Facilitating Competence-Oriented Qualification in New Work:

Evaluation of a Platform Prototype

Alexander Clauss

Chair of Business Information Systems, Information Management,

Faculty of Business and Economics TU Dresden, Germany

Keywords: Corporate Community Management, Competence-Oriented Qualification, New Work, Prototype Evaluation.

Abstract: This article introduces and evaluates a platform prototype that facilitates competence-oriented qualification

through micro modules in the context of New Work. A focus group interview with nine experts from the

application domain was conducted. Requirements to ensure the practicality of the platform were identified,

and concrete design measures for its further iterative development were derived. The platform facilitates

competence-oriented qualification by reducing complexity for individuals and supporting the strategic

management of competence development in organizations. Several requirements were identified to ensure the

practicality of the platform in the context of New Work. These were used to derive design measures for the

further iterative design of the platform prototype with its three components - self-evaluation tool, competence

development guide and competence shop. The results enable further work on the transferability into different

application domains and job profiles. The presented prototype facilitates worker-centered digital

transformation initiatives regarding competence development.

1 INTRODUCTION

The rapid changes in the working world, driven by

digital transformation, globalization and social

trends, pose new challenges and opportunities for

individuals and organizations (World Economic

Forum, 2023). New Work describes these structural

changes and focuses on the changing needs and

expectations of workers (Bergmann, 2019). The New

Work environment stands for autonomy, personal

freedom and participation in decisions (Helmold,

2021). To cope with these changes, workers need to

continuously update and develop their competences,

while employers need to ensure that their workforce

is qualified and adaptable. In this context, individual

development through competence-oriented

learning and qualification becomes a key factor for

enhancing employability, productivity and

innovation (Cheng, Adekola, Albia, & Cai, 2022).

This paper introduces and evaluates a platform

prototype as design science research (DSR) artifact

that facilitates competence development through

micro qualification modules, using the example of

Corporate Community Managers (CCMs) as target

job profile. Micro qualification modules, which are

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0668-3140

used instead of comprehensive, classical trainings and

rigid study modules, support specific personalized,

flexible and competence-oriented qualifications,

considering individual and organizational conditions

(Tamoliune et al., 2023).

CCMs are responsible for the formal management

of one or more intra-organizational online

communities, where employees network, collaborate

and share knowledge using digital communication

(BVCM, 2016; Jahnke, 2010). Digital

communication is the process of exchanging

information, messages and ideas using digital

technologies and platforms. Digital technologies

enable CCMs to create value for their organizations

by facilitating knowledge sharing and collaboration

among employees and by fostering a sense of

belonging and engagement (Chamakiotis, Petrakaki,

& Panteli, 2021; Za, Pallud, Agrifoglio, & Metallo,

2020).

A wide range of competences is needed to

manage these intra-organizational online

communities using digital communication. However,

few formal and standardized qualification

opportunities exist for this profession (Clauss et al.,

2019). Many CCMs are career changers who have

Clauss, A.

Facilitating Competence-Oriented Qualiﬁcation in New Work: Evaluation of a Platform Prototype.

DOI: 10.5220/0012577900003693

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2024) - Volume 2, pages 659-668

ISBN: 978-989-758-697-2; ISSN: 2184-5026

659

diverse backgrounds and need to develop

competences on-the-job (Clauss et al., 2019).

Moreover, their work is often influenced by the

organic growth of communities within organizations,

which means that a small community is started and

gradually more responsibility is needed as the

community grows. These factors make CCM a well-

suited profession example to illustrate the high agility

and need for continuous qualification in the context

of the complex application domain New Work.

Within prior research, which is described in the

research background, a platform prototype focused on

the job profile of CCM was designed. The platform

prototype aims to facilitate worker-centered digital

transformation initiatives regarding competence

development. It is designed to meet the needs and

preferences of the workers and to empower them to

take charge of their own learning and development.

The purpose of this article is to evaluate

requirements for the practicality of this platform

prototype within the application domain New Work

and to derive concrete design measures for its further

iterative development. These requirements and

design measures can also provide added value for the

development of comparable solutions for further job

profiles. Therefore, an evaluation with experts from

the application domain and further insights are

sought. The focus group interview was chosen as a

suitable research method in this context. It allows to

gain multiple insights into experts’ perspectives,

experiences and feedback. This concludes in the

following research question:

RQ1: What are the requirements to ensure the

practicality of the platform prototype for competence-

oriented qualification in the context of New Work?

RQ2: How can the platform prototype for

competence development be enhanced to ensure

practicality in the context of New Work?

