COMPETENCE MODELING AND MANAGEMENT: A CASE STUDY

Mounira Harzallah

LINA, University of Nantes, Nantes, France

Giuseppe Berio

Department of computer sciences, Turin, Italy

Keywords: Competence Modeling, Competence Management, Case Study, CRAI Model.

Abstract: This paper presents a novel approach to the enterprise competence management and a case study.

This approach is based on a model called CRAI (Competency-Resource-Aspect-Individual)

which allows representing enterprise personnel's competencies. On the other hand, the paper

provides a generic competency management process in which the CRAI model plays the central

role. The proposed case study is part of a real project developed with the partnership of a French

enterprise in the manufacturing domain.

1 INTRODUCTION

Competency management is becoming a critical

necessity in enterprises to make a better appraisal of

human capital, to envisage and plan execution of

new missions, to tack highly innovative projects, or

to decide about a new organization structure (Hamel

and Heene, 1994), (Prahalad and Hamel, 1990),

(Dubois, 1993).

To support competence management, we have

devel

oped a generic and operational model, named

CRAI (Competency – Resource – Aspect –

Individual). It is applicable to a wide range of

organizations, to various application domains and

for different needs. Fundamental concepts

underlying the notion of competence are formalized

and structured in the CRAI model. The notion of

competence seems to get stabilized in the literature

and to converge towards the following definition: a

competence is the effect of combining and enabling

operational use of its resources (i.e., knowledge,

know-how, and behaviors) in a given context to

achieve an objective or fulfill a specified mission

(Lucia and Lepsinger, 1999), (Marreli, 1998), (Le

Boterf, 1997). Four fundamental features has been

identified: (1) competence is distinguished in

competence required by an enterprise and

competence acquired by individual people (working

in or for the enterprise), (2) resources falling into

categories and sub-categories and used for

describing a competency, (3) a description of the

context to which the competency refers, (4) mission

or task requiring the competency (Harzallah and

Vernadat, 2002).

The objective of this paper is to show through a

case st

udy based on a real project, how the proposed

CRAI model can be used for providing an effective

support to competency management. Section 1 just

provide an overview of the technical framework

used to realize the CRAI model. Section 2 describes

the main components and organization of our

competence modeling and exploiting approach.

Section 2.1 presents a generic competence

management process and its links with the CRAI

model. The section 3, 3.1 and 3.2 shows, using a

case study, the application of the approach proposed

in Section 2.1.

2 MODELING FRAMEWORK

The main concepts underlying the notion of

competency have been represented, first, by using

the simple Extended Entity-Relationship model

expressed in the notation suggested by Nanci et al.

(Nanci et al., 1992). Second, these concepts have

been formalized by means of the set theory i.e. using

350

Harzallah M. and Berio G. (2004).

COMPETENCE MODELING AND MANAGEMENT: A CASE STUDY.

In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, pages 350-358

DOI: 10.5220/0002642503500358

 SciTePress

sets, mappings, relationships, and axioms to define

relevant semantic rules.

To support and enhance competence

management, typical needs raising in the

competence management have been identified. For

instance, the usual ones is to find a group of

personnel to accomplish a given mission, to identify

training and recruitment needs, to transform/adapt

job positions, to identify common competencies

between projects and trades, to identify acquired

enterprise competencies, to orient decision changes

to be made.

On this base, we have defined eight general-

purpose inquiries. In general, inquiries are

formulated in terms of activities, tasks, missions,

objectives that an enterprise wants to successfully

accomplish and for which the enterprise needs to

know required and also acquired personnel’s

competencies.

For each inquiry (Q), we have defined a generic

answering method (M). An inquiry is basically a

function defined through inputs, outputs, and an

algorithm.

Figure 1 below just provides an example of how

the concept of competency has been formalized in

term of set theory, with some axioms.

