Do we need a place in a competency framework to identify if it is a team/group KSA?

[philbarker]

As mentioned in our Feb 23 2021 CTDL meeting, the W3C VC Ed group discussed groups as the subject of a verfiable credential, e.g. what does it mean to say that a group has a competency. They decided to park the issue, focussing on natural persons as credential subjects (holders), however it's worth considering how we would deal with this, that is: do we need a place in a competency framework to identify if it is a team/group KSA? For example: military assigns billets based on team-based competencies.
Questions:

• are we talking about competencies that relate to an individual's perfomance within a team setting, or

• are we talking about competencies that must be held by all members of a team, or

• are we talking about competencies of the team as a whole (being greater than the sum of its parts) ?

• how would team/group competencies relate to organizational competencies, and accreditation (e.g. ISO 9001) ?

[stuartasutton]

Phil, do you think we might experiment here in github by moving this "issue" to a "discussion"...because I think there will likely be a lot over a period of time :-)? I see there is a link on the issue page to "transfer discussion".

…

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 7:09 AM Phil Barker ***@***.***> wrote: As mentioned in our Feb 23 2021 CTDL meeting, the W3C VC Ed group discussed groups as the subject of a verfiable credential, e.g. what does it mean to say that a group has a competency. They decided to park the issue, focussing on natural persons as credential subjects (holders), however it's worth considering how we would deal with this, that is: do we need a place in a competency framework to identify if it is a team/group KSA? For example: military assigns billets based on team-based competencies. Questions: - are we talking about competencies that relate to an individual's perfomance within a team setting, or - are we talking about competencies that must be held by all members of a team, or - are we talking about competencies of the team as a whole (being greater than the sum of its parts) ? - how would team/group competencies relate to organizational competencies, and accreditation (e.g. ISO 9001) ? — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#759>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAWNRJVAMAZCMWDUZ4ZDIC3TA62RTANCNFSM4YITFF5A> .

[philbarker]

@stuartasutton this is a discussion :)

[philbarker]

ps: the transfer discussion link is to transfer to a different repo.

[stuartasutton]

Getting old sucks...

[philbarker]

Getting old sucks...

But it beats the alternative

[siuc-nate]

Interesting suggestion. A couple of things come to mind:

• What would be the use case/benefit for identifying a competency as a group competency?
• Can this be solved by an existing property (e.g. ceasn:competencyCategory or ceasn:conceptTerm) given the limited extent of its use/relevance?
  • In other words, should we wait until there's more of a demand for it?
• What about competencies that could apply both to an individual and/or to a group (e.g. "can fix a car")?
• In our Navy work, there was an area of the source schemas (GEIA0007/S3000L) that defined the Task as being either an individual or a group thing. Are "group competencies" really just "group tasks"?
  • Also worth noting that the parallel/upcoming work had to do with tracking individuals (rather than groups, at least as far as I'm aware), which would imply "tracking individuals within a team setting"