2 RESEARCH BACKGROUND

The platform prototype is the central artifact of a DSR

project and comprehensively described in previous

articles (Clauss, 2018; Clauss & Jautelat, 2022;

Jautelat & Clauss, 2022; Leichsenring & Clauss,

2020, 2023; Reeb, Clauss, Lenk, & Altmann, 2021).

Figure 1A gives an overview of the three elements of

the platform prototype:

• First, a self-evaluation tool that helps to

evaluate individual competences based on anchor

examples (see Figure 1B). The anchor examples are

specific descriptions of concrete activities and

behaviors on different competence levels (novice,

intermediate, expert), which are based on a

competence profile. The competence profile was

derived from expert interviews and confirmed in a

Delphi survey. It describes the domain, personal and

social competences of CCMs (Clauss, 2018; Jautelat

& Clauss, 2022; Leichsenring & Clauss, 2020).

• Second, a competence development guide that

suggests pedagogical design principles for the

development of competence-oriented qualifications

(see Figure 1C): The design principles were

developed from a systematic analysis of current

competence models and problem-centered, in-depth

interviews with pedagogy experts. The design

principles focus on the consideration of

organizational, social and individual conditions as

well as relevant competence dimensions and levels.

They recommend a constructivist and collectivist

approach facilitating social learning processes.

Problem and action-oriented simulation methods as

digital formats combining formal and informal

learning are identified as central methods

(Leichsenring & Clauss, 2023).

• Third, a competence shop that offers

qualification programs from external commercial

providers, based on the design principles (see Figure

1D): The qualification providers can use the data

from the self-evaluation tool to identify needs and use

the design principles to develop qualifications. Users

can choose between qualification offers and evaluate

whether they were suitable to close their identified

competence gaps after completion.

The platform prototype including the three

elements was developed using a web-based survey

environment for B and C and a mockup for D. The

focus was to demonstrate the applicability of the

abstract platform idea, focusing on the specific

competence profile of CCMs.

Figure 1: Design Artifact – Platform Prototype.

CSEDU 2024 - 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

660

Figure 1: Design Artifact – Platform Prototype (cont.).

3 METHODOLOGY

Winter (2008) states that DSR lacks commonly

accepted, specific evaluation guidelines for the

different artifact types. Sonnenberg & vom Brocke

(2012) present patterns that can be used to articulate

and justify artifact evaluation strategies within DSR

projects; the evaluation followed the “prototyping

pattern”, which aims to demonstrate the feasibility

and effectiveness of the artifact in a real-world

setting. Focus group interviews are recommended as

an established mechanism for data collection in the

pattern. Following Tremblay et al. (2010) a

confirmatory focus group was chosen, as it allows

researchers to determine the practicality of the

artifactin the application domain.

3.1 Focus Group Interview

The focus group interview evaluates the DSR artifact

by gathering structured feedback and discussing the

practicality (Tremblay et al., 2010). Focus groups can

reveal the diversity or consensus of opinions among

experts and the reasons behind them (Krueger, 2014),

allowing an in-depth evaluation of an artifact, which

is in focus of this research.

The focus group interview was conducted online

as a workshop at the 25th Conference on

“Communities in New Media” in Dresden on the 5th

of October 2022. Experts were recruited following

the guidelines of Hennink (2007), focusing on a wide

range of perspectives, opinions, backgrounds and

experiences to address multiple aspects of the topic.

Selection criteria for perspectives were defined, then

experts were prioritized and contacted. The experts

were selected after an extensive screening, including

authors of relevant publications, professors with a

focus on the topic, research project leaders, former

keynote speakers of the conference (which has a

distinct focus on community management) and

leading company representatives with relevant

profiles. Table 1 summarizes the participants and

their expertise.

Table 1: Focus Group Experts.

1 Corporate Digital Learning expert, Ph.D. thesis on

strategic management of companies’ dynamic

capabilities, Research on competence engineering

2 Professor for Business Administration, Expertise in

digital education design and managemen

3 Senior community management in IT consulting,

management & service provider for agile software

development company, Expertise in New Work and

agile management, CCM

4 Head of Consulting in software strategy, conception,

development, implementation and hosting company,

Expertise in New Work and Digital Transformation

5 Research associate Professorship for Entrepreneurship

& Innovation, Responsible for business plan seminar

and star

-up consulting

6 Community management expert, consultant and author,

Expertise in building engaged online communities

7 Deputy director of a central research facility, Expertise

in educational technologies, competence-oriented

qualifications and certification

8 Business Development Manager at private university,

Responsible for design of qualification programs,

Expertise in qualification distribution

9 Professor for International and Digital Business, Ph.D.

thesis on online communities as strategic assets,

Research on communities and digital transformation

The number of nine experts was high, but still

within the recommended range (Krueger & Casey,

2015). To ensure the quality and manageability of the

discussion, the author was assisted by two colleagues

who helped to structure the documentation. At the

beginning of the focus group the experts introduced

themselves and their expertise, received an impulse

presentation of the artifact and were introduced to the

procedure of documenting, clustering and discussing

their ideas on a virtual whiteboard in Miro. The

experts were expected to document their ideas on

notes in Miro before discussing them. This ensured

Facilitating Competence-Oriented Qualiﬁcation in New Work: Evaluation of a Platform Prototype

