# Skills-Based Hiring and Internal Mobility with Credentials *Using credentials as evidence in selection and career moves.* Course ID: ICB-P16 ## About this course ### Who this course is for This course is for three groups: - Learning and development leads and corporate academy leads. - HR, talent acquisition and internal mobility professionals. - Executive sponsors such as the CHRO, CLO and CDO, who decide how far skills-based practice goes in the organisation. You should have completed **ICB-F04 Checking a Digital Credential: What Verification Proves** and **ICB-F05 Skills Language 101: Frameworks, Taxonomies and Levels**. This course builds on both. It assumes you know what a verification check does and does not prove, and that you can read a skills framework and its levels. ### What you will be able to do This course sits at ICSF skill TALN "Skills-based talent practice", level L3 "Enable", stage A "Ability". At this level you design processes that use credentials for selection, mobility or development in a unit, and you check them for fairness. At the Ability stage you practise on realistic tasks in a controlled setting, here a set of cases and one design project. Learning outcomes: 1. Redesign a job advert and a selection step around skills and credentials. 2. Decide which credentials to accept for which requirement, and how to verify them. 3. Use credentials in internal mobility and development conversations. 4. Check selection processes for fairness and legal risk. ### Workload The course is a blended cohort programme with 8 hours of notional learning. This file covers the self-paced part. Live and workshop elements appear as facilitator notes in each module. The notional time includes reading, practice activities, quizzes, the live sessions and the time needed to write your redesign document. ### How it is assessed You complete a knowledge check with ten single-choice questions. You also submit one redesign document: a redesigned hiring process for one role, with acceptance rules for credentials and a fairness check. A trained assessor marks the document against the rubric in the section "Assessment and badge". Nothing in this file grades the document. ### Badge Successful learners receive the badge **"Skills-Based Hiring and Internal Mobility with Credentials (Ability, L3)"**, alignment code **ICSF-TALN-L3-A**. The badge evidence is your redesign document. The badge records that you showed this ability on the assessed task. It does not prove competence in any particular job. ### Outcomes, modules and assessment | Outcome | Module | How it is assessed | |---|---|---| | 1. Redesign a job advert and a selection step around skills and credentials | Skills-based job design | Module practice activity; redesign document (advert and selection step); knowledge check | | 1. Redesign a job advert and a selection step around skills and credentials | From degrees to skills | Module quiz; knowledge check | | 2. Decide which credentials to accept for which requirement, and how to verify them | Credentials in selection | Module practice activity; redesign document (acceptance rules); knowledge check | | 3. Use credentials in internal mobility and development conversations | Internal mobility | Module practice activity; redesign document (internal route); knowledge check | | 4. Check selection processes for fairness and legal risk | Fairness and law | Module practice activity; redesign document (fairness check); knowledge check | ### How to work with this file Each module has level-3 units, an inline graphic, a worked example, a practice activity and a quiz. Do the practice activities in writing. You will reuse your notes in the redesign document. Choose one real role from your organisation at the start of Module 2 and carry it through the course.

Facilitator notes

Plan an opening live session of about 45 minutes. Ask each participant to name one role they will redesign and to confirm they can share non-confidential material from it. Agree a rule for confidentiality: participants may anonymise employer names and use illustrative figures. Explain that the self-paced work comes first and the live sessions use the participants' own drafts.