Competency Mappings

C-Reference: Competency → Label

C-Description: Competency → Label

Concern: Competency → P (Aspect) - {φ}

Is-Associated-to: Competency → P (C-Resource)

Use-enabling-Res: Competency → P (C-Resource)

Resource-Set: Competency → P (C-Resource) - {φ}

Nb/Level/C: (Competency x Aspect)→ (Integer → Integer) ∪ {⊥}

+Competent: Competency ∏ P (Individual x Individual)

Axiom 3 definition

∀ r ∈ C-Resource, ∃ a ∈ Aspect/ (A-Knowledge (r) = (a, *) ∧ A-Know-how (r) = ⊥ ∧ A-Behavior (r) = ⊥) ∨ (A-Knowledge

(r) = ⊥∧ A-Know-how (r) = (a, *, *) ∧ A-Behavior (r) = ⊥) ∨ (A-Knowledge (r) = ⊥∧ A-Know-how (r) = ⊥ ∧ A-Behavior (r)

= (a, *, *)))

Definition of the method M1c

for Q1 (finding the required resources for a given mission)

M1c

: P (Aspect) Æ P (Competency)

The algorithm of method M1c

is the following:

let D = DeCompose (Mission), Mission ∈ P (Aspect)

M1c

(Mission) = {c ∈ Competency| S ∈ D ∧ c = Comp (S) ∧ Decomposed-In (c)= φ}

3 CRAI Model AND

COMPETENCY MANAGEMENT

The Entity-relationship representation of the CRAI

(Competency, Resource, Aspect, Individual) model

is depicted by Figure 2. Two entities are specific to

the competence domain: Competency (for instance,

“to be competent for machine X”) and C-Resource

for competence resources (for instance, “to know

how to remove components on machine X”). C-

resource can be understood as basic knowledge, or

know-how or behavior concerning a specific

enterprise aspect and that can be used for precisely

identifying and understanding what a competency is.

Another entity, Individual, represents the personnel

set of the enterprise. The entity Aspect represents the

contextual information, i.e., the enterprise

components and feature comprising several

additional concepts, especially business processes,

organizational aspects, economic aspects,

information aspects, etc., as developed in the

enterprise modeling field (Williams, 1994),

(Vernadat, 1996), (IFIP-IFAC, 1997). In the CRAI

model, it is possible to link a resource to an

occurrence of the Competency entity by means of

one of the specific relationships named To-Know,

To-Know-how, and To-Behave. It has been decided

to consider the entity Competency as one of the sub-

entities of the entity Aspect: this allows to take into

account, among other things, use-enabling resources

of a competency, which are formulated as, for

instance, “to know how to manage resources of a

competency C1”. The use of a specific relationship,

named Decomposed-In, allowing to represent a

whole-part relationship between aspects, is useful to

compose and decompose any aspect and also

competency.

Figure 1: Example of concept mapping, axiom and method definition

COMPETENCE MODELING AND MANAGEMENT: A CASE STUDY

351

Four mappings are defined for quantitative

competency management: Nb/Level/C and

Nb/Level/R, Acquire-C and Acquire-R. Nb/Level/C

(Nb/Level/R) allows specifying for a given domain

and for each required level of a given competency

(resource), the number of people required. Acquire-

C (Acquire-R) allows specifying the level of mastery

of a given competency (resource) by a given

individual.

The other important relationship is Dm. This

relationship is needed to represent a kind of

“implication” between distinct competencies. In

other words, Dm represents the natural fact that “a

specific enterprise aspect X” needs some

competencies on “a specific enterprise aspect Y”.

This fact has therefore been represented as a special

relationship between X and Y.

According to the entity-relationship

representation of CRAI, the competency

management process follows iteratively the steps

depicted in Figure 3. In the first (initial) run, the two

steps suggests to specialize with enterprise specific

concepts (entities) the root entity Aspect and then to

instantiate (i.e. creating for all the entities in the

model, their occurrences) the resulting model.

Instantiation also needs to set up some quantitative

parameters. In fact, in the CRAI model it possible to

specify a degree associated to required and acquired

competencies. More precisely, it is possible to define

for the personnel, a degree of mastering a given

resource. Through a formula, per each employee, is

therefore possible to calculate the degree of

mastering of a competency.

0,1

0,n

0, n

0,n

Individual

0,n

1,n

C-Resource

0,n 0,n

To-Know-how

-To-Know

To-Behave

To-

Concern

Be-Associated

Be-

Acquired

0,n 0,n

Aspect

Competency

1,n

Decomposed-In

We have developed some simple guidelines for

specializing Aspect. In fact, usually a competency

refers to a type of object: for instance, be competent

on a “Machine of type X” in spite of be competent

on a “Machine n.123 of type X”. While being not a

general rule, it is useful in many cases. A second

guideline concerns situations that may occur during

enterprise operations. For instance, if a “Machine of

type X” stops because of any problem, it is

important to represent the kind of problem as a sub-

entity of the entity Aspect. In fact, we are interested

in personnel able to deal with kinds of machine

stops.

