A Competency Perspective on the Occupational Network (O*Net)

Full text

A Competence Perspective on the Occupational Information
Network (O*NET)
Florian Fahrenbach
Alexander Kaiser
Andreas Schnider
Vienna University of Economics
and Business
Austria
Vienna University of Economics
and Business
Austria
Austrian Federal Ministry of
Education, Science and Research,
Austria
florian.fahrenbach@wu.ac.at
alexander.kaiser@wu.ac.at
andreas@schnider.at
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to develop a conceptual
model which integrates the well-established US-based
occupational information network (O*Net) into a
competence perspective. Taking serious claims about
lifelong learning, one of the biggest challenges is the
assessment of tacit knowledge and competences. To
tackle this challenge, we depart from four well-
established competences (personal competence, social
competence, methodic competence and domain
competence), and integrate descriptors from the
O*Net. We argue that learning outcomes (what a
person should be able to do) can be made comparable
and accessible when linking them with the descriptors
from the O*Net. This approach is in line with the
European Qualification Framework (EQF), that aims
at establishing comparability of learning outcomes
within the European Union and relies on theories
linking individual to organizational learning.
1. Introduction
1.1. Lifelong learning
The political agenda in Europe puts a strong
emphasis on lifelong learning [19]. But, if learning
happens outside of institutional frames [3,4], and is
mainly experientially, the question is, how do we
assess the learning outcomes? How can we identify
and validate tacit knowledge and competences? And
how can we ensure, that people who perform in a
certain job do so on high quality, even if they did not
go through formal education?
The purpose of this paper is to introduce a
conceptual model to integrate learning outcomes that
are formulated in the European Qualification
Framework (EQF) [20], an attempt to standardize
European professional education, with descriptors
from the O*Net [24], a large database that offers a
taxonomy for all occupations established in the US. It
is not our intent to place one approach over the other,
rather we aim at investigating how they enrich each
other.
While the European competence perspective is
action oriented and thus normative [9,21], the O*Net
taxonomy is rather descriptive. While the competence
perspective provides a view on what people who
perform a certain job should be able to do, and thus
emphasizes quality requirements, the O*Net offers a
comprehensive list of relevant occupational
descriptions. This paper integrates these perspectives
to gain the advantages of both approaches. By
integrating a normative competence model and the
descriptive O*Net taxonomy into a coherent
framework that translates competences into
measurable indicators from industrial and
organizational psychology, we aim at providing a
framework to assess competences.
This is even more important as competence is a
fuzzy concept with no agreed definition [17, 34]. In
psychology, competence describes the “ability to exert
control over one’s life, to cope with specific problems
effectively, and to make changes to one’s behavior and
one’s environment, as opposed to the mere ability to
adjust or adapt to circumstances as they are” [31]. The
competence movement in psychology took of after the
claim to test for competence rather than intelligence in
educational and occupations situations [18], as
cognitive intelligence was seen to be a poor predictor
for job performance.
In the field of business and management, [15, p.
202] define competence as a “bundle of skills and
technologies rather than a single discrete skill or
technology”. The competence based view of the firm
[13] asserts that firms have to make use of their
Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences | 2019
URI: hps://hdl.handle.net/10125/60001
ISBN: 978-0-9981331-2-6
(CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) Page 5651

resources [33] but also need to use them in an efficient
way in order to gain a competitive advantage. In this
regard, competences also play a major role in
organizational learning, which can be defined as “a
change in the organization that occurs as the
organization acquires experience. [...] [it is] a change
in the organization’s knowledge that occurs as a
function of experience” [2].
1.2. Research gap and research question
Competence modelling is often used by firms to
define what knowledge, skills, abilities and other
characteristics (KSAOs) a person should have in order
to perform an occupation successfully [8,27].
However, [27] remark, that, even passed by the top
management teams, these kinds of competence models
are often arbitrary and seldom translated into
measurable job analysis approaches. The problem (and
opportunity) with such typical competence modelling
procedures is that they have to be blended with
thorough job analysis approaches [8,27] from
industrial and organizational psychology.
Furthermore, as the O*Net exerts a major influence
on competence frameworks around the world, it
should be taken into account in the European
competence frameworks [35, p. 685].
