# Executive Briefing: Credentials as Strategic Infrastructure *Two hours for leaders who must decide whether, when and how.* ## About this course This briefing is for leaders who have to decide how their organisation will issue, accept and rely on digital credentials. It is written for three groups: - Executive sponsors such as the Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO), Chief Learning Officer (CLO) and Chief Digital Officer (CDO). - Policy makers and staff in public agencies. - Programme and micro-credential leads who need to brief their own leadership. No prior knowledge is required. The course sits in the ICoBC Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF) at skill STRV "Credential strategy and value" (pillar Value), level L5 "Shape", stage K "Knowledge". At this level a person sets organisational or sector strategy for recognition, positions credentials as shared infrastructure and secures sponsorship and accountability for long-term value. At stage K the person understands the concepts, rules and reasons, and can explain and recognise them. **Learning outcomes.** After this course you can: 1. Explain how credentials support talent, education and mobility strategy. 2. Name the decisions leaders must take: purpose, quality, technology and partners. 3. Judge timing in view of the EUDI Wallet and the AI Act. 4. Define first steps and sponsorship. **Workload.** Two hours of notional learning. This file covers the self-paced part. A live workshop can add discussion and group work, described in the facilitator notes. **Assessment.** A short knowledge check (quiz) and a one-page decision note. The decision note is the badge evidence. **Badge.** "Executive Briefing: Credentials as Strategic Infrastructure (Knowledge, L5)", alignment code ICSF-STRV-L5-K. | Outcome | Module | How it is assessed | |---|---|---| | 1. Explain how credentials support talent, education and mobility strategy | Why now | Module quiz; final knowledge check; decision note | | 1. Explain how credentials support talent, education and mobility strategy | Strategic options | Module quiz; final knowledge check | | 2. Name the decisions leaders must take: purpose, quality, technology and partners | Risks | Module quiz; final knowledge check | | 2. Name the decisions leaders must take: purpose, quality, technology and partners | Decisions | Module quiz; final knowledge check; decision note | | 3. Judge timing in view of the EUDI Wallet and the AI Act | Why now | Module quiz; final knowledge check; decision note | | 3. Judge timing in view of the EUDI Wallet and the AI Act | Risks | Module quiz; final knowledge check | | 4. Define first steps and sponsorship | First steps | Module quiz; final knowledge check; decision note | > This course teaches understanding of concepts, rules and reasons. Completing it does not prove that anyone is competent to carry out a particular job.
Facilitator notes **Suggested split of the two hours.** About 75 minutes self-paced (this file) and 45 minutes live. In the live part, ask participants to bring a first draft of their decision note and use the final 45 minutes for peer review in groups of three. Ask each group to include one person from HR or learning, one from IT or data, and one from the business or a public agency, so that all views are heard. **Room set-up.** Print the strategy map and the timeline from Modules 1 and 2 on A3 paper for table work.
## Why now ### Credentials as infrastructure A credential is a statement about a person that someone else can check and rely on. Examples are a degree, a professional licence, a digital badge or a micro-credential. For many years these statements lived in separate silos: a university database, a training provider's PDF, an HR file. Each silo served its owner and little else. Leaders now have a reason to look at credentials as shared infrastructure. Infrastructure is something many parties use, that needs rules and upkeep, and whose value grows with the number of users. Roads and electricity grids work this way. Credentials can work this way too when issuers, earners and verifiers use common formats and common rules. Three strategies depend on that infrastructure: - **Talent strategy.** An employer wants to find, develop and deploy people by what they can do. Credentials give an evidence layer for skills, so that decisions rely on documented evidence and less on job titles alone. - **Education strategy.** A university, college or training provider wants its offer to be understood outside its own walls. Credentials describe learning outcomes in a form that employers, other institutions and public bodies can read. - **Mobility strategy.** People move between employers, sectors, regions and countries. Credentials that others can verify reduce the effort to have learning and experience recognised. Skills-based hiring and internal mobility are widely discussed, and practice varies a great deal between organisations. Credentials are not the whole answer, but they supply the evidence layer that such approaches need. [Status: Established] {{1}} **Strategy map.** The graphic shows the core idea: credentials sit between the main groups and serve three strategies. Strategy map: credentials as shared infrastructure A navy core box labelled Credential infrastructure sits in the centre. An orange box for employers is on the left, a cyan box for education providers is on the right, and a lime box for associations and policy is at the top. Below the core, three boxes show the strategies it supports: talent, education and mobility. Lines connect every box to the core. Associations and policy Rules and trust Employers Hire, develop, deploy Education providers Teach, assess, issue Credential infrastructure Talent strategy Education strategy Mobility strategy Earners sit at the centre: they hold and share their credentials ### Why the timing matters Two European developments set the calendar for many organisations. This briefing teaches what is known today and flags what must be checked before you act. **The EUDI Wallet (eIDAS 2.0).