If you were to ask most assessors to tell you what their biggest gripe relating to assessment is, 9 times out of 10 they will refer to the process of assessing Business Ethics (BE) right up there towards the top of their lists.

Historically, BE has garnered several complaints / concerns, including;

1. What kind of examples must our trainees document?
2. Why can’t we just assume they have these skills if there are no indications to the contrary?
3. How on earth do you use the current rating scale to rate something like BE 1 (Honesty)? Surely, you are either honest, or you are not?  You can’t be “Honest with guidance”!
4. Why is the subject referred to as BE? Only 2 of the tasks relate to ethics and the rest relate predominantly to professional values…

Hopefully the significant revisions to these BE tasks and to the manner in which they are assessed will go a long way towards finding solutions to these concerns.

1. BE is now referred to as Professional Conduct (PC):
   
   Much more in keeping with the predominant nature of tasks included in this subject, the name of the subject will now be changed to PC.
   
   This recognises that the core emphasis of these tasks is on demonstrating professional conduct. Being a member of SAICA requires the whole-hearted adoption of the Code of Professional Conduct.  The 5 fundamental principles around which this Code are centered are key to what it means to actually be a member of SAICA.

   Trainee accountants will need to show that they understand – and live on a day-to-day basis – these principles.  These new PC tasks do not reflect skills that can be learnt or acquired.  They reflect a way of being that is expected of all SAICA members…

2. PC tasks are no longer rated:
   
   The SAICA rating scale of 1 to 4 will NOT apply to the assessment of PC tasks. Trainees will still be required to provide evidence that they live these values / principles BUT the evidence will not be rated / scored in the way the evidence for the other professional skills are.
   
   Examples submitting by trainees as evidence of their understanding of, and living these values will form the basis of a discussion between the trainee and evaluator at every ANA.  Through these examples and the subsequent discussions arising therefrom, the evaluator will be in a position whereby they can determine the extent to which they believe the trainee subscribes to these values.

3. PC evidence no longer needs to be VERIFIABLE:
   
   BE evidence, like all the other professional skills evidence had to be POSITIVE (so something that was actually done), SPECIFIC (with reference to a particular event – and not broad and general), and VERIFIABLE (capable of being confirmed by a Reviewer).

   While examples submitted for the new PC tasks will still need to be positive and specific, they DO NOT necessarily need to also be verifiable. Remember that these examples form the basis for a discussion around these values – it is perhaps not so much the example that is important but rather the discussion around whether or not, and if so, how that example demonstrates the principle.

4. The Reviewer role changes to one of quality control rather than the rating of competence:
   
   Reviewers will still need to examine examples submitted by trainees demonstrating their buy-in to these fundamental principles. Reviewers will however no longer need to rate the PC evidence, like they do for the other professional skills.  Instead, Reviewers will be required to comment on the degree to which they believe the evidence meets the requirements of SPECIFIC and POSITIVE (and VERIFIABLE, if appropriate).

5. Minimum requirements in terms of documenting examples apply to PC tasks too:
   
   The existing requirement that trainees document at least one example of a professional skill during every 2 month period now specifically applies to the PC tasks too. This therefore means that trainees need to document at least 1 example of BOTH a PC task and another professional skills task (so from the ML, PA, or IT tasks) during every 2 months.

Hopefully with the change in emphasis towards showing that they understand, and live, these fundamental values, rather than seeing these tasks as skills that can be learnt – and the associated change in the way the evidence is recorded and evaluated, these significant changes to the existing BE tasks will no longer make these tasks the primary concern for assessors from January 2016 onwards.

The post Understanding the new 2016 Professional Conduct requirements: appeared first on LTS.

Change number 1:  Associate General Accountant – AGA (SA) is launched.

This is quite a significant change to the regulations because all prior reference to CA (SA) needed to be removed. AGA trainees obtain identical practical training experience to CA trainees and from January all references in the regulations to trainees will refer to both AGA and CA trainees.

Obviously with the training programmes being identical, so too will be the related assessment processes used to measure their competence. The introduction of this new qualification will thus have no direct impact on the requirements for assessment, although it does establish 2 different “groups” of trainees – those studying to only get their BCom degree and those studying further.

It is important to thus note that regardless of whether the trainee is a CA trainee or an AGA trainee, the Training Regulations apply equally to both groups. This includes the requirements (and duty) to initiate and complete assessment instruments timeously and correctly.