Reviewing the relevant literature, we are not aware
of a model that follows the call of [35, p. 685] to
combine the competence perspective with the breadth
and depth the O*NET database offers, which is
without doubt the most widely recognized and up-to-
date job database internationally.
In this regard, the research question is: How can
we establish a model of competences by integrating
the relevant descriptors from the O*Net?
To address this research question and thus the gap
in research, we develop a conceptual model in which
we depart by taking four broad competences as given
(personal competence, social competence, methodical
competence, domain competence) [17]. Looking
through these glasses, we integrate the descriptors of
the O*Net into the framework of competences.
This paper contributes both, to theory and practice.
Theoretically, we add a model to the existing literature
that combines the O*Net with a competence
perspective and in doing so we hope to “promote good
practice around competencies [...] and make their use
more efficient” [8, p. 260]. To the best of our
knowledge, we are not aware of any attempt to
reconcile the “competence-camp” with the “O*Net
camp”. As the model integrates the relevant
descriptors from the O*Net, it allows to directly
translate defined competences into measurable
construct parameters. We aim to show that these
perspectives are not mutually exclusive but rather
complement each other in a meaningful way, which
can be seen in existing best practices [8].
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows.
In section 2, we provide the theoretical background to
answer the research question. Here, we introduce the
O*Net and the EQF. In section 3, we show the
development process of the model and introduce and
explain the model itself. Finally, in section 4, we
discuss the findings and present limitations of the
competence framework. Here, we also discuss
opportunities for further research.
2. Theoretical background
This is a conceptual work within a larger case
study in which we outline the methodic process of
developing a framework to classify the O*Net within
larger competence categories. In doing so, we employ
theory building and offer an incremental theoretical
contribution which should be practically useful [10].
Competences are defined as "collections of
knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics
(KSAOs) that are needed for effective performance in
the jobs in question" [8, p. 226]. In this regard,
knowledge refers to the “possession of a body of
information (both factual and procedural) that is
related to the performance of a task” [24, p. 463].
Skills are defined as “a person’s level of proficiency
[...] to perform a task. Skills usually improve with
training or experience on the task.” [24, p. 464].
Abilities are relatively “enduring basic capacities for
performing a wide range of different tasks” [24, p.
458].
As outlined above, there is no agreed definition on
competence, that is why we decided to follow the
argument that competence may be used based on a
constructivist approach of viability [28]. In this regard,
we follow the definition of the European Union, in
which ‘competence’ means the “proven ability to use
knowledge, skills and personal, social and/or
methodological abilities, in work or study situations
and in professional and personal development” [12].
2.1. The Occupational Information Network
(O*NET)
The Occupational Information Network [24] is a
large job analysis database operated and maintained by
the U.S. Department of Labor. It resulted in 1999 from
the dictionary of occupational titles in which finally
over 12000 occupations were listed. As this large
number of entries could not be handled anymore,
psychologists began to develop the O*NET and
Page 5652

drastically reduced the number of jobs by extracting
the relevant psychological parameters that are relevant
to pursue most of the jobs. In this regard, the O*Net
stands in the tradition of taylorism and fordism.
Nowadays, O*NET is organized as a comprehensive
database of worker and occupational characteristics
that is continually updated through surveying a broad
range of workers and job analysts. The database,
available to the public free of cost, contains
descriptions of the knowledge, skills, abilities,
interests, and general work activities associated with
each of around 1,000 different US occupations [7,11].
The key organizing framework of O*NET is a
taxonomy of occupational descriptors known as the
O*NET content model [22]. The main motivation for
the development of the O*NET model has been to
address three needs: the ability to describe occupations
in many ways, a common language of work
descriptors that can be applied across all occupations,
and a taxonomic classification system [24].
The model contains almost 250 measures of
knowledge, skills, abilities, work activities, training,
work context and job characteristics, which are either
worker-oriented or job-oriented. For the four domains
of knowledge, skills, abilities and work activities, both
the ‘importance’ and ‘level’ of each skill or
characteristic being measured is recorded [11]. A
detailed description of the O*NET and all the data can
be found at the website of this project
https://www.onetonline.org/.