** The European Digital Identity Wallet is a wallet that individuals can use to hold and share verified attributes. Member States must offer at least one wallet by 24 December 2026. Germany plans its state wallet ("d-you") for 2 January 2027, with basic functions first. Regulated private sectors must accept the wallet about one year after issuance starts. Readiness varies widely between Member States. [Status: Emerging] **The EU AI Act and the Digital Omnibus on AI.** Under the AI Omnibus (provisional agreement of 7 May 2026), Annex III high-risk obligations apply from 2 December 2027 and Annex I product-embedded systems from 2 August 2028. Check the final published text. [Status: Established, final text to be checked] Why does this matter for credentials? The wallet may become a common way for people to carry and present verified information. AI systems are increasingly used in hiring, in education and in assessing people, and such uses can fall under high-risk rules. A leader who plans recognition strategy in 2026 should know both timelines. Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. {{2}} **Timeline 2026 to 2028.** The graphic places the key dates on one line. Timeline 2026 to 2028: EUDI Wallet and AI Act dates A horizontal timeline from 2026 to 2028. Above the line are wallet milestones in lime: 24 December 2026 Member States must offer a wallet, and 2 January 2027 planned German wallet. About one year after issuance starts, regulated private sectors must accept the wallet. Below the line are AI Act milestones in cyan: 7 May 2026 provisional agreement, 2 December 2027 Annex III high-risk obligations, 2 August 2028 Annex I product-embedded systems. 2026 2027 2028 2029 24 Dec 2026 Wallet offered by Member States 2 Jan 2027 Planned German wallet, basic functions About one year after issuance Regulated sectors accept wallet 7 May 2026 AI Omnibus provisional agreement 2 Dec 2027 Annex III high-risk obligations 2 Aug 2028 Annex I product-embedded systems Lime = wallet (policy). Cyan = AI Act (policy). Dates as of November 2026; check before use. ### Examples and practice **Worked example: Two organisations read the same signal** *Context A: corporate academy.* The CLO of a mid-sized manufacturer (illustrative) runs an internal academy. Staff complete internal courses, but records sit in a learning system that managers rarely open. The CHRO wants an internal mobility scheme where a maintenance technician can move to a quality role. The CLO sees that credentials with clear skill descriptions would give hiring managers evidence they can read quickly. The CLO also notes that wallet acceptance may matter later, because employees may want to carry credentials from the academy to their next employer. *Context B: university.* The vice-rector for teaching at a regional university (illustrative) hears from local employers that graduates' degrees are hard to compare with those of other institutions. The university already offers short continuing education courses. The vice-rector sees that micro-credentials with clear learning outcomes would make these courses visible to employers and to other universities that may recognise them. Wallet readiness in the Member State will decide how learners can share them. In both cases the leader links credentials to a strategy goal first and to technology second. **Practice activity: Name your strategy link** Write three short sentences about your own organisation: 1. Which of the three strategies (talent, education, mobility) matters most for you in the next two years? 2. Who inside or outside your organisation would need to read your credentials? 3. Which of the two timelines (wallet or AI Act) may affect you first, and why? Keep these notes; you will use them in the decision note.
Facilitator notes Ask each participant to share one sentence from the activity in plenary. Group the answers on a flip chart under the three strategies. Point out where several participants name the same verifier, because shared verifiers are the basis of shared infrastructure. Keep the timeline visible while you discuss.
**Question 1.** Why does this briefing describe credentials as shared infrastructure? [( )] Because credentials are only valuable when stored in one central government database. [(X)] Because many parties use them, they need common rules and upkeep, and their value grows with the number of users. [( )] Because credentials replace the need for any hiring or admission decisions. [( )] Because every organisation must buy the same credential platform. **** Infrastructure is shared by many parties, needs rules and maintenance, and grows in value as more parties use it. Credentials do not replace decisions, they provide evidence for them. No single platform or central database is required. **** **Question 2.** Which strategy uses credentials mainly to help people have learning and experience recognised across employers, sectors and countries? [( )] Talent strategy [( )] Education strategy [(X)] Mobility strategy [( )] Procurement strategy **** Mobility strategy is about people moving between employers, sectors, regions and countries. Verifiable credentials reduce the effort to have learning recognised. Talent and education strategy have different primary aims. **** **Question 3.** What does the EUDI Wallet timeline say for Member States? [( )] Every citizen must hold a wallet by 24 December 2026. [(X)] Member States must offer at least one wallet by 24 December 2026. [( )] All private companies must accept the wallet on 24 December 2026. [( )] The wallet replaces all national ID cards on 24 December 2026. **** The obligation on 24 December 2026 is for Member States to offer at least one wallet. Citizens are not required to hold one, and acceptance duties for regulated private sectors follow about one year after issuance starts. Readiness varies between Member States. **** **Question 4.