661

that thoughts of the experts were documented even if

they were not extensively discussed. The focus group

discussion lasted for 150 minutes. It was recorded and

completely transcribed for qualitative content

analysis.

3.2 Qualitative Content Analysis

For the analysis of the interview transcript and Miro

notes, an extended coding scheme based on Hevner et

al.'s (2004) design science research evaluation

framework was adopted. The evaluation focused on

analyzing the practicality of the prototype in the

application domain New Work. Acceptability,

Accuracy, Consistency, Efficiency, Performance,

Reliability, Usability and Utility were synthesized

from the design science literature as deductive main

categories for a differentiated view on the various

facets of the complex construct practicality (Hevner

et al., 2004; Prat, Comyn-Wattiau, & Akoka, 2014;

Sonnenberg & Vom Brocke, 2012; Venable, Pries-

Heje, & Baskerville, 2012). The categorization

follows the procedure of "Structuring Deductive

Category Assignment" by Mayring (2014) using

MAXQDA. Definitions and coding rules were

documented as memos within the software and are

presented in line with the results.

Extensive categories were differentiated in a next

step based on the methodological approach of

Mayring's (2014) "Inductive Category Formation".

For three main categories in total nine inductive

subcategories were added. The category definitions

were documented as memos. The complete material

was analyzed with a fixed final set of coding rules,

leading to the results presented in the next chapter.

4 RESULTS

The results describe requirements to ensure

practicality of the platform prototype in the context of

New Work. Before the discussion of the evaluation

criteria for practicality, the development of a mutual

understanding among the experts was crucial to

clarify their interpretation of the relationship between

the application domain and competence development

processes.

The experts discussed the challenge of defining

competences for New Work. It is difficult to

determine which competences are really required as

the concept is constantly evolving and very trend

driven. Due to constant and disruptive change

processes, organizations face challenges to identify

which competences are important for the future.

Therefore, competence descriptions in this context

need to be agile and adaptable to keep up with the

changing environment. The experts defined New

Work as the environment and context for the

competence development. These basic characteristics

are referred to with the abbreviation R1 to ease further

orientation.

In the following the results R2 to R9 describe the

deductive evaluation categories. The categories R8

and R9 are extended with inductively formed

subcategories. The presented definitions for each

category are summarized design science evaluation

criteria (Hevner et al., 2004; Prat et al., 2014;

Sonnenberg & Vom Brocke, 2012; Venable et al.,

2012), which were also used in the coding process.

The frequency of a category can be an indicator of the

relevance or importance of a topic (Mayring, 2014).

The following results are sorted after the number of

mentions to give an impression of the distributions of

topics within the focus group discussion. However,

the frequency of a category does not necessarily

reflect its relevance, as some topics may not require

much discussion if the experts agree on their

significance and importance (Tausch & Menold,

2015).

4.1 Consistency (R2)

Consistency is defined as the extent to which the

artifact behaves in a predictable and coherent way in

different situations or scenarios. The category was

mentioned four times, which made it the least

intensively discussed category.

To ensure consistency of the artifact, the experts

recommended to define goals of competence

development for specific target groups, which are not

fixed and can be adjusted continuously based on

changes in the workplace. The artifact needs to identify

the current competences of the individual and match

them with appropriate learning opportunities, therefore

consistency of the used competence sets is necessary.

4.2 Efficiency (R3)

Efficiency is defined as the extent to which the

artifact achieves its intended goals with minimal

resources or effort. With five mentions, the discussion

of this category was less intensive.

The experts stated clearly that the presented

approach to identify competences and create

competence sets as development goals ties extensive

resources and needs high effort. Therefore, they

reflected the efficiency of the artifact with a future-

oriented perspective in the context of machine

CSEDU 2024 - 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

662

learning and AI support for competence management.

They envisioned these processes can automatically

analyze which competences are necessary to reach

defined organizational goals, without human

intervention, through task analysis and prediction.

This would enable constantly evolving goals of

competence development in the future.