The analysis step focuses on using the generic

inquiries. In fact, the generic inquiries have been

designed for evaluating if

- in the current enterprise situation, there are

lack of competencies regarding any of the

enterprise aspects

Figure 2: The CRAI (Competency, Resource, Aspect, Individual) model of competence

- in a planned situation, (for instance a new

mission) the required competencies have

already been acquired

As a consequence, inquiries are also useful for

- knowing who have to be trained,

- knowing which competencies have to be

acquired,

- regarding to a competency, who is more (the

most) competent.

Therefore, it is also possible, for instance to

redistribute the work according to the more

competent personnel.

ICEIS 2004 - INFORMATION SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND SPECIFICATION

352

4 CASE STUDY

This example is mainly inspired from the real

application carried out at SMAE in Tremery, France,

a subsidiary plant of PSA Peugeot Citroën group.

The mission of the maintenance department (MD) is

servicing and mending machines of the whole plant.

The MD is made of two workshops. Workshops

have been defined according to a geographic

criterion. Each workshop includes a set of machine

(M) (Figure 4). Each type of machine includes a

component (E) and uses a Technology (T).

good

Specialize

Aspect

Instantiate the

resulting the model

Perform analysis

no good

Identify opportunities

and choose

Re-organise Aspect

Figure 3: The generic competence management process

For each workshop, both a technician It and a

supervisor Is are assigned. The MD has three core

business processes:

• Technical Processes : Curative and preventive

maintenance processes

• Improvement Projects: They concern

investments in machines and maintenance

methods. One process is considered (ImpPrjt1).

• Staff management processes: Processes

involving the personnel affected to the MD

(StaffMgt1).

The competency management process started

after the following report: machines aren’t quickly

and well repaired whereas, it seems the existence of

qualified technicians. The competency management

objective is to better use competencies in order to

enhance the department performance. Indeed, by

assigning the right person(s) to the right task(s), on

the one hand the lead-times of servicing and the

number of breakdowns can be reduced significantly

and on the other hand, misuse of critical

competencies is avoided.

W orkshop: S1 (Is1, It1)

M11 (E1, T1)

M21 (E2, T2)

W orkshop: S2 (Is2, It2)

M31 (E1, T1)

M22 (E2, T2)

Figure 4: Organization of the maintenance department

4.1 Specialization of Aspect and

instantiation of the resulting

model

According to the generic management process,

the entity Aspect has been specialized (Figure 5).

Then, the CRAI model has been instantiated

resulting in the competencies and resources (Table

1). The important remark is that the entity Machine

does not represent the existing physical machines in

the workshops but just the types of machines that

should be distinguished from the point of view of the

required competencies.

Table 2 completes the instantiation of the model:

it provides the evaluation of the two functions

Acquire-R and Acquire-C according to the CRAI

model. In this case, It is possible to derive the

evaluation of Acquire-C is derived from Acquire-R

in the following manner: Acquire-C(i)=

(c,E(Average

Rj∈Resource_set(c),

=1..n

(Acquire-R(i),Rj)*

4)), i = It1,It2,Is1,Is2, normalized according to a four

levels

scale, E is an integral part function.

Therefore, to provide an evaluation of Acquire-

C, resources of C(M1), C(M2), C(M3),

C(StaffMgt1), C(ImprPrjt1) are also needed. The

query Select-CR has been specifically introduced for

finding all resources of the given competency.

Basically, Select-CR performs a transitive closure of

the relationship DM.

Select-CR(C(ImpPrjt1)) = {K9, K10, KH12,

KH40, KH41, B1}

COMPETENCE MODELING AND MANAGEMENT: A CASE STUDY

353

Select-CR(C(StaffMgt1)) = {K37, K39, KH36,

KH37, B1, B4}

Select-CR(C(M1)) = {K1, K27, KH1, KH2,

KH14, KH15, B1}

Select-CR(C(M2)) = {K2, K29, KH3, KH4,

KH18, KH19, B1}

Select-CR(C(M3)) = {K3, K27, KH1, KH2,

KH21, KH22, B1}

Table 3 and table 4 provide the degrees of

mastering of identified required resources and

competencies in the context of workshops S1, S2

and department MD. These two tables instantiate the

mappings Nb/Level/C and Nb/Level/R as needed for

comparing required and acquired competencies.

