![](bg8.png)
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
Q1
(NS1) = {K18’, KH30’, B1,
B4} ∪ Select-CR(M1) ∪ Select-CR(M3) ∪ Select-
CR(ImpPrjt1) ∪ Select-CR(StaffMgt1).
M1r
Q1
(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
Q4
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:
M4
Q4
(NS1) = {It1, Is1, Is2}, M4
Q4
(NS2) = {It2, Is1}
However, {It1, Is1} are sufficient to satisfy the
needs on competencies of NS1. Indeed,
M7
Q7
(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,
M7
Q7
(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
Q5
: Finding the training
needs for a given mission)
Q6 with the method M6
Q6
: 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
Q5
(NS1)= { (K18’, 1, 1), (KH30’, 1, 1)},
M5
Q5
(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