2.2. The European Qualification Framework
EQF
Hunnius and Schuppan point out that because of
the increasing importance of lifelong learning, the
competence approach is enjoying larger recognition
worldwide, as it focuses on the results of learning
processes [16]. In Europe in particular, the
competence concept has become important in
establishing comparability between educational
degrees issued in different countries. When applied in
professional life, the competence concept takes into
account what a person is able to do in a working
context, regardless of how this knowledge has been
acquired. Instead of formal qualifications and degrees,
which differ throughout Europe, skills, techniques,
expertise, and know-how become more important.
Addressing this claim the European Qualification
Network (EQF) has been developed in the last decade.
The EQF is described as a ‘meta-framework’ or
‘translation device’ which allows for the comparison
of one or more qualifications from one or more
countries [20]. A central principle of the EQF is that
its levels are based on learning outcomes rather than
either the type of a program that leads to the
qualification, or the institution in which it is taken.
Three main reasons have been given for the
creation of the EQF: international transparency
(among all the members and looking outwards); the
possibility of international recognition of professional
qualifications obtained in different countries; and
student mobility. The aim has been to create a meta-
framework that encompasses and connects the
national frameworks, to make them compatible. These
frameworks should be based on a common concept of
professional qualifications. The meta-framework
should include a systematic description of
qualification levels, with coherent relations and
conditions for it to be understood internationally [14].
The EQF is organized into eight levels, from
primary education to doctoral level equivalents and for
any qualification, a level of achievement is assigned.
Each level consists of three components of,
respectively, knowledge, skill and competence, the
latter being concerned with the qualification holder’s
exercise of autonomy and responsibility in work
situations [6].
3. Method
3.1. Overview of the development process
Methodically, we constructed the net of
competences within a qualitative research paradigm.
In this case we understand “engaging in creative
attempts to generalize mechanisms, particular cases,
or links between causal statements” [29, p. 167] by
constructing theory.
The net of competence is a model that literally
bridges the four broad competence dimensions
(personal competence, social competence, method
competence and domain competence) from the
(mainly european) discourse with the O*Net
taxonomy. In this section, we describe how we build
the “semantic bridge” between broad competence
dimensions and the very detailed descriptions within
the O*Net. In this sense, when linking competences
and descriptors of the O*Net, we relied on abductive
reasoning [23] as it supports the generation of new
hypotheses and concepts (i.e. the bridge). Comparing
to deductive thinking, abductive thinking is less
certain but comes with a greater innovative potential.
As such, abduction is used as a method in disciplines
such as product design or product innovation. The
process of model development was mainly done by the
first author (as indicated in subsequent sections) and
was validated by the co-authors in a community of
Page 5653

inquiry in the end of the process [29, p. 180].
In general, we aimed at integrating the O*Net
descriptors into the competence framework. More
specifically, we used the database O*Net Content
Model Reference, which includes all descriptors that
structure the O*Net database. The respective excel
sheet (Content Model Reference) is accessible at
https://www.onetcenter.org/db_releases.html and
includes 548 occupational descriptors which served as
primary data for model development (see Figure 1 for
an overview of the process).
Figure 1. Development and validation of the model
of competences (1: data preparation; 2: data analysis;
3: data refinement and validation)
3.2. Detailed description of the development
In this section, we report in detail how the net of
competences was developed. The development
process can be divided into three steps, namely data
preparation, data analysis and data refinement &
validation, with three substeps each that are outlined
below.
3.2.1. Data preparation. The data preparation phase
(Figure 1: 1) started on 05.05.2018. The data
preparation phase was done by the first author (FF).
First, FF downloaded the datafile “Content Model
Reference”. The file consists of three columns:
Element ID provides an unmistakable identification
for the content element, Element Name provides a
brief name for the corresponding content element and
Description provides a brief description and definition
of the respective content element. The overall content
model is theoretically described in [24] (Figure 2 gives
an example of the structure).
Figure 2. Example descriptors of the O*Net Content
Model Reference
Second, as this model is intended to be applied in
the german speaking region, FF translated the whole
“Content Model Reference” into german. New
columns were added into the datafile in order to keep
the reference to the original data.
