Accountancy and Finance Competences in the Treasury:

Learning from Experience

 

Andrew Likierman

1. Background

Accountancy and finance (A&F) was selected as one of 8 core competences as part of a development programme for the Treasury in 1996. As with the other competences, 5 skill levels were defined. All staff were asked to define the competence level for their job and their own level in preparation for the 1997/8 reporting year. A skills gap was then to be identified as the basis for individual development plans. Training was to be provided as necessary, with testing or external accreditation for each stage. Promotion and level transfers to certain posts were to be linked in due course to possession of specified competence levels.

2. What happened

Some elements of the A&F framework were put into place as planned. The training necessary for level 1 (2 days) and 2 (6 days) was commissioned from an outside provider and the take-up has been good. It was established that by the end of 1997, over 150 people had been trained for level 1 with another 50 saying they already had this level. The figures for level 2 were over 120 trained, 20 booked to train and 20 saying they already had this level. For the other levels, very few people required level 3 and this was therefore seen as needing to be tailor-made to individuals, while 4 and 5 were defined in terms of professional competence and therefore assessable externally.

A number of decisions were taken which reflected the specific needs and circumstances of the Treasury. First, following requests from those who had completed level 2, an additional level (2a) was devised as a way of giving additional practice in the theory of level 2. Second, a decision was taken also at an early stage that because of the very specialist nature of training for resource accounting and budgeting (RAB), this was to be separate from general A&F training. Specific RAB courses were therefore run for individual parts of the Treasury. Finally, the links to NVQs were recognised to be limited for the department because of the difficulty of providing practical application in most posts.

Some elements of the framework proved more difficult to carry into practice. There was not a full set of information on competence levels, despite prompts after the deadline. A sample of "non-definers" was contacted early in 1998. Among the reasons given were

- difficulties of postholders in defining the competence levels for their posts and existing abilities
- unwillingness to send in details for competences not judged appropriate for the post
- new entrants who had not been asked for information
- returns sent in which were claimed not to be registered

as well as some posts registered as filled but which had been abolished. These reasons indicate that support is needed to help identify competence levels and that a follow-up mechanism is necessary if a comprehensive and up-to-date list is to be maintained.

On the training side:

- course provision had in part to be responsive to requests, rather than being planned systematically, because there was not a full set of returns
- not all those who had taken the course had taken the associated test

3. Incentives and barriers

Incentives need to be strong enough to obtain the information on competence levels for posts or individuals or the gaps in information mean that a
"skills gap" cannot be identified or training provision properly planned.

The understandable and familiar "No time!" is one reason given for the lack of information. But while this merely manifests a low priority given to the activity, there is some evidence that lack of experience on how to assess levels for the post and the individual and how the individual will assess their current skill level are barriers. These difficulties apply both to the department and the individual. There may also be some concern about having to undertake training - and tests - once levels are defined.

Some of the above issues have arisen because Accountancy and Finance competences were introduced at a very early stage of the training framework. Others are almost certainly transitional. As examples:

- when a job has been assessed for its competence level it should not have to be reviewed very often.
- it will be easier to encourage all aspects of competences when it is clearer that having competences is linked to a new post.
- there has to have been adequate opportunity for training
- faith in the testing mechanism has to be earned.

Timing is a problem in another way. With Treasury postings of , typically, 3 years, the lag between appointment to a post and competence training for the post may be too long for the organisation and postholder to benefit fully before moving on.

4. Suggested solutions

To meet the generic problem of asymmetry between the costs and the benefits - if individuals are not trained, it is not only they that will suffer, but the department - individual choice should not be the only element which determines the pattern and amount of departmental training. Recognising that departments are at different stages in implementing their IIP programmes, the suggestions below (in italics) are intended to help incorporate the necessary incentives to meet the department's needs and help remedy any problems. Almost all would apply to all competences.

a. To make progress in parts of the organisation which have most need for A & F (transitional problem)

- The PFO should determine the focus on relevant teams and individuals

b. To clarify what level an individual has already attained

- Help the individual with structured self-assessment, supplemented if necessary by specialist advice and/or help from personnel

c. To clarify what competence level is appropriate to the post

- Involve (as appropriate) users, specialists and/or external assessment in doing so 
- Make it part of the team-leader's job to ensure the competence levels are assessed
- Set feasible published deadlines for the assessment timetable in conjunction with directorates and publish league tables of posts assessed against targets

d. To reinforce training experience

- Use the annual appraisal report to follow-up on training undertaken

e. To reinforce the incentives for a-d above

- Include milestones in team, team leader and individual objectives for 1998/9. Review against performance as part of the normal appraisal round.
- Have someone in the department with competence follow-through as part of a job description
- Monitor and publicise cases of how training has helped individuals

f. Increase the incentives to train

- Personnel to review training in the light of experience for content and delivery method (including modularity rather than block provision)
- Encourage teams to ensure that cover is provided as a matter of routine during extended training periods.

g. To remedy any problems arising from the lag between taking up a post and taking the relevant competence training

- Exert pressure from line manager for early training (short-term)
- Carry through policy that appointments should normally be of those who already have relevant competences (long term)

h. To counter any claim that there is no time to train

- Give clear message on rules of the game from the top (short-term)
- Senior management set a good example in defining, and letting it be known they have defined, their own training needs
- Carry through incentive of link to promotion (long term)

i. To increase the proportion of those taking tests before the promotion and transfer requirements take effect

- Find the reasons for delay
- Reduce exam concerns by eg providing sample papers, revision classes

j. To recognise the 3 constantly moving elements of the database (individuals in the department, attained competence levels of each individual and
posts)

- Operate central database with means, including authority, to seek information

5. Further information

Please contact Kevin Ross, Finance Training Network Co-ordinator, Development of Accountancy Resource team, HM Treasury, 19 Allington Street, London SW1E 5EB.

Tel: 0171 270 1747 (GTN 270 1747)

Fax: 0171 270 1744 (GTN 270 1744)

E-mail: kevin.ross@hm-treasury.gov.uk