Competency mapping and
visualisation techniques in change management
Joachim Schöpfel (corresponding author)
Jacques Creusot
INIST-CNRS, 2 allée du Parc de Brabois, F-54519 Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy
Cedex.
Abstract
Purpose: The article describes techniques that may
facilitate change management in the library.
Approach: The paper is based
on practical experience and evidence from the INIST library department in
Findings: Based on standard
inventories of LIS professions and competencies, we present techniques for the
mapping and visualisation of individual or team-centred job functions and
skills. These techniques
can help and facilitate communication, information and participation and are
useful for staff development, workplace training and individual coaching.
Originality: The proposed techniques combine the
ECIA Euroguide of competencies, survey methods (mapping) and visualisation
techniques as decision aids and participatory management tools for change
management.
Keywords
Change management, staff development,
evaluation, visual aids, skills, ECIA guide.
Paper type
Technical paper.
1. issues
The new information technologies introduce fundamental modifications in
the traditional library functioning and organisation. These modifications produce
a direct and continuous impact on human resources, e.g. professional skills,
job descriptions and training programs (Bawden et al., 2005), and they are
often source of stress, insecurity and unease at the working place. Change
management must cope with feelings of anxiety and loss of autonomy and control,
but how?
Evaluation and self-evaluation techniques are part of change management
tools (Leong, 2008). Gain better and realistic understanding of competencies
and skills, obtain an objective view on gaps and needs of training, merge
individual coaching with team-centred communication can reduce fear and prepare
necessary changes (Tikkanen and Pölönen, 1996).
This paper proposes techniques that may prepare and facilitate change
management in the library environment, especially in larger organisations. The
goal is threefold: enable and accompany the process of change, provide a
decision aid for job development and training programs, support and develop information
and communication with the LIS practitioners.
The importance of visualisation tools for participatory management,
shared understanding and decision process has been highlighted by Platts and
Tan (2004).
The techniques were successfully applied during the initial transition period
from print to digital resources in the INIST[1]
library department from 2002 to 2004, with about 60 librarians. The originality
of this experience was the use of standard tools of professional skills,
mapping and visualisation techniques, and participative management in order to
facilitate understanding of the transition to the digital library and prepare
for change.
The following paper is derived from this experience, except one detail:
while we worked with a prior version of the ECIA guidelines (2001), all
examples in this article are taken from the second revised edition (ECIA, 2004).
2. JOB DESCRIPTION and Inventory of SKILLS
Enabling job development implies a precise description of workplace,
activities and competencies[2].
In a given organisation, this formalised description may be incomplete,
obsolete or otherwise invalid, or may not exist at all. Whatever the case may
be, an updated inventory of job functions, activities and competencies is a
necessary condition for the preparation of change management.
2.1. Job description
Therefore the first step is to determine the different professional
situations and functions in the given library environment. Each job is defined
by its objective (mission), activities and skills and also, by the level of
recruitment and salary.
It is helpful for both the management and staff to use standard instead
of “ad hoc” (institution-specific) tools because they embed the internal
project in the global professional environment, allow for better and objective
understanding of job development and help sharing goals.
In the INIST project, we used a prior version of the French CNRS[3]
professional inventory REFERENS that includes in its latest and revised edition
56 job descriptions for LIS practitioners, ranging from scientific information and
library to publishing and communication (CNRS, 2007). During the initial phase
of change management at the INIST library, the CNRS inventory supplied an
objective underpinning for the work on job definition. The result was a map of 12
positions and functions in the library independent from its organisational
structure and linked to the CNRS inventory. The map contained profiles for
“Library System Manager”, “Serials Catalogue Librarian”, “Acquisition
Librarian” etc. The complete format for each description includes information
on goals (mission), evolution (tendency), principal and associated activities,
principal and associated competencies (with different fields of expertise such
as general and operational knowledge, linguistic skills etc.), professional
environment (workplace and work conditions), minimum qualification and training
level.
The work was prepared with the library managers but discussed, modified
and validated with the whole library staff to be sure that each staff member
was able to situate him/herself on this map.
2.2. Inventory of skills
The second step is to evaluate professional expertise. Again, it is
important to associate the whole staff from the beginning on and to use
standard tools for the scaling of individual and collective skills.
Produced by the “European Council of Information Associations” (ECIA)[4]
with the support of the European Commission and published in nine languages,
the Euroguide LIS (ECIA, 2004) appears to be the most important international
inventory of competencies for information professionals (see Tammaro, 2005 p.