Third, FF printed each of the translated rows of the
548 descriptors on a small label (10x5 cm) and placed
them on the ground of a meeting room. The Element
ID ensured that the reference of the translated data to
the orginial data is always given. When placing the
labels in the seminar room, the clusters mirrored the
O*Net structure and hierarchy (see Figure 3 for an
example).
Figure 3. Examples of the hierarchically clustered
descriptors of the O*Net Content Model Reference
(Clustering was done with translated data)
3.2.2. Data preparation. In the data analysis phase
(Figure 1: 2), an algorithmic procedure to clean the
data and regroup it semantically, was applied.
First, the inclusion and exclusion criteria relevance
was applied. More specifically, FF manually went
through all descriptors of the O*Net and decided
whether the respective descriptor is relevant to
develop a model of competences or not. A descriptor
was considered relevant if it describes a measurable
human variable or job variable. Descriptors were
excluded that did not elicit information regarding
measurability of a construct or the possibility to
connect the respective dimension with one of the
competences. For example, information regarding the
(future) outlook of an occupation, or information
about certifications necessary to perform a certain
1
Worker Characteristics
Worker Characteristics
2.A
Abilities
Enduring attributes of the individual that influence performance
1.A.1
Cognitive Abilities
Abilities that influence the acquisition and application of knowledge in problem
solving
Page 5654

occupation was excluded. In this regard, information,
relevant to build a conceptual model was separated
from information that is solely necessary to organize
the O*Net taxonomy but does not contribute
semantically.
Second, semantically double entries were merged
if they did not provide additional information. Within
the O*Net, certain descriptors are formulated
semantically similar as worker requirements and entry
requirements for a certain occupation. Clusters were
merged when they contained semantically similar
information. For example, the category Basic Skills
occurs twice in the data set with the as worker
requirement and entry requirement. In such a case the
information was merged into one category.
Third, FF semantically sorted the remaining
descriptors and merged them into the four broad
competence dimensions. At this point, the net of
competences consisted of four broad competence
dimensions and very detailed descriptions from the
O*Net. However, the bridging subdimensions and
their definition was still missing at this point.
3.2.3. Data refinement and validation. In the data
refinement and validation phase (see Figure 1: 3), all
authors worked together. In this phase, we constructed
the bridging terms and reformulated the O*Net
descriptors in a competence terminology. We
subsequently validated the model using qualification
standards from five different occupations (see section
4.3).
First, we generated the 32 bridging terms between
the competence framework and the O*Net dimensions
in several iterations. These bridging terms can be seen
as a result in section 4 for each competence dimension.
Second, we reformulated the bridging terms and
the O*Net descriptors into a competence terminology,
taking into account what a person is “able to do”.
Third, we validated our model for semantic breadth
and depth using qualification standards from five
different occupations performed in Austria.
Qualification standards are documents that specify
learning outcomes including knowledge skills and
competences. In this step we aimed to match every
learning outcome into the Net of competence and the
respective subdimension of the O*Net. Data validation
showed that the net of competence is able to account
for the qualification standards of five different
occupations in Austria (see section 4.3). Afterwards,
the bridging terms and their description were cross-
checked with labour market experts from the Austrian
Chamber of Commerce.
As this model is intended to be used by all labour
market participants (also non-native speakers) in
german speaking regions, we made sure to use a
wording for the subdimensions which is easy to
understand.
4. The resulting net of competences
The resulting net of competences is comprised by
four different dimensions (see Figure 4) and 32
subdimensions, which are described in the following.
We use the phrase The person is able to... to underline
the competence perspective. This is because the phrase
The person is able to is used to describe the learning
outcomes within the EQF. Within the EQF learning
outcomes are depicted strongly oriented towards
individual competence. The following section
provides the bridging terms between the competence
framework and the O*Net descriptors.
4.2.1. Personal competence. Personal competence
describes the “willingness and ability, as an individual
personality, to understand, analyse and judge the
development chances, requirements and limitations in
the family, job and public life, to develop one’s own
skills as well as to decide on and develop life plans. It
includes personal characteristics like independence,
critical abilities, self-confidence, reliability,
responsibility and awareness of duty, as well as
professional and ethical values.” [17, p. 38]. Within
the field of personal competence, we defined seven
subdimensions derived from the data in the O*Net
content reference (see Table 1).
