis, potentially variable quality data across projects from which to develop a meta-analysis and the danger of comparing apples with oranges, more attempts using this approach would be helpful in gaining nuanced insights into an industry. Practical implications Achieving industry harmonisation requires significant change in the mindset of executives. To enhance the chances of harmonisation, there is need for a strong national entity with overview of the entire industry, high-quality training and development resources and activities and cost-benefit analyses and active campaigns. A major outcome of this research is the risk pyramid, which can be used by managers as a strategic evaluation tool. By using such tools based on sound research, leaders can be equipped to make informed decisions and reduce downstream risks. Originality/value This research has value in extending the literature in two main ways: through examining the notion of harmonisation across an industry as distinct from within organisations that has been the focus of most studies and through using qualitative meta-analysis in a field dominated by quantitative approaches. It analyses the grey areas between rhetoric about its potential and difficulties in its achievement.

Industrial standardisation as a driver for cross-national convergence in training processes

“…From their research using sector-based case studies in the UK, Felstead et al (2009) argue that any analysis of workplace learning needs to begin with the external and internal features of the productive system within which workplaces sit, including international, national or country-specific regulation and legislation. A recent study by Short and Harris (2017) identified a trend towards harmonisation of company-based training in the Australian railway sector. This echoes findings from research in the field of human resource development (HRD) providing insights from alignment theory into the drivers for convergence between HRD and business strategies (Gibb and Wallace, 2014), including the training strategies of multinational companies (Pilz and Li, 2014).…”

Standards formation and the implications for HRD

“…In the HRD field, by contrast, the stakes are lower. Studies of HRD harmonisation processes in different organisations and sectors confirm that the value of discontinuous, strategic change, flexibility and managerial discretion is prioritised over process harmonisation and standardisation (Lahiff, et al , 2019; Short and Harris, 2017). This study further confirms that HRD assumptions about the priority of flexibility and responsiveness over the values of consistency and uniformity serve to diminish professional interest in, and imperatives for, standardisation.…”

“…Third, organisational excellence theory fails to account for other risk and decision factors that affect performance (Goetsch and Davies, 2014). For example, within the HRD field, studies suggest a reluctance to harmonise organisational-level training and continuous development processes as this is understood as compromising organisational flexibility, change readiness, innovativeness and organisational differentiation (Anderson, 2017;Lahiff et al, 2019;Short and Harris, 2017;Smith et al, 2014).…”

Towards harmonized training in the Australian rail industry some key factors to consider

“…The review is based on: “Harmonising training and development across an industry: the case of Australian rail” by Tom Short and Roger McL. Harris (2017).…”