Search results

The purpose of this article is to review the use of competence frameworks in the UK healthcare sector and to explore characteristics of the sector that may influence the success of projects to develop new frameworks.

The paper draws on project reports and evaluations of practice in a range of recent projects to develop new competence frameworks.

There are a number of competence frameworks in use in the UK healthcare sector, principally the NHS, designed for a range of purposes. There are many potential benefits of such frameworks. The main characteristics of the UK healthcare sector that can present difficulties to the development, and ultimate use, of such competence frameworks are the size, complexity, professionalisation and extent of other simultaneous change in the sector. Potential difficulties caused by these characteristics can be ameliorated by measures to align the development of the framework with priorities, interests and concerns of practitioners and stakeholder bodies. A case study of effective implementation of a framework demonstrates the benefits of integrating the competences with other measures to deliver a new service.

The paper gives practical guidance for those who intend to develop and implement competence frameworks in healthcare and other complex environments.

The paper applies established organisational change concepts to the specific issue of developing new frameworks of competence. The article provides high originality and high value to those who commission and those who develop competence frameworks.

The purpose of this study was to determine in what ways the competence frameworks analyzed converge or diverge and whether they are similar enough to be considered equivalent.

This study is based on a comparative analysis of competence frameworks describing sustainability education and foresight and futures education.

This study finds that sustainability education and futures and foresight education differ in significant ways in terms of expected outcomes as described by competence frameworks. The two educational fields cannot be considered equivalent. Rather, we find that they are complementary.

This study is based on an analysis of competence frameworks that have been published in peer-reviewed publications. They do not necessarily reflect what is actually practiced in educational environments. Also, competence frameworks may be in circulation that have not been described in scholarly publications and are therefore not included in this study.

The results of this study can be helpful for further refining and developing both sustainability education and futures and foresight education by clarifying the different roles that they play in promoting the skills needed to address long-term challenges in uncertain futures.

The rapid rise in prominence of sustainability education, in particular, but also foresight and futures education, is indicative of current concerns about the future of our planet and the beings that inhabit it. There is a sense that a key role of education should be to contribute to a pursuit of positive futures for all. By clarifying how current educational practices address this need, this study contributes to the overall goal of education.

Sustainability education and foresight and futures education have been regarded as being at least similar enough that implementing one may preclude the necessity for the other. This study shows that there are significant differences between the two as they have been defined in published competence frameworks. In particular, it shows that sustainability education emphasizes the use of anticipatory intelligence for strategic planning, while foresight and futures education emphasize the generation of anticipatory intelligence. The two fields are found to be complementary in that they address different, but equally necessary, skills needed to address long-term challenges.

Forms a part of a larger project aimed at developing a framework of managerial competence applicable to top teams in small – to medium‐sized enterprises in Northern Ireland. Reports on an investigation into the development of a process of “translation”, whereby cross‐company competence frameworks could be transformed into company‐specific frame‐works. A systematic, ten‐step translation process emerged, involving drawing out reactions to, and checking understanding of the generalizable frameworks, modifying framework items through additions, deletions, aggregation, disaggregation, and changes to the small print; identifying priorities; drawing out examples from practice; distinguishing actual from ideal; introducing a time dimension; challenging underlying reasoning and implications; and finally, checking the fit of the adapted frameworks. The developed translation process maintained the integrity of the generalizable frameworks while enabling full account to be taken of specific company differences. The process also served as a means of identifying individual team, and organization development issues, and laid the ground for the introduction of competence‐based management development initiatives.

Presents the research frame, methods and results of a study of top team competences in small‐ to medium‐sized enterprises sponsored by the Training and Employment Agency in Northern Ireland. Explores a “postulated” framework of competence using a modified version of repertory grid with 31 successful companies who have a working top team. The results confirmed the framework and give core competences at two linked levels: competence domains, areas of activity regarded as an important focus for performance excellence and competences, integrated sets of behaviour which can be directed towards successful goals achievement within competence domains. Validation of the results is given by the outcomes of follow‐up interviews and the comparison with other work. Holds that the results emphasize a radical insight into the notion of managerial competence in the smaller company.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse data literacy in the new Digital Competence Framework for Citizens (DigComp 2.2). Mid-2022 the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission published a new version of the DigComp (EC, 2022). This new version focusses more on the datafication of society and emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence. This paper analyses how DigComp 2.2 defines data literacy and how the framework looks at this from a societal lens.

This study critically examines DigComp 2.2, using the data literacy competence model developed by the Knowledge Centre for Digital and Media Literacy Flanders-Belgium. The examples of knowledge, skills and attitudes focussing on data literacy (n = 84) are coded and mapped onto the data literacy competence model, which differentiates between using data and understanding data.

Data literacy is well-covered in the framework, but there is a stronger emphasis on understanding data rather than using data, for example, collecting data is only coded once. Thematically, DigComp 2.2 primarily focusses on security and privacy (31 codes), with less attention given to the societal impact of data, such as environmental impact or data fairness.