Table 1. Subdimensions of personal competence
ID
Name
Description
PC1
Socialisati
on through
education
or culture
The person is able to use
his/her education and cultural
background to perform
appropriate at his/her
workplace
Method
competence
(MC 1-10)
Social
competence
(SC 1-9)
Personal
competence
(PC 1-7)
Domain
Competence
(DC 1-6)
Figure 4. The net of competences consists of four
different dimensions
Page 5655

PC2
Suitability
based on
personality
characteris
tics
The person is able to perform
at his/her workplace based on
his/her personality
characteristics
PC3
Suitability
based on
interests
The person is able to reflect
on his/her professional
interests and match these to
the demands at the workplace
PC4
Achieveme
nt
motivation
The person is able to reflect
on his/her key strengths and
use them at the workplace
PC5
Manageme
nt of values
The person is able to reflect
on his/her values and on
organizational values
PC6
Setting and
pursuing
goals
The person is able to set goals
and pursue them at the
workplace
PC7
Act
practically
intelligent
The person is able to use
his/her common sense at the
workplace
We are aware that PC3, PC4, PC5 are described
using the term reflection. We do so in accordance with
[9] who state that reflection [26] is a meta-competence
and plays an important role in the enactment of
competences in general.
4.2.2. Social competence. Social competence
describes the “willingness and ability to experience
and shape relationships, to identify and understand
benefits and tensions, and to interact with others in a
rational and conscientious way, including the
development of social responsibility and solidarity”
[17, p. 38]. Within the field of personal competence,
we defined nine subdimensions derived from the data
in the O*Net content reference (see Table 2).
Table 2. Subdimensions of social competence
ID
Name
Description
SC1
Sense of social
appropriateness
The person is able to act
in a social appropriate
way at the workplace
SC2
Communication
and interaction
The person is able to
communicate and
interact with others in a
goal oriented and
appropriate way at the
workplace
SC3
Active and
passive
feedback
The person is able to give
feedback to others and
receive feedback from
others at the workplace
SC4
Empathy
The person is able to act
in a friendly, cooperative
and empathic way with
others at the workplace.
SC5
Ability to form
and maintain
relationships
The person is able to
support others and to
build strong relationships
with others at the
workplace
SC6
Occupational
roles
The person is able to
negotiate about the own
role in the occupation at
the workplace
SC7
Leadership and
social influence
The person is able to
exert influence in social
systems and to lead
others at the workplace
SC8
Conflict
management
The person is able to
solve conflicts
constructively at the
workplace
SC9
Advice and
development
The person is able to
advice others and be
responsible for their
professional develop-
ment at the workplace
4.2.3. Method competence. Method competence
arises “from the implementation of transversal
strategies and processes of invention and problem-
solving” [17, p. 36]. Here, transversal strategies are
cross-functional and span a variety of occupations.
Within the field of method competence, we defined ten
subdimensions derived from the data in the O*Net
content reference (see Table 3).
Table 3. Subdimensions of methodical competence
ID
Name
Description
MC1
Socio technical
systems
The person is able to
understand, monitor
and improve socio-
technical systems at the
workplace
MC2
Resource
management
The person is able to
manage his/her and
organizational time and
finances
MC3
Human
resources
systems and
practices
The person is able to
ensure that an
organization has fitting
employees to meet their
organizational goals
Page 5656

MC4
Solving
complex
problems
The person is able to
solve new, ill-defined
and complex problems
in the real world
MC5
Performing
complex
technical
activites
The person is able to
perform skilled
activities using
coordinated movements
MC6
Operate and
use machines
and technical
systems
The person is able to
use his/her developed
capacities to design,
set-up, operate and
correct malfunctions in
machines and technical
systems
MC7
Digital
communication
The person is able to
appropriately use
different methods and
ways of digital
communication
MC8
Manage
knowledge and
information
The person is able to
identify and manage
knowledge and
information at the
workplace
MC9
Business
management
The person is able to
apply knowledge of
principles and facts
related to business
management at the
workplace
MC10
Administrative
work
Persons are able to
perform routine
operations like
administration, staffing
or controlling at the
workplace
4.2.4. Domain competence. Domain competence
describes the “willingness and ability, on the basis of
subject-specific knowledge and skills, to carry out
tasks and solve problems and to judge the results in a
way that is goal-oriented, appropriate, methodological
and independent. General cognitive competence [...]
the ability to think and act in an insightful and
problem-solving way” [17, p. 38]. Within the field of
personal competence, we defined six subdimensions
derived from the data in the O*Net content reference
(see Table 4).
