A Scoping Report into the Changing Requirements of Planning Employers

Mick McLoughlin MRTPI August 2012 August 2012 Dec 2011

Employability Skills for Planners

Contents

Employability Skills for Planners ____________________________________________ 1

Contents ________________________________________________________________ 2

Foreword ________________________________________________________________ 3

Introduction – The changing context for town and country planning, planning education and the

employability skills agenda in planning ________________________________________ 3

Approach to the study ______________________________________________________ 5

The survey findings _________________________________________________________ 6

Key skills for employers ____________________________________________________ 6

Employers’ satisfaction _____________________________________________________ 7 Areas of graduate weakness _________________________________________________ 7

Ideas for improving skills ___________________________________________________ 7

Continuing professional development needs _____________________________________ 8

Part-time/day-release decisions _______________________________________________ 8

Conclusions & recommendations _____________________________________________ 8

References ______________________________________________________________ 9

Appendix - Figures ________________________________________________________ 13

3

Foreword

Mick McLoughlin MRTPI, an Associate of the Higher Education Academy (HEA) and Planning Consultant, has

written this report. The project, carried out during the summer of 2012, was commissioned by Jane Kettle,

Discipline Lead, Built Environment and developed with Professor Ian Strange, Head of the Centre for Urban

Development and Environmental Management (CUDEM) at Leeds Metropolitan University.

Introduction – The changing context for town and country planning, planning education and the employability skills agenda in planning

The election of the Coalition Government in 2010 has brought forward a wave of planning reforms through

the Localism agenda. These include changes to arrangements for the “larger-than-local” scale of planning, local

development plans, neighbourhood planning, development management and enforcement.

These reforms have coincided with a downturn in the UK’s economy. This new economic climate has led to a

reduction in public spending and the funding available to local government and other public sector agencies. It

has also affected the nation’s development industry.

Traditional employers of planning graduates in the public and private sectors have been faced with significant

changes in the way the system is to be operated at a time of reduced resources and business.

With the changing fortunes of the economy and cuts in public expenditure, there has been a decline in job opportunities for new planning graduates over the past few years. This contrasts with the situation during the

mid to late 2000s when the planning sector experienced a shortage of labour and central government and

others took action to increase the supply of planners (Durning 2007, Durning and Glasson 2007, House of

Commons CLG Committee 2008, McLoughlin 2008).

The recent difficulties faced by planning graduates in securing professional planning employment, has given

prominence to the issue of graduate employability skills on the agendas of planning schools and the Royal

Town Planning Institute (McClelland 2012, Parkes 2011, Stewart and Burbridge 2010, Thomas 2011). Thomas

(2011) considers that employability can be understood as a complex outcome of individual attributes, personal

circumstances and labour market conditions. He argues that as the labour market is not under the control of

the graduate job-seeker, this makes it all the more important that the individual gains the greatest possible

advantage from those factors which can be developed through their own action.

However, the planning graduate jobs ‘crisis’ has also re-opened the debate into how far planning schools

should be go in preparing graduates to be ‘oven-ready’ for practice (Maher 2004) and able to hit the ground

running in relation to technical and regulatory aspects of planning such as development management, planning

appeals and enforcement (Budge 2010, McLoughlin 2001, Stewart and Burbridge 2010, Stiftel 2009). The

literature reports on the tensions in academic/ practitioner relationship over ‘practical skills’ and wider issues

including how the two groups tend to perceive each other (Durning 2004, Ellis et 2011).

A related issue is how country/planning-regime specific or otherwise a planning course curriculum should be,

with potential tensions between an international ‘one-world’ approach versus notions of local identity, local

distinctiveness and post-modern diversity. In this respect, it is interesting to note that within England, the

Localism model is intended to move planning away from New Labour’s previous highly prescription and

centralised one-size-fits all approach to planning.