## From degrees to skills ### Why employers look beyond degrees Many job adverts list a degree as the first requirement. A degree is a useful signal. It shows that a person completed a programme at an education provider. It does not say, on its own, which specific tasks the person can do. Skills-based hiring starts from a different question: what must this person be able to do in the role, and what evidence shows it? A degree can be part of the evidence. So can a work sample, a portfolio, a structured interview, a test or a digital credential that describes a skill and how it was assessed. Skills-based hiring and internal mobility are widely discussed, and practice varies a great deal between organisations. Some organisations remove degree requirements for a few roles. Others rebuild whole job families around skills. This course does not assume one model. It gives you a method you can apply in your own unit, and it keeps the decision with people who can explain it. > Credentials provide the evidence layer. They do not replace judgement about the role. ### The evidence layer A credential is a statement by an issuer about an earner. A good credential says who issued it, what the earner did or showed, and how that was assessed. Open Badges 3.0 and the Comprehensive Learner Record (CLR) 2.0 are current specifications for expressing such statements in a digital form that can be verified. Platform support for them is still uneven, so check the conformance certification of any tool before you rely on it. From ICB-F04 you know that verification proves limited things: usually that the credential was issued by the named issuer, has not been altered and has not been revoked. It does not prove that the earner can do the task today, and it does not prove that the assessment was rigorous. Keep that limit in mind throughout this course. ### Three layers of a skills-based requirement Think of every requirement in a job as having three layers: 1. **The skill**: what the person must be able to do, in plain words. 2. **The level**: how well, in what context, with how much independence. A framework such as ICSF or your own competency model gives you the level language (see ICB-F05). 3. **The evidence**: what you will accept as proof, and how you will check it. A degree requirement usually hides all three layers. "Degree in business" does not tell candidates which skill is needed or at what level, and it does not tell your selectors what to look for. Rewriting a requirement means making each layer visible. **Graphic: from a degree filter to an evidence-based requirement** ### What changes for the organisation Moving from degrees to skills changes work in several places. Hiring managers must describe tasks, not only titles. Recruiters need guidance on how to read credentials. The corporate academy may need to describe its own programmes in skills language so that internal credentials can be used as evidence. Executive sponsors must accept that the process may be slower to design at first and that some roles are not suitable. Roles with a legal licensing requirement, for example, keep that requirement. **Worked example: The academy and the finance operations team** A corporate academy lead at a mid-sized logistics company (illustrative) meets the head of finance operations. The team's advert for an accounts payable analyst says "Bachelor's degree in accounting or finance required". Over three years the team has hired people with that degree and has still struggled to fill the role. The academy lead asks the head of finance operations to list what the analyst does in the first six months. The list contains five tasks: match invoices to purchase orders, resolve payment exceptions, run the weekly payment batch, reconcile supplier statements and explain variances to buyers. The lead then writes each task as a skill with a level, such as "Reconciles supplier statements to the ledger independently and flags unusual items with a short written note". The lead asks what evidence would convince the team. The head names three: a short reconciliation exercise, a structured interview with two scenario questions, and any credential that was assessed on the same tasks. The degree moves from "required" to "one way to show the underlying knowledge". Outcome: the requirement now has three visible layers. The lead notes two open questions to settle in Module 3: which credentials count as evidence, and how they will be checked. **Practice activity: Unpack one degree requirement** Choose one role that your unit hires for, or one you know well. Copy the current education or experience requirement into your notes. Then: 1. List five tasks the person does in their first six months. 2. Write each task as a skill with a level in one sentence. 3. For each skill, name two kinds of evidence you would accept. 4. Mark any requirement that has a legal basis (for example a licence) and keep it as it is. 5. Note which tasks you could not describe. These are gaps to resolve with the hiring manager. Keep your notes. You will use them in Module 2. **Question 1.** A hiring manager says "we need a degree because it shows the person is capable". What is the most useful next step in a skills-based approach? [( )] Accept the statement and keep the degree requirement unchanged. [(X)] Ask which tasks the person must do and what evidence would show they can do them. [( )] Replace the degree with a longer list of job titles from previous employers. [( )] Ask candidates to upload any credential they have, whatever its subject. **** The manager's statement points to a need that the degree stands in for. Asking about tasks and evidence turns that need into a visible skill, level and proof. Accepting the statement leaves the hidden layers hidden, and a list of titles or any credential does not describe the skill. **** **Question 2.** Which description best fits the role of a digital credential in skills-based hiring? [( )] It replaces the interview, because it proves the candidate will perform well. [( )] It is useful only for candidates without a degree. [(X)] It is one form of evidence about a skill, with a named issuer and an assessment method that selectors can check. [( )] It is a legal certificate that employers must accept. **** A credential is a statement by an issuer about an earner. It is evidence that selectors weigh with other evidence. It does not guarantee future performance, it is useful for any candidate, and employers are not obliged to accept it. **** **Question 3.** What does a successful verification check usually prove? [( )] That the earner can do the skill today. [( )] That the assessment behind the credential was rigorous. [(X)] That the credential was issued by the named issuer, is unaltered and has not been revoked. [( )] That the earner is the best candidate for the role. **** As covered in ICB-F04, verification confirms issuer, integrity and status. Whether the earner can perform today, and how strong the assessment was, are separate questions that need other evidence. **** **Question 4.** The three layers of a skills-based requirement are: [( )] Title, salary band and location. [( )] Degree, experience and references. [(X)] Skill, level and evidence. [( )] Issuer, earner and verifier. **** A skills-based requirement states the skill, the level at which it must be shown, and the evidence accepted. The other lists describe different things. ****

Facilitator notes

Run a 30-minute live session after this module. Ask participants to share one requirement from the practice activity in pairs, and have the partner challenge it: "What would I see a person do?" Collect examples where the requirement stood in for a hidden concern, such as communication, reliability or regulatory risk. Remind the group that a hiring manager's worry is usually valid even when the degree is a poor way to address it.

