In all my reading about competencies, after reviewing well over 100 lists of competencies of all kinds from all types of institutions, one clear organizational distinction seems to exist in every list: either the competency statements are descriptive, or they are task-based. Descriptive competency statements are broad and nonspecific (e.g., “Understand how e-mail folders work to create an organized file-keeping system”). Task-based competency statements, on the other hand, are narrowly focused and specific (e.g., “Delete e-mails, move e-mails between folders, and archive old e-mails”). The most successful competencies lists will include both task-based items and more descriptive items about overriding philosophy and knowledge that contribute to a successful, technologically proficient employee. I highly suggest that you consider including both in your library's list of competencies, though you may want to set apart the descriptive, philosophical competency statements as a separate section to show that these competencies can't easily be tested, but are more subjective—things for the person and his or her supervisor to think a little harder about before noting whether or not the staff person has that competency.

Action verbs are easy to measure. “Can you X? Can you Y?” D. Scott Brandt, in his book Teaching Technology: A How-To-Do-It Manual for Librarians, provides us with an excellent list of measurable action verbs in several categories, ideal for competencies lists (see table 2, page 36).¹

Whatever structure the task force decides on, use consistent formatting for each competency statement, (e.g., have an action verb such as “Understand,” “Reboot,” “Search,” “Create,” “Troubleshoot” as the first word in the sentence or phrase, and consistently use certain phrases such as “Demonstrates a knowledge of,” “Ability to,” and “Familiarity with”). Consistency is key.

Use consistent wording in your competency descriptions so that as little as possible is subjective. Be careful of your use of adjectives, which can be interpreted subjectively and differently by each individual. For example, the King County Library requires that a staff member “[e]xpertly searches catalogs, databases and Internet sources.”² What exactly does “expertly” mean? How does one quantify “expertly”? Is my definition of “expertly” the same as that of the super-duper employee who knows the catalog inside and out? Probably not. Because such is the case, try to be as objective and quantitative as you can with the competency descriptions. Additionally, do not use a format like this: “Are you competent?” Just as libraries are moving away from the term “information literacy” (as it requires users to admit “illiteracy” in order to use our services), talking about “incompetence” and “competency” can easily put someone off of the entire program before even beginning. Perhaps, instead of calling this a list of “competencies,” you might want to call it a “learning checklist” or a “training plan.” It all depends on the staff environment of your individual library.

You can present the competencies as a simple list of what staff members need to know or be able to do. Another option is to break the descriptions of the competencies out into various levels or tiers. Which staff members need to have the competencies in a particular tier may be based on position, desire for promotion, or personal preference. For example:

• Break the competency descriptions into tiers (1, 2, 3), with different staff position being required to meet different tiers, e.g., circulation assistants have the competencies described in tier 1; circulation supervisors have those described in tiers 1 and 2; and reference librarians have those described in 1, 2, and 3.
• Break the competency descriptions into basic, enhanced, and exemplary levels.
• Break the competency descriptions into categories such as “essential” and “extended”; for example, Naylor suggests the terms “critical” or “helpful.”³
• Break the competency descriptions into Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced levels (as in the State Library of North Carolina's competencies list)⁴

If the library decides to use a multilevel system, the task force may want to define who needs to have the more advanced skills based on factors such as staff classification, specific position, work location, pay step, or desire for promotion or bonus.

If the competencies list has different sections based on staff position, department, or location, then organizing competencies by position may be the easiest way to present that information. Competencies may be broken out by staff position (Library Assistant 1, Librarian 2, Branch Manager), by department (Managers, Reference staff [adult, children's, teen], technical services, circulation), or by location (smaller branches vs. main branch). The competency descriptions for staff at Oakland Public Library are broken down extremely specifically by staff position. The competencies for library aides are further broken down into categories for three types of aides, and those for librarians are further broken down into categories for eight types of librarians based on unit function, size of branch, and so on. All in all, Oakland's competencies list is organized into twenty-three different staff positions, each with its own unique set of competencies.⁵ If you use this method, there is going to be a decent amount of overlap among positions. This overlap may make updating competency descriptions a bit more of a chore, since if one description changes, you would, in Oakland's case, potentially have to update it in twenty-three places. If the task force is composing competency descriptions for a small library, or for a library system that includes one or more small libraries, keep in mind that in small libraries where only one or two people are working at once, staff positions don't matter nearly as much. Everyone has to be a generalist. Everyone might have to know everything. As Charlene McGuire writes in a post to the Kansas Tech Consultants Blog, with the first draft of the Technology Core Competencies for Kansas Library Workers, “If it is a one person library then that is the person.”⁶ It's important to make sure that the competencies list reflects the reality at each library, big or small. You may also want to consider having a basic list of competencies by staff position, with supervisory flexibility to add or remove competencies based on each employee's unique job situation (e.g., a circulation staff where everyone's tasks are specialized, so one person might never deal with the ILS and another may never need to use a word-processing program).

