9. Towards a model for the anticipatory governance of continuous learning in Finland
The world of work is continuously transformed by the complex interaction of trends such as automation, climate change and an aging population. This pilot case study proposes principles and structures for the anticipatory governance of a continuous learning system that ensures Finland’s population is able to develop skills for the country to flourish in this uncertain and changing environment.
The pilot case study on continuous learning seeks to identify structures and practices for the development of a continuous learning system in Finland that effectively anticipates and addresses the changing needs of stakeholders in a shifting labour market.
The world of work is continuously transformed by the complex interaction of trends such as automation, climate change and an aging population. The changes they precipitate affect the demand for skills: jobs and tasks in one sector may disappear while others emerge which require new combinations of competencies. According to OECD estimates, 46% of jobs may experience significant change or be automated in the coming 10 to 20 years (Nedelkoska and Quintini, 2018[1]). In addition, these trends alter demands for the provision of learning: new forms of self-employment such as ‘gig-work’ may create opportunities for individuals to learn at times that suit them, but they also challenge expectations about employers’ role in skill development.
Against this backdrop, Finland has recognised the need for a reform of continuous learning to create a system that is able to anticipate and respond to changes in the demand for skills and learning across the labour market and broader society. The Continuous Learning Reform project was initiated on 25th September 2019, and is due for completion on 31st March 2023. The reform outline, ‘Competence Secures the Future – Parliamentary Policy Approaches for Reforming Continuous Learning’ (Government of Finland, 2022[2]) powerfully articulates the importance of skills for Finland’s future: “Competence is our best safeguard in the midst of transformations of work, technology and the world at large. We need new kinds of skills, individual training paths, upskilling and reskilling. This need is addressed through continuous learning” (Government of Finland, 2022[2]). In doing so, it does not downplay the challenge it intends to address: ‘Some of the trends [that the continuous learning system must be prepared for] are predictable, but changes can be rapid and have surprising effects, as demonstrated by the coronavirus pandemic that began in spring 2020’ (Government of Finland, 2022[2]).
“The term ‘continuous learning’ was introduced in Finland to emphasise the importance of upskilling and reskilling as opposed to lifelong learning, which takes place occasionally during a person’s lifetime.”(Continuous learning reform - OKM - Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland)
In this report, the term continuous learning refers to learning undertaken by individuals outside of the compulsory schooling system, often termed ‘adult learners’. The continuous learning system refers to the relationship between stakeholders who direct, implement, inform or participate in continuous learning.
Source: (OECD, 2020[3]; Government of Finland, n.d.[4])
While shifts in the demand for skills and learning can be rapid and unpredictable, “conversion of people’s skills is always relatively slow” (Prime Minister’s Office of Finland, 2018[5]). For this reason, a continuous learning system can only function effectively if it implements approaches to anticipate and provide training for skills that are likely to be in demand once the learning period is complete, and remains resilient in the face of changes that challenge its capacity to deliver timely and relevant training.
In this regard, the AIG model can provide useful support to identify gaps in the agency and authorising environment that are necessary for an anticipatory continuous learning system to function, and propose enhancements to the system itself. In this summary paper, the OECD assesses Finland’s current capacity to govern and manage an anticipatory continuous learning system through the lens of the AIG model.
To steer the pilot case for continuous learning, the ‘Continuous Learning AIG Taskforce’ was assembled in September 2021, consisting of representatives from the Ministry of Education and Culture, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Social Welfare and Health, and the Service Centre for Continuous Learning and Employment. Through online workshop sessions, the Taskforce outlined key challenges for the continuous learning system in Finland, and collaborated with the OECD team to set the scope and objectives of the pilot case.
It was agreed to focus on the following two issues:
Robust models for horizontal and vertical governance are necessary for co-ordination to achieve broader systemic change and overcome emerging challenges associated with the continuous learning reform of 2019-2023 (including sustainability of reform across government terms).
Anticipatory information does not have a sufficient impact on actors of the continuous learning system at the national strategic, regional and local level.
A project plan was created, and regular meetings were set up every three weeks for the OECD and the Taskforce to share information relating to the pilot case.
Assessment of the context for continuous learning in Finland
The context for continuous learning in Finland and the role of anticipation was explored systematically through online group interviews with 21 representatives from labour market organisations, educational institutions, central government and regional government in Finland.
This research was complemented by a review of government papers and reports, academic texts and grey literature relating to continuous learning in Finland. This report is particularly indebted to the ‘Continuous Learning in Working Life in Finland’ (OECD, 2020[3]), which provides a comprehensive assessment of the continuous learning system in Finland prior to the development of the continuous learning reform.
Inspiration from international examples
A literature review was undertaken by an external researcher to identify cases which incorporated mechanisms of anticipatory innovation governance (Tõnurist and Hanson, 2020[6]) to provide illustrations of how anticipatory approaches can enable skills and adult learning systems to better prepare for the future.
While it does not have an explicit focus on anticipation, the OECD report ‘Strengthening the Governance of Skills Systems: Lessons from Six OECD Countries’ (OECD, 2020[7]) provided valuable cases and robust analysis of the foundations of successful governance of skills systems. The report’s authors were also helpful in connecting the OECD team with representatives of international cases for further information gathering.
In addition to the literature review, interviews were conducted with representatives of a number of international cases to gather more information and determine the relevance of their cases for the challenges experienced in Finland.
Three cases from Norway, Singapore and the Netherlands were selected by the Taskforce for peer-exchange sessions with relevant representatives. These 90-120 minute online meetings provided Finnish representatives with an opportunity to directly pose questions to civil servants in Norway, Singapore and the Netherlands, and for all parties to identify areas of similar challenges in which they could provide mutual support.
Preparing the principles and prototype governance model for the anticipatory governance of the continuous learning system in Finland
Following analysis of the Finnish context and international cases, draft principles and a prototype governance model for the anticipatory governance of the continuous learning system in Finland were presented to the Taskforce for feedback in an online meeting. The Taskforce shared their immediate thoughts, and followed up with more detailed responses through email. This summary report presents principles and model for the anticipatory governance of continuous learning in Finland that have been developed through this exchange.
The decision to prepare a reform of continuous learning in Finland results from sustained thinking about the future by a range of governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. To determine how an anticipatory innovation governance approach can help to ensure the success of the reform, it is necessary to understand the current structure of the continuous learning system in Finland, and the perspectives and trends that may affect its reform.
Stakeholders responsible for continuous learning in Finland
Based on studies conducted in 2019, ‘Continuous Learning in Working Life in Finland’ (OECD, 2020[3]) presents an assessment of the existing system of continuous learning in working life in Finland. While the Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC) is responsible for the majority of the continuous learning system, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment (MoEE) has responsibilities for vocational labour market training and integration training. The Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (MoSAH) is responsible for a large part of the benefits available to the working-age population during education and training, such as adult education allowance. Working groups with other ministries, including the Ministry of Finance (MoF) and MoSAH have been set up to inform the development of continuous learning. The Employment, Education and Economic Affairs Council (TKE-neuvosto), which is composed of representatives of MoEC, MoEE, MoSAH, MoF, Ministry of the Interior (MoI) and Social Partners facilitates co-ordination at the political level. The Council is a joint expert body of the MoEE and MoEC. The task of the Council is to discuss the key challenges and strategies of labour and education policy related to the Government Programme and Government strategy document, as well as closely linked industrial policy issues. It may put forward initiatives and general policies on matters relating to this agenda.
Other agencies and expert bodies support the work of the MoEC and the MoEE. The Finnish National Agency for Education develops education and training, and hosts the National Skill Anticipation Forum. The Finnish Evaluation Centre evaluates education providers. Centres for Economic Development Transport and the Environment (ELY centres) supervise the offices of the public employment service, and implement policies of the MoEE.
The 311 municipalities of Finland act as organisers and financiers of educational services. The responsibility for funding education and training has been shared between municipalities and the central government. Most general upper secondary education and a large part of vocational education and training are organised on the basis of municipalities’ own activities or together with other municipalities. The majority of municipalities are owners or partial owners of universities of applied sciences.
Education and training providers for continuous learning are largely public or quasi-public institutions and highly autonomous. Current funding models, which enable the delivery of training at low cost or free to individuals, create a challenging market for private providers.
Non-state actors such as social partners and civil society organisations provide funding for continuous learning (such as the adult education allowance) and typically play a consultative role in the policy-making process.
Use of anticipatory approaches to inform continuous learning in Finland
In ‘Continuous Learning in Working Life in Finland’ the OECD highlights the advanced but fragmented nature of the application of anticipatory approaches to inform continuous learning in Finland: “A great wealth of anticipation tools and processes are employed throughout the country, focusing on different governance levels, using different methods and time-horizons” (OECD, 2020[3]).
This section of the report describes how various stakeholders have used different tools and processes to explore future scenarios for continuous learning in Finland, and normatively determine visions for the role of the system. The uptake of these approaches demonstrates a willingness to engage with anticipation exercises among actors in Finland, though members of the Continuous Learning AIG Taskforce identified that the insights and recommendations that result are rarely applied in a systematic manner.