## Skills-based job design ### Start from the work Job design is the step that most organisations skip. Teams edit an old advert instead of asking what the job needs now. A skills-based design starts from the work: the outcomes the role must deliver, the tasks that produce them and the skills those tasks need. A simple sequence works well in practice: 1. **Outcomes**: what should be different because this person is in the role? 2. **Tasks**: what do they do, how often and with whom? 3. **Skills and levels**: which skills are needed, at what level, and which can be learned on the job within a stated time? 4. **Evidence**: what will you accept at each stage of selection? Use a shared skills language. If your organisation has a skills taxonomy or a competency model, use it. If not, a recognised framework gives you consistent wording and level descriptions, as covered in ICB-F05. Avoid inventing new terms for the same skill in each advert. ### Essential, trainable and nice to have Not every skill needs to be present on day one. Separate requirements into three groups: - **Essential at start**: the person cannot do the job safely or effectively without it. Keep this list short. - **Trainable within a stated period**: the person can reach the level through onboarding, for example within three months. - **Nice to have**: it helps, but the role works without it. Do not use it as a filter. A long essential list narrows the pool and often repeats the old degree filter in different words. Ask of each essential item: "What happens in week one if the person lacks this?" If the answer is "we train them", move it to the trainable group. ### Writing the advert A skills-based advert describes the work and the evidence. It uses plain language and avoids unexplained jargon. It tells candidates how they can show their skills and which credentials, samples or tests you will consider. It also states that equivalent evidence is welcome, so people with non-standard routes can apply. Check the advert for these points: - It opens with what the person will do and achieve. - It lists a small number of essential skills, each with a level in one line. - It names several ways to show each skill. - It states the selection steps and what each one assesses. - It avoids terms that signal age, gender or background where they are not needed for the work. Section 5 returns to this. **Graphic: job advert before and after** ### Designing the selection step An advert promises a way to show skills. The selection step must deliver it. For each essential skill, design one step that gives candidates a fair chance to show it. Common options are a work sample, a scenario interview with a scoring guide, a short assessment or a review of a credential. Keep each step proportionate to the role and the stage: ask for a small task early and a larger one only from a short list. Write the scoring guide before you see candidates. Describe what a strong, adequate and weak response looks like for each skill, in terms of the task. Use the same guide for every candidate and for every selector. This makes decisions easier to explain and easier to check for fairness later. **Worked example: Redesigning a learning programme coordinator advert** An HR business partner at a regional hospital group (illustrative) helps the corporate academy hire a learning programme coordinator. The old advert asks for a degree in education, three years in a similar role and "excellent communication skills". Working with the academy lead, she lists the outcomes: programmes start on time, learners receive clear information, and records are accurate. She turns these into three essential skills with levels: - Schedules and coordinates programmes across several teams without supervision. - Writes clear learner communications that need no follow-up questions in most cases. - Maintains accurate learning records and corrects errors found in audits. Three further items move to "trainable within three months": the learning platform in use, the group's reporting formats and the hospital's compliance training catalogue. For evidence, the advert names a short scheduling exercise, a writing task of about 20 minutes and a structured interview. It lists credentials that candidates may submit for each skill, such as a verified digital credential for programme coordination or records management, and it welcomes equivalent evidence. The degree and the years of experience are removed from the essential list. She writes a one-page scoring guide with three levels of response for each exercise and shares it with the interviewers before the advert goes live. Outcome: the advert describes work, levels and evidence. The selection step has a matching scoring guide. **Practice activity: Redesign an advert and one selection step** Use the role you chose in Module 1. Write the following in your notes: 1. Three outcomes of the role. 2. Three to five essential skills, each with a level in one sentence. 3. Two to three trainable skills, with the period in which a new person should reach the level. 4. For each essential skill, two ways a candidate can show it, one of which can be a credential. 5. One selection step in detail: what the candidate does, how long it takes and a three-level scoring guide. 6. A closing sentence for the advert that welcomes equivalent evidence. This is the first working draft of your redesign document. **Question 1.** Why should the scoring guide be written before candidates are seen? [( )] It saves time for the interviewers on the day. [(X)] It makes decisions consistent across candidates and selectors and easier to check later. [( )] It lets the hiring manager keep the guide confidential. [( )] It removes the need for any human judgement. **** A guide written in advance fixes the standard against the task, not against the candidates who happen to apply. This supports consistency and later fairness checks. Judgement remains with the selectors. **** **Question 2.** A skill is needed in the role but a new person could reach the required level within three months of onboarding. Where should it appear in the advert? [( )] As an essential requirement, to be safe. [(X)] As a trainable skill, with the period named. [( )] It should not be mentioned at all. [( )] As a degree requirement. **** Naming trainable skills with a period widens the pool and gives candidates accurate information. Listing everything as essential tends to recreate a narrow filter. **** **Question 3.** Which opening is most consistent with a skills-based advert? [( )] "We are looking for a dynamic, energetic team player with a relevant degree." [( )] "Candidates must hold a qualification from a recognised university." [(X)] "In this role you will schedule programmes across teams and keep learning records accurate." [( )] "Ten years of experience in learning administration is preferred." **** A skills-based advert starts with what the person will do. The other openings use proxies such as personality, qualification or years. **** **Question 4.** What should each essential skill in the advert come with? [( )] A salary range. [( )] A named person who will assess it. [(X)] A level in plain words and at least one way to show it. [( )] A reference to a specific commercial tool. **** Each essential skill needs a level and an evidence route so that candidates and selectors share the same expectation. ****

Facilitator notes

Hold a 60-minute live workshop. Participants bring their draft advert and swap with a partner from a different function. The partner reads the advert as a candidate would and answers three questions: What will I do? What must I already be able to do? How can I show it? Ask each pair to mark any phrase that they could not turn into a task. Close by collecting the three most common vague phrases in the room and rewriting them together. Remind participants to remove confidential details before sharing.