The RTPI’s policy on planning education does not attempt to prescribe or limit the anticipated future location

of a student’s practice. The Institute sees planning education providing a broad understanding of the main

4

principles relevant to place-making and the alternative ways of applying these in practice. It also expects

planning programmes to communicate that planning is about achieving outcomes and not just the operation of

a set of procedures. Finally, the RTPI views initial planning education as a platform for life-long learning and

the further acquisition of additional skills and knowledge. It notes that planners:

“… need to be well-equipped with diverse skills, some of which are particular to the planning task and

some of which may be considered more generic or transferable in nature.” (RTPI 2012, 10)

The CBI (2009, 2011) consider that all universities have a clear responsibility to equip their students with the

skills they need to succeed in the labour market, whilst acknowledging that the purpose of higher education is

not solely about producing work-ready graduates for employers. Importantly too, the CBI expect employers

to take some responsibility for training the graduates they recruit as well as showing an appetite to help

students develop their employability skills. The Wilson Report1 (Wilson 2012, 4.1) similarly notes that supply-

side strategies by universities to meet the needs of employers:

“ … cannot be implemented in isolation; an active participation by employers is required, not least in

defining the knowledge and skills needs of future employers, but also in providing mentoring,

sponsorship, curriculum advice, work experience and feedback on performance for tomorrow’s

graduates. Without that participation by business, the authority of business leaders to comment on the

qualities of future graduates will be diminished.”

Against this background, the HEA decided in Spring 2012 to investigate the current requirements of planning

employers as far as the skills, competencies and knowledge of new graduates are concerned and their

potential role in helping improve the employability of planners. It engaged the Planning School at Leeds

Metropolitan University (Leeds Met) to conduct a scoping study on this matter.

What is employability?

Before outlining our approach, it is important to look very quickly at what is meant by the term ‘employability’

as this fundamental concept underpins and directs the study. Work undertaken for the HEA (Yorke and

Knight 2006, 3) has defined it as:

“a set of achievements – skills, understandings and personal attributes – that make graduates more likely

to gain employment and be successful in their chosen occupations, which benefits themselves, the

workforce, the community and the economy."

Other definitions are discussed in this study and it has identified 39 aspects of employability that fit within an

overall theoretical model known as USEM: Understanding, Skills, Efficacy beliefs and Metacognition.

The CBI (2009, 8) adopt a slightly different definition:

“A set of attributes, skills and knowledge that all labour market participants should possess to ensure

they have the capability of being effective in the workplace – to the benefit of themselves, their

employer and the wider economy.”

This definition potentially places less emphasis on academic-related skills associated with intellectual

curiosity/capacity such as research, managing complex information and critical thinking.

Pool and Sewell (2007, 280) define employability as:

1 The Wilson Report notes the Coalition Government’s aspiration to create a higher education system within which the

expectation of fee-paying students will encourage universities to increase support for students employability and their transition into

work.

5

“having a set of skills, knowledge and understanding and personal attributes that make a person more

likely to choose and secure occupations in which they can be satisfied and successful.”

Their model emphasises on the value of effective reflection and evaluation to build on skills, knowledge and

personal attributes.

Some of the skills which are identified as “employability skills” by the HEA, the CBI, Pool and Sewell and

others in the wider body of literature on the topic (Archer and Davison 2008, Belt et al 2010, UKCES 2009)

are reflected in both the Learning Outcomes for Initial Planning Education (RTPI 2012) and the Subject

Benchmark Statement for Town and Country Planning (QAA 2008).

Furthermore, others have also mentioned a number of these skills in the ongoing wider debate about planning

skills in recent times (Alexander 2005, Carmichael 2006, Claydon and Chick 2005, Demos et al 2007, Frank

2007, Higgins and Morgan 2000, House of Commons CLG Committee 2008, RTPI 2005, TCPA 2006, TCPA

2010, Turok and Taylor 2006, Kitchen 2006). In relation to this wider skills debate, comments by Kitchen

(2006, 9) and Alexander (2005, 102) are illuminating:

“It is clear from the literature that there is no single agreed approach to describing skills for planning

practice.”

“There is no one answer, then, to the question ‘what do planners need to know to be effective

practitioners?’ There are only contingent answers that vary between types of planning practice and that

change over time as practice and its contexts change. If the kinds of planning we know (and perhaps

other, new ones) continue as professional practices, this question will always be asked, and answered

again.”

We might add usefully to these observations by Kitchen and Alexander, by saying that the skills planners need

with vary over time depending on the stage they are at in their careers and the roles they undertake (Durning

et al 2010, Mayo and Johnson 2011). Our focus is on the entry-level planning graduate.