** A leader says: "We should plan our credential timing around the AI Act." What is the most accurate starting point? [( )] The AI Act applies in full to every credential on one single date. [( )] The AI Act has no link to hiring or education. [(X)] Annex III high-risk obligations are set to apply from 2 December 2027 under the AI Omnibus agreement, and the final published text must be checked. [( )] Annex I product-embedded systems are set to apply from 2 December 2027. **** Under the provisional agreement of 7 May 2026, Annex III high-risk obligations apply from 2 December 2027 and Annex I product-embedded systems from 2 August 2028. Because the agreement is provisional, the final text must be checked. **** ## Strategic options ### Four strategic stances Once a leader accepts that credentials can be infrastructure, the next question is what stance to take. Four stances cover most situations. They are not exclusive; many organisations combine them over time. **1. Issuer.** You create and issue credentials for learning, achievements or roles. Universities, colleges, training providers, corporate academies and associations often take this stance. The benefit is that you control the content and design. The cost is that you take responsibility for quality, for the issuing process and for the life of the credential. **2. Verifier and accepter.** You decide to accept credentials issued by others when you hire, admit, promote or license. Employers and public agencies often take this stance. The benefit is less manual checking and faster decisions. The cost is that you must decide which issuers and credentials you trust and on what grounds. **3. Participant in a shared scheme.** You join with others to build common rules, such as a sector scheme or a regional network. Associations, public agencies and groups of employers and providers take this stance. The benefit is shared effort and wider recognition. The cost is that you give up some control and must agree on governance. **4. Observer.** You choose to wait and watch while you build knowledge. This is a legitimate choice if it is made on purpose, with a date for review and a named person who watches the field. It becomes a risk when nobody owns the decision. These stances map to the colours used across ICoBC courses: orange for employers, cyan for education providers, lime for associations and policy, navy for earners and the core idea. ### Matching stance to purpose The right stance depends on purpose, not on technology. Ask these questions: - Who needs to rely on the credential, and for what decision? - Do you want to be known for the quality of your own learning offer, or do you mainly need evidence from others? - Which partners would make the credential more useful? - How long should the credential stay valid and trusted? An employer that mainly hires from the market may start as a verifier. A university with a strong continuing education arm may start as an issuer. A public agency that wants to simplify recognition across a sector may lead a shared scheme. The Kursbibliothek and ICoBC frameworks describe five pillars of good practice. This briefing gives only an overview. You will use these pillars again in the Decisions module. | Pillar | Question for leaders | |---|---| | Value | What problem does the credential solve, and for whom? | | Recognition | Who will accept it, and why would they trust it? | | Integrity | How do we keep the credential honest and verifiable? | | Technology | What formats and wallets support issuing and sharing? | | Experience | Is it easy for earners, issuers and verifiers to use? | {{1}} **Four stances.** The graphic compares the stances on two questions: how much control you take and how much you rely on others. Four strategic stances for credentials A two-by-two grid. The vertical axis runs from relying on others at the bottom to carrying more responsibility at the top. The horizontal axis runs from acting alone on the left to acting with others on the right. Issuer in orange is top left, shared scheme in lime is top right, observer in light grey is bottom left, and verifier and accepter in cyan is bottom right. More responsibility Rely on others Act alone Act with others Issuer You create and issue credentials Shared scheme You build common rules with partners Observer You watch, with a review date Verifier and accepter You accept credentials from others ### Examples and practice **Worked example: Choosing a stance in two settings** *Context A: HR department.* The CHRO of a logistics company (illustrative) wants to speed up hiring for warehouse supervisors. Applicants hold forklift and safety certificates from many providers. Checking each one by phone is slow. The CHRO chooses the verifier and accepter stance first: define which issuers and credential types the company accepts, and agree a simple check process. Later the company may become a participant in a sector scheme with other logistics firms. *Context B: training provider.* The director of a vocational training provider (illustrative) offers short courses in digital skills. Learners ask for something they can show to employers. The director chooses the issuer stance: design three micro-credentials with clear outcomes and assessment, and join a regional network of providers so that employers see a consistent description. The director sets a review date after one year to decide whether to widen the network. Each leader names the stance, the reason, and the next review. **Practice activity: Pick a stance** Using your notes from Module 1, write down: 1. The stance (issuer, verifier and accepter, shared scheme participant, observer) you would take first. 2. One reason, linked to a strategy goal. 3. One partner you would need. 4. A date on which you would review the stance. If you chose observer, name the person who will watch the field and report back.
Facilitator notes Place the four stances on a wall chart and ask participants to put a sticky note on the stance they chose. Discuss any cluster in the observer corner: is it a deliberate choice with an owner and review date? Ask pairs to challenge each other: "Which strategy goal does this stance serve?"
