Intermediate skills in the workplace: deployment, standards and supply in Britain, France and Germany.

Steedman, Hilary ; Mason, Geoff ; Wagner, Karin 等

INTERMEDIATE SKILLS IN THE WORKPLACE: DEPLOYMENT, STANDARDS AND SUPPLY IN BRITAIN, FRANCE AND GERMANY (*)

[*] Financial support for this study was provided by the Economic and Social Research Council, the Employment Department (formerly the Training Agency) and the Scottish Council Development and Industry; they are not responsible in any way for the views expressed in this article.

Introduction

This paper presents evidence on differences in the mix of skills employed in manufacturing in Britain and two other European countries and charts in particular the effects of national differences in the supply of intermediate skills on the organisation of production. Explanations for these differences in skill mix are sought by examining the way in which intermediate skills training is provided and financed in the three countries and the rewards accruing to individuals in the form of skill-related wage differentials.

Previous studies of manufacturing industry carried out by the National Institute (metalworking, woodworking and clothing production in Britain and Germany) have found that in these sectors the typical British firm tends to concentrate on the mass production of standardised products while its German counterpart produces a highly differentiated product range which allows the German firm to compete more effectively in international markets. These differences have been held to arise in part from firms adapting to different supplies of shopfloor skills, in particular craft-level skills. (1)

However, craft-trained workers constitute only one part of a larger group of trained middle-level employees in manufacturing who are collectively important to its successful prosecution. This group we designate as of |intermediate skill level': it is bounded at the lower limit by the unskilled labourer and semi-skilled operator (normally without lengthy formal training or certification in the countries studied) and at the upper limit by university and polytechnic graduates, normally engaged either in management or in high-level research, design and development. A logical next step in our comparative study of European manufacturing was to investigate, first, the way in which the whole range of intermediate skills - in particular, supervisory and technical skills - deployed both on and off the shopfloor; secondly, national differences in the supplies of skills available; and thirdly, the possible policy implications. At the same time our comparisons were extended to a second European country, France, which was expected to be of interest in terms of recent policy measures designed to raise intermediate skill levels. (2)

Flows at intermediate skill level

Collectively, those at intermediate skill level are responsible for the efficient day-to-day organisation, management and execution of production including the provision of all the necessary technical services required for its smooth running. In our cross-country studies we identified three types of intermediate skill in production distinguished by function - craft/execution, foreman/management, technician/technical support. Table 1 shows that when flows are adjusted for the size of the total labour force in each country, Britain produces only a quarter as many skilled craft employees of execution as either France or Germany. At higher technician level, both British and French flows are substantially higher than in Germany. However, neither Britain nor France engages in systematic training of foremen to the equivalent of the Meister qualification in Germany. The skill mix available to German employers is clearly more biased towards supervisory and practical shopfloor skills than that available in either Britain or France. [Tabular Data Omitted]

In Section 1 we investigate for the three countries chosen, Britain, France and Germany, the way in which employees working at intermediate skill level are deployed in production and identify systematic differences which can be explained in terms of differing supplies of trained and qualified individuals at intermediate skill level. In Section 2 we examine the flows and standards reached in supervisory and technician-level qualifications in the three countries and in Section 3 we analyse ways in which the supply is ensured. Section 4 provides a summary and points to conclusions for policy in this area.

Methodology

The investigation reported here aims to cast light on these complex issues with the help of (a) visits to manufacturing plants in the three countries (approximately ten in each country) to examine the tasks on which technicians, foremen and other skilled labour are employed; (b) visits to colleges offering courses leading to higher technician qualifications to compare standards in the three countries; (c) additional analysis of Labour Force Survey data in the three countries (German Mikrozensus, French Enquete-Emploi, British Labour Force Survey) and (d) comparisons of relative earnings by occupational category in the three countries.

Fieldwork was carried out in 1988-90. (3) Visits were made to thirty manufacturing companies in the three countries, roughly two thirds of them engaged in engineering (automotive components, small pumps and motors) and one third in textile spinning (cotton, worsted woollen mixtures and acrylic fibres). The former industry is based on batch production and final assembly of components; the latter is based on runs of variable length but is akin to |process plants' usually working on continuous shifts in which massive banks of automated or semi-automated machinery are fed and supervised by a limited number of shopfloor personnel. The variation in organisation between the two industries was intended to provide a firmer basis for analysing the changing roles of both foremen and technicians in consequence of technological developments.

The plants visited in each country were chosen to be as similar as possible with respect to type of product and employment size. In view of our limited resources it was not possible to aim at a sample which was representative of plant-sizes in each of these industries; but the process of matching products and keeping within a broad band of employment sizes (mostly within the range of 100-900 employees) would, we hoped, be sufficient to highlight any important differences between the countries. In any case, 100 employees usually proved to be the minimum size for gathering useful information about technician employment. Firms below this size often employed only one or no technicians and bought in technical services needed. Researchers - two or more for each visit - collected data on the size of the total and direct work-force, system of shopfloor supervision, vocational qualifications and updating, provision of technical services and on earnings. In addition, visits were made to the production area, and discussions were held with foremen and technicians on the nature of their responsibilities.

1. Deployment in the workplace

1.1 Changes in manufacturing technology and intermediate skills

Two important sets of developments have transformed manufacturing in the three countries examined in the course of the last 30 years. In Germany, the effects had been felt by the beginning of the 1970s; in France and Britain, a decade later. The first set was technological: the use of miniaturised electronic circuits enabled large amounts of data to be processed swiftly in the office; similarly, on the shopfloor microprocessor control systems allowed a far wider range of machining operations to be carried out on a single machine and with much reduced changeover times between operations. The majority of German manufacturers introduced information-processing technology into production-planning and integrated microprocessor-controlled machinery into production lines in advance of those in Britain and France. (4) The second set of developments were economic and were brought about by the intensification of competition in global trade during the last two decades. Successful manufacturers were obliged by international competitive pressures to offer a wider range of higher quality goods and more reliable delivery deadlines. Again, as our previous comparisons of matched plants have revealed, many German firms responded with great promptness to these market forces and, indeed, in many cases led them.

Pressures on shopfloor foremen from these two factors have greatly enlarged and in part transformed their function. Foremen must now not only |get the goods out of the door' but get the right goods out of the door and within more tightly-specified time schedules. Competitive pressure to minimise stocks of components and work-in-progress and respond quickly to customer orders requires the planning of component supplies to be carried out on a longer time-scale, greater liaison with other departments and/or outside suppliers, and careful prioritising of work to ensure that equipment and skills are combined as effectively as possible.

New computer-controlled (CNC) capital equipment has a number of important implications for the foreman's function. Most obviously, he is required to plan and supervise the use of complex machines which he may himself never have operated. To some extent built-in monitoring functions - whereby machines monitor, for example, toolwear and operator performance - reduce the need for detailed supervision of work-in-progress. At the same time, however, the need for rapid decision-making concerning the overall flow of production at shopfloor level is greatly increased. (5)

For foremen the switch has been from a reactive role, restricted to the immediate area supervised, to a proactive role, looking ahead, making judgements, liaising with technical support departments and planning to meet output and delivery targets. (6) He consequently needs to be more than just |an experienced operative who can also read and write' or |the man with the whip' which are the ways older-style foremen were characterised in British factories visited.

While foremen in modern manufacturing plants are now required to take a broader view of the production process as a whole, the technician's tasks, especially in engineering, have become more specialised during the last thirty years. (7) Technician occupations responded earlier than supervisory occupations to technical innovation. Many technical activities such as drawing and design and production engineering have been transformed by the introduction of microprocessor-controlled equipment. At the same time new occupations, e.g. in CNC programming and quality control have emerged.

1.2 Supervisors and technicians: complementary, not interchangeable

In modern manufacturing the roles of foreman and technician are complementary, the foreman coping with a wide variety of problems arising from the need to manage ever-changing combinations of labour, materials and equipment and the technician providing specialised technical services which contribute to the smoother and more efficient exploitation of the means of production.

