Use Prahalad and Hamel's core competency model to identify capabilities that provide access to a wide variety of markets, contribute significantly to customer value, and are difficult for competitors to imitate. Engage the executive team in facilitated workshops to surface 5-8 candidate competencies.

Apply Prahalad and Hamel's three tests: Does the competency provide potential access to a wide variety of markets? Does it make a significant contribution to perceived customer benefits? Is it difficult for competitors to imitate? Competencies that fail any test should be reclassified as capabilities or skills.

Establish clear definitions: core competencies are organization-level strategic advantages, capabilities are functional or team-level proficiencies, and skills are individual-level abilities. This taxonomy prevents confusion and ensures the framework operates at the right level of abstraction.

Create an explicit linkage between each identified core competency and the strategic goals it enables. This mapping ensures the competency framework remains strategically relevant and provides a clear rationale for investment in competency development.

Present the draft competency list to representatives from every function, level, and geography for feedback. Broad validation ensures the competencies resonate across the organization and are not merely a reflection of one department's perspective.

Define 4-5 proficiency levels (e.g. Foundation, Developing, Proficient, Advanced, Expert) with distinct behavioral descriptors at each level. Each level should represent a meaningful step in capability, not just a semantic variation. Refer to the Dreyfus model of skill acquisition for theoretical grounding.

For every intersection of competency and proficiency level, document 3-5 specific, observable behaviors that demonstrate that level. Indicators should be concrete enough to assess objectively — avoid vague language like 'demonstrates awareness' in favour of specific actions.

Map which proficiency level is expected for each competency at each job level (e.g. all directors should be at Advanced level for Strategic Thinking). This alignment integrates the competency framework into the broader talent architecture.

Develop scoring guides with examples of evidence that demonstrates each proficiency level. Rubrics should include what 'meeting expectations' and 'exceeding expectations' look like in practice, reducing subjectivity in competency assessments.

Test the competency definitions, behavioral indicators, and assessment rubrics with a pilot group spanning multiple functions and levels. Gather feedback on clarity, relevance, and ease of use, and refine the framework before organization-wide deployment.

Design interview guides, assessment centre exercises, and evaluation criteria that explicitly assess candidates against the core competencies. Structured behavioral interviews (using the STAR method) aligned to competencies significantly improve hiring quality and prediction validity.

Include competency assessment as a formal component of performance reviews, alongside goal achievement. Employees should be evaluated on both what they achieved (results) and how they achieved it (competencies), following the model advocated by GE and adopted widely.

Map each competency and proficiency level to specific learning interventions — courses, workshops, stretch assignments, coaching, and self-directed resources. This creates a clear development pathway for employees seeking to advance their competency levels.

Incorporate competency assessments into the 9-box grid or equivalent talent review process. Competency gaps in the leadership pipeline should trigger targeted development interventions or external hiring to ensure readiness for critical future roles.

Ensure that progression through competency levels is recognised in compensation decisions, either through base salary adjustments or skill-based pay premiums. This reinforces the message that competency development is valued and rewarded.

Develop launch materials including an executive sponsor video, one-page competency summaries, FAQ documents, and manager toolkits. Communicate the purpose (development, not judgement), timeline, and how employees will interact with the framework in their day-to-day work.

Deliver mandatory training for all people managers covering how to use the proficiency rubrics, conduct competency-based development conversations, and create individual development plans aligned to competency gaps. Manager capability is the primary driver of framework adoption.

Create a self-assessment portal where employees can evaluate their own competency levels, identify gaps, and access recommended development resources. Self-assessment builds ownership of development and prepares employees for meaningful conversations with their managers.

Introduce new employees to the core competencies during their first week, explaining what each competency means, why it matters, and how it will be assessed. Early exposure sets expectations and helps new hires focus their development efforts from the outset.

Review the relevance and accuracy of the competency definitions, behavioral indicators, and proficiency levels every two years. Business strategies evolve, and the competency framework must evolve with them to remain a useful tool rather than a historical artefact.

Conduct surveys and focus groups to assess whether the framework is clear, fair, and useful for development. Common issues include overly academic language, too many competencies, and behavioral indicators that do not reflect actual work — all of which should be addressed.

Review aggregate competency data across the organization to identify systemic strengths and gaps. If a particular competency is consistently rated low across multiple teams, this indicates a need for organizational investment in that area rather than individual development alone.

As the organization's strategy shifts — for example, toward digital transformation, sustainability, or international expansion — assess whether new competencies are needed or existing ones require redefinition. The framework should be a living document, not a static one.

Compare the organization's framework with published competency models from bodies such as CIPD, SHRM, and the Lominger/Korn Ferry competency library. External benchmarking ensures the framework reflects current thinking and is competitive in the talent market.