**Question 1.** A university wants its continuing education courses to be understood by employers. Which stance does this describe? [(X)] Issuer [( )] Verifier and accepter [( )] Observer [( )] Regulator **** The university creates and issues credentials, so it takes the issuer stance. A verifier and accepter relies on credentials from others, and an observer waits and watches. **** **Question 2.** An employer defines which external credentials it will accept and how they are checked. Which stance is this? [( )] Issuer [( )] Shared scheme participant [(X)] Verifier and accepter [( )] Observer **** Accepting and checking credentials from others is the verifier and accepter stance. The employer does not necessarily issue anything itself. **** **Question 3.** When is the observer stance a sound leadership choice? [( )] When nobody has time to think about credentials. [( )] When the organisation wants to avoid any responsibility. [(X)] When it is chosen on purpose, with a named owner and a date for review. [( )] When a competitor has already moved. **** Waiting can be sensible if it is a decision with an owner and a review date. Without those, it becomes drift and risk. **** **Question 4.** What should drive the choice of stance? [( )] The cheapest technology on offer. [(X)] The purpose: who needs to rely on the credential and for which decision. [( )] The stance chosen by the largest competitor. [( )] The preference of the software supplier. **** Purpose should lead and technology should follow. Asking who relies on the credential, and for which decision, shows which stance fits. **** ## Risks ### Four groups of risk A strategy for credentials carries risks. Leaders do not need to manage each in detail, but they should know the main groups and who is accountable. Four groups cover most cases. **1. Value risk.** The credential is issued but nobody uses it. This happens when the credential does not solve a real problem for earners or verifiers, or when its description is vague. A badge that no employer reads is a cost with little return. **2. Quality and trust risk.** The credential is used but cannot be trusted. Causes include unclear assessment, weak identity checks, no process for withdrawing a credential, or issuers with no track record. If trust drops, the whole scheme can lose value. This is why integrity and recognition are two of the five pillars. **3. Technology and data risk.** Systems fail, formats change, or data is exposed. A credential must stay readable and verifiable for as long as it is meant to be useful. Lock-in to a single supplier or format can make a later change expensive. Personal data in credentials needs care and a clear legal basis. **4. Timing and regulatory risk.** Rules and expectations change. The EUDI Wallet is Emerging, with readiness varying between Member States. The AI Act timeline for high-risk systems has been revised under the AI Omnibus agreement, and the final text must be checked. A leader who moves too early may build for a standard that shifts. A leader who moves too late may find that partners or regulators have already set expectations. ### AI and recognition: a leadership view AI is now part of the recognition landscape in several ways. Leaders do not need to understand the technology in depth, but they should ask good questions. - **AI in assessment and issuing.** Tools may support grading, proctoring, or generating skill descriptions. If a decision about a person is made or strongly shaped by such a tool, ask who is accountable, what evidence supports the tool, and how a person can challenge the result. - **AI in hiring and admission.** Systems that screen applicants or rank candidates can fall into the high-risk category under the AI Act. The relevant obligations for Annex III systems are set to apply from 2 December 2027 under the AI Omnibus agreement. Check the final text before you rely on this date. - **AI-generated learner work and evidence.** Generative tools make it easier to produce text and images that look like evidence. Leaders should ask how assessments check that the person did the work, and how credentials describe the evidence behind them. - **AI reading credentials.** Software may read and match credentials to jobs. Clear, structured credential descriptions help, but the human decision-maker keeps responsibility. A simple leadership rule: any use of AI that affects a person's chances of a job, a place or a licence needs a named owner, a documented purpose and a way for the person to ask for review. {{1}} **Risk map.** The graphic shows the four groups of risk and the owner who should answer for each. Four groups of risk and their owners Four boxes in a row: value risk, quality and trust risk, technology and data risk, and timing and regulatory risk. Under each box is the typical question a leader asks and the typical owner. Value risk is owned by the business sponsor, quality and trust by the academic or quality lead, technology and data by the digital lead, and timing and regulatory by the legal or compliance lead. Value risk Nobody uses it Quality and trust risk Nobody trusts it Technology and data risk It breaks or leaks Timing and regulatory risk Rules move Owner: business sponsor Owner: quality lead Owner: digital lead Owner: legal or compliance Each risk needs one named owner. The owners shown are typical examples. ### Examples and practice **Worked example: Spotting the risk** *Context A: corporate academy.* A corporate academy (illustrative) introduces digital badges for internal leadership courses. After a year, only 8 per cent of staff (illustrative figure) have shared a badge, and managers do not look at them in promotion decisions. The CLO identifies value risk: the badges describe attendance rather than skills, so managers see little to use. The fix is to rewrite the descriptions around observable outcomes and to agree with the CHRO how managers will use them. *Context B: college.* A college (illustrative) plans to use a screening tool to rank applicants for a competitive programme. The quality lead asks who is accountable for the tool's results and how an applicant can ask for a review. The compliance lead notes that systems used for such decisions may fall into a high-risk category under the AI Act and asks the vendor-neutral question: what documentation does the college need for its own records? The college decides to pause until the final text on dates and duties has been checked. **Practice activity: Name the owner** Take the stance you chose in Module 2. For each of the four groups of risk, write one sentence on how it could arise in your organisation and name the person or role who should own it. If a role does not exist yet, write "to be assigned" and note who will assign it.
Facilitator notes Run a short "pre-mortem": ask each table to imagine that the credential scheme failed after two years and to list the most likely reasons. Sort the reasons under the four risk groups. Then ask who should have owned each risk. Keep the discussion about roles and decisions, not about technology products.