In all three countries foremen work on the shopfloor and the management of people and materials is their primary concern. Technical staff are mainly based in offices or in laboratories and are engaged in activities such as research and design, sales, work planning and scheduling, machine programming, costing and materials procurement and quality testing. Except in the smallest companies, the foreman's task is to recognise when it is appropriate to call on these specialist support services and to be able to follow their advice if so required. (8)

It became clear to us in the course of our visits that provision of the right mix of supervisory skills and technical support is crucial to the smooth running of production. Indeed, the ability of both foremen and technicians to carry out their tasks properly depends to a very large extent upon the complementary services provided by the other. This was illustrated by the spinning plants visited in Britain. In these plants, specialised maintenance services were provided by staff permanently sited on the shopfloor because of the overriding need to keep machinery in continuous operation. One of the management's complaints was that, notwithstanding the provision of technical services, foremen spent too much time |under the frame' i.e. carrying out emergency repairs (a situation which appeared to have arisen from a combination of ageing equipment, shortages of skilled mechanics and insufficient planned maintenance); the supervision of production was suffering as a consequence.

When, as in this case, technical support skills are inadequate or insufficient, foremen are prevented from managing by the need to supplement the maintenance service. Where, on the other hand, foremen have insufficient technical expertise - as in the case of some British engineering plants visited - technician-programmers may be obliged to by-pass the foreman (who cannot programme) and liaise directly with shopfloor craftsmen resulting in confusion of lines of command. These imbalances are not easily resolved. Skills and expertise cannot always be upgraded quickly enough - particularly where older workers are concerned - to allow foremen to acquire the level of technical knowledge of necessary to cope with new technology. (9)

The technical competence required of trained Meister in Germany leads to a more effective partnership between foremen and technicians, even though responsibilities and tasks are clearly separated. (10) The additional technical study undertaken in Germany in order to obtain the Meister certificate is intended to enable a foreman to discuss the automation requirements for his production line with management as well as production engineers and skilled workers i.e. to have an informed appreciation of technical matters and to be able to communicate appropriately with colleagues at all levels. (11)

Visits undertaken for this study confirm the value of the Meister courses in Germany in ensuring that most foremen have the understanding required to cope with the logistics of the production process and to handle cost control. In addition, the breadth of technical knowledge coupled with the formal training in instructional skills and the organisation of training programmes received by qualified Meister ensures that they are well-equipped to meet their responsibilities for on-the-job training of shopfloor workers and apprentices.

1.3 The deployment of foremen and technicians

Important differences between the three countries arose in the range of functions undertaken by supervisors. In Germany, in contrast to Britain and France, foremen were routinely required to be aware of a section's production costs, and production schedules were delivered to them several days in advance to assist forward planning. In Britain, foremen in both spinning and engineering frequently mentioned that |crisis management' - chasing missing materials, rescheduling to cope with machine breakdowns or training new staff where turnover was very high and new employees were normally untrained - occupied the greater part of their time. In France, |crisis management' was not mentioned, but foremen were concerned as to whether their (craft) training was adequate to cope with the rapidly-increasing technical demands of their work where new technology was being introduced very rapidly. Most of the French plants' older foremen with craft (CAP) qualifications were working alongside newly-recruited younger foremen with higher-technician (BTS) qualifications and the obvious difference in levels of formal technical knowledge helped to fuel their anxieties.

We also observed marked differences between France and Britain on the one hand and Germany on the other in the use of technician-level skills. In British and French plants we normally found that a number of those working in production on the shopfloor held technician-level qualifications; in Germany we never encountered anyone holding Techniker qualifications in shopfloor (i.e. skilled/semi-skilled) positions. In Britain the special expertise of those holding |shopfloor technician' positions was usually recognised (by wage differentials) and their knowledge was put to use in, for example, providing advice and guidance to semi-skilled production workers (interpreting drawings, advising on assembly problems).

In France, a position of |shopfloor technician' (technicien d'atelier) was formally established and recognised for collective-bargaining purposes in the late 1970s and we saw and/or spoke with techniciens d'atelier in most of the French engineering plants visited. These shopfloor technicians would have programming and first-line maintenance responsibilities in addition to production work, usually on the more sophisticated CNC machinery. Although formally recognised and institutionalised as a separate hierarchy between skilled |craft' workers and higher-level technicians, this group's function was similar to that of the British shopfloor workers who held technicina qualifications, namely to supply technical expertise to compensate for low skill levels on the shopfloor and in first-line supervision. (12) In Germany, where adequate supplies of craft and supervisory skills are available, we saw no cases of technicians employed on the shopfloor, nor is there a category designated as |shopfloor technician'.

1.4 The |match' between employment and qualification

In carrying out this investigation it has been necessary to distinguish between the person employed as a foreman or technician and the person holding qualifications normally recognised as |foreman' and |technician' qualifications. In our visits in the three countries we asked two sets of questions, the first related to those employed and known as technicians, techniciens or Techniker (sometimes complicated by the fact that in some British companies all technicians were called |engineers') or foremen, agents de maitrise or Meister. (13) For the first group ie. those designated foremen or technicians we asked about qualifications held and department in which they worked or tasks assigned to them. We then enquired whether significant numbers of employees not employed as technicians or foremen nevertheless held technician and foreman qualifications. Inevitably, nowhere were the two groups - those employed as foremen/technicians and those holding foreman/technician qualifications - identical.

Indeed, in the provision of certain specialised technical services, the three countries studied had put into practice very different solutions. For instance, the plentiful supply of trained craft workers in Germany meant that in all but small firms craft-qualified personnel could be deployed full-time on machine (parts) programming away from the shopfloor. In Britain and France it was more common to employ those with higher technician qualifications for this task. In Britain, many trained craftsmen did have the expertise to take responsibility for programming but were normally too scarce a resource to be removed from direct production and a different solution (use of technicians) had to be found. Where technical skills were in short supply (usually smaller firms with 100 employees or less) craftsmen programmed their own machines at the cost of lost production while the machines were idle. In France, technical services of this nature were rarely performed by craftsmen on the shopfloor.

Table 2 shows the qualifications structure of those groups designated as technicians in the Labour Force Surveys of the three countries. One striking point of contrast is that in Germany nearly all individuals designated as technicians (92 per cent) have at least a craft qualification whereas in Britain and France the comparable figure is only about 70 per cent and the remainder do not possess any vocational qualifications at all. As mentioned above, not all technical support activities require technician-level skills. Most technical tasks which directly service shopfloor production (such as machine-loading schedules, inventory control, machine programming and maintenance) are, with some additional training, best carried out by experienced craftsmen and the large pool of craft skills created over a long period in Germany has facilitated the allocation of these tasks to apprentice-trained personnel. [Tabular Data Omitted]

At higher levels of qualification important differences arise between Britain and France as well as Britain and Germany. As table 2 shows, only some 14 per cent of designated technicians in Britain possess higher intermediate qualifications, compared to 21 per cent in France and 36 per cent in Germany. At the same time the proportion of British technicians with degree-level qualifications is at 12 per cent some four times higher than in France and almost twice as high as in Germany. As shown in table 1, there is no evidence of a relative deficiency in the numbers acquiring higher technician qualifications in Britain which might account for the comparatively low proportion of British technicians with such qualifications and thus the apparent need to deploy large numbers of graduates at technician level. On the contrary, this mismatch between employment and qualifications appears to result from a |drawing-down' process in British industry whereby substantial proportions of both higher technicians and graduates are deployed at levels which do not fully utilise their qualifications in order to compensate for the relatively low proportion of craft-skilled workers on the shopfloor in Britain and the absence of an intermediate category of Meister-trained employees.

1.5 |Drawing-down' in British plants

During our British plant visits we observed several instances of such |drawing-down' in action. In some cases, as mentioned above, qualified technical staff had been formally designated to lower-level occupations but more commonly a situation had arisen where, even though they had been appointed to management and technical support positions appropriate to their qualifications, they were liable to find themselves caught up on a day-to-day basis with shopfloor production problems and were thus unable to devote themselves fully to their |real' jobs.

In British spinning plants, for example, we encountered heads of technical departments qualified to Higher National level who were involved in a daily welter of |trouble-shooting' and |checking-up' activities all over their factories as a direct result of the limited competences of untrained foremen and shopfloor workers. This scenario had few parallels in French or German plants visited where, even if a significant proportion of shopfloor workers lacked vocational qualifications, the majority of foremen were qualified at least to craft level.

