Skills mean something when evidence sits behind them.
An organisation skill language, tied to roles, with gaps you can see and learning that is aimed at a role.
The problem
Skill lists become inventories of self-ratings. A number like “Python 87%” looks precise and usually is not.
The decision
Which capabilities do we already have, which are adjacent, and which still need evidence?
How it works
- Start from confirmed roles, not a blank taxonomy.
- Attach skills as must-have or good-to-have.
- Record evidence: assessment, project, credential, work, manager validation, or a person’s own declaration.
- Read levels as Aware, Working, Proficient, Advanced or Expert.
Example
SQL can be self-declared, assessed, shown in a project, manager-validated, or backed by a credential. “Strong” means more than one kind of evidence. It does not mean 87%.
Inputs
- Role skills
- Assessments the organisation already runs
- Projects and credentials the person chooses to attach
Outputs
- A skill with its evidence, not a percentage
- Gaps against a target role
- A learning aim tied to that gap
Pilot scope
Pick one skill family that hiring and learning already argue about, and attach the evidence you already have.
What the organisation sees
Skills and evidence created in the organisation, or explicitly shared into a programme. Not private life context.
What the individual controls
The person keeps My ESI. Money, health, family, private ESI Next chats, and career exploration stay private unless a specific, field-level share is chosen. There is no “share My ESI with my employer” switch.
Explore. Select. Innovate.