4.3 Acceptability (R4)

Acceptability is defined as the extent to which the

artifact is perceived as desirable, appropriate, or

beneficial by the intended users or stakeholders. With

six mentions, the category was one of the least

intensively discussed.

The experts explained that potential users accept

qualifications better, which are tailored to their

specific needs rather than general courses that may

not meet their expectations.

To ensure acceptance of the learning transfer, the

experts recommended a verification of competences

in real-world situations as indicator of learning

success. To increase acceptance by demonstrating the

practicality of the competences, 360-degree feedback

from different stakeholders and digital forms of

assessment should be used.

4.4 Performance (R5)

Performance was defined as the extent to which the

artifact meets or exceeds certain standards or

benchmarks of quality or effectiveness. With 12

mentions the category is in the midfield of discussion

intensity.

The experts emphasized the importance of a

standardized quality of content providers and

qualifications. Quality checks should be conducted by

independent institutions. Providers must offer

standardized and comparable assessments to measure

both hard skills and especially soft skills, such as

communication, collaboration and problem solving.

The experts asserted that the competence shop

requires standardized, well-tested qualification offers

as products, to ensure a scalable and effective

performance. Collaborations between different

providers enable comparability and alignment of

qualifications, leading to product standardization in

terms of consistent formats, contents and quality.

Testing and implementing the concept small before

scaling it up helps to ensure the expected

performance.

4.5 Usability (R6)

Usability was defined as the extent to which the

artifact is easy to learn, use and understand by the

intended users or stakeholders. With 15 mentions, the

category is in the midfield of discussion intensity.

The experts suggested applying agile methods

and design thinking on usability testing cohorts. The

experts highlighted the need for regular participants’

feedback to enhance the usability of the artifact in a

continuous iterative design process.

The usability for the self-evaluation depends on

finding the optimal balance between specificity and

generalization. Specific examples would provide

relevant and concrete anchors for the users’ job-

related needs, while generalization would enable

transfer to different contexts increasing its

commercial viability. The experts recommended

making the anchor examples adaptable to various

media formats, to improve marketability.

To enhance the usability of the learning content,

the experts proposed using selectable and

interconnected "nuggets" of information that allow

users to navigate through the content according to

their preferences and goals. Content overlaps should

be avoided.

4.6 Accuracy (R7)

Accuracy was defined as the extent to which the

artifact produces correct or reliable results or outputs.

With 20 mentions it was also in the midfield of

discussions intensity.

The experts clearly state, that the artifact leads to

correct and reliable outputs, which are transferable

for platform business, but the challenge lies in

identifying and defining relevant competences and

breaking down large blocks into smaller saleable

units. The experts emphasized the importance of

constant adjustment for the accuracy of the artifact as

the application domain New Work is influenced by

trends and developments in various domains. Regular

reviewing and updating processes of guidelines and

standards are mandatory.

The experts explained the difficulty of accurately

defining and standardizing soft skills, as they are

more context-specific and may differ in meaning,

interpretation, or application across different

domains. The experts highlighted the importance of

using standardized terminology and frameworks that

describe competences precisely and selectively,

whenever it is possible. Current developments from

the research field should be included. Standardized

models and frameworks, especially ESCO the

Facilitating Competence-Oriented Qualiﬁcation in New Work: Evaluation of a Platform Prototype

663

classification of European Skills, Competences,

Qualifications and Occupations (European

Commission & Directorate-General for Employment

Social Affairs and Inclusion, 2019), were

recommended. Continuously gathering structured

feedback on the accuracy from different external

experts especially from the fields of human resource

management and pedagogy was described as crucial.

4.7 Reliability (R8)

Reliability was defined as the extent to which the

artifact functions without errors or failures over time

or under varying conditions. With 32 mentions it was

one of the most intensively discussed categories. The

results are summarized in two inductively formed

subcategories.

Social Context of Self-Evaluation (R81)

The experts concurred that self-evaluation could

foster users' awareness and empowerment. However,

they also acknowledged the challenge of ensuring the

reliability and validity of self-evaluation. The experts

highlighted the role of social context claiming that

self-evaluation is not a solitary process, but rather

shaped by the expectations, feedback and norms of

the social environment. Therefore, room for

reflection and communication after self-evaluation is

necessary to interpret the results and to plan further

actions. Furthermore, a combination of self-

evaluation and external evaluation is recommended to

compare self-perception with external perception.

Multiple methods of external evaluation and

standardized tests should be used.

Theory and Practice Transfer (R82)

The experts argued that the artifact should not only

provide theoretical knowledge, but also enable users

to apply and transfer it to their own context and other

domains. Collaborative learning, peer feedback, and

mentoring are recommended to incorporate social

context in qualifications.

