What motivated CETABC to collaborate on the development of the building service workers program?

Sauvé: “It was a combination of factors. Each of our institutions already offered building service worker training, some of which was proprietary curriculum. We had heard from employers that they wanted a harmonized curriculum across the province. With each institution having its own curriculum, which covered different competencies and varied in length and scope, it was difficult for employers to interpret the credential. When prospective employees applied for a position, it was unclear what skill they had, because it varied based on where they were trained. There was a need to create a uniform curriculum across the province.”

Hamilton: “There was another driver as well, which was the COVID pandemic. That required new knowledge about how to clean safely and about how to disinfect appropriately. It was the right time to update the curriculum, to keep everyone safer, including the workers.”

Sauvé: “Our desire to work together also came from our long history of collaborating. CETABC’s mandate is to support such dialogues and collaborations. We meet regularly so we know each other well. We have developed our own funding to support inter-institutional collaborations, where we identify a training or research need, work together on a gap analysis or to develop curriculum, and then anyone in the association can access the research and use the curriculum. We also respond to outside calls for funding together. We all operate on a cost recovery model, and I think that also helps, because we understand each other’s business context and we share values, for example wanting to keep the cost of training as accessible as possible for learners. That history of knowing how to collaborate with each other, the trust that comes with it, and the similarity in vision and goals across members, were key to the success of this collaboration.”

How did the partnership work in practice?

Sauvé: “One institution steps up to be the lead. This is usually based on interest and whoever has the capacity to support the collaboration. In our case, one institution initially took the lead and put together a funding proposal — which was eventually successful. However, they had to step back when it was time to implement it. That’s when VIU found that they had available resources — staff time — to lead the charge and coordinate the project.”

Hamilton: “We started with a project charter to clarify every team member’s role and responsibilities. We met weekly. Each institution contributed subject matter experts to engage in a conversation about the competencies that are essential for a building service worker. We used the Developing a Curriculum (DACUM) approach to identify the competencies needed in the workplace. There were a lot of tough conversations during those discussions, because we had to identify what are core competencies, from what are not, and participants’ views were influenced by their experience of their institution’s curriculum.

“We used consensus-based decision making. If someone could not make a meeting, it didn’t mean that they did not have something to contribute to the meeting’s conversation. It’s important to provide multiple forms of engagement and opportunities to contribute (for example, having meeting minutes and allowing people who missed the meeting to add their input) to ensure everyone’s voice is heard.

“The funding for this program was used to support a project manager, to compensate the time of the subject matter experts, and to produce some of the instructional materials.”

What are the outcomes of this collaboration?

Sauvé: “We now have a harmonized curriculum, and a harmonized name for the curriculum, across institutions in the province. That way, employers recognize the credential and know what it contains. The curriculum has also been updated to include COVID cleaning protocols. The deliverables include lesson plans, SCORM files that can be uploaded into any learning management system for online delivery, and even professionally produced videos to deliver some content. The curriculum is for an online course. Any CETABC member can access this curriculum, free of charge. They can then offer the program independently, collecting registrations and tuition, and hiring instructors, on their own.

“Developing a curriculum from scratch, including all of the learning materials, is resource intensive. Before, we were duplicating efforts across the province. Also, some institutions didn’t have the resources to develop their own, so they licensed it from other institutions who had a curriculum. With this collaboration, we have a harmonized curriculum, that is of high quality, that every member has access to without any licensing fee, and we combined our efforts to create it so there is no duplication. The funds were necessary to make it happen, but in return the province gained an economy of scale.”

Hamilton: “We wanted to encourage institutions to differentiate themselves and to respond to local needs — for example, specializing in cleaning protocols for a particular industry like hospitals — and we agreed that this would be called Level 2 of the building worker training. Level 1 gives participants the core skills and are uniform across the province, and Level 2 is specialized and each institution can create its own.”

What’s next for this collaboration?

Hamilton: “We would like learners to be able to transfer between institutions – to take the Level 1 course at one institution, and then go take Level 2 at another institution if that institution is closer to them geographically or perhaps if it offers a specialization they need. We haven’t worked out this sort of transfer agreement yet. It would be easy to do with digital badges. However, it hasn’t been done yet. That’s the next step.”