## Credentials in selection ### Choosing what to accept Once the advert names essential skills and levels, you need acceptance rules. An acceptance rule says which credentials count as evidence for which requirement, under which conditions, and how they will be checked. Without rules, each selector decides alone. That produces inconsistent results and makes fairness checks difficult. Build acceptance rules around the requirement, not around the credential. For each essential skill ask: - Which credentials could show this skill at this level? - What would we need to know about each one before we rely on it? - What other evidence can stand in if a candidate has no credential? The last question matters. A credential is one route. If it is the only route, you have created a new gatekeeper. ### Questions to ask about a credential From ICB-F04 and ICB-F05 you know the main things to look at. Use a short checklist: - **Issuer**: who issued it, and are they a recognised body for this skill? - **Claim**: what does it say the earner did or can do, in terms of a skill and a level? - **Assessment**: how was the claim assessed? A test, a supervised task, a portfolio review, attendance only? - **Alignment**: does it map to a framework or to your own skill descriptions? - **Currency**: when was it issued, and does it expire or need renewal? - **Status**: is it still valid, not revoked? Credentials that record attendance only say that someone took part. Credentials that record an assessed performance against criteria say more. Neither is "better" in general. The question is which one fits the requirement. ### Verification in practice Verification is a defined step in your process. State who does it, when and how. For digital credentials that follow Open Badges 3.0 or a similar specification, the check usually confirms the issuer, the integrity of the data and the current status. Tool support varies, so check the conformance certification of the tools you use. Plan for these situations: - The candidate holds a credential in a format your tools cannot read. Offer an alternative way to verify, for example a link to the issuer's verification page or a statement from the issuer. - The credential cannot be verified. Say what happens next, such as a conversation with the candidate or a different evidence route. Do not reject silently. - The credential is verified but is not relevant to the skill. Record that it does not count for this requirement and say why. Remember what verification proves. It supports trust in the statement. It does not replace your own check that the statement matches the requirement. **Graphic: choosing and checking a credential** ### Writing acceptance rules Write the rules in a table so that selectors can apply them in the same way. A simple structure has these columns: requirement, accepted credentials or credential types, minimum conditions, verification step, alternative evidence. Keep the table short. A rule that needs a page of text will not be applied consistently. Review the rules at set intervals. New credentials appear and some issuers change their assessment. Assign an owner for the table and a date for the next review. **Worked example: Acceptance rules for an academy facilitator** A learning and development lead at a manufacturing group (illustrative) is hiring a facilitator for the academy's supervisor programme. The advert names three essential skills: designing short workshops, facilitating groups of up to 20, and giving feedback on observed practice. She builds an acceptance table with one row per skill. For "facilitating groups of up to 20" she writes: - Accepted credentials: a credential from an education provider or professional body whose description shows an assessed, observed facilitation task. - Minimum conditions: the credential states the task, the assessment method and the date of issue, which must be within the last five years. - Verification: the recruiter checks issuer, integrity and status using the issuer's verification page or a conformance-tested tool. - Alternative evidence: a 15-minute live facilitation of a topic of the candidate's choice, scored with the guide. A candidate submits a credential for "Introduction to training" that records attendance at a one-day course. The recruiter verifies it, sees that the claim is attendance and does not list an assessed facilitation task, and records "verified, does not meet minimum conditions for this requirement". She invites the candidate to the live facilitation. The candidate passes that step and goes forward. Outcome: the rule is applied the same way for every candidate. The recruiter gives a reason for each decision and keeps the alternative route open. **Practice activity: Write acceptance rules for your role** Take the essential skills from your Module 2 draft. In your notes create a table with the columns requirement, accepted credentials or types, minimum conditions, verification step and alternative evidence. Complete one row for each essential skill. Then: 1. Check that every row has an alternative evidence route. 2. Write a one-sentence instruction for the case where a credential cannot be verified. 3. Write a one-sentence instruction for the case where a credential is verified but not relevant. 4. Name the owner of the table and a review date. This table forms the second part of your redesign document. **Question 1.** A candidate submits a verified credential that records attendance on a course. The requirement is "facilitates groups independently". What is the best decision? [( )] Accept it, because the credential is verified. [( )] Reject the candidate without a reason. [(X)] Record that the credential is verified but does not meet the condition, and offer another evidence route. [( )] Ask the candidate to take the course again. **** Verification shows the credential is genuine. The rule then asks whether it fits the requirement. Attendance does not show independent facilitation, so another evidence route keeps the process fair. **** **Question 2.** Why should every acceptance rule include alternative evidence? [(X)] A credential should not become the only gate, because people reach skills by different routes. [( )] It makes the table longer and more impressive. [( )] It removes the need to verify credentials. [( )] It allows selectors to choose whichever evidence they prefer. **** If credentials are the only route, the process excludes capable people without them. A defined alternative keeps access open and keeps selectors consistent. **** **Question 3.** Which item belongs in the checklist for assessing a credential? [( )] The candidate's preferred salary. [( )] The colour of the digital badge. [(X)] How the claim was assessed. [( )] The number of credentials the candidate holds in total. **** The assessment method shows what the credential can support. The other items say nothing about the requirement. **** **Question 4.** A recruiter's tool cannot read a candidate's credential format. What should the process say? [( )] Reject the credential. [( )] Accept it without checking. [(X)] Offer another way to verify, such as the issuer's verification page or a statement from the issuer. [( )] Ask the candidate to retake the assessment. **** The tool's limit should not penalise the candidate. A defined alternative way to verify keeps the process consistent and fair. **** **Question 5.** Who should own the acceptance table, and what should happen to it over time? [( )] Each candidate, who updates it at application. [( )] No one, because it is fixed once written. [(X)] A named owner, who reviews it on a set date as credentials and issuers change. [( )] The vendor of the recruitment tool. **** Acceptance rules age. A named owner and a review date keep them current and applied consistently. ****

Facilitator notes

Hold a 60-minute live session in small groups. Give each group three anonymised sample credential descriptions prepared in advance: one assessed performance, one attendance only, one with unclear assessment. Ask the groups to apply the checklist and decide, for one stated requirement, whether to accept, ask for other evidence or record as not counting. Compare decisions across groups and discuss the differences. Stress that the aim is a consistent, explainable rule, not agreement on a single answer.

