option paper 2 national mountain bike trail builders …€¦ · national mountain bike trail...

Option Paper 2

National Mountain Bike Trail Builders

Accreditation Framework & Curriculum

MTB Trail Builders Accreditation Framework – Options Paper V2.0

Overview

The popularity of mountain biking in Australia is increasing rapidly. Participation in both recreational and competitive mountain biking has increased significantly across the nation, which is reflected in the 23% increase in Mountain Bike Australia (MTBA) membership in the last 18 months.

To support this increase in mountain biking, significant investment has been made into trail construction and supporting infrastructure across the country. Land managers are increasingly opening, or being pressured to open, new areas to mountain biking through the construction of new trail networks.

Currently there is no accreditation framework or formalised training curriculum for mountain bike trail builders or for the wider recreational trail building industry. Training in MTB trail development, management and maintenance has however been occurring on an ad-hoc basis in Australia for well over a decade. This has primarily been led by the (USA-based) International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) whose representatives have been conducting visits to Australia periodically since as early as 2002, delivering trail workshops with MTB clubs, land managers and other participants Australia-wide. The IMBA workshop ‘package’ was also delivered by IMBA Australia from 2009 until 2014 and continues to be delivered through MTBA, while some Australian trail companies also deliver trail training on an informal/ad-hoc basis. It is estimated that since 2002 there has been at least 1500 individual attendances at IMBA / IMBA Australia / MTBA trail workshops across Australia. None of this training however has provided any formal certification to participants other than, in some cases only, certificates of attendance.

The absence of a formalised accreditation framework for trail builders creates two primary issues:

- land managers have no baseline from which to assess trail builders – they largely have to rely on word of mouth and the resume of work done previously to select trail builders; and

- trail builders are building trails to what they consider to be best practice which will vary between different trail builders

Land managers and trail builders have identified the need for an accreditation framework (including a formal and structured curriculum) to be developed in order to better manage mountain bike trail developments and to ensure that the trail building industry is appropriately managed, with a peak body and career pathways for people wanting to work in the industry.

MTBA in collaboration with stakeholders from across the mountain biking industry have initiated a project to assess how to best develop and implement national MTB trail standards and to establish an accreditation framework for trail builders. Part of this project involves investigating the establishment of an organisation representing Australian trail builders.

Background

At the 2014 Australian MTB Summit, MTBA raised the idea and need for some nationally recognised standards to guide the design and construction of MTB trails. The following year, at the 2015 Australian MTB Summit a project initiation working group was established to investigate the options and methodology to develop and implement national mountain bike trail standards and to establish a professional trail builder’s certification framework.

Members of this working group are: Louise Wallace (former President, WAMBA) replaced with Peta Demidenko (WestCycle), Craig Stonestreet (Director, Natural Trails), Marty Krieg (Principal Consultant, Ediacara Consulting), Craig Meinicke (Director, TouchPoint One) and Denise Cox (Operations Manager, MTBA).

By November 2016, the working group will aim to have investigated a range of options to deliver national mountain bike trail standards and to establish a professional trail builder’s certification framework in line with registered training organisation requirements.


This document outlines the options identified for the development of a trail builder’s accreditation framework and associated training curriculum. A separate options paper has been developed for the national trail construction standards and establishment of a peak body to represent the Australian MTB trail building industry.

Key drivers for an accreditation framework

The key drivers for the establishment of a trail builder’s accreditation framework and training curriculum are:

• Land managers are able to confidently engage trail builders who have been accredited as having the knowledge, skills and experience to deliver trail developments (including planning, project management, contract management, construction management, commissioning, etc.)

• Trail builders are able to have their skills and experience recognised within the industry and with land managers

• Stakeholders and investors in trail networks have more confidence that the commitments they are making to projects will result in sustainably built trails

• Land managers are better equipped to develop tender packages, and to assess and evaluate tender submissions

• Trail builders are better equipped to competitively scope, tender and price trail design and construction work.

• Trail care groups and volunteers can improve their knowledge, skills, and hence credibility with land managers.

Project constraints and considerations

While there is a strong case for the development of a MTB trail builder’s accreditation framework, there are a number of issues that need to be considered, including:

• What wil l the scope of the accreditation framework be – will the framework be solely for MTB trail builders or will the accreditation be more broadly targeted for all recreational trail builders

• Will the accreditation framework be solely for ‘professional trai l builders’ – a significant amount of trail construction and maintenance on MTB trails is undertaken by volunteers and trail care groups / bike clubs, the accreditation framework needs to account for these workers

• Who wil l decide on what the accreditation framework and training curriculum is – the development of an accreditation framework and curriculum will require significant input and alignment of opinions from the MTB trail construction industry

• How wil l the training curriculum be delivered – will the training be full time face to face training, online theory with practical training blocks, on site trail workshops, etc.

