In an era defined by AI, economic uncertainty and rapidly evolving workforce needs, short-term solutions no longer suffice. We need a new kind of partnership between universities and employers, one grounded not in transactions but in sustained, collaborative investment in the future of work.
The Old Workforce Education and Training Model Is Broken
Across Canada and globally, workforce development is caught in a paradox. Everyone agrees that reskilling is urgent, yet few agree on what that actually means. Governments emphasize the need to adapt. Employers report persistent labour shortages. Universities respond by rapidly launching short courses and microcredentials. Despite this flurry of activity, we continue to talk past one another. The challenge isn’t inaction but fragmentation. We lack shared definitions, coordinated strategies and a coherent sense of direction. The language of skills has become ubiquitous, but it often remains superficial, untethered from long-term planning or measurable outcomes.
In this uncertain landscape, university continuing education (UCE) units must embrace a renewed mandate, not just to respond but to lead. For decades, UCE units were valued for their agility, market awareness and ability to serve diverse learners. Many adopted a multipronged approach, blending partnership-based programming with standalone offerings. A prevailing mindset was to design strong programs, promote them and trust that learners would follow. This build-it-and-they-will-come approach, once effective, is now giving way to more intentional, learner- and employer-informed strategies. Likewise, transaction-based partnerships, where institutions deliver a single course, boot camp or certificate to meet a short-term need, may provide temporary relief, but they fall short of addressing the structural changes required for lasting workforce transformation. The path forward demands that UCE units not only build programs but also build collaborative, data-informed and purpose-driven ecosystems to shape the future of work and learning.
For me, it starts with looking inward, what I refer to as an interoceptive approach, a term borrowed from cognitive science. Before reaching out to employers, UCE units must first develop internal clarity: a well-defined strategy, the operational capacity for growth and a culture that fosters collaboration and business development. Especially in times of financial precarity, it’s essential to build strong alliances within the institution and position the unit as a proactive partner in solving broader university challenges. Only once that foundation is in place should we turn outward, what I call the exteroceptive model. External engagement should be purposeful and timely. We need to lead with a clear narrative, ensuring partnerships are truly collaborative and built for long-term impact. The goal isn’t simply to scale for quantity but to scale with intention, aligning with real workforce needs and creating sustainable, responsive pathways for learners and employers alike.
A New Model Is Emerging: Strategic, Long-Term Pathways to Skills
What we need now is not another credential but a systematic approach to long-term skilling, one that treats the higher education and employers as an enduring collaboration, not a transactional service exchange. In Southeast Asia and other regions, we are seeing the emergence of what can be described as pathways to skills—ongoing, adaptable partnerships between universities and industries that reflect the real dynamics of evolving labour markets. These partnerships are designed not just to meet today’s hiring needs but to build resilient talent ecosystems that evolve over time based on the lifelong learning ethos.
Many universities are beginning to shift in this direction. Rather than producing siloed, one-off programs, some are developing customizable programming frameworks—modular, flexible offerings that allow employers to select and shape content around their workforce needs. This approach saves development time for institutions and better aligns with fast-moving industry demands. Crucially, these frameworks are not just educational menus but instruments of cocreation and shared accountability. They embody a move from transactional engagement to strategic alignment, grounded in mutual investment. And they are informed by labour market intelligence but not blindly driven by it.
Flexibility Is the Foundation, Not the Fringe
What distinguishes the pathways model isn’t just its modularity; it’s the integration of flexibility at the core of the system. Today’s employers don’t need rigid, one-size-fits-all programming. They need agile education and training that can evolve in step with rapid changes in technology, regulation and demographics. From AI literacy to meaningful engagement with Indigenous communities, responsive learning must reflect both emerging priorities and enduring commitments. The pathways approach supports short-cycle, high-impact learning that scales with change rather than being rendered obsolete by it. It also calls for a shift in institutional thinking. Education and training must be seen not as a finite product but as a continuous, adaptive process.
However, this forward-looking approach requires careful navigation. Labour market information (LMI), while an essential tool, is not without its limitations. As recent analyses suggest, LMI often mirrors broader economic conditions as much as it reveals genuine skills shortages. In some provinces, perceived labour gaps may be driven less by a lack of talent than by economic stagnation, underinvestment or weak business confidence—factors that hinder both recovery and growth. Using LMI uncritically to shape program offerings risks oversaturating the market and eroding learner and employer trust. To lead effectively, UCE units must approach these data sources with nuance, pairing quantitative insights with grounded, contextual understanding.
Universities Must Extend (Not Dilute) Their Expertise
One of the greatest assets UCE units bring to the table is the ability to extend their university’s reputation, brand and disciplinary depth of into applied, impactful programming. This is not about diluting academic integrity to meet market demands; it’s about translating institutional knowledge into real-world value. Done right, UCE serves as a strategic bridge between the university and the economy. We speak both languages. We understand the research. And we know how to build trust with community and industry partners. But to fulfill this potential, we must move past the delivery-provider model and reframe ourselves as cocreators of workforce strategies.