Technology

Components/

Failure

Aspect

To-Concern

has

Machines/

Technologies

Organization

Competency

Process

1, 1

0, n

1, n

0, n

To-use

Machine

0, n

Workshop

Objective

M aintenance

Process

Improving

Project

Im proving

solution

Planning /

Caracteristics/ Limit

Improving S.

has

1, 1

has

1, 1

has

1, 1

Componen

Include

has

Procedure

Mangement

Process

Staff

Management

Objective/

Rule

has

1, 1

Transversal

ect

Department

Decomposed-In

Figure 5: Entity Aspect that has been specialized

4.2 Methods for determining acquired

and required competencies

According the discussion in section 2, we defined

eight generic inquiries and corresponding evaluation

algorithms (called methods). Here, we just provide

an informal description of four inquiries allowing

the determination of acquired and required

competencies.

Q1 with the method M1r

: finding the required

resources for a given mission

Q2 with the method M2

: finding the resources

or elementary competencies of a given

person and for a given mission

Q3 with the method M3

: finding acquired

resources or competencies for a given

mission and given personnel

Q7 with the method M7

: finding the required

and acquired competencies for a given

mission and given personnel

Required competencies per workshop are found

by using Q1.

M1r

(S1) = {K18, KH30, B1, B4} ∪ Select-

CR(C(M1)) ∪ Select-CR(C(M2)) ∪ Select-

CR(C(ImpPrjt1)) ∪ Select-CR(C(StaffMgt1)) where

Select-CR(C(ImpPrjt1)) = {K9, K10, KH12,

KH40, KH41, B1}

Select-CR(C(StaffMgt1)) = {K37, K39, KH36,

KH37, B1, B4}

Select-CR(C(M1)) = {K1, K27, KH1, KH2,

KH14, KH15, B1}

Select-CR(C(M2)) = {K2, K29, KH3, KH4,

KH18, KH19, B1}

M1r

(S2) = {K19, KH32, B1, B4} ∪ Select-

CR(C(M2)) ∪ Select-CR(C(M3)) ∪ Select-

CR(C(ImpPrjt1)) ∪ Select-CR(C(StaffMgt1)) where

Select-CR(C(M3)) = {K3, K27, KH1, KH2, KH21,

KH22, B1}.

According to tables 1 and 2, it is possible to

determine the acquired competencies per each

workshop S1 and S2 and individuals, by using Q3:

(It1, S1) ={(C(M1), 4), (C(M2), 1), (B1,1)}

(Is1, S1) = {C(StaffMgt1), 4), C(ImprPrjt1,

4), (K18, 1), (KH30, 1), (B1, 1), (B4, 1)}

ICEIS 2004 - INFORMATION SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND SPECIFICATION

354

(S1) {It1, Is1}= {(C(M1), 3, 1), (C(M2), 3,

0), (C(StaffMgt1), 4, 1), (C(ImprPrjt1), 4, 1),

(K18, 1, 1), (KH30, 1, 1), (B1, 1, 2), (B4, 1, 2)}

(S2) {It2, Is2} = {(C(M2), 3, 1), (C(M3), 3,

0), (C(StaffMgt1), 4, 1), (C(ImprPrjt1), 4, 1),

(K19, 1, 1), (B1, 1, 2), (B4, 1, 1)}.

Now, it is possible to analyze the adequacy

between acquired and required competencies, by

using Q7.

(S1) {It1, Is1}= {(C(M1), 3, 1, 1), (C(M2),

3,1, 0), (C(MangStaff1), 4, 1,1), (C(ProjtImpr1),

4, 1,1), (K18, 1,1, 1), (KH30, 1, 1,1), (B1, 1,

1,2), (B4, 1, 1,2)}.

