Loading Help…
How org-leaders read a profile gap, how the numbers are computed, and how to act on the result — including the jurisdictional caveat and a sponsor-ready summary for professional bodies.
Profile gap analysis compares any org-scoped competency profile to the canonical future-ready profile in that organisation's jurisdiction. The output is a per-item ΔIRI / ΔICI table, a list of missing and additional items, the information-use changes, and the material substitutions that are valid in your jurisdiction.
Three audiences read the gap differently. Org leaders read it as a roadmap. Practitioners read it as a personal plan. Professional bodies read it as a publishable structure — the artefact you sponsor, validate, and ground a credential in.
Every org-scoped competency profile in RPF has a canonical counterpart — the future-ready profile published for that discipline in the organisation's jurisdiction. The gap is the structured difference between the two: per-item IRI (Information Requirement Index) deltas, per-item ICI (Information Competency Index) deltas, additive items (extra on the org side), substitutive items (missing on the org side), information-use coverage changes, and material substitutions valid for the local jurisdiction.
It is computed, not authored. There is no "gap editor". The gap is a live read over your published profile and the canonical published profile in your jurisdiction, recomputed every time either side changes.
Where is our org against the canonical future-ready profile, and what does the local adaptation cost us? The gap is your roadmap. Read the missing items first — those are the additive moves. Then read the per-item ΔICI — those are the depth moves. Substitutions tell you which canonical materials your jurisdiction lets you swap (ISO 19650 → ABNT NBR ISO 19650 in Brazil; ISO 19650 → IS EN ISO 19650 in Ireland).
What does my role become in 5 years in my market, and what's the journey? Open the gap from your org's profile against the canonical future-ready profile — the missing items are your learning targets, the ICI deltas are your depth targets, and the information-use changes hint at the flows you'll be expected to participate in. Pair this with the Persona Analyser to get an action-statement-level plan.
What does future-ready look like for our discipline in our jurisdiction — evidence-backed, machine-readable, citable? The gap surface gives you a publishable structure: cited materials, IRI/ICI thresholds, jurisdictional substitutions. Sponsor the canonical, host a workshop to validate it, and the gap becomes the artefact your members read against their organisation's profile.
Your jurisdiction has no canonical for this discipline yet — sponsor one and your organisation's profile is the first reference fork.
Convene a half-day verification panel at your professional body — invited members vote on candidate items, and the output is a publishable canonical with vote-grounded provenance.