Table 4. Subdimensions of domain competence
ID
Name
Description
DC1
Domain
Knowledge
The person is able to
use domain specific
knowledge to perform at
the workplace
DC2
Work settings
The person is able to
work in different
physical environments
DC3
Environmental
conditions
The person is able to
withstand extreme
environmental
conditions at the
workplace
DC4
Handling of
dangerous
conditions
The person is able to
handle different
dangerous or hazardous
conditions at the
workplace
DC5
Physical and
cognitive
requirements
The person is able to
handle the physical and
cognitive requirements
at the workplace
DC6
Work
conditions
The person is able to
work under different
and changing conditions
4.3. Validation of the net of competences
The conceptual development of the net of
competences was part of a larger ongoing project we
conduct with the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber
(WKO). The project’s objective is to develop a model
for the industry sector ‘Crafts and Trades’ which helps
to decide whether a person has the developed
competences to lead a company within a specific
occupation. Such a trading licence is given to a person
only if his or her competences ensure an outcome of
high quality. Therefore, the competences of a person
have to match with the requirements of a specific
occupation. Within Austria, there exist almost 180
different occupations with very different demands. In
this regard, the aim of our project is to develop a
competence based model which can be applied to all
non-academic occupations. A large part of the project
is thus to maintain the qualitative high performance of
persons obtaining trading licenses.
In the meta-framework of the EQF, it is necessary
that each participating country develops a national
quality framework (NQF), which fits to the EQF. In
the Austrian context, the NQF requires representatives
of the respective occupation to formulate learning
outcomes for the highest non-academic qualification
(Meister).
Page 5657

In the project, we obtained data from five different
occupations with around 50 learning outcomes each.
For example the term “He/she is able to set goals for
the organization and pursue them” is an exemplary
learning outcome from the occupation of plumbers.
Within the validation phase, we investigated in a
group of scientists, whether each of these learning
outcomes from the five occupations can be associated
to at least one of the 32 subdimension in the net of
competences described above. To describe the process
of matching in detail, is out of scope for this paper.
However, during the validation, we came to the
conclusion, that not only each learning outcome could
be associated with at least one subdimension in the net
of competences, rather we also concluded that roughly
66% of the learning outcomes from very different
disciplines semantically overlap.
5. Discussion and conclusion
In this paper we outlined a net of competences. It
has to be mentioned, that the net of competences is not
finished yet, rather it comprises a first iteration in an
ongoing development. Like within the O*Net or
software development projects, a version control may
be applied to further iterations.
Acknowledging the importance of lifelong
learning leads to continuous change [32] in the
competences and KSAOs a person possesses and is
able to perform. In this regard, nonformal education
[3,4] and lifelong learning [19] create a breadth and
depth of “nonprototypical cases” instead of
“prototypical cases” in the institutionalized system of
education [30]. In order to maintain and foster quality
within the admission of trading licenses of individuals,
it is important to use the full inventory of tools which
have been developed in industrial and organizational
psychology within the last decades to break down
competences into psychological relevant constructs
and methods [25].
5.1. Implications for theory and practice
In this regard, this paper contributes both, to theory
and practice. Theoretically, we add a model to the
existing literature that departs from a competence
perspective and subsumes the relevant descriptors of
the O*Net into this perspective.
In doing so, we aim at reconciling the more
restrictive and normative European competence
perspective which focuses on quality within
professional education with the more liberal and
descriptive “O*Net”. As the model integrates the
relevant descriptors from the O*Net, it allows to
directly translate defined competences into
measurable constructs. We show that these
perspectives are not mutually exclusive but rather
complement each other in a meaningful way.