Table 1: Instantiation of entities in the model

Technology Instantiation: T1, T2 Component Instantiation: E1, E2

Department Instantiation

Workshop Instantiation

S1, S2

Individual Instantiation

Is1, Is2, It1, It2

Machine Instantiation

M1, M2, M3

Transversal aspect Instantiation

Meeting, Problem

Decomposition-In instantiation

Decomposed-In(MD)= {S1, S2}

Competency Instantiation

C(StaffMgt1): To be competent in StaffMgt1

C(ImpPrjt1): To be competent in ImpPrjt1

C(M1): To be competent for M1

C(M2): To be competent for M2

C(M3): To be competent for M3

Dm Instantiation

S1 Dm StaffMgt1, S1 Dm ImpPrjt1, S1 Dm M1, S1Dm M2

S2 Dm StaffMgt1, S2Dm ImpPrjt1, S2 Dm M2, S2Dm M3.

StaffMgt1 Dm TechnicianT1, M1 Dm T1, M1 Dm E1, M2

Dm T2, M2 Dm E2, M3 Dm T1, M3 Dm E1

C-resource Instantiation

Knowledge on existing things:

K1: To know the components of M1

K2: To know the components of M2

K3: To know the components of M3

K9: To know the characteristics of ImpPrjt1

K10: To know the context of ImpPrjt1

K18: To know the objectives of S1

K19: To know the objectives of S2

Procedural Knowledge

K27: To know the mounting procedure of E1

K29: To know the mounting procedure of E2

K37: To know the objectives of MangStaf1

K39: To know the rule of StaffMgt1

Formalized Know-how :

KH1: To know how to remove E1

KH2: To know how to mount E1

KH3: To know how to remove E2

KH4: To know how to mount E2

KH12: To know how to define a planning of ImpPrjt1

Empirical Know-how

KH14: To Know how to identify a failure of M1

KH15: To Know how to repair a failure of M1

KH18: To Know how identify a failure of M2

KH19: To Know how to repair a failure of M2

KH21: To Know how identify a failure of M3

KH22: To Know how to repair a failure of M3

KH30 : To Know how to define objectives of S1

KH32 : To Know how to define objectives of S2

KH36: To know how to apply the rules of StaffMgt1

KH37: To know how to achieve objectives of StaffMgt1

KH40: To know how to define Improving S. of PrjtImp1

KH41: To know how to execute a planning of PrjtImp1

Cognitive skills

B1: To know how to state a problem

Relational Skill (Know-how)

B4: To know how to lead a meeting

We note a lack of competencies for M2 in S1: in

fact, (C(M2), 3,1, 0)) means that in S1, 1 person

having acquired the competence C(M2) with

mastery degree 3 is needed while in the current

situation there is 0 person at mastery degree 3.

(S2) {It2, Is2}={(C(M2), 3, 1, 1), (C(M3),

3, 1, 0), (C(StaffMgt1), 4, 1, 1), (C(ImprPrjt1),

4, 1, 1), (K19, 1, 1, 1), (KH32, 1, 1, 1), (B1, 1,

1, 2), (B4, 1, 1, 1)}

As before, we note a lack of competencies for

M3 in S2.

Now, we evaluate the required and acquired

competencies for MD. This allows understanding if

the required competencies have already been

acquired by the department (i.e. acquired by the

individuals affected to the department).

M1c

(MD)= {C(S1), C(S2)}

(MD)={K18, K19, KH30, KH32, B1, B4}

∪ Select-CR(M1) ∪ Select-CR(M2) ∪ Select-

COMPETENCE MODELING AND MANAGEMENT: A CASE STUDY

355

CR(M3) ∪ Select-CR(ImpPrjt1) ∪ Select-

CR(StaffMgt1)

The acquired competencies in the department are:

(MD) {It1, It2, Is1, Is2} = {(C(M1), 3, 1)

(C(M2), 3, 1), (C(M3), 3, 1)), (C(StaffMgt1), 4, 2),

(C(ImprPrjt1), 4, 2), (K18, 1, 2), (K19, 1, 0), (KH30,

1, 2), (KH32, 1, 2), (B1, 1, 4), (B4, 1, 3)}

Now, it is possible to analyze the adequacy

between acquired and required competencies in the

department, by using Q7.

(MD) {It1, It2, Is1, Is2} = {(C(M1), 3, 1, 1),

(C(M2), 3, 1, 1), (C(M3), 3, 1, 1)), (C(StaffMgt1),

4,1, 2), (C(ImprPrjt1), 4, 1,2), (K18, 1, 1,2), (K19, 1,

1,0), (KH30, 1, 1, 2), (KH32, 1, 1, 2), (B1, 1, 1, 4),

(B4, 1, 1, 3)}

As a conclusion, there is a competency

adequacy for MD (except for K19), the department

has got the required competencies.