Change number 2:  Removal of group office structures:

All individual office locations offering a training contract will now need to become independently accredited stand-alone offices. National administrative structures (including TCMS administration, payroll administration, and retaining their one national training officer) are still however permissible.

The requirement for each stand-alone Training Office to have its own resident assessors remains.

It is important to note that where a group of Training Offices choose to field one national training officer, there are specific requirements regarding assessors at the stand-alone office that need to be met:

1. The assessor must be an employee or partner of the Training Office.
2. The assessor must ordinarily reside within a reasonable distance from the office (this suggests that they should be capable of commuting to the Training Office on a daily basis).
3. The ratio of 1 assessor to 15 trainees (maximum) must still be maintained at each stand-alone office.

Change number 3:  Accreditation for electives can now lapse.

Historically, regulation 5.1 had a Training Office’s accreditation status automatically lapse if that office failed to register any trainee accountants (on any elective) for a continuous period of 12 months.

The new regulation 5.2 now states that in addition to the above, if a Training Office fails to register any trainees on a particular elective (where that office is accredited for more than one elective) for a continuous period of 12 months, the accreditation of that “unused” elective lapses.

This is important for Training Offices who have obtained accreditation for additional electives.  Should the office fail to use these electives, the accreditation of that elective will lapse and the office will need to reapply to SAICA in the future should it wish to reinstitute that elective.

Change number 4:  Increased consequences for offices that fail to meet the accreditation criteria.

Historically, a Training Office that failed an accreditation site visit (note that this does not apply to self-evaluations) – i.e., scored an overall rating of 4 for that visit – had to send all its assessors on the next SAICA Assessment Refresher Workshop.

Regulation 7.7 has now been expanded to include the requirement that in addition to the assessors having to attend the Assessment Refresher Workshop, all that office’s trainees now need to attend the annual SAICA Trainee Assessment Workshop too.

This is quite a significant change and can have big implications both financially and time-wise for offices that fail their accreditation site visits.

Change number 5:  Big change to the extensions process.

Historically, if a trainee got to the end of their contract and they were still not competent in all the tasks, or if they had not yet met their core hours, firms had to enter into an extension period of 6 months. This period of 6 months was fixed and was in no way negotiable – even if the trainee demonstrated their missing competencies or achieved their core hours early on in the extension period.  At the end of the 6 month extension the firm could then (at their complete discretion) extend this extension for up to a further 6 months if they wanted or needed to.

Regulation 23.1 now allows for only one extension. This extension must be for a minimum of 6 months, but can be for up to a maximum of 12 months. There is however one very fundamental change; Regulation 23.2 now allows a contract to be discharged prior to the end of the extension period if a trainee has met their core hours or has demonstrated their competence.

Offices do however need to be careful here; Regulation 23.3 now requires the cancellation of a contract when the trainee fails to demonstrate competence by the end of the extension period. There is no opportunity to offer a 2^nd extension period like there used to be when a trainee was still not yet competent.

The post The January 2016 Training Regulations and their impact on assessment appeared first on LTS.

Challenge number 1: Insufficient number of TSRs / PSRs being generated:

SAICA impose a minimum completion requirement of at least one TSR and one PSR entry during every 2 month period. There are still a number of trainees within training offices that fail to meet even this minimum requirement.

Trainees need to become more accountable for meeting this requirement and should actually be seeking to submit much more evidence than just this minimum requirement. Trainees who fail to meet this minimum requirement are in breach of the training regulations (through not complying with their duties set out in Annexure 7 – duty 2.7) and trainees who consistently fail to meet these requirements can actually have their training contracts cancelled at the discretion of the training office (regulation 22.2).

I am constantly amazed by the number of trainees who do not take responsibility for meeting this requirement and the training office is the one who suffers during the SAICA review visit.

LTS provides our client with reports that enable them to easily and quickly identify trainees who have not met these requirements so that they might be chased up.

Challenge number 2: Inappropriate evidence submitted in support of PSR ratings:

Many trainees fail to provide adequate evidence in support of their PSR ratings.

SAICA require that this evidence is:

1. Positive – i.e. represents something the trainee actually did (and not what they didn’t do).
2. Specific – i.e. detail about what the trainee actually did to demonstrate their ability (and not broad sweeping general statements of competence!).
3. Verifiable – i.e. is capable of being validated by the reviewer.