Exploratory approaches
Exploratory approaches for foresight allow stakeholders to explore and assess different dimensions of uncertainty ‘in the aim to foresee as many characteristics of the future and maintain a state of preparedness whatever may happen’ (Tõnurist and Hanson, 2020[6]). Two key exploratory studies are highlighted below. While more recent publications exist, such as the ‘The Future of Work in the Nordic countries’ from the Nordic Council of Ministers (2021), these studies have been chosen as they were led by the Finnish government and engaged a range of actors in the country to explore and assess different dimensions of uncertainty about the future of work. Both determined that continuous learning would be a key tool to ensure Finland and its people are prepared for the uncertain impact of multiple trends on the labour market and wider society. While their findings and recommendations are echoed in the Continuous Learning Reform, the members of the Continuous Learning AIG Taskforce find that they have not been used to their full potential.
Government Report on the Future: A shared understanding on the transformation of work (2017-2018)
Starting in March 2016, the Government Report on the Future engaged a wide range of governmental and non-governmental stakeholders to explore how the world of work will transform in the future, and “raise questions about the kind of future we want for Finland” (Oksanen, 2017[8]).
The report, which was prepared by the office of the Prime Minister Juha Sipilä, was published in two parts, published in 2017 and 2018 respectively. Part 1 identifies five principle dimensions of change: “1. Changes in the contents, practices and ways to organise work 2. Change in the employer–employee relationship 3. Change in livelihood 4. Change in skills 5. Change in the social importance of work” (Oksanen, 2017[8]). While change is expected in each of these dimensions, the overall impact of their interaction is unpredictable and uncertain.
To address this, the report’s authors emphasise the importance of skill development: “Competence has…been recognised as the best security when navigating in an uncertain future. Ensuring employees’ competence, both before and during the career, is highlighted as a means of alleviating polarisation and improving the adaptation of employees and the economy” (Oksanen, 2017[8]). To develop relevant skills in a work environment that is undergoing continuous transformation, it is necessary that “studying becomes part of work to an increasing extent and is split into smaller units.” (Oksanen, 2017[8]). Alongside relevant competences, ‘strong social capital’ is identified as a key facilitator of resilience in the face of the transformation of work.
Part 2 of the Government Report on the Future builds on these insights to set out 18 proposals for action to address for the potential challenges associated with the transformation of work. Recommendations to support skills development include reimagining the role of higher education to provide more flexible modular courses and to maintain relationships with graduates throughout their lives. Proposals are also made to test new approaches for financing learning that are compatible with new types of employment such as gig-work (Prime Minister’s Office of Finland, 2018[5]). Regarding skills anticipation and matching, the report makes the case for novel approaches to data analysis (employing artificial intelligence) to inform businesses and individuals’ decisions about skill development. However, it argues that investment in basic skills and meta skills (such as critical thinking) is likely to prepare people for the continuous transformation of the labour market better than narrow competences identified through skills forecasting (Prime Minister’s Office of Finland, 2018[5]).
Work in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (2018)
Published by Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment and initiated as part of the Artificial Programme set up by Minister of Economic Affairs Mika Lintilä, this report represents the personal views of a working group of 20 governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It explores the impacts of artificial intelligence on four areas of work: the economy, employment, skills and ethics.
Like the Government Report on the Future, it highlights the uncertain nature of the changing demand for skills in the future, and calls for a lifelong learning reform to support the development of more flexible opportunities for people to learn throughout their lives. In addition, it emphasises the value of meta skills over training in narrow skills that may become redundant: “learning will become a key coping skill for humans that will increase their likelihood of remaining in the world of work. When creating education systems of the future, methods that stress the themes of responsibility, self-regulation and willingness to learn should be emphasised” (Koski and Husso, 2018[9]).
The report asserts that non-governmental stakeholders have key roles to play in the creation of a learning system in which skills provision anticipates and meets demand: “Individuals themselves in many cases have the best understanding of their skills. Employers, on the other hand, have the best knowledge of changes in skill requirements. Consequently, we should consider how power over and responsibility for maintaining human capital could be decentralised in a sustainable and acceptable manner” (Koski and Husso, 2018[9]).
Normative approaches
Normative approaches to foresight aim to identify ‘some idea, goal or norm that is desirable’ (Tõnurist and Hanson, 2020[6]) in order to co-ordinate activities around a shared consensus.
Competitiveness and Well-being from Lifelong Learning, Sitra (2018-2021)
Sitra, the Finnish Innovation Fund, managed a project on Competitiveness and Well-being from Lifelong Learning from 2018-2021. The project engaged 30 representatives from the public sector, education, business and industry to lay the foundations for the development of ‘cross-sectional policy for lifelong learning’ (Sitra, n.d.[10]).
In 2019, Sitra published ‘Towards Lifelong Learning’. Based on collaborative workshops with the 30 representatives, it presents a shared vision for ‘how lifelong learning should be developed in order to meet the challenges of the future’ and identifies key challenges for the attainment of this aim. The vision is presented as ‘four theses on lifelong learning’ which articulate the transversal benefits of lifelong learning on individual and social well-being, working life, and the Finnish economy. To achieve these aims, the paper’s authors argue that the governance of lifelong learning must be co-ordinated across all administrative sectors. Like ‘Work in the Age of Artificial Intelligence’, they go on to highlight the key role of individuals and non-governmental organisations in the development of an effective learning system.
This emphasis on cross-system collaboration is further developed in ‘Sitra’s seven recommendations for lifelong learning in Finland’ (Sitra, 2022[11]). This report presents practical proposals based on insights generated throughout the period of the Competitiveness and Well-being from Lifelong Learning project. It makes the case for a ‘decentralised knowledge-based management model’ for lifelong learning which leverages the full potential of stakeholders in the skills system to serve the needs of individual learners.
In this model, “the entire system is directed on the basis of goals and objectives established through a collective process” (Sitra, 2022[11]). Stakeholders in it work in a co-ordinated way to achieve agreed strategic goals, but maintain the flexibility to determine their own activities “and develop their operations to better match the needs of diverse customer groups.” (Sitra, 2022[11]). Such an approach requires commitment from actors across the system to develop a “shared situational awareness” and “assume the responsibility for initiating and co-ordinating collaboration”, while funding must be reformed to incentivise greater collaboration.
At the core of this model, Sitra envisions an integrated information resource that enables evidence-based decisions by collating data from stakeholders across the system. The rules governing the production of knowledge through this resource are determined through collaboration, ensuring that it presents an inclusive picture of the system that can be interpreted in a consistent manner.
Skills anticipation and foresight exercises
The OECD (2020[3]) describes the breadth of skills foresight and anticipation approaches used in Finland. At the national level, groups of stakeholders comprising social partners, representatives of educational providers, trade unions of teaching staff and members of the education administration participate in sector-specific anticipation exercises as part of the ‘National Forum for Skills Anticipation’ (OEF) established in 2017. The approach combines quantitative information, such as the long-term VATT forecasts produced by the Government Institute for Economic Research, with qualitative anticipation exercises into a ‘Basic Anticipation Process’ to produce scenarios for the future of nine sectors. The Finnish National Agency for Education (EDUFIN) translates these into quantitative estimates of educational needs. Alongside this, the MoEE produces short-term forecasts for labour demand across the Finnish economy and in broad sectors in spring and autumn each year.
At the regional level, most regions bring together multi-stakeholder anticipation committees to conduct skills anticipation exercises. Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment (ELY centres) produce short-term forecasts to support the matching of training to skill demands. Employment and Economic Development Offices (TE offices) produce regional ‘Occupation Barometers’, which anticipate demand for 200 key occupations in the following 6 months. Higher and vocational education institutions also conduct anticipation activities, typically involving labour market representatives.
The ‘Continuous Learning in Working Life in Finland’ report (OECD, 2020[3]) finds that the outputs of these anticipation exercises are not being used to their full potential. At a national level, they do partially support educational planning, though “forecast results and targets set in development plans were never fully aligned” (OECD, 2020[3]). At the regional level, anticipation informs career guidance and commissioning of labour market training in ELY-centres and TE-offices, but is not effectively used by individuals to make choices about learning. A key challenge is that the free or low-cost nature of adult learning in Finland means that the government has few options to incentivise the uptake of training that is better aligned to labour market needs.
Objectives for the reform of continuous learning in Finland
The Continuous Learning Reform project was initiated on 25th September 2019, and is due for completion on 31st March 2023. Its preparation has engaged stakeholders across government, as well as non-governmental actors, and it has been informed inter alia by the work of Sitra and the OECD. A parliamentary group was appointed to guide the reform, chaired by Minister of Education and vice-chaired by Ministers of Labour and Ministers of Science and Culture. Expert representatives from the Ministry of Education and Culture, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health have provided input. This group is additionally supported by representatives of the central labour market organisations, and a broad-based monitoring group.