## Internal mobility ### Why use credentials inside the organisation Internal mobility covers moves between roles, projects and teams inside one organisation. Employees often hold skills that their managers do not see. A person may have completed assessed programmes in the corporate academy, taken part in projects or earned credentials from outside providers. Without a shared way to record and read this, the skills stay invisible. Credentials give internal mobility an evidence layer. A credential from the academy states a skill, a level and an assessment. A manager in another unit can read it, check it and consider the person for an opportunity. This is the same logic as in external hiring, applied to people who already work with you. Skills-based internal mobility is widely discussed and practice varies. Some organisations run an internal opportunity marketplace. Others rely on managers and HR business partners to match people with openings. The method in this module works for both. ### The flow from credential to opportunity A useful way to think about internal mobility is as a flow: 1. The employee earns or holds a credential and chooses to share it. 2. The organisation holds the credential in a record that the employee controls or can access. 3. An opportunity is described in skills language, with the same three layers: skill, level, evidence. 4. A match is made, by the employee, a manager or a tool, and reviewed by a person. 5. A conversation follows about fit, development needs and next steps. 6. The outcome feeds back: new experience, new credentials, an updated record. The employee stays at the centre. They decide what to share. They should be able to see how it is used. **Graphic: internal mobility flow from credential to opportunity** ### Development conversations A credential can anchor a development conversation. It gives the employee and the manager a shared, specific statement to discuss. Useful questions include: - Which skill does this credential show, and at what level? - Where have you used it in your current work? - Which opportunity in the organisation needs this skill? - Which skills for that opportunity do you not yet hold? How could you build them? - Which credential or experience would count as evidence of that skill? The conversation should record agreed next steps: a project, a stretch task, a learning pathway, or a decision that the person is ready for a move. It should not treat credentials as the only measure of readiness. Experience, feedback and observed work count too. ### Care points inside the organisation Internal use of credentials carries its own risks: - **Consent and control**: employees should know what is stored, who sees it and for what purpose. Data protection rules apply. Check with your data protection officer. - **Equal access to credentials**: if only some groups can reach the academy's programmes, using its credentials for mobility passes that gap on. Check who earns credentials and who does not. - **Over-reliance on matching**: a tool may propose matches. A person should review them and be able to explain the decision. - **Quality of internal credentials**: an internal credential that records attendance only will not support a mobility decision. Describe assessment clearly. **Worked example: A mobility pathway from operations to learning design** A talent mobility partner at a retail group (illustrative) wants to open a learning content designer role to people from store operations. The role needs three skills: turning a process into a short learning activity, writing clear instructions and testing material with users. She writes the opportunity in skills language and lists the credentials and experience that count as evidence. Internal credentials from the academy's "Training for store trainers" programme count if they record an assessed activity design. A store trainer, Amara (illustrative name), holds that credential and has shared it to her skills record. The mobility partner proposes the opportunity to her through the group's mobility process. Amara agrees to a development conversation with the content team lead. In the conversation they discuss which of the three skills the credential covers. It shows activity design. It says little about testing with users. The lead suggests a three-month shadow assignment on a current project, after which Amara will take part in a user test and write a short reflection. They agree that the outcome will be a new credential from the academy for usability testing, if she completes the assessed task. Outcome: the credential opened the conversation. The conversation identified a gap and a way to close it. A person made the decision. **Practice activity: Plan an internal route for your role** Using the role from earlier modules, plan an internal route in your notes: 1. Name two internal roles or groups from which you would welcome applicants. 2. Write the opportunity in skills language: skills, levels, accepted evidence including internal credentials. 3. List which existing internal credentials would count, and check each against the checklist from Module 3 (assessed or attendance only?). 4. Write five questions you would ask in a development conversation anchored on a credential. 5. Write two safeguards for employees: one on consent and one on equal access. This forms the third part of your redesign document. **Question 1.** What should a development conversation anchored on a credential do? [( )] Decide the person's promotion on the credential alone. [(X)] Use the credential as a shared starting point to discuss skills, gaps and next steps, alongside experience and feedback. [( )] Replace the manager's judgement with the credential. [( )] Record only the credentials the employee has not earned. **** The credential gives both people a concrete statement to discuss. The decision draws on several sources of evidence. **** **Question 2.** Who should decide which of their credentials are shared into the organisation's skills record? [( )] The manager, without asking. [( )] The learning platform, automatically for everyone. [(X)] The employee, with clear information on what is stored and how it is used. [( )] The issuer of each credential. **** Employee control and transparency build trust and support data protection duties. Check the rules that apply in your jurisdiction. **** **Question 3.** An internal credential records attendance at a one-day workshop. How should it be used for a mobility decision? [( )] As strong evidence of the skill taught. [( )] It should never be mentioned. [(X)] As evidence of participation only, with other evidence needed for the skill. [( )] As proof of readiness for a senior role. **** Attendance shows participation. For a mobility decision about skill, you need evidence of assessed performance or work experience. **** **Question 4.** A tool proposes a match between an employee and an opening. What is the right safeguard? [( )] Accept the match automatically. [(X)] A person reviews the match and can explain the decision to the employee. [( )] Hide the match from the employee. [( )] Delete the employee's record. **** Matching tools can help find options. A person reviews and explains the decision. This also supports the oversight duties discussed in Module 5. ****

Facilitator notes

Run a 45-minute role-play. Pair participants as employee and manager. Give the "employee" a short anonymised credential description and an opening described in skills language. The pair holds a ten-minute development conversation using the five questions from the unit, then swaps roles. Debrief with two questions: What did the credential make easier to say? What did it leave unsaid? Invite an HR or data protection colleague, if available, to comment on consent and storage.

