The Three-Axis Competency Model

Executive summary#

• Competency in consulting is multi-dimensional — technical skill alone doesn't predict delivery success
• The three-axis model evaluates Technical (0-4) × Business (0-4) × Agency (1-5) to produce a holistic competency score
• High technical depth with low business context creates client frustration; high agency with low technical depth creates delivery risk
• Use this model to assess internal talent, external hires, and partners on a comparable scale
• Typical successful consultant profiles: (Technical 3, Business 2, Agency 4) or (Technical 2, Business 3, Agency 4)

Definitions#

Competency Model: A structured framework for evaluating capability across multiple dimensions, producing a holistic assessment that predicts delivery success better than any single dimension alone.

The Three Axes:

• Technical (0-4): Mastery of domain-specific skills and knowledge
• Business (0-4): Understanding of how work connects to business outcomes
• Agency (1-5): Degree of ownership over problems and solutions

What this includes: Observable, assessable dimensions that predict delivery performance, client satisfaction, and project profitability.

What this does NOT include: Personality traits, cultural fit, leadership style, or non-work factors.

Key distinction: This model measures delivery capability, not potential, likability, or seniority. Someone can be senior by title but score low on all three axes.

Why this matters#

Business impact#

The three-axis model solves critical business problems:

Problem 1: Hiring mismatches

• Symptom: Strong technical interview, poor delivery performance
• Root cause: Hired for Technical only, ignored Business and Agency
• Cost: Rework, client escalations, potential contract loss
• Fix: Assess all three axes before hiring

Problem 2: Delivery risk from misalignment

• Symptom: Project delays, scope creep, client dissatisfaction
• Root cause: Technical depth doesn't match work complexity, or low agency creates bottlenecks
• Cost: Margin erosion, team burnout, reputation damage
• Fix: Match competency profile to work requirements

Problem 3: Wasted budget on "wrong" seniority

• Symptom: Expensive senior engineer produces junior-level output
• Root cause: Seniority ≠ competency; inflated titles without capability
• Cost: Paying senior rates for junior delivery
• Fix: Assess actual competency, not resume claims

Value of multi-axis assessment#

Organizations using this model report:

• Fewer hiring mistakes — better 6-month retention and performance outcomes when assessing all three axes upfront
• Improved project margins — less rework and better staffing decisions when competency profiles match work requirements
• Higher client satisfaction — fewer escalations and better client communication when business context and agency are assessed alongside technical skills
• Stronger bench strength — systematic competency assessment identifies ready-now successors for critical roles

The Model: Three Axes#

canonical_block: competency_scale
version: 1.0.0
concept_id: framework.competency_architecture
updated_date: 2026-02-16

model_name: "Three-Axis Competency Model"
description: "Holistic consulting capability assessment combining technical depth, business context, and agency excellence"

axes:
  - axis: "Technical"
    scale_reference: "scale.technical_0_4"
    range: "0-4"
    description: "Domain-specific technical mastery"
    weight_recommendation: 0.50
    link: "/competency-architecture/technical-scale"

  - axis: "Business"
    scale_reference: "scale.business_0_4"
    range: "0-4"
    description: "Business context and stakeholder awareness"
    weight_recommendation: 0.20
    link: "/competency-architecture/business-scale"

  - axis: "Agency"
    scale_reference: "scale.agency_1_5"
    range: "1-5"
    description: "Problem ownership and autonomous execution"
    weight_recommendation: 0.30
    link: "/competency-architecture/agency-scale"

scoring_formula:
  formula: "(Technical × wT) + (Business × wB) + (AgencyNorm × wA)"
  agency_normalization: "(Agency - 1) / 4"
  explanation: "Agency is normalized to 0-1 scale to match Technical and Business ranges"

recommended_weights:
  technical: 0.50
  business: 0.20
  agency: 0.30
  rationale: "Technical depth is foundational; agency creates delivery velocity; business context differentiates consultants from contractors"

score_interpretation:
  minimum_viable: 1.5
  good: 2.0
  excellent: 2.5
  exceptional: 3.0

Visual representation#

How it works#

The scoring mechanism#

Step 1: Assess each axis independently

• Technical: Use domain-specific exercises and work samples
• Business: Use stakeholder interaction examples and trade-off discussions
• Agency: Use behavioral interviews and reference checks