70 and Anderson, 2007 p. 102). In particular, two of its goals are of interest
for change management: “identifying the expertise that (the working
professional) must acquire or improve to remain competitive” and “undertaking a
training course where (the professional) will acquire supplementary expertise”
(ECIA, 2004 p. 10).
The 2nd edition contains 33 fields of expertise, divided into
five groups:
Group I – Information
12 fields of expertise (relations with users and clients, information
seeking, management of collections…)
Group T – Technology
5 fields of expertise (computer based design of information systems,
publishing and editing…)
Group C – Communication
7 fields of expertise (oral communication, using a foreign language,
institutional communication…)
Group M – Management
8 fields of expertise (marketing, budgetary management, diagnosis and
evaluation…)
Group S – Other scientific knowledge
x field(s) of expertise of another or other disciplines, apart from information
services (additional fields: economic, legal, linguistic, psychological…)
For each field of expertise the ECIA examples are organised by levels of
competence (degrees), from Level 1 (awareness - use of available tools and
basic knowledge of the field) to Level 4 (effective use or mastery of methodology).
The examples allow for comparison with real situations, e.g. for evaluation and
self-evaluation.
To be used for evaluation with individuals or groups, the list of fields
can be transformed in separate evaluation scales with four values (level 1 low
expertise – level 4 high expertise), for instance:
Group T – Technology
T01 – Computer based design of information
systems Level 1 – 2 – 3 – 4
T02 – Computer based development of
applications Level 1 –
2 – 3 – 4
T03 – Publishing and editing Level 1 – 2 – 3 – 4
T04 – Internet technology Level 1 – 2 – 3 – 4
T05 – Information and computer technology Level 1 – 2 – 3 – 4
The examples for each field and level should be explained and supplied together
with the evaluation scales.
As for the job description before, the inventory of skills was carried
out in a participatory way, combining evaluation and self-evaluation and shared
validation.
In the INIST project, we used the ECIA inventory only for job- or
team-centred evaluation. In other words, we asked members of the staff and the
management to scale the different skills for a specific job function and/or a
whole team (service) but not for individuals (staff members). The person-centred
evaluation was not necessary in this initial phase of change management where
the focus was on team-centred enabling and support.
3. Mapping of job functions and competencies
After the description of different job functions and the evaluation of
professional competencies, the next step is to map functions and competencies
in order to gain insight in the distribution, differences and convergences of
activities and skills.
In fact, the mapping can and should be done in two opposite directions:
mapping competencies to job functions, and mapping job functions to
competencies. Again, this is to be done together with the whole staff.
3.1. Mapping skills to job functions
In the first case the principal question is: for a given and defined job
function, which expertise (competencies) is used and/or needed, and on which
level of expertise?
The resulting table consists of a list of job function related to one or
more competencies. An illustration from the INIST project where we tried to
link for each of the 12 job functions the corresponding expertise fields from
the ECIA inventory:
Job function:
Serials Catalogue Librarian.
Related competencies (taken from the ECIA guide):
I05 Identification and validation of information sources - level 2 (“use
the tools and methods currently available to identify sources of information…”
etc.).
I06 Analysis and representation of information – level 2 (“carry out the
subject cataloguing for a batch of documents…” etc.).
C04 Computerized communication – level 3 (“use the advanced calculating
functions of spreadsheet software…” etc.).
C05 Using a foreign language – level 2 (“understand and be able to
express himself/herself intelligibly in daily life and professional situations”
etc.).
Figure I illustrates this technique for three job functions.
Job
function ECIA skill (level)
Library system manager I
01 (3)
I
02 (3)
I 04 (2)
Serials Catalogue Librarian I
04 (3)
I
05 (2)
C
01 (2)
Acquisition
Librarian C 02 (3)
C
05 (2)
C
05 (3)
The competencies are listed for each function and then compared to the
job definition, to detect eventual incoherencies. For instance, in the initial stage
of the INIST project, we obtained 4 to 11 different skills related to each of
the 12 job functions, with a total number of 76 competencies, a lot of them being
shared between different job functions.
3.2. Mapping job functions to skills
In the second case the principal question is: for a given competency
(skill), which is/are the job function(s) where it is realized and/or needed,
and on which level of expertise?
