Mentoring & Training Discovery — Capability Development Assessment

Generates a 6-section mentoring and training discovery covering capability assessment, learning path design, knowledge transfer planning, training delivery model, measurement framework, and a phased training roadmap. Produces actionable findings with gap analysis, delivery recommendations, and measurable success criteria.

Principio Rector

El conocimiento que no se transfiere se pierde. La capacitacion que no se mide es un acto de fe. Un programa de mentoring efectivo convierte la experiencia individual en capacidad organizacional.

1. La brecha de capacidad es un riesgo de negocio, no solo un tema de RRHH. Cada skill gap no atendido se manifiesta como velocidad reducida, calidad inconsistente o dependencia critica de individuos. El assessment de capacidad es la primera linea de defensa contra el riesgo operativo.
2. El aprendizaje efectivo es contextual y progresivo. No existe un modelo unico de capacitacion. La combinacion optima de bootcamp, mentoring, on-the-job training y certificacion depende del rol, la experiencia previa y el contexto organizacional.
3. Medir no es opcional — es la diferencia entre capacitacion y esperanza. Sin metricas de adquisicion de conocimiento, tiempo a productividad y retencion, un programa de training es un gasto, no una inversion.

Inputs

• $1 — Path to team documentation, skills matrices, or project root (default: current working directory)
• $2 — Analysis depth: full (default), executive (sections S1, S5, S6 only)

Parse from $ARGUMENTS.

Parameters:

• {MODO}: piloto-auto (default) | desatendido | supervisado | paso-a-paso
  • piloto-auto: Auto para inventario de skills y gap analysis, HITL para diseno de learning paths y modelo de delivery.
  • desatendido: Cero interrupciones. Analisis completo automatizado. Supuestos documentados.
  • supervisado: Autonomo con reportes al completar cada seccion.
  • paso-a-paso: Confirma antes de cada seccion del analisis.
• {FORMATO}: markdown (default) | html | dual
• {VARIANTE}: ejecutiva (~40% — sections S1, S5, S6 only) | tecnica (full, default)

Input Requirements

Mandatory:

• Current team composition and role definitions
• Target skills or technology stack for the engagement
• Timeline constraints for capability readiness
• Stakeholder expectations on delivery model

Recommended:

• Existing skills matrix or competency assessments
• Previous training program results or satisfaction surveys
• Certification inventory per team member
• Project history (technologies used, complexity levels)
• Industry benchmarks for role competencies

Assumptions & Limits

Assumptions:

• Team members are available for assessment (self-assessment or evaluation)
• Target competency model is defined or can be inferred from project requirements
• Organization supports dedicated training time (not 100% billable expectation)
• Documentation in English or Spanish

Cannot do:

• Individual performance evaluation (requires HR processes and manager input)
• Psychometric assessment (requires specialized tools and certified evaluators)
• Salary benchmarking (requires market data and compensation expertise)
• Real-time skill verification through technical interviews (requires live sessions)

Workarounds When Inputs Missing

Missing Input	Impact	Workaround
No skills matrix	Cannot quantify gaps	Infer from project history, technology stack, team roles; flag as assumption
No target competency model	Cannot define learning paths	Use industry-standard role definitions (e.g., SFIA, MetodologIA role catalog); flag as baseline
No previous training data	Cannot benchmark improvement	Establish baseline through initial assessment; recommend pre/post methodology
No certification inventory	Cannot assess formal credentials	Self-declaration survey; cross-reference with LinkedIn/CV data; flag confidence level
No project history	Cannot contextualize experience	Role-based assessment only; flag as limited context

6-Section Framework

S1: Capability Assessment

• Current skills inventory: Per role/team member — technical skills, soft skills, domain knowledge. Proficiency levels: Foundational (1), Developing (2), Proficient (3), Advanced (4), Expert (5)
• Target skills definition: Per role — required competencies for engagement success. Mapped to SFIA framework or MetodologIA role catalog where applicable
• Gap analysis: Current vs target delta per role/team. Heat map visualization. Critical gaps (delta >= 3 levels) flagged
• Competency model mapping: Role-based competency clusters (technical, methodological, interpersonal, domain). Weight by business criticality
• Critical skill identification: Skills where gap + business impact = HIGH. Single points of failure (one person holds critical knowledge)
• Market benchmark comparison: How team capabilities compare to industry standards for similar roles/technologies

Conditional logic:

• IF critical gaps > 30% of required skills: flag CRITICAL — project readiness at risk
• IF single points of failure identified: flag HIGH — knowledge concentration risk
• IF no formal competency model exists: recommend adoption of SFIA or equivalent as foundational step

