Catalogue › Champions › capability-framework

Capability framework

Defines the three Champion capabilities - Chat, productivity and agents - each with an objective, a training option, an evidence option, verification criteria and an outcome, so training is one route rather than the gate, and maps learning sessions open to the wider business onto the journey. Use when setting what a Champion must show, when status needs to mean something, or when experienced colleagues want to skip training.

Department

Champions

Lifecycle

Enable, Measure

Maturity

adopter, builder, scaler, ai-enterprise

Risk tiers

0, 1

Platforms

copilot-chat, m365-copilot, copilot-cowork, m365-agents

Editions

starter, scale, enterprise

Reviewers

none

Status

draft

Copilot Cowork

Champions plugin for Copilot Cowork, or this skill on its own: Download SKILL.md

Licence

CC BY 4.0, by Simon Foote

Purpose

This skill defines what a Champion can demonstrably do in each capability area and how they show it. Each of three capabilities - Chat, productivity and agents - is defined by five elements: an objective, a training option, an evidence option, verification criteria and an outcome. Training is one route, not the gate, so experienced colleagues can be recognised without sitting through learning they do not need. Frameworks usually go wrong by describing knowledge ("understands prompting") instead of observable practice, by tying status to course completion, or by tying it to product features that change every few months.

When to use

• A Champions programme is being set up and needs a definition of capability.
• Champion status has lost credibility because it reflects attendance rather than ability.
• Experienced colleagues want a way to be recognised without sitting through beginner training.
• The organisation runs recurring Copilot learning sessions and wants them to count towards the journey without becoming the gate.
• Product changes have made an existing framework's feature-based levels obsolete.

When not to use

• Designing the overall programme, journey and boundaries - use champions:champion-programme-design.
• Assessing submitted evidence, keeping the tracker, assessor training and appeals - use champions:evidence-assessment.
• Designing the Champion Challenge that follows the three capabilities - use champions:champion-challenges.
• Recognition and progression once capabilities are verified - use champions:recognition-and-progression.
• Building role-based curricula for the whole workforce - use learning-and-skills:ai-role-curriculum.

Questions to ask first

1. Which Copilot experiences and agent tools has the organisation approved for Champions to use?
2. What should a Champion be able to show a colleague in each capability, in the organisation's own work?
3. Does the organisation want Champions to configure agents at all, and under what governance?
4. Which recurring learning sessions already exist, and are they open to everyone?
5. Who will assess evidence, and how much assessor time is available?

Required inputs

• The Champions programme charter and journey from champions:champion-programme-design.
• The approved tools list and agent governance position from the CoE.
• The scenario catalogue from copilot-adoption:scenario-discovery, to anchor evidence in real work.
• The current learning calendar and material from the foundation adoption programme.

If agent building is not approved for Champions, define the agent capability as explaining agents, judging use cases and evaluating approved agents, and record the position. Never define a capability around a tool the organisation has not approved. If no learning sessions exist yet, mark the training option "to confirm" rather than invent a curriculum.

Decision framework

Define each capability with the same five elements. Both routes lead to the same verification criteria.

Rubric dimensions apply to every capability, each rated Not yet, Meets or Strong:

Map recurring learning sessions to the journey. Sessions stay open to everyone; the guided exercise is what counts.

Practitioner approach

Start from what the organisation needs Champions to do, not from the product. A Champion's value is that they can show a colleague how to do something useful and safe in that colleague's own work. Write each objective as a sentence that begins "A Champion with this capability can..." and test it with a few likely Champions and their managers.

Keep the capability areas few. Three areas, verified in order, give a clear path and a manageable assessment load. Tie each to durable practice rather than features: "verifies output against a known source" lasts, "uses feature X in app Y" is out of date within months. Where an example needs a product name, put it in guidance notes that can be refreshed.

Complete all five elements for every capability before launch. The objective says what good looks like; the training and evidence options say how someone gets there; the verification criteria say how an assessor decides; the outcome says what changes for the participant and what the next milestone is. If any element is vague, participants will ask the programme owner, and self-service guidance will have nothing reliable to explain.

Design two routes that meet the same standard. The training route combines a session with a guided exercise on the person's own work; the exercise output is the evidence, so attendance alone never verifies anything. The evidence route lets experienced colleagues submit directly. Neither is a lesser badge, which keeps the programme fair to novices and respectful of experts.

Treat learning sessions as an ecosystem shared with the foundation adoption programme. Run them on a recurring rhythm, keep them open to the wider business, record them, and mark which ones count towards which capability. This avoids duplicating foundation training and stops the programme looking like a closed club.

