Competency credentials are qualifications that certify specific, defined abilities (competencies) rather than time spent in a course, seat-time, or a broad degree title, aiming to make “what you can do” portable and comparable across employers, institutions, and contexts - ubiquityuniversity.org 
# What makes a credential “competency-based” A competency credential is built from an explicit Competency Framework (named competencies with definitions and levels), a method for collecting evidence, and an assessment process that decides whether the evidence meets the stated standard.
This model overlaps with Microcredentials and Recognition of Prior Learning because it can recognise workplace performance, volunteering, and self-directed practice, as long as those experiences can be evidenced and assessed.
# The minimum moving parts A competency credential system usually has. - A competency definition and level (what is being claimed). - Evidence (artefacts, performance data, peer review, supervisor attestations, project outputs). - Assessment rules (rubrics, evaluators, auditability). - An issuer (who asserts the claim) and a verifier (who checks it). - A portability format (how the credential is carried between systems).
# Why open standards matter Competency credentials only become truly portable when they are expressed in interoperable formats, so the “proof” can travel between institutions, workplaces, and platforms without being trapped in a single vendor’s database.
This is why modern credentialing increasingly references open standards for both (1) the credential object itself and (2) the learning and evidence data that supports it.
# Open Badges as a competency credential format
Open Badges is an open specification for packaging a recognition or achievement (including a microcredential, skill, or competency) as a verifiable, portable digital badge with defined metadata - 1edtech.org
Open Badges 3.0 is explicitly aligned with the Verifiable Credentials data model so that badges can participate in stronger cryptographic verification and “presentations” while remaining interoperable across platforms - imsglobal.org
# Verifiable Credentials as a general-purpose trust layer
The W3C Verifiable Credentials data model describes a standard way for an issuer to make tamper-evident claims about a subject, with a holder and verifier ecosystem, which fits naturally with education and employment credentials - w3.org
In credential terms, this enables a cleaner separation between “who issued the claim”, “who holds it”, and “who verifies it”, and supports more privacy-preserving sharing patterns than a centralised transcript portal.
# xAPI as an evidence capture standard
The Experience API (xAPI, originally “Tin Can”) is an interoperability specification for recording learning experiences and activities between systems, typically by sending structured “statements” to a Learning Record Store (LRS) - github.com
An xAPI statement is commonly described as having an Actor, Verb, and Object (like a basic sentence, represented as JSON), which makes it useful for capturing learning evidence from many different tools and contexts, not just an LMS quiz - lrs.io
# Learning Management Systems A Learning Management System is not itself a single open standard, but a product category that becomes interoperable through standards that define how content is launched, how tools connect, and how activity is tracked.
Three widely used “LMS ecosystem” standards illustrate this.
- SCORM: defines how e-learning content is packaged and how it communicates with the LMS runtime environment, enabling content to move between SCORM-conformant systems - scorm.com
- LTI: a 1EdTech standard for securely connecting external learning tools to learning platforms (including LMSs) with a vendor-neutral integration pattern - 1edtech.org
- cmi5: an xAPI profile that adds the extra rules needed for “plug-and-play” course launch and tracking in an LMS using xAPI, bridging the flexibility of xAPI with the structured LMS use case - aicc.github.io
# How these pieces fit together A practical modern stack often looks like this. - The credential is issued as an Open Badge or a Verifiable Credential. - The supporting evidence is logged as xAPI statements into an LRS. - The learning tool integrates with the LMS via LTI (or ships as SCORM/cmi5 content). - Assessment draws on the evidence stream plus human review, then issues the credential. This makes the credential more than a sticker: it becomes a claim backed by an evidence trail that can be audited, sampled, and re-interpreted as standards evolve.
# Risks and failure modes Competency credentials can degrade into “badge theatre” if competencies are vague, evidence is weak, or assessment is not credible, leading to inflated claims that employers learn to ignore. They can also become surveillance-heavy if xAPI-style tracking is used without strong governance, minimisation, and learner consent, turning “evidence” into an always-on behavioural exhaust stream.
# See - Competency Framework - Microcredentials and Open Badges - Verifiable Credentials - Experience API - Learning Record Store - Learning Management System - SCORM, LTI and cmi5