The person who could improve the next company process may already work there. Would anyone know to ask them?
A growing business wants to improve customer onboarding. It looks at its organization chart and decides it needs a new specialist. That may be true. Yet someone in support has documented the questions clients ask most often. A colleague in operations has built a workaround to prevent requests being lost. A developer knows where the software handoff fails. Their titles do not reveal the combined knowledge.
Why skills visibility has become a business question
On 6 October 2026, SAP announced an agreement to acquire TechWolf, which works on understanding tasks and skills across organizations. The acquisition was expected to close later, subject to conditions. It is an agreement, not a completed transaction at the time of the announcement.
In its Future of Jobs Report 2025, the World Economic Forum said surveyed employers expected 39% of workers' core skills to change by 2030. This is a forecast, not a measured change that has already occurred. A separate October 2026 Workday report found that 79% of surveyed workers knew which skills they needed, while 66% said their employer helped them develop them. The sources have different methods, but each makes a better understanding of work and development worth discussing.
A title describes a role, not a complete contribution
Job titles help organize responsibility. They rarely capture the customer problem someone solved, the colleague they trained, the process they documented or the skill they developed in another context. Résumés are often updated when people start looking elsewhere, which can be too late for an employer to notice their growth.
Visibility must be two-way. Being able to do something does not mean an employee wants more of it. A person may be excellent at fixing a recurring issue while hoping to move into a different kind of work. An internal system should record aspirations and consent alongside evidence of contribution.
Start with one opportunity
Choose an upcoming project, such as improving intake. Describe the tasks involved instead of searching only for a job title. Invite people to share relevant work they have done, what part interests them and what support they would need. Let them review and correct the record of their contribution.
Then compare that information with the usual staffing decision. Did someone previously overlooked become visible? Is there a real gap requiring training or an external hire? Do employees understand how the choice was made? These questions test the process before a company invests in a platform.
What a responsible system would do
Software could help a team find completed work, publish short opportunities, let employees express interest and record development support. It should not quietly monitor every action, assign permanent labels or treat an automated match as the final decision. People need control over their profiles, appropriate access limits and a fair conversation about the outcome.
I am exploring this as an internal opportunity and skills visibility concept, not a completed Business Systems Lab product. The first useful prototype would use fictional team profiles and one staffing decision. It would test whether the information improves a conversation rather than attempting to score a person's worth.
If your company had to staff an unfamiliar project next month, would it know who wants to grow into that work?
Work with Massoda
I build systems around scattered operational knowledge and unclear decisions. To discuss a careful pilot for internal opportunities or another workflow, email hello@massoda.me.