ECOTOOL Competence Model

eCOTOOL Competence Model
The
eCOTOOL
Competence
Model
http://www.simongrant.org/pubs/eCOTOOL/eCOTOOL_CM.html[11/10/2015 14:00:18]
Keywords
Abstract
skill,
competence, model, ability, framework, structure
The eCOTOOL Competence Model is a general purpose model covering
both the
internal structure of a definition of competence, skill, ability, or
similar concept, and
structures of these. It was developed to achieve more
functionality in a more
general way than purely within a Europass Certificate
Supplement. It is offered as
a contribution to the solution of the real
problem of representing and
communicating information about competences and
related concepts and
structures, and for making tools that handle such
information interoperable, so that
any tool can manage information associated
with any competence.
Authors / Reviewers / Contributors of this Document
Name
Organization
Country
Role
Simon Grant
University of Bolton
UK
Lead author
Christian M. Stracke
University of Duisburg-Essen
Germany
Author
Charalampos Thanopoulos
Agro-Know
Greece
Author
Cleo Sgouropoulou
ELOT
Greece
Author
Carolyn Owen
MAICh
Greece
Author
Lenka Fierov
UZEI
Czech Republic
Author
(Reformatted as one of Simon Grant's eCOTOOL publications

within Simon Grant's publications)
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary
2. Introduction
and background
2.1. Relationship to the
Application Profile
2.2. The Europass Certificate
Supplement
2.3. General uses of competence
definitions
2.4. Combining competence
definitions in structures
2.5. Examples of fuller
competence structures
2.5.1.
2.5.2.
2.5.3.
2.5.4.
2.5.5.
2.5.6.
UK National Occupational
Standards
UK vocational qualifications
German vocational regulations
Czech National Register of
Vocational Qualifications (NSK)
Greek competence structures in
Vocational Profile descriptions
Review of competence
structures
3. The
eCOTOOL Competence Model (High-Level)
3.1. Purpose and contents of the
high-level model
3.2. High-level model terms and
definitions
3.3. The eCOTOOL high-level model
of an ability item
3.3.1.
3.3.2.
3.3.3.
3.3.4.
3.3.5.
Primary components of the

high-level model
Unique id codes for
cross-referencing ability items
Attribution of levels to
ability items
Further classifying ability
items
Constructing high-level model
ability items

of competence structure
of level definitions
3.6. Using the forms to define
competence in your field
3.7. Profiles of personal ability
or job requirement
3.8. General guidance for
structuring competence
3.8.1. General considerations
3.8.2. Working from employment
requirements
3.8.3. Working from curriculum
subject areas
3.9. Granularity for different

purposes
4. Using
competences in Europass documents
4.1. Constructing ability items
for Europass Certificate Supplements
4.2. Competence in other Europass
documents
5. The
eCOTOOL Competence Model (Technical)
5.1. Purpose and content of the
technical model
5.2. Technical and other
additional terms and definitions
5.3. Moving from high-level to
technical model
5.4. Representing separate
ability or competence concepts
5.4.1. The uses of ability and
competence concepts
5.4.2. Structure of an ability or
competence concept definition
5.5. Representing structural

relationships
5.6. Cross-mapping relationships
5.7. Representing level
definitions
5.8. Representing competence
frameworks and standards
5.8.1. The uses of competence
frameworks and standards
5.8.2. Inclusion of competence
concept definitions within frameworks
5.8.3. Structure of a competence
framework
5.9. Map of the information model

5.10. Relating back to the Europass
Certificate Supplement
6. Conclusions
in terms of refining and extending the ECS application profile
References
and bibliography
Acronyms
and abbreviations
1.Executive Summary
The application profile (AP) of the Europass Certificate
Supplement (ECS) deliberately omitted any detailed model of competence
structures, as these would
not be implemented in the eCOTOOL prototype tools.
This more detailed competence model is offered as a refinement and extension of
the ECS AP.
Competence definitions and structures can play several
roles: employers may want to specify their recruitment requirements or organise
their training;
individuals may want to plan and review their training, and
present claims of their abilities; training bodies may wish to use competence
definitions to inform
their learning outcomes; industry bodies may want to
define the skills and competences required in their industry, acquired through
training. A model of
competence has to be able to serve any of these roles.
Particular competences claimed, or learning outcomes
sought, need to be defined in their own right, but some depend on, or consist
of, other narrower ones,
and structures relating the definitions together need
to be modelled as well.
For ease of comprehension, the eCOTOOL Competence Model is
presented in two stages, and terms appropriate to each stage are defined in the
model.
Where it is possible and appropriate, the definitions follow those to be
found in related works.
The high-level model is explained in terms of filling in
three forms: a first one (Form A) for each separate definition; a second one (Form
B) each time a
broader definition is analysed into narrower ones; and a third one
(Form C) for defining fixed levels of a variable competence. In this
high-level approach,
some simplifying assumptions are made and some guidance is
given to help people write competence structures, particularly for the ECS. The
role of
competence definitions in other Europass instruments is discussed
briefly, for comparison and contrast.
The technical model gives more generality, and is
presented in a way that relates closely to a technical information model. It
would be straightforward to
define formal information models from this, and from
there to define bindings to specific technologies that would enable the
creation of interoperability
specifications for these kinds of information.
Competence concept definitions are technically modelled
separately from competence structures. The concept definitions themselves are
kept with a limited
scope, to maximise the ability to reuse the definitions.
The structures, referred to here as frameworks, in line with common usage,
include decomposition
into necessary and optional parts, and level definitions.
The attribution to a competence concept definition of a
level in another level scheme differs from the definition of a new level scheme
in its own terms. Such
attributions can be represented either within a separate
competence concept definition, or within a competence structure. Also, categorisations
of
competence concepts, and their relationships with concepts in other
structures, can be represented wherever convenient.
Several diagrams are given to illustrate the relationships
between all these concepts related to definitions and frameworks.
2.Introduction and background

One of the outcomes of the eCOTOOL project is to develop a
representation of the Europass Certificate Supplement (ECS) for ICT purposes.
The
purposes of the eCOTOOL competence model go beyond this, but the ECS serves
as a good anchoring point for the competence model. Section 3 of the
ECS includes
a list of skills and competences, and items similar to the ones in Section 3
lists could be used in a variety of ways. Section 3 items might best
be drawn
from a larger competence framework, and the modelling of such broader
competence frameworks is another key area that the eCOTOOL
competence model is
intended to clarify.
2.1.Relationship to the Application Profile

In Deliverable 1.2, an Application Profile of the ECS was
presented. The detail in which the ECS Section 3 should modelled was considered
carefully, and it
was concluded that there was a need for a much richer
representation of skill and competence information in order to lay the ground
for and facilitate ICT
tools that will not only allow people to represent
skills and competence more fully, but also to build the kind of structures that
are essential to understanding
the way in which skills and competences in a
vocational area are structured.
However, the model implicit in the ECS Section 3 is very
restricted. In order to allow good progress with the projects work, it was
decided to deliver just the
essential structure of Section 3 in the Application
Profile, and to work on the eCOTOOL Competence Model as a refinement to that
specific area of the
Application Profile.
The articulation between this deliverable (D1.4) and the
earlier one (D1.2) is subtle. Because of the way in which D1.2 was presented,
it is quite selfcontained, and the need for refinement may not be obvious at
first sight. Equally, this deliverable (D1.4) needs to be a general purpose
model of skill and
competence definitions, and as such the ECS may not at first
sight appear closely connected. But, on deeper analysis, it the strength and
necessity of the
connections become apparent. The task of constructing an ECS
Section 3 is made much more practical by having a fuller structure to select
from, and the
relations between the items chosen for Section 3 and other
definitions can be clearly identified in a wider model. Equally, a wider model
of competence
needs to be anchored to a practical purpose, and related to the
learning outcomes that are required in a particular occupational domain. Having
a goal such
as the ECS is a helpful target, because the ECS itself aims to help
bridge the gap between vocational training and the needs of employers.
2.2.The Europass Certificate Supplement

The
official Europass web page used to state that the "Europass
Certificate Supplement is delivered to people who hold a vocational education
and training
certificate; it adds information to that which is already included
in the official certificate, making it more easily understood, especially by
employers or
institutions outside the issuing country."
The
officially produced "Guidelines for filling in the Europass certificate
supplement" state that the ECS "contains a detailed description of
the skills and
competences acquired by the holder of a vocational education and
training certificate". Section 3 of the ECS is headed "Profile of skills
and competences",
and the Guidelines for filling in that section state
that Section 3 "gives a concise description of the essential competences
gained at the end of training"
what a typical holder of the certificate
is able to do in other words, it is a list of typical abilities. They
further recommend that:
the
list should contain "about 5 to 15 items using action verbs to
describe competences" these are referred to in the present document
as "ability
item short definitions";
"skills
and competences may be grouped (as in the example: plan the job and
estimate the amount of material required, from supplied drawing)";
"syntax
shall be consistent: verb(s) + object + complement";
the
"description must be concise; avoid adverbs describing generic
attitudes (work effectively, perform accurately, etc.) as well as any
element which
does not provide essential information";
a
"description shall not express value judgements."
This
advice is helpful and appropriate, but it does not greatly help the formulation
of the most useful ability items. Bodies writing ECS documents have not
consistently
followed this official ECS advice, suggesting that it may be confusing. The
present document offers a model of competence designed to help
people more
effectively compose ability items for the ECS Section 3.
The ECS Section 3, the profile of skills and
competences, is designed to convey what has been covered in a VET course.
While the individual lines of
Section 3 the ability item short definitions
may be formulated in a particular way for the purposes of the ECS, the
underlying concepts are relevant to
various different purposes.
Here are some examples of Section 3 ability item short
definitions, which have not been specially selected, but give some indication
of the kind of ability item
short definitions seen in Section 3.
First, from the English translation of a Greek ECS for
viniculture vinification technician, prefaced by The holder of this
certificate:
prepares the soil for seeding, selects the multiplying material, seeds and installs maternal plantations / grafts
Next, from the English translation of an Italian ECS about
agritourism services operator, prefaced by The Certificate holder is
qualified to:
organise, with competent agriculture authorities, methods of
rural hospitality
Finally, from an English ECS in a completely different
area, for City & Guilds Level 2 NVQ in Domestic Natural Gas Installation
and Maintenance, prefaced
by A typical holder of the certificate is able to:
Service and maintain domestic natural gas systems and
components
Ensure that there is sufficient information available to
determine the maintenance requirements
Service and maintain the stated range of appliances and systems
Record the maintenance activities in the appropriate media
Diagnose and rectify faults in the stated range of meters and
systems
Take precautionary actions to prevent use of unsafe
installations.
None of these are perfect examples according to the ECS
documentation. But these and similar examples can still be imagined playing
various roles beyond
the ECS Section 3, including helping to structure a
training course, or the assessment of abilities in the respective areas.
2.3.General uses of competence definitions