Define evidence a busy person can produce from real work, and require redaction of anything sensitive; evidence that cannot be shared safely is not suitable evidence. For productivity, ask for proof of transfer, because that is the difference between a good user and a Champion.

Treat the agent capability carefully. Configuring agents carries ownership, knowledge and governance obligations. Where Champions may build, evidence includes an owner, test questions with expected answers and an intake record. Where they may not, the capability focuses on judging use cases and evaluating approved agents, and on routing needs to opportunity-management:problem-framing.

Write the rubric in plain language with fictional examples of each rating, pilot it on a few submissions, and adjust where assessors disagree. Version the framework, because it is the main knowledge source for any advisor agent, and review it at least twice a year.

Outputs

• A Champion capability framework on the champion-capability-framework template: a capability card per capability with objective, training option, evidence option, verification criteria and outcome.
• An evidence rubric in the rubric section of the same template, with plain-language examples for each rating.
• A learning session map showing which recurring sessions count towards which capability.
• A submission guide explaining what to submit, how to redact and how it will be assessed.

Microsoft platform considerations

Capabilities map loosely onto Copilot Chat, Copilot in the Microsoft 365 apps, Copilot Cowork and agents built with approved tools such as Agent Builder or Copilot Studio, but the definitions should not depend on any one product. Availability and naming change; refresh guidance notes from references/sources.md and the approved tools list rather than editing the objectives.

Adoption considerations

The framework gives Champions and their managers a shared language for capability. Publish it openly so anyone can see what good looks like, and let the same learning sessions serve both the wider workforce and the Champion journey.

Knowledge considerations

The framework is the primary knowledge source for self-service guidance and any advisor agent. Version it and tell the guidance owner whenever it changes. Where submissions reveal stale or unowned team content, pass it to knowledge-management:knowledge-lifecycle.

Security and privacy considerations

Submission guidance must require redaction of personal, confidential and client data, and evidence must be stored with access limited to assessors and the programme owner, with a retention period. Guided exercises use non-sensitive material. Agent capability builds follow the organisation's agent governance.

Responsible AI considerations

Verification and safe use are rubric dimensions in every capability, so responsible behaviour is part of capability rather than an add-on. The framework assesses evidence of practice, never personal traits or general performance.

Evaluation requirements

For the agent capability, evidence includes test questions with expected answers and a note of how the agent behaved. The rubric itself is evaluated by piloting it on sample submissions and measuring assessor agreement.

Value measures

Programme-level measures, owned by the programme owner: participants verified in each capability, share using each route, milestone conversion from one capability to the next and time from joining to each verification. Reported in aggregate above the minimum group size, never as individual rankings.

Scale notes

Starter

Chat and productivity may be enough at first, with the programme owner assessing and an existing session or two serving as the training option. Keep the capability cards and rubric to two pages.

Scale

All three capabilities, both routes, a recurring session calendar open to the wider business and a small trained assessor group. Publish worked fictional examples.

Enterprise

A governed framework with version control, localised examples, calibrated assessors across regions, and alignment with the organisation's wider skills framework and learning-and-skills:ai-learning-pathway.

Hand-offs

• To champions:evidence-assessment to assess submissions and keep the tracker.
• To champions:champion-challenges once all three capabilities are verified.
• To champions:recognition-and-progression to connect verified capabilities to recognition.
• To learning-and-skills:ai-role-curriculum for session content and curricula at scale.

Reviewer gates

Not applicable as a formal gate, because the framework defines people capability rather than releasing a solution; agent builds made as evidence pass through CoE intake, where risk tiers and reviewer gates apply.

Failure modes

• Capabilities describe product features, and the framework is out of date by the next release.
• The training route becomes the only route, and experienced colleagues disengage.
• Sessions are closed to the wider business, so the programme duplicates foundation training and looks exclusive.
• Evidence requires sharing real sensitive material, so people either cannot submit or submit unsafely.
• The framework changes but self-service guidance does not, so participants are told outdated requirements.

Sources

references/sources.md in this skill lists the source records behind this skill, what each is authoritative for, how volatile it is and what you may do with it. Product availability, licensing, limits and preview status change often, so check the current source before stating them, and cite what you used.

Never

• Verify a capability on attendance or course completion alone.
• Treat the training route as superior to the evidence route, or the reverse.
• Require evidence that cannot be shared without exposing sensitive data.
• Use the framework to rank Champions or assess their general job performance.
• Define a capability around a tool the organisation has not approved.