S2: Learning Path Design

• Role-based learning paths: Per role, structured progression:
  • Foundational (weeks 1-4): Core concepts, tools setup, coding standards, team processes
  • Intermediate (weeks 5-12): Applied skills, supervised deliverables, code review participation
  • Advanced (months 4-9): Independent delivery, mentoring others, architecture decisions
  • Expert (months 10+): Innovation, thought leadership, community contribution
• Certification milestones: Industry certifications mapped to progression (AWS, Azure, Scrum, ISTQB, etc.). Per certification: preparation time, exam cost magnitude, validity period
• Self-paced vs instructor-led balance: Recommendation per topic area. Self-paced for tools/syntax, instructor-led for architecture/design patterns/soft skills
• MetodologIA University model integration: Alignment with existing MetodologIA training catalog, reuse of certified content, gap identification for new content development
• Prerequisites and dependencies: Learning path dependency graph. Blocking prerequisites identified

Conditional logic:

• IF team has < 1 year experience in target stack: recommend intensive bootcamp (Phase 1)
• IF certification is client requirement: prioritize certification track with dedicated study time
• IF MetodologIA University content covers > 60% of needs: leverage existing content, develop delta only

S3: Knowledge Transfer Planning

• Documentation needs: What must be documented — architecture decisions, runbooks, coding standards, deployment procedures. Format and location standards
• Pairing/shadowing programs: Structure for knowledge transfer through practice. Senior-junior pairing ratios, rotation cadence, session format
• Workshop design: Topic-specific workshops with hands-on exercises. Per workshop: duration, audience, prerequisites, deliverables, facilitator requirements
• Hands-on labs: Practical exercises mapped to learning objectives. Sandbox environments, realistic scenarios, progressive difficulty
• Code review mentoring: Structured code review as learning tool. Review checklists, feedback templates, escalation criteria
• Tribal knowledge capture: Strategy for documenting undocumented expertise. Knowledge mining sessions, decision log creation, architecture decision records (ADR)
• Knowledge base creation plan: Platform selection, taxonomy design, contribution guidelines, maintenance ownership

Conditional logic:

• IF tribal knowledge concentration > 3 critical areas per person: flag CRITICAL — bus factor risk
• IF no documentation standards exist: recommend documentation-first approach before content creation
• IF remote/distributed team: emphasize asynchronous knowledge transfer methods

S4: Training Delivery Model

Per audience segment, recommend optimal blend:

Model	Duration	Best For	Scale
Bootcamp	2-8 weeks intensive	New technology adoption, team ramp-up	5-20 people
Ongoing mentoring	1:1 or 1:many, continuous	Skill deepening, career development	1-5 per mentor
On-the-job training	Embedded in delivery	Applied learning, context-specific	Individual
Certification tracks	Self-paced + exam prep	Formal credential requirements	Individual
Community of Practice	Bi-weekly, ongoing	Knowledge sharing, innovation	10-50 people

• Blend recommendation per audience: Matrix of audience segment x delivery model with rationale
• Facilitator requirements: Internal vs external trainers, subject matter expert availability, train-the-trainer needs
• Infrastructure needs: LMS platform, lab environments, video conferencing, recording/playback capabilities
• Schedule integration: Training time allocation within sprint/delivery cadence. Recommended: 10-20% of capacity for ongoing learning

Conditional logic:

• IF timeline < 3 months AND gap is foundational: recommend bootcamp model
• IF team > 20 people: recommend train-the-trainer + CoP model for scalability
• IF budget constrained: prioritize on-the-job training + self-paced with curated content

S5: Measurement Framework

• Skill acquisition metrics: Pre/post assessment scores per competency area. Minimum improvement threshold: 1 proficiency level per quarter
• Time-to-productivity: Days from onboarding to first independent deliverable. Benchmark per role complexity
• Certification pass rates: First-attempt pass rate target (> 80%). Retake policy and support
• Knowledge retention: 30/60/90 day knowledge checks. Spaced repetition integration. Decay rate monitoring
• Business impact indicators:
  • Velocity: Story points/sprint trend post-training
  • Quality: Defect density trend post-training
  • Satisfaction: Team confidence survey (quarterly)
  • Autonomy: Escalation rate reduction over time
• ROI indicators: Productivity gain magnitude, reduced dependency on external experts, faster onboarding of new team members. Expressed in effort-days saved, NOT monetary values

Conditional logic:

• IF no baseline metrics exist: establish baseline in first 2 weeks before training starts
• IF retention at 90 days < 60%: flag delivery model effectiveness, recommend reinforcement strategy
• IF certification pass rate < 70%: review preparation adequacy and study time allocation

