Role Skill Mappings​​​​​​​ – a structured way to increased user knowledge in PLM/CAD and process

Why is this important? – Because it always differs

​​​​​​​If you want the best way to ensure a certain skill level. If you want the skill level to cover both tool and process/methods. If you want to promote a differentiated user skill hierarchy, or a common minimum basic user skill level, or to measure the ability of a new resource for your work group. Then you should consider Role Skill Mappings (RSM).

From the diagrams it is easy to conclude the importance of addressing both the minimum skill level and the total skill span. And as a possible consequence of this, the need of PLM/CAD career paths.

We also need to look at the Roles specified in the PLM setup. Which skills do every specific Role need to master?
A totally new “green rookie” has an easily charted training path. We only need to know the Role.

When examining the skill and experience of an additional (for us) new PLM resource, but with wide prior experience from other corporations or industrial branches, typical a technical consultant or newly acquired company, you should pay extra attention. In these cases, we can find high knowledge in the same tools and in the typical generic processes, but not in our specific corporate business processes or methods.
These resources might have the right skill for the tool although not necessary in the right workbenches or functions. And they have most likely no knowledge of our processes, structures or setup. This is the character and the one-thing that is in common in the PLM world. It differs.

"This is the character and the one-thing that is in common in the PLM world.
It differs"


Illustration above: an individual basic user skill level
​​​​​​​(note skill gaps between needed TO-BE and actual AS-IS per topic and skill area)

Illustration above: a desirable differentiated user skill hierarchy. Different needs of volume for different skill levels.

Role Skill Mapping.

What is it and how does it work?

​​​​​​​RSM Road map Overview

Basically, you need to chart or develop:
  • Specified Roles with specified tasks in the system as well as in the organisation
  • Specifications of seniority levels
  • Modulized Tool training's, preferably short and various
  • Process/Method training's supported by a process/method library
Then you need to:
  • Develop hands-on exercises, basically Use Case scenarios, per Role and possibly per seniority level
  • Specify appropriate minimum levels for the above scenarios to approve the individual
  • Specify mandatory area training solutions to match skill gaps
  • Specify Add-On training's solutions to certain extra needs
Then you can start:
  • Role Skill Mapping Interviews, to determine which scenarios are appropriate
  • Role Skill Mappings via scenarios
  • Mandatory training selection
  • Add-On training selection
  • In addition; we can build PLM/CAD career paths

"basic structure"

"basic structure build-on"

"a structural roll-out"

Well then, how?

To specify Roles is a useful activity. And what do we mean with Role? What Role? The Role that you have in the organization, the Role you were hired to do? Or the Role(s) you have in the system(s)? Ordinary Roles like Viewer, Author or Release Manager. Other Roles?

Well, we are talking about the tasks laid upon you, and functions you need to master. However, if there is a discrepancy between organizational and system role, it should be solved and harmonized.

A few simple seniority levels could be; design engineer beginner/advanced; or minimum levels for roles like key user/super user/support; or developer.

Tools training. Training for tools should be modulized to support Roles, seniority, functionality. But also, to support self-studies for simpler topics and workshops/classrooms for more advanced topics. Every tool training should in some way end with a Use Case based Hands-On scenario test.

Process/Methods training. Corporate way-of-working training should always be mandatory on the contrary to tools training (which are more generic). Process/Method training should also to some extent be Role connected. On a higher level the training could be more common, on a detailed level more role specific. These training's often are more theory based but should also contain Hands-On exercises and therefore it is possible with some kind of test or teamwork.
The scenario tests in the training's are basically the same as in the validation tests in the Role Skill Mapping scenarios.

"And ALL users should do the validations."

Good knowledge in the skill intersections

The core model is validation first, then specific activity, and certification last. And it is not that hard as it may appear.

Right quality is always about true understanding of fundamentals. That is a universal truth.

"It is always in the intersection between tool skill and way-of-working skill, that poor knowledge creates wrong quality."


Isn't this time consuming? – No, and it's also Spot-on Quality

The time to do a RSM Interview and then a test Scenario is about a 1/10th of the time spent in unnecessary standard training options.

The time doing specific training compared with unspecific training is a saving corresponding to approximately half the time. The majority of users’ don´t need to learn things they don´t use in their Role.

It´s about giving specific training, but you can use standard tool material in large extent direct. You only need to specify which sections. The same goes for the process/method training. There is a pedagogically need to develop extra material to bind it together. And you need to create the scenarios with approval keys.

"The overall time saving is substantial, budget wise 50 %. And the quality is right, the standard high and relevance spot-on."