Hi friends, i m ram. i m pursuing my MBA in HR from mumbai. and right now i m undergoing my summers in BPCL.
i have some doubts regarding competency mapping. I want to know how can we will get to know the forces which is developing the competencies level of an individual. waiting for reply
regards
ram
From India, Agartala
i have some doubts regarding competency mapping. I want to know how can we will get to know the forces which is developing the competencies level of an individual. waiting for reply
regards
ram
From India, Agartala
Dear Ram,
The first step in assessing competency levels is to create competencies for each position. Competencies are identified by :
1. interviewing the people who are currently working in such position
2. surveying the industry
3. interactions with equipment manufacturers (in case of technical competencies)
Once the competencies are identified they are used as the benchmark and the individual's competency levels are measured against the benchmark.
Hope this gives you a clue to proceed.
From India, Pune
The first step in assessing competency levels is to create competencies for each position. Competencies are identified by :
1. interviewing the people who are currently working in such position
2. surveying the industry
3. interactions with equipment manufacturers (in case of technical competencies)
Once the competencies are identified they are used as the benchmark and the individual's competency levels are measured against the benchmark.
Hope this gives you a clue to proceed.
From India, Pune
Hi Surbhi,
Hope this is of help:
Ref: http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-comp.htm
In the discussion that occurred in the 1980s in the UK competence was basically approached as ‘the ability to do a particular activity to a prescribed standard (Working Group on Vocational Qualifications 1986). UDACE proclaimed that ‘competence is concerned with what people can do rather than what they know’. They went on:
This has several implications:
firstly if competence is concerned with doing then in must have a context…;
secondly, competence is an outcome: it describes what someone can do. It does not describe the learning process which the individual has undergone.
thirdly, in order to measure reliably someone’s ability to do something, there must be clearly defined and widely accessible standards through which performance is measured and accredited;
fourthly, competence is a measure of what someone can do at a particular point in time. (UDACE 1989: 6 quoted by Tight 1996).
The language of competence is often misunderstood. This is because of its association with vocational training and skill rather than understanding. There is some truth in this. The notion of competence described above is a pale and demeaning shadow of the Greek notion of aretè or that of virtus in ancient Rome. Brezinka (1988: 76) describes this as a relatively permanent quality of personality which is valued by the community to which we belong. In this sense it is not simply a skill but is a virtue; a general sense of excellence and goodness. It involves being up to those tasks that life presents us (op cit).
In much current usage this notion has been whittled down to the ability to undertake specific tasks; it has been largely stripped of its social, moral and intellectual qualities. Perhaps the best way of approaching this is to make a distinction between competence (and competences) and competency (and competencies). This is something that Hyland has done usefully with regard to the development of NVQs in the United Kingdom. He argues that there is a tendency to conflate the terms. Competence and competences are broad capacities (which a close relation to the sort of virtues that Brezinka was concerned with). In contrast competency (plural competencies) is narrower, more atomistic concept used to label particular abilities or episodes. In the case of the former we might talk of a competent informal educator; in the latter a competent piece of driving. In this way the first, capacity, sense of the term refers to the evaluation of persons; whereas the second, dispositional, sense refers to activities.
In the current discourse competence as a fully human attribute, has been reduced to competencies - series of discrete activities that people possess the necessary skills, knowledge and understanding to engage in effectively. The implication here is that behaviour can be objectively and mechanistically measured. This is a highly questionable assumption - there always has to be some uncertainty about what is being measured. We only have to reflect on questions of success in our work. It is often very difficult to judge what the impact of particular experiences has been. Sometimes it is years after the event that we come to appreciate something of what has happened. Yet there is something more. In order to measure, things have to be broken down into smaller and smaller units. The result is often long lists of trivial skills as is frequently encountered in BTEC programmes and NVQ competency assessments. This can lead to a focus on the parts rather than the whole; on the trivial, rather than the significant. It can lead to an approach to education and assessment which resembles a shopping list. When all the items are ticked, the person has passed the course or has learnt something. The role of overall judgment is sidelined.
