I talk a lot about “taxonomies” in my work building competency frameworks and profiles for industry. But what do we mean? 

Essentially, a taxonomy is a hierarchical list, and each category in a taxonomy is a grouping of items that are similar, and also “mutually exclusive”. The taxonomy helps us figure out “which bucket to put something in”, and how the different “buckets” relate to each other. 

As an example, a biological taxonomy (for Maverick, the late Chief of Security at my company WorkForce Strategies International) organized from the most general to the most specific, looks like this:

• Domain (Eukarya)
  • Kingdom (Animalia)
    • Phylum (Chordata)
      • Class (Mammalia)
        • Order (Carnivora)
          • Family (Canidae)
            • Genus (Canis)
              • Species (Lupus)
                • Sub-species (Familiaris)

Beyond that we might have a breed (Labrador, a colour variety (chocolate), a gender (Male) and maybe a personality type (knucklehead). 

The hierarchy or “taxonomy” in occupations can also be grouped from most general to most specific, as follows: 

• Occupational group (3-digit NOC Code, multiple occupations, multiple industries)
  • Occupation (4-digit or 5-digit NOC Code, broad category, multiple industries)
    • Function (narrower category, similar characteristics, multiple possible occupations and industries)
      • Role (narrower category within a function, similar characteristics, may include multiple occupations, may include multiple industries)
        • Job family (group of related jobs within a particular organization)
          • Job (specific duties and tasks in an organization, assigned to a particular individual) 

Or if you prefer the classic “DACUM” taxonomy: 

• Role/Job
  • General Areas of Competence (GAC)
    • Tasks
      • Sub Tasks
        • KSAs

The key thing is that the taxonomies are hierarchies, grouping items into groupings with similar characteristics from the very broad to the very granular. 

One issue we see repeatedly is an attempt to create a taxonomy that classifies items in a non-hierarchical form (that is, there isn’t necessarily a “build up” from one level to the next higher level, or where the separation between levels in the taxonomy is not clear or mutually exclusive. 

In an occupational analysis, this often manifests itself as multiple, very similar tasks in different GACs.  

We also see it when the purpose of the taxonomy isn’t clear – the old Canadian NOAs for the Red Seal trades were notorious for having a GAC for Safety, with multiple tasks encompassed – which makes it seem as though safety is somehow separate from daily work performance (ie, tasks) rather than as an enabling component of EVERY task.  I fought back (usually unsuccessfully) against including safety as a separate category in NOAs for years. This doesn’t mean safety isn’t important – it means that it’s SO important that it needs to be embedded in the way every job is done. When you treat it as an enabling factor and key criteria for performing a task correctly (doing it right means doing it safely) it becomes impossible for an individual to consider (consciously or unconsciously) that safety is a stand alone activity. I’ve long believed that this factor alone can result in a reduction in accidents and incidents in industry. 

Would love to hear from anyone who’s thinking similarly!