Table 3: Nb/level per each workshop

Nb/Level(C(M1), S1)= (3, 1)

Nb/Level(C(M2), S1)= (3, 1)

Nb/Level(C(MangStaff1), S1)=(4, 1)

Nb/Level(C(ImprPrjt1), S1) = (4, 1)

Nb/Level(C(M3), S2)= (3, 1)

Nb/Level(C(StaffMgt1), S2)=(4, 1)

Nb/Level(C(ImprPrjt1), S2) = (4, 1)

Nb/Level(K19, S2) = (1, 1)

Nb/Level(K18, S1) = (1, 1)

Nb/Level(KH30, S1) = (1, 1)

Nb/Level(B1, S1) = (1, 1)

Nb/Level(C(M2), S2)= (3, 1)

Nb/Level(B1, S2) = (1, 1)

Nb/Level(KH32, S2) = (1, 1)

Table 4: Nb/level per MD

Nb/Level(C(M1), MD)= (3, 1)

Nb/Level(C(M2), MD)= (3, 1)

Nb/Level(C(M3), MD)= (3, 1)

Nb/Level(K18, MD) = (1, 1)

Nb/Level(K19, MD) = (1, 1)

Nb/Level(KH30, MD) = (1, 1)

Nb/Level(C(StaffMgt1), MD)=(4, 1)

Nb/Level(C(ImprPrjt1), MD) = (4, 1)

Nb/Level(KH32, MD) = (1,1)

Nb/Level(B1, MD) = (1, 1)

Nb/Level(B4, MD) = (1, 1)

Proposed solution. Following the previous

analysis, we can try to affect again individuals

according to workshop required competencies.

However, without any specific individual training,

the workshops have to be redefined from the

maintenance department viewpoint. Two steps to

approach the problem: (1) Existing workshops are

analyzed to draw required common competencies,

and (2) Starting from the required common

competencies, try to define new workshops based on

similar competencies and verify the competency

adequacy of each one.

Table 2: Evaluation of Acquire-R and

Acquire-C

Individual It1 It2 Is1 Is2

K10

K18

K19

K27

K29

K37

K39

KH1

KH2

KH3

KH4

KH12

KH14

KH15

KH18

KH19

KH21

KH22

KH30

KH32

KH36

KH37

KH40

KH41

C(M1)

C(M2)

C(M3)

C(StaffMgt1)

C(PrjtImp1)

4.3 Method for determining common

competencies

One inquiry Q8 with the method M8

is defined to

allow the determination of common elementary

competencies between two or more missions.

For the first step, we use Q8 to analysis of

common competencies between existing workshops:

Q8.1

(S1, S2)={C(StaffMgt1), C(ImpPrjt1),

C(M2))}

Therefore, it seems that common competencies

are required on machines of type M1 and M2. This

means that M3 has to be associated to M1 or M2. In

this case, we note that required competencies

between M1 and M3 are more important than

between M2 and M3.

(M1, M3)={K27, KH1, KH2, B1}

(M1, M2)={B1}

Therefore, we propose tow new workshops: NS1

(M11, M31) and NS2 (M21, M22) where the

following additional resources need to be defined as

new instances in the aspect model:

K18’: To know the objectives of NS1

K19’: To know the objectives of NS2

KH30’: To Know how to define objectives of

NS1

ICEIS 2004 - INFORMATION SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND SPECIFICATION

356

KH32’: To Know how to define objectives of

NS2

We assume that the function Acquire-R for all

these additional resources and for all individuals of

DM is equal to zero.

Therefore, M1r

(NS1) = {K18’, KH30’, B1,

B4} ∪ Select-CR(M1) ∪ Select-CR(M3) ∪ Select-

CR(ImpPrjt1) ∪ Select-CR(StaffMgt1).

M1r

(NS2) = {K19’, KH32’, B1, B4} ∪ Select-

CR(M2) ∪ Select-CR(ImpPrjt1) ∪ Select-

CR(StaffMgt1)}

4.4 Method for determining an

individual group for a mission

One inquiry Q4 with the method M4

is defined to

allow the determination of common elementary

competencies between two or more missions).

