How to reference (write) a Training Package, Qualification and Unit of Competency.

According to the mandatory text which must be included in all Training packages, there is a correct way to reference (write) a Training Package, Qualification and Unit of Competency.
You must ...
"Always use the correct codes, exactly as they appear in the Training Package, and with the code always before the title."

The section of the mandatory text which follows these words then outlines more detailed information on how the codes of Training Packages, Qualifications and Units of Competency are developed, applied and should be used.

Understanding this information at the very least; that is, being able to read the code and instantly be able to comprehend 'what it means' is vital knowledge for everyone who works within the VET (Vocational Education and Training) sector.




If it is not important or it doesn't matter how certain things are written, then it shouldn't be stated that there are 'agreed conventions' and / or words such as 'always' should not be used.

I am constantly amazed how often I see components of our basic, fundamental documents or 'tools of our trade' mis-represented or incorrectly written. I am not talking about times when 'in-house' jargon or informal communication is relevant (when we all abbreviate e.g. Dip of PM, C4TAA or Adv Dip of Business) but rather in formal documents by ... well ... all of us (ie RTOs, ISC, Regulators etc).


One of the most interesting things is .... I see this 'wrong way' from so many organisations and individuals that I really respect and admire. I know they passionately committed and highly skilled in the VET sector. I assume that the people who work in VET related government departments, Industry Skills Councils and other bodies are equally committed, knowledgeable and skilled.

I can only assume that some how they are just not aware of these stated conventions. In the past, I have emailed people directly but it really is such a widespread issue (from my point of view) that I am putting it up here for all to see.


So I am using this blog post as a record and reference for what I 'know' .. well more like "What is written / deemed to be right / correct!" and for the point of sharing information ... (So if I send you this reference please do not be offended I am just sharing what is written or documented)


So for the record, according to the agreed conventions, the following examples should NOT be in or on any formal documentation, such as reports, testamurs, academic records, official websites, etc.


TAE Training Package
Certificate IV in Training and Assessment (TAE40110) or Cert IV in TAE or The TAE (Cert4)
Plan assessment activities and processes (TAEASS401A) or TAEASS401A Plan Assessment Activities and Processes
(Units of competency should be in 'sentence case' and these examples are relevant for all Training Packages, Qualifications and Units of Competency)



Given the format of Training Packages is changing it remains to be seen if the current mandatory text will remain included and / or if the agreed conventions will remain as explicated stated (ie: “There are agreed conventions for the national codes used for Training Packages and their components. Always use the correct codes, exactly as they appear in the Training Package, and with the code always before the title”)


In the meantime, I intend to share this information as often as I can. I welcome and invite comments and feedback.



I remember with gratitude when a wonderful colleague pointed out to me I had mistakenly wrote 'in' rather than 'of' for a Diploma Qualification. I am also particularly grateful to a long time colleague who first gently reminded me to always read all of the Training Packages to make sure I really understood all aspects of these fundamental documents.

Using the agreed conventions for writing VET Training Packages, Qualifications and Units of Competency, especially in formal documents, is a responsibility, I believe, for all VET professionals and associated organisations and bodies. What is the point of having agreed conventions (i.e. the correct and accepted way to do something) stated in policy, if they are not followed or upheld?

There is even more detailed information in the Training Package Development Handbook. In particular there is a wealth of information under the policy index for Training Packages on DEEWR website which really facilitates an in-depth understanding on the what, why and how of Training Package development. The Training Packages Glossary is also very useful, despite the fact it currently refers to AQTF 2007 rather than AQTF 2010.