For SAA to be successful, the right institutions and stakeholders need to be involved. Stakeholders can contribute at several points during the implementation of an SAA exercise and include actors that may contribute to the system or use the results of the system, such as social partners, education and training institutions, prospective students and public bodies, such as the Public Employment Services or relevant ministries. This chapter addresses the institutional set up of SAA exercises, including the contribution of stakeholders, their governance, the harmonisation of existing SAA exercises and their funding.
Anticipating Skill Needs and Adapting Higher Education
From Insight to Alignment
Abstract
Involving the right institutions and stakeholders is one of the key success factors of SAA. Stakeholders include actors that may contribute to the system or use the results of the system, such as social partners, education and training institutions, prospective students and public bodies such as the PES or relevant ministries. Stakeholders’ contribution to SAA exercises is often desirable, as they may have access to relevant ‘on the ground’ information (OECD, 2023[1]). In addition, users of the results of the exercise must also be involved to ensure that the results of the exercise are well tailored to their needs. This chapter addresses these areas by discussing the institutional set up of SAA exercises, including the contribution of stakeholders, their governance, the harmonisation of existing SAA exercises and their funding.
Stakeholders can be involved at several points during a SAA exercise (Figure 3.1). They can set up the exercise, provide inputs, implement the exercise, validate the results and/or use the results of the exercise.
In some of the exercises analysed, stakeholders design and develop the SAA exercises. This is the case in the Excelsior Information System (Italy) and the Skills and Labour Platform (Italy), in which stakeholders (the Union of Chambers of Commerce and the AlmaLaurea University Consortium), set up and implement the exercises, provide information, and use the results of the exercises. Particularly, the universities part of the consortium may use the results to support decisions to update programmes or to offer more or less study places.
Stakeholders often provide information for the exercise. Social partners and employers may provide information by participating in surveys, as in the SEPE Occupations Observatory (Spain), in interviews or in expert groups, as in the Skills Anticipation Forum (Finland). Other stakeholders, such as the PES, the Ministry of Education, statistical agencies or HEIs, may provide additional information, such as information on job vacancies, as in IAB Skills Compass (Germany) or JobBarometer (Austria), on student enrolment by qualification, as in the Skills and Labour Platform (Italy), or labour market or demographic information, as in Jobs and Skills Australia or the Labour Market Platform (Slovenia).
Some stakeholders may also implement their own SAA exercises, or commission another entity to implement the exercise. This is the case in the Excelsior Information System (Italy) and the Skills and Labour Platform (Italy), where stakeholders themselves implement the exercise.1 In addition, stakeholders may support the implementation of SAA exercises through their participation in steering committees and other governance bodies, such as in Occupations 2030 (France), as discussed in the following section.
Another activity in which stakeholders are often involved is in validating the results, as discussed in Chapter 2In this phase, stakeholders may review the results of the exercise and provide feedback, if needed. Some SAA exercises, such as POA (the Netherlands), Occupations 2030 (France) and OSKA (Estonia), include social partners, among other, in their validation phase.
Stakeholders can also use the results from an SAA exercise as a starting point to carry out a qualitative exercise to further develop the results. This is, for example, how the Expert Group on Future Skills Needs uses the results of the exercise implemented by the SOLAS Skills and Labour Market Research Unit (Ireland) to support the alignment of education and training programmes with employers’ needs.
Finally, many stakeholders, such as the PES, prospective students, and training and education institutions are expected to use the results, as discussed in Chapter 4For this reason, their contribution in the SAA the exercise at an early stage is important, so that the resulting information from the exercise is tailored to their needs. Additionally, stakeholders can contribute to disseminate the results of the SAA exercise, supporting the implementation of potential recommendations resulting from these exercises.
Source: Author’s elaboration.
While the inclusion of multiple stakeholders can improve the SAA exercise by increasing access to relevant information and producing more relevant results, it also has its challenges. Particularly, the coordination of multiple stakeholders, with potential conflicting interests, can be difficult (OECD, 2023[1]). Another challenge is to keep stakeholders engaged with the exercise, so that they continuously contribute to it and support the use of its results. The governance of the exercise is key to address these challenges, as it ensures that the contributions of stakeholders are coordinated, there is a clear process to define potential recommendations, and that stakeholders remain engaged with the SAA exercise.
