Korea Research Institute for Vocational Education an d Trainin g
Don g-Im Lee Deog-Ki Kim
□ Study Background
In face of rapid chan ges in the new corp orate environment, the significance of human resources development w ithin a comp any is grow in g more than ever as the means to acquire competitive edge an d to outlast its competitors. The Korean comp anies, how ever, show signs of evadin g human resources development w ith the recent increase of flexibility w ithin the labor market. Althou gh in-firm qualification system has low common usage w ithin the society du e to its varyin g features compared to the existin g national technical qualification, it allow s companies to create their own skill trainin g. Therefore, in-firm qu alification system is imp ortant in that it makes up for the problems immanent in the existin g qu alification system, an d above all, in that it can continuou sly develop w orkers vocational competency on the sp ot. Despite this, there has never been a stu dy on in-firm qualification, so there is little information on its administration . Hence, this stu dy con ducted
surveys, case stu dies an d interview s in order to un derstan d the administration of in-firm qu alification system, qualification items, qu alification testin g an d its application . In addition, this stu dy examines the w eak p oints in the Ministry of Labors methods of controllin g the qu ality of in-firm qualifications, an d makes su ggestions for promotin g in-firm qu alification systems.
□ Study Results
Some of the characteristics of in-firm qualification system an d its administration are as follow s:
First, the percentage of companies currently runnin g in-firm qu alification system is low at 2.5% (23 companies) of the total respon dents. By in du stry, more than 60% of the comp anies w ith in-firm qualification system belon g to the manufacturin g in dustry, an d by company size, it is more common amon g small an d medium bu sinesses. How ever, the companies that are preparin g to introduce the system account for 25%, or 186 companies, of the total respon dents. Amon g those, small an d medium bu sinesses represent 70%, an d there show s a slightly larger number of manufacturin g comp anies than that of non-manufacturin g.
Secon d, the objective of administerin g in-firm qu alification system is quite clear . That is, its aim is to enhance w orkers abilities regardin g sp ecific skills in a companys sp ecific duty or field by con ductin g its very own education an d trainin g, an d to evalu ate those skills an d apply them to practice.
Third, while the national technical qualification system is very organized, the in-firm qu alification system varies in its levels, test methods an d application eligibility since it is freely managed an d administered accordin g to a companys needs an d specifics. Consequ ently,
its evalu ation may lack objectivity an d reliability, because the system is not based on stan dardized criteria an d process.
Fourth, contrary to the national technical qu alification system that is tested based on common duty stan dards accordin g to the type of bu siness or duty, the in-firm qu alification test is based on a companys detailed duties. Therefore, there is a limit to exercisin g its common u sage amon g companies.
Fifth, the national technical qu alification test con ducts testin g on theory as w ell as practical skills; whereas, the in-firm qu alification system emphasizes more on testin g on practical skills an d con ducts field tests within the comp any. It also evalu ates an d tests on soft skills, which are difficult to estimate w ith the national technical qualification test.
Sixth, most of the in-firm qu alification systems have an expiration date for each qu alification an d provide maintenance education policies, resultin g in a thorou gh p ost-management of w orkers with in-firm qu alifications.
Seventh, the most imp ortant fact is that most comp anies assess in-firm qu alification system to be directly contributin g to the increase in companys productivity . In-firm qualification also acts as a u seful factor in a companys decision process regardin g w orkers education an d trainin g, promotion, w age an d chan ge in p osts.
Eighth, the greatest obstacle in runnin g the in-firm qu alification system for most companies appeared to be the lack of professional manpow er, accordin g to a survey . Meanwhile, there show ed considerable interests in other companies management of the system, desirin g information sharin g or even joint-op eration .
Based on the enforcement decree of the Employment Insurance Act, the Ministry of Labor since the year 2000 provides financial support to companies w ith excellent in-firm qu alification system . Thu s, the Ministry
of Labor makes evaluations on in-firm qu alification of the company requ estin g the ministrys approval based on a certain process an d criteria, an d in turn, controls the qu ality of in-firm qualifications. In this stu dy, an analysis w as made on the support an d qu ality control of in-firm qu alification, an d the follow in g is a summary of its problem an d its improvement measures
First of all, accordin g to「Regulations for Supportin g In-firm Qualification Tests」(“regulations” in the followin g passages), the entrepreneur can administer in-firm qu alification system by himself or jointly, an d it can also request an approval from the Ministry of Labor.
How ever, there lacks policy measures for in dividu als or small-scale bu sinesses to run in-hou se qu alification system throu gh special organizations or throu gh qu alification testin g consortiums.
Secon d, companies with no records of in-firm qu alification tests can receive an approval from the Ministry of Labor w ithout any legal obstacles. How ever, this can lead to limitation in qualitative evalu ation on the ability to run qu alification tests. Therefore, only those w ith a certain experience in con ductin g in-firm qualification tests should be eligible for requ estin g the ministrys approval.
Next, companies with in-firm qu alifications approved by the Ministry of Labor can receive financial aid for portions of its developmental cost an d test management cost, but the categories for financial support should be more specified in order to evade disputes betw een the company an d the government.
Then, there needs to be made specific procedures an d criteria for more systematical approval inspection since the existin g regulation only mentions application an d notification regardin g the approval procedure of in-firm qu alification .
Finally, there is currently no p ost-management for in-house
qu alifications approved by the Ministry of Labor . Therefore, there requires an annual review or p ost-management inspection in order to maintain the qu ality management of in-firm qualifications.
□ Suggestions
The measures to promote in-firm qualification system can be examined in tw o aspects w ithin the company an d outside the company (government aid). That is, the promotion of in-firm qualification system is only possible throu gh active interaction betw een corp orate effort an d government aid policy . In the aspect of the company, efforts in human resources development an d its management focu sed on w orkers vocational competency development are essential con ditions, an d there requires cooperation betw een labor an d management in order to enforce such factors. In the asp ect of the government, the follow in g are some su ggestions for government aid measures so as to expan d in-firm qu alification system .
First, there need to be measures to establish a testin g consortium that allow s several comp anies to jointly manage in-firm qu alification . This can be especially useful to the small an d medium bu sinesses that have difficulty administerin g the in-hou se qu alification system on its own .
Secon d, there should be measures to utilize in-house qu alification since it exp an ds opportunities for an in dividuals ability development an d lifelon g learnin g. Hence, there requires measures to acknow led ge the acquisition of in-firm qu alification as a precedent learnin g experience, so that it can eventually be accepted as credits in applyin g for college entrance or in management of school affairs
Third, in-firm qualification system not only enhances w orkers vocational competency development but also corporate efficiency, an d this is
achieved throu gh the reinforcement of w orkers abilities. Because in-firm qu alification system cannot be promoted disregardin g w orkers interests, it is necessary to in duce participation from the labor union an d to create social partnership in the process.
Fourth, since many people in charge of in-firm qu alification system desire information on its management to be shared, the government should help form a conference body while increasin g promotions on in-firm qu alification .
Fifth, the government needs to supp ort trainin g programs to enhance expertise of those in charge of in-firm qualification management.
Sixth, there is no post-management followin g the approval of in-firm qu alifications by the Ministry of Labor. In order to control the quality of the approved qu alifications, a p ost-management p olicy needs to be introduced .
Seventh, the current government aid concernin g in-firm qu alification consists of supportin g its developmental cost an d its management cost.
Alon g w ith such direct financial aids, how ever, it is essential to diversify government support methods, such as providin g test locations or test equipments.
Eighth an d last, the procedures an d criteria for the approval of in-hou se qu alification need to be more sp ecified in order to maintain its qu ality .