The Ministry of Economy of Republic of Lithuania requested BGI Consulting to carry out the evaluation of the Implementation Progress of Priority Axis 9 Specific Objective “Increase Workforce Competitiveness, Ensuring Opportunities to Adapt to Economic Needs” under the Operational Programme for the European Union Funds’ Investments. The main aim of the evaluation - to assess the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and impact of the measures implemented under Priority Axis 9, in order to improve the interventions under these measures in the period of 2014-2020. The scope of the evaluation - 8 measures implemented under Priority Axis 9 aimed at increasing workforce competitiveness.

 

The analysis was grounded on the theory of change corresponding to the principles of the individual competitiveness model, built on the basis of the findings from the literature analysis. The model states that the main potential impact of interventions on employee qualification development may be due to improved work achievements of employees in the current workplace and increased long-term employee competitiveness in the labor market. The goal of the analysis was to assess to what extent the changing factors (i.e. participation in the training activities) have influenced work performance and individual competitiveness, taking into account the influence of the stable factors (e.g. work experience of the participant).

 

The evaluation approach was realized by applying different data collection and analysis methods. The latter encompassed analysis of scholar literature, legislation and statistical data provided in the SFMIS, website www.esinvesticijos.lt and collected by the evaluators themselves, 12 semi-structured interviews, as well as 11 case studies from the implementation of specific projects.  In the case of four measures (“Human resources INVEST LT+” (09.4.3-ESFA-K-805), “Competence LT” (09.4.3-ESFA-K-814), “Work-based apprenticeship and qualification trainings” (09.4.3-ESFA-K-827) and “Training for employees of foreign investors” (09.4.3-ESFA-T-846)), surveys of 2 groups of respondents (employees and employers) were also carried out. In the case of one measure – “Human resources INVEST LT+” (09.4.3-ESFA-K-805) – counterfactual impact evaluation was also performed. With the purpose of drawing the conclusions of the evaluation, interim conclusions of the evaluation were discussed by the representatives of institutional stakeholders during focus group discussion. Development of recommendations was also based on the analysis of experience from 3 foreign countries having implemented similar measures.

 

The impact analysis of the measures, carried out in accordance with the individual competitiveness model, has revealed that the measures under evaluation have an impact on the short-term workforce competitiveness (current work performance), however, their impact on the long-term individual competitiveness (employability) is rather modest. The impact analysis has also revealed that the measures under evaluation mostly provided employees with the skills necessary and relevant in the specific company, in charge of organizing the training, but only to a limited extent provided them with the skills or qualifications applicable in the labor market generally. Thus, it might be concluded that the measures under evaluation meet current needs of the companies, however they only partially meet the needs of employees whose competitiveness’ increase should be prioritized according to the logic of Priority Axis 9 and its objectives. The focus of the measures under Priority Axis 9, aimed at increasing workforce competitiveness, on meeting short-term needs of the companies, instead of their employees, was conditioned by the shortcomings in the planning process and implementation model of the measures. According to the latter, funds for increasing workforce competitiveness were allocated through employing organizations, instead of being directly allocated to the employees participating in the training. In the planning stage, strategic documents justifying the need for the measures being planned were being prepared after the planning process of the measures aimed at increasing workforce competitiveness had already started.