Skills gap analysis: find and close skill gaps

A skills gap analysis answers a simple question: What can we do, and what do we need to be able to do? It can be done on three levels. For individuals it shows where someone stands relative to their role. For teams it shows whether the necessary skills are present and whether knowledge depends on a single person. For the whole company it shows where strategic gaps are emerging.

The tool of choice is usually a skills matrix that records target and actual levels for roles and people. But the analysis is more than the matrix: it judges which gaps matter and what helps against them.

The target is derived from the tasks a role performs today and from changes that can be foreseen. Strategic initiatives, new products, technology, regulation and demographic shifts — such as upcoming retirements — change the need. A good analysis looks at both horizons and flags which requirements are new.

It helps to ask managers: Which three skills will become more important in your area over the next two years? Which tasks will machines or software take over, and what will become more important for people as a result?

There is no perfect source for current levels. A combination works best: self-assessment, confirmation by the manager, evidence from learning paths and exams, work samples. Each source has weaknesses — self-assessments are often too high or too modest, managers do not know every ability, certificates prove knowledge but not necessarily application. Together they give a usable picture.

A shared understanding of the levels is essential. If “Advanced” means something different to everyone, values are not comparable. Describe levels in observable behaviour.

Not every gap is equally important. A matrix full of highlighted cells quickly leads to paralysis. Rank gaps by two criteria: how critical is the skill for the business, and how large is the distance?

Every prioritised gap needs a measure with an owner and a date. Training is one option, but not the only one: tasks can be redistributed, knowledge documented, people hired. Then: check again. A gap is only closed once the level is confirmed.

In the skills matrix of Universe's People Development area, cells below the role's target are highlighted, and for each skill the page shows which learning path teaches the required level — or that none exists yet. The analysis turns directly into a work order: assign an existing path or build a missing one.

Skills data is personnel data. Whoever collects it should say openly what for: development and planning, not hidden appraisal. Clear rules on who sees which values build trust. As a rule, it is enough for the person, their manager and HR to know the status; aggregated values are sufficient for company-wide analysis.

Where a works council exists, involve it early. In Germany, identifying training needs and running in-house training measures are among its participation rights (Sections 96 to 98 of the Works Constitution Act), and technical systems for evaluation can be subject to co-determination. This note does not replace legal advice.

A deliberate boundary between learning exercises and personnel data also makes sense. In Universe, evidence from the competence diagnosis in courses never flows into HR views; the People Development skills matrix is fed by self-assessment, manager confirmation and completed learning paths.