Employers accumulate levy they never spend, and then spend it badly in the last quarter. We run the needs analysis that tells you what training your organisation actually requires, build the calendar around it, and handle the grant paperwork so the claim goes through the first time.
Support for employers registered with HRD Corp: working out what training is genuinely needed, planning it against the levy available, and handling the grant application and claim documentation so the process does not fall on an already stretched HR team.
Orbix sells a catalogue of over a hundred and seventy claimable courses. What we had never done is help clients work out which of them they need, or navigate the process that makes them claimable. Levy sits unspent because nobody has time to plan it, and claims get rejected on documentation rather than on substance.
Delivered as a standalone engagement or alongside a training programme. Employers who only need the paperwork handled can take that part on its own.
Analysis at organisational, departmental and individual level: the performance gaps that exist, which of them training can actually close, and which are process, tooling or management problems that a course will not fix. Done through data and interviews rather than a wishlist survey.
Your current levy balance, contribution rate, accumulation and what is at risk of expiring. A plan that spends it deliberately across the year instead of in a rush before it lapses.
A calendar built from the needs analysis and matched to the levy: what runs, for whom, when, in what sequence, and at what cost. Sequenced so prerequisite courses come before the ones that depend on them.
Preparing and submitting SBL-Khas and other applicable scheme applications through the HRD Corp portal, with the documentation each requires, submitted within the deadlines that determine whether a claim is possible at all.
Attendance records, assessment evidence, invoices and the supporting documents a claim needs. Submitting the claim and dealing with queries, so the process closes rather than stalling.
Whether the training changed anything. Evaluation beyond the feedback form, feeding back into next year's needs analysis so the calendar improves rather than repeating.
A plan built from an actual needs analysis spends the same money on training people needed, rather than on whatever was available in December.
Most rejections are documentation problems, not eligibility problems. Getting the paperwork right at submission avoids the rework entirely.
The administration around applications, attendance evidence and claims is substantial and lands on people who already have a job. This takes it off them.
A needs analysis gives HR a defensible basis for declining requests that will not change performance, which is often the harder conversation.
Some of the most valuable findings are the gaps that are process or management problems. Identifying those saves the training budget for where it works.
With over a hundred and seventy courses available, the useful question is not what exists but what you need. This answers that first.
Your levy balance, contribution position, what has been claimed historically and what is at risk of expiring.
Organisational, departmental and individual analysis through performance data, interviews and structured input from department heads.
Separating genuine skill gaps from process, tooling and management problems, so training is proposed only where it will work.
Building the annual calendar against the levy, sequenced properly, with costs and expected outcomes stated per programme.
Submitting grant applications within deadline, and coordinating scheduling, logistics and attendance around delivery.
Assembling and submitting claim documentation, resolving queries, then evaluating whether the training changed anything.
Gaps identified at each level, with the diagnosis of which are training-addressable and which are not.
Balance, accumulation, what is at risk of expiring and by when.
Programmes, audiences, sequence, dates and costs, mapped against the levy available.
Prepared and submitted applications with the supporting documentation each scheme requires.
Attendance, assessment, invoices and supporting evidence assembled to the standard claims are approved against.
Whether the training produced a change, and what that means for the following year's analysis.
We do not resell products, so nothing here is shaped by a vendor margin. The recommendation is whatever your risk and your budget actually justify, including telling you that you do not need the engagement yet.
Findings come with a sequence, an owner and a realistic effort estimate, sized to the team you have rather than the team a framework assumes. A report that cannot be acted on is an expense, not a control.
Our people have carried the obligation internally, not only audited it. That shows up in what we consider proportionate, and in how much documentation we think you genuinely need.
Work is grounded in Malaysian law and regulator expectation, from the PDPA and the Cyber Security Act 2024 to Bursa, BNM and SC requirements, rather than translated from a European or American template.
Where an engagement includes training, the training component is structured to be HRD Corp SBL-Khas claimable, which changes what the programme costs you in practice.
We prepare applications and supporting documentation and can submit through your HRD Corp portal access where you authorise it. The employer remains the applicant and the levy account holder throughout; nothing about that changes.
The consultancy is not claimable. Training delivered as a result of it is, under SBL-Khas. We are explicit about which line is which in the quotation, because that distinction affects what the programme actually costs you.
No. The needs analysis is run independently of who delivers. Where the right answer is a provider we do not compete with, or an internal programme, that is what the calendar will say. A recommendation that always points back to our own catalogue would not be worth paying for.
Documentation rather than eligibility: applications submitted after the deadline, incomplete attendance records, missing assessment evidence, invoices that do not match the approved scope. Almost all of it is avoidable at submission.
For a mid-sized organisation, typically two to four weeks depending on how many departments are involved and how readily performance data can be obtained. Larger or multi-site organisations take longer.
It depends on your levy balance and how much administration is currently falling on one person. For smaller employers the calendar and application support usually matter more than a full needs analysis, and we scope it that way rather than selling the whole thing.
Yes, and that is a common reason clients come to us. The plan will necessarily be more compressed than one built with a full year ahead of it, and we will be honest about what can realistically be delivered and claimed in the time available.
Tell us your headcount, roughly what your levy balance looks like and whether anything is close to expiring. We will come back with a scope for the needs analysis, a calendar approach and a fixed quotation.
