EN
A compact industrial line with two stations and a row of small metal parts.

How to differentiate roles that share the same skills

When two roles share the same skills, the meaningful distinction does not come from changing the catalog. It comes from specifying the level of contribution the organization expects from each role.

PRYSMAP5 min read

Creating a separate list for every position may appear to offer more detail, but it usually creates duplication. The same capability appears under slightly different names, equivalencies become difficult to explain, and every change requires multiple catalogs to be maintained. It also forfeits an important advantage: the ability to see continuity across closely related roles.

A shared architecture begins with a different decision. The roles within a track retain the same set of skills and differ in how those capabilities are expected to be applied. The SFIA framework, for example, combines professional skills with levels of responsibility defined through autonomy, influence, and complexity. It is not the only possible model, but it demonstrates a useful relationship: capability and degree of responsibility are separate dimensions.

First, keep the object stable

If two positions belong to the same track, begin with a simple question: is the nature of their work actually different, or is it the same kind of work performed under different expectations?

In the second case, changing the skills for each role confuses content with level. A person who analyzes data in an entry-level position and one who uses data to guide strategic decisions are both practicing data analysis. What changes is the required depth, the uncertainty they must manage, the autonomy with which they make decisions, and the reach of the consequences.

It also makes progression visible: the person does not move to a different catalog; they expand how they apply familiar capabilities.

Describe the difference across four dimensions

Four dimensions are often enough to distinguish related roles without inventing new skills.

Depth. This describes the degree of mastery the work requires. It may change the range of methods a person selects, the difficulty of the problems they solve, or their ability to explain exceptions and limitations. Depth is not equivalent to years of experience; it requires observable manifestations.

Autonomy. This defines how much direction a person receives, which decisions they can make, and the outcomes for which they are accountable. One role may apply a skill within clear procedures; another must select the approach, justify it, and answer for its consequences.

Scope. This locates where the work has an effect: a task, a product, a team, several functions, or an organizational decision. Scope is not merely size. It also includes the diversity of stakeholders, the time horizon, and the cost of error.

Leadership

Leadership should not be reduced to managing people. It may appear in setting criteria, guiding others, coordinating dependencies, or sustaining decisions in ambiguous situations. It will be central in some tracks and secondary in others. There is no need to force it into every level.

The OPM competency-based classification policy reinforces one key condition: competencies must be translated into observable, measurable indicators of performance. These dimensions are useful only if they change the evidence we would accept for each role.

Turn the dimensions into observable expectations

An expectation such as “demonstrates advanced analysis” does little to distinguish one role from another. Advanced says nothing about what the person does, under which conditions, or with what responsibility.

More useful wording might distinguish the roles this way:

  • In one role, the person analyzes information using defined methods, recognizes inconsistencies, and asks for support when the data does not support a conclusion.
  • In another, the person selects methods for ambiguous problems, integrates sources with different limitations, and explains which decisions remain uncertain.
  • In a broader role, the person establishes criteria for several teams, reviews the quality of analyses, and is accountable for how the results inform consequential decisions.

All three examples preserve the same skill. What changes is the required depth, autonomy, scope, and evidence. The distinction no longer depends on adjectives.

Two abstract bird-like figures made from green, yellow, orange, and blue geometric pieces.

Test whether the architecture supports decisions

Before formalizing it, test each pair of roles against real evidence. Ask managers and subject-matter experts to independently classify representative examples of work. If they cannot explain why a piece of evidence belongs to one level rather than the next, the boundary is not yet interpretable.

The test is not intended to produce perfect agreement. It is intended to reveal whether the distinction can be reconstructed without relying on a person’s title, reputation, or a general impression of seniority. The OPM proficiency levels use behavioral illustrations precisely to make these differences more concrete.

A role architecture scales when it can show continuity and difference at the same time.

The result is a path that can guide assessment, development, and mobility without multiplying catalogs unnecessarily.

The same evidence helps distinguish a cross-functional contribution from management: not by its label, but by the decisions it changes, the scope it sustains, and the conditions that enable it. That lets the architecture recognize influence without confusing it with formal authority.

  4. The cover of Sorting Things Out on a wooden table beside a small paper box.

    Sorting Things Out: every taxonomy describes and decides

    The book Sorting Things Out examines how categories and standards organize the world while distributing visibility, work, and consequences. Reading it through the lens of a skills architecture extends that inquiry to the decisions a taxonomy makes possible.