Expert View

By Dr. George Anastasopoulos

Technical & Intl. Business Development Mgr., PJLA

In today’s highly competitive and ever-evolving professional landscape, personnel certification remains a valuable asset for individuals seeking to demonstrate their abilities and advance their careers. Obtaining a professional certification often requires a significant investment of time, effort, and financial resources. For this reason, candidates are increasingly faced with a critical choice: whether to pursue a competence-based or a qualification-based certification program.

At first glance, qualification-based certification may seem more accessible. It is often easier to obtain, less expensive, and focused primarily on formal education or training history. However, this convenience may come at the cost of genuine credibility and market acceptance. So, what really distinguishes competence-based from qualification-based certification, and which one truly holds value in today’s global market?

Definitions That Matter

According to ISO 19011, Guidelines for Auditing Management Systems, competence is defined as “the ability to apply knowledge and skills to achieve intended results.” In practical terms, competence-based certification requires candidates to demonstrate their abilities through validated means - such as examinations, practical assessments, or performance evaluations - covering not only knowledge, but also skills and behaviors aligned with the certification’s scope.

On the other hand, qualification-based certification typically relies on reviewing the applicant’s education, course attendance, or prior training. It assumes that completion of training equals capability, with minimal or no independent verification of actual performance or ability.

Consider the following simple yet illustrative exchange:

- "Do you know how to drive a car?"

- "I’ve taken lessons, and I have a license, but I’m still not confident behind the wheel."

- "Then you have the qualifications, but not the competence."

This brief dialogue captures a critical truth: Qualifications alone do not guarantee competence. History is filled with examples of individuals - college dropouts among them - who rose to executive leadership roles not because of their academic records, but because of their demonstrated competence.

ISO/IEC 17024: Setting the Global Standard

Recognizing this distinction, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) developed ISO/IEC 17024, “Conformity assessment – General requirements for bodies operating certification of persons”. This international standard outlines how Personnel Certification Bodies (PCBs) should operate to ensure fairness, consistency, and - most importantly - validity in how certifications are awarded.

ISO/IEC 17024 mandates that certifications must be based on demonstrated competence, not just possession of qualifications. The standard provides a comprehensive framework for assessing competence through valid, reliable, and impartial examinations, practical tests, or other evaluation methods. While it allows flexibility in assessment methods, its core principle is clear: competence must be measurable, observable, and independently verified.

This approach has been widely adopted by businesses, industries, regulators, and governments worldwide as the most reliable way to ensure that certified professionals truly meet the expectations of their roles.

The Pitfall of Qualification-Based Certifications

Despite the growing emphasis on competence, some certification bodies continue to offer non-accredited, qualification-based programs. These programs often assume that a person’s educational background is a sufficient indicator of capability. While this may occasionally be true - especially in academic or theoretical fields - it falls short in professions where actual performance, judgment, and applied skill are critical.

Such programs contribute to confusion among employers, regulators, and candidates. More importantly, qualification-based programs cannot be accredited under ISO/IEC 17024, since they do not meet its requirements for competence assessment. As a result, they offer limited value in environments that demand objective proof of ability.

Training vs. Assessment: The Shift in Focus

A key distinction between the two approaches lies in their emphasis. Qualification-based certification often focuses on the completion of training programs. If you've attended a course, you may receive a certificate, regardless of how well you've mastered the material.

In contrast, competence-based certification starts by defining the required competencies and then verifying whether the candidate has achieved them, typically through structured, independent assessments. The goal is not to reward participation, but to validate actual ability.

In competence-based systems, training is important, but it is not enough. The real emphasis is on the results of training, measured through robust and impartial evaluation.

How to Recognize a Competence-Based Certification Program

So, how can one tell whether a certification program is truly competence-based? Here is a simple checklist:

1. Accreditation to ISO/IEC 17024: Verify that the PCB is accredited to this standard.
2. Program Scope: Check that the specific certification program is included in the PCB’s accredited scope.
3. Credible Accreditation Body: Ensure that the accreditation has been granted by a body that is a signatory to the International Accreditation Forum (IAF) Multilateral Recognition Arrangement (MLA) and/or is an MLA signatory of the International Personnel Certification Association (IPC). Visit www.iaf.nu or www.ipcaweb.org to verify membership and recognition.

Accreditation under these arrangements provides assurance that the certification process meets internationally accepted best practices.

Conclusion: Competence Is the Currency of Trust

In summary, while both types of certifications may serve specific purposes, competence-based certification carries significantly greater weight in professional, technical, and regulated environments. It offers a more rigorous, transparent, and trustworthy validation of a person’s abilities, providing assurance not only to employers and clients, but also to the certified professionals themselves.

In a world where performance matters more than paperwork, competence is the true currency of professional credibility. Before investing in any certification, professionals and organizations alike should ask: Does this program prove what I can do or just what I’ve done?

About the Author

Dr. George Anastasopoulos is the Technical and International Business Development Manager at Perry Johnson Laboratory Accreditation, Inc.(PJLA), a leading U.S.-based accreditation body operating globally across multiple technical and scientific sectors. He also serves as General Secretary of the International Personnel Certification Association (IPC).

A Mechanical Engineer with an MSc and PhD in Applied Mechanics from Northwestern University, Dr. Anastasopoulos is an active member of several international standards committees, including ISO/TC 176, ISO/CASCO, and ASTM, contributing to the development of ISO 9001 and ISO/IEC 17025. He is also a regular participant in IAF and ILAC global accreditation activities.

He has received the EOQ Presidential Georges Borel Award for his international achievements in promoting quality worldwide and has published extensively in journals and conferences. As a keynote speaker and project leader, he has contributed to numerous initiatives in conformity assessment, management systems, and quality assurance across the U.S., EU, and beyond. He can be contacted at ganast@pjlabs.com