In the product todayCSC Resolution No. 2600005
Competency profiles and the gap
The competency model the CSC prescribes, held against your funded positions and the people occupying them, with the gap between the two derived rather than asserted.
What it does
- The eight competencies the Commission itself names — the three core and the five leadership — on the four-level Basic, Intermediate, Advanced and Superior rubric the resolution fixes. Four levels rather than five, and the resolution says why: an even scale denies a rater the safe middle.
- Profiles on both sides of the question: the levels a funded position requires, and the levels the person in it has been assessed at.
- The gap between the two, derived on read and never stored, shown on the funded item's own record when that item is filled.
- A profile is matched to a position by title and salary grade, which is what the Commission's own form keys on — so one profile serves every funded item sharing that title, and an item that matches more than one is flagged as ambiguous rather than quietly resolved for you.
What it does not do
The eight prescribed competencies ship with their behavioural indicators and level descriptions empty. The Commission names the competencies; the behaviours your agency observes are yours to write, and inventing them is how a competency model becomes decorative. Your model, your position profiles and your assessment instruments are set with you at onboarding and authored in the administration console — these screens read the profiles and the gap. We ship no assessment instrument, no questionnaire and no scoring: an assessment records the approach used and the level it produced, and nothing here computes that level for you. And no vendor can hand you an approved competency system — the CSC does not approve an agency's CBHRMS, which is why this says CSC-ready and never CSC-compliant.