S6: Training Roadmap

Phased plan with certification milestones and success metrics:

Phase 1: Foundation (Month 1-2)

• Target audience: Full team
• Delivery model: Bootcamp (intensive) + documentation sprint
• Content focus: Core technology stack, team processes, coding standards
• Success metrics: All members reach Foundational (L1) proficiency, initial documentation complete
• Effort magnitude: X trainer-days (NOT prices)

Phase 2: Acceleration (Month 3-6)

• Target audience: Role-specific groups
• Delivery model: Mentoring (1:many) + on-the-job training + certification prep
• Content focus: Role-specific deep dives, advanced patterns, first certifications
• Success metrics: 70% reach Proficient (L3), first certification cohort complete
• Effort magnitude: X trainer-days (NOT prices)

Phase 3: Mastery (Month 7-12)

• Target audience: Advanced practitioners + new joiners (cycle restart)
• Delivery model: CoP facilitation + advanced workshops + train-the-trainer
• Content focus: Architecture decisions, innovation, knowledge multiplication
• Success metrics: Team self-sufficient, internal trainers certified, CoP active
• Effort magnitude: X trainer-days (NOT prices)

Per phase: dependencies on previous phase, risk factors, contingency if timeline compressed.

Casos Borde

Caso	Estrategia de Manejo
Equipo sin ninguna experiencia en el stack objetivo (gap foundational >80%)	Recomendar bootcamp intensivo como Phase 0 obligatoria; no iniciar delivery hasta alcanzar nivel Foundational; escalar si timeline no permite ramp-up
Key person dependency (una persona concentra conocimiento critico en >3 areas)	Flag CRITICAL por bus factor; priorizar knowledge transfer inmediato via pairing/shadowing; documentar tribal knowledge antes de cualquier otra actividad
Organizacion espera 100% billable time sin dedicacion a training	Documentar el riesgo de no invertir en capacitacion; proponer modelo 90/10 como minimo; escalar a sponsor si la expectativa no cambia
Training needs abarcan dominios fuera de la expertise de MetodologIA	Identificar gaps que requieren proveedores externos; recomendar partnerships o certificaciones especificas; no pretender cubrir lo que no se domina

Decisiones y Trade-offs

Decision	Alternativa Descartada	Justificacion
Usar modelo de 5 niveles de proficiencia (Foundational a Expert)	Binario (sabe / no sabe)	Los 5 niveles permiten disenar learning paths progresivos y medir mejora incremental; el modelo binario no captura crecimiento
Incluir measurement framework como seccion mandatoria (S5)	Training sin metricas de efectividad	Sin metricas de adquisicion, retencion y productividad, un programa de training es un gasto sin evidencia de retorno
Combinar bootcamp + mentoring + on-the-job como modelo hibrido	Un unico modelo de delivery para todos los roles	Cada audiencia tiene necesidades diferentes; un modelo unico sub-optimiza para todos

Knowledge Graph

graph TD
    subgraph Core["Mentoring & Training Core"]
        A[metodologia-mentoring-training-discovery]
        A1[S1: Capability Assessment]
        A2[S2: Learning Path Design]
        A3[S3: Knowledge Transfer Planning]
        A4[S4: Training Delivery Model]
        A5[S5: Measurement Framework]
        A6[S6: Training Roadmap]
    end
    subgraph Inputs["Inputs"]
        I1[Team Composition]
        I2[Target Skills / Tech Stack]
        I3[Timeline Constraints]
        I4[Existing Skills Matrix]
    end
    subgraph Outputs["Outputs"]
        O1[Training Discovery Report]
        O2[Gap Analysis Heatmap]
        O3[Phased Training Roadmap]
    end
    subgraph Related["Related Skills"]
        R1[metodologia-stakeholder-mapping]
        R2[metodologia-workshop-design]
        R3[metodologia-roadmap-poc]
        R4[metodologia-sector-intelligence]
    end
    I1 --> A
    I2 --> A
    I3 --> A
    I4 --> A
    A --> A1 --> A2 --> A3 --> A4 --> A5 --> A6
    A --> O1
    A --> O2
    A --> O3
    R1 --> A
    R2 --- A
    A --> R3
    R4 --> A

Output Templates

Formato MD (default):