Tell us about the structure of the micro-certificate in food safety management.

“To earn the micro-certificate, learners must complete four online courses. Three are mandatory and one is an elective.

“Of the three mandatory courses, two are offered through UBCV and one is offered at BCIT. With this structure, all learners are exposed to the approaches and expertise of instructors at each institution.

“The elective course gives learners the opportunity to pursue a topic of interest in more depth. Each institution currently offers one course, with plans to develop more offerings in the future.”

Why did you decide to collaborate with BCIT to offer this program?

“A few years ago, the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Food conducted a survey with food industry employers to learn about their challenges and labour market gaps. BCIT and UBCV were both involved in collecting the data. Two findings from that report motivated the decision to move ahead with this micro-certificate. First, the B.C. food industry felt that there was a gap in food safety management training. Second, they brought up the impact of geographical barriers to educating their workforce. This is one of the biggest problems in Canada generally, but it is particularly acute in agriculture and food production because they take place in rural areas whereas post-secondary institutions tend to be in urban regions. The food production sites are also decentralized, so there isn’t one easily identified region where we could offer training that would address this issue across the province.

“BCIT and UBCV are the only two institutions that have expertise in food safety. We each have our own niche area of expertise. UBCV is more academic and global in its outlook; while BCIT is very well connected in the province — they already work with employers and are familiar with the provincial regulations that regulate practice in B.C.

“There were already connections between the two institutions. For example, some instructors teach in both institutions. But this was going to be a new type of relationship. I reached out to BCIT to inquire about their interest in collaborating on a micro-certificate and there was interest. I then applied for seed funding to develop the courses. We received the funding as part of the province’s pilot micro-credentials funding call. Since the funding was meant to support the development of new courses, we split the funds between the institutions in a proportion that matched the number of new courses offered by each.”

How did you implement the collaboration?

“We decided to keep things as simple as possible. Each institution has its own policies and procedures for putting together a new program. For example, each has its own approval processes. We decided to create a program structure that exposed learners to the two institutions’ expertise and approaches, while minimizing the administrative overlap. BCIT handled their own student registrations, scheduling, hiring of instructors, and course delivery, and we did the same on our end.

“Of course, this doesn’t take care of everything. There needs to be constant communication between the two institutions to ensure a smooth, integrated program. For this we created a small working group of about five people that met bi-weekly. It was composed of individuals from each institution, including faculty and members from the teaching and learning centre of each institution. We solved problems together as they arose. For example, learners started to report that one core course didn’t prepare them adequately to take the next course at the other institution. We had to investigate the curriculum and ensure that the two courses coordinated more smoothly. Another example is that each institution used a different badging system to recognize the completion of each course, and we had to devise a solution to ensure that when learners complete the program, they are granted the micro-certificate.

“Before this work began, we signed a service agreement contract. This is an important step because it gives both parties clarity about their roles, obligations, and how the funds will be allocated between them. This is where we clarified that each institution would be responsible for the costs of their own courses. It also addressed whether we intend the program to renew. In ours, we have an auto-renew clause that basically says that the service agreement is extended in perpetuity, so that we can continue to offer the program to more cohorts each year, until one of the two parties gives notice that they want a change. This is a legal agreement. It’s important to set it in place, because let’s say one of the coordinators cannot devote time to the program one year, unless that agreement is in place, the program could fall apart. Having a legal agreement means that it has been reviewed and supported by administrators at each institution and that provides a measure of stability and sustainability.”

What are some of the benefits of this partnership?

“There are several. First, it gives our learners exposure and knowledge to a range of specializations and expertise that neither institution would be able to offer alone. It created something new that benefits learners.

“I think students also appreciate obtaining the recognition from both institutions. There is a certain cachet to having a credential from both UBCV and BCIT. Each one carries different values and connotations about what the learner can do. That’s valuable.

“The fact that we created an online program also responded to the need expressed by the food industry and made the learning accessible across the province.”

What were/are some of the challenges of offering a program through multiple institutions?