## Fairness and law ### Why fairness needs a check A skills-based process can reduce some barriers. It can also create new ones. A credential-based rule may favour people who had access to a certain provider. A work sample may disadvantage people with caring duties if it takes unpaid hours. A tool that screens applications may reproduce patterns from past decisions. Good intent does not guarantee a fair outcome. You need to check. A fairness check asks three questions of each step in the process: 1. **Access**: can all suitable candidates reach this step and show their skills? 2. **Relevance**: does this step measure something the job needs? 3. **Outcomes**: do results differ between groups in ways we cannot explain by the requirement? Where the answer is unclear, you adjust the step, add an alternative route or gather more information. ### Legal frame Employment selection is regulated. The rules differ by country and sector, so this course gives a map and not legal advice. Take advice from your legal team before you finalise a process. The main areas to consider are: - **Equal treatment and anti-discrimination law**: rules that protect people from unfair treatment in hiring and promotion on protected grounds. The grounds and the tests differ between jurisdictions. - **Data protection**: rules on collecting, storing and using personal data, including credentials, test results and records. Candidates and employees have rights over their data. - **Employee representation and consultation**: in some places, works councils or similar bodies must be informed or consulted about selection tools and processes. - **Reasonable adjustments and accessibility**: candidates with disabilities may need adjustments to tests and tasks. Plan for them from the start. - **Sector rules**: some roles require a licence or a formal qualification by law. Keep those requirements. ### AI screening tools and the EU AI Act Many recruitment tools use AI to rank applications, analyse text or video, or propose matches. In the EU, the AI Act regulates AI systems according to risk. AI systems used in employment, such as for recruitment, selection, and decisions on promotion, are among the areas treated as high-risk under the Act's Annex III. High-risk systems carry obligations. They include risk management, data governance, documentation, transparency to deployers, and human oversight. Organisations that deploy such systems also have duties, for example to use them according to instructions and to assign human oversight to people with the necessary competence and authority. The timing of the high-risk obligations is subject to change. Under the AI Omnibus, for which a provisional agreement was reached on 7 May 2026, the Annex III high-risk obligations apply from 2 December 2027 and obligations for Annex I product-embedded systems from 2 August 2028. Check the final published text before you rely on these dates. Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. What this means for your process, whether or not you are in the EU: - Ask the supplier of any AI tool whether it is classed as high-risk and what documentation and oversight features it provides. - Do not let a tool make a final decision about a candidate or employee. A trained person reviews the output, can disagree with it and can explain the decision. - Give the human reviewer time, information and authority. A review that takes five seconds and always agrees with the tool is not oversight. - Keep records of how the tool is used and of any overrides, so that you can check outcomes. - Tell candidates and employees when AI is used and how to ask for a human review. ### Running the fairness check Build the check into the redesign. For each step in your process: - Describe the step and what it measures. - List who might find it harder to reach or complete, and why. - Name an adjustment or an alternative route. - Decide which data you will monitor, for example application, progression and offer rates by group, where the law permits collecting such data. - Name who reviews the data and how often, and what triggers a change. Where numbers are small, treat results with care. Small groups give unstable percentages. Use qualitative review too: read rejected applications, speak to candidates, ask selectors where they hesitated. **Graphic: fairness check on a selection step** **Worked example: Checking a screening step before launch** An HR director at a public utility (illustrative) plans to use an AI-supported tool that ranks applications for a customer service team leader role. The corporate academy lead supports the redesign and reviews the process with her. They apply the fairness check to the screening step. On access, they find that the tool reads credentials only in one digital format. Candidates with older paper certificates or credentials in other formats would be ranked lower. They add a route for these candidates to be reviewed by a person. On relevance, they note that the tool ranks on years of experience, which the redesigned advert has moved to "nice to have". They ask the supplier to configure the tool to the three essential skills instead, or they will not use its ranking. On outcomes, they plan to review progression rates at each stage every quarter, where the law allows the data to be collected, and to read a sample of low-ranked applications. They ask the supplier for the documentation on the tool's risk classification and oversight features. They name a trained reviewer, with authority to override the ranking, and set aside time for review. They tell candidates in the advert that a tool supports screening, that a person makes the decision, and how to request a human review. They ask the legal team to confirm consultation duties with employee representatives. Outcome: the screening step is adjusted before launch. Oversight is assigned to a named person. The monitoring plan has dates and owners. All legal points are passed to the legal team. **Practice activity: Fairness check for your redesign** Take the full process from your earlier work: advert, selection steps, acceptance rules and internal route. In your notes: 1. List every step in the process, in order. 2. For each step, answer the three questions of access, relevance and outcomes, in one or two sentences each. 3. For each risk you find, write one adjustment or alternative route. 4. If an AI tool is used or planned anywhere, state who provides human oversight, what authority that person has, what records are kept and how candidates are told. If no AI tool is used, state how you would check this if one were introduced. 5. List which legal points you need to confirm with your legal team, data protection officer or employee representatives. 6. Write your monitoring plan: which data, how often, who reviews, what triggers a change. This is the fourth and final part of your redesign document. **Question 1.** Which three questions form the core of a fairness check on a selection step? [( )] Cost, speed and convenience. [( )] Issuer, earner and verifier. [(X)] Access, relevance and outcomes. [( )] Skill, level and evidence. **** The fairness check asks whether suitable candidates can reach the step, whether it measures something the job needs, and whether results differ between groups without a job-related reason. **** **Question 2.** Under the AI Act, how are AI systems used for recruitment and selection in employment generally treated? [( )] They are banned in all cases. [( )] They fall outside the Act. [(X)] They are treated as high-risk, which brings obligations such as documentation and human oversight. [( )] They are exempt if the supplier is outside the EU. **** Employment is among the areas listed as high-risk in the Act's Annex III. Check the final published text and the application dates, as the timing is subject to the AI Omnibus. **** **Question 3.** What makes human oversight of an AI screening tool meaningful? [( )] A person signs a form once a year. [( )] A person approves every output within seconds. [(X)] A trained person has time, information and authority to question and override the tool, and can explain the decision. [( )] The supplier reviews its own tool. **** Oversight works only if the reviewer can really challenge the output. A rubber stamp does not meet that aim. **** **Question 4.** A credential-based rule favours people who attended one provider's programme. What is the most appropriate response in the fairness check? [( )] Keep the rule, because the credentials are verified. [(X)] Add other evidence routes and check whether access to the programme differs between groups. [( )] Remove all credentials from the process. [( )] Ask candidates to explain why they did not attend. **** The check on access finds the risk. Adding alternative evidence routes and looking at who can reach the programme addresses it without discarding credentials that are relevant. **** **Question 5.** When monitoring selection outcomes for small groups, what is sensible? [( )] Treat any percentage difference as proof of bias. [( )] Ignore the data because the groups are small. [(X)] Treat percentages with care and add qualitative review, such as reading sample applications and speaking to selectors. [( )] Publish the figures for each individual. **** Small numbers give unstable percentages. Combining the figures with qualitative review gives a more reliable picture. ****