# Mentoring & Training Discovery — {proyecto}
## Resumen Ejecutivo
> Roles evaluados: N. Gaps criticos: X. Tiempo estimado a productividad: Y meses.
## S1: Capability Assessment
| Rol | Skill | Nivel Actual | Nivel Objetivo | Gap | Criticidad |
## S2: Learning Paths
```mermaid
flowchart LR
    Foundational --> Intermediate --> Advanced --> Expert

S3-S6: [secciones completas]

Roadmap de Training

gantt
    title Training Roadmap
    ...

**Formato XLSX (para RRHH y gestores de talento):**

Hoja 1: Resumen Ejecutivo (gaps criticos + recomendaciones top 5) Hoja 2: Skills Matrix (rol x skill x nivel actual x nivel objetivo x gap) Hoja 3: Learning Paths (por rol, con milestones de certificacion) Hoja 4: Calendario de Training (actividad x fecha x audiencia x facilitador) Hoja 5: Metricas de Medicion (baseline x target x frecuencia de tracking) Hoja 6: Budget de Training (esfuerzo en trainer-days, NO precios)

**Formato HTML (bajo demanda):**
- Filename: `Mentoring_Training_Discovery_{project}_{WIP}.html`
- Estructura: HTML self-contained branded (Design System MetodologIA v5). Light-First Technical. Incluye heatmap de skills gap por rol, flowchart de learning paths con milestones de certificacion, y roadmap faseado con timeline visual. WCAG AA, responsive, print-ready.

**Formato DOCX (bajo demanda):**
- Filename: `{fase}_Mentoring_Training_Discovery_{cliente}_{WIP}.docx`
- Generado via python-docx con MetodologIA Design System v5. Portada con logo y metadatos, TOC automatico, headers/footers con nombre del skill y numeracion, tablas zebra, titulos Poppins navy, cuerpo Montserrat, acentos gold.

**Formato PPTX (bajo demanda):**
- Filename: `{fase}_Mentoring_Training_Discovery_{cliente}_{WIP}.pptx`
- Generado via python-pptx con MetodologIA Design System v5. Slide master navy gradient, titulos Poppins, cuerpo Montserrat, acentos gold. Max 20 slides variante ejecutiva / 30 variante tecnica. Speaker notes con referencias de evidencia [DOC]/[INFERENCIA]/[SUPUESTO].

## Evaluacion

| Dimension | Peso | Criterio | Umbral Minimo |
|-----------|------|----------|---------------|
| Trigger Accuracy | 10% | El skill se activa ante prompts de training, mentoring, capability assessment, upskilling | 7/10 |
| Completeness | 25% | Las 6 secciones pobladas; gap analysis por rol/equipo; learning paths con niveles de progresion y certificaciones | 7/10 |
| Clarity | 20% | Heatmap de gaps es visualmente claro; modelo de delivery tiene justificacion por audiencia | 7/10 |
| Robustness | 20% | Edge cases cubiertos (zero experience, bus factor, no training time, outside expertise); workarounds documentados | 7/10 |
| Efficiency | 10% | Profundidad adaptada (full vs executive); MetodologIA University content reutilizado donde aplica | 7/10 |
| Value Density | 15% | Metricas de medicion definidas con baseline y target; ROI expresado en esfuerzo-dias ahorrados; single points of failure abordados | 7/10 |

**Umbral minimo global: 7/10.** Si alguna dimension cae por debajo, el entregable requiere revision antes de entrega.

## Escalation to Human Architect

- Team assessment reveals organizational issues beyond training (motivation, leadership, culture)
- Client expectations on timeline are incompatible with realistic skill acquisition curves
- Certification requirements conflict with project delivery timeline
- Training needs span domains outside MetodologIA expertise
- Individual performance issues require HR intervention, not training

## Validation Gate

- [ ] Capability assessment complete with gap analysis per role/team
- [ ] Learning paths designed with progression levels and certification milestones
- [ ] Knowledge transfer plan includes documentation, pairing, and tribal knowledge capture
- [ ] Training delivery model recommended per audience segment with rationale
- [ ] Measurement framework defined with baseline, tracking, and business impact indicators
- [ ] Training roadmap phased with effort magnitudes (trainer-days, NOT prices)
- [ ] All findings tagged with evidence source [DOC], [INFERENCIA], [SUPUESTO]
- [ ] Single points of failure (key-person dependencies) identified and addressed
- [ ] MetodologIA University integration points identified where applicable
- [ ] Recommendations sequenced by criticality and dependency

## Output Artifact

**Primary:** `Mentoring_Training_Discovery_{project}.md` (o `.html` si `{FORMATO}=html|dual`) — 6-section capability development assessment with gap analysis, learning path design, delivery model recommendation, measurement framework, and phased training roadmap.

**Diagramas incluidos:**
- Heatmap: Skills gap matrix (current vs target per role)
- Flowchart: Learning path progression with certification milestones
- Timeline: Phased training roadmap with dependencies

---
**Autor:** Javier Montaño · Comunidad MetodologIA | **Ultima actualizacion:** 14 de marzo de 2026