Step 2: Normalize Agency to 0-1 scale

AgencyNorm = (Agency - 1) / 4

Examples:
- Agency 1 → 0.00
- Agency 3 → 0.50
- Agency 5 → 1.00

Step 3: Apply weights and calculate score

Competency Score = (Technical × 0.5) + (Business × 0.2) + (AgencyNorm × 0.3)

Maximum possible: 4.0
Minimum possible: 0.0

Why these weights?#

Technical (50%): Foundation of delivery capability

• Can't solve problems you lack skills to execute
• Highest single predictor of "can they do the work?"
• Justifies higher weight

Agency (30%): Multiplier of effectiveness

• High agency makes teams more efficient (less management overhead)
• Low agency creates bottlenecks regardless of technical skill
• Critical for consulting where autonomy is expected

Business (20%): Differentiation factor

• Separates consultants from contractors
• Critical for client satisfaction but not all roles need high levels
• Can be developed faster than technical depth

Customization: Adjust weights based on role. Internal engineers may need Technical 60%, Business 10%, Agency 30%. Client-facing consultants may need Technical 40%, Business 30%, Agency 30%.

Example: CaseCo Mid#

{
  "canonical_block": "role_profile",
  "version": "1.0.0",
  "case_ref": "caseco.mid.v1",
  "updated_date": "2026-02-16",

  "scenario_title": "Competency Profiles Across CaseCo Mid Roles",
  "scenario_description": "CaseCo Mid (500 people) has diverse roles requiring different competency profiles. Here's how the three-axis model helps match people to roles.",

  "role_profiles": [
    {
      "role": "Junior Cloud Engineer",
      "typical_scores": {
        "technical": 2,
        "business": 1,
        "agency": 3
      },
      "competency_score": 1.75,
      "calculation": "(2 × 0.5) + (1 × 0.2) + (0.5 × 0.3) = 1.75",
      "work_assignments": [
        "Implement infrastructure following runbooks (Technical 2 sufficient)",
        "Limited client interaction (Business 1 acceptable)",
        "Complete tasks independently without constant supervision (Agency 3 required)"
      ],
      "why_this_works": "Low business context is fine for internal work. Agency 3 ensures they don't become bottlenecks.",
      "red_flags": "If Agency drops to 2, they consume too much lead time. If Technical is only 1, too many errors."
    },
    {
      "role": "Cloud Architect",
      "typical_scores": {
        "technical": 4,
        "business": 3,
        "agency": 4
      },
      "competency_score": 3.05,
      "calculation": "(4 × 0.5) + (3 × 0.2) + (0.75 × 0.3) = 3.05",
      "work_assignments": [
        "Design multi-cloud solutions for enterprise clients",
        "Translate technical choices into business trade-offs for C-level",
        "Own solution delivery without hand-holding"
      ],
      "why_this_works": "All three axes are high. Technical 4 handles complexity. Business 3 enables client-facing work. Agency 4 means minimal supervision.",
      "red_flags": "If Business is only 1-2, clients get frustrated by technical jargon. If Agency is only 2-3, project manager spends too much time directing."
    },
    {
      "role": "Data Scientist",
      "typical_scores": {
        "technical": 3,
        "business": 3,
        "agency": 4
      },
      "competency_score": 2.675,
      "calculation": "(3 × 0.5) + (3 × 0.2) + (0.75 × 0.3) = 2.675",
      "work_assignments": [
        "Design ML models for client business problems",
        "Translate business questions into data science approaches",
        "Own solution from research to deployment"
      ],
      "why_this_works": "Business 3 is critical for this role—must understand business problems deeply. Technical 3 handles ML complexity. Agency 4 ensures independence.",
      "red_flags": "If Business is only 1-2, builds technically impressive but commercially useless models."
    },
    {
      "role": "Delivery Manager",
      "typical_scores": {
        "technical": 2,
        "business": 4,
        "agency": 5
      },
      "competency_score": 2.575,
      "calculation": "(2 × 0.5) + (4 × 0.2) + (1.0 × 0.3) = 2.575",
      "work_assignments": [
        "Manage 2-4 client projects concurrently",
        "Handle scope changes and stakeholder expectations",
        "Shield technical team from client churn"
      ],
      "why_this_works": "Business 4 and Agency 5 are critical. Technical 2 provides credibility but deep expertise not needed.",
      "red_flags": "If Technical is 0-1, loses technical credibility with team. If Agency is only 3, creates approval bottlenecks."
    }
  ],

  "key_insight": "Different roles need different competency profiles. No single 'ideal' profile exists. Match profile to work requirements."
}