Approach to the study

Leeds Met used a sample survey of planning employers in the Yorkshire and Humber Region as the basis of its

investigation. A short questionnaire was devised following:

- a review of literature around the topic of employability skills generally as well as in the planning field (Archer and Davison 2008, Belt et al 2010, CBI 2011, Bolden et al 2010, CBI and NUS 2011, CBI and

Universities UK 2009, Holmes 2006, Maher 2004, Moon 2004b, Pool and Sewell 2007, RTPI 2005,

Turok and Taylor, UKCES 2009, Wilson 2012);

- semi-structured interviews with the chief officers of two local planning authorities in West Yorkshire

about their experiences of employing planning graduates, and;

- consultation with the Education Department of the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) about proposed survey questions and the Institute’s Learning Outcomes for Initial Planning Education (RTPI

2012).

The literature review helped to identify a series of themes for discussion with the two local planning

authorities at the interviews. Some of the key points to emerge from these follow. Neither authority have

recruited planning graduates recently or sent staff on day release. One indicated that in the past if staff went

to Sheffield Hallam University’s Planning School rather than Leeds Met it was because the location of this

school was more convenient for them in terms of travel. The same authority has experienced some sporadic

requests for placements by students resident in their patch and considered planning graduates from two of

the Region’s Planning Schools to be very similar. They also considered that students perhaps get too much

6

theory and not enough consideration of how it all applies in the workplace. The same authority thought that

what students learn in individual modules might not be sufficiently interlinked/connected up.

In terms of new graduate recruits, the following attributes/skills were favoured:

good decision-making/judgment skills with candidates able to find, weigh up evidence and understand and honestly communicate/explain the effects of development proposals.

absence of "pure/rigid" planning doctrine thinking that blinds individuals in terms of considering the

merits of proposals.

flexibility to change roles and work across different areas of planning and with other disciplines e.g. housing, economic development.

knowledge of other disciplines and comfort with/appreciation of the need for the pursuit of

economic/social well-being.

ability to use planning tools to secure economic development (and other) aims

understanding of the different motivations of other stakeholders in planning, regeneration,

development and place-making – what makes them tick, how to negotiate with these interest and how

to deal with the different drivers involved.

appreciation of the need to remember the desired outcomes of planning i.e. to improve the quality of

people’ lives.

candidates with good people/communication skills able to get on with people at any level and explain issues to them e.g. the public, other disciplines.

lack of any superior ‘I am a planning expert, you aren’t’ attitudes – so, customer/people-oriented

candidates not technocrats.

not necessarily highly academically gifted individuals (these types of recruit were considered likely to not stick around for the long term and contribute to the organisation).

The questionnaire that was prepared following on for the literature review and the two exploratory

interviews, was sent by email to all 24 planning authorities in the Region (including National Parks), all 56

planning consultancies in the Region listed in the RTPI’s Directory and the regional offices of the Homes and

Communities Agency and the Environment Agency. Fourteen completed questionnaires were returned by the

deadline of 27 July 2012 (six from local planning authorities, seven from private sector planning consultancies

and one from a government agency employing planners).

The survey findings

Key skills for employers

Figure 1 (see Appendix) provides a graphical presentation of the responses to the first survey question on the

key skills/attributes that the planning employers who responded to the survey look for in new graduates.

Skills considered either very important or important by employers (with responses totalling 100% across the

two categories) were: communication, drive/motivation, decision-making/judgment, problem-solving/analytical

skills, literacy, use of evidence/argument, people skills, customer care/empathy, confidence and self-

management.

These skills were followed by: working with others, negotiating/influencing, versatility/flexibility, commercial awareness and Information Technology (IT) proficiency: all mentioned as either very important or important

in 93% of the responses.

7

Employers regarded the following skills/attributes as very important when recruiting: communication (78% of

responses), drive/motivation (64%), decision-making/judgment (64%), working with others (50%), problem-

solving/analytical skills (50%) and literacy (50%).

No employer regarded design skills or Geographical Information System (GIS) skills as very important. They

were only mentioned as important in 28% and 7% of responses respectively.

Past planning work experience was mentioned as either very important or important in 64% of responses.

Respondents were given the opportunity to add other skills/attributes. Five employers did so. Two employers

mentioned enthusiasm and political awareness/working with councillors as very important. None mentioned

knowledge of topics specific to Localism, touching instead on general issues such as urban and countryside

planning and development economics.