Facilitator notes

Hold a 60-minute live clinic. Invite a legal or data protection colleague as a guest where possible, and remind participants that the session is not legal advice. In groups of three, participants swap their fairness check and play a critical friend: each reader finds one step where access is unclear and one place where AI oversight is thin. Collect the legal questions the groups raised into a list for follow-up with the organisation's legal team. Check the current text and dates of the AI Act and the AI Omnibus before the session and update participants.

## Assessment and badge ### The assessed task You complete one task: **redesign one role's hiring process with acceptance rules and a fairness check**. You use the role you worked on through the course. The task covers all four learning outcomes. Your submission is the **redesign document**. It is the badge evidence. The document should be clear enough that a colleague could run the process from it. Aim for roughly 1,500 to 2,500 words plus tables. You may anonymise the employer and use illustrative figures. Do not include personal data about real candidates or employees. Your document contains five parts: 1. **Role context and skills**: the role, its outcomes and the essential and trainable skills with levels. 2. **Redesigned advert and selection step**: the new advert text and one selection step in detail, with a scoring guide. 3. **Acceptance rules**: a table of requirements, accepted credentials, conditions, verification steps and alternative evidence. 4. **Internal route**: how an internal candidate can use credentials for this role or for a move, including the development conversation. 5. **Fairness and legal check**: the step-by-step check, adjustments, AI oversight, legal points to confirm and a monitoring plan. A trained assessor marks the document with the rubric below. This file does not grade it. ### Rubric | Criterion | Developing | Secure | Strong | |---|---|---|---| | 1. Advert and selection step (Outcome 1) | The advert still relies on a degree or years of experience. Skills are listed without levels. The selection step has no scoring guide. | The advert describes outcomes and a small set of essential skills with levels. Trainable skills are named. One selection step has a scoring guide written for the skill. | The advert and selection step are clear to candidates and selectors. Essential, trainable and nice-to-have skills are separated with reasons. The scoring guide has three levels in task terms, and the step is proportionate to the stage. | | 2. Acceptance rules and verification (Outcome 2) | Credentials are accepted or rejected without conditions. Verification is not described. | The table names accepted credentials, conditions, a verification step and alternative evidence for each essential skill. | The rules distinguish assessed performance from attendance, handle unverifiable and irrelevant credentials, state what verification does and does not prove, and name an owner and review date. | | 3. Internal mobility and development (Outcome 3) | Internal use is mentioned without a route. Credentials are the only measure of readiness. | The route describes how an employee shares credentials, how the opportunity is written in skills terms and how a development conversation uses them with other evidence. | The route includes employee consent and control, equal access to internal credentials, review of tool-proposed matches by a person, and clear next steps that feed back into the employee's record. | | 4. Fairness and legal risk (Outcome 4) | Fairness is stated as intent. Legal points are missing or general. | Each step is checked for access, relevance and outcomes with adjustments. Legal points to confirm are listed. If AI is used, human oversight is named. | The check is specific to each step with alternative routes. AI oversight names the person, authority, records and candidate information. The monitoring plan has data, schedule, owner and triggers. Legal questions are precise and correctly referred to the right specialist. | | 5. Coherence and use of evidence | Parts do not connect. Claims about credentials go beyond what they can show. | Parts connect. Claims about credentials match what they can show. | The document works as one process. It is honest about limits, such as what a credential does not prove, and it is ready for a colleague to use. | ### Pass rule To earn the badge you must: 1. Score at least 70 per cent on the knowledge check below, which means at least 7 of 10 questions correct. You may repeat the knowledge check. 2. Receive a rating of "Secure" or "Strong" on every one of the five criteria in the rubric. A rating of "Developing" on any criterion means the document returns to you for revision. You may resubmit. Badge: **Skills-Based Hiring and Internal Mobility with Credentials (Ability, L3)**, alignment code **ICSF-TALN-L3-A**. The badge records that you showed this ability on the assessed task in a controlled setting. It does not prove competence in any particular job. ### Evidence submitted for the badge - The redesign document, as a single file. - A short cover note stating the role, the organisation type (anonymised if needed) and which figures are illustrative. - Confirmation that the document contains no personal data about real candidates or employees. ### Knowledge check **Question 1.** A hiring manager asks you to keep "degree required" in an advert. What is the best first step in a skills-based redesign? [( )] Remove the degree without discussion. [(X)] Ask which tasks the person must do, then write skills with levels and accepted evidence, keeping the degree only where law requires it. [( )] Add a second qualification to balance it. [( )] Make the degree optional and list no other requirements. **** The degree usually stands in for hidden needs. Turning those needs into skills, levels and evidence gives selectors a clearer basis. Legally required qualifications stay. **** **Question 2.** Which list best describes the groups into which you sort a role's requirements? [( )] Mandatory, optional and ignored. [( )] Technical, personal and legal. [(X)] Essential at start, trainable within a stated period, and nice to have. [( )] Internal, external and mixed. **** Separating essential, trainable and nice-to-have skills keeps the essential list short and the pool wide. **** **Question 3.** What should a scoring guide for a selection step do? [( )] Be written after seeing the candidates, to fit them. [( )] Remain private to the hiring manager. [(X)] Be written in advance in task terms and used the same way for every candidate and selector. [( )] Replace the need for selectors to judge. **** A guide written in advance supports consistent, explainable decisions and later fairness checks. **** **Question 4.** A candidate offers a verified credential that records course attendance for a requirement that needs independently facilitated sessions. What is the right decision? [( )] Accept it because it is verified. [( )] Reject the application without comment. [(X)] Record that it is verified but does not meet the condition, and offer another evidence route. [( )] Ask the issuer to change the credential. **** Verification shows the credential is genuine. The acceptance rule then tests fit with the requirement. Attendance does not show independent facilitation. **** **Question 5.** What does a successful verification check normally show? [( )] That the earner can perform the skill today. [( )] That the assessment behind the credential was rigorous. [(X)] That the issuer is as named, the data is unaltered and the credential has not been revoked. [( )] That the earner is the strongest candidate. **** Verification supports trust in the statement. Fit with the requirement and strength of assessment need separate judgement. **** **Question 6.** Why should acceptance rules include an alternative evidence route? [( )] To make the process longer. [(X)] So that a credential does not become the only gate and people with other routes to the skill can still show it. [( )] To avoid verifying credentials. [( )] To let selectors pick favourites. **** An alternative route keeps access open and keeps selectors consistent. **** **Question 7.** In an internal mobility process, who decides which credentials are shared into the organisation's skills record? [( )] The employee's manager alone. [( )] The learning platform, automatically. [(X)] The employee, informed about what is stored, who sees it and why. [( )] The head of HR for all staff. **** Employee control and transparency support trust and data protection duties. Check the rules in your jurisdiction. **** **Question 8.** How should a credential be used in a development conversation? [( )] As the single measure of readiness for a move. [(X)] As a shared starting point to discuss skills, gaps and next steps, alongside experience and feedback. [( )] As a reason to end the conversation early. [( )] As a replacement for the manager's input. **** A credential gives a specific statement to discuss. Decisions draw on several kinds of evidence. **** **Question 9.** Which three questions make up the fairness check on each selection step? [( )] Speed, cost and convenience. [( )] Issuer, earner and verifier. [(X)] Access, relevance and outcomes. [( )] Skill, level and evidence. **** Access asks who can reach the step, relevance asks whether the job needs it and outcomes asks whether results differ in ways the requirement does not explain. **** **Question 10.** Which statement about AI tools in recruitment under the EU AI Act is most accurate? [( )] They are outside the scope of the Act. [( )] They are prohibited in all circumstances. [(X)] AI systems used for recruitment and selection are treated as high-risk, which brings obligations such as documentation and human oversight, and the application dates should be checked in the final published text. [( )] They are exempt if a human signs off once a year. **** Employment is among the high-risk areas in Annex III of the Act. The timing of obligations is subject to the AI Omnibus, so check the final text. Oversight must be meaningful, not a formality. ****