The importance of understanding the transfer

environment, such as the goals, expectations and

norms of the target audience and matching it with the

artifact’s contents was emphasized. Contextual

analysis, needs assessment and stakeholder

involvement should be used to identify and

understand the transfer environment. The experts

recommend collecting user’s feedback after

completing the qualifications, if the developed

competences are reliable under transfer conditions to

optimize qualification offers constantly.

4.8 Utility (R9)

Utility was defined as the extent to which the artifact

provides a solution to a relevant problem or fulfills a

need in a given context. With 63 mentions it was the

most intensively discussed category. The results are

summarized in four inductive subcategories.

Problem Description (R91)

The key problems identified by the experts are

described to enhance the understanding of the utility

of practical solutions: The experts state that a crucial

problem in defining and assessing competence in

different organizational contexts is the lack of clear

and consistent criteria and objectives. Competence is

discussed as a multifaceted concept that encompasses

both domain-specific and general competences.

While some experts emphasize the need for

specialized knowledge, others argue that

organizational environments often pose novel and

non-standardized problems that require general

problem-solving. Therefore, competence should be

understood as the ability to cope with various and

changing situations.

Another challenge is the complexity and diversity

of competence requirements for certain job profiles in

the context of New Work. These profiles involve not

only technical competences, but also intangible

aspects, such as communication, collaboration and

leadership, which are difficult to measure and

evaluate. Their holistic nature cannot be fully

captured by mere descriptions or indicators.

Structured Competence Development (R92)

The experts rated the utility of the artifact highly as it

enables structured processes for independent and self-

determined competence development. The artifact

supports a first overview of a topic and a regular

orientation of the current competences and potential

for advancement. Individual and organizational

development goals must be stated as relatively fixed,

but the associated competence set should be

developed agilely (see R1). This allows the

dynamism of the individual development of

employees in a strategically managed setting.

On the one hand, the artifact allows a structured

self-reflection to identify knowledge gaps and

potential for development. This process fosters self-

awareness and self-regulation, essential for adapting

to changing situations and challenges. On the other

hand, the experts also see the potential for companies

to evaluate their employees' competence level and

derive strategic measures to fill potential gaps. The

artifact enables the definition of competences that

should be developed to achieve specific

CSEDU 2024 - 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

664

organizational objectives. The artifact should

structure competence development as a recommender

system presenting qualifications necessary to fulfill

specific individual or organizational profiles.

Agility (R93)

The context of New Work was described as one of the

most challenging environments due to the high

agility. The artifact in combination with micro-

certificates and micro-courses enables special

flexibility and a higher qualification speed than

classic fixed models (e.g. a three-year

apprenticeship). Fast feedback enables the adaptation

of models to changes.

The experts point out that one of the biggest

challenges in the qualification sector is to keep pace

with the speed and complexity of the applications

domain while considering individual development

perspectives.

Potential for Transfer (R94)

The experts agreed that the artifact has high potential

for transfer to other job profiles, but a comprehensive

development process is an essential prerequisite for

every transfer. Sufficient resources need to be

planned and provided for the initial work of

identifying relevant competences and defining

qualification modules in new application fields.

Continuous updates, which tie up more resources

over a longer period, need to be ensured, to allow

transferability.

The experts make clear that a platform business

concept requires standardized processes and content

modules to be scalable and commercially successful,

but the artifact works the best for specific job profiles,

such as CCM. The experts underline that

transferability is easier in fields where competences

are very distinct, separable and fixed for a long time,

such as languages and math. A holistic approach to

transfer descriptions of hard and soft skills is

challenging.

5 DISCUSSION

In the following, the requirements identified as results

are discussed in the context of the previous research

(see Chapter 2) and concrete design measures for the

further iterative development of the platform

prototype are derived to ensure practicality in the

application domain New Work.

Overall Platform

The artifact was considered as very appropriate for

New Work as applications domain, as it fosters a new

understanding of competences that considers

individual experiences and change processes (R1)

(Clauss & Jautelat, 2022). The experts confirmed that

the artifact enables users to get an overview of a topic

and their learning needs and to shape their

competence development independently and self-

determinedly (R93) (Leichsenring & Clauss, 2020).

The focus group revealed that the artifact offers the

possibility, not previously considered, for

organizations to agilely align and adapt development

goals by evaluating the competence level of their

employees and deriving strategic measures (R93).

The artifact's ability to reduce the complexity of

competence development was confirmed (R93)

(Leichsenring & Clauss, 2020). The artifact can be

transferred to other job profiles and domains but

requires a comprehensive development process for

each case (R94). Sufficient resources for the

identification and updating of relevant competences

and qualification modules in new application fields

are necessary (R94). In the following concrete design

measures for the further development of the three

elements of the platform prototype are discussed and

their implementation time and effort are estimated.