Competence concept definitions, or just competence definitions,
define the competence concepts that are used in many ways beyond the ECS
Section 3.
ECS Section 3 ability item short definitions are one kind of
competence definition. Listed below are many of the principal uses of
competence definitions,
which can help inform their writing. Explanation
follows.
Employers
could potentially make use of them in:
defining competences relevant to their
organisation;
job analysis and profiling;
gap analysis of competences within their
workforce.
A
person might want to claim them, and want that claim to be understood and
recognised as valid, across Europe at least.
Employers
or others might use them to specify the abilities that they want to assess.
Professional
or other bodies may want to use them in the construction of occupational
frameworks.
VET
bodies might use them as definitions of intended learning outcomes of
their courses, or might relate their intended learning outcomes to them.
Where
there are courses that result in the acquisition of competences that are
useful for employment, competence definitions could be used to build a
service to help people find pathways leading from a present lack of
sufficient competence towards some desired employment.
Uses by employers
One
can easily imagine employers using wording similar to ECS Section 3 ability
item short definitions in a description of what a job involves. The wording
may
be rather too detailed for a job advertisement, but it could still be read by
an applicant for a post to help them understand what the job involved, and
whether they were in fact able to meet the requirements of the job.
The
use of competence definitions throughout large organisations is widespread, but
there is less public awareness of it, partly because businesses often
regard
their own frameworks of skill and competence as commercially confidential,
rather than making them public. If a business is to manage its workforce
competences, they will need competence definitions that are understandable by

all concerned. Often these are discussed in HR circles under the term
competencies (plural of competency). There is sometimes a distinction made between

competency and competence, but this will not be discussed
here.
Individuals claiming abilities and competence
Individuals
need be clear about the abilities or competence they are claiming in their CVs
or portfolios. While these descriptions would typically not be skill
headings
in a CV, as they are too detailed, similar wording might appear in a detailed
description of a job that a person has done in the past.
Assessing ability and competence
When
recruiting, it is vital that employers can assess the abilities of potential
employees. It is also very helpful if individuals can assess themselves, so
that
they can plan for the development of their abilities and competence. In
each case, one can imagine an expert observing someone less experienced in a
role, and assessing whether they are competent at performing these activities,
and perhaps acting as part of a checklist to inform a junior employee about
where they need to get more experience and develop their competence.
Occupational frameworks
Competence concepts appear in occupational frameworks. In
practice, when frameworks are being devised, often the individual definitions
are written at the
same time. It is also possible that a framework could
include previously established competence definitions, including those from
other frameworks.
Learning, education and training courses
In
each case, one can imagine courses whose syllabus covers these areas. However,
they are not well adapted to form the kind of learning outcomes that
are
typical, at least in higher education.
Mapping pathways for learning education and training
This has been a goal for many years. A learner may have a
long-term goal of employment in a particular occupation. If there is one
suitable course that
prepares them fully for that occupation, they may take

that, but in an increasing number of cases it is not that simple. Courses
proliferate, and one single
course may just give some of the abilities needed,
or may prepare for further learning education or training by giving the learner
skills that are pre-requisites
for the further course that is actually going to
prepare them for employment.
In these cases, finding a good pathway from a learners
starting point to employment may be daunting, if not so hard as to effectively
block many learners
from attaining their employment goal. Given that the time
of expert careers advisors is costly and rare, what is needed is effective
automated help for
learners to find their way through what can seem like a maze
of learning education and training.
The clear mapping of both learning outcomes and
prerequisites (for higher courses and for actual employment) will provide the
basis for tools to offer
effective help in this area, guiding more learners
from their present starting point to economically valuable employment.
Comparing and contrasting uses
The
fact that the wording of a competence definition in general could potentially
be useful in several different contexts does confirm that we are dealing with
an important topic. However, the more precise requirements for each use do
differ. Therefore, the wording of the ECS ability item short definitions should
not in itself be taken as definitive of the underlying concept, but simply as a

form that is taken as suitable for the particular application of the ECS
itself.
2.4.Combining competence definitions in structures

Writing ability items in isolation is possible, but is by
nature an incomplete activity. In the longer term, it is likely to be more
effective to construct fuller
structures defining competence, abilities,
skills, and underlying knowledge, at a variety of different useful
granularities, within particular domains. This is,
however, a much more demanding
task. There are many examples of fuller structures that have been written to
document competence and abilities. Fuller
structures can potentially be the
source not only for ability item short definitions for ECS Section 3, but also
for intended learning outcomes for learning,
education and training (LET)
courses. In the following section, some better-known examples of these fuller
structures are presented. Later on, the present
document:
gives reasoned proposals for structuring:
single ability or competence concept definitions
occupational frameworks or standards that include such concept definitions;
explains an approach to creating a fuller structure based on
employment requirements;
explains an approach to creating a fuller structure based on curriculum subject areas.
Where a fuller structure has been constructed, it may be
possible to choose items at suitable granularities within that structure to
serve as ability item short
definitions for an ECS Section3. Even where
suitable items are not immediately available, a fuller structure makes it
easier to define appropriate ability
items. Thus, the present document:
provides guidance on selecting an appropriate granularity for various purposes;
provides further considerations to help constructing the ECS Section 3, and its constituent ability item short definitions.
2.5.Examples of fuller competence structures

2.5.1.UK National Occupational Standards
Within
Europe, perhaps the largest body of consistent structures related to
occupational competence is the UKs collection of National Occupational
Standards (NOS). The NOS database is on a website where all current NOS can be viewed. The body with current overall responsibility for NOS is the UK
Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES), who publish NOS quality criteria
(UKCES, 2010) and a guide for NOS development (Carroll & Boutall,
2011)
NOS
are developed principally by Sector Skills Councils, and the one in the UK
closest to eCOTOOLs trial area, agriculture, is LANTRA, the UKs Sector
Skills Council for
land-basedand environmental industries.
NOS
developed by LANTRA are no different in principle from any other NOS, and generally
follow the guidelines maintained by the UKCES. LANTRAs NOS
documentation
consists of PDF files each covering an occupational area, e.g. treework. The treework
document includes 54 NOS specific to treework, and
several more general ones.
Each single NOS covers a single function that can be performed by an
individual, such as fell small trees using a chainsaw.
This NOS is divided
into three elements, and each element contains a list of performance criteria (what
you must be able to do to reach the standard) and
a list of what you must
know and understand. There are 10 performance criteria for the element 10.2 Remove
branches from small trees using a
chainsaw, including such items as:
2.
Meet specified legislative and organisational environmental requirements when
de-branching small trees
7.
Remove branches from (sned/ de-branch) felled trees using an organised method
appropriate to tree form and condition
10.
Ensure resultant brash is stacked, removed or broken down as appropriate to
site specification.
The
required knowledge and understanding starts with (a) How to identify hazards
and comply with the control procedures of risk assessments when debranching
small trees (b) Emergency planning and procedures relevant to site (c) How and
why to initiate and maintain effective communication when
debranching small
trees. The most usual practice for NOS is to have the performance criteria,
and requirements of knowledge and understanding, as
immediate parts of a single
NOS.
This
should give an initial idea of the kind of content typically found in NOS.
There are very many more examples freely available on the relevant websites.
LANTRA
has not yet produced any Europass Certificate Supplements.
2.5.2.UK vocational qualifications

City & Guilds is probably the largest UK body
involved in awarding vocational qualifications. Their website gives figures of
1.9 million certificates awarded
each year, with over 1000 employees in the
organisation itself. City & Guilds often offer a Europass Certificate
Supplement along with their qualifications.
Vocational
qualifications in the UK are related to the Qualifications and Credit
Framework (QCF see explanation on the gov.uk site), which shares the UKs
NQF levels. The NQF levels are not identical to EQF levels, but are very similar.
A
brief look at level 1 and level 2 qualifications confirms that many of these
lower-level qualifications are limited in extent, and may be quick to complete.
In
order to build these small qualifications into something that counts in the
workplace, vocational awarding bodies often specify pre-requisites for
qualifications
that are not the very first ones to be taken. But these
dependencies are only indirectly relevant to the occupational frameworks
themselves.
What
is more significant is that the intended learning outcomes specified for
assessment in the qualifications, and therefore for learning, education or
training
leading up to those qualifications, may be related to NOS.
For
example, City & Guilds have a level 2 award in chainsaw operations, for
which one has to complete two core units. Each unit has a detailed assessment
schedule. There is a Europass Certificate Supplement for the award. One can easily
see the connections between the assessment schedule and the ECS,
and with more
effort between these and the LANTRA NOS in this area. But there is much that
could be made clearer and more transparent.
2.5.3.German vocational regulations

In Germany there is a dual system for vocational education
and training (VET), shared between the public and private sectors. VET takes
place in
companies and part-time vocational schools. Training regulations
govern the organization of this dual system. For example, there is one entitled
Verordnung ber die Berufsausbildung zur Fachkraft Agrarservice

(Bundesanzeiger Verlag, 2009) for agricultural service specialists. The plan
for the VET
Ausbildungsrahmenplan, Ausbildungsberufsbild is divided into two
sections, one for building the professional profile (Berufsprofil) and one
of more
general and transferable abilities (Integrative Fertigkeiten,
Kenntnisse und Fhigkeiten). For instance, the occupation specific section
(Berufsprofilgebende
Fertigkeiten, Kenntnisse und Fhigkeiten) includes a heading (5) for crop
production (Pflanzenproduktion) which has three
subheadings, in German:
1. Bodenbearbeitung,
2. Bestellen und Pflegen von Kulturen,
3. Ernten, Lagern und Konservieren pflanzlicher Produkte
Annex 3 sets out the detail of these headings and
subheadings. For example, 5.1 (Bodenbearbeitung) is expanded to:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Bodenarten und Bodenaufbau bestimmen sowie Bodenzustand beurteilen

Wechselwirkungen zwischen Bodeneigenschaften und Nutzungsmglichkeiten beachten
boden- und kulturartenspezifische Bodenbearbeitung durchfhren
Bodenschden vermeiden, feststellen und beheben
These are recognisably similar in form to, for instance,

the performance criteria of a UK NOS. They can be translated as sentences
starting with action verbs.
The other headings are expanded similarly. There is
a great deal of other information and material present in this and related
documentation, but the
essential structural aspect is nevertheless clear.
2.5.4.
Czech National Register of Vocational Qualifications (NSK)
The NSK register has been developing in the Czech Republic
since 2005. It will provide information on qualifications from across education
and training. The
NSK is a publicly accessible register of all full and partial
qualifications. The framework for these qualifications consists of eight levels
similar to the EQF
levels. Representatives of employers associations and sector
councils are involved in the process of designing and approving the
qualifications to ensure
their high quality.
NSK distinguishes between two types of qualifications.
Complete qualification these cover the ability to work
in a particular occupation. An example from the field of agriculture and
forestry is Farmer
(Zemdlec-farm).
To qualify as a farmer, two of the partial qualifications have to be obtained.
Two occupations are listed as appropriate to the
Farmer qualification: Animal
breeder (Chovatel zvat) and Crop Grower (Pstitel plodin).
Partial qualification these cover the ability to perform
particular activities or groups of activities which constitute employability in
the labour market.
Partial qualifications are parts of complete qualifications.
For instance, Farmer has three partial qualifications: Grower of basic
crops (Pstitel
zkladnch plodin), Breeder and keeper of cattle
(Chovatel a oetovatel skotu), and Breeder and keeper of pigs
(Chovatel a oetovatel prasat).
Each partial qualification contains a list of expected competence-related
learning outcomes (Odborn zpsobilost). For example, Grower of basic
crops
has 7 of these competence-related learning outcomes, one of which is
Sowing and planting crops (Set a szen zemdlskch plodin).
The learning outcomes cover of the knowledge, skills
or competences required for a specific work activity or activities in a
particular occupation. These are
the assessed to obtain the relevant

qualification.
Each learning outcome has a list of knowledge or skill
related assessment criteria for that outcome, alongside methods for
validating the knowledge or
skills required in a particular activity. For
example, Sowing and planting crops gives the following list, where each
criterion is followed by the assessment
method (roughly and informally translated
here into English).
Identify basic seed crops|Visual assessment of verbal
+ verbal rating
Connect sowing or planting machine, or.combination for a
given crop|Practical demonstration
Rebuilding a machine into the transport position and drive onto
the land, put the machine into the working position, fill the container or
planting seeds,
set the desired sowing rate or adjust the planter
planting|Practical demonstration
Sowing or planting demonstrate specified crops, treating the
machine after work and putting it into the transport
position|Practical demonstration
The lists of learning outcomes and assessment criteria are
published at www.narodnikvalifikace.cz
As with the German structures, the structure of the Czech
NSK is clearly recognisable. The fact that it is focused mainly around
qualifications rather than
occupational roles is only a minor issue, as the two
are closely related. The assessment methods do not strictly belong inside a
competence model, as the
same competence can potentially be assessed in
different ways, but the assessment criteria are in effect of the very same
nature as the performance
criteria and underpinning knowledge and understanding
that are seen in the UK NOS.
2.5.5.
Greek competence structures in Vocational Profile descriptions
The National Accreditation Centre for Continuing
Vocational Training (EKEPIS), a statutory body supervised by the Minister of
Employment and Social
Protection with administrative and financial autonomy,
determines the national occupational standards for the description of
Vocational Profiles in Greece.
A Vocational Profile is defined by the main and
secondary occupational functions that constitute the object of work for a
profession or specialty, and the
knowledge, skills and competences required to
respond to these functions. The main objective of vocational profiles is the
structured analysis and recording
of the content of occupations and of the ways
to acquire required qualifications.
According to this definition there are three key
components of the vocational profile that are given special attention during
its development:
a. the content of the occupation;
b. the qualifications required for practising the occupation; and
c. the procedures for obtaining these qualifications.
On this basis, the specification of vocational profiles
has five key constituent sections.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Title and definition of the profession / specialty.