Some libraries have one giant list of competencies that doesn't necessarily indicate which ones are required in which positions and let individual supervisors determine which competencies are needed by their workers across the board.

The competencies list can be presented in two ways: as a printed or online document. I recommend creating the competencies list primarily as an online document, but with a printable version available (particularly if the task force doesn't plan on using online assessment tools).

• If Presenting Online: You can create the competencies list as a simple HTML document, or you can use online tools like a wiki (ready-built for an outline format) or a blog (tagging entries for each competency), or even 43 Things (www.43things.com) as a way to list and check off core competencies (an idea from Stephen Abram in his article “43 Things I Might Want to Do This Year”).⁷ If the task force creates the competencies list as any type of online document, store all the competency descriptions in one place, preferably in one file. Don't put each category on a different Web page or PDF, a mistake many libraries have made. This type of organization creates unnecessary complications for staff members who are trying to get a complete list of what they need to know, and any barrier to learning is not good for the organization. Everything a staff member needs to know should be in one list, one file. The benefits of having the competencies list online include the ability of staff to access the competency descriptions any time (and presumably from anywhere) as a refresher, the ability to fold the competency descriptions into any online job descriptions and staff manuals, and (my personal favorite) the ability to hyperlink each competency description to a brief how-to document explaining how to do that task. At the first library at which I implemented a set of technology competencies, a valued colleague suggested that the competencies list would benefit greatly from having brief explanations of the steps necessary to complete each task linked from the competencies list. To my knowledge, that library is still the only library with a list of competencies with how-to documents attached to each competency description, although that library's competencies list is available only through its intranet. It's hard to be certain about what competencies documents really are out there for libraries, because many libraries place their staff competencies lists on their intranets only, making them invisible to the public … which leads us to the next question.
• Public or Private: If the library decides to make the competencies list available online, someone needs to decide whether to post it on the intranet only or on the publicly accessible Web site. Arguments can be made for either decision, though in the age of increasing institutional transparency, I recommend making the document available on the public site (under “About the Library” or wherever the Web site has information about the library's organization and staff). In making the list public, you let the public in on what staff members are expected to know, more often than not surprising them with the high levels of your staff's advanced technological expectations. Again, think of the union or other employee organizations, however; they may have rules about what can and can't be publicly posted regarding staff expectations.

Table 3 (see page 38) illustrates how the Ohio Library Council presents its core technology competencies.

Table 4 (see page 38) shows how the California Library Association presents its technology competencies—in an outline with short, one-line descriptions.

The Upper Hudson Library System (New York) utilizes a narrative paragraph:

The Operating Systems

The Operating system is the software foundation that enables computers to process information, manipulate data, and provide output to users. It stands to reason that a rudimentary knowledge of how it functions is critical if staff [members] are to be successful in manipulating the information resources. Staff must have a working knowledge of the platform on which their computers sit, an understanding of the interface and desktop environment, the ability to format floppy disks, the ability to create and manage files, and a thorough understanding of how to gain access to the various networks available from a given platform.⁸

Tables 5 through 8 (see pages 38–39) are examples of formatting options that illustrate options for creating visual representations to present competencies lists with assessment tools.

Regardless of which of these options you choose, at this point the task force needs to go through the list competencies and narrow it down, finalizing categories and competencies within the categories. Which staff members are required to have which competencies should be clearly indicated. If the task force has difficulty coming to consensus on particular competencies, kick it up the decision-making tree to whatever administrative group or committee exists to make final decisions in cases like these. The task force will have to agree to abide by whatever that group decides, however. Sometimes, remembering that is enough to jump-start the consensus process.

Before really actually finalizing the competencies list, make sure that it works for staff. The task force should show the “final” competencies list to a few staff members, asking if anything is confusing or at all unclear. I recommend asking at least two people in any given staffing group (e.g., circulation, reference, technical services, managers). I guarantee that you will gain some final polishing from these interactions. Once the task force is confident that the competencies list is complete, polished, and ready to go, the next step is implementation.