We are updating our Accountability Chart to include AI-operating seats, but we do not know how to evaluate the Capacity portion of GWC™ when the technical skills required are changing every single month. How do we define capacity for these roles?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When tech skills become obsolete in a matter of months, evaluating the Capacity portion of GWC™ requires a complete shift in perspective. You can no longer measure capacity by a candidate's familiarity with a specific software interface or programming language. Instead, capacity must be defined as cognitive flexibility, conative drive, and the ability to learn and adapt rapidly. To measure this objectively, integrate Predictive Index cognitive assessments into your hiring and promotion processes. This gives you hard data on an individual's raw learning speed and problem-solving ability, which is the ultimate predictor of success in a high-tech role. Additionally, use the Kolbe A™ Index to identify conative strengths. Look for individuals who naturally initiate in Quick Start and Fact Finder, as they will have the natural drive to experiment with new systems and synthesize complex data without getting paralyzed. On your Accountability Chart, rewrite the roles and responsibilities to focus on outcomes rather than specific tasks. The capacity you are looking for is the ability to own the system and deliver the result, regardless of which software tool is currently being used. By redefining capacity around cognitive and conative wiring, you build a resilient team that can handle any future technological shift.