Will / Can / Must
Compare stated interests, demonstrated capability and confirmed requirements for the same tasks, preserving gaps and unknowns.
Use a development or allocation conversation to separate what someone wants, can currently demonstrate and is required to do. A learnable skill remains a development item until demonstrated. Compare the same tasks before agreeing an action.
The person’s stated interests, task-specific capability evidence, requirement sources and confirmation, resources and review date.
Three evidence sets, task overlap and gaps, and a proposed action or support arrangement.
On this page
How to use it
- Define the person, tasks and date; invite their own preferences.
- List capability evidence and distinguish learning from demonstrated work.
- Record requirement sources and confirmation.
- Compare the same task IDs across all three sets, retaining unknowns.
- Discuss development or allocation with the person and review conditions.
Keep its limits in mind
Do not infer a person’s preferences from a manager’s opinion. Training potential is not demonstrated capability; a proposed requirement is not a confirmed duty. Overlap area is not a score or career prediction. No overlap can prompt negotiation rather than forced agreement. The diagram neither selects tasks nor grants authority.
Willingness does not establish current ability
Original fictional I5 teaching packet: Clearbrook Support. Records, statements, trials and agreements are synthetic, not real outcomes or personnel assessments.
On a small screen, scroll across the diagram to read it.
Compare identical tasks: T1 has willingness and a requirement but not demonstrated independent capability. T2 has all three supplied conditions. T3 retains two unknowns.
Agree support separately: A proposal to start with the FAQ does not mean Lin has accepted a schedule or been given authority. Training for the template needs time and a review.
T2 aligns now, T1 needs guidance, T3 remains uncertain; do not sum them into a score.
Next step: With a specific task and the person’s statement, discuss support using Will/Skill and add capability evidence and a review.
Three conditions that require a conversation before assignment
First, pause when the three sets refer to different tasks. Interest in making a video, experience writing FAQs, and a requirement to fix a template cannot be combined into one aligned task. Use the same task IDs and a stated date so changes in scope remain visible.
Second, do not fill the Will set from a manager’s opinion. Ask what the person wants to do and what conditions matter. An interest statement is not unlimited availability, acceptance of a deadline, or agreement to a larger responsibility. They can be interested while asking for support or declining a particular schedule.
Third, stop when learning potential is being treated as current capability or a suggestion as a duty. Record what has been demonstrated and who confirmed a requirement. An empty overlap can lead to negotiation, development, or a scope change; the diagram does not authorize compulsory alignment or predict a career.
Separate alignment, support, cooperation, and responsibility
Will/Can/Must helps discuss the fit between one person’s preferences, capability evidence, and requirements. A different method is useful when the next question concerns how to support a task, arrange help, or agree roles.
| Question and available input | Method | Output and boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Same tasks have preference, capability and requirement records | Will/Can/Must | Task overlap and gaps; no automatic choice or schedule. |
| One task needs suitable guidance or other support | Will/Skill matrix | Contextual support discussion; no permanent person rating. |
| People have wants and offers of help | Want/Commitment | Possible matches and acceptance status; offers are not duties. |
| A deliverable needs agreed execution and approval roles | RACI matrix | Role agreement; the chart cannot create acceptance. |
Compare Lin’s three tasks without borrowing evidence across them
The complete fictional I5 snapshot is October 7 at Clearbrook Support. Lin wants T1 handoff template and T2 FAQ work and is interested in T3 video. T2 has two checked drafts. T1 still needs guidance; T3 capability is unknown. The coordinator confirms T1 and T2 as duties for this round, while T3 is only a suggestion. Timing, workload, and authority for the proposed next work remain to be confirmed.
The table compares each task with itself. T1 is H/L/H because willingness and requirement are supplied but independent capability is not demonstrated. T2 is H/H/H under the supplied evidence, not a general competence score. T3 is H/?/? because interest does not establish either skill or a requirement.
The proposed conversation is to discuss T2 first and arrange a demonstration for T1. That does not mean Lin has accepted a delivery date or that training has happened. Keep the two FAQ drafts separate from evidence about completing a v2 handoff sheet in another exercise; different task definitions cannot silently supply each other’s capability evidence.
| Task | Will / Can / Must | Evidence and next discussion |
|---|---|---|
| T1 handoff template | H / L / H | Lin wants it; guidance needed; coordinator confirms duty. Discuss demonstration, time and support. |
| T2 FAQ | H / H / H | Lin wants it; two checked drafts; confirmed duty. Discuss actual scope, load and acceptance. |
| T3 video | H / ? / ? | Interest only; capability and duty unknown. Clarify before planning or assigning. |
Review an agreed task rather than the size of an overlap
For T1, ask what the demonstration should cover and what an independent attempt would need to show. Identify the template version, required fields, checking method, and available support before treating an attempt as evidence. The current record says guidance is needed; it does not document a failed training or a completed improvement.
For T2, confirm the requested output, any review condition, available time, and the person’s actual acceptance. Two checked drafts support the stated capability judgment, but they do not establish unlimited capacity or permission to approve someone else’s work. A required task can still need resource negotiation.
For T3, retain the unknowns and ask whether further discussion is useful. Do not create a course, deadline, or requirement merely to complete the three circles. If the person’s preference or the organizational requirement changes, add the new statement and date rather than rewriting the earlier record.
At a later agreed review, distinguish support offered, support received, an attempt completed, evidence checked, and any change in responsibility. Reassess the same task under explicit criteria. No work start, successful development, additional authority, or career outcome is supplied here; the worksheet supports a more precise conversation about the next step.
Check your work
- Each set has evidence and a clear status.
- Overlap uses the same task and does not fill unknowns.
- Actions are negotiated, not assigned by the diagram.
Framework references
References explain the framework and its scope; they do not validate the fictional example's results.
Put the framework to work
Copy the outline and add your question, evidence, and open questions.