Analysis of the profession / specialty - 'standards'.
Required knowledge, skills and competencies for practice / specialty.
Proposed routes for obtaining the required qualifications.
An indicative section for evaluating the required knowledge, skills and abilities.
More specifically, the analysis of the profession / specialty is carried out in four levels:
main occupational functions (basic and secondary);
specific occupational functions (occupational activities);
occupational tasks;
knowledge, skills and competences
The occupational profile is analysed in main (basic and secondary)
occupational functions and occupational activities. Occupational activities are
connected
to competences, skills and knowledge (generic, basic occupational and
specific occupational). The occupational profile is structured as follows:
Here is an example of the analysis of the job: Farmer

manager of Agro touristic farm
Main occupational function 1:
Prepare, organise and build the agro-touristic farm
Secondary occupational function 1: Decisions related to the type of
the agro-touristic farm
Occupational activity 1: Market analysis of the
opportunities and perspectives for the agricultural product in a specific
region
This is related to:
Knowledge (ISCED: level 2 & 3, EQF: level 3)
Generic Knowledge: Greek language, English language, mathematics, basic computer knowledge
Basic occupational knowledge: basic knowledge on management & economics sciences, basic knowledge on labour, insurance
and tax legislation, basic knowledge on touristic economic issues
Specific occupational knowledge: (none in this example)
Skills: logical thinking, entrepreneurship, initiative, communication, reading and understanding technical papers
Competences: ability to design, ability to combine information and come to a conclusion and solutions
The occupational profile technical guide also proposes

possible training opportunities for someone who would like to acquire the
specific competences that
are related to the successful accomplishment of the
job tasks. Also, some useful suggestions are included for the assessment of the
acquisitions of all these
knowledge, skills and competences.
This Greek example shows a common pattern of putting
together competence-related definitions with specifications for assessment, and
other career-related
information. For a competence model, we need to set aside
the information about legality, procedures and assessment, and focus on the
content of the
content of the occupation and the constituent sections (above)
A, B and C. Analysing this core content, again we see what looks essentially like
a tree
structure, though the branching levels differ from those seen for other
countries.
2.5.6. Review of competence structures

The detail of the way that competence structures are set
out differs from country to country. Nevertheless, the constituent parts are
easily recognisable,
particularly through examples. These examples of existing
competence structures clearly point to the need for a flexible model, equally
capable of
representing the different structures.
3.The eCOTOOL Competence Model (High-Level)

3.1.Purpose and contents of the high-level model
The high-level version of the eCOTOOL Competence Model is
developed to be used with and by people involved with competence definitions
for any
practical reason. Because the needs of these stakeholders differ from the
needs of technical systems developers, further technical details are presented
only in the technical version, which follows this high-level model. This
high-level model is high-level in that it omits much lower-level detail that is
relevant to
technical systems developers, but not directly relevant to
stakeholders with a direct practical involvement.
The eCOTOOL Competence Model (High-Level) consists of:
the appropriate set of terms and definitions;
the eCOTOOL high-level model of an ability item, including level attribution;
the eCOTOOL high-level model of competence structure, including the definition of levels within a framework.
3.2.High-level model terms and definitions

Ability:
characteristic of a learner indicating something that the learner is able to do
(Abilities may normally be described in brief with a clause starting with an

action verb. The definition of a particular ability concept is here termed an ability
item. The EQF uses the word ability in the definition both of skill and of
competence. Many learning outcomes are also abilities.)
Ability item: definition of a particular ability concept
(An ability item short definition should start with an action verb, and form
a meaningful sentence when used to finish a sentence starting with words such
as:
This person is able to .... For example, prepare the soil for seeding.
In English, this has the same form as a direct instruction.)
Action: something that is or can be done by a learner; part of an activity
Action verb: word or phrase expressing an action or activity
(e.g. manage, oversee, construct, lead, diagnose, develop,
prepare, organise, demonstrate, act, record, build, plant,
state, explain,
choose, pick up, etc.)
Activity: set or sequence of actions by a learner, intended or taken as a whole
(An activity may be focused on the performance of a task, or may be
identified by location, time, or context. Activities may require abilities.)
Competence: proven ability to use
knowledge, skills and personal, social and/or methodological abilities, in work
or study situations and in professional and
personal development [EQF]
(In the context of the European Qualifications Framework, competence is
described in terms of responsibility and autonomy. It involves selecting and
combining knowledge and skills for the performance of tasks in practical

situations or contexts.)
Educational level:
one of a set of terms, properly defined within a framework or scheme, applied
to an entity in order to group it together with other entities
relevant to the
same stage of education [EN 15981]
Knowledge: outcome of the assimilation of information through learning [EQF]
(Knowledge is the body of facts, principles, theories and practices that is
related to a field of work or study. In the context of the European
Qualifications
Framework, knowledge is described as theoretical and/or factual.)
Learner: individual engaged in a learning process [ECTS Users Guide]

(The term learner may be replaced throughout this document with the term
person with no change of meaning. Learners may also be employees. All
people
are here regarded as learners.)
Level: (a) educational level (q.v.) (b) occupational level (q.v.)
(NOTE: Not to be confused with the use of level in this document as high-level
model.)
Occupational framework: description of an
occupational or industry area, including or related to job profiles,
occupational standards, occupational levels or
grades, competence requirements,
contexts, tools, techniques or equipment within the industry
Occupational level:
one of a set of terms, properly defined within an occupational framework,
associated with criteria that distinguish different stages of
development
within an area of competence
(This is often related to responsibility and autonomy, as with the EQF
concept of competence. There may be some correlation or similarity between the
criteria distinguishing the same occupational level in different competence

areas.)
Skill: ability to apply knowledge and use know-how to complete tasks and solve problems [EQF]
(In the context of the European Qualifications Framework, skills are
described as cognitive (involving the use of logical, intuitive and creative
thinking) or
practical (involving manual dexterity and the use of methods,
materials, tools and instruments). They can be practically demonstrated with
the help of
appropriate tools or equipment.)
Task: specification for learner activity, including any constraints, performance criteria or completion
criteria
(Performance of a task may be assessed or evaluated.)
3.3.The eCOTOOL high-level model of an ability item

Refer to Form A, shown in Tables 1 and 2 below.
3.3.1.Primary components of the high-level model

According to the eCOTOOL competence model (high-level), an
ability item short description has two parts:
1. normally, an action verb (or verbs)
2. the rest of the ability items title or short description
When composing an ability item, it may be a good idea to
start by writing a first short description representing briefly the essence of
what the ability is. If this
description does not already start with an action
verb, it is recommended in most cases to search for a suitable one. Some more
advice can be found below
to ensure good quality items with appropriate action
verbs.
There are two particular cases where finding an action
verb might be problematic, and therefore an action verb is recommended but not
mandatory.
1. Where existing documentation is being formatted according to this model, changes of
wording may not be desirable.
2. Where the item is to do with knowledge, and the knowledge-related action is not
clear, or where it could relate to several different verbs.
The high-level model allows the classification of each
ability item into one of the KSC categories:
Knowledge;
Skill;
Competence.
These terms have been defined above, and are now explained further.
All practical abilities rely on some knowledge, but when
you write down what is necessary for competence at some role, job or
occupation, it is essential to
make the distinction between plain knowledge,
and abilities that may use that knowledge. You can test any knowledge (together
with purely cognitive
abilities) through traditional non-practical examination
methods such as multiple-choice questions, written answers, face-to-face
question and answer. To
test practical abilities properly, in contrast, these
approaches are not enough: some practical setting or equipment is needed.
Distinguishing two kinds of practical ability is often
straightforward: What is here called "skill" can be tested on demand
in any practical test setting, given
appropriate equipment; while what is here called
"competence" can only be tested by observation in a live situation,
and be properly judged only by an
expert. Both will involve some knowledge,
whether explicit or implicit. Competence will also involve skills, but as well
as testing the skills separately, the
competence as a whole needs to be tested.
Here is a summary together with some guidance on action verbs.
Knowledge is understood as demonstrable through
questioning or by examination, as well as in practice. The demonstration of
knowledge in a
particular way shows an ability. Action verbs for demonstrating
knowledge include state, recall, explain, recognise, choose. Though
this is
recommended within the eCOTOOL high-level approach, many sources
represent knowledge items not in terms of action verbs but instead simply as
topics. It should in most cases be possible to rewrite these in terms of

suitable knowledge-oriented action verbs.
Skills are understood as practical abilities that can be
demonstrated or assessed in any unexceptional setting that has the appropriate
equipment
available. The exercise of a skill is typically supported by
knowledge, but a skill is more than just knowledge. Action verbs for a skill
will usually be
obvious from the name or description of the skill, but they
should in any case fit into an English sentence immediately after the opening This
person is
able to...
Competence is understood as an ability to select and
combine knowledge and skills for the performance of tasks in given practical
situations or
contexts, and therefore can only be fully demonstrated or
assessed in those contexts. Action verbs for competences may imply more
responsibility,
authority or autonomy than action verbs for skills, e.g.
manage, oversee, construct, organise, lead, diagnose. However, this
is not always the
case, and sometimes competence is represented in a
grammatical form without an action verb.
Particularly when mixing ability definitions from
different sources, it is very useful to keep track of the author or
authority of the item. Abilities themselves
are qualities pertaining to
people; it is the ability items authored by particular people or bodies
that set out a form of words in which that ability is
described. You are the
author of the ability item definitions that you create, but you may also borrow
ones that are authored by other people or bodies.
3.3.2.Unique id codes for cross-referencing ability items

If you work with many ability items, you probably recognise
that the same narrower ability may play a vital part in more than one broader
ability. It is also
convenient to separate the definition of individual ability
items from their place in structures. For both of these reasons, it is very
useful to create a unique id
code for each ability item. You can make up the
code entirely to suit yourself, perhaps with a very few letters or numbers, to
help recognition and reuse. It
can be any short code, to help keep track of
ability items you have across the several separate tables that are used in the
model. It only has to make sense
to you, and the only condition is that you
must have a different code for every different thing in your framework or
structure.
In some existing competence structures, codes have already
been devised. For instance, the LANTRA NOS (national occupational standards)
have their
own short codes for each unit, and each element within a unit. Set
out and establish crops has code PH2, while the element Set out crops in growing
medium is PH2.1 and Establish crops in growing medium is PH2.2. LANTRA does
not give codes to any of the narrow individual ability components of an
element.
3.3.3.Attribution of levels
to ability items
Often, abilities are described as being at specified
levels. It is often the case that education, training, and professional
development result in learners
progressing from lower levels of ability to
progressively higher levels. However, there is no uniformity, either in
educational or occupational level schemes,
about the number of levels, or terms
used to describe them. In recent years, the European Qualifications Framework
for Lifelong Learning (EQF) has been
introduced in an attempt to aid the
cross-mapping of different level schemes. It defines eight levels in each of
the three areas of knowledge, skills and
competence. The EQF is intended to
serve more as a neutral reference point than a single common standard.
A person defining a competence structure or framework may
use the EQF to state that they have judged a particular ability item as fitting
best with the
selected EQF level. In the eCOTOOL high-level model of levels,
users can judge the level of an ability item in any level scheme or framework that
is familiar
to them. For cases where no level scheme is currently recognised as
appropriate by the user, any simple level scheme can be adopted.
WACOM,
a sister
project to eCOTOOL, proposed this five-level scheme, and here it is
explained in relation to the EQF levels.
Level 1: Abilities at level 1 recognise basic general
knowledge and skills as well as the capacity to undertake simple and
general tasks under
supervision in a structured environment. Employees
often have no qualifications, and require structured support for their own
learning. [EQF levels 1
and 2]
Level 2: Abilities at level 2 recognise field-specific
practical and theoretical knowledge and skills as well as the capacity to carry
out tasks under
direction. Employees show self-direction in learning and
have experience of practice in work or study in both common and exceptional
situations. [EQF
levels 3 and 4]
Level 3: Abilities at level 3 recognise broader
theoretical and practical knowledge and skills as well as the capacity to apply
knowledge and skills in
developing strategic solutions to well-defined
abstract and concrete problems. Employees have obtained experience of
operational interaction in work
or study including management of people and
projects and learning skills for autonomous learning. [EQF level 5]
Level 4: Abilities at level 4 recognise detailed
theoretical and practical knowledge, skills and competences, some of which
is at the forefront of the field
as well as the capacity to apply knowledge
in devising and sustaining arguments and in solving problems. Employees can
make judgements taking
into account social or ethical issues. [EQF level 6]
Level 5: Abilities at level 5 recognise highly
specialised self-directed, theoretical and practical knowledge and skills
as well as the capacity for critical
analysis, evaluation and synthesis of
new and complex ideas including substantial research. Employees typically
have experience of managing
change, and show leadership qualities in the
development of new and creative approaches. [EQF levels 7 and 8]
Items can have any number of different levels attributed,
or none, but within each level scheme or framework, only as many levels as are
allowed by that
scheme. Courses of education are often given a single level
within ISCED, UNESCOs International Standard Classification of Education,
as well as being
mapped to EQF via a national scheme or framework of levels,
either overall, or potentially separately on the EQFs knowledge, skill and
competence levels.
There are also very many small-scale level schemes,
including ones you may create yourself (for details of doing this see below). To
avoid ambiguity, one
must always indicate which framework or scheme is being
used, when attributing any level. Other people may not make the same assumption
about level
scheme as you do.
3.3.4.Further classifying ability items