Given the datafication of society, data literacy has become increasingly important. DigComp is widely used across different disciplines and now integrates data literacy as a required competence for citizens. It is, thus, relevant to analyse its views on data literacy and emerging technologies, as it will have a strong impact on education in Europe.

In the face of increasingly demanding business environments, organizations must carefully examine themselves to assess their “fitness” to compete and sustain success within their marketplaces. Such assessments lead senior management to challenge previously held beliefs about what is meant by “competence” and to reconstrue them in the light of future requirements. Managerial competences can help managers address this task. However, many competence approaches to organizational competence and change seem too narrowly focused and static in nature. Senior managers require models which cater for the dynamism of their business world. Outlines the framework identified by Stuart and Lindsay (1996). Illustrates its use in helping managers to systematically explore change requirements to achieve “competence” through a client assignment. Indicates how outputs from application of the framework inform and strengthen the development of HR systems and processes to support change in pursuit of organizational competence.

Collaborative forms range from co-located teams engaged in short term local projects, to international joint ventures, to worldwide networks of organizations and citizens linked together to generate global social change. In order to discern patterns that transcend the breadth of forms (including virtual), a new term is introduced that encompasses the entire spectrum: collaborative entity (CE). The diverse and far-ranging CE literature is then integrated into the Collaborative Capacity (CC) Framework. That framework is comprised of ten broad constructs and their interrelationships that, when considered together, capture fundamental aspects of all CEs. The CC Framework provides a bridge-building language to help facilitate inter-disciplinary, multi-dimensional dialogue, research, and perspectives on fostering collaborative capacity.

The current gap between the required and available artificial intelligence (AI) professionals poses significant challenges for organisations and academia. Organisations are challenged to identify and secure the appropriate AI competencies. Simultaneously, academia is challenged to design, offer and quickly scale academic programmes in line with industry needs and train new generations of AI professionals. Therefore, identifying and structuring AI competencies is necessary to effectively overcome the AI competence shortage.

A probabilistic topic model was applied to explore the AI competence categories empirically. The authors analysed 1159 AI-related online job ads published on LinkedIn.

The authors identified five predominant competence categories: (1) Data Science, (2) AI Software Development, (3) AI Product Development and Management, (4) AI Client Servicing, and (5) AI Research. These five competence categories were summarised under the developed AI competence framework.

The AI competence framework contributes to clarifying and structuring the diverse AI landscape. These findings have the potential to aid various stakeholders involved in the process of training, recruiting and selecting AI professionals. They may guide organisations in constructing a complementary portfolio of AI competencies by helping users match the right competence requirements with an organisation's needs and business objectives. Similarly, they can support academia in designing academic programmes aligned with industry needs. Furthermore, while focusing on AI, this study contributes to the research stream of information technology (IT) competencies.

Work on managerial competence has largely been characterized by being narrowly focused, fragmented and confusing in its terminology. Further, it has often failed to deal with issues of organizational specificity and the widely different contexts for managerial performance. Additionally, the work has mainly been located in and applied to lower level managers in the larger, often multinational organizations. Finally, the focus of much competence work has been on individual managers and has often taken little account of teamworking. Describes a contextually embedded framework of managerial competence which is targeted on top teams in small to medium‐sized enterprises. The framework identifies and distinguishes the key foci for clearly defining managerial competence, and beyond that, serves to locate existing competency frames in a single and coherent whole. The framework also explicitly recognizes organizational context as an important influence on ‐ indeed determinant of ‐ managerial competence in situ. Uses the concept of a lens of organizational competence to bridge environmental and organizational cultural variables with top team concerns and capabilities.

The purpose of this article is to explore diversity in competence models across Europe and consider the extent to which there is sufficient common ground for a common European approach to underpin the European Qualifications Framework.

The paper uses a literature review and interviews with policy makers.

Despite the central role of competence in policy initiatives, conceptual approaches to competence vary not only between but also within different member states. This diversity embodies not only language issues but also fundamental cultural differences in approaches to skill formation. Whether the models have sufficient common ground to permit a “best‐fit” European‐wide approach is open to question, although this is clearly an essential prerequisite for removing barriers to labour mobility. Despite initiatives like the European Qualifications Framework there is still no consensus for adopting a common competence model and policy discussions continue to reveal confusion.

The focus on policy discussions at the European level may be a limitation, and readers should see this as the introductory scene setting to more detailed discussions in the following papers of important developments within member states. Beyond this, much is happening at the level of sectors and occupations that is the focus for practical implementation.

The paper highlights the urgent need to develop a coherent conceptual underpinning for competence descriptors in qualifications frameworks that will work as a best‐fit approach across Europe. Without this, occupational and inter‐sector mobility will be hindered.

The paper offers the most comprehensive assessment of European approaches to competence to date.