Practically, we contribute a model at an early stage,
which should, in its maturity allow to integrate several
different occupations in the occupational landscape in
the german speaking regions. We used a competence
perspective to translate learning outcomes from the
national qualification framework (NQF) into
assessible parameters and constructs. In so doing, we
acknowledge that the net of competences has a
potential wider range of application, such as a self-
assessment of individuals on their level of
competence. It may well be possible to recognize
“learning outcomes, irrespective of the routes of
acquisition involved [...] but have nonetheless
developed competence experientially” [17, p. 28]. In
this regard, we also translate the EQF and Austrian
NQF, which employ a perspective on the whole
vocational system to a perspective of the individual. In
doing so, we aim to construct a model that assesses
educational equivalence instead of educational
uniformity by linking the net of competences to levels
of experience [1,5].
5.2. Limitations and further research
At this time, we only validated the learning
outcomes of five different occupations. Although
these five occupations are very heterogeneous, we
currently do not have insights whether all the other
Austrian occupations can be integrated into the net of
competences. Therefore, the validation process has to
be continued and enlarged. Further research should
also validate the applicability of the model for learning
outcomes described in other national quality
frameworks. Another limitation is the lack of a
concrete and implemented algorithm for assessing and
measuring the 32 subdimensions of our net of
competences.
Based on the promising results from the different
occupations so far and the limitations mentioned
above, our further work will focus on developing and
implementing measurements of different levels with
the stages of competence development [1,5].
Furthermore, further research should take into account
that lifelong learning is also strongly connected with
nonformal education [3,4]. Therefore, future versions
of the net of competences have to provide
opportunities for uploading complete biographies to
the system. Hence, individuals have to be supported to
think about their competences in a holistic way. One
way to realize this could be the integration of systemic
Page 5658

coaching techniques for creating an enabling space as
well as employing narrative knowledge management
facilitate the reflection on biographies.
6. References
[1] Anderson, L.W., ed., A taxonomy for learning,
teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy
of educational objectives, Longman, New York NY u.a.,
2001.
[2] Argote, L. and E. Miron-Spektor, "Organizational
Learning: From Experience to Knowledge", Organization
Science, 22(5), 2011, pp. 1123–1137.
[3] Bjørnåvold, J., Making learning visible: Identification,
assessment and recognition of non-formal learning in
Europe, Office for Official Publ. of the Europ.
Communities, Luxembourg, 2000.
[4] Bjørnåvold, J., "Making learning visible: identification,
assessment and recognition of non-formal learning",
Vocational Training: European Journal, 22, 2000, pp. 24–
32.
[5] Bloom, B.S., D.R. Krathwohl, and B.S. Masia,
Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of
educational goals: Cognitive domain, Longman, New
York, 1956.
[6] Brockmann, M., L. Clarke, and C. Winch, "Competence
and competency in the EQF and in European VET systems",
Journal of European Industrial Training, 33(8/9), 2009,
pp. 787–799.
[7] Burrus, J., T. Jackson, N. Xi, and J. Steinberg,
Identifying the Most Important 21st Century Workforce
Competencies: An Analysis of the Occupational
Information Network (O*NET), Princeton, New Jersey,
Educational Testing Service, 2013(2), i-55.
[8] Campion, M.A., A.A. Fink, B.J. Ruggeberg, L. Carr,
G.M. Phillips, And R.B. Odman, "Doing Competencies
Well: Best Practices in Competency Modeling", Personnel
Psychology, 64(1), 2011, pp. 225–262.
[9] Cheetham, G. and G. Chivers, "Towards a holistic
model of professional competence", Journal of European
Industrial Training, 20(5), 1996, pp. 20–30.
[10] Corley, K.G. and D.A. Gioia, "Building Theory about
Theory Building: What Constitutes a Theoretical
Contribution?", Academy of Management Review, 36(1),
2011, pp. 12–32.
[11] Dickerson, A., R. Wilson, G. Kik, and D. Dhillon,
Developing Occupational Skills Profiles for the UK: A
Feasibility Study, UK Commission for Employment and
Skills, Evidence Report 44, South Yorkshire, 2012. ISBN
978-1-908418-04-3
[12] EQF Recommendation: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017H0615(01)&fro
m=EN
[13] Freiling, J., "A Competence-based Theory of the
Firm", Management Revue, 15(1), 2004, pp. 27–52.