**Question 1.** A badge programme issues many badges, but employers do not read them because the descriptions are vague. Which risk group is this? [(X)] Value risk [( )] Technology and data risk [( )] Timing and regulatory risk [( )] No risk, only a communication issue **** The credential does not solve a real problem for those who would rely on it. That is value risk. The remedy starts with clear outcomes and agreement with the verifiers. **** **Question 2.** Which situation is mainly a quality and trust risk? [( )] The organisation waits for the final AI Act text. [(X)] There is no process for checking identity or for withdrawing a credential that was issued in error. [( )] The credential format changes after five years. [( )] Nobody applies for the credential. **** Weak identity checks and no way to withdraw credentials undermine trust in the whole scheme. That belongs to the quality and trust group. The other situations belong to timing, technology or value. **** **Question 3.** What is a sound leadership rule for AI use that affects a person's chances of a job, place or licence? [( )] Leave it to the supplier of the tool. [( )] Use it only when the result is not documented. [(X)] Name an owner, document the purpose and give the person a way to ask for review. [( )] Switch it on first and review it after complaints. **** Accountability, documentation and a route for review are basic safeguards when AI shapes decisions about people. The organisation stays responsible even if a supplier provides the tool. **** **Question 4.** What does the AI Omnibus provisional agreement of 7 May 2026 say about Annex III high-risk obligations? [( )] They have already applied since 2026. [( )] They will apply from 2 August 2028. [(X)] They are set to apply from 2 December 2027, and the final published text must be checked. [( )] They no longer apply to any system. **** Under the provisional agreement, Annex III high-risk obligations apply from 2 December 2027, and Annex I product-embedded systems from 2 August 2028. Because the agreement was provisional, leaders should check the final text. **** ## Decisions ### Four decisions leaders must take Leaders cannot delegate everything. Four decisions belong with the sponsor or leadership team, because they set direction, budget and accountability. They are purpose, quality, technology and partners. **1. Purpose.** What problem will credentials solve, for whom, and how will you know it worked? A clear purpose names the strategy goal (talent, education or mobility), the main users and one or two simple measures. Without a purpose, later decisions drift. **2. Quality.** What standard of assessment, identity checking and description will the credentials meet, and who is accountable? Quality is where trust is built. Leaders need not design the assessment, but they must decide the level of rigour and make sure someone owns it. Relevant elements are the learning outcomes, the way achievement is assessed, how the earner's identity is checked, how credentials are withdrawn if needed, and how the scheme is reviewed. **3. Technology.** What formats, wallets and systems will support issuing, sharing and verifying? The leadership decision is about direction and risk, not product selection. Questions include: does the approach use open standards? Can credentials be moved to another system? Can they be shared with the EUDI Wallet when it is ready in your Member State? Who holds the data? Vendor-neutral language in your policies helps you avoid lock-in. **4. Partners.** With whom will you issue, accept or govern credentials? Partners may be other employers, universities, colleges, training providers, associations and public agencies. A partner decision includes who sets the rules, who is accountable when something goes wrong, and how costs and benefits are shared. These four decisions link to the five pillars in the VRITE overview from Module 2: purpose sits mostly in Value, quality in Integrity and Recognition, technology in Technology, and partners in Recognition. The Experience pillar reminds leaders to ask how easy the result is for earners, issuers and verifiers. ### Judging timing A leader also has to decide when. Use three simple questions. 1. **What must happen on fixed dates?** For example, Member States must offer an EUDI Wallet by 24 December 2026, and Annex III high-risk AI obligations are set to apply from 2 December 2027 under the AI Omnibus agreement. These dates frame the planning window. 2. **What is still uncertain?** The wallet is Emerging and readiness varies by Member State. The AI Omnibus text must be checked in its final form. Plan with options rather than a single bet. 3. **What can we do now that stays useful whatever happens?** Examples are clarifying purpose, describing skills clearly, setting quality rules, and choosing open formats. Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. A balanced approach is often to act on the no-regret steps now and to schedule decision points around the fixed dates. For example, a review before wallet acceptance duties start for your sector, and a review of AI uses before December 2027. {{1}} **Decision frame.** The graphic shows the four decisions and the question each answers. Four leadership decisions: purpose, quality, technology and partners A navy circle in the centre is labelled Sponsor decisions. Four boxes are arranged around it: purpose at the top in navy outline, quality on the right in cyan, technology at the bottom in orange, and partners on the left in lime. Each box carries the question it answers. Lines connect each box to the circle. Sponsor decisions Purpose What problem, for whom? Quality What rigour, who owns it? Technology Which formats, how open? Partners With whom, under what rules? ### Examples and practice **Worked example: A decision in two settings** *Context A: HR department.* The CHRO and CDO of a retail group (illustrative) agree a purpose: shorten the time to fill store-manager roles from internal candidates, measured as days to fill (target to be set). For quality, they decide that accepted credentials must describe skills and assessment method. For technology, they require open, portable formats and the ability to receive credentials from a wallet later. For partners, they invite two regional training providers to align descriptions with the group's skills language. *Context B: university.* The vice-rector and the head of digital services at a university (illustrative) set a purpose: let adult learners show their continuing education achievements to employers. Quality: each micro-credential has assessed outcomes and a named academic owner. Technology: open standards, with a plan to review wallet support once the Member State's wallet is live. Partners: two local employer associations help to describe the skills in terms employers use. In both cases the sponsors record the four decisions on one page and name an accountable person for each. **Practice activity: Draft the four decisions** Write one sentence for each of purpose, quality, technology and partners for your own organisation. Then add one sentence on timing: which fixed date will you use as a decision point, and what will you check at that point? These sentences will form the core of your decision note in the final assessment.
