Author: Flint, David

Competencies are usually defined for jobs (or job families). So, basically the systems track individual competencies only for the job that that person is in. That is the limiting part. It does not provide a complete talent profile for that individual. I may have other competencies that have nothing to do with the job that may be useful to an employer. It is not easy to capture, much less maintain this full picture. In a earlier post, I provided a link to a Gartner High Performance Workplace blog entry on dynamic profiling which is one approach to helping fill in the blanks of a talent profile. I will not repeat all of the details here, but the concept is to build a dynamic profile that uses both structured (e.g., competencies, certifications, etc.) and unstructured (e.g., resume, e-mail, discussion forums, etc.) information to build a more dynamic (and complete view of the) talent profile. Think ZoomInfo but leveraging internal and external data.

I think this is a good direction, but there are more opportunities for a richer model. I have to give credit where credit is due. I was having dinner with the Workday folks last week and Mark Nittler , Karen Beaman, and I were discussing tags (i.e., as used in sites like del.icio.us and digg, etc.). As I thought about the conversation the next day, it struck me that this could be very useful for talent profiling. Imagine a system that allows you extracts a set of tags from a resume and that would allow a candidate to self-describe their capabilities using tags. What if you could easily tag documents that you create with tags that describe the competencies demonstrated in producing those documents (and the system could read those tags and associate it with your talent profile)? It would be pretty cool. As much as I think competencies are important, I think within five years we will see systems supporting richer, more dynamic talent profiles.

Technorati Tags: HCM, Talent Management, Competency Management, Recruitment, Performance Management, Succession Planning

The 2005 LMS Magic Quadrant reflects market consolidation driven by customer base acquisitions. This will compel customers and prospects to prioritize financial viability and product interoperability in their selection criteria to reduce the risk that their products will become orphaned.

Magic Quadrant for E-Learning Suites, 2005

E-learning suite vendors continue to expand their products’ functionality and market presence. These trends have altered the position of the vendors in our latest Magic Quadrant.

Magic Quadrant for E-Learning Content, 2004

Interest in e-learning content continues to increase, with demand concentrated on custom content. The 2004 E-Learning Content Magic Quadrant reflects significant changes compared to 2003.

Justify E-Learning Investments in Three Phases

E-learning requires sustained investments over many years; however, the justification for this spending will change with time. To retain the support of corporate managers, use a three-phase approach to explain the benefits e-learning will provide.

How to Move to the Next Level of E-Learning

A Gartner survey shows that many companies are moving from departmental to enterprisewide e-learning. Take concrete steps to make that transition successful and improve the benefits received.

Hype Cycle for E-Learning, 2005

Gartner’s 2005 E-Learning Hype Cycle defines the stages of e-learning technologies. Understanding the drivers and inhibitors of these technologies will help organizations mitigate risks and generate greater rewards for their e-learning strategies.