Employers’ satisfaction

Figure 2 is a pie chart illustrating the responses to the second survey question about employers’ satisfaction

levels towards planning graduate recruits. It shows that 50% of employers were either very satisfied/satisfied

with these employees. 21% were not satisfied. (During the exploratory meetings with the two West

Yorkshire planning authority chief officers, they did indicate that they hadn’t actually recruited for a few years due to budget constraints. It is possible that some employer views may not relate to recent graduates. This

was confirmed by one private sector employer – see below.)

Areas of graduate weakness

The third survey question asked employers to identify very important/important skill areas where planning

graduates have performed weakly. These are illustrated in graph form in Figure 3. The top four

skills/attributes mentioned were: commercial awareness, decision-making/judgment, negotiating/influencing

and the use of evidence/argument. These top four areas were followed by communication, customer

care/empathy, drive/motivation, literacy and self-management.

Ideas for improving skills

The fourth survey question asked planning employers for their views about some possible ideas/proposals for

improving graduates’ skills. Figure 4 shows their views. The following ideas were the most popular:

practitioner input to teaching, employment of teaching staff with practical experience, work experience

opportunities and practice-based student projects.

In addition to offering a set of ideas/proposals for their consideration, the employers were asked to make

their own suggestions. One suggested better awareness of rural issues/balance between rural and urban planning topics in students’ teaching, whilst another proposed more involvement of students in live local

planning casework. One respondent expanded on their questionnaire response in their covering email with

the following remarks:

“Whilst we haven’t employed many graduates for a while, I undertake mock interviews with feedback

sessions at XXX which seem to be well received by the students and would encourage such an approach if

you do not already do it. These interviews, and our involvement in the ‘client based project’ for XXX Uni,

goes to show that there appears to be a lack of understanding amongst emerging students of some of the

basics of the planning system – preparing and submitting an application, undertaking a policy review, the

difference between different types of application etc – involving practitioners in these elements of planning

and using real life examples would be of benefit in my opinion if not already implemented. Finally, planning

based work experience can be vital but as employers we appreciate how hard this is to come by. We also

8

consider that office experience is really useful and can count for a lot on what can other be a sparse CV at

graduation...”

All but one employer indicated that they would actively support one or more of the ideas/proposals that they

had identified as good ones (subject to work and financial pressures).

Continuing professional development needs

As part of the survey, we took the opportunity to ask employers about the training needs of their existing

staff in relation to current planning practice. Several employers did mention a number of topics where

Continuing Professional Development (CPD) training would be helpful to enhance the skills of existing staff.

Three employers identified development economics/viability, the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and

planning policy/law updates. Otherwise it was difficult to determine any general patterns in the responses.

Other CPD topics/issues mentioned included: Local Economic Partnerships and the links to/relationship with

planning; the relationship between housing, economic development, transport and planning; flood risk; report

writing; personal management; project management; time management; business/commercial awareness;

facilitating and adding value to development; updates on current/emerging practice; the National Planning

Policy Framework and its implementation; GIS; master-planning; design appreciation; sustainability/low carbon

planning; renewable energy technologies; retail planning best practice; the 5 year housing supply

issue/prematurity; expert witness training for senior staff, and; neighbourhood planning. Several of these CPD topics are clearly linked to Localism.

Part-time/day-release decisions

The final survey question asked employers what factors they considered to be important to their decision to

send a staff member on a part-time/day-release course to qualify as a planner. Figure 5 provides a graphical

presentation of the responses. Employers considered course content (96%), teaching reputation (96%),

positive feedback (89%), course fees (89%) and links with practice (63%) as significant factors - either very

important/important. Of these, course fees were cited as very important by 45% of respondents.

Conclusions & recommendations

This part of the report sets out a series of skills requirements identified from the analysis of the survey data

and some recommendations for consideration by planning schools with reference to the RTPI’s Learning

Outcomes for Initial Planning Education.

Although the number of responses was low, the survey has provided data about employability skills from a

sample of planning employers.

The analysis confirms the findings of previous general surveys of employers on graduate employability skills

with similar levels of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with graduates’ skill levels (21% of our respondents said they were not satisfied with planning graduates’ performance in relation to key skill requirements).

Like other employers, planning organisations place value on:

- basic generic/transferable skills such as good communication, literacy and IT proficiency;

- “soft skills” including working with others and influencing/negotiating, as well as;

- personal attributes like drive/motivation, confidence and self-management.

