Comments on: The basis of competence ideas

By: Simon Grant

Simon Grant — Fri, 27 May 2011 11:58:04 +0000

Tom

I think I see your point, but not sure. Try the idea that to analyse something, it helps to start with a clear idea of what you are analysing. At root, “what is required” in so many situations is that people do what is expected and keep people happy. People may be good at this without knowing how they do it. Much is unconscious. What I’m saying is just that this is the starting point. I don’t mean “secondary” as unimportant, just not quite as central and basic as “primary”…

By: TomK

TomK — Fri, 27 May 2011 10:01:15 +0000

Doesn’t the boundary of what is required eventually merge and map with what can be done, and therefore analysis is not secondary?
From a computing perspective you could aim to measure everything from lifting a 50kg weight to building trusted relationships. Applying the more fuzzy criteria like good customer service maybe a harder thing to measure but is now subject to lots of measures which brings it into the doing category (ie trust).
As the two domains of competence and computing merge alongside reality and virtual reality in learning and applications such as recruitment, does competency become something that is rooted in doing and summarised in terms of required, therefore has analysis built in.

By: asimong

asimong — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 08:35:07 +0000

Thanks, Alan. Two responses to this…
(1) “what is required” works better for this analysis because it is in the form of a “thing” rather than just being an adverb. If we just say “successfully”, that doesn’t bring to the foreground what it is the person has to do to be successful, and may make it slightly less obvious that the criterion of success isn’t usually just what the person themselves take as success.
(2) using the word “required” is intended to point clearly towards the requirements coming from other people.
To apply this to your questions, if I employ a bricklayer, it is up to me to set (or assume) the requirements. I may just employ a bricklayer to make a wall to my exact specifications, in which case I do not require the bricklayer to recommend anything. But also, I may have background implicit requirements about the professionalism of the bricklayer (perhaps) which may lead to expectations that they will tell me if there may be a problem.

On the other hand, I imagine that a bricklayer under supervision on a building site will be required simply to follow instructions in a more or less intelligent manner. That will constitute competence at a different role, that of assistant bricklayer, rather than the competences required of a self-employed builder. “What is required” is clearly different, but I don’t think that the success criteria for the wall are materially different. That leads me to preferring my own definition over the OED in this case…

By: Alan Paull

Alan Paull — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 16:46:24 +0000

“The ability to do something successfully” is perhaps less controversial. This is the Oxford English Dictionary definition.

“what is required” is problematic. For example, if I want a bricklayer to make a brick wall, do I expect the bricklayer to recommend whether or not a wall ought to go where I want it to? Do I want him to suggest that somewhere else would be better? Or that maybe a fence is a better solution? Or a stone wall rather than a brick wall? Or to advise on its height?

By: asimong

asimong — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 20:03:14 +0000

Rob, I agree that competence is normally associated with reliability. But I prefer to see that as just part of “what is required”. It is for this kind of reason that unpacking “what is required” is so interesting and challenging.

By: Rob Englebright

Rob Englebright — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 17:05:36 +0000

I think competence even at this low level description needs the additional qualification:
“Competence means the ability to RELIABLY do what is required.”
without, it may be accident, or chance that give the illusion of competence?