Team Competency Matrix

The Team Competency Matrix is a Management 3.0 practice, known as the Team Competency Matrix and associated with Jurgen Appelo. It allows for visualising the skills that a team needs, the level currently available among its members, and the gaps that need to be addressed. The game facilitates a structured, non-judgmental discussion about strengths, dependencies, and priority learning. It serves to decide on a concrete action plan: pairing, training, or recruitment.

Walkthrough

1. 1

   Set the framework and intention

   5 to 10 min

   The facilitator opens by reminding everyone of the objective: "We are going to make visible what the team can do today and what it needs to succeed. This is not an individual evaluation, nor a HR rating tool." They emphasise the non-judgmental framework: everyone self-evaluates, and no one publicly corrects another. Participants confirm that they are discussing skills useful to the team, not personal value. The facilitator clarifies that the expected output is a simple action plan.

   Tip — Explicitly state that red is useful information, not a problem: this allows novices to declare themselves without feeling defensive.

2. 2

   Build the matrix

   5 to 10 min

   The facilitator prepares a matrix visible to all: the skills will be listed in rows and the team members in columns. They add a column dedicated to the level required by the team. They say: "We will first choose the necessary skills, then each person will indicate their level using a colour code." In person, the matrix can be drawn on a flip chart or board; remotely, it can be created in a shared spreadsheet. Participants check that all relevant members are indeed listed in the columns.

   Tip — Visually separate the 'required level' column from the individual columns: this avoids confusing collective needs with personal performance.

3. 3

   List the necessary skills

   10 to 20 min

   The facilitator asks: "What skills does the team need to master to deliver, maintain, and progress smoothly?" Participants suggest skills, which the facilitator writes in rows in the matrix. They rephrase if necessary to obtain titles understandable by all, without rushing into the level debate. The group removes duplicates and clarifies ambiguous terms. By the end, each row should represent a skill that the team acknowledges as useful.

   Tip — If the list becomes too long, ask: "If this skill is missing tomorrow, is the team really in trouble?"

4. 4

   Define the required level by the team

   10 to 15 min

   For each skill, the facilitator has the 'required level by the team' column filled in. They remind participants of a possible phrasing: "one expert and two practitioners." The required level describes the desired collective coverage, not the expected level of each person. The facilitator guides with concrete questions: "How many people do we need to avoid creating fragile dependencies?" The group records the agreed need for each skill before moving on to self-evaluation.

   Tip — Validate the required level line by line; otherwise, the team may discover too late that they do not share the same definition of the need.

5. 5

   Self-evaluate using the colour code

   10 to 15 min

   The facilitator presents the colour code to be used in each box: green means expert, "I can teach it"; yellow means practitioner, "I know how to do it"; red means novice or beginner. Each participant fills in their column independently, skill by skill. The facilitator reminds them: "Choose the colour that seems honest to you today, not the one you would like to have." Others observe without commenting during this phase. The goal is to obtain a useful snapshot of collective capability.

   Tip — Allow silent time to fill in the matrix: this reduces the influence of the most confident profiles.

6. 6

   Read the gaps and identify risks

   10 to 20 min

   The facilitator compares, with the group, the declared colours and the required level by skill. They invite participants to identify three types of signals: skills at risk, those held by only one person, and those to be developed. They phrase it without accusation: "What does the matrix tell us about our collective robustness?" Participants comment on the gaps, clarify constraints, and identify critical dependencies. The facilitator ensures that the discussion focuses on the team system, not individual shortcomings.

   Tip — When a skill relies on a single person, first ask "what risk does this create?" before asking "who can learn?".

7. 7

   Decide on the action plan

   10 to 20 min

   The facilitator transforms the observations into concrete actions. They remind the group of possible levers from the matrix: pairing, training, or recruitment. For each priority skill, the group chooses a realistic action and verifies that it adequately addresses the gap between the current level and the required level. The facilitator asks: "What first action shall we launch, with whom, and for what learning?" The session concludes with a clear and shared plan.

   Tip — Limit the plan to the most significant gaps: a successful matrix leads to a few follow-up decisions, not a long list of intentions.

Variants

• Short version: the team only addresses the most critical skills for the next objective or work period. The process remains the same, but the discussion focuses on high-risk gaps.
• In-depth version: after reading the gaps, each at-risk skill leads to a mini-discussion on possible learnings, then the group prioritises only pairing, training, or recruitment actions.
• Remote version: use a shared spreadsheet with skills in rows, members in columns, and a 'required level' column. Participants fill in their column silently with green, yellow, and red colours, then the group debriefs via video conference.
• Recurring version: maintain the same matrix structure and revisit it periodically to observe the evolution of skills and adjust the action plan.