Document all job families (e.g. Engineering, Sales, Finance, HR, Marketing) and their sub-families (e.g. within Engineering: Software Development, QA, DevOps, Data Engineering). A well-structured job architecture is the foundation for role-based competency mapping, as advocated by Willis Towers Watson and Mercer.

Use structured job analysis methods (e.g. critical incident technique, task inventory analysis, or the Position Analysis Questionnaire) to identify the key tasks, responsibilities, and competencies required for success in each role. Involve both incumbents and their managers in the analysis.

For each job family, define a set of role-specific competencies that capture the technical, functional, and interpersonal capabilities required. These sit alongside the organization's core competencies to create a complete competency profile for each role.

Separate competencies into technical (e.g. financial modelling, programming languages, regulatory knowledge) and behavioral (e.g. stakeholder management, analytical thinking, attention to detail). This distinction enables targeted development approaches for each category.

Present the draft competency lists to top performers and technical experts within each job family for validation. Their input ensures the competencies reflect actual success factors rather than theoretical requirements, and builds credibility for the framework.

Create a matrix showing which proficiency level (e.g. Developing, Competent, Advanced, Expert) is expected for each competency at each career level (e.g. Junior, Mid, Senior, Lead, Principal). This matrix becomes the blueprint for career progression within the job family.

For every competency-level combination, document observable behaviors specific to the job family context. For example, 'stakeholder management' at an Advanced level looks different for a finance professional (managing audit relationships) than for an engineer (influencing product roadmap decisions).

Define what an employee must demonstrate in terms of competency proficiency, experience breadth, and impact to move to the next level. Publish these criteria transparently so employees can self-assess their readiness and plan their development accordingly.

Ensure each job family offers both a deep specialist track and a people management track at senior levels. Clearly articulate the competency differences between the tracks — managers need people leadership competencies, while senior ICs need deeper technical expertise and broader influence skills.

Ensure that advancement through competency levels corresponds to meaningful increases in compensation. If employees can progress in competency without corresponding recognition in pay, the framework will lose credibility and fail to motivate development.

Select assessment approaches that suit the competency type — e.g. technical skills assessments or coding challenges for engineering, case study presentations for consulting, portfolio reviews for design, and structured behavioral interviews for all roles. Multi-method assessment improves accuracy.

Provide a structured template that guides employees in identifying their competency gaps, setting development goals, and selecting learning activities. The template should prompt for specific, measurable actions with timelines and support resources.

Map specific courses, certifications, books, conferences, and on-the-job experiences to each competency at each proficiency level. Partnering with L&D to build a learning catalogue aligned to the competency framework makes development accessible and actionable.

Establish processes where colleagues within the same job family assess each other's competency levels through code reviews, deal reviews, case discussions, or other discipline-specific mechanisms. Peer assessment adds rigour and reduces reliance on manager-only evaluation.

Require quarterly development conversations between employees and managers that specifically review progress against competency goals. Use the competency framework as a standing agenda item in one-to-one meetings to maintain focus on continuous development.

Aggregate individual competency data to identify where teams have strong coverage and where critical gaps exist. Use heatmap visualisations to make gaps immediately visible to leaders, enabling targeted hiring and development to fill the most strategically important deficiencies.

When a competency gap is identified at the team level, determine whether it is more effective to develop the competency internally or recruit externally. Use the competency framework to write more precise job specifications that attract candidates with the exact capabilities needed.

For each critical role, assess internal candidates against the role's competency requirements to determine readiness. Candidates who meet most competency requirements are 'ready now'; those with addressable gaps are 'ready in 1-2 years' with targeted development.

Model future competency requirements based on strategic plans (e.g. market expansion, technology adoption, product launches) and compare them against the current competency inventory. This forward-looking analysis enables proactive talent investment.

Designate a senior leader or subject-matter expert within each job family as the competency owner, accountable for keeping definitions current, reviewing proficiency levels, and ensuring the framework reflects evolving role requirements.

Conduct an annual review of each job family's competencies, triggered by changes in technology, regulation, market conditions, or organizational strategy. Remove obsolete competencies, add emerging ones, and refine behavioral indicators based on feedback.

Establish an HR-led governance committee that oversees the overall competency architecture, ensures consistent formatting and proficiency level definitions, and prevents divergence between job families. Centralised governance maintains framework integrity while allowing job-family-level customization.

Track how frequently the competency framework is referenced in performance reviews, development plans, hiring decisions, and talent reviews. Low usage indicates an adoption problem that may require additional training, simplification, or integration into existing tools.

Include questions about the competency framework in engagement surveys and gather qualitative input through focus groups. Employee perception of the framework's fairness, clarity, and developmental value is a leading indicator of its long-term sustainability.