• Who wil l own and administer the accreditation framework and training curriculum – as with any accreditation framework and training curriculum, in order to stay relevant, ongoing updates are required. This project will identify the most suitable method for administering and managing the accreditation framework and training curriculum into the future.

• Funding to develop and implement the accreditation framework and training curriculum – the development of accreditation framework and training curriculum will require substantial funds to complete. Currently there are no confirmed sources of funding to complete the work.


Accreditation framework delivery options

This options paper will define and compare the options available for the development of a MTB trail builder’s accreditation framework.

The options considered are:

1. Accreditation of trail builders and trail building training delivered through a peak body. 2. Accreditation of trail builders through a peak body with the trail building training curriculum

delivered through Registered Training Organisations (RTO’s) 3. Accreditation of trail builders and the trail building training curriculum delivered through

Registered Training Organisations (RTO’s)

Each of these options is examined in detail in the following sections.

Option 1 – Accreditation of trai l builders and the delivery of trai l building training delivered through a peak body

Description

A new trail building accreditation framework and training curriculum developed, maintained and delivered by a trail builder’s peak body.

The new trail building accreditation framework and training curriculum will include:

• A set of minimum standards in order to be ‘accredited’ as a trail builder • A formal and structured process to assess a person’s knowledge, skills and capabilities

associated with trail building and operating a trail building enterprise • A trail building curriculum encompassing theoretical, practical and field based learning • A recognition of prior learning framework for assessing and accrediting existing trail builders • Confirmation of ownership and ongoing management of the trail builder’s accreditation

framework and training curriculum • Development of a pricing and membership structure to ensure funding is available for the

ongoing management of the trail builder’s accreditation framework and training curriculum.

Key stakeholders

The following stakeholders will be critical to the success of these options:

• MTB Governing Body (MTBA) • Australian Professional Trail Builders Association (APTBA) (to be established) • Commonwealth government land management agencies • State government land management agencies • Local government • Registered training providers.

Benefits

Development, maintenance and delivery of a trail builder’s accreditation framework and training curriculum through a trail builder’s peak body will realise the following benefits:

• Would ensure control of the accreditation framework and curriculum would align with the peak body objectives and requirements.

• Would enable the quality of content and training delivery to be directly managed and controlled.

• Would provide an income stream for a peak body to maintain the accreditation framework and training curriculum.

• Would provide business opportunities for members of the trail construction industry to diversify into training delivery and assessment.


• Will provide added legitimacy for the trail construction industry in Australia with trail builders being able to gain accreditation against a standard.

• Would strengthen basis for land management agencies to justify and progress trail developments through access to accredited trail builders.

• Would assist land managers to improve trail project procurement and project management practices by applying best practice standards.

• Would improve land manager’s confidence that the commitments they make to MTB trail projects will result in sustainable trails.

Constraints

Development, maintenance and delivery of a trail builder’s accreditation framework and training curriculum through a trail builder’s peak body will involve the following constraints:

• The management and delivery of the accreditation framework and curriculum by the peak body may be seen as being a self-assessment process rather than an assessment by an external body

• The development process will be resource intensive and time consuming for key stakeholders and content contributors.

• The development, maintenance and delivery of the accreditation framework and training curriculum will require significant resources and coordination, resources with experience in these areas will need to be engaged

• There will be a lag between when the accreditation framework and training curriculum is developed to when the peak body will begin to receive income, up-front funding may be a constraint.

Indicative cost

$TBC (estimate based on the development of similar training).

Indicative timeframe

To be confirmed however all options will have similar timeframes.

Potential funding sources

Funding options are yet to be fully investigated, however the options could include:

• Land management agencies (Federal and State bodies) • MTB industry / MTB community (membership, donation, crowd funding, etc.) • Recreation agencies • Australian Sports Foundation • Grant programs. • User pays system (training fees)

Option 2 – Accreditation of trai l builder’s through a peak body with trai l building training delivered by Registered Training Organisations

Description

A new trail builder’s accreditation framework managed by a peak body with a trail building training curriculum developed, maintained and delivered by through Registered Training Organisations (RTO’s) (TAFE or similar accredited training provider).

The new trail builder’s accreditation framework and training curriculum will include:

• A set of minimum standards in order to be ‘accredited’ as a trail builder. • A formal and structured process to assess a person’s knowledge, skills and capabilities

associated with trail building and operating a trail building enterprise. • A trail building curriculum encompassing theoretical, practical and field based learning.


• A recognition of prior learning framework for assessing and accrediting existing trail builders. • Confirmation of ownership and ongoing management of the trail builder’s accreditation

framework and curriculum. • Development of a membership structure to ensure funding is available for the ongoing

management of the trail builder’s accreditation framework. • Establishment of contractual arrangements (including pricing structures) with RTO’s for the

development, maintenance and delivery of a training curriculum.

