System Architecture
Assessment Framework
- 120 UX competencies — technical, strategic, and domain expertise
- Expertise scale — No Experience · Working Knowledge · Mastered
- Interest scale — Interested · Not Interested
- Each dimension tracked separately to surface "mastered but burned out" vs "interested but developing"
Six Analytical Views
01
Individual View
Complete skill profile per team member — their full expertise and interest map across all 120 competencies.
02
Skill Analysis
How all teammates ranked on any specific skill — instantly surfacing who to pull for a given need.
03
Role Definition
Weighted skill matching against role archetypes — who's actually a researcher vs. who thinks they are.
04
Service Capability
Team capacity across four core service offerings — where are we strong, where are we thin?
05
Team Builder
Slot in any combination of teammates, instantly see aggregated strengths, gaps, and role distribution.
06
Project-Specific
Custom skill matching beyond traditional role definitions — built when leadership requested it mid-project.
The Raw Material
Everything started here — 120 skills, 21 participants, hundreds of rows. Useful for storage, useless for decisions. The QUERY engine turned this into something leadership could actually act on.
Raw Data — Survey Input
Raw survey output: participant IDs, skill labels, expertise levels, and interest ratings — all queryable but requiring a system to make sense of at scale.
Individual Teammate View — Participant 06
Automated QUERY output per teammate: service offering interest levels, role fit scores, and full skill breakdown sorted by mastery — leadership could instantly profile any team member.
The Mobile Vision
The spreadsheet solved the immediate problem. The Figma explorations showed what this system could become — a purpose-built tool for team leads to build and compare project teams on the fly.
Teammate Detail View
Individual profile: service capacity scores, role fit rankings, full skill list with expertise level and interest flags.
Skill Drill-Down
Any skill, instantly ranked — who's mastered it, who's interested, who has it but doesn't want to use it. Surfaces the nuance the raw data hid.
Team Comparison — Filter Controls
Build two teams, choose a skill to sort by — instantly see where each team is strong or exposed.
Team Comparison — Results
Side-by-side team skill scores with visual weight bars — data-driven staffing decisions in seconds, not days.
The Team Builder
Leadership could slot in any number of teammates and instantly see aggregated skill strengths, capability gaps, role distribution, and service delivery capacity. A weighted ranking system automatically scored fit — high matches received positive weights, gaps were flagged as risks.
The system operated autonomously — leadership navigated it independently without needing to understand a single QUERY formula. That accessibility was a core design requirement, not an afterthought.