In several British engineering plants we observed similar (if less extreme) situations where the demands of implementing new technology apparently required graduate engineers to take responsibility for day to day supervisory tasks which, in German plants, would be the sole preserve of Meister-qualified foremen; and where production engineers with higher technician qualifications were obliged to spend a lot of their time dealing with equipment breakdowns arising from lack of preventive maintenance and shortages of craft-skilled maintenance and shopfloor workers.

In describing the ways in which highly qualified staff are frequently |under'-employed in British factories, we would not wish to suggest that graduates and higher technicians have nothing to gain from shopfloor experience. On the contrary, we would argue that practical experience and regular access to the shopfloor are important requirements for all technical support staff if they are to carry out their duties effectively. However, the considerable evidence of mismatch between employment and high-level qualifications in British manufacturing does raise important questions about whether perceived shortages of highly qualified technical staff frequently reported by employers could be tackled, at least in part, by increased investment in shopfloor worker training. These issues are discussed further in Section 3 below.

1.6 Recruitment and qualifications of foremen and technicians

In all three countries only a small minority of foremen, some 20 per cent, reach that position before their mid-thirties i.e. before they have spent some 16-18 years in a less senior position. (14) Promotion to foreman positions continues to be primarily from the shopfloor. (15) From table 2 we see that in Germany more than 90 per cent of foremen hold craft qualifications and indeed almost two thirds of them are qualified Meister. By contrast, in Britain some 55 per cent of all foremen hold no vocational or higher-level qualifications and in France the equivalent proportion is 44 per cent. (16) Only in France did we find signs of a break with the tradition of recruitment from the shopfloor where some young graduates from higher technician schools (holding a BTS or DUT) had been appointed to foreman positions in the larger engineering and spinning plants visited.

In summary, all three countries continue to consider solid shopfloor experience an essential prerequisite for the recruitment of foremen. However, only in Germany does the large pool of skilled workers created by the well-established apprenticeship system ensure that virtually all foremen are qualified at least to craft level or above. At the same time the German Meister qualification makes a strong contribution to shopfloor supervisors' ability to maximise the benefits of new organisational methods and technology. This contrasts markedly with both Britain and France where no similar qualification is available to the vast majority of supervisors. In the short term, however, many French employers are responding to the increase organisational and technical demands made upon supervisors by using higher-level technicians for supervision and in the longer term they should achieve a higher proportion of foremen with craft qualifications as a result of the current policy of upgrading shopfloor skill levels through greater investment in initial education and training to craft level. No similar strategies for development of supervisors appear to have been widely adopted in Britain and no alternatives were forthcoming from the British firms we visited.

In contrast to foremen, those occupying technician positions in the three countries are recruited in part from experienced shopfloor workers, and in part from these without previous shopfloor experience but having education with degree-level and sub-degree level technical qualifications.

In Britain and France, as shown in detail in table 2, around three quarters of all designated technicians have either no vocational qualifications or hold craft or lower level technical qualifications; those without qualifications usually work in a subsidiary role to a qualified person. It can be assumed that most of the 75 per cent of those engaged on technician work in Britain and France and holding no higher technician qualifications have been recruited internally from the shopfloor. In both Britan and France, the remaining quarter hold degree or higher technician qualifications. In the case of both countries this group would not normally have first acquired practical shopfloor experience as a qualified craftsman. (17)

In Germany, the vast majority of technicians have first completed a full craft training, passed the relevant craft examinations and then completed a period of work in the skilled occupation for which they have been trained. In contrast to both the other countries, skilled craft workers in Germany then train fulltime off the job for two years in order to obtain a technician qualification. Only a small proportion of German technicians (at most about 7 per cent) have entered their posts without extensive shopfloor experience; these are typically graduates from Fachhochschule and university degree courses in engineering and related subjects.

Several British engineering firms that we visited complained that technicians who held higher-technician qualifications or degrees produced designs which required much modification before they could be put into production, and that technicians |needed to get out onto the shopfloor'. In British engineering plants with a strong union presence, demarcation based on |custom and practice' prevented technicians from machining test pieces themselves on the shopfloor and they were handicapped for the same reasons in design work. Such restrictions were unknown in France and Germany.

The strong craft background of German technicians, and unrestricted access to the shopfloor space, help to explain why German engineering firms reacted differently from their British and French counterparts to the question of whether skilled operators modified CNC machining programmes prepared by technicians. In Britain and France the response was usually that they did modify programmes - either with official permission or without since it was not normal for the technician to test his programme extensively or at all. In larger engineering plants in Germany we were told that no modification was necessary after the technician had prepared the programme and that machinists were required to concentrate on production. (18)

The next section of this paper compares the numbers obtaining foreman- and technician-level qualifications in all three countries in more detail and assesses the levels of technical competence reached in each case.

2. Standards of intermediate qualifications

2.1 Foremen: flows and standards

In Britain, specially-designed qualifications for foremen and supervisors, the NEBSS (National Examinations Board for Supervisory Studies) Certificate and Diploma, were instituted in 1964 (for details of courses and examinations and a comparison of British and German standards see Prais and Wagner op. cit.). Around 5000 obtained a NEBSS Certificate in 1985; applying 1985 pass-rates to published enrollments between 1979-89 it appears that some 50,000 certificates were obtained in the ten-year period, most commonly by those already in foreman posts studying principally during working hours and at the employer's expense.

Some 40 per cent on average of all foremen in British plants visited held craft qualifications (close to the figure derived from LFS analyses) and in almost all plants visited a majority of foremen had been sent on short courses to learn basic management skills. In only one British plant did we find a systematic attempt to equip all foremen with full NEBSS training: there all foremen had been sent on NEBSS courses with a success rate estimated at around 80 per cent.

In France a national Certificate for Supervisors, validated by professional trade associations in an industrial branch in association with ANFOPPE (Association Nationale pour la Formation et le Perfectionnement du Personnel d'Enterprise) is slowly establishing itself. In engineering, 2500 certificates have been awarded since the inception of the scheme in 1980. The length of the French courses (approximately 360 hours) often spread over a period of two years part-time study is similar to the British, as is the subject matter which covers issues relating to the organisation of work including statistical process control, motivation of individuals, health and safety and computer applications; as in Britain, a technical module is available but not compulsory. In contrast to Britain, there is no final written examination of this certificate in France; assessment is conducted internally combined with a written project on which the candidate is orally examined by a nationally selected board of examiners.

Only in Germany do we find a well-established and widely-held |supervisory qualification' the Meister certificate, open to all skilled workers and obtained during two years of self-financed part-time evening study. The obtaining of the Meister certificate - usually before promotion to a foreman position - does not guarantee such promotion. A large German engineering firm told us that several skilled workers had obtained the certificate but would not be promoted by the company because they did not have the right |personal attributes'. They might decide to move elsewhere and the Meister certificate would facilitate promotion within another company. In other companies visited, those who had obtained the Meister certificate would continue a craftsmen until a position as foreman |camp up'. Some 40,000 passed the Meister examinations in Germany in 1985; in 1988 the figure was 46,000 - similar to the number of NEBSS certificates awarded in Britain over a ten-year period. (19)

In all three countries, provision of training in supervisory skills is not confined to National or Meister Certificates but is also provided by a wide variety of courses, some short (as little as two days) and intensive, some involving part-time or distance-learning study from a multitude of providers, often originating from regional associations of employers or from local training groups. In quantitative terms at least, the supply of such courses in Britain was felt to be adequate in the companies visited and experiments with distance learning study (whereby supervisors study in their own time) by correspondence course seem to be providing the flexibility required by smaller firms where foremen cannot normally be spared for courses during working hours.

In the German plants visited all foremen held at least a Berufsabschluss qualification i.e. had completed a three year apprenticheship and the appropriate examinations. On average around two thirds of all foremen in German plants visited held a Meister qualification and the remaining one third held a craft qualification (these were mainly in older age groups). It was rare to find foremen in Germany who held Techniker qualifications and quite unknown to find any who held degrees.