There is no widespread agreement on how governance of SAAs should be operationalised. In many countries, the governance of SAA is integrated into the broader governance framework of the skills system, facilitating the development of education and training policies that effectively address skills needs. In other countries, governance frameworks for individual SAA projects are less integrated, with weaker connections with the broader skills system and other policy areas.
Many countries have put in place complex and sophisticated national governance frameworks for SAA, reflecting its multi-level and cross-sectoral nature. This section reviews some conditions that can contribute to effective governance of SAA. It also describes approaches and organisational structures commonly used to govern SAA in the exercises reviewed for this report and provides examples of how higher education stakeholders are integrated into SAA governance frameworks.
3.2.1. Conditions that can contribute to effective SAA governance
Skills governance frameworks can encompass mechanisms for vision-building and strategy-setting, legal and financial arrangements, processes for cooperation between different actors, and specification of information flows and feedback loops (Cedefop, 2017[3]). The diversity of approaches to governance creates a challenge for identifying best practices. Previous OECD analysis has identified important considerations to take into account when designing SAA governance arrangements. These include deciding on how SAA exercise developers and users should be connected and putting in place both formal and informal mechanisms for involving stakeholders and supporting them to reach consensus on skills needs (Figure 3.2).
Source: Author’s elaboration based on OECD (2016), Getting Skills Right: Assessing and Anticipating Changing Skills Needs, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264252073-en.
The impact and quality of SAA exercises may be enhanced through organisational structures that promote stakeholder representation and inclusiveness, and robust processes that support validation of data produced from SAA projects and promote its widespread use in education policy and practice.
3.2.2. Approaches to SAA governance
SAA governance frameworks can be distinguished by the types of actors involved, the extent of their agency and influence in different phases of SAA projects, and the organisations and bodies that act as focal points for their collaboration. They also depend on the complexity of the ecosystem for SAA within countries – the extent to which SAA exercises proceed as individual, separate projects, or as activities integrated into a more complex governance framework. The following sections review the key features of project level and multi-stakeholder approaches to governance.
Project-level governance frameworks
Some of the SAA exercises reviewed for this report rely on a project-specific governance model, which is often focused and task-oriented, even if the project itself is complex or multidimensional. This type of governance is common in exercises where the work is being completed as a one-off research project, or where the project comprises a recurring data or statistical operation (for example, projections, or a survey of employers).
Approaches to project-level governance of SAA can vary substantially across countries. In Europe, many SAA initiatives have been established as funded research projects, either as a one-off pilot or as a recurring exercise (Table 3.1). In these cases, governance and operational matters may be established through contractual agreement or memorandum of understanding with the project owner/initiator and the project operator. In project-level governance frameworks, fewer stakeholders may be directly involved in the governance but are often consulted to validate and provide feedback on methods and outputs, as is the case in the Dutch POA project, where consultations with a project advisory group form part of the regular project operations.
Source: Author’s elaboration.
Multi-stakeholder governance frameworks
In many countries, dedicated bodies are set up to govern and coordinate across several SAA exercises. These bodies tend to span labour, education, and other economic policy areas, and involve several actors, each with different roles and responsibilities. Dedicated governance bodies serve as vital hubs for intersectoral and interdepartmental collaboration on addressing skills needs. When effectively designed and implemented, they can support a coordinated policy response to skills gaps and enable providers to adapt their offerings to evolving skills demands (OECD, 2023[1]).
Actors commonly represented in skills governance bodies include line ministries, PESs, region- or sector-specific institutions, and social partners. These actors may be decision makers, capable of directly creating policies that shape SAA activities or responding to SAA results. They may also be independent bodies, such as representative bodies or research institutions, that do not design or implement policies directly but contribute analysis and viewpoints that influence policy (OECD, 2016[2]).
