How to build a skills matrix, with a level model

A skills matrix — also called a competency matrix or qualification matrix — is a table: employees in the rows, skills in the columns, current levels in the cells. Only the comparison with the target turns it into a steering tool. The target defines which skill a role needs at which level. If the current level is lower, there is a gap.

Manufacturing has long used skills matrices to plan cover: who can operate which machine? Today they are common in every function because they answer three questions at once: Where is knowledge missing? Where does too much depend on a single person? Which training will have the biggest effect?

Start from the tasks of a role, not from a generic competency catalogue. Ask managers and experienced employees: What must someone in this role be able to do for the work to succeed? Where do newcomers typically struggle? Which skills will become more important over the next two to three years?

A mix is typical: technical skills (costing, equipment inspection, contract law), methodical skills (project planning, data analysis), social skills (conducting conversations, resolving conflict) and cross-cutting topics such as data protection or AI literacy. Eight to fifteen skills per role are enough to start. More can hardly be assessed honestly and even less often maintained.

Levels are the heart of the matrix. A scale without descriptions invites everyone to mean something different. Four to five levels, each described in observable behaviour, have proven themselves.

The target is set per role, ideally by the line manager and HR together. Not every role needs level 3 everywhere — a matrix in which everything has to be “Advanced” only shows gaps and loses its meaning.

For current levels, three complementary sources work well: employees' self-assessment, confirmation by the line manager, and completed learning paths that demonstrably teach a level. Exams and certificates can count as well. Be open about what the values are: estimates, not measurements.

A matrix is not an appraisal tool for pay or promotion. Once it becomes one, people rate themselves strategically. It serves development — and should be communicated that way.

The real value appears when every gap has an answer. Map each skill and level to the learning paths that teach it. The matrix then shows not only what is missing but also what to do next — and where there is no offer at all yet.

Universe's People Development area works this way: skills are created with a target per role, current levels are tracked in five levels from 0 (None) to 4 (Expert), cells below target are highlighted, and for each skill the page shows which learning path teaches the required level — or that none does. Completed learning paths raise the level automatically; employees assess themselves, managers confirm.

The first mistake is the urge for completeness. Anyone trying to describe a hundred skills for every role at once is still not finished months later, and the first entries are already out of date. Start with one or two roles where the benefit is immediately visible — for example where cover is hard to arrange or many newcomers are being onboarded.

The second mistake is vague skill names. “Communication” or “IT” are too broad to assign a level sensibly. Better are names that everyone pictures the same way: “Handling complaint calls”, “Spreadsheets for reporting”. The third mistake is lack of maintenance. A matrix that is only updated once a year for a report loses managers' trust. It lives on completions and confirmations flowing in continuously — ideally automatically.