Also,
One way of distinguishing between the two words is to think discretely about the outcomes required in a given job (WHAT needs to be achieved) and the behaviours used to achieve the outcomes (HOW they are achieved). Using these two concepts the words can be defined as:
What - COMPETENCE - the outcomes that would define effective performance i.e. aspects of the job at which a person is competent
How - COMPETENCIES - behaviours etc. used to achieve the desired outcomes, i.e. aspects of the person that enable him to be competent
From India, Mumbai
Hope this is of help:
Ref: http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-comp.htm
In the discussion that occurred in the 1980s in the UK competence was basically approached as ‘the ability to do a particular activity to a prescribed standard (Working Group on Vocational Qualifications 1986). UDACE proclaimed that ‘competence is concerned with what people can do rather than what they know’. They went on:
This has several implications:
firstly if competence is concerned with doing then in must have a context…;
secondly, competence is an outcome: it describes what someone can do. It does not describe the learning process which the individual has undergone.
thirdly, in order to measure reliably someone’s ability to do something, there must be clearly defined and widely accessible standards through which performance is measured and accredited;
fourthly, competence is a measure of what someone can do at a particular point in time. (UDACE 1989: 6 quoted by Tight 1996).
The language of competence is often misunderstood. This is because of its association with vocational training and skill rather than understanding. There is some truth in this. The notion of competence described above is a pale and demeaning shadow of the Greek notion of aretè or that of virtus in ancient Rome. Brezinka (1988: 76) describes this as a relatively permanent quality of personality which is valued by the community to which we belong. In this sense it is not simply a skill but is a virtue; a general sense of excellence and goodness. It involves being up to those tasks that life presents us (op cit).
In much current usage this notion has been whittled down to the ability to undertake specific tasks; it has been largely stripped of its social, moral and intellectual qualities. Perhaps the best way of approaching this is to make a distinction between competence (and competences) and competency (and competencies). This is something that Hyland has done usefully with regard to the development of NVQs in the United Kingdom. He argues that there is a tendency to conflate the terms. Competence and competences are broad capacities (which a close relation to the sort of virtues that Brezinka was concerned with). In contrast competency (plural competencies) is narrower, more atomistic concept used to label particular abilities or episodes. In the case of the former we might talk of a competent informal educator; in the latter a competent piece of driving. In this way the first, capacity, sense of the term refers to the evaluation of persons; whereas the second, dispositional, sense refers to activities.
In the current discourse competence as a fully human attribute, has been reduced to competencies - series of discrete activities that people possess the necessary skills, knowledge and understanding to engage in effectively. The implication here is that behaviour can be objectively and mechanistically measured. This is a highly questionable assumption - there always has to be some uncertainty about what is being measured. We only have to reflect on questions of success in our work. It is often very difficult to judge what the impact of particular experiences has been. Sometimes it is years after the event that we come to appreciate something of what has happened. Yet there is something more. In order to measure, things have to be broken down into smaller and smaller units. The result is often long lists of trivial skills as is frequently encountered in BTEC programmes and NVQ competency assessments. This can lead to a focus on the parts rather than the whole; on the trivial, rather than the significant. It can lead to an approach to education and assessment which resembles a shopping list. When all the items are ticked, the person has passed the course or has learnt something. The role of overall judgment is sidelined.
Also,
One way of distinguishing between the two words is to think discretely about the outcomes required in a given job (WHAT needs to be achieved) and the behaviours used to achieve the outcomes (HOW they are achieved). Using these two concepts the words can be defined as:
What - COMPETENCE - the outcomes that would define effective performance i.e. aspects of the job at which a person is competent
How - COMPETENCIES - behaviours etc. used to achieve the desired outcomes, i.e. aspects of the person that enable him to be competent
From India, Mumbai
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Competency mapping.ppt
ART AND SCIENCE OF COMPETENCY MAPPING.doc