British and French national qualifications for foremen appear to be of a similar standard (as far as can be judged). The British qualification is older and better-established than its French counterpart and the numbers qualifying in Britain are therefore higher than in France but still only one tenth of the numbers in Germany. The quality of the German Meister course, soundly built on a thorough craft training, is still far in advance of both the British and the French qualifications. Plant visits which reveal the far wider range of foreman responsibilities in Germany only confirm this view.

2.2 Technicians: flows and standards

The British higher-technician qualification is known as the Higher National Certificate (HNC) or Higher National Diploma (HND) awarded by the Business and Technician Education Council (BTEC) in England and Wales and the Scottish Vocational Education Council (SCOTVEC) in Scotland. As shown in Table 1, the number of awards at this level in Britian is much the same as in France and substantially higher than in Germany.

Most British students entering courses for Higher National Certificates and Diplomas have previously taken an Ordinary National qualification in the same area, and almost all of those on HNC courses are in apprenticeship arrangements studying one day a week and receiving on-the-job training for the remainder of the week. Most complete their course by the age of 20-21. In engineering and technology areas in Britain most students follow the part-time route leading to an HNC; they outnumber the HND students who would normally be studying full time by 3:1. Access to the British courses is also open to students with GCE Advanced level or Scottish equivalent qualifications in suitable subjects.

In France the equivalent qualification is the Brevet de technicien superieur (BTS) or Diplome universitaire de technologie (DUT). Access to BTS courses is normally conditional on obtaining a Baccalaureat qualification, usually a technical Baccalaureat. They are mainly full-time courses. A very small number in France now take the BTS qualification while working on an apprenticeship contract four days a week and attending one day a week at an apprenticeship centre. However, this is a new development and numbers are at present very small: the overwhelming majority of those taking the French technician qualification enter the course straight from school without any previous experience except that provided by workshop training in the practical part of their technical Bac course. They will normally complete the two-year course at around the age of 21 or 22, depending on the age at which they obtained the Baccalaureat.

In Germany, study for a technician qualification leads to the award of a State examined technician certificate (Staatlich geprufte Techniker). In marked contrast to higher technician courses in both Britain and France, the German Techniker course stipulates, as a condition of access, that trainees must have completed a three year craft apprenticeship in the area which they intend to study at technician level and have at least two years prior experience on the shopfloor working in production. The highest qualification from the general education system needed by entrants to Techniker courses is only the Hauptschulabschluss, the leaving certificate equivalent to six or eight GCSE passes at grades D or E in Britain; however, the majority of Techniker candidates hold school-leaving qualifications above this level. The ages at which German employees gain Techniker qualifications vary considerably: the aspiring technician in Germany is unlikely to be in a position to start on the two-year full-time technician course before the age of 20-21. Earliest completion ages are likely to be 22 or 23 and the average age of those completing the qualification is 28. (20)

Under the auspices of the Engineering Council in Britain, it is now possible for holders of Higher National qualifications to study part-time over a 2-3 year period for a qualification equivalent to an honours degree which leads to |chartered engineer' status. Those holding Higher National awards can also obtain the title |incorporated engineer' (previously known as |technician engineer') following two years |responsible experience'. Some 2500 to 3000 holders of HNC/HND go on to obtain this title every year. A further 1500 people holding ONC/OND qualifications apply for the title of |engineering technician' each year after fulfilling similar conditions.

While these schemes provide an additional professional status, they in some ways typify the split which exists in British industry between, on the one hand, engineering graduates and technicians with little or no experience of shopfloor production and, on the other hand, craft-skilled workers with limited possibilities of gaining further qualifications and progressing to higher levels of responsibility. This is the converse of the German system which values craft training and experience in direct production as the foundation for technician training. The German system also attaches important to providing craft-trained workers with routes for vertical mobility within their professional field. Technician positions constitute an important means (in addition to supervisory positions) whereby craft workers in Germany can become upwardly mobile and gain access to management positions. (21)

Comparison of examination papers suggest that British HNC qualifications (taken by 80 per cent of students at this level) are of a similar degree of difficulty but much less geared to specific applications than either French BTS or German Techniker qualifications. These comparisons are discussed in detail in Appendix 1. In summary, it seems reasonable to consider those holding higher technician qualifications in all three countries to be at broadly equivalent levels of competence and technical expertise.

3. Ensuring the supply of intermediate skills

3.1 Financing of training at intermediate skill level

In this section we analyse the distribution of training costs and examine economic incentives to individuals to invest in training at intermediate skill level.

3.1.1 Craft In Britain employers bear nearly all the costs of craft training (including trainee wages and the costs of off-the-job-training and further education) with only a small contribution forthcoming in recent years from the public authorities in the form of wage subsidies for the first two years of training under the former YTS scheme. (22)

In France, a means-tested state grant may make a contribution to but does not cover the whole cost of a CAP trainee's living costs, otherwise subsistence while training is the responsibility of the trainee and his/her parents. All costs of training tuition are met by public authorities through the provision of training facilities free at point of use. All employers are subject to a remissible apprentice training tax of 0.02 per cent of payroll. It is debatable whether French employers should be considered as directly bearing any costs of off-the-job training or further education since cash payment of this tax to the exchequer is not earmarked in any way for training expenditure and it can therefore be considered as part of corporate taxation to which all firms are subject in each country.

In Germany, off-the-job tuition costs at FE colleges are met by the public authorities. As in Britain, German firms are responsible for a large proportion of training costs in the form of trainee wages and other payroll costs as well as the costs of on-the-job training and supervision. In comparison with Britain, however, trainee wages represent a relatively small proportion of adult wages and this has undoubtedly encouraged the much higher levels of craft training that have taken place in Germany compared to Britain. (23) By contrast, as we go on to show, in the case of supervisory and technician training the main differences between all three countries concern the relative distribution of training costs between employers, individuals and the public authorities.

3.1.2 Foremen in Britain and France, foremen who obtain a further qualification specifically related to foreman responsibilities normally do so in paid working hours with the cost of college and wages during training borne by the employer. In Germany, Meister training courses are followed in the employee's own time, so that no wage costs fall on the employer - at most, the employer may cooperate to the extent of rescheduling the employee's working hours to enable him/her to attend the required course. In contrast to France and Britain, where both publicly provided and private institutions charge users for adult training course costs, most courses leading to Techniker qualifications are financed by public authorities. Meister courses are provided by Industrie und Handelskammern (Chambers of Industry and Commerce) which charge fees to users.

The contrast between France and Britain on the one hand and Germany on the other is therefore striking: in France and Britain employers directly bear almost the whole cost of supervisory training while in Germany employers directly bear none of the cost; instead, it is shared between individuals and public authorities. The consequences in terms of the numbers and standard of supervisory qualifications obtained in each country display the same degree of contrast.

In the British and French firms visited, most foremen had received some additional training consisting in the overwhelming majority of cases of short courses up to a week; these did not lead or even contribute to a full foreman award of the standard of the German Meister, or even in most cases to the level of a NEBSS certificate or the French Certificat National de Maitrise.

A small start has been made in Britain in courses comparable to the German Meister, these relate to tool-making and to the metal-working industries. So far under a hundred trainees a year are involved. There do not appear to be any similar schemes in France. It seems unlikely that with present financing arrangements British employers will invest the sums required to raise existing foreman training to German Meister standards.

3.1.3 Technicians The financing of training leading to the technician-level qualifications described in Section 2 also presents a contrast but, in this case, between Britain on the one hand and France and Germany on the other. Britain stands alone in that the bulk of training leading to Higher National qualifications is provided on-the-job with day-release for college courses and is financed almost entirely by employers with the aspiring technician receiving a trainee wage from the employer. The training period in Britain starts at age 16 and leads, through (Ordinary) National Certificate, to Higher National Certificate at age 21 or 22. The employer bears all tuition costs and the proportion of the trainee technician's wages that is not recouped through productive work. The first year is entirely |off the job' with no productive work. The trainee foregoes higher wages in the interests of obtaining a qualification.