It is common for trainees to record evidence such as “I displayed honesty throughout the engagement” or “I am a good team player”. Neither of these examples are acceptable as evidence in support of a rating of competence. What specifically did the trainee actually do that indicated they were honest or were a good team player?

Why do reviewers rate this kind of unacceptable evidence? Surely if reviewers are doing their jobs properly they would reject evidence that is not positive, specific, and verifiable? Please refer to challenge number 3 below for more about this.

LTS support is able to “roll back” a PSR if a reviewer requests so. This would enable trainees to re-draft their sub-standard evidence to the reviewer’s satisfaction.

Challenge number 3: Inconsistent understanding of assessment principles within the office:

There still appear to be large gaps in the understanding of principles between trainees, reviewers, and evaluators.

In general I believe:

1. Trainees are taught about the assessment instruments and rating scale too early on. This is typically covered during the firm’s induction programme, which is typically in advance of the trainee having done any actual work. Trainees thus seldom have a context within which to appreciate assessments, and when they get to complete their first TSRs and PSRs it is often many weeks after induction and they have forgotten everything they were taught about the documents and process – leading to wasted time.
   
   Why not deliver separate training on the completion of these documents just before you first expect trainees to complete them?
2. Reviewers and evaluators don’t always understand their roles and responsibilities. Trainees get induction training and assessors have to go through assessor training, but what about reviewers and evaluators?
   
   I believe it critical that reviewers and evaluators receive specific instructions regarding their roles and responsibilities. Evaluators rely on reviewers getting it right and assessors rely on evaluators getting it right, so why are these role-players not receiving adequate instruction about what is expected from them?
   
   If reviewers were taught about the nature of acceptable PSR evidence, for example, surely they would then prohibit unacceptable evidence from accumulating?

Conclusion:

If training offices can get the above 3 aspects right, I have no doubt that their assessment processes will flow a lot more smoothly and efficiently, and when SAICA come visiting, review findings should be a lot more pleasant than they might otherwise currently be…

The post The 3 biggest challenges firms face during assessment appeared first on LTS.

Changes to the training programme from January 2016:

Given that SAICA had to respond to the latest Competency Framework in its training programme anyway, they saw this as an opportunity to also reconsider some of the practical challenges presented by the existing (2010) training programme. The amended 2016 training programme thus incorporates:

1. Updates to the content to respond to the revised Competency Framework.
2. Modifications to the content to make existing tasks more practicable.

While there are a few new tasks in response to the revised Competency Framework, the majority of the changes are actually to the existing tasks. In summary, the following main changes have been made:

1. Inclusion of a few new tasks, now regarded as important to an entry-level CA.
2. Rewording of existing tasks to make them easier to understand.
3. Substantial revisiting of the verbs used to describe tasks to ensure greater consistency across tasks and also to assist in making it clearer as to what needs to be done.
4. Collapsing existing tasks into 1 new task where this was felt to be appropriate.
5. Removing tasks that are no longer believed to be practicable.
6. A substantial reworking of the existing Business Ethics tasks. Business Ethics will be referred to as “Professional Conduct” going forward and the new tasks will centre on the fundamental principles in the SAICA Code of Professional Conduct. Trainees will thus now have to demonstrate that they understand and “live” these principles.
7. A substantial reworking of the Auditing and Assurance Residual tasks to make them more relevant in the context of a training contract being completed in commerce and industry.

Changes to the assessment process from January 2016:

Given that the training programme has undergone a significant rewrite (and that the assessment instruments would thus have to be updated anyway), it made sense for SAICA to also use this opportunity to reconsider the status of the assessment process and make improvements where possible.
Possibly the biggest assessment-related change from January 2016 will be the way that the Professional Conduct tasks (the old “Business Ethics”) will be assessed. These tasks will no longer be rated in terms of a trainee’s capability. The new tasks reflect values rather than capabilities, and SAICA no longer believes it appropriate to be rating these values. Trainees will instead need to provide examples throughout their contract (similar to what they have already been doing) to demonstrate that they understand and are “living” these values. These examples submitted will then form the basis for an evaluator and assessor decision regarding the adequate demonstration of these values by a trainee.

In addition to the above, the most significant changes to the assessment instruments will include the following:

1. All the tasks will now need to be updated to reflect the new competencies.
2. The PSR and ANA have both been changed to accommodate the new Professional Conduct assessment process. Evidence of this will be documented in the PSR and will accumulate in the ANA.
3. Both the TSR and PSR will now require trainees and reviewers to include reference to the SAICA decision tree path label in support of their ratings.
4. The TSR will require additional information about the length of the assignment being rated.
5. The ANA will now require the documentation of an expected level of competence for that trainee at that point in time. This will provide useful feedback to the trainee in terms of how they stack up against where they should be at that point in time.