The reform outline was published in 2020. An English translation, ‘Competence Secures the Future’, was published in 2022 (Government of Finland, 2022[2]).The outline explicitly addresses the challenges for Finland identified by the OECD in ‘Continuous Learning in Working Life in Finland’ (OECD, 2020[3]) and sets out three key visions for the development of continuous learning in a ‘long-term and systematic manner’:
“Everyone will have the knowledge, competence and skills required for employment and a meaningful life
Everyone develops their skills and competence during their working careers
Competence renews the working life and working life renews competence” (Government of Finland, 2022[2])
These goals will be monitored through key performance indicators, such as participation in continuous learning and the competence and skills of working age people.
The 27 measures outlined for achieving these goals show a strong reliance on co-ordination and co-operation, often demanding the reorientation of existing relationships between stakeholders. For example, ‘Measure 5: Intensifying the co-operation between employment and competence service providers’ highlights the necessity of ‘new forms of co-operation between educational institutions and workplaces’ (Government of Finland, 2022[2]).
Four measures are identified for the ‘Systematic and comprehensive development and better utilisation of anticipation’ (Government of Finland, 2022[2]), including creating a model for medium term anticipation (Measure 11), and renewing the reporting system for anticipation so that information is coherent and accessible (Measure 13). These measures are complemented by a renewed focus on ‘utilising the opportunities of digitalisation’. Of particular importance is the development of a digital service package for continuous learning (Measure 15). This will consist of interconnected electronic services and data such as skill survey and competence recognition services, application services for education and training, labour market information (LMI) and linked data repositories. The reform outline highlights key actors in such measures as EDUFIN, ELY Centres, TE offices, MoED and MoEE.
A central proposal of the reform is the creation of a Service Centre for Continuous Education and Employment (Service Centre). The Act on the Service Centre entered into force on 1 September 2021. The Service Centre reports to and is steered by a board on consisting of representatives of the Ministry of Education and Culture, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment and labour market social partners. The Service Centre serves as a separate organisational unit for the Finnish National Agency for Education.
The key role of the Service Centre will be to promote and support the development of new training opportunities based on anticipation of skills needs. By accumulating and analysing anticipatory knowledge about skills requirements, and identifying service needs through active relationships with labour market and skills stakeholders, the Service Centre aims to inform policy objectives and guide policy implementation for the Ministry of Education and Culture and the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment.
The OECD conducted several scoping sessions with representatives of the Finnish government in order to determine the issues to be addressed through an anticipatory innovation governance approach. This ‘Continuous Learning AIG Taskforce’ group consisted of representatives from the Ministry of Education and Culture, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Social Welfare and Health, and the Service Centre for Continuous Learning and Employment. Two key challenges were identified:
Robust models for horizontal and vertical governance are necessary for co-ordination to achieve broader systemic change and overcome emerging challenges associated with the continuous learning reform (including sustainability of reform across government terms).
Anticipatory information does not have a sufficient impact on actors of the continuous learning system at the national strategic, regional and local level
In subsequent discussions, co-ordinated financing for continuous learning was raised as an additional area of reform.
The impacts and causes of the challenges were further explored through online group interviews with 21 representatives from labour market organisations, educational institutions, central government and regional government in Finland. A literature review identified these challenges as common across projects to reform continuous learning systems and enhance their anticipatory capacity.
Horizontal and vertical governance
‘The responsibility for adult learning is often split across several ministries, the social partners and other stakeholders, and encompasses different levels of government’ (OECD, 2019[12]). For this reason, ‘Getting Skills Right: Future Ready Adult Learning Systems’ (OECD, 2019[12]), which presents analysis of 34 OECD countries, highlights horizontal and vertical governance and co-ordination as essential to ensuring policy coherence and the effective implementation of adult learning policies.
‘Strengthening the Governance of Skills Systems’ (OECD, 2020[7]) places the issue of governance centre-stage, making the case for a ‘whole-of-government approach’ with the aim of facilitating a ‘collective and well-co-ordinated policy response to pressing problems’ (OECD, 2020[7]) associated with the changing demand for skills. Extending this concept, the authors argue that “the involvement of non-governmental stakeholders in governance decisions is crucial” (OECD, 2020[7])to ensure that policies to promote skills are effective. While challenging to achieve, this approach to stakeholder engagement and governance delivers two key benefits for the creation of an anticipatory and resilient skills system.
Firstly, it leverages the collective intelligence of stakeholders across the skills system to anticipate and identify issues around the implementation of policies and ensure they are addressed in future policy development. "Implementation experiences from stakeholders are therefore a valuable input into governmental decision making not only during the implementation phase, when governments try to improve the implementation of existing policies, but also during the policy design phase, when they attempt to design "better" policies for the next loop of the policy cycle" (OECD, 2020[7]). This is particularly valuable for the holistic development of skills systems, which demand that policies from a range of government departments, such as ministries of education, employment and finance, are aligned to ensure that skills provision is inclusive and accessible in practice.
Secondly, the meaningful engagement of non-government stakeholders on whom the successful implementation of policy is dependent, such as employers, education providers and trade unions, “generates political legitimacy” (OECD, 2020[7]), thereby ensuring that key actors in the continuous learning system are motivated to support the aims of government.
Perceptions of vertical and horizontal governance among Finnish stakeholders
In interviews, Finnish stakeholders felt that the process of the reform had enabled ministries and non-government stakeholders to move in the same direction. However, some stakeholders identified the alignment of national goals with local needs as a continuing challenge, and expressed concern that the government would have the capacity to support a sustainable reform. To help address this, non-governmental stakeholders expressed a strong desire to participate in collaborative decision-making, and stated that empowering local ecosystems and grassroots initiatives is perceived as key to delivering on the objectives of the continuous learning reform.
Key AIG mechanisms
Networks and partnerships
Tõnurist and Hanson propose that “networked or collaborative governance models are relevant to anticipatory innovation, especially those involving engagement with those with access to weak signals and early insights about forthcoming transformative changes” (Tõnurist and Hanson, 2020[6]). They can build capacity for anticipation formally by engaging relevant stakeholders to take co-ordinated actions to address emerging issues, such as the changing demand for skills, and informally by developing a trust-base that “can open up situations for exploring uncertainty”.
Legitimacy
“To be able to commit to change and carry it through effectively, anticipatory innovation processes need to be legitimate” (Tõnurist and Hanson, 2020[6]). In the uncertainty that surrounds the future of skills and employment, it is particularly important that stakeholders distributed across the system view decisions as legitimate and based on a shared understanding of the challenges.
Use of anticipatory information by actors across the continuous learning system
The challenges in the domain of continuous learning are complex and often subject to different ideological interpretations, for instance about the causes of low levels of engagement in adult learning.
“In a world where information about the education system and the labour market involves a high degree of uncertainty, effective collaboration between policy makers and stakeholders may be blocked by competing problem definitions. Rather than devising solutions to these problems, stakeholders engage in conflicts about the nature and extent of the underlying problem." (OECD, 2020[7]).
Robust evidence can therefore facilitate a shared understanding of the issues that must be addressed, and inform collaborative decisions about how to do so. Such an evidence base must collate and provide analysis of a wide range of data, including anticipatory information, and itself be perceived as legitimate by the actors in the skills system. The European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) highlights the necessity of ensuring that approaches for skills foresight and anticipation are “embedded into a structure in which the results are developed, discussed and used with the various stakeholders and decision-makers” (Bakule et al., 2016[13]). Taking up the question of key principles for effective skills anticipation, ‘Skills Anticipation: Looking To The Future’ (European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, 2017[14]) identifies the following: “clear policy aims; use and ownership of results by all stakeholders; dissemination to ensure wide-ranging impact; sustainable financing” (European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, 2017[14]).
Perceptions of anticipatory information among Finnish stakeholders
Finnish stakeholders were in agreement about the necessity of anticipatory information and the value of developing a shared information resource as a foundation for co-ordination. It was felt that the information should take into account a wide range of qualitative signals about changes to society, as well as quantitative skills foresight. Given the complexity of such information, and the range of interpretations it may lead to, stakeholders stated that dialogue is important to create a shared understanding of anticipatory information. To facilitate the co-ordinated use of anticipatory information, they expressed the opinion that information products should be designed to fit the needs of stakeholders in the continuous learning system, and that their skills to interpret and generate it should be enhanced.
Key AIG mechanisms
Sense-making
Sense-making refers to the process by which diverse sets of expertise are applied to better understand complex cross-sectoral societal issues such as changes to the demand for skills and the world of work. The creation of structures that enable different and sometimes contradictory approaches to observing and interpreting change to complement one another can be challenging. However, a commitment to sense-making can help to ensure that relevant information is not ignored, interpretations of change are subject to a robust interdisciplinary assessment, and that a shared understanding of future challenges and opportunities is reached. This helps to provide a firm foundation for legitimate decision-making.
Data and measurement
Knowledge and information that is relevant to continuous learning come from a multiplicity of sources, from skills shortages at a local level to technological developments occurring outside of Finland. To enable these signals to inform the development of the continuous learning system, processes must be developed for their identification, selection and analysis. For effective sense-making to occur, such processes must support the collection of both qualitative and quantitative information.
