In my last post, I asked: Is “Microsoft product knowledge” a skill, or should it be categorized differently?
Lisa Carlin raised a great point—skills frameworks vary across organizations, but a structured hierarchy is critical, especially for driving behavioral change at scale.
(This got me thinking… how do we ensure skills frameworks stay adaptable as technology evolves?)
Here’s what I see happening??
?? The biggest challenge?
Rigid skills models that quickly become outdated. If a framework is too static, it can’t keep up with change.
?? Another key question:
Where does product-specific knowledge fit?
Should it be classified as "tool proficiency" rather than a core skill?
Go too narrow, and we miss broader capabilities.
Go too broad, and we lose the ability to track expertise.
Lisa Carlin’s article reinforces what I see firsthand—successful digital transformation isn’t just about tech.
Without structured, adaptable skills frameworks, companies risk falling behind. Not just in AI adoption, but in workforce agility.
At Reejig, we see this every day. Static job architectures and outdated skills frameworks won’t survive.
Organizations need task-based, skills-first, AI-powered workforce intelligence to keep up.
?? Explore Lisa Carlin’s insights on digital transformation capabilities:
https://lnkd.in/gyvdsRFz
?? How is your organization keeping skills frameworks future-ready?
#WorkOntology #WorkIntelligence #TaskIntelligence #WorkDesign #Reengineering #ZeroWastedPotential #AIStrategy