An earlier study carried out at the National Institute suggested that the average gross of cost of technician training in a sample of engineering plants was some 26,000 [pounds] per trainee (1984 earnings levels). The productive contribution of the trainee was estimated to be worth an average 11,500 [pounds] leaving a net cost to the employer of approximately 14,500 [pounds]. This was about 60 per cent higher than the estimated net cost of craft apprentice training, reflecting both higher rates of technician trainee pay and the slower development of the productive contribution made by technician trainee compared to that made by trainee craft workers (24).

It is at first sight difficult to understand the British employer's willingness to finance technician training between the ages of 16 to 18 as well as post-18 as the earlier period is the most cost-intensive stage of the technician's training and, particularly in the first year, devotes much time to general skills of the sort that employers are not normally willing to finance. As the bulk of firm-specific on-the-job training takes place in the later stages of a technician apprenticeship, it would seem reasonable for the majority of Ordinary National qualifications to be obtained in full-time education before entering employment at age 18-plus, thus approximately halving the employer's costs. Although 18-plus recruitment to technician training programmes is not unknown in British industry, it remain exceptional and none of the firms that we visited had seriously considered such an option.

In our view, it would be wrong to characterise employers' recruitment of 16 year-old technician trainees as irrational. Some employers in heavily unionised plants and industries are |locked-in' to this pattern of provision as a result of collective work place agreements. More importantly, however, employers compete with universities and polytechnics for the scarce resource of 16 year-olds with |good' GCSE (grades A-C) maths and science (approximately 25 per cent of the age cohort). British employers, unlike their French counterparts, cannot rely on a high status technical route to attract able young people in sixth forms to technical careers and away from academic A-level studies which offer the prospect of a higher education place at the end. In order to attract a certain proportion of able youngsters to a career as a technician, employers must |catch them young' and offer them in the work place the technical qualification route that the school sixth-form does not provide. If employers waited to try to recruit A-level students to technician trainee-ships, the fear at present is that many would reject the pay and prospects in favour of a higher education course. Britain's failure to construct and nurture a high quality technical track within the school system thus places an additional burden on British industry.

In both France and Germany, the costs of technician training are shared between the individual and the public authorities and do not fall on the employer. In France, BTS and DUT students enter from full-time schooling at 18 and cover their own maintenance costs either completely, or partially with the help of a State bursary. In Germany, aspiring technicians enter training after completing a craft apprenticeship and a period of full-time work in their chosen trade. As in France, tuition in publicly-provided institutions leading to technician-level courses is free of charge to the student. The allocation of maintenance costs while studying on full-time courses is variable as between the public authorities (Federal Labour Office) and the individual. For unemployed individuals and those threatened by unemployment, financial support which amounts to around 50 per cent of last gross earnings is available for the two-year period of full-time study, subject to certain conditions being met both the course providers and the candidate. Since 1982, however, the majority of those undertaking technician training have received loans from the Federal Labour Office amounting to some 58 per cent of average net income. Loans are interest-free and must be repaid over a maximum ten year period, starting two years after the qualifications have been obtained. In all these cases, however, the employer bears no direct costs. Technician training in Germany contrasts with Meister training in that most qualify through full-time study and must thus run the risk of taking on a loan and covering subsequent repayment; numbers qualifying annually as Techniker are less than half those qualifying (pre-dominantly through part-time study) as Meister (see table 1 above).

It is also instructive to compare the British situation, where individual firms make decisions about numbers of technicians trained, with Germany where the Federal Labour Office can (and does) |steer' the supply of individuals for Techniker training. If there is unemployment or under-employment in certain types of technical occupation then the Federal Labour Office will withdraw financial support of the type mentioned above. This form of government intervention to influence the supply of skills at this level appears more effective in producing a cost-effective mix of skills than reliance on employer training decisions as in Britain.

As noted above, the numbers of those qualifying as higher technicians in Britain are already substantially higher than those obtaining Techniker qualifications in Germany in related fields. Yet, where craft-level skills are in short supply, as in Britain, even an increased supply at technician level will appear inadequate because many of these are required to |plug gaps' at lower levels or to resolve technical problems which elsewhere would be solved by foremen and craftsmen. In Germany, by contrast, the well-established system of craft training ensures that many trained to this level can be used in technician-level work; in this way, technical functions are (and are seen to be) more than adequately fulfilled by the smaller numbers of German Techniker available supplemented by those holding Meister and craft qualifications and employed in technician positions (see table 2 above).

In the light of the evidence cited above on the relative costs to British employers of technician and craft training, the ratio of craftsmen to technicians in British manufacturing appears to represent a much less efficient mix of skills than that employed in Germany. The next section investigates the ways in which the different patterns of earnings differentials in each country affect the willingness of individuals to share the costs of acquiring intermediate-level qualifications.

3.2 Economic incentives to acquire qualifications

There are clear and characteristic differences between Britain, France and Germany in the extent to which the earnings of technicians and foremen exceed those of craftsmen and unskilled employees; and these differentials in pay are related to - but not solely determined by - differences in the processes and financing of training. A broad picture of average differentials in the three countries is set out in table 3 (the estimates for France rely on a special unpublished, tabulation for 1986; data for Germany have also been shown for that year; British figures are for 1989). It will be understood that the actual earnings of a particular individual depend not simply on his qualifications, but also on his experience and responsibilities; and also on whether his particular industry is expanding and looking for additional staff (as often in mechanical engineering in Germany), or is contracting (as fairly generally in textiles). The range of variation in the earnings of technicians quoted to us on our visits was considerable in all three countries, and depended strongly on responsibility and seniority in the management structure; but average earnings of technicians and of section foremen were very similar. In what follows we concentrate solely on the difference between countries in average differentials.

It is clear from table 3, and as has previously been noted, that skill-differentials for craftsmen in France are considerably greater than in both Britain and Germany. As between Britain and Germany, the differences are small up to craftsmen-level, but above that - for foremen and technicians - differentials in Britain are much lower than in Germany. [Tabular Data Omitted]

To understand these differences it is necessary to remind ourselves of the differences in the provision of training to craft level. The long-standing system of quasi-obligatory vocational training in Germany for 15-18 year-olds who have left full-time schooling ensures a greater supply of qualified craftsmen than does the French system which relies to a greater extent on market incentives. In France training starts for some pupils at secondary vocational schools (Lycees professionnels) during the period of compulsory schooling; for others it starts at these schools after 16 and is largely self-financed; a minority enter apprenticeships at 16 after compulsory schooling. Securing an adequate number of qualified craftsmen with market incentives in France evidently requires a higher wage differential - in the region of 50 per cent over an unskilled employee - than the compulsory system of Germany which requires a differential of only about 20 per cent.

When we come to the next higher level of qualification represented by foremen Britain and France are closer in their differentials - earning about 10 per cent more than skilled employees; the similarity is perhaps not surprising since, at this level, both countries recruit foremen from among shopfloor workers without any requirement for additional training. Differentials at this qualification-level are higher (40 per cent) in Germany than in France and Britain, and this can be attributed to the need in Germany, to provide adequate economic incentives to qualified craftsmen to undertake, at their own expense, the training leading to Meister certification. When we come to the higher level of qualification represented by technicians, Germany and France are closer in their differentials - earnings about 70-80 per cent more than unskilled employees; the similarity is explained by the fact that, at this level, both countries rely on market incentives for adequate recruitment.

The present-day much lower skill-differentials in Britain - only 40 per cent for a technician above an unskilled employee - thus seem anomalous in contrast with France and Germany. As shown in an earlier study, skill-differentials in Britain thirty years ago were as high as, and perhaps even higher than in Germany; (26) the 1960s saw a very sharp contraction of differentials, and only in the 1980s has there been a widening of differentials but which, so far, has been very modest. Incentives to undertake training have been provided in Britain by employers paying for trainees' time while at college and paying for their college instruction and on-the-job training; in the 1980s government subsidies, under YTS and associated schemes, have helped to support the early years of a technician's training (but not the later years). In comparison with both France and Germany, an adequate supply of qualified technicians appears to have been provided in Britain but at the cost of failure to invest in training at lower levels of skill. In the other two countries, by contrast, the large shares of training costs borne by government and by individuals (with associated economic incentives in the form of wage differentials) appear to be maintaining a better balance of supplies at both craft and technician level.

