Apt - Making it Work final report

Part Seven - Challenges

Challenges for SUSE in Delivering the Making It Work Project

Employer recruitment and engagement

• Recruiting employers was the most significant challenge, particularly in the private sector, where 4–6 months is typically required to secure organisational approval and commitment
• Delays to project confirmation reduced the available delivery time, limiting the number of employers that could fully engage in workstreams
• Reliance on cold outreach and large‑scale presentations required substantial staff time for limited return; warm introductions via trusted partners proved more effective

Compressed delivery timescales

• Late employer recruitment meant SUSE typically had only 4–6 months to work with employers rather than the intended 12 months.
• This restricted the ability to:
• Embed changes
• Test long‑term impact
• Gather meaningful post‑implementation evaluation data

Employer variability

• Employers differed significantly in:
• This required ongoing adaptation of approaches, increasing delivery complexity

• • • Size, sector and operational context
    • HR capacity and formality of processes
    • Readiness to engage with disability inclusion work

Sustaining engagement across workstreams

• Engagement was uneven across workstreams
• Improving Workplace Consultation saw the lowest uptake, suggesting a perceived time burden, uncertainty about value, or fear of disruption by employers

Challenges for Employers Implementing the Four Workstreams

Cross‑cutting challenges

• Limited time and competing operational priorities of employers
• Lack of internal expertise in disability inclusion and accessibility within employers
• Difficulty translating learning into sustained organisational change to due time challenges
• Concern about cost, disruption, or “getting it wrong” by employers

Workstream 1: Equitable Induction & In‑Work Support

• Induction processes often focused on compliance rather than employee experience
• Many employers had not previously considered the accessibility of their induction materials
• Smaller employers lacked structured induction tools or HR capacity for inclusive induction processes
• Limited awareness of Supported Employment tools (e.g. in‑work support plans)

Workstream 2: Positive Workplace Conversations

• Employers and managers were wary of initiating conversations about disability, despite recognising their importance
• Fear of saying the wrong thing or causing offence reduced confidence
• Cultural change around disclosure requires time; short project timescales limited measurable outcomes
• Applying conversation models was more challenging in non‑office‑based or shift‑based environments

Workstream 3: Digital Access Review & Action Plan

• Digital accessibility was often overlooked in workplace systems, particularly eLearning
• Assistive technology was rarely integrated into onboarding or training strategies
• Employers often lacked internal capacity or ownership to implement technical recommendations
• Reliance on third‑party or legacy systems limited employers’ control over accessibility improvements
• Training tended to be reactive and focused on basic functions rather than real workflows

Workstream 4: Improving Workplace Consultation

• Employers showed low appetite for establishing formal employee groups
• Common concerns included:
• Time and resource commitments
• Fear of ongoing obligations
• Perception that consultation could be disruptive or tokenistic
• Engagement was stronger with informal or lighter‑touch mechanisms (e.g. surveys, 1‑to‑1 feedback)
• Reverse Mentoring was attractive and potential advantageous but requires longer timescales to be effective