Self-Evaluation Tool

The artifact supports adaptation to changing

situations and challenges through self-reflection and

self-regulation (R93). The artifact should use target

group-specific competence sets that enable a

consistent assignment (R2). In the specific

application case, it is the competence set for CCM

(Leichsenring & Clauss, 2020).

Check the usability of standardized competence

descriptions: The competences should, if possible,

use established models and frameworks for the

description of competences (R7). Short-term

implementation. Low effort.

Incorporate regular feedback from experts and

users: Continuous feedback from experts and users

needs to be collected for iterative revisions (R7).

Short-term implementation. High effort.

Add external evaluation: It is conceivable that

users can invite different peers to answer their

evaluation questions, either topic-specific or

comprehensive, to objectify their self-evaluation by

adding an external perspective (R81). Short-term

implementation. Medium effort.

Add query of competence development goals: To

classify the results better, the individual users, peers

and organization management should be asked about

their goals of competence development, to improve

the contextualization of evaluation results (R81).

Short-term implementation. Medium effort.

Facilitating Competence-Oriented Qualiﬁcation in New Work: Evaluation of a Platform Prototype

665

Support identification and updating by AI: The

development, regular check of up-to-dateness and

revision of the competence sets is rated as very

resource intensive. AI and automation should be used

to increase efficiency in future applications (R3).

Depending on the technology development, medium

or long-term implementation. Medium effort.

Competence Development Guide

The social and collaborative aspects of competence

development need to be considered, such as peer

feedback, mentoring, or community building (R92).

Social contexts need to be incorporated in

competence development by using collaborative

learning strategies (R82). Both aspects are integrated

in the design principles (Leichsenring & Clauss,

2023). Aligning the artifact’s contents with the target

audience’s context and goals as well as using

different methods to analyze the effect in the transfer

environment, are already addressed in the design

principles as framework conditions (Leichsenring &

Clauss, 2023). Additional principles need to be

developed for the following aspects.

Design principles for assessments: The acquired

competences need to be verified using competence-

based tests in real-life situations. Although design

principles for qualification of relevant competences

exist, they are currently missing for the assessment

(R4). Mid-term implementation. Medium effort.

Design principles for the qualification’s

granularity: The artifact needs a flexible and modular

structure that can be customized and updated

according to the user's needs and goals (R91). Agile

development methods and design thinking should be

used to create marketable modules (R6). Distinct and

interconnected nuggets of information allow to make

the content usable and clear (R6). Micro-qualification

was confirmed as a suitable approach (Leichsenring

& Clauss, 2020). Principles need to be developed for

multi-perspective granularity determinants to guide

the isolation of content regarding market

specifications and scalability. This includes the

intelligent pedagogical combination of qualification

offers in terms of content, organization but also

potential qualification providers. Mid-term

implementation. Medium effort.

Competence Shop

Micro-certificates and micro-courses were confirmed

as main components of the artifact, which can be

combined and sequenced to create personalized

learning paths (R92) (Leichsenring & Clauss, 2020).

A clear structure and a good UX design are necessary

(R4). All qualifications should follow consistent

criteria and provide feedback to the user to evaluate

their competence level and progress (R92). The user

should be able to adapt and revise their learning paths

according to changing situations and challenges in the

context of New Work (R92). The artifact can be

designed as a platform business concept that uses

standardized processes and content modules to be

scalable and economically successful. This is the

biggest challenge, as high specificity and continuous

revision are necessary (R94). Alternatively, internal

organizational use as a business model or non-

commercial use of the platform, e.g. by professional

associations, should be considered.

Consideration of criteria that foster recognition:

Individual analysis of the potential transfer

environment is necessary to identify criteria that

foster recognition of the qualification within the

branch but also cross-sectorally (R81). Different

formats of micro-certification and verification must

be made possible. Short term implementation.

Medium effort.

Enable qualification provider collaboration: The

competences require distinct types of qualifications.

To serve this diversity, it should be made easier for

providers to collaborate on the creation of

qualification offers (R5). User data from self-

evaluations can be made available to potential

providers in anonymized form to facilitate needs-

based collaborative content development

(Leichsenring & Clauss, 2020). Short term

implementation. Medium effort.

Creation of a quality assurance system: Clear

criteria for the didactic design of qualifications and

their assessment are necessary. Products must be

regularly tested and reviewed (R5). The development

of uniform quality assurance and binding criteria

requires consistent testing and iterative improvement.