Ability items can be categorised for any of several
purposes, beyond the KSC categories. It may, for example, be useful to record
where appropriate:
Standard Industry Codes; Standard Occupation Codes;
library-oriented subject matter categories; any education or training categories;
professional body
categories, etc. Levels are not dealt with as categories.
For any categorisation, you will need to specify the classification

scheme, and the term from that scheme. An item may be classified under any number
of
schemes, or none.
3.3.5.Constructing high-level model ability items

A table with the recommended elements is given here as
Table 1: Form A. This form can be filled in for as many ability items as are
relevant to the person or
organisation documenting their competence concepts.
Guidance on when to stop is given later.
A full description of the ability should be given in any
case, even if this simply repeats the set of definitions of narrower abilities
that make up the ability being
defined.
Table 1: Form A: item definition form
Form A: eCOTOOL high-level model item definition table
action verb(s)
ability item
short description
rest of short description
(see 3.3.1)
KSC category
(see 3.3.1)
knowledge , or skill , or competence
unique id code
(see 3.3.2)
author/authority
(see 3.3.1)
level attributions level scheme

(optional see 3.3.3)
level
(repeat as needed)
categorisation
classification scheme
(optional see 3.3.4)
term
(repeat as needed)
full description
3.4.
The eCOTOOL high-level model of competence structure
It is very common to see ability items described or

defined together in some kind of structure, such as an occupational framework.
Occupational frameworks
and other such structures differ in what they cover,
how broadly they extend, and in the way that ability items are related within
them. The eCOTOOL highlevel model is designed to be easy to use, allowing the
majority of current occupational frameworks to be structured in a common way.
There are two principal alternative approaches to creating
competence structures. One approach starts at the top with a job requirement, and
progressively
breaks that down into the constituent (subsidiary, narrower)
parts; another approach identifies abilities at all levels, and works out which
ones are parts of
which other ones. In order to allow both approaches, the
eCOTOOL high-level competence model keeps separate track of the ability items
on the one hand,
and the structure information on the other. Every relevant item
at every granularity (except perhaps the narrowest) needs to have a definition
outlined as in
the previous table. The unique id codes, along with short
descriptions for readability, are then used in table to show which narrower
abilities are parts of
which particular broader ability.
Before showing the breakdown of a particular ability item,
we start with an example of what a particular ability item definition could
look like. The example is
taken from the UK City & Guilds Level 2 NVQ in
Domestic Natural Gas Installation and Maintenance.
Table 2: Form A filled in for a particular example, ready
to be given structure
Form A: eCOTOOL high-level model item definition table
ability item
action verb
short description
service and
maintain
rest of short description

domestic natural gas systems and components
KSC category
knowledge , or skill , or competence
unique id code
GC08
author/authority
UK City & Guilds
level attributions
level scheme
level
UK NQF
EQF
WACOM
categorisation
classification scheme
term
UK SOC2010 (see the

web page for further info)
5314
NACE (see the web page for further info)
F43.2.2
S95.2.2
full description
Ensure that there is sufficient information available to

determine the maintenance
requirements; service and maintain the stated range
of appliances and systems;
record the maintenance activities in the
appropriate media; diagnose and rectify
faults in the stated range of meters
and systems; take precautionary actions to
prevent use of unsafe
installations.
To express the structure of this, Form B is used. Structure

information defines which parts make up the whole. The parts can be necessary,
in which case
claims or requirements for the broader item imply the narrower
ones; or optional. Optional parts are not strictly implied, but they give other
components that
may or may not be claimed or required.
The simplest case is where a broader competence concept is
broken down into necessary narrower abilities, which are all essential
requirements of the
overall ability. As this is the easiest example to
understand, an example of this is given here, based on the competence concept introduced
above.
Table 3: Form B filled in for the example above
Form B: eCOTOOL high-level model structure information
ability item
service and maintain domestic natural gas systems and components
short description
unique id code
GC08
author/authority
UK City & Guilds
narrower
concepts
the narrower concept
ensure that there is sufficient information available to

determine the maintenance requirements
unique
id code
Necessary
/ Optional
GC08-S01
service and maintain the stated range of appliances and GC08-S02

systems
record the maintenance activities in the appropriate

media
GC08-S03
diagnose and rectify faults in the stated range of meters

and systems
GC08-S04
take precautionary actions to prevent use of unsafe

installations
GC08-S05
Filling in a Form
A for each narrower concept is then possible.
Dealing with options
Occasionally, rather than a decomposition into necessary
parts, there is a genuine choice of different ways to approach or perform a
task, or fulfill a role.
Examples include management competence. There are
different styles of management, and many lead to reasonable results in many
situations. The skills
needed in these different management styles vary but
overlap. Most managers will have a particular personal style, so they will be
competent at one or
more options, but typically not all. Or, take an example
from agriculture. You may want to represent competence in growing different
types of crop. Farmers
are not expected to be experienced at growing every type
of crop, or every different kind of horticulture. The aim here is not to be
definitive or
comprehensive that is the job of classification schemes. It is
to list the types of ability relevant to the framework under consideration, for
whatever reason.
A similar kind of structure is also commonly used for

qualifications. Typically there are core abilities that every learner is
expected to master, but also often
optional specialisms. This is a potentially
problematic issue for the Europass Certificate Supplement, in which there is no
guidance on optional knowledge or
abilities. There are many examples of
structures with optional parts for qualifications, but none that adequately
represent different ways to approach a task,
so it is a qualification example that
is used to illustrate this.
This example is taken from an old UK Level 1 NVQ, found on
the web site of a volunteer organization, where it does not explicitly name the
authority.
Table 4: Form B for a qualification structure with options
Form B: eCOTOOL high-level model structure information
ability item
Horticulture NVQ Level 1
short description
unique id code
Hort-L-1 (invented for use here)
author/authority
(some vocational awarding body)
narrower
concepts
the narrower concept
unique
id code
Necessary
/ Optional
Maintain safe and effective working practices
CU1
Assist with planting and establishing plants
CU61
Assist with maintaining plants
CU62
Transport supplies of physical resources within the work CU8

area
Assist with the maintenance of grass surfaces
CU15
Assist with maintaining structures and surfaces
CU16
Assist with the maintenance of equipment
CU17
Assist with the vegetative propagation of plants
CU63
Assist with the propagation of plants from seeds
CU64
In this example,
there are three necessary (mandatory) units and six optional units. From the
point of view of representing the structure, it is not immediately
important
how many of these optional units are required, though in this case it happens
to be three. The fact that three options are needed is best
represented in the full
description of the item. Any particular claim, or perhaps the actual
certificate given to the learner on completion, may list which options
have
been taken. If the person has the competence described by the whole
qualification, that implies having the first three necessary (mandatory)
abilities.
But none of the other ones are certain. To make a full claim of
competence, the learner has to specify which options were taken. An employer
may want to
specify (though it is unlikely at this level) which of the options
are required for a particular job.
3.5.The eCOTOOL high-level model of level definitions

Levels may be defined where a single ability concept can
be claimed or required at different levels. Each level may have its own
descriptors or criteria, but
these normally overlap considerably, rather than

being distinct in the way that constituent parts are distinct. Form C is used
to define your own levels.
If an existing level system, framework or scheme is
sufficient for your needs, then you will not need to do this. But in many
occupational competency and
other frameworks, the creators find it convenient
to define their own level scheme. It may also be that a level scheme has already
been devised. In this
case, you may just want to enter the information in this
form, with the idea that it might be transferred to an ICT system later.
To define your own levels, start with the competence
concept that does not yet have levels, but to which you want to add levels. You
can document this in
the same way as other ability items, with Form A. Then choose
how many levels you are going to define. On Form C, give each level a number,
with a
higher number representing more ability or more competence; a definition
of, or criteria for, ability at that level; and optionally a label that
identifies the level,
alongside the number. If you wish to analyse or break
down these level definitions, you will then need to give them unique id codes
and treat them like a
constituent part or a variant type or approach, and fill
in a Form A for each one that you want to break down or analyse further.
Here is an example based on material from the UKs QAA
Subject benchmark statement for Agriculture, horticulture, forestry, food and
consumer sciences
(QAA, 2009). In its Section 6 the document articulates the
standards expected of graduates from UK degree courses,
at three levels: 'threshold',
'typical' and 'excellent'. These are defined as:
threshold standard: the minimum required to gain an
honours degree; students at this level will be able to demonstrate an
acceptable level
of ability and skills
typical standard: the level of attainment expected of the
majority of students; such students will demonstrate definite competence and
skills
excellent standard: students achieving this standard will
have a range of competencies and skills at an enhanced level.
This is an example of how an eCOTOOL high-level model
level definition could be written based on a small part of that statement, somewhat
rearranged.
The numbers are added, but are suggestive of the way that many
educators and trainers think in terms of the scores in assessment tests, often
as in this
case out of 100.
Table 5: Form C for level definitions
Form C: eCOTOOL high-level model level definition
recognise and explain
ethical issues related to agricultural production systems and
ability item
short description biology
(unlevelled)
unique id
code
Agri-2-ethics (invented
for use here)
author/authority
based on UK Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education
where level
scheme
is defined
QAA Subject benchmark statement for agriculture horticulture etc., ISBN 978 1
84979 017 8
levels
definition of each level
level
id code
recognise the ethical implications of production systems;

have some familiarity and
awareness of ethical issues
Threshold 30
level
number
related to agricultural practice

Typical
50
recognise and
address the ethical implications of production
systems; have a well-grounded
understanding of ethical
issues related to the use and exploitation of
biological
entities
Excellent
70
recognise,
anticipate and address the ethical implications;
have a deep and
comprehensive understanding of ethical
issues related to the use and
exploitation of biological
entities
You will also

notice a field for where the level scheme is defined. If you are structuring an
existing framework, as in the example, you can put here a
reference to or note about
where the level scheme is defined. If, on the other hand, you are defining a
fresh new level scheme, you have at least two
choices. First, if you want to
define all the levels separately, with no common features, then you can leave
the field blank, or put here. Second, if you want
to define a generic level
scheme, define the levels alongside the competence definition that encompasses
all the usage of that level scheme, and when you
use that level scheme, put
that competence definition unique id code in the box for where the level scheme
is defined.
3.6.Using the forms to define competence in your field

Two possible scenarios are envisaged for the practical use
of the eCOTOOL high-level competence model. One is that you may be putting an
existing
framework or structure into the eCOTOOL model format; the other is
that you may be creating a framework or structure from scratch. The procedures
in
both cases have many similarities, but the main difference is that when you
are creating new definitions, you do not have existing materials to work with,
so
you are likely to want to revise much more as you go along.
In both cases, it makes sense to start by focusing on the
ability item definitions. Fill in Form A for as many different abilities as
might reasonably be claimed,
required, learned, or assessed separately. It is
these definitions with Form A that are central to the value and reuse of the
framework. Then fill in Form B for
as many ability items as can be broken down
into narrower items. You can if you like also fill in a Form B without narrower
unique id codes, if you want to list
the parts of some ability, without needing
to represent those parts separately for any reason.
Use Form C only if you define levels (but not if you only attribute
other authorities levels to ability items). The point of Form C is to define
levels according to
you, not according to any other authority. If you define
numbers for levels appropriately, then people will be able also to claim their
level of ability with a
number between the numbers you have defined (e.g. 63 in
the example above).
Your model of competence in your area is useful to the
extent that people agree on it and use it. The more people you are able to draw
into agreement in the
definition process, and in refining the definitions, the
more useful your structure or framework is likely to be.
3.7.Profiles of personal ability or job requirement

The forms above are intended for the definition of reusable
competence-related structures, and not for claiming or requiring sets of
abilities. Anyone can, if
they wish, construct a personal profile of their abilities,
or a profile of abilities required for a job, by creating a list referring to
defined ability items. The
structure information helps you, because if you
claim or require a broader ability, you are implicitly claiming or requiring
all the necessary narrower abilities.
But if a narrower ability is optional,
you must list it explicitly in a claim or requirement. In claiming your ability
as defined with optional parts, you are also
claiming that you fulfil any
constraints on the number of optional parts you are also claiming, otherwise
you should not be claiming the broader ability.
Where an ability item is defined as having levels, as an
option, instead of quoting the whole definition of the level, you can give the
ability item title plus the
level id code and/or number claimed / required. This

number may or may not be one of the ones with a specific definition. You can
also add external levels if
you believe they can apply to the ability you are
claiming.
3.8.General guidance for structuring competence

