{"id":1428,"date":"2022-03-17T22:28:18","date_gmt":"2022-03-18T04:28:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.idubbs.com\/blog\/?p=1428"},"modified":"2023-03-01T13:02:42","modified_gmt":"2023-03-01T19:02:42","slug":"rating-technology-knowledge-and-experience-skill-levels","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.idubbs.com\/blog\/2022\/rating-technology-knowledge-and-experience-skill-levels\/","title":{"rendered":"Rating Technology Knowledge and Experience: Skill Levels"},"content":{"rendered":"

What rating scales can be used to effectively rate technical skills?<\/p>\n

Why is this scale important? Ratings can be inherently tough to measure because they are often based on abstract concepts (e.g. good, better, best\u2026). Accurately defining each skill level reduces confusion by respondents, leads to better decision-making based on the data, and enables more effective processes to be put in place to encourage progress from one level to the next.<\/p>\n

Personal Experience<\/h2>\n

When I hear \u201ctech skills inventory\u201d or \u201cassessment\u201d my first thoughts go to that dreaded spreadsheet companies present to new hires to fill out. Typically, the assessment is a list of technology products and services that an individual reviews and gives a rating of something like 1-10 for each item on the list. Totally subjective and almost<\/em> completely useless.<\/p>\n

Scope<\/h2>\n

Many technology platforms are so large and complicated these days that a single rating is, again, not useful. Someone might very experienced in some parts of these tools and completely inexperienced in others. How do you use a single number\/rating to communicate your skill level?<\/p>\n

Skill scope\/granularity: A topic for another day.<\/p>\n

Skill Levels are\u2026 Subjective<\/h2>\n

How does one effectively respond to a skill inventory with subjective rating systems? For example: 1-5, 1-10, \u201cbeginner to expert\u201d, whatever the scale. These systems might be useful for folks to start a follow-up conversation, but really not much more.<\/p>\n

Why do these systems not work? With a quick search, there are a number of examples out there that use \u2018average\u2019 as a descriptor in their rating systems. Some folks (trainers, consultants, etc.) might have enough exposure to have a relatively decent idea of what \u2018average\u2019 means, but most individuals won\u2019t. Not having that broader view, that sense of \u201cAverage\u201d, leaves these scales to individual perceptions and biases \u2013 not something that usually leads to accuracy.<\/p>\n

For many consumers of these ratings systems, it would be helpful to try a less subjective system.<\/p>\n

Suggestion<\/h2>\n

How about something like the following? Sure, there\u2019s still plenty of room to improve verbiage and refine names and descriptions more. But a step forward from the purely subjective systems being used.<\/p>\n