Here, the resulting table is a list of competencies on different levels
of expertise related to one or more job functions. Again, an example from
INIST:
Competency (ECIA guide):
C01 Oral communication
Related job functions for level 1 (“welcome and put at ease visitors or
participants in a meeting” etc.):
Librarian in the Serials Reception Area
Related job functions for level 2 (“give an oral account of a meeting” etc.):
Library system administrator
Serials Catalogue Librarian
Related job functions for level 3 (“explain in detail a procedure or the
stages of a process” etc.):
Records and library data manager
Acquisition librarian
Again, a figure may illustrate this technique.
Job
function ECIA skill (level)
Library system manager
C
01 (1)
Serials Catalogue Librarian
Acquisition
Librarian C
01 (2)
Serials
Reception Area
C 01 (3)
Records and
Library Data Manager
Figure II. Mapping job
functions to skills
The different job functions are linked to each expertise field and then
compared to the inventory of competencies to detect incoherent mappings. At
INIST, we obtained a list of 17 competencies with 1 to 3 levels for each,
totalling 28 different expertise levels.
3.3. Interconnection of the two mappings
The final step of the technique consists in merging the two mappings
into the same table, e.g. interconnecting the two lists of job functions and
competencies. This interconnection can be visualized as follows:
Job
function ECIA skill (level)
Library system manager C
01 (1)
Serials Catalogue Librarian C
01 (2)
Acquisition Librarian C
01 (3)
Serials
Reception Area C
02 (3)
Records and
Library Data Manager C
05 (2)
C
05 (3)
Figure III. Interconnecting
job functions and skills
This double counter-mapping provides a graphical illustration and allows
for an intuitive understanding of incoherent evaluation, competency clusters,
similitude of jobs in different services but with transversal profiles etc. In
the INIST project, this visual aid roused a most animated debate especially on
the job functions with few and or low-level expertise fields (for instance, in
the serials reception area) and raised awareness on the necessity to enrich
certain jobs in the whole library production chain.
4. Visualisation of competency profiles
Another visual aid that may support understanding of skills and
expertise is the use of Excel graphics. We opted for Radar charts that display
the aggregated values of the data series from skills evaluation (cf. above)
relative to a center point. In the INIST project, we used the Radar charts for three
different types of evaluation.
4.1. Quantifying the collective skills in a specific field of expertise
Based on the mapping of job descriptions and competencies, the
quotations of each competency (expertise field) are counted. An example from the
INIST study:
Field
of expertise (ECIA) |
# |
I 05 Identification and validation of information
sources |
14 |
I 04 Contents and knowledge management |
10 |
I 02 Understanding the LIS environment |
7 |
I 07
Information seeking |
6 |
I 01 Relations with users and clients |
5 |
I 10 Material handling of documents |
1 |
I 06 Analysis and representation of information |
1 |
I 12 Conception of products and services |
1 |
Figure IV.
Quantifying a field of expertise (INIST example)
Using the mapping procedure described above, the number of jobs of a
library team linked to specific fields of expertise of the ECIA group of
competency “I – Information” was counted and the total amount was entered into
the table. We then visualised the result in the following way:
Figure V. Visualisation of
collective skills in a group of expertise (INIST example)
Better than words, the Radar chart allows for intuitive understanding of
the skills profile of this specific team, of its strong and weak points.
4.2. Level of expertise
Nevertheless, this chart says nothing on the level of expertise.
Therefore we used the quantified results of skills evaluation (level 1 to 4)
for each specific expertise group and visualised their sum (total amount) per
level and group. The following example illustrates the expertise level for the
ECIA group “C – Communication” for a given library team:
Figure VI. Level of skills in
a group of expertise (INIST example)
Obviously, in this team skills are mostly performed on levels 2
(knowledge of practice) and 3 (effective use of tools) without attaining
mastery in one or more communication skills.
This visual aid is useful when mapped with job descriptions, e.g. salary
and/or qualification levels in a give team.
4.3. Groups of competencies
Finally, the visualisation technique was used to support the
understanding of differences between the different groups of competencies.
Again, as in the first example only were counted the quotations of skills
without quantifying levels of expertise. But then these counts were summed up for
each ECIA group of expertise:
Figure VII. Comparison of
collective skills in different groups of expertise (INIST example)
Again, this visualisation provides a simple and intuitive tool for the
communication and comprehension of the global distribution of skills and
expertise in a given structure (team, service, department, or organisation). -
These are but three rather simple examples of the use of visual aids for
the evaluation of competencies. Of course, other data and profiles can be
illustrated in the same way, for instance on an individual level or to compare
team performances in a given skill. Yet, our intention was not to develop a
sophisticated toolkit for human resource management but to prepare and facilitate
the transition from print to digital resources in the library, e.g. change
management. So our choice was to keep the illustrations as simple (and
intuitive) as possible and to address only some main results, in order to
highlight the major stakes and matters.
