1. NSDS III Design evaluation
3-4 August 2017

2. Research Questions
To what extent was the strategy design relevant, coherent and technically sound?
Is there a clear purpose to the strategy?
Is there a thorough diagnostic analysis of the status quo?
Have different options been properly considered?
Is there a strong theory of change?
Is there a good logframe?
Is implementation properly planned?

3. Relevance of NSDS III

4. NSDS III’s purpose Interviewees agree that
NSDS III gets its legal mandate from the Skills Development Act
There was a need for integration of education and training following establishment of DHET – breaking down the silos
Need to broaden skills development from traditional industries and to align what is done within the skills system to the needs of the wider economy
Stall / reverse growth of the private market in skills development and ensure that the public TVET system is more systematically engaged in the delivery of skills for the economy and society

5. NSDS III’s purpose Less clear on whether the strategy is to:
Prioritise developmental or economic goals
Adopt a low, intermediate or a high skills approach
Be directed at occupational, vocational or technical qualifications
Building towards a supply-side or demand-side driven strategy

6. Diagnostic analysis of the status quo?
NSDS III does not offer a situational analysis of contemporary context. Neither does it reference research that may have informed it
As an example: “pressing challenges” are described as “inadequate skills levels and poor work readiness of many young people leaving formal secondary and tertiary education and entering the labour market for the first time”. But without any data, it is unclear whether that conclusion applies across all sectors

7. NSDS III’s purpose In sum, NSDS III is ambitious but unfocused
As one interviewee explains: “Maybe it is fuzzily formulated and slightly contradictory if you think of the equity and competitiveness agenda, but some people in the system are able to nevertheless use it in a way that is probably aligned to the purpose of the Act. So maybe you want something broad, but it allows people to make their own sense. The challenge is that most do not make any useful sense of it”

8. Coherence of NSDS III

9. Is there a strong theory of change?
Not explicitly but it is there in the document
It did set out strategic goals, each with strategic outcomes and for each outcome a number of outputs were listed. It therefore signalled the chain of events that would deliver on mandates
But there is less consistency between each of the goals and between the goals and overall purpose

10. Technical soundness

11. Was there a good log-frame?
Assumption seems to be that implementers – the SETAs, NSF and QCTO/NAMB – would plan activities that would implement the strategy
In practice this did not happen

12. Was implementation properly planned?
There was no implementation plan attached to the strategy
It was not clearly stated who is meant to take responsibility for each outcome (or the inputs and activities needed)
Various groups of beneficiaries were targeted but not always clearly demarcated
There was no plan to achieve evidence-based identification of, and planning for, new skills
No plan for how to strengthen links between SETAs and industry or between E&T and Industry stakeholders
No clear link between objectives and numerical targets

13. Planning gaps
No (or unrealistic if all had to be done in 5 years) timeframes for achieving the stated outcomes
No clear set of rules on what the fiscus should fund and what the levy should fund
The strategy lacked a regulatory impact review or anything to specifically address the concerns raised in various reports about the functioning and performance of the system and perceived administrative blockages
Little attention paid to return on investment – no financial or efficiency targets and no cost-benefit analyses to inform financial efficiency measures
No risk analysis was done of NSDS III’s design and there were many risks – including assumptions that were potential risks if they were not realised

14. Conclusion and Recommendations for future NSDS

15. Conclusion NSDS III opted to be an enabling strategy
It was therefore flexible and non-prescriptive – guiding not dictating what should be done in sectors
This was welcomed by stakeholders, and in the context of a new department was probably appropriate
But there were dangers:
In trying to cover both skills and educational institutions, it would fail to stand out as a distinctive skills development strategy
Implementing agents, such as SETAs had latitude to interpret the strategy’s definitions of skills development, pulling the strategy in different directions
In trying to do a lot of things the danger was that resources would be spread thinly and have less impact than a more targeted strategy.

16. Recommendations for future strategies and plans
Need for an evidence-based strategy
Make use of scenario thinking: whether the strategy is one defined by the state or the market; whether it is a supply-driven or demand-driven system. Ensure that the strategy is designed to achieve the system that is needed to achieve the strategic goals
Define five year outcomes within a longer term vision and goals
Must include an implementation plan with roles and responsibilities. Various planning techniques should be brought to the planning process
Strategy to include assumptions and planning for the work of making the assumptions a reality
The strategy ought to have a risk assessment – including a risk management or mitigation plan, and alternative steps to be taken if obstacles arise
Aim to achieve stakeholder consensus and buy in but not allow a veto on needed changes.