Key stakeholders



Benefits

Development, maintenance and delivery of trail builder’s accreditation framework managed by a peak body with a trail building training curriculum developed, maintained and delivered by through RTO’s will realise the following benefits:

• Would ensure control of the accreditation framework would align with the beak body objectives and requirements.

• Would provide an income stream for a peak body to maintain the accreditation framework and training curriculum.

• Would enable the outsourcing of training content development and delivery to be outsourced (will require some input and oversight from the peak body).

• Would utilise existing RTO frameworks, resources and expertise to manage the trail training curriculum, delivery and assessment.

• Would provide better access to curriculum through greater choice of training locations. • Will provide added legitimacy for the trail construction industry in Australia with trail builders

being able to gain accreditation against a standard. • Would strengthen basis for land management agencies to justify and progress trail

developments through access to accredited trail builders. • Would assist land managers to improve trail project procurement and project management

practices by applying best practice standards. • Would improve land manager’s confidence that the commitments they make to MTB trail

projects will result in sustainable trails.

Constraints

Development, maintenance and delivery of trail builder’s accreditation framework managed by a peak body with a trail building training curriculum developed, maintained and delivered by through RTO’s will involve the following constraints:

• The management and delivery of the accreditation framework by the peak body may be seen as being a self-assessment process rather than an assessment by an external body.

• The development, maintenance and delivery of the accreditation framework will require some resources and coordination, however these resources will largely be from within the trail building industry.

• The development, maintenance and delivery of the training curriculum will require significant resources and coordination, however this will be managed by the RTO’s with input and oversight from the peak body.


• There will be some loss of control of the content and quality of trail building training by the peak body.

• There will be a lag between when the accreditation framework and training curriculum is developed to when the peak body and RTO’s will begin to receive income, up-front funding / suitable contractual frameworks with RTO’s may be a constraint.

Indicative cost



To be confirmed however all options will have similar timeframes.




Option 3 – Accreditation of trai l builder’s and trai l building training delivered by Registered Training Organisations

Description

A new trail builder’s accreditation framework and trail building training curriculum developed, maintained and delivered by Registered Training Organisations (RTO’s) (TAFE or similar accredited training provider).

The new trail builder’s accreditation framework and training curriculum will include:

• A set of minimum standards in order to be ‘accredited’ as a trail builder • A formal and structured process to assess a person’s knowledge, skills and capabilities

associated with trail building and operating a trail building enterprise • A trail building curriculum encompassing theoretical, practical and field based learning • A recognition of prior learning framework for assessing and accrediting existing trail builders • Confirmation of ownership and ongoing management of the trail builder’s accreditation

framework and curriculum • Establishment of contractual arrangements (including pricing structures) with RTO’s for the

development, maintenance and delivery of a trail builder’s accreditation framework and training curriculum.

Key stakeholders




Benefits

Development, maintenance and delivery of a trail builder’s accreditation framework and training curriculum by RTO’s will realise the following benefits:

• The management and delivery of the accreditation framework and training curriculum by RTO’s may be seen as a more legitimate assessment method (i.e. not seen as a self-assessment).

• Would utilise existing RTO frameworks, resources and expertise to manage the accreditation framework and training curriculum, delivery and assessment.

• Would provide better access to curriculum through greater choice of training locations. • Would reduce the resource requirements from within the trail building industry for the

development of the framework and curriculum. • Will provide added legitimacy for the trail construction industry in Australia with trail builders

being able to gain accreditation against a standard. • Would strengthen basis for land management agencies to justify and progress trail

developments through access to accredited trail builders. • Would assist land managers to improve trail project procurement and project management

practices by applying best practice standards. • Would improve land manager’s confidence that the commitments they make to MTB trail

projects will result in sustainable trails.

Constraints

Development, maintenance and delivery of a trail builder’s accreditation framework and training curriculum by RTO’s will involve the following constraints:

• There may be some loss of control of the content and quality of training and assessment methodologies – oversight and input from a peak body will be required (this may introduce contractual issues)

• There will be a lag between when the accreditation framework and training curriculum is developed to when the RTO’s will begin to receive income, up-front funding / suitable contractual frameworks with RTO’s may be a constraint.

Indicative cost



To be confirmed however all options would have similar timeframes.




Where to from here? Key stakeholders and the wider MTB community will be consulted during this process with the results of these investigations to be presented at a 2016 Australian MTB Summit.

The MTB community will be kept up to date via MTBA newsletters and other communication opportunities.


Further information about this project can be found on the MTBA website www.mtba.asn.au or by calling Denise at MTBA on 07 5628 0110.

How to provide feedback?

Written submissions in response to this options paper can be provided through completion of the https://goo.gl/forms/27VR079V4tCR1ett1 or via email to [email protected]

Submissions close Sunday 27th November 2016.

option paper 2 national mountain bike trail builders …€¦ · national mountain bike trail...

Documents