Templates › Champion capability framework and evidence rubric
Champion capability framework and evidence rubric
Template id: champion-capability-framework
Responsible skills: champions:capability-framework (sections 1 to 5) and champions:evidence-assessment (sections 6 and 7).
Use this framework to define what a Champion can demonstrably do, how they show it, how evidence is assessed and how progress is recorded. Every fact the organisation must supply is marked [To confirm: ...]; replace the marker when the fact is confirmed, and never fill it with a guess. Example content is fictional and is there to be replaced or deleted. The framework assesses evidence of practice, never the person, and is never used to rank anyone.
1. Framework details
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Framework owner | [To confirm: name and role] |
| Approved tools for Champions | [To confirm: reference to the approved tools list] |
| Agent building allowed for Champions? | [To confirm: Yes, under which governance / No, the agent capability covers judging use cases and evaluating approved agents] |
| Self-service guidance or advisor agent that uses this framework | [To confirm: what it is and who owns it] |
| Version and date | [To confirm] |
| Next review | [To confirm: date] |
2. Capability cards
Training is one route, not the gate. Both options lead to the same verification criteria.
| Element | Chat capability | Productivity capability | Agent capability |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective | Use Copilot Chat effectively and safely for real tasks - clear prompts, refinement, relevant context, verified output | Use Copilot across the Microsoft 365 apps to produce useful, validated outputs from recurring work, and help a colleague do the same | Explain what agents are, judge good and poor use cases and, where approved, configure a basic agent and test its behaviour |
| Training option | [To confirm: session plus guided exercise on own non-sensitive work] | [To confirm] | [To confirm] |
| Evidence option | Two or three real examples with prompt, refinement, output, check applied and what changed | Before-and-after account of a recurring task, a reusable prompt pattern and evidence a colleague used it | A note on one good and one poor agent candidate, plus a governed basic build with owner and tests, or evaluation notes on an approved agent |
| Verification criteria | Every rubric dimension at least Meets; refinement and choice of context visible | Every dimension at least Meets; output validated against its source; transfer shown | Every dimension at least Meets; sound use-case reasoning; tests with expected and observed behaviour; intake record for any build |
| Outcome | Chat verified; tracker updated; next milestone is productivity | Productivity verified; pattern offered to the scenario catalogue; next milestone is agents | Agent verified; eligible for the Champion Challenge |
Local adjustments to the capabilities: [To confirm]
3. Learning session map
Sessions stay open to the whole workforce. The guided exercise, not attendance, is what counts as evidence.
| Session | Rhythm | Open to | Counts towards | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Getting started and approved use | [To confirm] | Everyone | Joining the community | [To confirm] |
| Copilot Chat | [To confirm] | Everyone | Chat capability, training option | [To confirm] |
| Copilot in the Microsoft 365 apps, including meetings and collaboration in Teams | [To confirm] | Everyone | Productivity capability, training option | [To confirm] |
| Agent design and evaluation | [To confirm] | Everyone; building limited to approved makers | Agent capability, training option | [To confirm] |
4. Submission guide
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| How to submit | [To confirm: secure route with access limited to assessors and the programme owner] |
| What to redact | Personal data, client or confidential information, anything you would not share with the whole organisation |
| Retention period for evidence | [To confirm: agreed with the data protection lead] |
| Promised turnaround | [To confirm] |
5. Evidence rubric
Rate each dimension from the evidence alone. A capability is verified when every dimension is at least Meets and its specific verification criteria are met. Strong is used for feedback, not ranking.
| Dimension | Not yet | Meets | Strong |
|---|---|---|---|
| Real work | Example is a demo or invented task | Example comes from the person's actual role | Example addresses a recurring, valued task for the team |
| Safe use | Sensitive data shared or unapproved tool used | No sensitive data shared; approved tools only | Explains choices about what not to share |
| Verification | No check of the output | Output checked; the check is explained | Check is built into a reusable pattern |
| Transferability | Only the submitter could repeat it | Someone else could reuse the pattern | A colleague has already reused it |
| Reflection | No account of limitations | Says what did not work and why | Shows how the approach was improved as a result |
Fictional example: a submission shows a prompt used to summarise a supplier contract, a refined second prompt, the summary produced, and a note that the person compared every date and value against the contract before using it. Verification is rated Meets.
6. Assessment procedure
| Element | Entry |
|---|---|
| Assessment lead | [To confirm] |
| Assessor pool and training date | [To confirm] |
| Calibration rhythm | [To confirm: for example quarterly and when new assessors join] |
| Conflict rule | Assessors do not assess people they manage or know well; reassign |
| Both routes | Guided exercises and direct submissions are assessed against the same criteria |
| Second assessor | When unsure between ratings, for the agent capability and for disputed cases |
| Champion Challenge | Assessed on impact, reusability, quality and strategic alignment, using the champion-challenge-catalogue |
| Outcomes | Verified / Not yet (feedback and invitation to resubmit) / Returned unassessed (sensitive or incomplete evidence) |
| Feedback standard | Specific feedback on every dimension; for each Not yet, what would reach Meets; always the next milestone |
| Appeals | Heard by an assessor not involved originally, against the same criteria; [To confirm: how to request] |
| Decisions | Made by trained human assessors; no agent or automated check decides verification |
| Aggregate reporting | Submissions, share verified at first submission, turnaround, milestone conversion, appeal rate, assessor agreement |
7. Progress tracker
One row per participant, one column per journey stage. Each cell is Not started, In progress, Submitted, Not yet, or Verified or complete with a date.
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Where the tracker is kept | [To confirm: restricted location] |
| Who updates it, and how soon after an outcome | [To confirm] |
| Who can see what | Participants see their own row; assessors and the programme owner see all rows; everyone else sees aggregates only |
| Used by self-service guidance or an advisor agent? | [To confirm: if yes, each participant sees only their own status] |
| Retention and alumni handling | [To confirm: agreed with the data protection lead] |
| Never used for | Performance management, pay, promotion or league tables |
| Participant (fictional example) | Join | Chat | Productivity | Agent | Challenge | Recognised |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fictional example: participant A | Complete | Verified | Submitted | Not started | Not started | No |
| [To confirm] | [To confirm] | [To confirm] | [To confirm] | [To confirm] | [To confirm] | [To confirm] |
Credit: Template from CopilotForge by Simon Foote (https://github.com/SimonFoote-greensparx/CopilotForge), licensed under CC BY 4.0. Keep this credit when you share or adapt the template; in your own completed document you may keep it as a footer or remove it.