Summary and conclusions

Summary

This investigation has been concerned with the adequacy of Britain's supply of skills at the intermediate level, comprising craft workers, foremen and technicians, in comparison with France and Germany. Organisational and technological changes in manufacturing have transformed the functions of foremen and technicians, and the requirement for foremen today is for more sophisticated skills of planning, communication and organisation within an advanced technological framework. Technical skills need to be broad and flexible and based upon practical shop-floor experience.

In the manufacturing plants visited, the first-line supervisor on the shopfloor, in charge of people and materials and responsible for output remains an important and essential pivot of the production process. Because demands have changed and new priorities (control of inventory, |right first time' production, meeting deadlines and delivery dates) have emerged, foremen need, in addition to the more traditional supervisory skills, the ability to plan ahead, prioritise carefully and communicate with customers. They must achieve higher levels of technical understanding in order to liaise with programmers and maintenance staff. All this requires longer periods of both initial and continuing training - both on- and off-the job - to higher levels and the challenge to firms is either to ensure that trained individuals are appointed or provide adequate training.

The comparison with France reveals that Britain is not alone in neglecting the further professional development of foremen; the present-day situation in France is broadly similar to that in Britain although in some respects it is improving more rapidly. Germany stands out as benefiting from its tradition of Meister training: German foremen take on logistical tasks and responsibilities in relation to, for example, cost control which are not tackled by the great majority of foremen in Britain and France. The latter often require an additional tier of intermediate management for these tasks. The additional technical and organisational training acquired by the German Meister enables them to work closely and effectively with technical support services such as work-scheduling, machine-programming and liaison with customers.

Although short training courses for those promoted to foremen are frequently provided in Britain and France, what is presently offered by most firms is not adequate to fulfill the needs set out above and not in any way comparable to the depth and breadth of the Meister course. We concluded that very few British firms had developed a feasible strategy for upgrading foremen capacities. In France, innovative strategies to upgrade skills at this level were noted in half of all firms visited; the French strategy is to solve the immediate problem by appointing highly-qualified technicians to supervisor positions, and to hope that the current rapid upgrading of work-force qualifications (as analysed in a recent Institute study) (27) will provide a satisfactory source for foreman recruitment in the future. Other strategies encountered include the introduction of cell-structures and team-working. Changes in French firms appear to have been facilitated by substantially greater foreman/unskilled pay-differentials than in Britain, and greater flexibility in redefining structures of responsibility and providing rewards appropriate for more highly-qualified staff.

In Britain, fear of disturbing the hierarchy of differential payments appears to be holding back medium-sized and larger firms from paying technically-qualified staff sufficiently to attract them to supervisory positions. Not surprisingly, we frequently heard that newly-trained technically-qualified staff in large firms had left for smaller firms which were more flexible in their approach.

Employer-financing of foreman training in Britain has not produced skills at the appropriate level, in contrast to the very adequate supply of Meister in Germany where public authorities and the individual share the direct costs. Understandable fears of poaching of highly-trained staff have held many British and French firms back from investing heavily in their own staff. French firms seem often to have decided that it is more cost-effective to appoint those who have qualified with the equivalent of a Higher National Diploma (their BTS) to foreman posts, than to bear the heavy costs of upgrading existing foremen to similar levels. The options in Britain seem to be either for firms to pay more for high levels of skill and encourage individuals to make their own investment as in Germany, or for greater government subsidies to firms to finance the continuing training of some of their employees to higher levels. The first of these options is more likely to lead to a response in accord with market pressures for skills as is demonstrated by the case of Germany. However, the much lower numbers of British foremen with craft qualifications must also be borne in mind. The pool of likely candidates who might put themselves forward for self-financed further training is consequently much smaller in Britain than in Germany and the second solution (public subsidies for employer financing of foreman training) might be necessary for some time to ensure an adequate supply.

In the case of technicians, the situation on standards and supply looks very different from that of foremen. British standards of training stand up well in comparison to France and Germany, and the current annual supply of higher-technician skills is somewhat greater in Britain. Of concern to Britain is the lengthy training process and the proportion of costs carried by employers in comparison to France and Germany. Germany appears to satisfy the needs of a technologically advanced economy at technician level by using craft-trained employees on many technician-level tasks and providing for a small proportion of skilled craft workers to receive an additional technical training on top of that undertaken during their initial apprenticeship; their system produces a very different and more practically-oriented mix of skills than exists in Britain.

In Britain, almost all the training at the levels considered in this investigation is carried out as a result of decisions made by individual firms to invest in their employees' skills. Our analysis and visits for this investigation confirm that, with few exceptions, the present arrangement provides an inappropriate mix of skills at intermediate level in Britain when the outcomes are compared, in particular, with Germany but also, to a lesser extent, with France. The greatest deficiencies in Britain are at craft and foreman level. This deficiency not only has serious consequences for shopfloor skills but also lowers standards of firstline supervision and inhibits the efficient provision of technical services. Our study makes clear that good craft skills make an important contribution to the competence of foremen and can form the basis for carrying out a range of technical tasks and for technician training.

Signalling of skill-needs to individuals by the adjustment of wage differentials together with public support for training courses and the trainee's investment of his own time in the financing of intermediate skills training as in Germany appear to result in closer matching of training to skill needs.

Conclusions

British employers bear a higher proportion of the costs of technician training than do employers in France and Germany. Even so, Britain produces proportionally as many technicians as France and considerably more than Germany while neglecting the cheaper craft training. Lack of sufficient craft skills increases the demand for technicians to |plug the gaps'. Our study suggests that British employers could easily shift part of the cost of technician and craft training to colleges of Further Education and to the individual by recruiting trainee technicians and craft workers at 18 (instead of at 16) after they have obtained a BTEC or SCOTVEC (Ordinary) National qualification by full-time study in a FE college. Employer funds at present devoted to training 16 to 18 year olds could be switched to the (cheaper) craft-training area to provide flexible training and upgrading to craft level to employees of all ages where the deficiency in Britain is particularly acute. Increased supplies of craft-level employees would, in turn, allow the more effective deployment of technicians on technical support functions instead of (as at present) on shopfloor |trouble-shooting'.

The implication for government policy in Britain seems to be that the current exclusive reliance on employers to diagnose and meet skill needs in a cost-effective manner needs to be reconsidered. Current arrangements result in an underproduction by firms of much-needed craft skills relative to the production of more costly technician skills. A strategy for creating a more appropriate mix is urgently needed; the evidence from this comparative study is that the sum of employers' training efforts will do no more than provide the skills to |plug the gaps' in British manufacturing. Deep-rooted, nationwide deficiencies require a strategic response formulated and applied nationally. Training and Enterprise Councils are well-equipped to respond to local deficiencies but not to national ones. Government and individuals should bear a larger share of the cost and reap larger returns to training in order to achieve the training effort which can lead to the comprehensive upgrading of skills required for economic survival.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to acknowledge first the companies in all three countries whose managers and other employees gave so generously of their time to assist us in our enquiries. In addition, we are grateful for advice from: M Bailey, Watford College; A Richards, Bolton Institute of Higher Education; T Wilson-Hooper, N Burgess, Bromley College of Technology; R Whittaker, B Peerless, Middlesex Polytechnic; H Ringhandt, Staatliche Technikerschule Berlin; H Strey, Techniker Fachschule, Munchen; I Drexel, Institut fur Sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung, Munchen; J P Henri, Centre de Perfectionnement des Cadres, Roubaix; M Lemoine, Mecagim, Paris; J L Lepinary Centre AFORP-Drancy, Paris; B Vandeputte Comite Intertextile d'Apprentissage, Roubaix.

J-C Rabier, Laboratoire de Recherche en Economie Appliquee, Universite de Paris X and U Adler, IFO, Munchen acted as consultants to the project. Their help in arranging visits and providing guidance and advice was invaluable. We have greatly benefited from the advice and encouragement of colleagues, in particular S J Paris, Ray Barrell and other colleagues at the National Institute. We also gratefully acknowledge the comments and suggestions from two referees and of the Training Agency. Two seminars organised by the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) provided valuable opportunities for discussion with European colleagues engaged in similar work.