Sustained and co-ordinated financing
Investment in skills often suffers because its benefits are largely realised in the longer-term. For this reason, shorter-term concerns can often divert funds from skills. Furthermore, the OECD finds that “investments in skills may…lose out to other policy areas in terms of fiscal resources because the benefits of education and skills are shared between a multitude of stakeholders, and the incentives for investing in skills are often not well-aligned between these stakeholders.” (OECD, 2020[7]). Approaches for diversifying sources of funding and appropriate resource allocation are necessary for the effective functioning of a skills system.
Financing in Finland
The OECD (2020[3]) found that a key challenge for the continuous learning system in Finland is “a financial incentive system that leads to inefficiencies by encouraging participation in formal education, such as bachelor degrees, rather than non-formal or informal learning, such as participation in seminars and learning from peers.” (OECD, 2020[3]). Confirming this finding, some stakeholders interviewed highlighted the limited policy levers to incentivise labour-market aligned learning in a system in which access to adult learning is low cost or free.
The OECD highlights that financing models for adult learning are dependent on “political conditions, historical developments and culture” (OECD, 2020[7]). Given this complexity, it was decided that recommendations to facilitate co-ordinated financing of continuous learning in Finland would be outside of the scope of this project.
Key AIG mechanisms
Vested interests and biases
Existing ways of working and power dynamics can often create an environment in which change is resisted and alternatives are not pursued. This is a barrier to the development of effective systems that apply anticipatory innovation governance, which invites stakeholders to actively explore and prepare for change. Practices and institutional mechanisms that enable stakeholders to look beyond short-term concerns and expose them to the opinions and values of a wide range of actors can help to challenge biases and promote a more balanced consensus that opens opportunities for anticipatory innovation. These include experiential futures and scenarios and formalised critical dissent practices (Tõnurist and Hanson, 2020[6]).
The Finnish Continuous Learning AIG Taskforce requested that the OECD propose a prototype governance model that would enable them to address the challenges uncovered through gap analysis, namely:
Robust models for horizontal and vertical governance are necessary for co-ordination to achieve broader systemic change and overcome emerging challenges associated with the continuous learning reform (including sustainability of reform across government terms).
Anticipatory information does not have a sufficient impact on actors of the continuous learning system at the national strategic, regional and local level.
In order to determine the structure of this governance model, the OECD combined insights from literature review (notably ‘Strengthening the Governance of Skills Systems’ (OECD, 2020[7]) and ‘Anticipatory Innovation Governance: Shaping the Future through Proactive Policy Making’ (Tõnurist and Hanson, 2020[6]) and stakeholder engagement to propose the following set of foundational principles.
1. The continuous learning system will function most effectively if the autonomy and knowledge of stakeholders is respected and leveraged
Centralised control of the continuous learning system would not only be challenging to achieve; it is also likely to result in poor outcomes. The autonomy of municipalities and education providers in Finland is likely to mean that imposed changes to the learning system will experience resistance. Furthermore, central government is unlikely to have sufficient capacity for processing information about the actions and effects of sub-agencies, making centralised management “simply not feasible”, while the superior knowledge of local needs by regional actors is not acted upon effectively (OECD, 2020[7]). A decentralised approach, such as that proposed by Sitra (Sitra, 2022[11]) may help to harness the knowledge and commitment of stakeholders throughout the system.
2. Governance structures should establish meaningful and fair co-operation with relevant ministerial and non-government stakeholders throughout the policy process
The sustainability of the continuous learning system is identified as a key challenge by stakeholders in Finland. The OECD (2020[7]) highlights how meaningful co-operation with relevant stakeholders throughout the policy process can help to ensure that there continues to be co-ordinated support for continuous learning. By establishing regular opportunities for collaboration and engaging high-level stakeholders, continuous learning can be maintained as a visible priority, issues during implementation can be raised and addressed in a timely manner, and decisions will continue to be perceived as legitimate.
While the benefits of horizontal and vertical engagement are clear, it can be challenging to achieve. Stakeholders must be carefully selected and their numbers limited in a way that balances legitimacy with complexity. Such co-operation requires clear rules for governance so that less powerful actors are heard, and that conflicts and ‘gridlock’ resulting from vested interests and biases can be resolved. Sustained support from government over an extended time period is necessary to build trusted relationships between actors to create a ‘joint problem solving perspective’ (OECD, 2020[7]).
3. A shared understanding of information about jobs and skills is a core pillar of co-ordination for continuous learning
The development of a shared information resource to inform decisions about jobs and skills delivers benefits at multiple levels of the continuous learning system. A strong evidence base that allows a shared assessment of the dynamics of the system sets a foundation for collaboration between stakeholders around collectively understood issues. If regularly updated, such a resource enables actors to make continuous adjustments to enhance the effectiveness of the continuous learning system: "integrated information systems can provide policy makers with more detailed data on educational outcomes and trajectories, in particular the effects of policies and programmes. This kind of information is crucial to assess whether existing policies effectively address a particular problem, or whether they need to be amended." (OECD, 2020[7]).
To achieve these benefits, an integrated information resource must incorporate many types of data (qualitative and quantitative) gathered from a wide range of sources and stakeholders (horizontal and vertical). “Stakeholders, both governmental and non-governmental, can help to identify the different kinds and types of data needed from their perspective to better inform governance decisions” (OECD, 2020[7]). As there is a high degree of uncertainty inherent in analysis of the education system and labour market, the information must be understood through collective sense-making. To ensure that it is used by stakeholders to make relevant decisions about jobs and skills, it must be presented in ways that address the use-cases and needs of stakeholders in the continuous learning system.
4. The application of anticipatory approaches should aim to do more than facilitate timely matching of skills to jobs
Anticipatory approaches can promote alignment and co-ordination around a shared vison, as demonstrated in Sitra’s lifelong learning project.
Additionally, anticipation enables governments and other stakeholders to stress-test strategies and systems against possible future challenges. The OECD identifies that skills policy is often prioritised only at moments of crises, meaning that “policy responses are likely to focus only on the most pressing short-term problems, thus neglecting structural and long-term challenges to the skills system” (OECD, 2020[7]).
To develop a proposed governance model for the application of the principles outlined in the previous section, the OECD conducted a scan to identify effective approaches from other countries. From these, representatives from Norway, Singapore and the Netherlands were invited to participate in peer-exchange sessions with the Finnish taskforce to develop a better understanding of how these approaches could be applied in the Finnish context. Insights from these conversations were combined with literature review to develop the following model.
Source: OECD.
A ‘bipedal’ governance model
An anticipatory innovation governance model for continuous learning requires that decisions pertinent to the horizontal and vertical functioning of the system are informed by relevant, timely and anticipatory information. For this information to be relevant, legitimate and useful, data must be provided and understood by stakeholders engaged at all levels.
The OECD proposes therefore that an anticipatory innovation governance model must be ‘bipedal’, having two legs. One ‘leg’ is responsible for the governance and management of information that is pertinent to the continuous learning system. To achieve this, a mix of government representatives, social partners and experts are engaged. The other ‘leg’ concerns the design and implementation of policies and programmes. The two elements of governance, information development and policy making, propel each other forwards.
The separation of the governance of policy decisions and the information system ensures that the high-level stakeholders from government, social partners and education are provided with the best possible anticipatory information, but are not required to engage in technical discussions which require specialised knowledge about data and anticipation.
Dual level governance
In ‘Strengthening the Governance Skills Systems’ the OECD states that two levels of governance are valuable to maintain the visibility, momentum and co-ordination of policy for continuous learning (OECD, 2020[7]). A top-level governance body which engages politicians and heads of social partner organisations two to four times a year can develop strategic priorities based on a holistic understanding of the needs and objectives of the continuous learning system. The participation of leadership lends legitimacy and visibility to this process.
The work of implementing the strategic priorities should be facilitated through regular meetings of government advisors and experts. Vertical and horizontal co-ordination undertaken at this level can ensure that actions are aligned and adjusted in response to new information from ‘on-the-ground’ experiences, and parallel priorities identified in the ministries.
Furthermore, the OECD identifies that "two levels of decision making may also help to mitigate conflicts, with political level conflicts delegated to the working level for further discussion. Vice versa, if there is disagreement at the working level, political leaders ultimately decide on how these should be solved" (OECD, 2020[7]).
Skills Policy Council
A Skills Policy Council in Finland would build on the foundations of multi-stakeholder collaboration that shaped the Reform for Continuous Learning. It should aim not only to ensure that the implementation of the reform is undertaken, but also that the strategy for continuous learning in Finland is regularly reviewed and tested against anticipated challenges and opportunities. Such issues should be informed by information provided by the Future Skills and Labour Market Information Committee (see below) and identified by Council members.
Mandate
The overarching role of the Skills Policy Council is to provide direction for the continuous learning system in Finland based on a holistic assessment of the country’s present and future needs. The mandate of the Skills Policy Council should be defined to ensure that overlap with existing bodies is limited. A decision must be made whether the council has the power to make decisions relating to policy, or is an advisory body.
