Competence

Introduction

In the context of activity, competence is a complex of knowledge, skills, and abilities considered in relation to a particular domain or subject matter of activity.

This definition does not turn competence into an independent property existing apart from its components. The word “competence” brings different grounds of activity together under a single category. It is therefore insufficient to assert that a subject “has competence”: it is necessary to distinguish what exactly the subject knows, which ways of acting they have mastered, and what they are capable of, including beyond previously known methods.

Competence as a characteristic of the subject’s activity must also be distinguished from competence as an externally specified set of requirements. The coincidence of names does not make these two subjects identical.

1. Competence as a Complex Rather Than an Elementary Property

Competence is a complex of knowledge, skills, and abilities in relation to a particular domain of activity.

Its components differ in what they characterize:

Component	What It Characterizes
Knowledge	What the subject knows and understands
Skill	Which way of performing an action the subject has mastered
Ability	What the subject is capable of accomplishing, including actions whose methods are not predetermined
Competence	How knowledge, skills, and abilities are brought together when a domain of activity is considered

This distinction does not require all three components to appear in equal proportions within every competence, or to be exhaustively enumerated. The term “complex” does not designate a mechanical sum but a connection between heterogeneous grounds of action relative to a particular subject matter.

A person may know the procedure for an action without possessing the skill to perform it. They may possess an established skill without understanding the grounds of the method they use. They may also discover a new distinction and create a way of acting not anticipated by any of the methods previously mastered.

The common designation of competence does not eliminate these differences.

2. Relation to a Domain of Activity

Competence is not merely a list of things possessed by a subject. It is defined relative to a particular activity: software development, teaching, negotiation, research, or project management.

The same way of acting can belong to different complexes. For example, the ability to ask clarifying questions can contribute to requirements analysis, negotiation, teaching, and scientific research. But the significance and place of that ability differ across these activities.

Therefore, one must not identify:

• the knowledge, skill, or ability itself;
• its participation in a particular activity;
• the category that unites these under the name of competence.

Competence is not a separate thing inside the subject, but a particular way of considering their knowledge, skills, and abilities in connection with activity.

At the same time, the subject is not exhausted by their enumerated competences. Categories describe distinctions already made, but do not establish a final limit to what the subject can discover or create.

3. Skill and Ability Within Competence

The distinction between skill and ability is especially important because they are often combined under a single word such as “capability.”

A skill characterizes a mastered and relatively stable way of acting.

A subject’s ability characterizes the possibility of performing an action, including the discovery of new distinctions, creation of categories, and determination of ways of acting that have not yet been specified.

A skill allows a mastered form to be reproduced. It need not be entirely algorithmizable and is not identical to an algorithm, but the stability of the method creates the possibility of formalizing it.

Ability is not reducible to reproducing an already established form. It can manifest in a situation for which there is no suitable procedure or ready-made basis of division.

These concepts do not exclude one another. A subject may simultaneously apply a mastered skill and create new distinctions. Moreover, the method they discover may subsequently become established as a skill, described as a method, or formalized as an algorithm.

But reproducing a way of acting and creating that way of acting remain different actions.

This distinction is examined in detail in “Skill and Ability”.

4. Example: Competence in Software Architecture

When people speak of architectural competence, substantially different grounds may be combined under one name.

Knowledge

The subject knows how distributed systems are structured, existing architectural approaches, database principles, ways of describing components and dependencies.

Skills

The subject knows how to apply mastered methods: create diagrams, record architectural decisions, use established patterns, investigate dependencies, and verify compliance with chosen constraints.

Abilities

The subject is capable of discovering a problem not yet distinguished in the presented model, creating a new basis for dividing a system, revising the original categories, and proposing a previously unanticipated way of organizing it.

For example, decomposing a software system does not always consist in distributing work among the ready-made categories “interface,” “server,” and “database.” If the existing structure fails to preserve significant distinctions, the subject must first determine on what grounds the system should be divided at all.

Here we encounter the boundary between applying a mastered method of decomposition and the ability to create meaningful grounds for decomposition.

Conclusion of the Example

The name “architectural competence” encompasses the aspects listed above, but does not itself indicate their relative presence in any particular subject.

Two people may receive the same formal score under “architecture,” even though one reproduces solutions already mastered while the other can develop the grounds for solutions in situations that have not yet been defined.

An identical name for a competence does not mean that the activities being performed are identical.

5. The Subject’s Competence and a Normative Competence Model

Two usages must be distinguished separately.

Competence as a Characteristic of the Subject’s Activity

Here the subject matter is the knowledge, skills, and abilities of a particular subject relative to a chosen activity.

