Most organizations struggle with validating performance and rely on less-than-ideal methods: e.g., competency checklists, total hours worked, theory tests, coursework, and trainer judgement. This is due to not realizing or knowing how to associate deliberate and targeted (D&T) practical experiences with their methods. Validation methods are more reliable when associating D&T practical experiences.
Moreover, most organizations confirm that training was completed rather than validating if trainees are competent. This occurs when trainees are signed off as competent when only completing training requirements. Validation methods are more reliable when conducted outside and after training. This strategy more reliably measures competence and determines if training instructions empower trainees to learn.
What does this mean for credentialing?
Smart Performance Measures are expressions of duties. They are practical experiences that confirm competence when satisfied. This means you can improve the reliability of your validation methods and localize them based on experiences relevant to your organization or community.
It’s inarguable that the concept of competency-based credentials is to recognize individuals for their ability to do something successfully. But the practical experiences we use to validate do not have to be and are not the same for everyone. Credentials may recognize competence in certain skills, but experience is localized to an individual’s environment.
Our performance measure development process is designed to help organizations discover if their existing projects or workplace activities are ideal for validating performance against our industry recognized standards.