Facilitator notes

Assessors should use the rubric as written and give written feedback against each criterion. Ask a second assessor to moderate a sample of documents, including every borderline case. Check that submissions contain no personal data about real people. Where a document rates "Developing" on one criterion, return it with specific comments and a date for resubmission. Hold a closing live session of about 45 minutes where participants present one decision from their redesign and one open legal question. Confirm the current text and dates of the AI Act and the AI Omnibus before assessing the fairness and legal criterion.

## Sources and further reading Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. The following are official texts, standards and framework owners. Check each for the current version before you rely on it. Search for the title on the owner's official website. - **ICoBC Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF)**, International Council on Badges and Credentials. The framework of skills, levels and stages that this course aligns to. - **Open Badges 3.0 specification**, 1EdTech Consortium. The specification for verifiable digital credentials used in this course as an example of an evidence format. - **Comprehensive Learner Record (CLR) 2.0 standard**, 1EdTech Consortium. The specification for richer learner records. - **W3C Verifiable Credentials Data Model**, World Wide Web Consortium. The data model on which Open Badges 3.0 builds. - **Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (the Artificial Intelligence Act)**, published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Consult the consolidated text, especially the provisions and annexes on high-risk systems and on human oversight. - **AI Omnibus (Digital Omnibus on AI)**, European Union institutions. Provisional agreement of 7 May 2026 on the timing of high-risk obligations. Check the final published text. - **General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)**, published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Relevant to storing and using personal data in selection and skills records. - **ICB-F04 Checking a Digital Credential: What Verification Proves** and **ICB-F05 Skills Language 101: Frameworks, Taxonomies and Levels**, ICoBC Kursbibliothek. The prerequisite courses for this course. For national equal treatment law, employee consultation rules and sector licensing requirements, consult the official legislation of your jurisdiction and your organisation's legal team.