A clear mandate encourages stakeholder participation as it allows members of the council to see the effects of their work. Members of the Continuous Learning AIG Taskforce have stated that the work of council would need to be ‘goal-oriented’ and possibly linked to the Budget process timetable in order to ensure that is has impact.
Participation
Participant selection should focus on achieving four objectives: promoting the visibility of continuous learning as a priority, ensuring that decisions are perceived as legitimate, enabling the sharing of knowledge and expertise, and facilitating action.
Members of the Continuous Learning AIG Taskforce identified the promotion of continuous learning policy among leadership levels as a challenge. To address this, they have considered renewing the Employment, Education and Economic Affairs Council (TKE-neuvosto) to focus on continuous learning, as it already engages key stakeholders and has a minor focus on skills. One risk of this may be that continuous learning remains a peripheral concern to the Council. To address this, the mandate must be clear.
The range of participants should ensure that the inclusion of relevant stakeholders is balanced with the ability of the Council to make decisions, which becomes a challenge when numbers become too great. The case of Norway’s Skills Policy Council demonstrates that the inclusion of stakeholders who have not traditionally participated in similar bodies can improve the knowledge base and legitimacy of the Council. However, steps must be taken to ensure that the voices of such organisations are not secondary to those with existing links to government.
Leadership and agenda-setting
Providing participants with a level of control over the agenda can ensure that emergent and future issues are raised which fairly represent the concerns of different group members. The case of Norway’s Skills Policy Council shows how too much control of a single member over the agenda can result in friction and dissatisfaction, while Germany’s Alliance for Initial and Further Training demonstrates how a model of equal membership can create the conditions for the development and testing of innovative policy ideas.
The OECD recommends that the agenda for each meeting is developed in partnership with council members, for example through a working group managed by a government secretariat. Members of the Continuous Learning AIG Taskforce considered that the inter-departmental co-ordination group detailed below could function as the secretariat, while rotation of the meeting chair through council members would provide opportunities for a range of relevant issues to be raised.
While collective agenda-setting is beneficial, clear rules and a degree of government leadership should help to ensure that Council meetings are inclusive, and that conflicts between members can be resolved.
Frequency and length of meetings
As meetings of the Skills Policy Council pertain to strategic priorities and not the day-to-day implementation of policies for continuous learning, meetings can be limited to two to four times per year.
Discussion and deliberation to develop a shared understanding of challenges for continuous learning is necessary, especially when dealing with the uncertain nature of anticipatory information. For this reason, it is recommended that meetings of the Council provide enough time for dialogue.
Role of anticipation
While a Future Skills and Labour Market Information Committee (see below) will provide evidence about future skills needs and potential challenges to the Finnish economy, the role of the Council should be to explore how a wider range of future trends and possible events may affect the needs and purpose of the continuous learning system in Finland.
The Council should proactively commission anticipatory exercises such as scenario planning, collate anticipatory reports from national and international organisations, and provide a forum for collective sense-making about the future. The aim of this is to enable the Council to assess the continued relevance of the objectives and activities of the Continuous Learning Reform and to make collective decisions to ensure that the continuous learning system is prepared for the challenges of the future.
Norway was selected as a country of interest by the members of the Continuous Learning AIG Taskforce, and a peer-learning session with three public servants involved in the governance of the country’s skills system was set up.
The creation of the Norwegian Strategy for Skills Policy 2017-2021 brought partners from public institutions, social partners and non-governmental organisation into greater alignment to “ensure that individuals and businesses have the skills that give Norway a competitive business sector, an efficient and sound public sector, and an inclusive labour market” (Ministry of Education, 2017[15]). One representative from the peer-learning session credited the OECD, which published OECD Skills Strategy Diagnostic Report: Norway in 2014, with ‘mobilising’ actors at regional and national levels to engage in discussion about skills policy in Norway.
In order to facilitate the development and implementation of policies to achieve the aims of the strategy, two new governance arrangements were set up: the Skills Policy Council and the Future Skills Needs Committee. These bodies, and the relationship between them, provide a useful model for the governance of the Finnish continuous learning system, as they build on a similar corporatist structure of social partner engagement present in Finland.
Skills Policy Council
The peer-learning session between Norwegian and Finnish civil servants took place following the election of a new government in Norway. In this period, Norwegian representatives did not have a clear view of the new government’s intentions for the Skills Policy Council. For this reason, the Skills Policy Council will be referred to in the past tense.
The Skills Policy Council was made up of representatives from all the partner organisations of the Norwegian Strategy for Skills Policy 2017-2021. It was overseen by the Minister of Education, and attended by representatives from the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, The Ministry of Trade and the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development. Other governmental bodies in the Council included Skills Norway (Kompetanse Norge), a directorate under the Ministry of Education, the Sami Parliament, and one representative of the counties. Social partners were represented by top-level employer and employee organisations, and the Norwegian Association for Adult Learning (VOFO), which represents non-profit education providers. In 2020, the University of Norway was given a seat on the Council.
The Skills Policy Council met two to four times a year for about two hours (though this was reduced during the coronavirus pandemic), and the agenda was set by the Ministry of Education and Research. The mandate of the council was to ““follow-up” on the strategy and to continue to promote co-operation between the involved stakeholders, which should include regular discussions and advice on current skills policy issues, regular reports on the strategy partners’ own policy measures to implement the strategy, as well as a potential revision of the strategy if needed” (OECD, 2020[7]).
The OECD (2020[7]) and civil servants present at the peer-learning session note a number of key benefits of the council. It was seen by stakeholders as an appropriate structure for the governance of skills policy in Norway, as it built on the pre-existing model for tripartite engagement and the relationships this entailed. Additionally, it enabled actors not traditionally involved in existing tripartite bodies such as VOFO and the regions to contribute their views and ideas to the development of skills policy. This engagement was described by a civil servant as ‘a wise way to make partners responsible for the complex development of skills policies in Norway’, and highlighted by the OECD as “giving the government legitimacy and capacity to introduce more ambitious and innovative policies” (OECD, 2020[7]).
By engaging a wide range of stakeholders in a systematic manner, the Skills Policy Council was also credited with improving both horizontal and vertical co-ordination and co-operation. Leveraging their diverse areas of expertise enabled the development of a more holistic view of the challenges to be addressed through skills policy.
Challenges for the Council related largely to the perception that members did not have sufficient or equal power to influence its agenda, which was set by the Ministry of Education. To address this, an administrative group was created to allow Council members to propose agenda items (source: discussion with Norwegian civil servant). It was also felt by some stakeholders that the meetings did not allow enough time for discussion and deliberation (OECD, 2020[7]). An additional issue was the imprecise mandate of the Council and the impact of its advice. This raised concerns about its potential overlap with pre-existing councils, risked increasing fragmentation of skills policy, and threatened the commitment of some members.
Takeaways for Finland
There are four clear takeaways for the Finnish context:
The involvement of a wide range of high-level stakeholders to advise on the development of skills policy enables policy decisions to be informed by diverse relevant expertise, and enhances their legitimacy
Regular engagement of high-level stakeholders on the topic of skill policy can ensure that the design and implementation of new policies takes place in a co-ordinated manner
A clear mandate for a new governance arrangement for skills policy can help to ensure that stakeholders remain committed to it, and that fragmentation does not occur
Commitment among stakeholders can be enhanced and frictions reduced by allowing members to influence the agenda of the council and by providing time and space for discussion
Future Skills Needs Committee
The Future Skills Needs Committee was renewed in 2021 to continue until 2027, and was therefore in continued existence at the time of the peer-learning session. Its mandate is “is to provide the best possible evidence-based assessment of Norway’s future skill needs. This assessment will form the basis for planning and strategic decision making of both authorities and in the labour market, regionally and nationally” (Norwegian Committee on Skill Needs, 2021[16]).
As well as providing analysis of future skills needs in the short, medium and long term and the capacity of the education system to address these needs, the Committee is focused on ‘pointing out challenges’ for the future of skills in Norway. To achieve this, the Committee is required to: “Facilitate and stimulate open dialogue and discussion about society’s skill needs with different stakeholders and society more generally” (Norwegian Committee on Skill Needs, 2021[16]).
The committee is chaired by the Directorate of Higher Education and Skills (where it has a dedicated secretariat), and comprises 18 members who are appointed every two years. Eight members are representatives of social partners (four from the employer side, and four from the employee side). Nine further members are researchers, and there is one representative of the county councils.
In its first iteration, the Committee met for approximately five all-day meetings per year. It produced three Official Norwegian Reports which are credited with providing stakeholders engaged in skills policy with a holistic common understanding of the problems to address in Norway (source: interview with Norwegian civil servant). Decisions about the content of the reports and relevant data and information were made unanimously by the Committee. According to the renewed mandate for the Future Skills Needs Committee, it will no longer produce Official Norwegian Reports, and its outputs will focus on more specific topics, such as higher education. The Committee has an annual budget financed by the Ministry of Education.