Facilitator notes Ask participants to swap drafts with a neighbour and mark any sentence that has no owner or no measure. Encourage precise wording: "reduce days to fill" is better than "improve hiring". Remind participants to use vendor-neutral language and to avoid naming products.
**Question 1.** Which set lists the four decisions leaders must take? [( )] Budget, brand, logo and launch date [(X)] Purpose, quality, technology and partners [( )] Software, hardware, training and marketing [( )] Issue, verify, withdraw and archive **** The four leadership decisions in this briefing are purpose, quality, technology and partners. Each sets direction, risk and accountability. **** **Question 2.** Which question belongs to the technology decision? [( )] Who sets the rules of the scheme? [( )] What problem does the credential solve? [(X)] Does the approach use open standards, and can credentials move to another system? [( )] How rigorous is the assessment? **** Open standards and portability are technology questions. The rules of the scheme are a partner question, the problem is a purpose question, and assessment rigour is a quality question. **** **Question 3.** What is the best way to handle uncertainty about the EUDI Wallet in a planning decision? [( )] Wait until every Member State is ready before doing anything. [(X)] Act on no-regret steps now and schedule decision points around the fixed dates. [( )] Build a complete wallet solution of your own immediately. [( )] Ignore the wallet because it is Emerging. **** No-regret steps such as clear purpose, clear skills descriptions and open formats stay useful whatever happens. Decision points around fixed dates let you adjust as readiness becomes clearer. **** **Question 4.** Which sentence is the strongest statement of purpose? [( )] We will use credentials to modernise. [( )] We will buy a credential platform this year. [(X)] We will use credentials to reduce the days it takes to fill internal roles, and we will review the result after twelve months. [( )] We will follow what other organisations do. **** A strong purpose names the goal, the users and how success will be seen. The other statements describe activity or imitation and give no measure. **** ## First steps ### Sponsorship and accountability Strategy needs a sponsor. A sponsor is a leader with budget and authority who is willing to be named as accountable for the long-term value of credentials. At L5 "Shape" in the ICSF, the person secures sponsorship and accountability for long-term value. In practice this means answering four questions. - **Who is the sponsor?** One named executive, such as the CHRO, CLO, CDO, a vice-rector or a director in a public agency. A committee alone does not provide accountability. - **Who leads delivery?** A programme or micro-credential lead who reports to the sponsor and coordinates the work. - **Who is on the core group?** Representatives of the main stakeholders: HR or learning, quality or academic office, digital or data, legal or compliance, and at least one voice from earners and one from verifiers. - **How is long-term value protected?** Credentials last for years. Someone must own review, renewal, withdrawal and communication, even after the first project ends. Sponsorship also means resources: time for the team, a modest budget for a pilot, and the authority to agree rules with partners. ### A ninety-day path A first-step plan should be small and realistic. A ninety-day path has three phases. The numbers are illustrative; adjust them to your situation. **Days 1 to 30: Align.** - Name the sponsor and the delivery lead. - Confirm the purpose and the stance. - List the stakeholders and the main verifiers. - Note the fixed dates that affect you (wallet, AI Act) and what you must check. **Days 31 to 60: Define.** - Draft the four decisions (purpose, quality, technology, partners). - Choose one pilot: one credential type, one group of earners, one or two verifiers. - Agree measures of success and a review date. - Identify the risks and their owners. **Days 61 to 90: Prepare.** - Write the decision note for the leadership team. - Plan a small pilot, with clear roles and a communication plan. - Set decision points around the key dates, for example a review before wallet acceptance duties for your sector and a review of AI uses before the AI Act dates that apply to you. - Agree how earners and verifiers will give feedback. Keep the pilot small. A successful pilot gives evidence for the next decision, and a failed pilot is cheaper to learn from than a large launch. {{1}} **Ninety-day path.** The graphic shows three phases and the main output of each. Ninety-day path: align, define, prepare Three boxes in a row show the phases of the ninety-day path. Days 1 to 30, Align, in lime; days 31 to 60, Define, in cyan; days 61 to 90, Prepare, in orange. Under each box is the main output: sponsor and purpose named, four decisions and pilot defined, decision note and pilot plan ready. Arrows lead from left to right. Days 1 to 30 Align Days 31 to 60 Define Days 61 to 90 Prepare Output: sponsor, lead and purpose are named Output: four decisions drafted, pilot defined Output: decision note and pilot plan are ready Durations are illustrative. Adjust them to your organisation. ### Examples and practice **Worked example: Starting small in two settings** *Context A: corporate academy.* The CLO of an energy services firm (illustrative) asks the CHRO to act as sponsor. The two agree a pilot: three credentials for safety-critical field skills, with two internal hiring managers as verifiers. In the first 30 days they confirm the purpose (faster, better-informed internal moves) and list the stakeholders. In days 31 to 60 they draft the four decisions and agree that the pilot will run for six months. In days 61 to 90 the CLO writes the decision note and the CDO checks that the chosen format can later work with a wallet. *Context B: college.* The principal of a college (illustrative) names herself sponsor and asks the head of continuing education to lead delivery. They invite a regional employer association and the college's quality officer to join the core group. The pilot is one micro-credential in a digital skill, with ten learners. They set a review after the first cohort and a second review before the date on which regulated sectors in their Member State must accept the wallet. **Practice activity: Sketch your first ninety days** Write a short plan with three lines, one for each phase. For each phase, name one action, one owner and one output. Add the name of your sponsor. If you cannot name one, write the name of the person you will ask and the date by which you will ask.
