Weighing Up the “Why” – Is Becoming a QCTO Accredited Assessment Centre the Right Decision for Your SDP?
In South Africa, becoming an accredited assessment centre with the Quality Council for Trades and Occupations (QCTO) can be a complex, time-consuming, and costly process.
Before an SDP embarks on the journey of becoming a QCTO-accredited assessment centre, it is crucial to weigh up the “why” behind the decision. The reasoning behind this choice can vary depending on the specific goals and circumstances of the SDP. In this article, we unpack two common reasons why SDPs may consider becoming accredited assessment centres, and the implications of each.
We begin by examining the accreditation requirements for assessment centres and their practical impact on SDP resources.
The Double Accreditation Burden – From SDP to Assessment Centre
For many Skills Development Providers (SDPs) in South Africa, the process of becoming accredited with the Quality Council for Trades and Occupations (QCTO) as a training provider is already a rigorous, resource-intensive, and costly journey. This process requires SDPs to meet stringent standards related to their training programmes, facilities, staff qualifications, and operational procedures. However, when considering becoming an accredited assessment centre, SDPs face the challenge of going through a similar accreditation process all over again—this time, for assessment centre purposes.
The steps involved in becoming an accredited assessment centre include:
Meeting QCTO's Assessment Criteria: The SDP must demonstrate that they meet the specific requirements set out by the QCTO for assessment centres. These include having qualified invigilators, assessors, and moderators, appropriate facilities, and assessment infrastructure. Additionally, the SDP needs to have established policies and processes to maintain the integrity of the EISA delivery process.
Documentation and Compliance: Much like the training accreditation process, the SDP must submit a comprehensive Quality Management System (QMS) that demonstrate how they comply with the QCTO's criteria for assessment centres for EISA management and delivery. The QMS for an assessment centre is different from that of an SDP as the operational and functional requirements are aligned to examination procedures which are separate from training procedures.
Additional Resources and Infrastructure: Accreditation as an assessment centre often requires further investment in infrastructure, such as assessment rooms separate from training facilities, technology in the form of a credible and fit for purpose LMS to capture examination results and statistical examination data, clear physical resources and processes to maintain the security and integrity of examination scripts, and human resources. The infrastructure requirements for assessment centres can be vastly different from those for training, necessitating additional capital investment.
Dedicated Assessment Staff: The SDP must ensure that they have qualified and competent invigilators, markers, and moderators who were not involved in any training activities and who meet the required standards as outlined in the occupational qualification assessment specification document. This may require hiring new staff or providing additional training for existing personnel, which adds to the financial and operational load. Critically, invigilators, assessors, and moderators may not be the same individuals that were involved any in training related activities.
After Accreditation - Operations and Management: Beyond the initial accreditation, becoming an assessment centre entails ongoing management of EISA sessions and assessments, including scheduling, learner communication, support, and progress tracking. Furthermore, depending on the AQP's mandate to the assessment centre, resources, processes, and budgets must include provisions for marking, moderation, and reporting sessions after each EISA.
The Real-time Accreditation Cost: When considering the cost implication of becoming an assessment centre is is important to factor in the real-time turnaround from initiation, to application, to site visit, to accreditation which amounts to about 8 - 12 months. Once accreditation as assessment centre is received, another factor to consider is the actual time between the EISA registration and that of the EISA session. For instance, accreditation in January 2025 does not translate to EISA delivery in February 2025. Due to EISA registration deadlines, learner allocation would typically occur at least three to four months later. Consequently, the overall ROI timeframe for recovering accreditation costs extends to approximately 18 months or more, and that is provided the assessment centre is allocated EISA sessions by the AQP. Throughout this period, the assessment centre must maintain adequate cash flow to support facilities, administrative and operational structures, IT systems, and EISA delivery personnel.
The Impact on Resource Allocation
Going through the accreditation process twice (first for training and then for assessment) requires a substantial allocation of resources—both in terms of finances and human capital. For example:
Financial Implications: Accreditation processes can be costly. The SDP may have to bear additional costs related to upgrading facilities, recruiting or training invigilators, markers, and moderators and acquiring necessary physical resources. These costs are not just one-off; maintaining compliance with both training and assessment accreditation standards will incur ongoing expenses.
Time and Administrative Burden: The paperwork, audits, and site inspections required for both training and assessment accreditation are time-consuming. The SDP must dedicate time and staff to meet these requirements. For SDPs, this added administrative burden can be overwhelming.
Human Resources: Managing both the training and assessment accreditation processes often requires additional personnel, either for administrative support or to fill specialised roles (such as qualified invigilators, markers, and moderators). This adds to the staffing costs and the operational complexity of running the business.
EISA Delivery Costs: SDPs accustomed to “legacy qualifications” and the assessment process thereof often assume that the EISA process mirrors previous assessment methods. This is not the case. The assessment process of the EISA has key differences in process and methodology. Therefore, the EISA introduces significantly different cost inputs compared to traditional assessments. Managing the EISA process from registration to reporting, for instance, typically demands two to three months of dedicated administrative and academic resource allocation. Any complications extend this timeframe and increase costs. Therefore, a thorough feasibility study is essential to understand the true financial implications of EISA delivery.
In light of the above, SDPs must reflect on the 'why' behind their decision to become an assessment centre,
Weighing Up the "Why": Control vs. Revenue - A Critical Decision for SDPs
The "Why" of Control: Ensuring Learner Success and Quality Assurance
One of the primary reasons an SDP may consider becoming a QCTO-accredited assessment centre is the desire to maintain control over their learners' External Integrated Summative Assessment (EISA) process. For many SDPs, the ultimate goal is to ensure that learners complete their qualifications successfully and meet the requirements for certification.