There must be a clear added value for providers

before they will make this effort. In the presented

artifact quality assurance has only been provided

through feedback from the users themselves (R6)

(Leichsenring & Clauss, 2020), an expansion appears

necessary. Mid-term implementation. Medium effort.

6 CONCLUSION

The purpose of this article was to evaluate

requirements for the practicality of a platform

prototype for competence-oriented qualification

within the context of New Work and to derive

concrete design measures for its further development.

Therefore, a focus group interview with nine experts

with complementary expertise in the application

domain was conducted.

CSEDU 2024 - 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

666

According to the experts the presented prototype

facilitates competence-oriented qualification in New

Work. The prototype reduces the complexity of

identifying qualification needs and suitable offers.

Furthermore, it also offers organizations the

opportunity to strategically manage competence

development goals for their employees and thus to

react faster to structural changes. The following

requirements ensure the practicality of the platform

(RQ1).

Competence-oriented qualifications are highly

context-specific. Self-evaluations need to be

expanded by external perspectives and personal, team

and organizational goals. A particularly challenging

factor is the identification of relevant competences

and the continuous updating of competence sets,

which requires intensive efforts and constantly ties

resources. The experts see clear potential, that this

process will be supported by AI in the future. The

verification of competences in the application domain

is a further crucial factor. Suitable test methods need

to be identified. Quality standards for qualification

offers and related tests must be developed.

Qualification offers should be collaboratively

developed by professional providers in an agile

procedure and be constantly iteratively tested and

expanded. The focus group makes it clear that the

chosen approach of a high specificity for a selected

professional profile is a decisive criterion for the

platform’s practicality. At the same time, this high

specificity is a burden for the commercial distribution

of qualifications via a competence shop, as they

require standardization and associated scaling. The

determination of a suitable balance between

specificity and generalizability is challenging. The

experts agreed that the platform prototype has high

potential for transfer to other job profiles and

application domains, but a comprehensive

development process of competence sets and goals is

an essential prerequisite for every transfer.

The results revealed several requirements that

allowed to derive design measures for the further

iterative development of the platform and its three

main components (RQ2):

The self-evaluation needs to be extended through

external evaluation and should incorporate regular

feedback from experts and users. The competence

development guide should be extended with design

principles for assessments and for the granularity of

qualifications. The competence shop needs a quality

assurance system. Criteria that foster recognition in

the application domain and measures to ease

qualification providers’ collaboration should be

established.

Although the focus group interview allowed to

gain multiple insights into the practicality of the

platform prototype, this research has several

limitations: The experts focused on aspects related to

the design and functionality of the presented platform

prototype. The effectiveness of the derived design

measures can only be evaluated after the further

iterative implementations. To achieve a more holistic

view of the platform in relation to the application

domain, the prototype needs to be tested in a real

environment in the next step. A technology

acceptance model should be applied to capture and

analyze the attitudes, perceptions and behaviors of

users. Whether the identified measures can be

transferred to other domains should be investigated in

the future by an intensified use of the prototype and

an accompanying mixed-methods research approach.

The results provide starting points for further

work on the transferability of the presented platform

prototype into different application domains and job

profiles. The presented prototype has clear potential

to facilitate competence-oriented qualification in the

agile context of New Work as worker-centered digital

transformation initiatives. This research underlines

the need of advanced competence-oriented

qualification offers to enhance employability,

productivity and innovativeness.

REFERENCES

Bergmann, F. (2019). New work new culture: Work we want

and a culture that strengthens us. John Hunt

Publishing.

BVCM. (2016). Stellenprofil Corporate Community

Manager. Retrieved 16 October 2017, from

https://www.bvcm.org/bvcm/ausschuesse/berufsbilder/

Chamakiotis, P., Petrakaki, D., & Panteli, N. (2021). Social

value creation through digital activism in an online

health community. Information Systems Journal, 31(1),

94–119. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.

12302

Cheng, M., Adekola, O., Albia, J., & Cai, S. (2022).

Employability in higher education: a review of key

stakeholders’ perspectives. Higher Education

Evaluation and Development, 16(1), 16–31.

https://doi.org/10.1108/HEED-03-2021-0025

Clauss, A. (2018). How to Train Tomorrow’s Corporate

Trainers – Core Competences for Community

Managers. 2018 17th International Conference on

Information Technology Based Higher Education and

Training (ITHET), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.

1109/ITHET.2018.8424806

Clauss, A., Collet, S., Laub, T., Lämmer, S., Schnurr, J.-M.,

& Wagner, D. (2019). Social-Media- und Community-

Management 2018. Nordkirchen.

