What this guide is for
The Workforce Intelligence Center is the Group-scale form of an EVA analysis: every Maison and every market on one map, with a country page for each and a Control Center that turns each gap into a decision. This guide explains how its numbers are made and how to review them before acting. It is written for a Group HR team, a division leadership team and a market managing director, who each open the same artefact from a different angle.
1. The question the analysis answers
A Group usually already knows where people can go, who they are and what training exists. The question is how assessed capability supports the plan, where the evidence and capability gaps are, and which options merit review. The analysis is built around that question, at three levels: the Group map, a country page, and one gap with its shortlist.
- Scope: the Maisons, markets, functions and job levels in the modelled population.
- Framework: a Group taxonomy of competency domains in families, with a division framework nested where one exists.
- Horizon: the plan period, typically five years, and the snapshot date of the readout.
2. Demand: from documents to a weight
Demand weights are derived from agreed documents and explicit modelling assumptions. Each Maison in each market has a strategic plan; the Group has stated priorities; the market has its own context. Every competency domain receives a demand weight from 1 to 5 for each Maison-market, built from the Group base weight for the domain, a business-group modifier, a market modifier, and how deeply the domain is embedded in the plan. Cited passages are kept with each score so a reader can see why a weight is high.
The country score blends the headcount-weighted average across the Maisons present with the highest single Maison weight, so a domain that one large Maison needs badly is not diluted by others that do not. The weight is then normalised to a 0 to 1 scale for comparison with supply.
The Manager Priority Pulse is an evidence layer on top of this. Managers distribute one hundred points across the competencies they need most. It records leadership demand, adds a badge to each domain, and never changes a model score. No market is penalised for not submitting it.
3. Supply: self and manager assessment perspectives
Supply comes from competency profiles with self and manager ratings. The manager rating replaces the self rating where it exists in this model. That is an assessment lens, not independent verification. Review differences, examples and evidence before using a score for an individual decision.
- Each talent contributes proficiency multiplied by a job-level weight, so senior capability counts for more.
- Supply for a domain in a country is the sum of those contributions, normalised against the capacity of everyone who holds the domain.
- Coverage is recorded per domain: how many of the people who hold it have manager-assessed mapping. Confidence follows coverage: high from 80 percent, moderate from 60, low from 40, insufficient below.
Unmapped people are not assumed to have no capability. Adjusted supply extrapolates assessed capability by job level to the unmapped population as an additional scenario. Its usefulness depends on the assumptions and data quality.
4. The gap and its sensitivity check
The gap is demand minus supply, both on a 0 to 1 scale. Above 0.40 is critical, 0.25 to 0.40 significant, 0 to 0.25 mild, below 0 surplus. A raw critical gap crosses 0.40 on the headline score.
The sample flags a gap after a sensitivity check when the gap minus 0.35 times the unmapped share still exceeds 0.40. This is one stated missing-data assumption. It does not establish that the result would hold for every possible distribution of capability among unmapped people. The map can show this count or the raw critical count. These are prioritisation scores, not a headcount deficit.
5. The five-person floor and what is not in the data
In this sample, aggregate cells covering fewer than five people are suppressed and rendered as a dash, in the prepared data and on the page. No gender, age, nationality, performance rating or compensation field exists in the schema, so none can appear in a cut. The sample also includes synthetic individual roster and candidate views. EVA and Customer Success configure role-based access for each client and use case. Employees, managers, HR and other authorised viewers can see individual assessments and aggregate analyses according to the agreed permissions. Disclosure thresholds are agreed for each instrument; five people is this sample’s setting, not a universal product rule.
The analysis is not a performance tool and not a headcount-reduction tool. It serves internal mobility first, temporary reinforcement second, development third, and recruitment last. That order is written into the Control Center and can be shared with employee representative bodies before the analysis is shown.
6. From a gap to a route
The Control Center illustrates five routes to review. A suggested route does not establish feasibility, approval or completion.
- Internal mobility. Gaps passing the sensitivity check with illustrative candidates rated at level 3 or 4 by a manager in another market. The shortlist shows self and manager ratings and whether work evidence is attached. Interest, availability, fit and home-manager release remain to be confirmed.
- Seasonal pool. Potential contingent-pool options for retail peaks, pop-ups and event hospitality; eligibility and availability require review.
- Peak and event surge. Possible staffing routes for store openings and events; timing and feasibility require review.
- Learning route. Development options for significant gaps and other priority areas. Proposed learning routes do not establish that a gap will close by a particular date.
- Recruitment. Gaps with no suitable internal candidate in the sample, with a templated mission brief describing required capability, level, market and evidence. External recruitment and candidate screening require a separately configured project.
7. Reading a nested framework
Where a division runs its own competency framework, the analysis nests it inside the Group taxonomy: four pillars, twelve competencies, rated by the talent and independently by the manager on a 1 to 4 scale. Lead with points on that scale and with the share of talents who rate themselves above their manager; a ratio percentage is shown for reference only. Review the lowest manager-assessed pillar and the widest self/manager assessment difference alongside examples and business needs before agreeing priorities.
8. Review the analysis before acting on it
Walk it the way a decision would: the Group map, then one division and one region, then one country page with its evidence, then one gap in the Control Center with its shortlist. At each step ask three questions. Is the demand weight explained by a passage a plan owner would recognise? Is the supply confidence high enough for the decision, or does the domain need more mapping first? Is the route the least disruptive one that closes the gap?
A useful analysis makes its limits visible. Coverage, confidence, suppression and the snapshot date are shown on every page. Where they are low, the analysis says so and the first action is to improve the evidence, not to move people.