Definitions vary across the organisation.
A competency or proficiency level can mean something different in each function. Combining scores does not resolve those differences.
For HR leaders
Give the business a workforce picture HR can stand behind.
Connect what people report, what managers assess and the evidence available. Help the business act while keeping the framework, review process and access responsibilities clear.
What you need to deliver
You own the people strategy and the consistency of the processes that support it. The business needs useful answers; employees and managers need to understand how their information will be used.
What gets in the way
Different decisions start from different versions of capability.
A completed profile is mistaken for evidence.
Job history, self-assessment and a manager's judgement each add context. They do not all support the same conclusion about a person's capability.
The next action sits outside the review.
A talent discussion can end with recommendations while ownership, employee participation and the follow-up process remain unclear.
How EVA helps
Make the framework and the review work together.
Establish a common starting point.
Agree competency definitions, proficiency levels and the population in scope. Use Managed EVA Competency Mapping for a bounded first map with employee and manager assessments included.
Capture both perspectives.
EVA gathers practical examples and employee and manager responses. Discuss EVA Team & Leadership Analytics for leadership perspectives, additional instruments or an agreed recurring programme.
Connect the people processes.
Use the reviewed picture to inform development, mobility or matching. Scope ongoing capture and workflow with HR's existing responsibilities and systems.
What you can take forward
A shared basis for the next people decision.
- A scoped framework and capability picture that teams can discuss consistently.
- Visible assessment differences and evidence gaps for targeted follow-up.
- Clear responsibilities for review, access and the actions that follow.
Explore the analysis
Analyses for the decisions you own.
Illustrative. Synthetic data.
Competency map, one cohort
Turn employee and manager assessments into clear development priorities.
Proficiency distributions, assessment differences, development priorities and an investment map.
EVA Competency Mapping · Managed
Inputs and scope
Question: Where should this team's development effort go?
Inputs: An agreed competency framework, employee assessments and manager assessments.
This Managed example uses a synthetic cohort across several markets. Your included population, language and analyses are agreed in the project scope; later reassessment is a separate option. This interpreted readout does not define the automated outputs included in Self-Service.
Illustrative. Synthetic data.
360 Leadership Alignment
Bring self, manager and team perspectives into one leadership and succession review.
Three-view comparisons, development themes, successor readiness and individual debrief views.
EVA Team & Leadership Analytics
Inputs and scope
Question: Where do leadership perspectives differ, and what needs a calibration discussion?
Inputs: Self, line-manager and team assessments, with manager-provided performance and potential inputs where agreed.
Instruments, respondent groups, confidentiality, calibration and debrief support are scoped for the project.
Illustrative. Synthetic data.
Development Funding Analytics
Connect commercial time, coaching benefit and development spend before allocating budget.
Group comparisons, hours-to-value scenarios and market-level development funding priorities.
EVA Team & Leadership Analytics
Inputs and scope
Question: Where should we protect, redirect or investigate development funding?
Inputs: Time-allocation and coaching responses, development spend per head and Finance-supplied cost assumptions.
Commercial time and development funding, illustrated with synthetic data. Released capacity and euro values are modelled scenarios, not realised savings or guaranteed returns.
Development Funding Analytics connects coaching responses and development spend to a budget discussion with Finance. Its financial scenarios are illustrative. The department analysis illustrates the first mapping project. Leadership analysis adds separately scoped self, manager and team perspectives. UNDP describes using EVA for expertise mapping and leadership pools; the synthetic leadership interface shown here is a separate illustration.
Read the UNDP customer accountA decision in practice
Several markets need one capability picture they can interpret consistently.
For a multilingual programme, agree definitions and proficiency anchors, adapt the capture by language and inspect participation and evidence quality by market. Employee and manager differences prompt targeted calibration; combining scores is not a substitute for comparable evidence.
Illustrative decision brief, not a customer result or a standard product report.
Measures you can own
Establish a baseline, target and review period. These are evaluation measures, not promised improvements.
- Population coverage
- Participation by market and group, reported separately from the strength of the evidence.
- Usable evidence
- Priority requirements with relevant supporting information and unresolved gaps clearly identified.
- Review follow-through
- Assessment differences examined and next actions owned. Forced agreement is not the goal.
A useful first step
Choose the people decision that needs a clearer foundation.
Start with one population and the decision it should support. Agree employee and manager participation, the framework, language and review approach. Managed EVA Competency Mapping includes one framework, one language and employee and manager assessments. Wider or recurring programmes are scoped separately.
Who to involve
Business leaders supply the work requirements. People analytics helps define the data and interpretation. Information security and the relevant employee representatives join where the scope requires them.
Which workforce decision needs a common evidence base, and where do definitions or languages currently get in the way?
Explore your decisions