Now, we are able to retrieve relevant persons

needed to manage the new workshops NS1 and NS2:

(NS1) = {It1, Is1, Is2}, M4

(NS2) = {It2, Is1}

However, {It1, Is1} are sufficient to satisfy the

needs on competencies of NS1. Indeed,

(NS1) {It1,Is1} = {(C(M1), 3, 1, 1),

(C(M3), 3,1, 1)), (C(StaffMgt1), 4, 1,1),

(C(ImprPrjt1), 4, 1,1), (K18’, 1,1, 0), (KH30’, 1,

1,0), (B1, 1, 1,2), (B4, 1, 1,2)}

Likewise, {It2, Is1} are sufficient to satisfy the

needs on competencies of NS2. Indeed,

(NS2) {It2, Is1} ={(C(M2), 3, 1, 1),

(C(StaffMgt1), 4, 1,1), (C(ImprPrjt1), 4, 1,1), (K19’,

1,1, 0), (KH32’, 1, 1,0), (B1, 1, 1,2), (B4,1, 1,1)}

In conclusion, new workshops are retained. NS1:

(M11, M31) to which (Is1, It1) are assigned and

NS2: (M21, M22) to which (Is1, It2) are assigned.

Finally, Is2 can be transferred to carry out others

tasks.

4.5 Methods for determining needs

for training on competencies

Tow inquiries are defined for determining needs

for training on competencies

Q5 with the method M5

: Finding the training

needs for a given mission)

Q6 with the method M6

: Finding the training

needs for a given individual involved in a given

mission.

For resources that concern organizational aspect

of new workshops, the training needs are finding by

Q5: M5

(NS1)= { (K18’, 1, 1), (KH30’, 1, 1)},

(S2)= {(K19’, 1, 1), (KH32’, 1, 1)}

With the proposed solution, the competency

adequacy per workshop is ensured under the

hypothesis mentioned above (in any situation, only

one person who has a needed competency is

required to guarantee the correct behavior of the

department.). Anyway, this hypothesis must be

checked if it remains true after this workshop

reorganization.

5 CONCLUSION

The important points discussed in this paper are:

-the CRAI model, which allows to represent most

individual competencies features and to provide an

effective support (through the eight inquiries) for

competence management processes

- a generic competence management process

which can be customized by fully specifying its

steps, integrated with the support offered by the

CRAI model.

- the case study, which provides the reader with a

simple application of the CRAI model with the

generic competence management process.

The CRAI model will be translated into a

computer langage to validate it and to implement it

on a computer tool.

REFERENCES

Hamel, G. and A. Heene, Competence-Based Competition,

New York: Wiley, 1994.

Prahalad, C.K and G. Hamel, The Core Competence of the

Corporation, Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 1990.

Dubois, D., Competency-based performance

improvement: a strategy for organizations. Amherst:

HRD Press Inc. International society for Performance

Improvement, Washington, 1993.

Lucia, A. D. and R. Lepsinger, The art and science of

competency: Pinpointing critical success factors in

organizations, Edition Hardcover, 1999.

Marreli, A.F., An introduction to competency analysis and

modeling, Improvement, Vol. 37, No. 5, pp. 8-17,

1998.

Le Boterf, G., De la compétence à la navigation

professionnelle, Paris: Les Editions d’Organisation,

1997. (In French).

Harzallah, M. and F. Vernadat, IT-Based competency

modeling and management: from theory to practice in

enterprise engineering and operations, Computers in

Industry, Vol. 48, No. 2, June 2002, pp. 157-179.

Nanci, D. B. Espinasse, B. Cohen and H. Heckenroth,

Ingénierie des systèmes d’information avec Merise :

vers une deuxième génération, Paris: Sybex, 1992.

COMPETENCE MODELING AND MANAGEMENT: A CASE STUDY

357

Williams, T.J., The Purdue Enterprise Reference

Architecture, Computers in Industry, 24: 141-158,

1994.

Vernadat, F., Entreprise Modeling and Integration:

Principles and Applications, London: Chapman &

Hall, 1996.

IFIP-IFAC Task Force, GERAM: Generalized Enterprise

Reference Architecture and Methodology, Version 1.2,

Working Draft, 1997.

ICEIS 2004 - INFORMATION SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND SPECIFICATION

358