The subject may discover previously unknown distinctions, independently determine the significance of results, and create ways of acting not provided for by an external evaluation system.

Competence as a System Requirement

An organization may define the “competences” of a position: a list of expected knowledge, ways of acting, behavioral characteristics, and evaluation criteria.

Such a list is a model of requirements, created for particular organizational purposes. It can be useful for recruitment, training, and distributing responsibility, but this does not turn it into a complete description of the subject.

The external system chooses:

1. Which kinds of activity to regard as significant.
2. Which qualities and actions to combine under one name.
3. Which manifestations to accept as evidence.
4. Which manifestations to disregard.
5. By which criteria compliance with the requirements is recognized.

Each such choice establishes a boundary of consideration. What is not accounted for by the model does not cease to exist.

The subject’s competence and a competence model drawn up by an organization are not the same thing.

Otherwise, a substitution arises: a category adopted for practical accounting begins to be presented as an exhaustive description of the subject’s possibilities.

6. Competence and Competency

In Russian-language professional and educational literature, the words «компетенция» (kompetentsiya) and «компетентность» (kompetentnost) are sometimes distinguished in the following way:

• competence (компетенция): a subject domain or a set of requirements being imposed;
• competency (компетентность): actual mastery of the relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities and their manifestation in activity.

However, this usage is not universal. The word «компетенция» is also used to describe an actual characteristic of the subject, while «компетентность» is not always defined in the same way.

Therefore, the contrast between two words must not replace investigation of the subject matter. In any specific text, it is necessary to establish whether the discussion concerns the subject’s actual possibilities, normative requirements, or an assessment of correspondence between them.

An assessment of correspondence is not identical to what is being assessed.

7. Why Hard Skills and Soft Skills Do Not Explain Competence

The widespread classification hard skills / soft skills combines technical, social, communicative, and organizational characteristics under the general word skills.

But these lists may include knowledge, mastered ways of acting, abilities, and personal qualities. Consequently, dividing them into hard and soft does not establish an ontological distinction between knowledge, skill, and ability.

For example, the designation “communication skill” may refer to:

• knowledge of a particular negotiation model;
• the skill of applying familiar techniques;
• the ability to discover a previously unnoticed contradiction between positions;
• the ability to create a new basis for joint action.

These are not four names for the same phenomenon.

Classification by domain of application must not replace the distinction of what the subject actually does.

8. Another Meaning of the Word: Competence as Authority

The word “competence” also has a legal and organizational meaning: the established scope of matters, functions, and powers of a body or official.

For example, the competence of a court does not mean a complex of the judge’s knowledge, skills, and abilities, but the legally defined limits of which matters the court is entitled to hear and which actions it may perform.

This is an independent meaning of the term. It cannot be transferred to professional abilities without making a further distinction.

A person may possess the necessary knowledge and abilities but lack the authority to perform a particular action. Conversely, possessing formal authority does not itself confirm possession of the corresponding knowledge, skills, and abilities.

The right to perform an action and the ability to perform it are different grounds.

9. Limits of the Category

Defining competence as a complex does not authorize several substitutions.

First substitution: the complex is taken for an elementary entity. Instead of investigating knowledge, skills, and abilities, people begin discussing “competence” as a homogeneous quality.

Second substitution: the name of a domain is passed off as a description of activity. The assertion that someone “has management competence” does not reveal what the subject can actually accomplish.

Third substitution: a normative list of requirements is identified with the subject’s possibilities. The absence of an item in an evaluation model does not entail the absence of an ability.

Fourth substitution: a reproducible skill is taken for the exhaustive content of ability. Testing the performance of a familiar procedure does not establish the limits of the subject’s capacity to create new ways of acting.

Fifth substitution: competence is reduced to success or conformity with expectations. The result of activity and the evaluation of that result require separate consideration. They do not replace distinguishing the grounds of which competence is composed.

10. Final Definition

Competence in the context of activity is a complex of knowledge, skills, and abilities considered in relation to a particular domain of activity.

Expanded definition:

Competence is the categorical combination of different grounds of a subject’s activity: what the subject knows and understands, which stable ways of acting they have mastered, and which actions they are capable of carrying out, including through the creation of new distinctions, categories, and methods. Competence is established relative to the subject matter of an activity, but does not exhaust the subject’s possibilities and is not identical to an external list of requirements imposed upon them.

The main distinctions:

• Knowledge is not identical to skill.
• Skill is not identical to ability.
• Competence is not another element at the same level as its components.
• The subject’s actual possibilities are not identical to their external evaluation.
• A competence model is not identical to competence as the subject of consideration.
• Competence in the sense of professional activity is not identical to competence in the sense of authority.

Naming a complex does not replace distinguishing its components.