The "Why" of Revenue: Expanding Business Opportunities
Another common motivation for SDPs seeking accreditation as a QCTO assessment centre is the desire to tap into new revenue streams by offering EISA services to external parties. The EISA process is crucial for many learners completing occupational qualifications, and some SDPs see this as an opportunity to diversify their business model and increase their income by offering assessment services beyond their own learners.
The “Why” of Control: Ensuring Learner Success and Quality Assurance
When an SDP considers becoming an assessment centre to directly manage their learners' EISAs and ensure successful qualification completion, it's vital to understand the Assessment Quality Partner’s (AQP) role in the EISA process and its implications.
AQPs are mandated by the QCTO to manage and coordinate EISA delivery for their registered qualifications. Consequently, even if an SDP becomes an accredited assessment centre and indicates their preference for learners to write their EISA with the SDP on the Learner Readiness for EISA (LEISA) file, their learners are not automatically guaranteed placement there. In fact, they may not receive any learner allocations for a specific EISA session, potentially delaying the offset of costs associated with assessment centre accreditation for a considerable period.
While a handful of AQPs allow SDPs to specify their preferred assessment centre, a majority of AQPs frequently reallocate learners to alternate assessment centres at their discretion. This practice is understandable, given the substantial costs AQPs incur in delivering EISAs. These costs include ensuring on-site monitors, printing and distributing EISA scripts, and, where applicable, managing marking, moderation, and reporting. A national-scale analysis of these costs underscores the rationale for AQPs to optimise learner allocation and control expenses.
However, this raises a crucial question for SDPs: are the significant costs of assessment centre accreditation justified if they cannot guarantee their own learners will be assessed there?
The “Why” of Revenue: Expanding Business Opportunities
Another compelling motivation for SDPs to pursue assessment centre accreditation is the potential to generate additional revenue streams.
When considering becoming an assessment centre as an additional revenue stream, SDPs must conduct a comprehensive feasibility study comparing the cost-benefit ratio of EISA delivery to training delivery. As previously mentioned, AQPs allocate learners at their discretion to assessment centres. This makes it difficult to build a reliable financial model for EISA revenue, as assessment centres have no control over learner allocation. Therefore, SDPs should recognise that EISA delivery as an additional revenue source is be a high-risk, low-return model.
Although a few AQPs allow SDPs to stipulate their chosen assessment centre where their learners will write their EISA, most AQPs do not permit direct booking of EISAs by learners or SDPs. As previously explained, AQPs' approach is understandable given the substantial costs of large-scale EISA delivery. However, this can have a significantly negative impact on an SDP anticipating to derive additional revenue streams through EISA delivery, having already carried a huge cost burden to receive assessment centre accreditation.
Similar to the previous scenario, expanding into external markets brings its own set of challenges. SDPs will need to assess their ability to manage the additional logistics, administrative responsibilities, and infrastructure demands that come with offering external assessment services. Additionally, the SDP would be expected to adhere to QCTO’s high standards of assessment, which requires ongoing training, investment in technology, and compliance management.
Finally, it's important to note the significant gap between registered occupational qualifications and available EISAs.
A recent EISA Hub study (April 2025) found that only 18.8% (148 of 784) of registered occupational qualifications have available EISAs.
Figure 1: Registered Occupational Qualifications and Part Qualifications vs Available EISAs
SDPs should carefully consider this data during their feasibility studies, as it underscores the inherent risks associated with relying on EISA delivery for supplementary revenue.
Conclusion: A Considered Approach
Becoming a QCTO-accredited assessment centre is a significant undertaking that requires careful consideration and a clear understanding of the "why" behind the decision. Whether motivated by the desire to maintain control over learner assessments and ensure successful qualification completion, or by the ambition to diversify revenue through external EISA services, SDPs must thoroughly evaluate the required resources, associated costs, and potential risks.
This decision warrants careful deliberation. SDPs should conduct thorough research and assess the alignment of accreditation benefits with their long-term strategic goals. Furthermore, outsourcing EISAs to external accredited assessment centres presents a viable alternative for SDPs seeking to mitigate the accreditation burden while ensuring access to high-quality assessments for their learners. Ultimately, a comprehensive evaluation of the 'why' will empower SDPs to make informed decisions that effectively balance immediate needs with long-term strategic objectives.
Why Outsourcing EISAs Offers a Strategic Advantage
Given the additional complexity and cost of seeking separate accreditation for assessment purposes, many SDPs may find it more practical to outsource their External Integrated Summative Assessments (EISAs) to established external accredited assessment centres with a proven track record in EISA delivery. This allows the SDP to:
Focus on Training: By outsourcing the EISA process, SDPs can focus on their core strength—delivering high-quality training programmess—without the added administrative burden and financial costs of maintaining an assessment centre.
Avoid Repeating the Accreditation Process: Outsourcing eliminates the need to go through the lengthy and costly process of obtaining accreditation as an assessment centre, saving time, effort, and resources.
Cost-Effectiveness: Outsourcing provides a cost-effective solution for SDPs lacking the capacity or resources for assessment centre accreditation, enabling them to fulfill learner assessment requirements without substantial infrastructure and staffing investments
EISA Hub, a QCTO-accredited assessment centre, holds accreditation for over 60 occupational qualifications across eight Assessment Quality Partners. With accredited assessment centres in all major provinces and extensive experience in end-to-end EISA delivery, EISA Hub ensures seamless assessment processes. EISA Hub’s established network of assessment centres has successfully addressed the challenges discussed in this article, providing SDP clients with tailored EISA solutions. As an independent assessment centre, who is not an SDP, EISA Hub guarantees the security and confidentiality of your learner and client data, ensuring it remains protected from competitors. Contact EISA Hub to discuss your EISA requirements and explore tailored solutions for your business.