What this example shows#

• Technical depth matters most for roles with high technical complexity (architects, specialists)
• Business context matters most for client-facing roles (delivery managers, consultants)
• Agency matters for all roles but especially where autonomy is expected
• Low scores in one axis can be acceptable if role doesn't require it

Action: Competency Assessment Worksheet#

Use this worksheet to assess candidates or existing team members:

Assessment Template#

Calculation:

AgencyNorm = (Agency - 1) / 4 = ___

Competency Score = (Technical × 0.5) + (Business × 0.2) + (AgencyNorm × 0.3) = ___

Interpretation:

• < 1.5: Not viable for consulting work
• 1.5-2.0: Junior/mid-level roles with supervision
• 2.0-2.5: Strong mid-level, some senior roles
• 2.5-3.0: Senior/principal level
• > 3.0: Exceptional, rare

Quick Reference: Typical Profiles by Role#

Pitfalls#

Pitfall 1: Over-indexing on Technical, ignoring Business and Agency#

Early warning: Strong technical performers who frustrate clients or consume excessive management time.

Why this happens: Technical skills are easier to assess (coding tests, certifications). Business and Agency require behavioral interviews and references.

Fix: Make Business and Agency assessment mandatory. Don't hire based on technical skills alone unless role is purely internal and supervised.

Pitfall 2: Assuming high scores on all three axes#

Early warning: Rejecting candidates who are 3-3-4 because they're not 4-4-5.

Why this happens: Perfectionism. Waiting for "unicorns" who don't exist or are prohibitively expensive.

Fix: Define "minimum viable profile" for each role. For most consulting roles, 2-2-3 is sufficient. Focus on match to role requirements, not absolute maximization.

Pitfall 3: Using weighted average when any axis is critically low#

Early warning: Candidate scores 4-4-1 (high technical + business, terrible agency). Weighted score is 2.575 (looks good!) but they'll fail in delivery.

Why this happens: Weighted average masks critical weaknesses.

Fix: Implement minimum thresholds per axis before calculating weighted score. Example: "Must be at least 2-1-3 to be considered." Reject anyone below minimums regardless of total score.

Pitfall 4: Static assessment without reassessment#

Early warning: Engineer hired as 2-1-3, now operates at 3-2-4 after 18 months, but still treated as junior.

Why this happens: Initial assessment becomes permanent label. No mechanism for re-evaluation.

Fix: Reassess annually or after major projects. Competency grows with experience and feedback. Update profiles to reflect growth.

Next#

• Technical Scale — Deep dive on technical depth assessment
• Business Scale — Deep dive on business context evaluation
• Agency Scale — Deep dive on problem ownership measurement
• Complexity & Experience — Match competency to work complexity
• Competency Matrix & Scoring — Apply the model at portfolio scale

FAQs#

Q: Can I adjust the weights for different roles?

A: Yes. The 50/20/30 split is a starting point. Adjust based on role requirements:

• Internal roles: Technical 60%, Business 10%, Agency 30%
• Client-facing technical: Technical 40%, Business 30%, Agency 30%
• Delivery management: Technical 30%, Business 40%, Agency 30%

Q: What if someone scores 4-0-5 (amazing technical + agency, zero business)?

A: They're excellent for internal engineering roles where business context doesn't matter. Don't put them in client-facing work without developing Business skills first.

Q: How often should I reassess?

A: Annually, or after:

• Completing a major project
• Changing roles significantly
• Receiving consistent feedback indicating growth or decline

Q: Can someone improve all three axes simultaneously?

A: Rarely. Technical depth requires deep practice. Business context requires client exposure. Agency requires autonomy and trust. Focus on one axis at a time:

• Years 1-2: Build Technical
• Years 2-3: Develop Agency through progressively less supervision
• Years 3-5: Build Business through client exposure

Q: What's a "good enough" profile for most consulting roles?

A: 2-2-3 (Competency Score ~1.85) is minimum viable for mid-level consulting. 3-2-4 (Score ~2.425) is strong. 3-3-4 (Score ~2.625) is excellent. Don't hold out for 4-4-5 unless you're hiring for principal/partner roles.

Q: How do I handle disagreement between assessors?

A: Use evidence, not opinion:

• Technical: Coding exercise or work sample (objective)
• Business: Multiple stakeholder feedback (triangulate)
• Agency: Reference checks from 2-3 past managers (pattern recognition)

If still disagree, hire for a trial project or contract-to-hire arrangement.