NOTES

(1) A Daly, DMWN Hitchens and K Wagner, |Productivity, machinery and skills in a sample of British and German

manufacturing plants: results of a pilot enquiry', National Institute Economic Review, no. 111 February 1985. H

Steedman, K Wagner, |A second look at productivity, machinery and skills in Britain and Germany', National Institute

Economic Review, no. 122 November 1987. H Steedman, K Wagner, |Productivity, machinery and skills: clothing

manufacture in Britain and Germany', National Institute Economic Review, no. 128 May 1989. (2) This report constitutes the third in a series of studies of intermediate skills in Britain, France and Germany. The first

study dealt mainly with quantitative comparisons of flows of technically-qualified manpower and the international

matching of qualifications. SJ Prais, |Qualified manpower in engineering: Britain and other industrially advanced

countries', National Institute Economic Review, February 1989. The second reported on special analyses of the French

and British Labour Force Surveys in terms of the stocks of different categories of intermediate skill and different

qualification levels - foremen, technicians and shop-floor workers. H. Steedman, |Improvements in workforce qualifications:

Britain and France 1979-88', National Institute Economic Review, August 1990. (3) The field-work for this study was carried out between November 1988 and November 1990. Throughout this report

|Germany' should be taken as referring to the former |Federal Republic of Germany'. (4) For survey evidence of the extent of use of microelectronics-based technology in British, German and French

manufacturing industry in 1983, see J Northcott et. al., Microelectronics in Industry, Policy Studies Institute, London,

1985, pp 53, 67, 68. The German lead over both Britain and France appears to be greatest in the use of CNC machine

tools and the implementation of advanced machine and process control systems. For a detailed appraisal of survey

evidence relating to the age and technical sophistication of machinery in the metal-working industries of the leading

industrial nations, see SJ Prais |Some international comparisons of the age of the machine-stock', The Journal of

Industrial Economics, Vol XXXIV, No. 3, March 1986. More recently the Amdahl Executive Institute claims that |West

German companies have the advantage over their British, French and Italian competitors in using information

technology (IT) for competitive advantage', |Clues to success: Information Technology Strategies for Tomorrow', 1990. (5) In all the spinning plants we visited where CNC automated machinery had been installed, supervisors were required to

make very quick decisions about orders of priority when several machines required attention or adjustment at once.

Similarly, in many engineering shops the very different production speeds of CNC and conventional machines coupled

with moves towards greater product variety and smaller batch sizes clearly made substantial demands upon the

organisational capacities of shopfloor supervisors. (6) This change is confirmed by a recent British survey of supervisors in 16 industrial and commercial organisations. The

level of skill required of supervisors was found to be increasing in (i) checking, assessing, discriminating (ii) complex

procedures (iii) ordering, prioritising planning (iv) diagnosing, analysing, solving (v) adapting to new ideas, systems. R

S Kandola, N A Banerji, M A Greene of Pearn Kandola Downs, |The Role of Supervisors in Human Resource

Development' Training Agency 1989. (7) C Smith, Technical workers: Class, labour and trade unionism, Macmillan 1987 p.91. It is related there that in the

decade 1963-73 the |typical occupations' occupied by TASS (technicians union) members expanded from around 50

to some 400. However, Smith also documents the impact of technical change on engineering technicians, the decline of

occupations such as tracers, rate-fixers and the rise of part-programmers and CAD/CAM designers. (8) During our visits we observed this distinction between supervisory and technical roles everywhere except in a small

number of French plants where some programming and first-line maintenance functions had been explicitly merged

with shopfloor supervisory responsibilities. In some German plants Meister-qualified foremen worked closely with

specialist programmers and work planners but did not themselves carry out these tasks; even this level of technical

involvement depended on the more routine supervisory tasks being delegated to charge-hands (Vorarbeiter). (9) The consequences of low levels of technical knowledge and skills for foremen's performance in a high-technology

environment were highlighted in the French spinning plants we visited. Considerable efforts had been made to help the

foremen acquire the level of technical expertise necessary to |speak the same language' as the maintenance

technician in charge of the |state of the art' CNC machinery then being installed. Despite updating courses, some

foremen in the French plants had been unable to cope and alternative (to shopfloor) recruitment to foreman posts from

those with higher technician qualifications had been introduced by the management as a consequence. In the German

spinning plants the very thorough training of the Meister-qualified foreman resulted in his having the technical

background necessary to remedy machinery faults. However, it was considered inefficient to require him to carry out

maintenance tasks which would have interfered with effective supervision; his training equipped him to localise faults

correctly, to call the appropriate maintenance team, to estimate the time of repair and plan and change the production

schedule accordingly. (10) The apprenticeship training for maintenance workers in Germany in spinning (textile) starts with training as a machine

operator (e.g. Textilmaschinenfuhrer-Spinnerei) for two years. They can then continue with a third year to become

Textilmechaniker (eg. Spinnerei) so that all skilled mechanics have worked as skilled operators. Consequently, the

Meister who have gone through the three year apprenticeship have a strong background in both maintenance and

machine operation even before they undertake further technical training at Meisterschule. (11) See SJ Prais, K Wagner, |Productivity and Management: the Training of Foremen in Britain and Germany', National

Institute Economic Review, no. 123, February 1988. (12) In H Steedman, 1990, op cit, it was pointed out that the proportion of workers and foremen qualified to craft level was

higher in France than in Britain and that the supply of such skills was increasing faster in France than in Britain. However,

both France and Britain can be seen to have lower levels of skill in the manufacturing labour-force relative to

Germany. (13) In Germany, it is important to distinguish further between those employed as foremen (Meister) and those holding

Meister certificates ie. who have taken and passed Meister certificate examinations. (14) In both Britain and France the age structure of foremen engaged in manufacturing is similar: only 23 per cent are under

35 (compared to 40 per cent under 35 for total over 15 population in France, and 36 per cent under 35 for total over 16

population in Great Britain). The corresponding figure for Germany is 20 per cent. The mean age of foremen as recorded

in the censuses is 43 for France, 44 for Britain and 47 for Germany. Census 1981, Economic activity in Great Britain

Table 13, 4A, OPCS 1984. Recensement general 1982, Formation, Table 07 INSEE, 1984, Statistisches Bundesamt,

Fachserie 1, Reihe 4 1.2, 1987. (15) In the two British case-study firms analysed by Thurley and Wirdenius, all foremen had been internally promoted from

the shop-floor. K Thurley, H Wirdenius, Supervision: A Reappraisal, Heinemann 1973. Similar patterns for the

recruitment of foremen in manufacturing industries have been reported for France. A study carried out in 1986-7 of 26

plants drawn from engineering, chemical, pharmaceutical and construction industries noted that an average of 70 per

cent of all foremen in the plants investigated had been promoted from the shopfloor. F Eyraud, A Jobert, P. Rozenblatt, M

Tallard, Les classification dans l'Enterprise, Centre d'Etudes de l'Emploi/IRIS-Travail et Societe/LEST, October 1988.

p.94. In a study of French, British and German foremen carried out between 1977 and 1979 in 9 plants in the three

countries, |In all countries, practically all the personnel in supervision have come up through the works'. M Maurice, A

Sorge, M Warner, |Societal Differences in Organising Manufacturing Units: A comparison of France, West Germany

and Great Britain' in Organization Studies 1980 p.76. (16) This finding for France and Germany is confirmed by the contrast identified by Konig and Muller |It is also characteristic

of the category of foreman that in France it can be reached not only from the skilled worker category as in Germany, but

also from that of semi-skilled workers'. W Konig and W Muller |Educational systems and labour markets as determinants

of worklife mobility in France and West Germany: a comparison of men's career mobility, 1965-1970', European

Sociological Review Vol. 2, No. 2. September 1986 p.87. (17) In France, all those undertaking higher technician (BTS, DUT) training spend a three-month period in work placement,

but are unlikely to acquire craft skills. A very small number follow BTS or DUT courses on day release. In Britain, most of

those obtaining an HNC qualification study on day release while in employment as technician trainees. However, their

training route is differentiated from that of craft trainees and most practical work is likely to be in technical support

departments rather than in direct production. (18) This finding is consistent with Sorge et. al. who found a greater tendency in large German plants to promote craft

operators to staff status as programming technicians to avoid machine downtime because of lengthy programming. A