That shift also means rethinking governance. While not all UCE units are structured as academic units, most operate under some form of governance. That governance must become agile enough to allow rapid response, without compromising on quality, including in how we process and define admission requirements. The best partnerships will be those that are fast, flexible and grounded in integrity. Still, agility must not come at the expense of outcome clarity. As noted in our research, expectations around short-cycle learning must be realistic and transparent. Some programs lead to immediate skills of practice, while others are foundational, setting the stage for future development. Knowing the difference is key to quality assurance.
Labour Market Data Must Inform (Not Dictate) Education
Perhaps the most overlooked element of this shift is the need for evidence-based decision making. Institutions across Canada are beginning to invest in the granular and regional analysis of labour markets to inform decisions, not just about what to teach but how to deliver it. But LMI is not a crystal ball. Our research shows that speculative narratives, technological hype and short-term policy pressures often shape it. The rise of prompt engineering as a skill, for example, may reflect industry experimentation more than long-term workforce demand. UCE units must be careful not to chase trends without grounding, lest we produce graduates trained for jobs that vanish before they arrive. Instead, we need to adopt a hybrid model, one that integrates AI-enabled labour analytics with human judgment and economic insight. This approach ensures educational programming is not only relevant but resilient in the face of complex and rapidly shifting realities.
This is where UCE units can step into a leadership role, not just as training providers but as strategic partners in shaping the skills narrative itself. Industry increasingly turns to universities not only for program delivery but also for guidance, interpretation and clarity. Employers are looking for help navigating ambiguous and contradictory signals about what skills matter, when they matter and how to teach them, presenting a major opportunity for UCE units to influence policy and practice, ground skilling initiatives in evidence, counter hype with context and align education with both employer needs and public good. We have the research capacity, the community networks and the institutional credibility to inform a national conversation that has, for too long, been driven more by urgency than understanding.
Credential and Learning Innovation: Shifting the Focus to Design, Not Just Delivery
At some Canadian institutions, the conversation around upskilling and reskilling is beginning to shift away from the credential as an end in itself. Credentials, while important, are only as valuable as the clarity and credibility of the outcomes they represent. For us, the emphasis is less on the what of the credential (micro or otherwise) and more on the how—how we design and deliver high-quality, innovative learning experiences that foster deep, transferable skill development.
Employers have long emphasized that credentials in isolation hold little value unless tied to real-world competencies. Universities, particularly through their UCE units, are uniquely positioned to respond, not by simply producing more credentials but by creating rigorous, learner-centric programming that is measurable, adaptable and codeveloped with industry. Our role as institutions rooted in knowledge creation and mobilization is not to flood the market with offerings but to ensure that each credential represents meaningful, demonstrable learning with a return on investment for learners and employers alike.
In recent years, several Canadian institutions have taken proactive steps to establish internal frameworks for microcredentials, including short-form certificates and diplomas. These frameworks serve as foundational tools for guiding the development, governance and quality assurance of nontraditional learning pathways. While many are still evolving, their purpose is clear: to ensure innovation in credentialing is grounded in institutional integrity, transparency and adaptability. Rather than chasing trends or producing credentials for their own sake, these frameworks help institutions focus on creating purposeful, high-impact learning experiences that are responsive to workforce needs while upholding academic standards.
Funding and Partnerships: Building Capacity Through Strategic Investment
For many UCE units operating on a cost-recovery or revenue-generating basis, the reality of keeping the lights on is an ever-present pressure, particularly in today’s climate of financial uncertainty and shifting institutional priorities. But chasing revenue alone is not a sustainable strategy. These units increasingly recognize the importance of positioning themselves not merely as service providers but as trusted partners, both within their institutions and across the broader community and workforce ecosystem.
This shift involves aligning projects with institutional goals, investing in the unit’s reputation and pursuing initiatives that extend beyond short-term transactions. The most meaningful and impactful work opens doors for learners, builds bridges with communities and contributes to long-term institutional value. In terms of funding models, a business development mindset is proving essential—one that leverages sector intelligence, cultivates strategic relationships and embraces calculated risks. Seeking external funding is no longer just about securing operational dollars; it’s about building institutional capacity, expanding knowledge networks and increasing visibility and credibility within the education and labour market landscape. Even when a funding opportunity doesn’t result in immediate success, the process itself enhances strategic readiness. And often the most valuable outcomes are the relationships and reputational capital that emerge because the next opportunity may not need to be pursued but will arise from the very networks that have been nurtured over time.
The Call to Action: Don’t Just React to the Future—Define It
It’s time we stop treating skills development as a technical problem to solve through disconnected solutions. It is a strategic imperative, one that intersects with economic development, social equity and national competitiveness. If we want to equip the workforce of the future, we need to move beyond buzzwords and toward a shared commitment to evidence, collaboration and long-term thinking. UCE units are ready to lead, but we cannot do it alone. We need governments (at all levels) to articulate aligned and clearer goals. We need employers to treat education and training as an investment, not a line item. And we need our institutions to see engagement not as a transaction but as a shared project in nation building.
The future of work isn’t waiting. Neither should we.
You Might Also Like
