Building an AI-Empowered Workforce: Priority Framework
18.06.2024 - 06:21
Building on the initial report with FSO into generative AI, ‘Impact of generative AI on skills in the workplace’, we have been examining how the training system should prioritise its response to the impact of this emerging technology on finance, technology and business training products. The report seeks to assist the FSO to prioritise areas for attention when collaborating with training providers and industry to help ensure finance, tech and business VET qualifications reflect the needs of the economy.
The prioritisation of qualifications should consider both AI exposure and importance
Generative AI will have a significant impact on the industries, occupations and qualifications that are covered by the FSO.
However, it is one factor among many others and should be considered holistically as part of the FSO’s workforce planning and prioritisation process.
Accordingly, we recommend a two-part test to prioritise action to respond to the impact of generative AI.
A. AI exposure – the extent to which the qualification has been identified as having a high exposure to generative AI.
B. Qualification importance – the extent to which the qualification plays a significant role in the training system and in industry.
The combination of these two factors will identify the most urgent qualifications to be reviewed for potential changes to respond to generative AI.
Qualification importance depends on factors relating to the qualification and its use, occupational size and growth & stakeholder feedback
Qualifications with high importance and AI exposure should be prioritised
Using this prioritisation framework qualifications are allocated to the relevant priority
Critical priority: High exposure, high importance. There are 4 qualifications in this category, for example the Diploma of Marketing and Communication
High priority: High exposure, low importance. There are 27 qualifications in this category, for example the Certificate IV in Human Resource Management
Medium priority: Low exposure, high importance. There are 23 qualifications in this category for example the Certificate IV in Business
Lower priority: Low exposure, low importance. There are 35 qualifications in this category for example the Certificate II in Telecommunications Network Build and Operation
Using this prioritisation framework qualifications can be allocated a priority rating
Qualifications will broadly fall into four categories: Critical priority (High exposure, high importance) these qualifications are critical to review. Occupations in this sector are of high importance for industry, and qualifications are most likely to be impacted by AI. High priority (high exposure, lower importance) these qualifications should be considered as high priority for review as while less important for industry, they will become impacted by AI and will require action to ensure relevance. Medium priority (low exposure, high importance) these qualifications are important for industry but are expected to have limited AI exposure and are therefore less in need of review. Lower priority (low exposure, low importance) qualifications in this category should either have no further action, or if they have low to no enrolments should be considered for deletion.
Qualifications under critical priority
Diploma of Marketing and Communication
Advanced Diploma of Marketing and Communication
Advanced Diploma of Conveyancing
Diploma of Insurance Broking
Download the full report and methodology here.
Read our latest posts
Reducing out-of-pocket costs for Australian healthcare consumers
In partnership with Private Healthcare Australia (PHA), our latest report reveals the increasing strain of out-of-pocket healthcare costs on Australian consumers. Without urgent action, these costs could reach $1.6 billion by 2030, driven by limited competition, lack of price transparency, and weak consumer protections. Costs have already surged 12% in the past year, and 330,000 Australians are expected to delay care due to affordability concerns. Transparent pricing and stronger protections could save consumers millions. Read our full analysis to understand the challenges—and the solutions—that could make healthcare more accessible for all.
27 Mar, 2025
The Social Dividend: An Actuarial Case for Higher Income Support
Our new report explores the full impact of increasing JobSeeker—not just the economic benefits, but also the significant social returns and efficiency savings. Using actuarial techniques, micro-data analysis, and leading econometric research, we quantify the broader benefits of raising JobSeeker to 90% of the Age Pension. Our findings show that every $100 invested delivers a $24 social return, improving health outcomes, reducing justice system interactions, and lowering long-term welfare dependence. Importantly, the efficiency savings outweigh any potential reduction in job search intensity. This report provides new insights into why increasing JobSeeker is both a smart investment and a necessary reform.
27 Mar, 2025
20-years of Fitted for Work driving employment success
To mark 20 years of Fitted for Work, Mandala Partners conducted an economic analysis to quantify the organisation’s impact. Our findings show that for every $1 invested, Fitted for Work delivers $2.19 in immediate economic benefits, unlocking $86 million in value over two decades by supporting 45,000 clients. The analysis highlights that Fitted for Work reduces job search duration by half compared to the national average, significantly improving employment outcomes. Notably, the organisation has expanded its support for older women, addressing a critical and growing need in the community.
27 Mar, 2025
The value of shifting to four-year parliamentary terms
This research quantifies significant benefits of extending Commonwealth House of Representatives' terms from three to four years. While Australia's states and territories have adopted four-year terms, the Commonwealth remains among only eight countries globally with three-year or shorter terms.Our analysis shows potential gains of $59-71 billion over 20 years through reducing election frequency. Benefits include $4.6 billion in avoided direct costs, $40.7 billion in enhanced business investment from reduced electoral uncertainty, and $14-26 billion through improved government policy.
17 Mar, 2025