[14] Guillén, M., J. Fontrodona, and A. Rodríguez-Sedano,
"The Great Forgotten Issue: Vindicating Ethics in the
European Qualifications Framework (EQF)", Journal of
Business Ethics, 74(4), 2007, pp. 409–423.
[15] Hamel, G. and C.K. Prahalad, Competing for the
future, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass.,
2000.
[16] Hunnius, S. and T. Schuppan, "Competency
Requirements for Transformational E-Government", in
2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences (HICSS), Wailea, HI, USA, pp. 1664-
1673. IEEE.
[17] Le Deist, F.D. and J. Winterton, "What Is
Competence?", Human Resource Development
International, 8(1), 2005, pp. 27–46.
[18] McClelland, D.C., "Testing for competence rather
than for "intelligence."", The American psychologist,
28(1), 1973, pp. 1–14.
[19] McCombs, B.L., "Motivation and Lifelong Learning",
Educational Psychologist, 26(2), 1991, pp. 117–127.
[20] Méhaut, P. and C. Winch, "The European
Qualification Framework: Skills, Competences or
Knowledge?", European Educational Research Journal,
11(3), 2012, pp. 369–381.
[21] Mulder, M., T. Weigel, and K. Collins, "The concept
of competence in the development of vocational education
and training in selected EU member states: a critical
analysis", Journal of Vocational Education & Training,
59(1), 2007, pp. 67–88.
[22] National Research Council, A Database for a
Changing Economy: Review of the Occupational
Information Network (O*NET), Tippins, N. and Hilton, M.
(Eds.), Panel to review the Occupational Information
Network (O*NET), The National Academies Press.,
Washington, DC, 2010.
[23] Peirce, C., Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce:
Vol. 5, Pragmatism and Pragmaticism, edited by C.
Hartshorne and P. Weiss. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA, 1934.
[24] Peterson, N.G., M.D. Mumford, W.C. Borman, P.R.
Jeanneret, E.A. Fleishman, K.Y. Levin, M.A. Campion,
M.S. Mayfield, F.P. Morgeson, K. Pearlman, M.K.
Page 5659

Gowing, A.R. Lancaster, M.B. Silver, And D.M. Dye,
"Understanding Work Using the Occupational Information
Network (O*Net): Implications For Practice And
Research", Personnel Psychology, 54(2), 2001, pp. 451–
492.
[25] Salgado, J.F., Personnel Selection, Oxford University
Press, 2017.
[26] Schön, D.A., The reflective practitioner: How
professionals think in action, Basic Books, New York,
1983.
[27] Shippmann, J.S., R.A. Ash, M. Batjtsta, L. Carr, L.D.
Eyde, B. Hesketh, J. Kehoe, K. Pearlman, E.P. Prien, and
J.I. Sanchez, "The practice of Competency Modelling",
Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 2000, pp. 703–740.
[28] Stoof, A., Martens, R. L., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., &
Bastiaens, T. J. (2002). The Boundary Approach of
Competence: A Constructivist Aid for Understanding and
Using the Concept of Competence. Human Resource
Development Review, 1(3), 345–365.
[29] Timmermans, S. and I. Tavory, "Theory Construction
in Qualitative Research", Sociological Theory, 30(3),
2012, pp. 167–186.
[30] Tsoukas, H. and R. Chia, "On Organizational
Becoming: Rethinking Organizational Change",
Organization Science, 13(5), 2002, pp. 567–582.
[31] VandenBos, G.R., ed., APA dictionary of psychology,
American Psychological Association, Washington, DC,
2015.
[32] Weick, K.E. and R.E. Quinn, "Organizational change
and development", Annual review of psychology, 50(1),
1999, pp. 361–386.
[33] Wernerfelt, B., "A resource-based view of the firm",
Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 1984, pp. 171–180.
[34] Winterton, J., F.D. Le Deist, and E. Stringfellow,
Prototype Typology of Knowledge, Skills and Competences,
CEDEFOP, Thessaloniki, 2005.
[35] Winterton, J., "Competence across Europe: highest
common factor or lowest common denominator?", Journal
of European Industrial Training, 33(8/9), 2009, pp. 681–
700.
Page 5660