Facilitating Competence-Oriented Qualiﬁcation in New Work: Evaluation of a Platform Prototype

667

Clauss, A., & Jautelat, V. (2022). Prototype Development

of a Self-Evaluation Tool for Corporate Community

Managers. In T. Köhler, E. Schoop, N. Kahnwald, & R.

Sonntag (Eds.), Proceedings - Gemeinschaften in

Neuen Medien. Digitalität und Diversität. Mit digitaler

Transformation Barrieren überwinden!? : 25.

Workshop GeNeMe‘22 Gemeinschaften in Neuen

Medien (pp. 251–262). Dresden: TUDpress.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.25368/2023.80

European Commission, & Directorate-General for

Employment Social Affairs and Inclusion. (2019).

ESCO handbook - European Skills, Competences,

Qualifications and Occupations (2nd ed.). Publications

Office. https://doi.org/10.2767/934956

Helmold, M. (2021). Introduction to the New Work Concept

BT - New Work, Transformational and Virtual

Leadership: Lessons from COVID-19 and Other Crises

(M. Helmold, Ed.). Cham: Springer International

Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63315-

8_1

Hennink, M. M. (2007). Participant recruitment. In

International Focus Group Research: A Handbook for

the Health and Social Sciences (pp. 93–114).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511619458.006

Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004).

Design science in information systems research. MIS

Quarterly, 75–105.

Jahnke, I. (2010). Dynamics of social roles in a knowledge

management community. Computers in Human

Behavior, 26(4), 533–546.

Jautelat, V., & Clauss, A. (2022). A Delphi Method

Approach to Develop Anchor Examples for the Self-

evaluation of Corporate Community Managers.

Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on

Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: CSEDU,

586–595. https://doi.org/10.5220/0011070800003182

Krueger, R. A. (2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for

applied research. Sage publications.

Leichsenring, A., & Clauss, A. (2020). An Essential Basis

for the Design of an Innovative Platform to Qualify

Corporate Community Managers. Proceedings of the

14th International Technology, Education and

Development Conference – INTED2020, 7618–7627.

Valencia. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2020.2053

Leichsenring, A., & Clauss, A. (2023). Competence-

Oriented Qualification in Digital Community

Management. Proceedings of the ICL Conference.

Madrid.

Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis:

theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software

solution. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3709(07)110

03-7

Prat, N., Comyn-Wattiau, I., & Akoka, J. (2014). Artifact

evaluation in information systems design-science

research–a holistic view.

Reeb, S., Clauss, A., Lenk, F., & Altmann, M. (2021).

Success factors of intra-organisational online

collaboration: a systematic literature review.

International Journal of Management and Enterprise

Development, 20(3), 200–233. https://doi.org/

10.1504/IJMED.2021.118405

Sonnenberg, C., & Vom Brocke, J. (2012). Evaluation

patterns for design science research artefacts. Practical

Aspects of Design Science: European Design Science

Symposium, EDSS 2011, Leixlip, Ireland, October 14,

2011, Revised Selected Papers 2, 71–83. Springer.

Tamoliune, G., Greenspon, R., Tereseviciene, M.,

Volungeviciene, A., Trepule, E., & Dauksiene, E.

(2023). Exploring the potential of micro-credentials: A

systematic literature review. Frontiers in Education, 7.

https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1006811

Tausch, A. P., & Menold, N. (2015). Methodische Aspekte

der Durchführung von Fokusgruppen in der

Gesundheitsforschung: Welche Anforderungen

ergeben sich aufgrund der besonderen Zielgruppen und

Fragestellungen? (GESIS - Leibniz-Institut für

Sozialwissenschaften, Ed.). Köln. https://doi.

org/https://doi.org/10.21241/ssoar.44016

Tremblay, M. C., Hevner, A. R., & Berndt, D. J. (2010).

The Use of Focus Groups in Design Science Research.

Design Research in Information Systems, 121–143.

Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., & Baskerville, R. (2012). A

comprehensive framework for evaluation in design

science research. Design Science Research in

Information Systems. Advances in Theory and Practice:

7th International Conference, DESRIST 2012, Las

Vegas, NV, USA, May 14-15, 2012. Proceedings 7,

423–438. Springer.

Winter, R. (2008). Design science research in Europe.

European Journal of Information Systems, 17, 470–

475.

World Economic Forum. (2023). Future of jobs report

2023. Geneva.

Za, S., Pallud, J., Agrifoglio, R., & Metallo, C. (2020).

Value Co-creation in Online Communities: A

Preliminary Literature Analysis BT - Exploring Digital

Ecosystems (A. Lazazzara, F. Ricciardi, & S. Za, Eds.).

Cham: Springer International Publishing.

CSEDU 2024 - 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

668