3.8.1.General considerations
Ensure appropriateness for use
Review all ability concepts as you draft them, asking
yourself whether, and checking that, your formulation can readily be used,
both:
in a personal claim, and the person claiming could give
reasonable evidence for it;
in a job description or as a job requirement, and could be
assessed to determine whether or not a person has that ability.
Stop at an appropriate granularity
If a set of fine-grained abilities are never realistically
going to be separated in: a personal claim; evidence for such a claim; a job
description or requirement;
an assessment; or a VET course, try to find an
alternative formulation that covers them all together.
Conversely, if a currently lowest-level ability concept
has parts that could realistically be claimed, evidenced, required, assessed
and trained separately,
define those narrower constituent sub-abilities (Form
A), and the structure that links the wider and narrower definitions (Form B).
Steps are not important
Listing steps to do something, as in task analysis, is
only useful if each step is associated with a substantially different set of
abilities. If two steps require the
same abilities, do not list them
separately. You are trying to document the abilities required to do jobs
properly, not to write procedures for how to do
particular jobs. The two are
related, but need distinguishing. Rather than task analysis, what is needed is
closer to what is called functional analysis by
Carroll & Boutall (2011)
in their Guide to Developing NOS).
Get the hierarchy right
Check to see if any of your ability
items are covered by broader ones that you have also defined. If they are,
ensure that they are placed in suitable
hierarchical relationship in your structure.
3.8.2.Working from employment requirements

If one has a job description or set of requirements to
hand, it may be possible to proceed in the following fashion.
Task analysis may be easier, but functional analysis is what is needed.
Look for common abilities independently of task steps.
Generalize and parameterize where it makes sense to do so,
including levels and variant styles.
Reduce repetition and duplication as much as practical.
Remove all sequencing information.
Detail the knowledge and understanding required to support the practical abilities.
Stop at an appropriate point or granularity.
3.8.3.
Working from curriculum subject areas
On the other hand, when starting from an educational
syllabus point of view, the above approach is unlikely to work, and an
alternative possibility is as
follows.
Consider the practical tasks that the knowledge and understanding can support:
some of these may be learning tasks; others may be occupational activity tasks.
Consider activities that both use the knowledge, and are related to task performance.
Look for the abilities that underlie these activities, and are supported by the knowledge and understanding of the curriculum subject areas.
Build up a set of broader and narrower ability items:
addressing larger tasks, roles and jobs;
bearing in mind possible levels, and style variants.
Reduce duplication wherever possible, including by abstracting the supporting knowledge.
Stop at an appropriate point of granularity.
3.9.Granularity for different purposes

As granularity has been mentioned several times above, it
may be helpful to review the different granularities of ability items (or more
generally, competence
definitions) for different purposes.
The most obvious direct use of an ECS is for potential
employers to gain an overview of the skills and competences to be expected from
a candidate with a
particular vocational qualification. Knowing that employers
typically want to do things quickly, the main requirement would be to convey the
maximum
amount of easy-to-process information in the minimum space. This
requirement probably lies behind the ECS guidance, suggesting 5 to 15 items
within
Section 3.
This requirement is not at all the same as for planning a
VET course. Typically a course specification would need to be given much more
detail. More detail
would also be needed for an assessment specification, along
with the assessment criteria, or the rubric as it is sometimes called,
against which learners
are assessed. Assessment is not confined to educational
institutions, as an employers review and appraisal process also contains a
form of assessment.
For appraisal and review, a structure would need to have
definitions, and level criteria if applicable, that are as clear as possible,
and able to be evaluated
objectively.
For higher education assessment, there is a clear sense
that intended learning outcomes for a course should be few the numbers 3, 4
and 5 come up in
conversation so that each intended learning outcome can be
properly assessed within the constraints of a formal assessment process.
However, this
small number of intended learning outcomes would not be ideal for
planning a course in detail. The question then remains, how will the intended
learning
outcomes be related to the detailed curriculum or syllabus?
For assessment for vocational qualifications, there are
fewer constraints. Any reasonable number of abilities can be checked, provided
that they can be
observed and assessed by an assessor.
One option that could be taken is to create separate structures
for the different uses, and this has often been done. However, this is not
ideal for
interoperability of tools, or mobility of people. A better approach
might be to create an overall structure giving all relevant granularities, and
choose the
appropriate granularity for each use.
Even though it may not be easy to create an integrated

structure that serves all required purposes at once, this is the ideal
recommended procedure. One
could start by laying out all the different uses,
and for each different use, write down a formulation of the ability item short
descriptions that serve each
purpose. If items for one purpose are the same as,
or strict parts of, items for another purpose, all well and good. If the items
relate only awkwardly, it will be
a matter of negotiation to adjust them so
that all the purposes are adequately fulfilled, using only items from a single,
clear, hierarchy.
4.Using competences in Europass documents

4.1.Constructing ability items for Europass Certificate Supplements
We are now in a position to review the official ECS guidance,
and reflect on the possible reasons behind each point.
"about 5 to 15 items using action verbs to describe
competences"
This is discussed in terms of granularity, above. The main reason
is presumably so that employers can understand quickly, and clearly enough,
what the person is able to do in virtue of having the certificate/qualification.

"skills and competences may be grouped (as in the example:
plan the job and estimate the amount of material required, from supplied
drawing)";
In medical training there is a new term EPA entrustable
professional activity representing a natural grouping of things that are
performed
by the same person. Perhaps this guideline recognises that certain
abilities and the activities that require those abilities naturally belong
together in the context of practical use.

"syntax shall be consistent: verb(s) + object +
complement";
Focusing on action verbs helps towards making the ability observable
through behaviour that is or can be observed. However, drawing a clear
distinction between object and complement is not as easy or straightforward.

"... avoid adverbs describing generic attitudes (work
effectively, perform accurately, etc.)..."
Perhaps one motive behind this guideline is so that there are no
hidden assessment criteria included within the definition itself.
a "description shall not express value judgements."
Here again, this could be aimed at avoiding hidden assessment
criteria.
With the exception of the first point, which has been
discussed above under the heading of granularity, all the rest of these points
seem reasonable and
sensible for all competence and ability definitions.
Of the issues that have been addressed above in the
high-level model, one other point stands out: the issue of optionality.
Currently there is no standard way
of representing optionality within a
Europass Certificate Supplement. If there were options in a vocational course
leading to a ECS, some compromise
solution will have to be adopted. Here are
some suggestions for possible solutions.
1. Leave out all optional items.
2. Include just those items that typical certificate holders are likely to have covered.
3. Include a separate sub-section within Section 3, introduced by a phrase such as
holders of this certificate will have at least (e.g.) 3 of the following
(e.g.) 6 skills or competences:
4.2.
Competence in other Europass documents
The Europass Language Passport (ELP)
The ELP has its own well-defined framework of language proficiency, given in the self-assessment grid within the template. There are five distinct areas of
proficiency: listening; reading; spoken interaction; spoken production; and writing. Listening and reading fall under the broader heading of understanding,
while spoken production and spoken interaction fall under the broader heading of speaking. One could formulate generally useful ability items by
rephrasing
the area of proficiency and adding a specific language: e.g. interact through
speech in French. One could perhaps use Form A to define ability
items in
these various areas, for each language of interest, but they would only be
useful when levels are added.
The level of ability or proficiency reached by an
individual is very significant for employment and many other reasons. The ELP
defines six levels (A1 to C2)
for each area of proficiency, therefore 30

self-assessment descriptors in total. For instance, level B1 of proficiency in
spoken interaction is given the
descriptor: I can deal with most situations
likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken. I
can enter unprepared into conversation
on topics that are familiar, of personal
interest or pertinent to everyday life (e.g. family, hobbies, work, travel and
current events).
The ELP levels could be represented with 5 instances of
Form C (introduced above). Rephrasing slightly for generality and to avoid the
first person, the
spoken interaction proficiency levels could be given perhaps
like this. As in previous examples, the level numbers are purely invented, to
allow potential finer
distinctions, and to allow for numbers to represent the
possible level id codes A (basic user), B (independent user) and C
(proficient user). Once
defined, however, it is essential that the numbers
remain unaltered.
Table 6: Form C for a generic language ability
Form C: eCOTOOL high-level model level definition
spoken
interaction (could be rephrased as e.g. interact through speech) in
a
ability item
short description given language
(unlevelled)
unique
id code
Europass-LP-SI (invented for use here)
author/authority
Council of Europe and CEDEFOP
where level
scheme
is defined
http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/en/documents/european-skillspassport/language-passport
levels
definition of each level
Interact in a simple way provided

the other person is prepared A1
to repeat or rephrase things at a slower rate of
speech and
help the subject formulate what the other is trying to say. Ask
and answer simple questions in areas of immediate need or

on very familiar
topics.
10
Communicate in simple and routine

tasks requiring a simple
and direct exchange of information on familiar
topics and
activities. Handle very short social exchanges, even though
the
subject can't usually understand enough to keep the
conversation going.
A2
20
B1
Deal with most situations likely
to arise whilst travelling in an
area where the language is spoken. Enter
unprepared into
conversation on topics that are familiar, of personal
interest
or pertinent to everyday life (e.g. family, hobbies, work, travel
and current events)
30
Interact with a degree of fluency

and spontaneity that makes
regular interaction with native speakers quite
possible. Take
40
level
id code
B2
level
number
an active part in discussion in familiar contexts, accounting

for and sustaining the subjects views.
C1
Express self fluently and
spontaneously without much
obvious searching for expressions. Use language
flexibly and
effectively for social and professional purposes. Formulate
ideas and opinions with precision and relate my contribution
skilfully to
those of other speakers.
50
C2
Take part effortlessly in any
conversation or discussion and
have a good familiarity with idiomatic
expressions and
colloquialisms. Express self fluently and convey finer shades
of meaning precisely. If a problem arises, backtrack and
restructure around
the difficulty so smoothly that other people
are hardly aware of it.
60
It would appear to be quite difficult, and rather awkward

if attempted, to treat each of these level definitions as an ability item in
its own right. If any further
detailing were needed, it might be better to
restructure the level definitions entirely.
Given this and four other similar tables acting as
definitions, it becomes clearly possible to apply these categories to claims,
to job requirements, to course
learning outcomes, prerequisites, etc. They are
not, however, best formulated for use within a Certificate Supplement.
The Europass CV (ECV)
There are three places in the ECV where competence-related
information may be given. First, in the work experience section, there is space
for main
activities and responsibilities, and entries here could correspond
to broad items in a competence framework. Second, in the education and training
section,
there is space for principal subjects/occupational skills covered,
which clearly may correspond to items in a framework of the kind discussed
here. Third,
there is the personal skills and competencies section. This
combines part of the Language Passport with a set of skill or competence
categories unique to
the ECV. Beyond languages, these are:
Social skills and competences
Organisational skills and competences
Technical skills and competences
Computer skills and competences
Artistic skills and competences
Other skills and competences
Driving licence
It would make little or no sense to treat these as ability
items in their own right, as they are too general to be used directly as
abilities claimed or required.
Rather, this section as a whole, together with
the spaces in the work experience and education and training sections, invite
people to list ability items that
are defined elsewhere.
The Europass Diploma Supplement (EDS)
The EDS does not mandate the representation of skills and
competences as such. However, the EDS Section 4.3 (programme details) abilities
could
potentially be referenced. The units or modules detailed in Section 4.3

may have intended learning outcomes that are in effect eCOTOOL competence
model
ability items. Alternatively, if skills or competences are directly assessed as
required parts of a degree programme, these might possibly appear in
Section
4.3. Levels of these abilities could be defined (e.g. using our Form C), and an
assessment mark for the ability could then refer to this level scale.
The EDS section 6.1 can also be used to record awards
(possibly including assessment) related to skills and competences not within
the core degree
programme.
Abilities in documents in general
The eCOTOOL competence model supports the representation
of ability items across all Europass documents through insisting that every
ability item has a
unique id code. The unique id codes should be made into a
fixed and stable URIs, and each URI, when entered into a browser, should
resolve to a page
from which information about the identified ability item can
be found. On all electronic documents, an ideal approach would be to list the
short description of
the ability item as a link to its own proper URI.
5.The eCOTOOL Competence Model (Technical)