Facilitator notes Invite two or three participants to present their three lines in under one minute each. Ask the group to check for: a named sponsor, a small pilot, a review date and at least one decision point linked to a fixed date. Remind participants that the decision note in the assessment draws on this plan.
**Question 1.** Which description fits a sponsor in this briefing? [( )] A software supplier who offers support. [( )] A committee with no single named member. [(X)] A named leader with budget and authority who is accountable for the long-term value of credentials. [( )] An external consultant who writes the strategy. **** A sponsor is a named leader with authority and budget who answers for long-term value. A committee alone, a supplier or an outside adviser does not carry that accountability. **** **Question 2.** What is the best size for a first pilot? [( )] The whole organisation at once. [(X)] One credential type, one group of earners and one or two verifiers. [( )] Only a technology test with no earners. [( )] No pilot, only a policy paper. **** A small pilot with real earners and verifiers gives evidence for the next decision at limited cost. A technology test alone gives no information about value or trust. **** **Question 3.** In the ninety-day path, which output belongs to days 61 to 90? [( )] Naming the sponsor for the first time. [( )] Listing the stakeholders. [(X)] Writing the decision note and the pilot plan. [( )] Closing the pilot. **** Days 61 to 90 are for preparing: the decision note, the pilot plan, decision points around key dates and a feedback route. Naming the sponsor and listing stakeholders belong to the first 30 days. **** **Question 4.** Why must someone own credentials after the first project ends? [( )] Because projects always last for ten years. [( )] Because the supplier requires it. [(X)] Because credentials last for years and need review, renewal, withdrawal and communication. [( )] Because earners prefer not to contact anyone. **** Credentials remain in use long after launch. Long-term value depends on someone who owns review, renewal, withdrawal and communication. **** ## Assessment and badge ### What you submit The assessment has two parts. 1. **Final knowledge check** (below): ten single-choice questions that cover all four learning outcomes. 2. **Decision note**: a one-page note to your leadership team, which is the badge evidence. **Decision note task.** Write one page (about 400 to 500 words) addressed to the leadership team of your own organisation or a realistic organisation of your choice. Use plain language. Include: - The strategy goal (talent, education or mobility) and the chosen stance. - Your draft decisions on purpose, quality, technology and partners. - A short view on timing: which fixed dates matter (EUDI Wallet, AI Act) and what remains uncertain. - The main risks, with an owner for each group. - The named sponsor, the delivery lead and your ninety-day first steps. Do not name commercial products. Mark any fact you have not checked as "to be verified". ### Rubric for the decision note | Criterion | Meets the standard | Needs more work | |---|---|---| | Strategy link (Outcome 1) | Links credentials to talent, education or mobility strategy with a clear reason | Strategy link is missing or vague | | Decisions (Outcome 2) | Names purpose, quality, technology and partners, each with a clear statement | One or more decisions missing or unclear | | Timing (Outcome 3) | Describes the relevant wallet and AI Act dates correctly, marks what is uncertain and links dates to decision points | Dates wrong, or timing not linked to action | | First steps and sponsorship (Outcome 4) | Names a sponsor and delivery lead, and gives a realistic first-step plan with owners | No sponsor named, or plan unrealistic or without owners | | Clarity and accuracy | One page, plain language, no invented facts, uncertain items marked | Unclear, too long, or unverified claims stated as facts | ### Pass rule To earn the badge you need both: - At least 8 of 10 questions correct in the final knowledge check. - "Meets the standard" on all four outcome criteria and on clarity and accuracy in the decision note. ### Evidence for the badge The badge evidence is the decision note. The reviewer sees the note, the date, and the rubric result. The badge "Executive Briefing: Credentials as Strategic Infrastructure (Knowledge, L5)", with alignment code ICSF-STRV-L5-K, records that you have shown understanding of the concepts, rules and reasons covered in this course. It does not prove competence to do a particular job.
Facilitator notes Ask participants to bring a draft of the note to the workshop. In peer review, each reader uses the rubric and gives one strength and one suggestion. A reviewer should check that every date in the note matches the dates in this course, or is marked "to be verified". Allow a short revision window before the final decision.