The OECD (2020[7]) and civil servants present at the peer-learning session note several key benefits of the Future Skills Needs Committee. First and foremost, it has facilitated a shared understanding of the current issues and future challenges relating to skills, providing a foundation for collective problem solving among government, social partners and researchers. The Committee’s engagement of a wide range of stakeholders in the selection and analysis of data in the complex field of skills ensures that its interpretation is perceived as legitimate among social partners, as well as encouraging the contribution of valuable information for analysis. The Committee’s work has also enhanced vertical co-operation by developing information resources that are relevant to regional challenges, and acting to address gaps in data that inhibit evidence-informed decision-making at regional and sectoral levels. In the peer-learning session, it was noted that the Committee’s work has initiated a more ‘scientific’ approach to skills policy from national to regional level.
The OECD (2020[7]) notes that in spite of the Committee’s role in enabling consensus among partners, some frictions were experienced in its first iteration. These related to a difference in an understanding of the mandate between the previous secretariat, which was headed by an economist based at Skills Norway, and the social partners. The secretariat viewed the Committee’s role as providing ‘objective’ insights based on quantitative data. Social partners viewed all data as subject to political interpretation. They sought more time for deliberation and sense-making, as well as an increased use of qualitative evidence. The renewed mandate addresses this by highlighting that: “The future is difficult to predict, and therefore, the Committee will also describe dilemmas that arise when assessing future skill needs” (Norwegian Committee on Skill Needs, 2021[16]).
Takeaways for Finland
There are three clear takeaways for the Finnish context:
The development of common problem definitions based on strong evidence provides a foundation for co-operative problem solving between government and social partners
Engaging stakeholders in the development of information resources encourages the contribution of data which can be used to make better evidence-informed decisions
Information that concerns the future is inherently uncertain, and so practical application to skills use is dependent on collective and consistent interpretation by affected stakeholders
Sources: (OECD, 2020[7]; Norwegian Committee on Skill Needs, 2021[16]); OECD Peer-exchange with Norwegian civil servants
While it focuses on Vocation Education and Training (VET) and not the more holistic scope of continuous learning, Germany’s Alliance for Initial and Further Training demonstrates some benefits of a non-hierarchical approach to the development and implementation of skills policy. This case study is based on analysis from ‘Strengthening the Governance of Skills Systems’ (OECD, 2020[7]).
The Alliance is both an agreement and a forum for deliberation that represents the latest development of a governance structure that has persisted since 2004. Its current form was initiated in 2014, and engaged the Ministry of Economics and Labour, Ministry of Education and Research, State Secretariat for Migration, Refugees and Integration, The Federal Employment Agency, Länder (regions), business associations, employer associations and trade unions as official signatories to a document in which initiatives for the support of VET are agreed.
The top-level actors of the Alliance meet annually, and its work is supported at a lower level by regular meetings of working groups. The pact was renewed in 2019, and will continue until December 31, 2022.
The OECD highlights the four key benefits of the Alliance. First, the signing of an agreement initiatives to address skills needs by high-level representatives regularly raises the profile of skills policy, ensuring that it remains high on the agenda of both governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. Second, the space for discussion provided by the Alliance allows for challenges relating to the development and implementation of initiatives to be explored and deliberated, and has supported the development of trust and a mind-set of joint problem-solving among signatories. This has also enabled questions of funding to be negotiated. Third, the participation of ministries as equal partners in the Alliance means that initiatives to support skills development can be developed and tested by Alliance members without the need for legislation, meaning that “the Alliance has become a kind of laboratory for innovative policy instruments” (OECD, 2020[7]). Fourth, it has provided a platform for the engagement of the Länder in skills policy, promoting vertical co-ordination. Furthermore, it has provided a model for similar complementary alliances at the regional level.
Takeaways for Finland
A written commitment from high-level stakeholders can ensure that skills policy remains a priority and promote a sense of responsibility among stakeholders
Non-hierarchical collaboration can create opportunities for the proposal and testing of more ambitious policy interventions
A forum for discussion can promote trust, consensus-building and a joint problem-solving mindset
Decentralised governance arrangements at a national level can provide a template which promotes co-operation at the regional level
Sources: (OECD, 2020[7]; Allianz für Aus- und Weiterbildung, n.d.[17])
Inter-departmental co-ordination group
A consistent inter-departmental group can enhance co-ordination among the ministries (and potentially with social partners) on a more regular basis than a high-level skills policy council. The example of the Netherlands (Box 9.4) demonstrates how such a group can function in practice.
Mandate
The key role of the group is to enhance co-ordination on policy development for continuous learning. The group should also ensure that anticipatory knowledge and insights from the implementation of policy are shared and that action is taken to assess and iteratively improve interventions and ensure that they prepare for future needs.
Participation
At the very least, the group should consist of the Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC), the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment (MoEE) and the Service Centre for Continuous Learning and Employment (Service Centre). It may also be valuable to include representatives of the Ministry of Finance (MoF), The Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (MoSAH). The involvement of one or more representatives of the municipalities would promote vertical co-ordination, while non-governmental representatives can provide insights into the impact of policy at the operational level.
Leadership and agenda-setting
In the Netherlands, the chair of the group rotates between members. Adopting this approach in Finland may facilitate a more balanced representation of the key issues for each ministry, and alleviates pressure on an individual ministry to manage group meetings.
Frequency and length of meetings
Meetings should take once a month in order to provide ongoing adjustments to maintain policy alignment and respond to new information and political decisions.
Role of anticipation
Anticipation should be a standing agenda item so that group members are encouraged to share and collectively make sense of new anticipatory information. The group should reflect on how trends, potential challenges and opportunities may impact stakeholders in the continuous learning system in Finland, identify who is likely to be affected, and agree on actions to support them to understand and respond to these issues.
As described by the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop), the Netherlands has a long tradition of using detailed economic analysis in policy making, including 60 years of experience conducting skills anticipation exercises. Nationally, foresight in the Netherlands includes cross-ministerial co-ordination through the Council of Ministers, but foresight research is mostly decentralised and executed by agencies and universities.
The example of the Netherlands clearly demonstrates the value of having a clear structure for collaboration. Before 2017, the Ministries of Economic Affairs, of Education and of Social Affairs and Employment already exchanged regularly on the topic. Participation in the 2017 OECD Skills Strategy research required the three ministries to co-ordinate on a more regular basis, together with the Dutch Social and Economic Council, an established body of employer organisations, employee organisations and independent experts. This provided the foundation for the current system, where monthly meetings are organised with a meeting chair and agenda, and where policy developments are discussed, and efforts are co-ordinated among the ministries. The introduction of regular and structured meetings has provided the opportunity for the ministries to exchange on decisions and plans of their respective ministers and discuss what has been said in parliament.
Forecasting is a recurring topic in the monthly meetings. Each Ministry has its own strategic foresight unit to support evidence-based policy making. This includes foresight in relation to risk and trends affecting the labour market. For example, the Netherlands currently faces labour shortage in the fields of energy and climate, and health and education. The strategic unit in each ministry studies whether this trend is likely to continue and what factors influence these developments. The implications of forecasting within a ministry are discussed in the monthly meetings to identify the implications of the forecast and agree on joint or co-ordinated actions. Each strategic unit also informs their minister of the foresight results and shares the results of the minister’s views in the co-ordination meeting.
However, the skills anticipation system of the Netherlands is also quite decentralised, through the involvement of the 35 Dutch labour market regions. In these regions employers and educators work together to take stock of labour demand. The Ministry of Social Affairs co-ordinates these efforts (and co-ordinates the 35 regions) together with the unemployment office. If there is an update from 35 regions, the Ministry of Social Affairs brings that to the monthly meeting with the other ministries.
An important element of regional-level forecasting and co-ordination is the insurance that regional education supply meets the regional labour demands. Eindhoven is a good example, which hosts the High-Tech Campus with 235 companies and 12 000+ staff working on innovative technology. Co-ordination between the labour regions ensures that education related to such high-tech work is also concentrated in Eindhoven rather than in the north of the country.
An example of co-ordination between the Ministerial working group and the labour market regions can be found in the current plan to design a common skills ontology. Given that various actors are implementing a wide range of skills initiatives, co-ordination requires the use of a common language on skills across all Dutch skills stakeholders. This will facilitate the co-ordination between national actors and labour market regions, as well as co-ordination among the labour market regions. The final skills ontology will be integrated into a new education portal.
Working groups
While the aforementioned governance structures enable co-ordination, working groups can facilitate collaborative working on specific issues identified by the stakeholders in the Skills Policy Council.
Such groups can draw on information provided by the Future Skills and Labour Market Information Committee and supplement it with additional evidence in order to advise on current and future challenges.
Interviews with Finnish stakeholders identified the following as current issues for continuous learning in Finland, making them suitable candidates for working groups:
Role of anticipation
The Skills Policy Council could stipulate that working groups must employ anticipatory approaches and take into account anticipatory information in the preparation of their recommendations. Working group members could be given capacity building support by members of the Future Skills and Labour Market Information Committee to enable them to confidently identify and apply relevant anticipatory methods.