From a Town and Country Planning subject perspective, the survey highlights the importance of some skills

long-regarded as relevant for planning practice such as problem-solving, decision-making/judgment and the

ability to use evidence/ argument. These are reflected in the RTPI’s Learning Outcomes (2, 11 and 12).

9

In addition, the data suggests that today’s planning graduate needs to be versatile and flexible, commercially

aware and sensitive to customer needs whether they wish to work in the public or private sector.

It was clear too, that the planning employers who responded to our survey also place importance on

graduates having gained practical experience of planning prior to seeking an entry-level position post-study.

Our survey respondents saw merit in a number of potential ways of helping students improve their

employability skills. They also showed a definite willingness to assist planning schools with developing these.

The RTPI’s concept of an “effective” planning school is one with a good relationship with the Institute’s

Regions and Nations, strong links with planning practice and a commitment to invest in student-centred

activities including the facilitation of their active involvement in local affairs, provision of guidance about career

paths and assistance that prepares them for entry into the profession.

Given the state of today’s jobs market, planning schools should be capitalising on their links with practice to

develop initiatives to help strengthen their students’ employability skills. They should also be looking at how

their own institution’s existing corporate policies and activities towards employability, enterprise strategy and

relationships with local employers/communities can be exploited for the benefit of planning

students/graduates.

Possible specific actions might include:

- introducing employability skills diagnostics early on as part of planning courses, supported by skills development planning alongside use of the Higher Education Achievement Records (HEAR) method

(CBI/NUS 2011, Universities UK 2012, Wilson 2012);

- sourcing, supporting and sign-posting of work opportunities for planning students (and graduates)

(Askew 2004, Frank 2012, McClelland 2012, Thomas 2010, Stewart and Burbridge 2010);

- thinking creatively about how experiential learning and reflection/integration elements already embedded within planning courses and the formal learning environment can be maximised for the

improvement of students’ employability skills, especially the ability of students to articulate how their

skill sets are of value to employers (Moon 2004b, UKCES 2009, Stewart and Burbridge 2010).

References

Alexander, E. R. (2005) What do planners need to know? Identifying Need, Competencies, Methods and Skills.

Journal of Architectural and Planning Research. 22 (2), 91-106.

Archer, W., and Davison, J. (2008) Graduate Employability: What do employers think and want? London, The

Council for Industry and Education (CIHE).

Askew, J. (2004) The Agency Project: a Case Study. CEBE Transactions. 1 (1), 8-26.

Belt, V. et al (2010) Employability Skills: A Research and Policy Briefing. London, UK Commission for Employment

and Skills.

Bolden, R. et al (2010) Strategies for Effective HE-Employer Engagement. A South West Higher level Skills Pathfinder

Research Report. London, The Council for Industry and Higher Education.

Budge, T. (2009) Educating Planners, Educating for Planning or Planning Education: the Never-Ending Story. Paper

delivered at the ‘The Future of Planning Education’ Conference, University of South Australia, Adelaide, 13

February.

10

Carmichael, S. (2006) Pan-Professional CPD for Sustainable Communities - A Research Report. Manchester, RIBA

North West & Renew North West.

Claydon, J. and Chick, M. (2005) Teaching Negotiations. Planning Practice and Research. 20 (20), 221-234.

Confederation of British Industry. (2011) Building for Growth: business priorities for education and skills. Education

and skills survey 2011. London, CBI.

Confederation of British Industry and the National Union of Students. (2011) Working towards your future –

Making the most of your time in higher education. London, CBI.

Confederation of British Industry and Universities UK. (2009) Future Fit: preparing graduates for the world of

work. London, CBI.

Demos et al (2007) Future Planners: Propositions for the Next Age of Planning. London, Demos.

Durning, B. (2004) Planning academics and planning practitioners – two tribes or a community of practice

Planning, Practice and Research. 19 (4), 435-446.

Durning, B. (2007) Challenges in the recruitment and retention of professional planners in English planning

authorities. Planning, Practice and Research. 22 (1), 95-110.

Durning, B. and Glasson, J. (2007) Delivering the planning system in England – skills capacity constraints. Town Planning Review 77 (4), 457-484.

Durning, B. et al. (2010) The Spiral of Knowledge Development: Professional Knowledge Development in

Planning. Planning Practice and Research. 25 (4), 497-516.