5.1.
Purpose and content of the technical model
The eCOTOOL Technical Competence Model adds extra detail
on top of the high-level model, so as to provide the detailed underlying
connections and the
information model, ultimately to help with the design and
interoperability of ICT-based competence services.
The eCOTOOL Competence Model (Technical) consists of:
the same terms and definitions as used in the high-level model;
additional relevant technical terms and definitions;
maps of concepts related to competence and frameworks;
an information model of a disjoint competence concept definition;
an information model of relations between concepts, both structural within a framework, and cross-mapping across frameworks;
an information model of level definitions;
an information model of level attributions and categories;
an information model of a competence framework.
5.2.
Technical and other additional terms and definitions
This section introduces terms that will be used later, in
preparation for the exposition of the model. These definitions are additional
to the ones already given
above for the high-level model.
Assessing body: organisation that assesses or
evaluates the actions or products of learners that indicate their knowledge,
skill, competence, or any
expected learning outcome [CWA 16133]
Assessment process: process of applying an
assessment specification to a specific learner at a specific time or over a
specific time interval [CWA 16133]
Assessment result: recorded result of an assessment
process [EN 15981]
Assessment specification: description of methods
used to evaluate learners' achievement of expected learning outcomes [CWA
16133]
Awarding body: organisation that awards credit or
qualifications [EN 15981]
Educational framework: system of concepts,
definitions and provisions through which educational practices are ordered,
related and articulated [EN 15981
framework]
Effect, product: material result of a learners
activity
Generic work role: type of job commonly understood
across an occupational domain
(Short phrases for these could typically be used in job advertisements, job
specifications, and occupational frameworks and standards.)
Industry sector: system of employers, employees and
jobs working in related areas
Intended learning outcome: statement of what a
learner is expected to know, understand, or be able to do after successful
completion of a learning
opportunity [adapted from ECTS Users Guide]
Job description or requirement: expression

describing or implying the abilities required to perform a particular job or
role
Learning outcome: see intended learning
outcome
(unintended learning outcomes may be many and varied, highly
dependent on the individual learner)
Level attribution: application of a level id code
and/or number from a specified level scheme to an ability concept
Level id code: term used to identify a level
Level number: numeric level term, or number
associated with a level, where a larger number means greater ability, allowing
inferences to be drawn
between levels
National/regional authority: organisation that
regulates and/or validates the learning processes leading up to, or the acquisition
of, the Europass Certificate
Supplement
Occupational standard: formulation of the skills,
knowledge, understanding and judgement needed to perform particular roles or
jobs in accordance with
agreed criteria
(Different criteria may be defined for different occupational levels.)
Personal claim: statement that a learner has
defined abilities
(This is typically detailed to clarify aspects not fully explained in the
definitions used, and the claim is then supported by evidence.)
Progression: process which enables learners to pass
from one stage of learning to the next and to access learning opportunities
that prepare for
qualifications at a higher level than those they already
possess [adapted from ECTS Users Guide]
Progression pathway: series of learning opportunities
taken, along with qualifications and learning outcomes achieved, directed
towards learner goals
Progression rules: set of rules that define
conditions for learners progression within qualifications and towards other
qualifications [ECTS Users Guide]
Qualification: status awarded to or conferred on a
learner
(Many formal learning opportunities are designed to prepare learners for the
assessment that may lead to an awarding body awarding them a qualification.)
[EN
15982]
VET body: body that manages or provides learning education
or training in the vocational sector
5.3.
Moving from high-level to technical model
Looking back to the high-level model, explained above, its
purpose is to give people relatively straightforward and effective tools to facilitate
the recording of
information relevant to competence concepts and structures. It
is presented in an easy-to-visualise form that can be printed and filled in on
paper. However,
presentation in a paper-oriented, visual way tends not to make
explicit the inherent structure of the information. There is only an implicit structure
in the
paper-based form. The advantage of the structure being implicit is that
the representation is more straightforward to understand, but for preparing the
information for real use in an ICT system the implicit structure needs to be
made explicit.
In addition, some simplifying assumptions have been made
for use with the high-level model, and it is important to undo these so that
people working with
fully structured electronic representations are not unnecessarily
constrained.
The three Forms, A, B and C, of the high-level model give a good foundation for a technical model. Form A represents the ability or competence concept
itself, seen separately from other related concepts. This
will be treated first. Form B represents the structural relationships between
the competence
concepts, and this will be treated next. Form C covers the
definition of levels, and this will follow.
In the use of Forms B and C, there is no clear requirement
that all the parts, or levels, listed in the Forms must have their own Form A.
But to produce a
clean information model, designed for ease of technical
implementation, this is necessary, and this will be explained at the
appropriate place.
For representing a whole framework or structure of related
competence concept definitions, the paper-form analogy suggests that a
framework is
represented in terms of a set of forms. Indeed, it is normal for
all the above information to be assembled together into frameworks, sometimes
thought of as,
and called, occupational standards. In the eCOTOOL competence
model, for clarity and consistency, these will be referred to as frameworks,
recognising
that other terms are also used elsewhere. There is also potential
information relating to the framework itself, rather than to its constituent
definitions and
relationships, and this information was not allowed for in the
high-level model. An explanation of representing frameworks will therefore
follow the
explanations of the concept definitions and the relationships.
Having clarified the representation of frameworks, it
remains finally to give an account of how to represent relations between
concepts in different
frameworks. This includes the case of one framework
including concept definitions originally defined within a different framework.
5.4.
Representing separate ability or competence concepts
The following diagram is an attempt to illustrate the
concepts surrounding an ability or competence concept, in preparation for the
definition of the information
model. At the top left of the diagram is
represented the Section 3 of the Europass Certificate Supplement, the Profile
of Skills and Competences. As
explained previously, each line in the ECS
Section 3 is referred to here as an ability item. Each ability item should
normally (but in practice does not
always) have an action verb. The ability
item is one description of the underlying concept, and from here on the focus
in on the concept itself, the ability, so
that we can look beyond any
particular form of words that may be used to describe it.
Educational and occupational frameworks include
descriptions (in their own terms) of relevant ability or competence concepts,
but also usually they describe
the relationships between them, (including which
ability is a part of which other ability) and they often also define levels.
Level definitions will be described in
more detail below. Particular job
descriptions, as well as generic work roles, are typically described in terms
of what people have to be able to do. Specified
assessments may assess given
abilities that people have, and an assessment process typically compares the
available, allowed evidence of personal
performance against descriptions of the
relevant ability. Whether backed up by formal assessment or just
self-assessment, people make personal claims to
have abilities.
Distinguishing these other concepts surrounding the
ability or competence concept makes it easier to focus on what needs to be
represented to express a
particular ability, separately from representing the
surrounding concepts.
Figure 1: Significant concepts surrounding ability or
competence
5.4.1.The uses of ability and competence concepts

The arrows in this map leading in towards the ability or
competence concept also illustrate potential uses of the concepts. Apart from
the use in the ECS
Section 3, the map indicates that ability or competence
concepts can be used: (a) in assessment, in the sense that an assessment is
designed to assess a
persons ability in the given area, and the assessment
process compares the evidence of a persons activity with the concepts; (b) in
personal claims; (c) in
job descriptions or requirements; and (d) in
occupational frameworks or standards (which themselves may mention generic work
roles). Not illustrated in the
maps is their potential use (e) in courses of
learning, education or training.
5.4.2.Structure of an ability or competence concept definition

An ability item short description, as appearing in Section
3 of the ECS, is one way of expressing in words an ability or competence
concept, but not the only
way: that concept can also be defined in more detail.
To play a part in a fuller information structure, and to support the creation
of ICT tools and services,
this section proposes a more detailed structure for

such definitions. The term preferred, competence concept definition, is
intended to cover the
competence-related concepts of ability, skill and
knowledge, as well as competency and competence.
Elements of a competence concept definition
Looking back at the definitions, the concept maps, and the
examples of frameworks in use, it is possible to define a structure for the
definition of an ability or
competence concept, which covers the key features
that are expected to be useful.
As is conventional, when detailing this information model,
the multiplicity of each component is given in parenthesis after the title of
the element. Thus, (1)
means exactly one is mandatory within the containing
element; (0..1) means zero or one, i.e. optionally one but no more; (0..*)
means entirely optional, i.e.
any number of this element within the containing
element.
Single ability or competence concept definitions are
conceived of as existing in their own right, rather like the definitions from
the IMS specification,
Reusable Definition of Competency or Educational
Objective (RDCEO (IMS, 2002)).
The structure of a single competence concept definition,
significantly different from RDCEO, can be split into two parts. First, there are
elements that are
inseparable from the definition as a whole, being integral
parts of the definition.
unique id code (URI) (1)
short description (1..*)
action verb (0..1)
rest of short description (1)
generic metadata (0..*) (including author, dates, etc.)
full description (0..*)
A slightly problematic case comes from competence concepts
that are defined in the context of a framework. There, a full description may
be omitted, in
favour of relying on the framework context to fill in
information that is not explicitly stated, and resolve any ambiguity that
arises from not having a full
description. To cope with this case, it makes
sense to allow for indicating the framework (or other context) which
substitutes for some or all of the full
description. Thus, in the eCOTOOL
competence model, there is an alternative to the full description, that is not
present when a concept definition is given
within its native framework.
context identifier (URI) (0..1) (framework or other structure)
Next, there are properties of an ability that may be
represented elsewhere other than within the definition itself, as they are not
inseparable from the definition
itself. Opinions may differ on where to locate
this information. (For instance, these may be given as part of a framework.)
level attribution (0..*)
scheme identifier (1)
level id code (0..1)
level number (0..1) (should be used whenever possible)
concept definition URI (0..1) (mandatory if separate)
category (0..*)
term (1)
scheme URI (1)
label (0..1)
If level attribution and classification are represented

elsewhere, that is, other than within the competence concept definition itself,
they will of course need to
have the definitions URI attached to them, so that
it is clear what they refer to.
Explanation of the elements
The elements have much in common with the parts of the
high-level model.
The unique id code is necessary for many
cross-reference purposes, and for reliable identification. Rather than leaving
it open, as in the high-level model,
the technical model proposes that this
shall be a URI, and this will greatly help in the implementation of tools.
The short description is the essential text element
by which the concept is recognized. In principle, there may be different
language versions. The most
common form used in this kind of way is having an action
verb to start the short description. An action verb cannot be adequate by
itself, so the rest of the
short description is mandatory.
Other generic metadata may include anything that is
normally stated for any published work. In Form A of the high-level model, the
other piece of
information included was the author or authority. Good practice
for most works covers the inclusion of dates, normally of creation or initial
publication, and of
latest revision. It seems appropriate to mandate only the
author or authority, but to allow here any of the Dublin Core Metadata terms.
A full description is often seen for the broader
concepts. It allows for a longer description that specifies in a fuller way
what the concept means. In
particular, the full description may be needed to
resolve ambiguity and give context. When presented in the context of a
framework, competence concepts
are sometimes not given full descriptions, because
the wider framework does give context, and may serve to resolve ambiguity.
However, one of the goals
here is to structure competence concept definitions
in a way that they can be represented separately, and to allow this, a full
description really is necessary.
The context identifier is explained above as an
alternative to the full description, in cases where a competence concept
definition normally presented in the
context of a framework is instead
presented separately. This is the general context to establish the meaning of a
competence concept, and cannot be used
to specify a concept as a generic level.
A concept can be reckoned to have levels in different schemes
or frameworks, and these levels are often different, due to the diverse nature
of each level
scheme. The level attribution element represents this.
Each level is understood in a way that is somewhat similar to a category,
except that a number is
usually given, which is the simplest method to allow
unambiguous comparison of levels, provided that higher numbers always mean
higher levels.
The first and most straightforward case of level
attribution is where a level scheme has simple numeric levels. In this case the
level id code may be the same
as the level number. A second option is that the level
id code may be the URI of the competence concept definition that defines the
ability at that level. Even
though the level id code as URI may contain a level
number, or may have a level number among the information available at the
address to which the URI
resolves, it would seem to be most useful to include a
separate level number in any case in the level attribution structure, which
must not be unnecessarily
different from the number associated with the level
id code.
Recognising that there are many level schemes in current
use, the requirements for level assignment in eCOTOOL are less rigorous than
the requirements
below for level definition.
The attribution of a level to a competence concept
definition is not incontestable, so it makes sense not to bind any level attribution
too tightly to a concept
definition. Certainly, information about any level attributions
may be presented alongside information about the concept, but equally, level attribution
information may be presented in the context of a framework. In cases where the

level attribution is represented separately, it will need to include a
reference
to the identifier of the concept definition.
There are many potential categories into which a