Future Skills and Labour Market Information Committee
While a strong evidence base provides a foundation for co-ordination and supports the legitimacy of policy decisions, the analysis of future skills needs and challenges for continuous learning is complex and subject to interpretation. A Future Skills and Labour Market Information Committee (FSLMIC) is a governance structure to facilitate the development of a trusted, high-quality evidence base for decision-making at all levels of the continuous learning system. The examples of the Norwegian Future Skills Needs Committee (Box 9.2.) and Estonia’s OSKA initiative (Box 9.5) demonstrate the value of multi-stakeholder governance for this purpose.
In the proposed governance system, the FSLMIC and the Skills Policy Council take on distinct but complementary roles. While their members may be drawn from the same organisations, those participating in the Committee will be expected to have the expertise and capacity to develop a nuanced understanding of the benefits and limitations of different types of evidence. Stakeholders participating in the Council are expected to have the legitimacy to make decisions based on the evidence provided by the Committee.
Mandate
The core role of the FSLMIC should be to ensure that anticipatory information about learning and skills in Finland is accessible, based on the best possible evidence, trusted by key stakeholders, and presented in ways that enable them to make informed decisions about continuous learning. This is in line with the objectives outlined under REFORM 1: Reform of continuous learning (P3C2R1) in the Sustainable Growth Programme for Finland (Government of Finland, 2021[19]).
To achieve this, the FSLMIC should develop methodologies for the analysis of data about learning and skills, identify suitable data sources, promote the contribution of information by stakeholders throughout the continuous learning system and identify future issues and challenges for more in-depth research. It should oversee and participate in the production of information resources, such as reports and dashboards, which provide anticipatory insights that serve the needs of stakeholders in the continuous learning system. These can be hosted on the Integrated Information Resource.
The FSLMIC in Finland could act as a board to oversee the development of the new model to forecast labour and competence needs, which is the responsibility of the National Agency for Education, the KEHA Centre, ELY Centres, TE Offices and Service Centre (Government of Finland, 2021[19]). In this role, the Committee will ensure that the resulting model is assessed and trusted by stakeholders throughout the continuous learning system.
Participation
Information about the future is complex and uncertain. For this reason, collective sense-making is necessary to ensure that it is interpreted consistently and lays a foundation for co-ordinated action. To ensure that the insights that the FSLMIC generates are trusted, its membership should be drawn from government and social partners. Seats on the Committee should be held by experts from a range of disciplines, including economics, sociology and foresight, so that both qualitative, quantitative and anticipatory evidence can be considered. The steering group of the OEF (National Forum for Skills Anticipation) already brings together many of these stakeholders, and may therefore undertake the tasks of the FSLMIC with a revised mandate (Finnish National Agency of Education, 2020[20]).
Leadership and agenda setting
The case of Norway demonstrates that friction between committee members may occur if leadership of the FSLMIC is too centralised in a particular organisation or ministry. This is partially because the uncertain nature of anticipatory information about continuous learning and the labour market means that interpretations of future challenges and which issues to prioritise can differ. For this reason, it is recommended that a process is developed for the collaborative identification of issues for the agenda of each meeting.
Frequency and length of meetings
Given the technical nature of the development of insights for skills and continuous learning and the importance of a multi-disciplinary approach to create a full picture of the changing situation, it is likely that meetings of the FSLMIC will need to be relatively long. Norway’s Future Skills Needs Committee initially met for five all-day meetings per year. As well as ensuring that committee members understand the benefits and limitations of different data sources, the meetings should also allow time for deliberation about the interpretation of information.
Role of anticipation
The FSLMIC should actively promote the application and development of anticipatory methods to provide insights and inform decision-making in the continuous learning system. Novel approaches should be sought to continuously enhance its anticipatory capacity. Anticipatory approaches which highlight the role of particular trends shaping the demand for skills can help the FSLMIC to identify data sources that provide an early signal of changes in the labour market. For example, anticipatory insights could be gleaned about developments in the automation of key industries for Finland by analysing patents and job advertisements in other countries.
In 2015, Estonia established its skills assessment and anticipation exercise (OSKA) for the purpose of conducting labour and skills anticipation research for the 10 years ahead and to better co-ordinate skills anticipation activities and enhance stakeholder involvement in skills anticipation. The introduction of OSKA formed a significant change in terms of the foresight ecosystem: As forecasting became situated in the Estonian Qualifications Authority (EQA), foresight results are directly available to employers and employees already engaged with EQA. OSKA therefore enhanced the participation of its existing partners, but also engaged new stakeholders such as the unemployment insurance fund. Furthermore, the introduction of OSKA meant that traditional foresight shifted from the traditional narrow labour market-oriented research to include also the education system.
Source: (Leoma, 2019[21])
OSKA is managed by the co-ordination council comprising 11 members that represent ministries, labour unions, the public employment service, employers’ unions, and the central bank. The co-ordination council approves the methodology for the foresight research and approves the reports and other outcomes. Subsequently, the co-ordination council reports to the Ministry of Education, who reports the results to the government.
Before the introduction of OSKA, stakeholders were involved in skills anticipation merely by commenting on forecasts of the Ministry of Economic Affairs. The OSKA Coordination Council guarantees that stakeholders can provide recommendations and determine which sectors should receive greater focus. Their involvement has also become more systematic. The added value of this approach is that stakeholders are not consulted separately or in silos. There is a form of co-creation of research that benefits from dialogue between stakeholders, rather than separate inputs. This facilitates building common grounds, joint objectives, and avoids overlaps among actors working on similar topics.
Foresight research is conducted by OSKA’s 24 sectoral panels, established at the Estonian Qualifications Authority, which comprise 20-30 experts each. The composition of each panel includes approximately 50% employers, 25% education providers and 25% policy makers. The large number of diverse stakeholders means occasional conflicting interests. The co-ordination council is tasked to balance the interests. OSKA aims to find the common good among the stakeholders, but also supports the messages that are brought forth by the research. The discussions taking place within the structure of OSKA, allowing all stakeholders to participate, is already a key resource to ensure that mutual objectives can be identified.
OSKA’s research relies on both qualitative and quantitative assessments, combined with data obtained from Statistics Estonia on the annual employment forecast, to provide deeper insights into skills demand, supply and mismatch in the future. Cedefop also noted that OSKA introduced a switch in the purpose of anticipation. While skills anticipation earlier served only to inform education policy, it is now also used for career counselling and qualification design.
The Minister of Education of Estonia reflected in his 2021 reflection of OSKA that future analyses of OSKA should also focus on professions that do not yet exist, that may be supported by new trends in education such as microlearning and hybrid solutions.
Takeaways for Finland
The collaborative engagement of stakeholders to identify future skills needs and objectives builds trust and enables a holistic assessment of the skills system
A foundation of collaborative problem identification supports the development of more sophisticated approaches to develop anticipatory information
A co-ordination council or committee plays an important role to balance and resolve conflicting interests
Sources: (CEDEFOP, 2017[22]; Leoma, 2019[21]; OSKA, 2022[23]); OECD Interview with Praxis; OECD Interview with Estonian Qualifications Authority.
Integrated information resource
An accessible source of consistent, relevant and timely information about jobs, skills and continuous learning should provide the backbone for co-ordination across the continuous learning system. The ‘Sustainable Growth Programme for Finland’ (Government of Finland, 2021[19]) sets out a vision for an integrated digital services package which gathers, collates and presents information about jobs and skills for a range of stakeholders in Finland. EUR 2.5 million of European Union Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) funding has been allocated for reforming the foresight reporting system for continuous learning by the Service Centre, which has created a project plan for implementation.
Participation
The OECD states that “involving stakeholders in the design and upgrading of information systems increases the likelihood that these systems will actively be used” (OECD, 2020[7]). Such participation can ensure that stakeholders recognise the benefits and limitations of the system, are encouraged to contribute useful information which improves its utility (such as evaluations of training), and become more invested in supporting and promoting it.
The level and type of participation should be defined by the FSLMIC, whose members can also promote engagement with the resource through their networks. SkillsFuture Singapore, which co-ordinates and manages the production and dissemination of anticipatory information about jobs and skills in Singapore, shows how stakeholders are engaged to provide data, validate insights, and ensure that information resources are designed to address user needs.
Leadership and management
According to the Sustainable Growth Programme for Finland, the digitalisation programme for integrated continuous learning services is to be led by the MoEC, MoEE, National Agency for Education, KEHA Centre, Service Centre and universities.
As the Service Centre is responsible for the ongoing analysis of competence and labour market needs, and support of co-operation, it is suitable for it to take over responsibility for the ongoing management and development of the integrated information resource.
Role of anticipation
As well as hosting anticipatory information about jobs and skills, the integrated information resource should support stakeholders to understand its benefits, limitations and uses so that they are confident applying it to their own contexts. This could be achieved through a range of resources and services, such as webinars and digital tools, whose development is informed by user research.
Globally, Singapore is known for its advanced foresight infrastructure that has developed already over decades. Besides dedicated strategic foresight centres and networks within the government and outside, the country also invests in building foresight skills within its civil servants as part of the civil service curriculum.