Ellis, G. et al (2011) The Future of the Planning Academy. London, RTPI.

Frank, A. (2007) Entrepreneurship and enterprise skills: A missing element of planning education? Planning

Practice and Research. 22 (4), 635-648.

Frank, A. (2010) Making a Case for Complementarity of Student Learning from Year-long Work-based

placements in Town Planning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. 4 (2), 21-45.

Higgins, M. and Morgan, J. (2000) The Role of Creativity in Planning: The Creative Practitioner, Planning

Practice and Research. 15 (1), 117-127.

Holmes, L. (2006) Reconsidering Graduate Employability: Beyond Possessive-Instrumentalism. Paper delivered at the

Seventh International Conference on Human Resource Management Research and Practice Across Europe,

University of Tilburg, 22-24 May.

House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee (2008)

Planning Matters– labour shortages and skills gaps. Eleventh Report of Session 2007–08, Volume I, London, The

Stationery Office Limited.

Kitchen, T. (2006) Skills for Planning Practice. Basingstoke. Palgrave Macmillan.

Maher, A. Oven-ready and self-basting? Taking stock on employability skills. The HE Academy Hospitality,

Leisure, Sport and Tourism Network Newsletter, No. 11, 7-9..

11

Mayo, J. M. & Johnson, B. J. (2011). A Role Dynamics Theory of Planning. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 28 (2), 91-103.

McClelland, Z. (2012) Placements, Internships and Secondments. The Scottish Planner. June 2012 Edition, 16.

McLoughlin, M.J. (2001) Breaking the stranglehold of the statutory code – a Kiwi perspective. Newsletter of the Commonwealth Association of Planners. Issue 2 February 2001. 87-28.

McLoughlin, M.J. (2008) Growing your own planners- the Yorkshire and Humber way, Root and Branch Newsletter of RTPI Yorkshire. Spring 2008. 6-7.

Moon, J. (2004a) Employability and Experiential Learning, The HE Academy Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism

Network Newsletter, No. 11, 2-3.

Moon, J. (2004b) Reflection and Learning - No.4 of the ESECT/LTSN Generic Centre "Learning and Employability" series. York, Higher Education Academy

Parkes, K. (2011) About to Graduate? Here are Five Ways to Boost your Prospects. Planning. 29 March

Edition, 36.

Pool, L. and Sewell, P. (2007) The key to employability: developing a practical model of graduate employability.

Education and Training. 49 (4), 277-285.

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2008) Subject Benchmark Statement for Town and Country

Planning. Gloucester, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

Royal Town Planning Institute (2005) A Survey of Discipline Knowledge and Generic Skills of RTPI Corporate

Members. London, RTPI.

Royal Town Planning Institute (2012) Policy Statement on Initial Planning Education. London, RTPI.

Stewart, J. and Burbridge, V. (2010) Supporting Planning Graduates into Work: the way forward in Scotland.

Edinburgh, Royal Town Planning Institute in Scotland.

Stiftel, B. (2009). Planning the Paths of Planning Schools. Australian Planner, 46(1), 38-47.

Town and Country Planning Association and PricewaterhouseCoopers (2006) Permission to Plan. London, TCPA. Town and Country Planning Association (2010) The Future of Planning Report: Distilling the TCPA Roundtable

Debates. London, TCPA. Thomas, H. (2011). Supporting graduate employability: a role for short-term internships. Cardiff, School of City and

Regional Planning, University of Cardiff.

Turok, I. and Taylor, T. (2006) A skills framework for regeneration and planning. Planning Practice and Research.

21 (4), 497-509.

UK Commission for Employment and Skills. (2009) The Employability Challenge Full Report. London, UKCES.

Universities UK (2007) Beyond the honours degree classification Burgess Group Final Report. London, Universities

UK.

12

Wilson,T. (2012) A Review of Business-University Collaboration. London, Department for Business, Innovation and

Enterprise.

Yorke, M. and Knight, P.T. (2006) Embedding employability into the curriculum. York, The Higher Education

Academy.

13

Appendix - Figures Figure 1: The importance of different skills to planning employers

14

Figure 2: Satisfaction of planning employers with graduates

Figure 3: Skill areas where employers consider planning graduates have been weak

15

Figure 4: Employers’ views on ideas/proposals to improve graduate skills

16

Figure 5: The importance of different factors to employers in choosing a part-time/day-release

course