particular concept may be classified. One familiar one is the EQF distinction
between knowledge, skill and
competence, which is given by Form A of the
high-level model. However, this is not the only scheme of this type, nor is it necessarily
always the best, so this
element allows the concept to have several categories
of any nature. For instance, a possible simpler classification would have just
the two categories
knowledge and ability, similar to the performance
criteria and knowledge and understanding of UK NOS. Categories could
typically also cover subject
area, relevance to occupational or industry
classification schemes, etc. Categories are understood, and for the eCOTOOL
technical competence model they
are implemented, similarly to Atoms categories,
which seems to be a well-used approach. Atom (IETF, 2005) has a mandatory term,
an optional scheme
URI, and an optional label. For this technical competence
model, the scheme URI is mandatory as well. This may require the coining of a
new URI, but in an
increasing number of cases, schemes already have a URI, and
this needs to be searched for diligently before concluding that it is absent.
In the same way as with level attributions, any classification
of a concept definition is potentially contestable. Thus, likewise, it makes
sense to be able to
represent category information either together with the
concept definition or with the structure information. If categories are
presented as part of a structure,
the concept definition URI will need to be
present.
5.5.
Representing structural relationships
There are many reasons why one might want to represent the
relations between a set of competence concept definitions, but the most
straightforward is that
breaking down one concept into narrower sub-concepts
helps understand how to work with a competence concept definition in practice.
In the high-level
model, structural relationships were represented with Form B.
The use of a Form B separate from Form A helpfully implied that the structural
information is
not necessarily closely tied, either to a competence concept
definition, or to a framework, and thus requires a format that can be used in
either place, or
alone. The essence of this format is very simple, and simple
structures similar to this have been used in many other places.
structural relation
subject definition URI (1)
object definition URI (1)
relationship type (1)
label (0..1)
This captures the primary information on Form B, which is
just the relationship between the broader and the narrower abilities. The
high-level view is that
short descriptions can be picked up through use of the
URI to find the information on Form A for the relevant definitions.
The main remaining question is: what are the possible values of the relationship type? The most basic appropriate relationship types are narrower and its
converse broader. In a framework, where all the information is represented together, one would only have to list the narrower relations, but when
presenting a definition on its own, separately from a complete framework, it may be useful to be able to list the definitions relations both with narrower and
broader definitions. Both broader and narrower
properties are to be found in the widely used SKOS system,
so it seems appropriate to reuse these
definitions here.
Form B introduced the distinction between necessary and
optional parts, and this distinction can be represented by specifying
sub-relationships of broader
and narrower between competence concept
definitions. These sub-relationships are not defined in SKOS.
So far, that gives a relationship type structure as
follows:
skos:narrower
hasNecessaryPart
hasOptionalPart
skos:broader
isNecessaryPartOf
isOptionalPartOf
When information about structural relations is given, tied
to information about the related subject concept definition, then naturally
information about the
structural relationship may have the subject definition
URI implied, and represented outside the information about the relationship,
rather than inside.
Logically, it remains necessary to have both concept
definition URIs represented somewhere.
5.6.
Cross-mapping relationships
Cross-mapping relations relate two concept definitions
that are not in the same framework. Logically they are quite different from
structural relations within a
framework, because while structural relations are
inherently defined by their framework, in contrast cross-mapping relations have
no one authority
responsible for defining them. Opinions may differ by
different authority.
Explicit cross-mapping relations have apparently not yet
featured in frameworks of occupational competence. They could appear in
frameworks, for instance
if the author of the framework wants to place the
concept definitions in the context of other existing definitions. But equally,
they could appear in stand-alone
documents, pointing out the correlations
between two or more different frameworks.
What happens at present, for example in UK National
Occupational Standards, is that units are imported or adapted from other
standards setting
organisations. This is explicitly noted where it occurs, but
the information about this importing is only human-readable it is not very
helpful for ICT
applications. Browsability would be greatly helped if there is
machine-processable cross-mapping information.
SKOS again provides a useful vocabulary for these
relations.
skos:narrowMatch and skos:broadMatch mean that an ability in one framework is a subset of the ability in the other framework.
skos:closeMatch means that for practical purposes they are
equivalent, though the relationship is not transitive.
skos:exactMatch means that the intention is that two definitions are
intended to be identical and interchangeable. This relationship is transitive.
Representing these cross-mapping relations is essentially
the same as representing structural relations. There seems to be no reason for
needlessly adding
complexity at this stage, and the simplest way to represent
cross-mapping relations would seem to be to add these extra terms onto the
relationship type
vocabulary.
Cross-mapping relations look essentially the same as
structural relations above. Including them simply means broadening the set of
relationships types.
skos:narrower
hasNecessaryPart
hasOptionalPart
skos:narrowMatch
skos:broader
isNecessaryPartOf
isOptionalPartOf
skos:broadMatch
skos:closeMatch
skos:exactMatch
However,
now that we are including cross-mapping relations in the same structure as
structural relations, we have to give them a new name for information
model
purposes, which will be simply concept relations.
5.7.
Representing level definitions
Level attribution has been explained above, but if levels
are to be attributed to competence concepts, those levels must first be defined
in a scheme. Having
a clear representation of defining levels is a vital part
of the eCOTOOL competence model, which here proposes new good practice, more
refined than
current practice.
There are two different kinds of level definitions that were
both illustrated in the high-level model. First, there are generic levels. The
eCOTOOL high-level
competence model suggests the definition of five generic
levels, borrowed from the WACOM project ("Water Competences Model"),
which are in turn linked
to the generic levels of the EQF. Generic levels are
not assessable on their own, but only when applied to a particular kind of
ability, or a particular area of
competence. Generic levels are always defined
within some structure, as it would make no sense to have the definition of one
generic level isolated from
other related ones. When information about one
particular level is needed, its structure needs to be identified.
Second, there can be definitions of levels of specific
abilities. This is what the high-level model Form C is primarily intended for, and
the assumption is that
users of the high-level model will be defining specific
levels, not generic levels, and they may or may not be using generic level
terms to do so. In this case,
information about the level should include an
identifier for the competence concept it is a level of.
For both kinds of level definition, as explained
previously, a level number is needed, to support inferences about higher levels
encompassing a lower levels.
There may also be a non-numeric identifier
associated with that particular level. The level number and identifier were
also allowed for in Form C.
However, in Form C it was not specifically required that
each level definition had to be fully worked out as a separate competence
concept. What is required
for best technical operation is that each individual
level definition has (in high-level terms) its own Form A that is, it has its
own identifier and title, and
potentially its own metadata. In other words,
each level definition can be seen as its own competence concept definition.
As a result, we need to think of levels in essentially two
parts. There is the concept definition associated with that particular level,
which would be given with
Form A in the high-level model; and there is the
relationship between that concept definition and the framework, scheme or other
structure that defines the
levels. If we take the level definition as
defining the place of a concept within a level scheme (rather than the levelled
concept itself), the level definition
emerges like this.
level definition
level id code (1)
level scheme/framework/structure URI (0..1) (mandatory if separate)
level number (1) (this may have to be devised)
unlevelled concept URI (0..1)
label (0..1)
The level id code should be a concept URI that points to
the concept definition that holds the title and description of the level, and
that can additionally (in
principle) be treated as a competence concept in its
own right. The label that is often seen in conjunction with level definitions
should then be the same as
the short description of that competence concept.
Though the label is still given as an option in this structure, it should not
be an independent piece of
information; but it should be recognised that this
label is currently commonly used as the level identifier when attributing
levels.
Thus, the level definition information can be passed round
without ambiguity, but in a very compact form, consisting of at most 3 URIs, a
number, and a
string, provided that the concept definitions and frameworks have
been properly defined with their own URIs.
If the level definition information is communicated in
conjunction with information about the unlevelled concept definition, then the
unlevelled concept URI
may appear outside the level definition rather than
within it. Similarly, if the level definition appears within a framework, the framework
URI may appear
outside the level definition information rather than within it.
In each case, the vital thing is that the information in the model is
identifiable, rather than that it
appears in a particular place in a tree

structure.
5.8.Representing competence frameworks and standards

An occupational framework or standard is commonly defined
firstly in terms of the ability or competency concepts it includes, and
secondly by the
relationships between these concepts that the framework defines,
including definitions of levels. Occupational frameworks also may provide extra
contextual
information for the ability or competence concepts, and may provide
definitions of terms from the domain, including generic work role terms.
Frameworks were not represented explicitly in the
high-level model, as it was assumed that a framework can be represented by a
set of Forms A, B and C.
The diagram that follows is an attempt to depict how
frameworks relate to a few of the other closely related concepts.
Figure 2: Significant concepts around competence frameworks
5.8.1. The uses of competence frameworks and standards

Occupational frameworks, and other similar structures,
include ability or competence concepts, but are different from them in kind. Definitions
of the separate
concepts can be reused in different frameworks, and definitions
that have already been written using a different specification (such as RDCEO)
can be
incorporated into a framework, without necessarily needing to be restructured.
A complete framework may include competence concept
definitions, and any number of relationships between these concept definitions
and other concepts,
whether or not the other concepts are included in the
framework. Though frameworks do not exist independently of the ability or
competence concepts they
include, it is very useful to represent them not just
separately, but also differently from the concepts they include. Imagine an
occupational framework or
standard for a particular vocational area. As work in
that vocational area evolves over time, it is likely that some of the included
abilities may no longer be
relevant, and new ones may become included. For
example, this may happen in agriculture (the eCOTOOL trial domain) in ways that
are very easy to
imagine. Just as harvesting with a combine harvester is a
quite different skill to harvesting with a hand scythe, we can imagine new
technology changing the
useful skills in the future. While the skill of
operating a combine harvester may remain reasonably static, largely
transferable between makes and models,
any framework for agricultural crop
production needs to be able to adapt to new ways of harvesting that may appear.
Looked at the other way round, there
will always be a requirement to harvest

crops, but the means for achieving the harvest will change along with the
technology. Whichever way you look at it, it
is most useful to be able to
define, on the one hand, competence concepts that are reasonably static, where
the metadata is all about the ability itself, and,
on the other hand,
frameworks, whose full description may include much about the context and
purposes of the framework, including the types of people it is
intended for.
Frameworks or framework-like structures are needed for
defining occupational standards; for defining the abilities needed for a job;
for training courses; for
qualification structures; for self-assessment; and
they may be useful for other purposes.
5.8.2.
Inclusion of competence concept definitions within frameworks
The consequence of allowing concept definitions to be
separate from frameworks is that there remains the question of how to represent
the fact that a
concept belongs to a framework. In current practice, it appears
normal to represent concepts within frameworks simply by including the
documentation of
the concepts within the documentation of the framework. But if
individual concept definitions are to be reused, and particular concepts to be
related to other
concepts (particularly from other frameworks), concept
definitions must be able to be represented separately. A good model needs to be
able to represent
both approaches.
Therefore, for the eCOTOOL competence model, two options
are allowed.
1. If
the concept definition appears in full somewhere outside the framework,
logically all that is necessary is that the framework specifies each concept
that it includes, and this can be done simply with the unique id code, or URI.
The short description may also be included for ease of human
recognition, but
should not differ from the original.
2. Alternatively,
the concept definitions may be included in the very structure of the framework.
In this case, the mandatory requirements for representing
a competence concept
definition are still needed.
This results in the short description of a concept being
optional within a framework, provided that the concept is properly defined
elsewhere in other
words, provided that the same unique id code is elsewhere
associated with the short description.
5.8.3.
Structure of a competence framework
As with the discussion of the competence concept
definition above, here are the proposed elements of an information model taking
into account all of the
above discussion. As above, the multiplicity of each
element in its containing element is given in parenthesis. Also as suggested
above, there is scope for
different approaches to what is included within a
framework, and what is represented either alongside separate competence concept
definitions, or
represented completely separately. The structure given here is
the widest envisaged, and for that reason it appears relatively complex. But,
because several
elements may be presented separately, the complexity of the
structure is likely to be both comprehensible and manageable.
Elements proper to the framework itself
title (1)
description (0..1)
generic metadata (0..*)
framework category (0..*)
term (1)
scheme URI (1)
label (0..1)
The unique id code is necessary for many

cross-reference purposes, and for reliable identification.
The title is the essential text element by which
the structure is recognized.
The description can give context, and describe the
envisaged operation of the structure.
As with concept definitions, other generic metadata
may include anything that is normally stated for any published work. Good
practice for most works
covers the inclusion of dates, normally of creation or
initial publication, and of latest revision. It seems appropriate to allow here
any of the Dublin Core
Metadata terms, and possibly to mandate author or
authority.
A particular competence framework may be classified into
any of several categories, and they are understood in the same way as for the separate
competence concepts. Broad structures are unlikely to fall into a simple knowledge/skill/competence classification, as they may include all of these.
Categories could, for example, cover subject area, relevance to
occupational or industry classification schemes. Categories are understood, and
may be
implemented, similarly to Atom. In specifications such as Atom, the
scheme URI is optional, as users are allowed to define their own plain text
tags for
terms, and these have no defined scheme. However this is a less useful
feature for defined competence frameworks or structures, so for the eCOTOOL
competence model, the scheme URI is mandatory. This helps to avoid ambiguity
between different uses of the same term in different schemes.
Included competence concept definitions
As suggested above, frameworks may include competence either
complete competence concept definitions, or simply references to ones defined
elsewhere.
These options have been discussed above, and the appropriate structure
is reproduced here.
competence concept definition (0..*)
short description (0..*) (0 only allowed if concept is defined elsewhere)
action verb (0..1)
rest of short description (1)
generic metadata (0..*)
full description (0..*)
The generic metadata are most likely to be inherited
from the containing structure. It is also possible (though not recommended)
that the full description is
at least partly given implicitly by other concept
definitions within the containing structure.
As implied above, when included in a framework, a
competence concept definition does not need to contain a reference to its
context identifier, as it is
immediately apparent.
The
essence of a framework is in the included concept definitions and the
structural relations. Because the structural relations are most easily
understood in
terms of, and in the context of, the structure as a whole, these
structural relations are most meaningfully given as part of a coherent
structure, rather than
attached to individual concept definitions. One reason
for this is the possibility of the same two concept definitions having a
different relationship in different
structures.
In
most existing competence frameworks, the concept definitions form the major
part of the framework, and the structure is implied in the layout. This is not
very helpful for the electronic representation of frameworks.

