Do competency frameworks need competency definitions?

For many people engaged in the design of competency frameworks, the ‘competency definition’ is the key element of a competency model or framework. The new IEEE 1484.20.2 Defining Competencies standard on has a whole section on the construction of competency definitions. It is a very well done piece of work that should be available in May 2021.

Please take our short survey on Leveraging organizational skills and competencies to create value

On the other hand, there are those who deprecate the importance of competency frameworks and skills. For example, Degreed has published a number of posts suggesting that competency models are outmoded and that the focus should be on skills. See for example, How to Shift from a Competency Model to a Skills Strategy in 5 Steps by Nick Welna.

Now one can argue that Degreed’s positioning of competency models is no more than a strawman and that modern competency models are more flexible and dynamic than this suggests. Compare this with the definitions used in the work being done at the IEEE. The best definition of the difference between skills and competencies I have seen comes from Eric Shepherd at Talent Transformation Guild who said

Competencies are skills in context.

What this means is shown in this nested set of definitions that Eric developed as part of the IEEE work.

Looking at this carefully, and thinking about competency models we have worked with recently, one can see that the Degreed positioning is a bit misleading. Competency models do include skills. Skills and behaviors are the two key components of a competency definition. They are asserted in the context of a performance setting, a setting that can include jobs and roles.

I have some sympathy for Degreed’s position that a focus on skills is needed for career mobility. All that context that makes a good competency model so powerful can also limit its generality. When one is concerned with moving into completely new roles it is skills that give the insight. A good competency model will be explicit about skills. Skills are the atomic unit that connect the individual and their potential to new roles and that open new career paths. Good competency models map to both skills and roles.

When we see roles at Ibbaka we are speaking of three different kinds of roles.

Job Roles - the different roles that can be combined to give a job description
Team Roles - roles on teams
Ad-Hoc Roles - roles not a formal part of a job or team but that are an important part of work - “I am doing that off the side of my desk”

We are also considering expanding this to include community roles and family roles. These roles can give important insights into the full range of potential, especially for people who move in and out of the formal workforce.

Which brings me to my (intentionally) provocative title, do competency frameworks need competency definitions?

In Ibbaka’s Open Competency Models there are no explicit competency definitions. The components of the model are …

Jobs (a few jobs are included as a reference point, as many people still think in terms of jobs and this provides a useful anchor)
Roles (this is how we align competencies to work)
Behaviors or how the work should be carried out
Skills needed (we include knowledge here and categorize skills as business, technical, design, social, foundational and domain)
Learning Resources (this is one place we integrate with learning management systems)

Other competency models that we develop with customers can include things like experiences, tasks or activities. We also align models with values, goals and outcomes.

The ‘competency definition’ is the dynamic combination of the components.

How are these brought together to generate and evolve the model?

We generally begin by crafting or seeding the components into the model, but it does not end there. As the model gets connected to job roles, teams roles and ad hoc roles new skills bubble up into the model. Of course curation is required, but this becomes an ongoing part of the work. Competency models do not need to freeze your understanding of the skills required to work. They can be adaptive systems in their own right.

If one has a complicated written competency description it becomes more difficult to support this evolutionary and adaptive approach. But if the competency description is no more than (or less) than its components and their connections, then the definitions can evolve along with the work. And this effectively dissolves Degreed’s objections to competency models.

In this case, you can have the best of both worlds, the granularity of skills and their ability to support career mobility, and the context setting of competency models, that connect skills to work in a way that a simple skill-based approach cannot.

Ibbaka Posts on Competency Models and Competency Frameworks

Competency models as learning plans