A list of skills is a beginning. Teams also need to agree what those skills mean in a role, how proficiency is described and what evidence supports each assessment. A taxonomy, framework and matrix provide different parts of that picture.
Use a taxonomy to organise the vocabulary
A skills taxonomy groups related terms and makes their relationships explicit. It can connect a broad area such as project delivery with more specific capabilities such as planning, risk management and stakeholder communication. Shared definitions help different teams avoid using several labels for the same concept.
Start with the work and the audience. A specialist vocabulary that nobody recognises will create inconsistent responses. Record useful synonyms, define boundaries and give someone ownership of changes as roles evolve.
Use a framework to describe the requirement
A competency framework explains what matters for a role or programme and how different levels of proficiency are recognised. ‘Stakeholder communication’ becomes more useful when the team distinguishes providing updates from resolving disagreement across several functions.
Write level descriptions around observable work. Agree which competencies are required, which are developmental and what evidence is appropriate. The same label may carry different expectations in different roles; make that context explicit rather than stretching one score across every situation.
Use a matrix to make coverage visible
A skills matrix places people or groups against the agreed capabilities. A useful matrix also distinguishes assessment perspective, missing information and the date of the evidence. Employee and manager assessments can sit alongside one another without being averaged into apparent certainty.
A blank cell does not necessarily mean a person lacks a skill. It may mean that nobody asked, that the assessment is incomplete or that the framework changed. Keep those possibilities visible before deciding whom to train or approach for an assignment.
Maintain the connection to decisions
Use the framework to collect consistent evidence, the matrix to identify questions and the source records to review them. Then connect the findings to a development priority, matching requirement or planning scenario. A taxonomy by itself cannot establish availability or readiness to move.
Agree how changes are versioned. When a definition or proficiency level changes, decide whether existing assessments remain comparable or need refreshing. This prevents a more polished matrix from hiding a change in what is being measured.
Follow one capability through the three layers
Illustrative role: regional programme lead.
Delivery → stakeholder communication
How to read it
Names and organises the capability. Synonyms such as stakeholder engagement need a shared definition.
The next useful action
Agree the vocabulary that employees and managers can recognise.
Compare all 3 cases
| Case | Known information | Next action |
|---|---|---|
| Taxonomy | Delivery → stakeholder communication | Agree the vocabulary that employees and managers can recognise. |
| Framework | Coordinates decisions across country teams | Agree what an appropriate supporting example would demonstrate. |
| Matrix | Employee: level 3 · Manager: level 2 | Review a work example and agree a development or evidence-refresh action. |
Illustrative example. These controls explain the method; they do not access client records or execute workforce actions.
A clear vocabulary makes evidence comparable; the evidence makes the matrix useful.
Explore the relevant EVA capabilitiesSources & further reading
This guide explains EVA's approach and illustrative methods. Follow the current offering and methodology pages for scope and examples.