Multi-stakeholder governance structures have been established for many of the SAA systems reviewed for this report. They include, for example, the Skills Anticipation Forum of the Ministry of Education and Culture in Finland, the Occupations 2030 Steering Committee in France and the OSKA Coordination Council in Estonia. Table 3.2 provides some examples of top-level governing bodies for SAA systems in European OECD countries, along with the types of stakeholders represented on the body.
Where specific bodies have been set up with a mandate to oversee SAA, they tend to have a multi-level structure. This means that even where a particular stakeholder type is not included in the top-level governing body, they are still likely to be involved in contributing analysis or advice that heavily informs the deliberations of the top-level body. For example, in Estonia, the OSKA Coordination Council ultimately decides on the proposals put forward to government on meeting skills needs, but its work is guided by an advisory panel of experts drawn from industry, research and academia, as well as sectoral experts. Similarly, in Ireland, the Expert Group on Future Skills Needs is the dedicated group that advises the government on future skills requirements, but its work is informed by the SAA activities of SOLAS and it assembles sector-specific steering groups comprising experts from industry and education sectors to guide its work.
Source: Author’s elaboration.
Top-level governing bodies also take on diverse roles and responsibilities with respect to the SAA systems they are tasked with overseeing. These can include selecting near-term priority themes or sectors of focus for SAA exercises, commissioning research projects, reviewing or validating the results of the SAA exercises, reporting to public authorities on skill needs and making recommendations on how to address skills shortages. Governing bodies in some countries take on all of these roles – for example the OSKA Coordination Council in Estonia. In other cases, the responsibilities are more targeted – for example the Skills Anticipation Forum in Finland selects priority areas for SAA exercises (through its sectoral councils) and provides reports and recommendations on skills needs, shortages and surpluses, but does not commission research or conduct technical review of SAA results.
Finally, there are differences across countries in the extent to which higher education policymakers and stakeholders are included in multi-stakeholder governance frameworks for SAA exercises. Historically, for various reasons, higher education stakeholders have been less involved in SAA governance, although there are signs that this is changing (Box 3.1).
Higher education policymakers and stakeholders are not traditionally included in SAA governing bodies, although some examples exist (such as the inclusion of the Irish Higher Education Authority on the Expert Group on Future Skills Needs). In some countries, this reflects a single line ministry’s responsibility for all education levels, so that participation of higher education policymakers in governing bodies is de facto established through the involvement of the Ministry of Education.
More limited participation of higher education stakeholders in governance of skills anticipation can also be driven by cultural, political or legal factors. HEIs enjoy greater levels of autonomy compared to other types of public or government-dependent education providers, such as schools, public adult education centres and VET training providers. For example, HEIs tend to have substantially more freedom in setting and updating curricula for their educational programmes, compared to other publicly funded education providers. They also tend to have a broader funding base than other types of providers, attracting funding from both state and private sources. Governments therefore may have relatively limited policy levers to ensure that the higher education system is actively engaged in SAA governance.
Finland’s Skills Anticipation Forum Steering Group provides an example of a governing body where many higher education stakeholders are represented, including the Finnish national students’ unions and alliances, the Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC), and the Finnish Conference of University Rectors (UNIFI). This also reflects the ongoing efforts in Finland to continuously deepen the connections between SAA activities and policies to increase skills supply.
Some countries appear be moving towards more targeted engagement of higher education stakeholders in SAA governance. For example, the Swedish government assigns collective responsibility for skills governance to several public bodies. With this approach, the Swedish Council for Higher Education is mandated to contribute to specific elements of skills governance, including developing a coherent data infrastructure on skills supply and cooperating with other public bodies to ensure a well-functioning skills system. Using an alternative approach, the Jobs and Skills Australia Ministerial Advisory Board established an Education and Training Advisory Group, formerly the Education Training Reference Group, in August 2024 which is mandated to provide feedback and ensure that the education sector’s input feeds into the strategic advice of the Ministerial Advisory Board.
The Reference Group brings together a wide range of tertiary education stakeholders including institution, staff and student representative organisations.
