"I'm finding it hard to get industry to engage."

I hear this from RTOs regularly.

And when I review the industry feedback they've managed to collect, I often see the same thing. A questionnaire full of tick boxes, generic questions and very little substance.

Industry has taken the time to respond. The RTO has collected its feedback. The record is filed.

But what have we actually learnt?

I'm not just talking about meeting Outcome Standard 1.2.

I'm talking about the quality of information we're collecting and whether that information is actually helping us make better decisions about training and assessment.

Let me give you an example:

An RTO asks an employer:

"Do you believe our training meets current industry needs?"

The employer ticks YES.

What can we do with that information?

We know one employer believes the training meets industry needs. But we don't know which aspects they've considered, what they're basing their answer on, or whether there are areas that could be improved.

Now consider a different approach.

What if we started by identifying what we actually need to understand?

For example, we want to establish whether graduates can perform the practical tasks expected of them when entering the workplace.

That changes the questions we ask.

"When you employ someone who has recently completed this qualification, which tasks do they typically require additional supervision or training to perform?"

"What do you believe contributes to those gaps?"

"Are there particular workplace practices, equipment or processes that new workers are not sufficiently prepared for?"

Now we're collecting information that could help us identify where to investigate further.

But asking better questions is only one part of the process.

Before I can assess whether an RTO's industry engagement is working, I want to understand what decisions the feedback is meant to support. That's the question that tells me everything. Not how many responses were collected. Not how recently the questionnaire went out. But what changed because of it.

From there, I work backwards.

What information do they need? Are they reviewing the relevance of training content, the adequacy of practical learning opportunities, assessment conditions or emerging workplace practices?

Who can provide that information? Not every industry representative has the same perspective. An employer, workplace supervisor and experienced practitioner may each provide different insights.

What context does industry need? We cannot assume an employer understands units of competency, assessment requirements or how the RTO delivers its training. Sometimes supporting information needs to be provided in a format they can meaningfully respond to.

How is the feedback being collected? A survey might be appropriate for identifying patterns across a larger group. A structured conversation or workplace visit may be more useful when the RTO needs to understand why something is happening.

How will it be analysed? If five employers identify a similar capability gap, can the RTO recognise that pattern? Can they identify differences between industries, workplace settings or job roles? Has the information been collected in a way that allows them to do that?

And then comes the part that matters most.

What does the evidence tell them, and what are they going to do about it?

Perhaps the training already covers the skill, but students aren't getting enough opportunity to practise it.

Perhaps the assessment demonstrates competence under the required conditions, but the learning activities don't sufficiently reflect how the skill is applied in different workplaces.

Or perhaps the feedback relates to a workplace-specific expectation rather than a gap in the training product.

Each finding requires a different response.

And sometimes, after considering the evidence, the right decision is not to change anything. But the RTO should be able to explain why.

This is why meaningful industry engagement starts long before a questionnaire goes out.

It starts with understanding what needs to be learnt, how that information will be collected and how it will be used.

Industry representatives are busy people. If we're asking them to contribute their time and expertise, we should be making that contribution worthwhile.

There's one more thing worth considering.

You might be able to gather industry feedback five minutes before an audit notification lands. What you can't do is manufacture the evidence of what you did with it. The decisions you made. The changes you implemented. The improvements you can trace directly back to what industry told you. That trail either exists or it doesn't. And no amount of consultation forms in a folder will create it after the fact.

A completed consultation form tells me feedback was collected. What I want to know is this: when did your industry feedback last change a decision about how you train and assess?

If you have to think about it, that's your answer.