“One challenge is that there were no policies or guides helping us move ahead. No one had done this before. We had to figure this out for ourselves. At UBCV, we didn’t even have a policy governing micro-credentials, though one is coming, and that should help in the future. For example, this work is currently not recognized as part of my teaching load as a faculty at UBCV. I take on the work because I believe in it, but the system is not set up for it. The newness of it all, and the lack of systems and policy to support it, makes it harder to do.

“Engaging in inter-institutional collaboration is not easy. Our systems are not built with a lot of incentives to make it happen. Without the B.C. Ministry of Post-secondary Education and Future Skills micro-credential funding, this partnership would not be possible. If, as a community, we decide that we value this, it will be important to create funding opportunities that incentivizes it (i.e., micro-credential funding that make inter-institutional collaborations a criterion for applications).”

What sparked the development of this micro-credential?

“The idea for this micro-credential came out of a Mitacs-funded research project between BCIT and Stinson Aerial Services Inc. This company had recently consulted with the Huu-ay-aht First Nations on Vancouver Island. The Huu-ay-aht First Nations had just acquired a 51 per cent share of a local timber forestry licence , and they were looking at different technologies and tools to manage their land’s resources. Drones are a great way to do that. Stinson connected BCIT and the Huu-ay-aht First Nations and this made us aware of a need for training.

“When the opportunity to develop a micro-credential came up, it was a perfect fit. The past conversations between BCIT and the Huu-ay-aht First Nations had identified a training need: How to operate this equipment, extract data from it, and analyze it to manage their forest resources. When it comes to giving people in-demand, employable skills, RPAS operation is a no-brainer. The first offering of this micro-credential had 12 seats assigned to the Huu-ay-aht First Nations and we filled them all.

“We explored the best format for the program. We settled on each course taking place over three weekday mornings online, followed by Saturday in-person in Port Alberni doing hands-on training with the drones. The micro-credential consists of four of these courses.”

Why did you partner with another post-secondary institution to offer this training?

“We had two sources of funding for this micro-credential. One of them was from the Cascadia Innovation Corridor, which is an organization that promotes the economic development of the Pacific Northwest. BCIT is a member organization. The application criterion for the funding required a collaboration with at least one other member of the consortium. By reaching out to colleagues across forestry departments at several institutions, I determined that UNBC was the best fit in terms of talent, willingness to collaborate on this project, and timing.

“BCIT led the partnership, and the program was offered through BCIT (i.e., students registered through BCIT and earned a BCIT credential). UNBC collaborated on the development and offering of the curriculum.

“The discussion between institutions was eye opening. We learned about structural differences in the job description of faculty at each institution. While building in funding for the faculty to conduct research and collect data was an incentive to participate in this project at BCIT, it was not for UNBC faculty because that is already a part of their job description. We had to find other incentives and ways to compensate for the work of members of the UNBC forestry department on the project.

“The solution was to hire a UNBC graduate student to contribute his expertise. He traveled to Port Alberni to teach the hands-on portion of the program for two out of the four Saturdays. He created the content and graded the assignments related to those two sessions. This allowed us to contribute and combine our different expertise in the development and delivery of the micro-credential. It also allowed us to spread the travel and workload between instructors and made the program easier to offer. Students seeing institutions work with each other is beneficial as well.”

To what do you attribute the success of the collaboration with UNBC?

“We signed an agreement between the two institutions to ensure that the funds were distributed equitably. It also clarified the roles and expectations for each partner in the development and offering of the program.

“The two institutions enjoyed great communication and a willingness to be flexible in the collaboration to make it happen. I can’t emphasize enough how important this is.

“There is no real framework in place for these kinds of collaborations, so we took a ‘make-it-up-as-you-go-along’ approach, which of course has its challenges. Just trying to set up the agreements and establish a structure for ‘who’s doing what and when’ takes time and a lot of open communication.”

Would you do it again?

“Absolutely! The opportunity to collaborate across institutional boundaries is not the type of thing that happens on a regular basis. Academia is inherently siloed, and we have a tendency to keep to ourselves, simply because it’s easier that way. However, there is so much to learn from these types of partnerships that I can honestly say that all the effort we invested to make it happen was worth it.”