EVA · RETAIL CAMPAIGN EXAMPLE

Development demand and competency gaps

98 employees · 12 competencies · synthetic data. This is the full breakdown of the chart shown before you unlocked the library.

WHAT TO NOTICE

All twelve competencies: the numbers behind the chart
CompetencyMatched employees (n)Self-ratingManager ratingRequired levelCompetency gapEmployees requesting development (of 98)Employees nominated by managers (of 98)
How to read and use this example

Proficiency: 1 = beginning, 2 = practising, 3 = advanced, 4 = mastery. Employees rate themselves; managers rate those same employees. A required level is the illustrative role expectation. Gap = max(0, required level − average manager-rated level). A rating difference is not the same thing as a competency gap.

Development demand: counts across the full cohort of 98. The horizontal axis counts employees who asked to develop a competency from the framework. The vertical axis counts team members whom managers nominated for development in that competency, not the number of managers. Count each employee once per competency on each axis. The axes run from 0 to 100; values cannot exceed this cohort of 98. Demand counts are separate from the matched assessment sample n used to calculate each gap. The same employee can request several competencies, so counts do not sum to 98.

Display rules: assessment differences within 0.2 points are labelled close for display only. This is not a statistical significance threshold. Bubble area is proportional to the competency level gap; the reference circles show 0.5, 1 and 1.5 points. A hollow marker means zero gap. It does not show budget, participant count or disagreement between ratings. Colour shows who asks, using a visual reference of 50 people: teal = both counts 50 or more, blue = manager nominations 50 or more only, gold = employee requests 50 or more only, grey = both below 50. This reference is not a decision threshold.

Before allocating budget: confirm role requirements, inspect work examples, discuss differences, and add the intervention's cost and business importance. Neither demand nor a manager assessment is independent proof of ability. This synthetic example supplies no measured return on investment and makes no automated employment decision.

Illustrative data: all means and counts are prepared example values, not customer results or a claim of statistical confidence. The extended report below uses a separate fictional cohort and its own filters. Its figures are not combined with this 98-person example.

Prefer to discuss the evidence? Book 15 minutes with Ben.

Continue into a separate illustrative report below. Its own cohort, inputs and filters provide additional examples of the analysis. They do not change the campaign snapshot above.

Sample readout · Illustrative · Synthetic data · Fictional house · No real client data
ML

Maison Lumière · Commercial Time and Development Funding Sample

Commercial time review, wave 2 · 0 responses across 8 markets · compare any two groups side by side · click any bar, segment or bubble to see who answered what

EVA.ai · Workforce Decision Intelligence
responses in view 0 of 0

Key results at a glance

·
development spend per head in view, this year
·
hours a week lost to administration and reporting, all people in view
·
annual value of reclaiming one third of it, at loaded cost
·
answered "No, my time does not allow best value"
·
of working time is spent facing clients
·
of client-facing time goes to client development

Three decisions this readout puts on the table

Computed from the responses in view, in hours and money as well as percentages. Each one names an owner and a 90-day test.

SECTION 1 · FUNDING LENS

Is the development money pointed at the teams that lose the most time?

Development spend per head this year (from the L&D ledger, illustrative) against coaching benefit and against the time lost to administration and reporting. Money should follow the red, not the green. Bubble size is the number of responses; bubble colour is the No-rate.

Spend per head against coaching benefit, by market

No-rate 60% or more40 to 59%under 40%

Spend per head against time lost to admin and reporting, by market

Funding verdict by market

SECTION 2 · TIME ECONOMICS

What the lost time is worth

Percentages become hours with a contracted week, and hours become money with a loaded cost per hour by market supplied by Finance. The reclaim share is a scenario to test, not a target. Illustrative euro values.

Contracted week Reclaim share of admin and reporting Working weeks a year

Annual value of the reclaim scenario, by market

Hours per person per week, by activity

Market table

Click a row to list the people and their weekly hours.

SECTION 3 · COACHING

Coaching and empowerment: the cheapest development spend you have

Survey questions: How much does your manager's coaching help you deliver (1 to 5)? · How empowered do you feel to make decisions for your clients (1 to 5)?

Coaching benefit

Empowerment

Coaching versus empowerment, by market

What would give you more client time? Share of respondents naming each theme

SECTION 4 · RESPONDENT PROFILE

Who answered

Team size managed

Responses by channel

Median clients per person, by channel

The review behind these figures

Sections 5 to 9 are the commercial time review itself: where the week goes, and what the people in it say about it. They are the evidence under the four sections above. Every comparison, difference line and people list works there too.