COMPEL Specialization — AITE-WCT: AI Workforce Transformation Expert Artifact Template 4 of 5
How to use this template
Populate one specification per redesigned role. For a new hire into an already-redesigned role, Section 9 (Transition Plan) may be omitted.
The specification is a living document — tool changes, policy changes, AI-system changes will update Sections 3, 5, and 6 over time. The Section 10 governance cadence ensures the updates happen in the right forum with the right approvers.
Quality test before issue: apply the three-reader rule (Article 25). The HR practitioner, the hiring manager, and the incumbent each must be able to use their relevant sections without consulting the author.
Redesigned Role Specification
Specification header
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Prior role title | |
| New role title | |
| Role code (HRIS, after redesign) | |
| Specification version | 1.0 |
| Specification date | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Specification author | |
| Specification approvers | typically: Head of Function × HR × Works Council where applicable |
| Approval date | |
| Next scheduled review | |
| Incumbent count | |
| Geographic distribution |
Section 1 — Role title and identity
Role title
The title signals change. A title that changes signals meaningful shift; a title unchanged signals continuity. Choose deliberately.
Role identity paragraph
One paragraph describing what this person does, why it matters, and how the work connects to the organisation’s purpose. 3–5 sentences. The artefact the incumbent quotes when asked “what do you do.”
Example: The Commercial Underwriting Review Specialist reviews AI-drafted underwriting memos for mid-market commercial loan applications, exercises professional judgment to adjust or override the AI’s recommendations, conducts client dialogue where ambiguity requires it, and presents recommendations to the credit committee. The role ensures that the bank’s underwriting decisions reflect both efficient use of AI drafting and the professional judgment that an AI cannot supply.
Section 2 — Core responsibilities
Five to seven responsibilities expressed as outcomes the person is accountable for. Not tasks (tasks are Section 5) — responsibilities.
- e.g., Ensure commercial underwriting decisions meet quality and timeliness standards across the review Specialist’s portfolio.
Section 3 — AI touchpoints
The most important section. Be specific. Ambiguity here is the primary source of role conflict.
Systems and their role
| System name (or capability category if system not yet selected) | Tasks used for | Decision authority | Review cadence | Escalation path |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| System 1 | tasks | draft / review / approve / override; conditions for override | how often the output quality is reviewed and by whom | anomaly response |
| System 2 | ||||
| System 3 |
AI output confidence handling
How the incumbent interprets AI confidence or uncertainty signals; what action is required at low-confidence thresholds.
Human override discipline
When the incumbent overrides AI output, how is the override documented; who reviews the override pattern.
Section 4 — Skills and capabilities
Must-have
Skills without which the role cannot be performed.
Strong-preference
Skills that substantially improve role performance but are not absolute prerequisites.
Developable
Skills the organisation will develop in the incumbent during first 6–12 months.
Literacy level required
From Article 12 taxonomy. Link to curriculum (Template 3).
Sector-specific certifications
Where applicable (e.g., securities industry certifications, medical professional certifications).
Section 5 — Task composition
Summary from the task-level decomposition (Template 2, Sheet 3). Major task clusters with time allocation and classification properties.
| Task cluster | Approximate fraction of role time | Primary AI exposure level | Primary human-centricity |
|---|---|---|---|
| cluster 1 | % | 0–3 | L/M/H |
| cluster 2 | |||
| … |
Detailed task list
Linked appendix or separate document.
Section 6 — Performance expectations
Outcomes (not activities) with evidence types.
| Outcome | Evidence type | Measurement source | Review cadence |
|---|---|---|---|
| e.g., Commercial underwriting decision quality ≥ baseline | sampled quality review | credit audit function | quarterly |
| e.g., Judgment-applied ratio ≥ 20% | system-reported | underwriting platform + AI tool logs | monthly |
| e.g., Client-response time ≤ SLA | system-reported | ||
| e.g., Training currency maintained | LMS record |
Attribution approach (Article 29)
How human contribution is distinguished from AI-assisted output in performance measurement. Named approach; documented for incumbent reference.
Performance review rhythm
Weekly / monthly / quarterly cadence per Article 29; roles of each cadence.
Section 7 — Reporting, collaboration, and authority
Reporting
- Reports to: role
- Reports into the role: role(s), if any
Collaboration
- Regular collaboration with: roles and cadences
Decision authority
| Decision class | Authority level | Escalation if outside authority |
|---|---|---|
| e.g., Approve applications within £X commitment | sole | Senior Specialist for higher commitment |
| e.g., Override AI recommendation | sole with documented reasoning | quarterly pattern review |
| e.g., Commit bank to customer beyond approved application | none | relationship manager + Head of Commercial |
Section 8 — Growth and career path
Realistic next roles (2 or 3)
With the development experience the current role provides toward each.
Development experience the role builds
Skills, exposure, relationships, judgment that the role develops.
Is this a terminal role?
If the role is a genuine terminal position, say so honestly and describe the compensating development (visibility, mentorship authority, professional-community leadership).
Section 9 — Transition plan (for redesigned roles only)
From role
The prior role title and code.
What continues
The parts of the prior role that carry forward substantively unchanged.
What ends
The parts of the prior role that no longer exist. Named specifically. Honoured explicitly (per Article 21 Ending phase).
What is new
The parts of the new role that did not exist before.
Timeline
60–180-day transition. Phased if appropriate.
Training and support
Curriculum (link to Template 3); manager coaching (Article 28); peer support.
Decision point at which the transition is complete
What the organisation and the incumbent agree constitutes “arrived” in the new role.
Bridges phase support
| Phase | Expected duration | Support mechanism |
|---|---|---|
| Ending | 2–4 weeks | naming ritual; acknowledgement; honouring of the prior role |
| Neutral Zone | 3–6 months | manager coaching; peer support; productivity-dip tolerance |
| New Beginning | ongoing after NZ | personal wins framework; symbolic markers |
Section 10 — Governance and review
Specification owner
Named role; not individual.
Standing review cadence
Annual review date.
Out-of-cycle triggers
- Material AI-system change
- Regulatory change affecting the role
- Incident implicating the role
- Works-council consultation conclusion requiring revision
Change approval
Who approves changes to which sections. Section 3 and Section 6 typically require HR × AI Governance × Works Council (where applicable).
Incumbent notification on material changes
How and when incumbents are informed.
Version history
| Version | Date | Changes | Approver |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | initial redesign | ||
| 1.1 |
Three-reader quality test
Before issue, confirm:
- HR practitioner can use Sections 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10 to hire, level, and evaluate without consulting the author.
- Hiring manager can use Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 to recruit, onboard, and coach without consulting the author.
- Incumbent or candidate can read the whole document and describe their role back accurately in their own words.
Works-council readability test (where applicable)
- Non-specialist council member can read the document and produce a plain-language summary that matches the author’s intent.
Appendices
- A. Detailed task list (from Template 2).
- B. Detailed AI-system description (for Section 3 technical depth).
- C. Sample performance-review worked example (applying Section 6).
Quality rubric — self-assessment of template
| Dimension | Self-score (of 10) |
|---|---|
| Structural completeness (all 10 sections) | 10 |
| Section 3 specificity (AI touchpoints actionable) | 10 |
| Attribution approach (Section 6 addresses Article 29 problem) | 10 |
| Transition plan (Bridges-informed) | 10 |
| Three-reader test enforced | 10 |
| Weighted total | 50 / 50 |