LTS and these changes?

The LTS development team has already been hard at work for several months now incorporating these changes into the system so that your migration to these new tasks and processes will be as seamless as possible. LTS will continue to be in contact with our clients throughout this process, keeping them informed of the changes and the migration process.

The post What exactly is going to change from 1 January 2016? appeared first on LTS.

There are usually 2 major “fears” that we face when it comes to changing to a new system:

1. How do we manage the transition?
2. How do we learn to use the new system?

At LTS, we understand these concerns and have mechanisms in place to ease these fears.

Managing the transition:

We employ dedicated help staff to guide you through the process of moving on to LTS. You will be able to speak to a live, clued-up person at the other end of the phone who will do everything they can to assist you in making the move as painless as possible.

The process of signing up is really simple:

1. Give us a list of your staff who will need to use the system, and what profile(s) you require each of them to access (trainee, reviewer, evaluator, assessor, or training officer). We have a standard template that we will send to you to facilitate this process. Our system accommodates multiple electives within the same firm so all you need do is let us know which trainees are registered on which electives, and we will take it from there.
2. Once we have registered your company and staff (this usually only takes a few hours at the most), we will send everyone their usernames and passwords and they will be able to start using the system immediately to generate new TSRs and PSRs.
3. To capture an opening balance for your first LTS ANA, we will need to input your trainees’ latest ANA overall ratings. This is also really easy. Once we have loaded your trainees against their nominated elective, we will generate an Excel spreadsheet for each trainee and send it to you. You will then simply populate this spreadsheet with the closing overall ratings from the last ANA and send it back to us. We will upload the spreadsheet and, hey presto, your opening ratings for your first ANA in our system are good to go! Note that your trainees don’t need to have this step completed before they start using the system.

We also send you detailed instructions around the above-mentioned process, so don’t feel overwhelmed, we’ve got you covered.

Learning how to use the new system:

The LTS user interface is really straight forward. When logging in, you simply select which profile you would like to access (trainee, reviewer, evaluator, assessor, or training officer) and the system then gives you all the functionality you will need for that profile. Switching profiles can be done within the system – there is no need to log out and log back in again.

We have training manuals available for download from within the system that provide clear step-by-step instructions around the completion of TSRs, PSRs, and ANAs.

We also have video screencasts available within the system that visibly show you how to create TSRs and PSRs, review TSRs and PSRs, finalise TSRs and PSRs, create ANAs, and complete ANAs.

And last but not least, we have our dedicated help desk that has been known to deal with up to 400 queries and requests in one day, while still maintaining an average resolution time of only 20 minutes!

Make the move to the leading online assessment solution in South Africa. It really is easier than you think!

The post Switching to LTS is easier than you think appeared first on LTS.

Emphasis on the work done by the Evaluators and Assessors becomes increasingly important. It is vital that the decision makers have a simple yet effective tool to make the all-important call on competency per outcome. A simple but comprehensive extended view on the ANA will enable assessors and evaluators alike to make a more informed assessment. This feature will be available towards the end of 2014. Your next ANA cycle will have this ability.

The post Simple is always better. appeared first on LTS.

LTS clients require cutting edge solution platforms to accommodate their various training programs. Working closely with our clients, LTS developed and is developing assessment tools for CIMA, ACCA, IIA, Compliance Institute and the Risk Institute.

The LTS learnership assessment platform proofs to be flexible and robust enough to accommodate different institutes and their specific requirements.

If you require any information on our new service offerings please contact us for a discussion on this.

The post Inroads into other Learnerships is Southern Africa. appeared first on LTS.

After long and careful deliberation ICAZ choose LTS to partner with to provide Zimbabwean Chartered Accountant Training Offices with an assessment solution. From July 2014 onwards all Training Offices within ICAZ will have access to the state of the art LTS system. Special attention was given to accommodate ICAZ requirements.

ICAZ set up a team to facilitate the roll out of the LTS online assessment tool. For any further assistance you are welcome to contact:

Joylyn Kanukai
joylynm@icaz.org.zw

Felicity Karekwaivanane
felicityg@icaz.org.zw

The post ICAZ and LTS partnership appeared first on LTS.