Sorge, G Hartmann, M Warner, I Nicholas Microelectronics and manpower in manufacturing, Gower 1983 chs.5 and 8. (19) For a detailed analysis see S J Prais and K Wagner, 1988, op cit. (20) T Clauss, |Zur beruflichen Situation von Meister und Technikern', Berichte zur Beruflichen Bildung, Heft 113, 1990. (21) The contrast between France and Germany with respect to access to technician posts in the two countries has been

analyzed by Drexel in terms of a pattern of vertical access in Germany (from the shop-floor) and horizontal access in

France (from full-time education). The analysis sought to determine whether access to German technician positions

was moving towards the French model thus restricting the career prospects of craft workers in Germany. Drexel

concludes that there is very little evidence that this change is taking place in Germany. I Drexel, Der Schwierige Weg zu

einem neuem gesellschaftlichen Qualifikationstyp, in Journal fur Sozialforschung, Heft 3, Campus Verlag 1989. (22) Recent government initiatives have modified this situation in some limited respects. The Youth Training Scheme (YTS)

subsidy was allowed to offset first and second year apprentice wages in industries such as engineering until its abolition

in 1991. Reduced amounts are now available to TECs (Training and Enterprise Councils) to subsidise employer training

of young people and vouchers made available to young people to cover off-the-job training costs are Being piloted. (23) See I Jones, |Skill Formation and Pay Relativities' in GDN Worswick, Education and Economic Performance, Gower,

1985. (24) Estimates of average technician training costs derived from I Jones, |Apprentice Training Costs in British Manufacturing

Establishments: Some New Evidence', British Journal of Industrial Relations Vol. xxiv, No. 3 1986, pp. 349-350. The

findings of a large differential in net costs between technician and craft training programmes is broadly in line with surveys

of training costs carried out by the Engineering Industry Training Board in the 1970s (Jones, 1986, pp. 354-5). More

extensive and up-to-date work in this field is urgently needed. (25) For earlier analyses see L Needleman. |The Structure of industrial earnings in seven Western European countries', in

Controlling Industrial Economies: Essays in Honour of C T Saunders (ed. S F Frowen, Macmillan), 1983; C Saunders

and D Marsden, Pay inequalities in the European Communities (Butterworth), 1981; and S J Prais, K Wagner, op. cit. (26) S J Prais, K Wagner (1988), op, cit. p.40. (27) H Steedman (1990) op. cit.

APPENDIX I COMPARISON OF TECHNICIAN QUALIFICATIONS: BRITAIN, FRANCE AND GERMANY

Full-time technician courses in all three countries last for a period of two years. In all cases part-time study can also lead to a technician qualification. In Germany, part-time study for a Techniker qualification extends over a period of four years, double that of the full-time qualification. In France, the very small numbers who take the qualifications with part-time study still manage to take the same examinations as the full-time students while studying only part-time; however, they work throughout the year without the benefit of academic vacations. In Britain the part-time HNC qualification has the same time duration as the full-time HND (two years); however, it is recognised in Britain that the HNC does not cover as much ground as the HND whereas in both France and Germany the full-time routes lead to identical qualifications. (a)

In all three countries all formal instruction for technician qualification is college-based, in France and Britain in institutions of higher education and in Germany in institutions which operate within the vocational field. All three countries insist on a number of written examinations as a condition for the award of a technician qualification. Although all courses include elements of general education, requirements vary markedly: in Germany, 400 out of 2400 hours are spent on English, German and economic and social issues, in France, 4 out of 34 weekly study hours are spent on French and a foreign language. In Britain, courses in English and a foreign language are offered in many colleges but are not compulsory for the HNC qualification. Although these subjects are examined in France, it is possible to obtain the BTS while not reaching pass marks in the general subjects. The same is not true of Germany where passes in general subjects are included among the requirements for the award of Techniker qualifications.

Final examination papers from the three main qualifications described above, the French (BTS), the German (Techniker) and the British Higher National Certificate and Higher National Diploma were obtained from colleges in the three countries. These were then translated as necessary and discussed with lecturers in engineering in colleges in the three countries. In each case lecturers were asked to give an opinion as to whether their own students either would be able to tackle a paper from the two other countries as it stood, or alternatively whether their students would be able to answer such questions if their course had covered that ground. One of the difficulties of comparing qualifications at this level is that the three courses vary in the degree of specialisation that is required in particular technologies. In particular, lecturers in both Britain and Finance considered that the British HNC and HND qualifications were more general and theoretical, that is, were less narrowly specialised on particular technologies and less practically oriented than the respective French and German qualifications. In the three countries all discussants felt that level of technical competence aimed at in technician courses was fairly similar. None of the three qualifications considered was felt to be |out of line' with those in other countries although, inevitably, there was no exact correspondence between papers. For example a control technology theory paper from a Munich technical college, forming part of their examinations for the Techniker qualification, contained some questions which British lecturers considered could be answered by students on the lower level Ordinary National Diploma courses, whereas other questions were definitely at the Higher National level. Some rather specific questions on this paper were considered to be the sort of topic that would be studied at first or second year degree level; German and British experts commented that the German papers concentrated on a narrower range of technical competence and consequently went more deeply into certain topics than did similar British courses which were broader and less geared to a single set of technical applications.

On French BTS courses most examination papers tended to be narrowly focussed on practical applications in the same way as the German papers were. However, the BTS mathematics papers were of a more general nature and were universally agreed to be making somewhat greater demands than the equivalent British and German papers. Those British students who had taken mathematics courses over and above the bare minimum required for a Higher National award might be able to cope with the French papers. However, the mathematics taught for the German Techniker qualification is very much geared to practical applications (algebra, exponential functions, geometry and trigonometry) and German experts were of the opinion that French mathematics papers would be too theoretical for the German students.

Several points need to be borne in mind when considering the contrast between the greater German specialisation on practical applications and the greater British breadth and theoretical content at higher technician level. Firstly it was pointed out to us that the mathematics content in Britain (as in France) took account of the fact that some students aim to continue their studies at degree level; consequently much of the mathematics was of the sort that would be required if they were to be able to follow a degree course. German students would not normally be able to go straight onto a degree course after completing a Techniker qualification but would be required to follow additional bridging courses; for this reason it is not necessary for the mathematics to be so geared towards further study at degree level. Another difficulty put to us by lecturers in British colleges concerning specialisation on specific applications was related to the number of different industries from which HNC and HND students in one British college might be drawn. An expert from a German technical college considered that those completing the German technician courses were likely to be quicker in adapting themselves to their tasks in the workplace than the British Higher National students i.e. would require a shorter initial training period in the company. However, the broader theoretical grounding received by higher technicians in Britain should benefit them when they were subsequently required to adapt to changes in technology and in the range of tasks that they performed.

All the technician-level qualifications mentioned are recognised as being at sub-degree level in all three countries. In Britain and France the courses are recognised as falling within the general field of higher education; in Germany they are recognised as part of vocational (Fach) training rather than as part of higher education. For a number of students in both Britain and France, technician level study is used as a stepping stone to degree level study. In Germany, progression from technician-level courses to higher levels of study, e.g. degree-level engineering courses, requires a bridging course of between four and six months additional study of German, English, maths and social science; examinations must be passed in all these subjects as a condition of entry.

In summary, the balance struck between general and specific technical knowledge in higher technician qualifications differs between the three countries. The German qualification concentrates on specific and practical applications within a general framework laid down nationally. The French qualification, although following a fairly detailed nationally laid-down syllabus, also contains a great deal of practical applications; mathematics tends to be more theoretical in the French BTS and of a higher degree of difficulty than the science and physics required. In both France and Britain higher technician courses are much more oriented towards subsequent degree-level study than in Germany where the emphasis is on progression from craft to technician levels.

NOTE

(a) For a detailed comparison of formal qualifications at this level in five European countries see G. Rothe, Berufsbildingsstufen in mittleren

Bereich, Materialen der Berufs-und Arbeitspadagogik, Bank 9, Villingen, 1989.