Under the Industry Transformation Programme in 2016, 23 Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) for 2025 were drafted, which serve as roadmaps for each industry to address core issues and deepen partnerships between Government, firms, industries, trade associations and chambers. Each ITM includes four pillars of growth, including a pillar on jobs and skills, to:
Equip Singaporeans with the necessary skills to support greater value creation
Develop a comprehensive ecosystem for skills development and lifelong learning
Strengthen enterprise HR capabilities to maximise workforce potential
The Future Economy Council (FEC), set up in 2017, is the main framework for foresight and future planning with regard to economic developments in the country. The FEC is also responsible to ensure the implementation of the ITMs. However, the ITMs are not completely static. A revision of the ITMs is planned for 2022, based on accelerated changes caused by COVID-19.
The Council is chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister & Minister for Finance, and comprises 41 members representing the government, industry, unions, and educational and training institutions. The Council is further divided in seven sub-committees, each of which oversees a group of ITMs in the same cluster or industrial group.
The Future Economy Council works closely with SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG). SSG is described as “a national movement to provide Singaporeans with the opportunities to develop their fullest potential throughout life, regardless of their starting points.” The role of SSG as a skills authority is to support the whole economy with the identification of current necessary skills, emerging skills, and future skills in tandem with how the industry transforms. The organisation reports to the Ministry of Education.
Through sectoral working groups, the FEC identifies trends that are likely to affect Singapore and create innovation or changes in sectoral practices. The SSG analyses the likelihood to which such trends create a significant change in skills needs. This is assessed through the development of partnerships and proof of concept projects that may signal that the trend or innovation is being adopted in Singapore. SSG subsequently translates this to education and skills needs, in co-operation with education providers.
Higher education institutions usually participate in the sectoral meetings to hear the main developments likely to affect skills needs. Some HE institutions additionally organise regular meetings with advisors (sectoral representatives and SSG) to discuss how such trends should be reflected in education. SSG supports the building of-house capacity of HE to monitor labour trends and adjust education programmes. Modular courses can now be developed to address new skills needs in as little as three months, while longer courses can be developed in six to nine months (source: peer learning with representative of Skills Future Singapore).
The SkillsFuture online platform hosts information resources about the anticipated demand for skills aimed at students, working adults at different career stages, employers and training providers. These are developed through user-centred approaches to ensure that they are comprehensible and valuable to the stakeholders they target. For example, social media posts may be used to provide information to individuals, while webinars are hosted to update employers on developing skills demands. SkillsFuture also launched a report in 2021 on the priority skills necessary for the future economy.
The activities of SSG serve as an example of the value of stakeholder engagement to track changing needs for skills, information and support, and facilitate the rapid development new courses to address the anticipated demand for new skills. It success is partially owed to the development of a trusted methodology for generating skill insights and a taxonomy of about 11 000 skills. These assets provide a common understanding of skills needs. This enables the more rapid validation of insights with industry representatives, and acts as a foundation for collaborative action to identify and address current and future skills gaps.
Takeaways for Finland
Setting industry-focused visions to enable them to better address future challenges and opportunities can promote futures-oriented collaboration for skill development
The development of a skills taxonomy and a trusted approaches to generating skills insights can facilitate more rapid collaboration and action to address anticipated skills needs
User-centred approaches to communicate information about future skills needs can increase uptake of anticipatory information
Sources: (School of International Futures, 2021[24]; Government of Singapore, 2022[25]; Singapore Ministry of Trade and Industry, 2022[26]; The Business Times, 2022[27]; Today Online, 2022[28]); OECD Interview with Skills Future Singapore.
The pilot case study on continuous learning sheds light on the challenges associated with facilitating the consistent interpretation and application of anticipatory approaches in a policy domain demands effective horizontal and vertical co-ordination.
It demonstrates the value of investing in the development of networks and partnerships between governmental and non-governmental stakeholders so that information about the changing context of continuous learning is gathered from a wide range of sources, and that policy decisions are based on consistently understood evidence and perceived as legitimate and realistic. The pilot case also highlights the importance of developing practices that facilitate collective sense-making to achieve a consistent understanding and overcome the ‘impact gap’ between anticipation and implementation that has affected Finland’s adult learning system in the past.
References
[17] Allianz für Aus- und Weiterbildung (n.d.), Was ist die „Allianz für Aus- und Weiterbildung“?, https://www.aus-und-weiterbildungsallianz.de/AAW/Navigation/DE/Allianz-fuer-Aus-und-Weiterbildung/aaw-hintergrund.html (accessed on 13 June 2022).
[13] Bakule, M. et al. (2016), Developing skills foresights, scenarios and forecasts - Guide to anticipating and matching skills and jobs, European Training Foundation/European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training/International Labour Office.
[22] CEDEFOP (2017), Skills anticipation in Estonia, CEDEFOP, https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/data-insights/skills-anticipation-estonia (accessed on 25 May 2022).
[18] CEDEFOP (2017), Skills anticipation in the Netherlands, CEDEFOP, https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/data-insights/skills-anticipation-netherlands (accessed on 25 May 2022).
[14] European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (2017), Skills anticipation: looking to the future. LU: Publications Office, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2801/04357 (accessed on 10 March 2022).
[20] Finnish National Agency of Education (2020), Osaamisen ennakointifoorumi 2021 – 2024, (Machine Translated by Google).
[2] Government of Finland (2022), Competence secures the future: Parliamentary policy approaches for reforming continuous learning, Publications of the Finnish Government, Helsinki.
[19] Government of Finland (2021), Sustainable Growth Programme for Finland - Recovery and Resilience Plan, Publications of the Finnish Government, Helsinki, http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-383-694-5.
[4] Government of Finland (n.d.), Reforming continuous learning, Ministry of Education and Culture, https://okm.fi/en/continuous-learning-reform (accessed on 16 May 2022).
[25] Government of Singapore (2022), The Future Economy Council (FEC) Members - Skills Future, https://www.skillsfuture.gov.sg/AboutSkillsFuture/FEC-Members (accessed on 16 May 2022).
[9] Koski, O. and K. Husso (eds.) (2018), “Work in the age of artificial intelligence: Four perspectives on the economy, employment, skills and ethics”, No. 21/2018, Publications of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-327-313-9.
[21] Leoma, R. (2019), Estonian Skills and labour market forecasting system OSKA, Estonian Qualifications Authority, https://www.etf.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2019-06/Session%203_OSKA_Milan%2027062019_1.pdf.
[15] Ministry of Education (2017), Norwegian Strategy for Skills Policy 2017-2021, https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/norwegian-strategy-for-skills-policy-2017---2021/id2527271/.
[1] Nedelkoska, L. and G. Quintini (2018), “Automation, skills use and training”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 202, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2e2f4eea-en.
[16] Norwegian Committee on Skill Needs (2021), About Norwegian Committee on Skill Needs, https://kompetansebehovsutvalget.no/mandate-of-official-norwegian-committee-on-skill-needs/ (accessed on 29 April 2022).
[3] OECD (2020), Continuous Learning in Working Life in Finland, Getting Skills Right, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2ffcffe6-en.
[7] OECD (2020), Strengthening the Governance of Skills Systems: Lessons from Six OECD Countries, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3a4bb6ea-en.
[12] OECD (2019), Getting Skills Right: Future-Ready Adult Learning Systems, Getting Skills Right, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264311756-en.
[8] Oksanen, K. (2017), Government Report on the Future Part 1, A shared understanding of the transformation of work, Prime Minister’s Office, https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/80120 (accessed on 21 March 2022).
[23] OSKA (2022), About OSKA, https://oska.kutsekoda.ee/en/ (accessed on 25 May 2022).
[5] Prime Minister’s Office of Finland (2018), Government Report on the Future, Part 2 - Solutions to the Transformation of Work, Prime Minister’s Office, https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/161114 (accessed on 21 March 2022).
[24] School of International Futures (2021), Features of Effective Systemic Foresight in Governments Globally, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/features-of-effective-systemic-foresight-in-governments-globally (accessed on 20 June 2022).
[26] Singapore Ministry of Trade and Industry (2022), Industry Transformation Maps, Singapore Retailers Association, https://www.sra.org.sg/transformation/retail-itm/ (accessed on 25 May 2022).
[11] Sitra (2022), Sitra’s seven recommendations for lifelong learning in Finland, https://www.sitra.fi/en/publications/sitras-seven-recommendations-for-lifelong-learning-in-finland/.
[10] Sitra (n.d.), Personal correspondence with Sitra (Sitra Compilation).
[27] The Business Times (2022), Heng Swee Keat, https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/government-economy/all-23-itms-to-be-refreshed-by-end-2022-heng-swee-keat.
[28] Today Online (2022), Daryl Choo: Budget 2022: What the measures mean for a mid-career jobseeker, Today Online, https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/budget-2022-what-measures-mean-mid-career-jobseeker-1820926.
[6] Tõnurist, P. and A. Hanson (2020), “Anticipatory innovation governance: Shaping the future through proactive policy making”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 44, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cce14d80-en.