### Final knowledge check **Question 1.** Which statement best explains how credentials support talent strategy? [( )] They replace all conversations between managers and employees. [(X)] They provide an evidence layer for skills, so that hiring and mobility decisions can rely on documented evidence. [( )] They guarantee that a person will perform well in any job. [( )] They remove the need for job descriptions. **** Credentials give an evidence layer for skills. They support decisions but do not replace judgement, and completing a course does not prove competence in a job. **** **Question 2.** A university wants its short courses to be understood by employers and other institutions. Which strategy does this mainly serve? [( )] Procurement strategy [(X)] Education strategy [( )] Facilities strategy [( )] Mobility strategy only **** Describing learning outcomes in a form that others can read is the core of education strategy. It also helps mobility, but the main aim here is the visibility and understanding of the offer. **** **Question 3.** Which list contains the four decisions leaders must take? [( )] Budget, brand, supplier and launch date [( )] Issue, verify, archive and delete [(X)] Purpose, quality, technology and partners [( )] Awareness, training, testing and reporting **** The four decisions are purpose, quality, technology and partners. **** **Question 4.** An employer wants to accept credentials from several training providers and check them quickly. Which stance is this? [( )] Issuer [(X)] Verifier and accepter [( )] Observer without an owner [( )] Regulator **** Accepting and checking credentials from others is the verifier and accepter stance. **** **Question 5.** Which is a technology decision? [( )] Deciding who chairs the steering group. [( )] Deciding how many learners join the pilot. [(X)] Deciding that credentials must use open formats and be portable between systems. [( )] Deciding how to measure the success of the purpose. **** Open formats and portability are technology decisions. The other options concern governance, scope and purpose. **** **Question 6.** What is the correct statement about the EUDI Wallet timeline? [( )] Every citizen must hold a wallet by 24 December 2026. [(X)] Member States must offer at least one wallet by 24 December 2026, and readiness varies widely between them. [( )] The wallet is available in all Member States on the same date with the same functions. [( )] The wallet applies only to private companies. **** Member States must offer at least one wallet by 24 December 2026. Germany plans its state wallet for 2 January 2027 with basic functions first. Readiness varies widely, and the topic is Emerging. **** **Question 7.** Under the AI Omnibus provisional agreement of 7 May 2026, when are Annex III high-risk obligations set to apply? [( )] From 24 December 2026 [( )] From 2 August 2028 [(X)] From 2 December 2027, with the final published text to be checked [( )] They have been removed completely **** Annex III high-risk obligations are set to apply from 2 December 2027, and Annex I product-embedded systems from 2 August 2028. Because the agreement was provisional, the final text must be checked. **** **Question 8.** Which approach to timing is most sensible for a leader? [( )] Wait until all dates and rules are final before doing anything. [( )] Build a complete solution now and ignore later changes. [(X)] Act on no-regret steps now and schedule decision points around the fixed dates. [( )] Copy the plan of the first organisation that moves. **** No-regret steps, such as clear purpose, clear descriptions and open formats, stay useful whatever happens. Decision points around fixed dates let you adjust. **** **Question 9.** What is a sound leadership rule for AI that affects a person's chances of a job, place or licence? [( )] The tool supplier carries all responsibility. [(X)] Name an owner, document the purpose and offer the person a way to ask for review. [( )] Use the tool without records so that nobody can challenge it. [( )] Use the tool only for people who agree not to appeal. **** The organisation stays accountable for decisions about people. A named owner, documentation and a route for review are basic safeguards. **** **Question 10.** Which description fits a sponsor? [( )] An external adviser who writes the strategy once. [( )] A group with no named lead. [(X)] A named leader with budget and authority who is accountable for the long-term value of credentials. [( )] A supplier who maintains the platform. **** A sponsor is a named leader with authority and resources who answers for long-term value. First steps then start with a small pilot, a delivery lead and a core group. **** ## Sources and further reading Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. The following are official or framework-owner sources that exist. This list gives titles and publishers only, so that you can find the current versions through the publisher's own website. Always check the current version. - ICoBC, *Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF)*, International Council on Badges and Credentials, Berlin. Framework owner for skill STRV, the VRITE pillars and the levels and stages used in this course. - European Union, Regulation (EU) 2024/1183 amending Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 as regards establishing the European Digital Identity Framework (often called eIDAS 2.0). Official Journal of the European Union. - European Union, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (the AI Act). Official Journal of the European Union. - European Commission, information pages on the European Digital Identity Wallet and on the AI Act and the Digital Omnibus on AI. Check the current text and the final published Omnibus act for application dates. - European Commission, *Europass* and the European Qualifications Framework (EQF), information pages on recognition and transparency of skills and qualifications in Europe. - Council of the European Union, Council Recommendation of 16 June 2022 on a European approach to micro-credentials for lifelong learning and employability. - W3C, *Verifiable Credentials Data Model* and *Open Badges* (maintained by 1EdTech Consortium), standards that describe formats for digital credentials.