Competency framework development

Competency Framework Development

Depends what you mean by competencies. If you're thinking of the core behaviours a firm values, or thinks are important, it's probably best to settle on a few (just examples to support the firm's values). Less than 10, say. And these will inevitably be general in nature. I don't think you can attach levels to these – you either exhibit a behaviour, or you don't.

If you're thinking of knowledge and skills (what I'd refer to as competences) there will be core (common) elements, such as an understanding of the firm's products, its customers, distribution methods, and processes; and common skills, too (communications, for example). Perhaps a dozen core elements in total. In addition, it's possible to identify specific, functional competences for every role in a firm, and there is no limit on how many of these there might be, apart from the number of roles.

It's certainly possible to indicate what profiency level is likely to needed for competences, in order to do the job as expected (competently). But you might want to consider why you would want to assess people against such 'levels', because it could become an academic exercise. What might be more relevant is to assess whether people are doing the job to the standard expected (or would be likely to, based on role-plays, experience from past jobs, etc.). If they are, or would be likely to, then assessing proficiency for its own sake could be pointless. Of course, if an individual is not performing to the standard required, having a good indicator of the knowledge/skill level is a valuable start-point for the person and any manager/trainer wishing to support their development. Taken to its next stage, defined proficiency levels can help build a learning syllabus, with content matching what people need to understand, or be able to do, at each level.

One Response

User deleted says:

January 13, 2014 at 2:37 pm

Competency Framework Development

Depends what you mean by competencies. If you're thinking of the core behaviours a firm values, or thinks are important, it's probably best to settle on a few (just examples to support the firm's values). Less than 10, say. And these will inevitably be general in nature. I don't think you can attach levels to these – you either exhibit a behaviour, or you don't.

If you're thinking of knowledge and skills (what I'd refer to as competences) there will be core (common) elements, such as an understanding of the firm's products, its customers, distribution methods, and processes; and common skills, too (communications, for example). Perhaps a dozen core elements in total. In addition, it's possible to identify specific, functional competences for every role in a firm, and there is no limit on how many of these there might be, apart from the number of roles.

It's certainly possible to indicate what profiency level is likely to needed for competences, in order to do the job as expected (competently). But you might want to consider why you would want to assess people against such 'levels', because it could become an academic exercise. What might be more relevant is to assess whether people are doing the job to the standard expected (or would be likely to, based on role-plays, experience from past jobs, etc.). If they are, or would be likely to, then assessing proficiency for its own sake could be pointless. Of course, if an individual is not performing to the standard required, having a good indicator of the knowledge/skill level is a valuable start-point for the person and any manager/trainer wishing to support their development. Taken to its next stage, defined proficiency levels can help build a learning syllabus, with content matching what people need to understand, or be able to do, at each level.