Family → Profile → Curricula Chain

Theory & origin

The chain formalizes what corporate universities discovered from GE Crotonville onward and what the capability-academy movement (Bersin and others) rebuilt for the skills era: training investment only compounds when it is anchored to the job architecture. The logic runs in one direction — the family defines the competency domains, the role profile fixes required proficiency per level, assessment against the profile produces the gap, and curricula are designed to close exactly that gap. Learning paths then fall out mechanically: the L2→L3 path is the delta between two profiles. Break any link and you get the familiar failure — a course catalogue nobody can navigate, training consumed as entertainment, and promotion decisions with no capability evidence behind them.

How a consultant runs it

1. 01 Verify the upstream links exist: no family competency model and levelled profiles, no chain — build those first or decline the academy.
2. 02 Define competency domains per family and required proficiency per level in the role profiles — this grid IS the curriculum blueprint.
3. 03 Assess incumbents against their profile to size the real gap per level; design against measured gaps, not topic wish-lists.
4. 04 Build curricula as level-transition paths (L2→L3), each module mapped to a profile competency, and retire everything in the catalogue that maps to nothing.
5. 05 Wire it to talent decisions: certification gates promotion evidence, and the academy reports capability movement, not attendance.

Worked example

An insurer’s claims division (600 people, L1-L4) spends €2.1m a year on a 340-course catalogue with flat capability scores. The chain rebuild: the claims family gets six competency domains, profiles fix required proficiency per level, and assessment shows the real gaps concentrate in negotiation at L2 and regulation at L3. Curricula shrink to 4 level-paths of 6 modules each — 96% of the old catalogue maps to nothing and is retired. Certification gates the L2→L3 promotion. A year later capability scores move for the first time, training spend drops 40%, and promotion disputes fall because the evidence standard is public.

Common pitfalls

1. 01 Building curricula from topic brainstorms instead of measured profile gaps — the catalogue regrows
2. 02 Profiles written as adjectives, making gap assessment (and therefore the whole chain) unmeasurable
3. 03 Keeping the legacy catalogue alongside the paths "just in case", splitting attention and budget
4. 04 No certification-to-promotion link, so the academy stays optional and capability never becomes evidence

Sample deliverable

One real engagement, end to end — watch the numbers travel from raw input, onto the chart, into the artifact.