5. Concluding remarks on participatory
management
The described techniques are not specific to change management but can
support and facilitate it, especially in the initial phase of preparation. Following
our experience, their effective application depends on a good knowledge of the
professional environment, on a clear definition of purpose and rationale, and
on the participation of the whole staff.
It must be clear and transparent from the beginning on what the
intention is of this inventorying, mapping and visualisation. Is it to know which
are the jobs, activities, skills fields and levels (expertise) in a team or
service? Is it to identify missing jobs and/or skills (gaps) compared to the
requirements of new technologies of information and the digital library? Is it
for training programs or decisions on outsourcing, staffing, restructuring or
reengineering?
For all these objectives, the described techniques are not an answer but
a means that can facilitate understanding, commitment and preparedness for
change. But to be effective, they should be clearly situated in the context of
the whole project of change. Visuals aids if well embedded can be powerful
decision aids.
Finally, as Leong (2008) pointed out, participatory management style and
investment in staff development are necessary for the success of change
management.
For our purpose this means that the analysis of the inventory, its
comparison with the real work environment and the job description should not be
done by one or a few experts but should become part of a collective project of
change, should be appropriated by the whole team.
This means also that the evaluation should cover both individuals and
work teams and that it should proceed on both levels, as person- and
team-centred evaluation of activities and skills. A “holistic” or systemic,
team-centred approach can not, must not substitute a person-centred approach to
training, coaching and job development.
Even if the whole project is conducted and supervised by a task force
(project and library managers, experts), the major work should be done together
with the whole staff. For instance, evaluation and self-evaluation should be
used to validate the procedure, to compare results, to fix and rectify
methodological and/or professional bias. This is of course time-consuming,
particularly in the initial phase of the project, and the impact on workload
needs to be addressed and monitored. -
As said in the beginning, all change is a potential source of stress and
anxiety. Communication, information and participation are the main vectors to
help people cope with this job-related stress. The described techniques of
inventorying, mapping and visual aids are useful tools that facilitate and
support these vectors.
6. References
Anderson, K. (2007) “Education and training for records
professionals”, Records Management Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 94-106
Bawden, D., Vilar, P., Zabukovec, V. (2005) “Education
and training for digital librarians. A Slovenia/UK comparison”, Aslib
Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 85-98
Centre
National de
European Council of Information
Associations (ECIA) (2004) Euroguide LIS. Volume 1: Competencies and aptitudes for
European information professionals, ADBS, Paris (2nd revised ed.). Available
http://www.certidoc.net/en/euref1-english.pdf
(accessed Feb 2008)
Leong, J. (2008) “Academic reference librarians
prepare for change: an Australian case study”, Library Management, Vol. 29, No.
1/2, pp. 77-86
Platts, K., Tan, K.H. (2004) “Strategy
visualisation: knowing, understanding, and formulating”, Management Decision,
Vol. 42, No. 5, pp. 667-676
Schöpfel, J. (2003) “INIST-CNRS in
Tammaro, A.M. (2005) “Recognition and quality
assurance in LIS. New approaches for lifelong learning in
Tikkanen, H., Pölönen, P. (1996) “Business
process re-engineering projects on
The authors
Joachim Schöpfel is head of the E-publishing and
Document Supply Department at INIST-CNRS, lecturer on scientific information at
the University of Nancy 2 and member of the research group “Document numérique
& Usages” at the University of Paris 8. He obtained a Ph.D. in Psychology
from the
Jacques Creusot is head of
the Professional Training Service at INIST-CNRS and expert of professional competencies
and job development of LIS practitioners in the French public research organisations.
[1] INIST = French Institute for Scientific and
Technical Information with about 350 employees, see http://www.inist.fr or Schöpfel (2003).
[2] Competencies = “a set of skills necessary to perform a
professional activity and the proficiency of required behaviour” (Tammaro, 2005
p. 70); they are “principally and conceptually related to training tasks” (
[3] CNRS = French National Scientific Research
Centre with about 30,000 scientific and technical staff, see http://www.cnrs.fr. INIST is part of the CNRS, and the
INIST agents are employees of the CNRS.
[4] ASLIB (