Competence concept relationships, where defined within the framework
concept relations (0..*) (structural or cross-mapping, as above)

subject definition URI (1)
object definition URI (1)
relationship type (1)
label (0..1)
As
noted above, one of the key functions of a framework is to define the
structural relations between competence definitions. As the representation of
the
structural relations is so compact, it would be both easy and convenient to
represent the relations within the representation of the framework. Each of
these
structural relations refers to the URIs of two competence definitions,
whether they are for the framework itself or for the separate concepts that are
considered to be included in the structure (even if they have a home

elsewhere).
Level definitions
level definitions (0..*) (as above)
level id code (1)
level scheme/framework/structure URI (0..1) (mandatory if separate)
level number (1) (this may have to be devised)
unlevelled concept URI (0..1)
label (0..1)
If a framework defines levels, level definitions
(as described above) will be needed to define these levels. As with structural
relations, it seems to make
sense to represent level definitions within the
representation of the framework, while the definitions of the level concepts is
associated, and may be defined
in the same space, or may be imported from
elsewhere.
Level attributions to included concepts
It was also suggested that level attributions and categories
of particular competence concepts could be understood as belonging to a
framework, rather than
being placed within the definitions themselves.
level attribution (0..*)
level or scheme URI (1) (this may already contain the level number)
level number (1) (may duplicate the number in the level URI)
label (0..1)
Classification of included concepts
category (0..*)
scheme URI (1)
term (1)
label (0..1)
Above, when discussing level attributions and categories in
competence concept definitions, it was pointed out that they are contestable,
and that it might
therefore make sense to include them in a framework rather

than associated them closely with a competence concept definition itself. These
are the final
items listed as being possibly in a competence framework. Note
that, if included at this point, they require a URI indicating the concept
referred to.
5.9.
Map of the information model
The information model is summarised in this diagram. This
is not a concept map in the same sense as the other diagrams, but rather it is
a map of the
structure, showing which parts of which structures are mandatory
or optional.
All of the above discussion about the information model
for the eCOTOOL technical competence model is summarised in the figure below.
Figure 3: Diagrammatic summary of information model
5.10.Relating back to the Europass Certificate Supplement

Just as a map is used, not to read
all at once, but to relate to local details, the large map given below is
provided so that different stakeholders can relate
their own interests to
ability and competence concepts. Omitted from this diagram is any attempt to
portray courses of learning, education or training. The
educational framework
concept is included only because levels may be educational levels as well as
occupational levels: see the relevant definitions.
Integrated in this map are
the two smaller sub-maps given above, expressing concepts surrounding the ideas
of a competence concept definition, and of a
framework. These are then extended
outwards to include other areas of related interest.
It
is suggested that readers look principally at their own area of interest. Any
feedback on better ways of representing the core concepts, without greatly
increasing the overall complexity, would be most welcomed by the project.

Almost
all the concepts in this map are either represented within the ECS, directly
related to an ECS concept, directly related to one of the key concepts of
ability, personal claim or job requirement; or are one step beyond that. A very
few more have been added where completeness is likely to help
understanding.
This should also be seen as a useful link back to the ECS Application Profile,
D1.2. It can here be seen how the information relevant to the
ECS is tightly
woven in to this larger body of information. While there are several parts of
this concept map that are not accounted for in the eCOTOOL
Competence Model, it
is hoped that the central concepts are greatly clarified, and that this forms a
useful background to developing valuable ICT
applications to support learners
and others in areas related to competence.
(There is no correlation of colour between the
information model diagram above and this wider concept map below. Colours here
are explained in the key at
the bottom.)
Figure 4: Wider concept map including ECS concepts
This concept map ends the description of the eCOTOOL

technical competence model.
6.Conclusions in terms of refining and extending the ECS application profile

The initial information model and application profile of
the Europass Certificate Supplement requires the person writing the ECS to fill
Section 3 with a
recommended 5 to 15 separate lines expressing the profile
of skills and competences what a typical holder of the certificate is able
to do. These lines
here referred to as ability items may be composed in
many ways, whether starting from the learning outcomes written for the LET
course, or perhaps
from an occupational framework setting out what is required
in various typical job roles. It is not difficult to fill in an ECS Section 3
correctly, following the
guidelines, either using a simple template, or a tool
such as the eCOTOOL web-based one. But that alone says little about the
practical use of the resulting
ECS.
Section 3 of the ECS does give an idea to a human reader
about what kind of learning, education or training was undertaken. But, if no
assistance is given to
the writer of the ECS, it is unlikely that the Section 3
contents will be a great deal of use in an ICT system. If an ability item is
simply text, all an ICT system
can do with that is to compare the words, and
that is notoriously inaccurate and unreliable for identifying a good match.
Even harder than matching would be
to know, given two ability items, taken from
ECS documents, occupational frameworks or wherever, whether one includes the
other.
To perform this kind of task, and many more besides, we
need to use a set of definitions that cover the area of interest. The ECS
Section 3 items need to be
drawn from a suitable framework or structure, which
should give the relations between the item and other related definitions. It is
this task of giving structure
to a set of competence concept definitions that
is the subject of this eCOTOOL competence model. It is, in the end, essential to
have some kind of approach
such as detailed here, to get beyond the limitations
of pure human interpretation (and translation) and to facilitate more useful
and reliable ICT tools.
Hence this eCOTOOL competence model does indeed serve the
role of extending and refining the application profile information model given
in deliverable
D1.2, in order to add a genuine potential in terms of ICT
systems and tools.
7.References and bibliography

Bundesanzeiger Verlag (2009) Verordnung ber
die Berufsausbildung zur Fachkraft Agrarservice. Available in several
places e.g. http://www.gesetze-iminternet.de/agrarausbv/BJNR215700009.html
(accessed 2011-11-16 and 2015-06-15)
Carroll, G., and Boutall, T. (2011) Guide to Developing
National Occupational Standards. UKCES. Available from
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-occupational-standards
(accessed 2015-06-15)
CEN Workshop on ICT Skills (2010) European e-Competence
Framework 2.0. Available from http://www.competencetools.eu/
(accessed 2011-09-27)
CEN (2011a) European Learner Mobility Achievement
information (EuroLMAI). EN 15981.
CEN (2011b) Metadata for Learning Opportunities (MLO)
Advertising. EN 15982.
CEN Workshop on Learning Technologies (2010) Guidelines on a
European Learner Mobility model. CWA 16133. Available at http://www.cenwslt.din.de/sixcms_upload/media/3378/CWA16133.pdf
(accessed 2011-11-01 and 2015-06-15)
European Commission (2008)European
Qualifications Framework. Various information available from https://ec.europa.eu/ploteus/search/site?
f[0]=im_field_entity_type%3A97
(accessed 2015-06-15)
European Commission (2009) ECTS Users Guide. Education and
Culture DG. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/education/tools/docs/ects-guide_en.pdf
(accessed 2015-06-15)
IEEE (2007) Data Model for Reusable Competency Definitions. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, California.
IETF (2005) The Atom Syndication Format. Available at http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4287
(accessed 2011-11-01 and 2015-06-15)
IMS (2002) IMS Reusable Definition of Competency or
Educational Objective Specification. Available from: http://www.imsglobal.org/competencies/
(accessed 2011-09-27 and 2015-06-15)

InterCom (2011) InteropAbility: The Interoperable
Competences Framework Specification. Was (available 2011-09-27) from
http://www.interopability.org/wiki/Main_Page (2015-06-15) final report at

http://www.alanpaull.co.uk/InteropAbility/InteropAbility_Project_Report_Final_1.2.pdf.
MedBiquitous (2011) Competencies. Web pages, available from
http://www.medbiq.org/working_groups/competencies/index.html
(accessed 2011-10-08 and 2015-06-15)
NHS (2004) The NHS Knowledge and Skills Framework (NHS KSF)
and the Development Review Process. Was (2011-09-27) available at
http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_4090861.pdf,
archived at The National Archives
(accessed 2015-06-15)
QAA (2009) Subject benchmark statement: Agriculture,
horticulture, forestry, food and consumer sciences. ISBN 978 1 84979 017 8.
Available at
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/Subject-benchmark-statement-Agriculture.pdf
(accessed 2015-06-15)
QCA (2004) National Qualifications Framework - Level
descriptors. Was (2011-09-28) available from http://www.ofqual.gov.uk/downloads/category/157-nqflevel-descriptors, now archived at The National Archives
Skills Funding Agency (2011) Qualifications and Credit
Framework: iGuide. No longer available from http://qcfiguide.skillsfundingagency.bis.gov.uk/
(accessed 2011-09-28)
UKCES (2010) National Occupational Standards Quality
Criteria. Available from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-occupationalstandards
(accessed 2015-06-15)
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations:

Acronym
Full name
AP
Application profile
CWA
CEN Workshop Agreement
ECS
Europass Certificate Supplement
ECTS
European Credit Transfer System
ECV
Europass CV
EDS
Europass Diploma Supplement
ELP
Europass Language Passport
EN
European Standard (Norm)
EQF
European Qualifications Framework (European Commission, 2008)
ICT
Information and communications technology
KSC
Knowledge, skill or competence (classification)
LET
Learning, education or training
NOS
National Occupational Standard(s) (UK)
NQF
National Qualifications Framework (UK)
NVQ
National Vocational Qualification (UK)
RDCEO
Reusable Definition of Competency or Educational Objective (IMS, 2002)
SKOS
Simple Knowledge Organization System
UKCES
UK Commission for Employment and Skills
URI
Uniform Resource Identifier (used as a general term, intended to include the wider
IRI, Internationalized Resource Identifier)
VET
Vocational education and training
About the European

project eCOTOOL:
eCOTOOL focuses on:

(1)the improvement
of the development, exchange, and maintenance of vocational education and
training (VET) certificates and their accessibility and
transparency and
(2)the increasing
of the European mobility and transparency in general.
To achieve
these objectives eCOTOOL develops the adaptable Europass CS eco-tools based on
the European policies Europass Certificate Supplement
(CS), EQF, ECVET, and PAS
1093. The Europass CS eco-tools will be tested and evaluated in the
agricultural sector.
Finally the
eCOTOOL results are submitted to the European Standardization Committees
(CEN/TC 353) to achieve a European consensus and standard for
VET competences.
More information about eCOTOOL online:
http://www.competencetools.eu
eCOTOOL Contact:
Coordinator:
Christian M. Stracke
Organization:
University of Duisburg-Essen
Address:
Universitaetsstr. 9 (ICB)
45141 Essen, GERMANY
Telephone:
+49 (0)201-183-4410
E-Mail:
christian.stracke@icb.uni-due.de
This project has

been funded with support from the European Commission. This communication
reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission
cannot be held
responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

ECOTOOL Competence Model

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ECOTOOL Competence Model

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

eCOTOOL Competence Model