Skip to content
roleALPHA Docs

Reading the candidate list

For a selected demand, resource planning shows which organisation members fit — humans and AI agents in the same list.

Three verdicts side by side

Section titled “Three verdicts side by side”

Every row carries three separate statements, not one combined:

AxisPossible verdicts
Activityfulfils the role · no role required · different role
Skillper required competence: met · below level · missing · not comparable
Availabilitycapacity suffices · partly · nothing free · no limit on record

Why there is no overall score

Section titled “Why there is no overall score”

A single percentage would be convenient — and would destroy exactly the distinction that matters. Someone who fits professionally but has no time calls for a different action than someone who has time but cannot do it. Combined into one number, the two cases look the same and the proposal becomes useless.

Sorting still happens, as a ranking of criteria: activity fit first, then few skill gaps, then capacity, then name.

The four states that are not zero

Section titled “The four states that are not zero”
  • “not comparable” — a level is missing. That is a shortcoming of the model, not of the person. Counting it as a gap would flood every tenant working without levels with false positives.
  • “no role required” — the demand names no role. Not a penalty, simply nothing to check.
  • “partly” — the member can take on part of it. That is the normal case and not an exclusion: assignments are partial by nature.
  • “no limit on record” — no capacity is recorded for this member. That does not mean “unlimited” but “unknown”. A member without a recorded limit is therefore not ranked ahead of someone with a known partial capacity — that would reward a gap in the model.

The modelled role share

Section titled “The modelled role share”

If the execution of a role carries a time share (fte), the list shows it as a reference line — “modelled share: 50%”. It is read, not enforced: someone who is modelled at half time in a role may still be planned for more. The figure makes the deviation visible, it does not forbid it.

When the scales do not match

Section titled “When the scales do not match”

Competence levels are tenant-owned and live on the relationship type. If the scales of requires and has differ, ranks from different systems are compared — the result would be plausible and wrong. The list says so explicitly instead of showing a number. Fix it under relationship types by giving both the same level list.

Careful when reordering: the order of the levels is their meaning. Changing it changes every coverage statement in the tenant retroactively. Renaming is harmless, reordering is not.

When nobody fits

Section titled “When nobody fits”

Then it is often the role that is missing, not the person. From a demand without a matching role a new one can be derived — guided, so that no catch-all role without a purpose emerges.

Section titled “Related”