SAA exercises are either publicly or privately funded (OECD, 2023[1]). Whole-of-economy SAA exercises are more likely to be publicly funded, while sectoral exercises tend to be privately funded. While some exercises are funded through a combination of public and private funds, this is less frequent. In Italy, the activities of AlmaLaurea, the institution behind the Skills and Labour Platform, are financed by a combination of funds from university members of the consortium and the Ministry of Education.
That being said, most SAA exercises analysed in the context of this report rely on public funding. Given the relevance of SAA exercises to ensure the needed skills in the labour market, they are often funded by the Ministry of Labour, either directly, as in Germany’s IAB Skills Compass, or through the PES, as in the SEPE Occupations Observatory (Spain) or the JobBarometer (Austria). In some instances, other ministries, such as the Ministry of Education, also contribute financially to the system, given the need of SAA exercises to decide on education and training programme updates or on the number of study places to offer. This is the case in OSKA (Estonia) and POA (the Netherlands).
Additionally, given the alignment of SAA with European priorities, some exercises, such as OSKA (Estonia) and the Labour Market Platform (Slovenia), receive part of their funding from the European Social Fund Plus (ESS+).
Ideally, funding should be available to cover all SAA exercise-related costs, including activities developed in the context of the exercise, such as expert groups, needed digital resources and, most prominently, human resources. In fact, a significant number of professionals work on SAA exercises. In Estonia, 15 professionals work implementing OSKA (Estonia), in addition to the experts that take part in the different sectoral panels. In Slovenia, around 20 people work on the Labour Market Platform, including analysts and IT professionals. In the Netherlands, where the POA relies only on quantitative analysis, only 2 to 3 full-time equivalent experts are needed. Given the technical detail of these exercises, engaging experts with the right skills and retaining them in the long run is essential.
In most countries, several SAA exercises co-exist, which may provide information on different time horizons, further develop a SAA exercise to obtain results better tailored to inform specific policies, or focus on different sectors. These SAA exercises may operate independently or may be part of a larger SAA system coordinated through, for example, multi-stakeholder governance frameworks, as described above.
Examples of exercises that belong to SAA systems include OSKA (Estonia), which is complemented by the Labour Demand Barometer, a second SAA exercise that provides information on short-term skill needs; the Slovenian Labour Market Platform, which includes three SAA exercises with different time horizons (6 months, 1 year and 5-15 years); or the Trends and Forecasts study (Sweden), which is complemented by the Job Openings and Recruitment Needs Survey, which provides information on short-term labour market needs. The multiple exercises in Slovenia and Sweden are implemented by the same entity, the PES in the Slovenian case and Statistics Sweden, which assures the consistency of variable definitions between exercises and increases the comparability of results.
Some other of the exercises analysed are developed as a first step, so that other institutions can further develop them and tailor the analysis to their needs. In the Netherlands, POA results are further developed and disseminated by other entities, tailoring the presentation of the results to their needs. For example, StudieKeuze123.NL (https://www.studiekeuze123.nl/) uses POA’s results to support prospective students in choosing a programme of study. In Italy, the Skills and Labour Platform combines information from the Excelsior Information System with other sources of information to provide information to universities and to prospective higher education students. In Ireland, the SAA exercise implemented by the SOLAS Skills and Labour Market Research Unit is further developed by the Expert Group on Future Skills Needs and the Regional Skill Fora to obtain information better tailored to align education and training programmes to labour market needs and to the different Irish regions.
The coordination of multiple SAA exercises has its advantages. First of all, given the significant resources needed to properly develop and implement SAA exercises, coordinating SAA exercises avoids the duplication of work and allows to leverage the work already carried out. In addition, by agreeing to use the same definitions, coordinating SAA exercises increases the comparability of results across exercises.
← 1. Employer associations or chambers of commerce may also implement or commission SAA exercises to obtain information on future skill needs for employers in their sector. For example, the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise commissions and conducts a SAA exercise for the construction, transportation, manufacturing, services, trade and hospitality sectors, supplementing the Trends and Forecasts study and other regularly implemented SAA exercises in Sweden (OECD, 2023[1]).