The beauty of blogging is that you get to post knee-jerk reactions to issues and then hope that people who come across your posts will join in the fray. This post is not quite a knee jerk reaction but I may be wrong.
We all know that the codes were gazetted on the 9th of February this year. I somehow suspect that they were very hastily drafted and that the proofing department might have been on strike before the ninth. Other than the obvious typos that crop up here and there, there are some very serious omissions.
Skills Development
I spent a whole afternoon trying to make the calculations for skills development spend work. I wasn't alone, Jacques Swanepoel of WorldsView Technologies was working on them at the same time. Jacques and I have differed in terms of how the calculations work - but we both agree that the calculation contained on page 5 of code 400 (page 14 in this document) can never work.
The first problem lies in that the calculations for adjusted recognition for gender (ARFG) ask you to calculate the percentage of black people and black women who are employees NOT the spend on skills development on these people.
The next problem happens when you take this ARFG and put it into the next calculation. Rienzo and I tried our best to figure it out, at first the score for the first requirement came to 8400 points; and then with a little modification we got it to 84 points (this is a category out of a total of six). Jacques has managed to reduce this even further to 25 points.
I know where the problem lies - if you calculate the spend you get a more realistic answer (that falls below 6). Can anybody help me with this at all - am I going wrong somewhere? Kim?
A hint
Don't read the codes without consulting the definitions. They don't make sense otherwise.
Comments