Consulting Capability Transfer Plan
Three documents and three sheets that score every competency's baseline before training starts, then the same rubric again at closeout.
Free download · No account needed
Capability Assessment · Corvale Consulting Group · Perrin Valley Foods continuous-improvement transfer · 18 Dec 2026
19 of 20 scored competencies hit target. The one that didn't is why the closeout report doesn't say "complete."
| Competency — Priya Devan, CI Lead | Baseline | Target | After |
|---|---|---|---|
| Problem Selection | 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Root Cause Analysis | 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Solution Design and Piloting | 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Kaizen Facilitation | 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Sustain and Control Planning | 2 | 4 | 3 |
Priya's own baseline, scored before training began, is the only reason "below target" is checkable at all.
Without it, a Level 3 at closeout reads exactly like a Level 3 who started there.
Search consulting capability transfer plan and the shape is settled. Name the competencies, assign an owner and a recipient, match a transfer method to what's being taught, schedule the sessions, and close with a validation step where the recipient demonstrates they can do the work. Several leading templates in the category carry that step formally, sometimes with a signed line for trainer, receiver and manager. What none of them carry is an earlier number to check that demonstration against.
This pack scores that same rubric twice against the same named people: once before the first training session, in the Skill Baseline and Target sheet, and again at closeout, in the Capability Assessment, by the same method where possible. ATD's own summary of the Kirkpatrick model places Level 2, Learning, measurement squarely "before the program" and "after the program," specifically so a gain can be attributed to training rather than assumed. Two numbers on one scale turn a capability claim into a delta instead of an assertion.
Corvale Consulting Group's continuous-improvement programme for Perrin Valley Foods scores four client staff against five competencies at kickoff: a 1.2 average across twenty person-competency cells, against a 3.25 average target split by role. Eleven weeks of workshops, paired practice, and a shadowed-then-solo kaizen event later, nineteen of those twenty cells clear their target. The twentieth, the CI Lead's own sustain-and-control-planning score, does not, because that level requires watching a control plan survive a full cycle, and this engagement's own eleven weeks never ran one. It becomes a dated 90-day check-in instead of a rounded-up 'complete.'
What's in the pack
Competency Definitions
Five competencies on a four-point scale, each level defined concretely, with the target every role actually requires.
Skill Baseline and Target
Every named person, scored against every competency, before any training session runs, against a target set by role.
Training Plan
Sequences modules from workshop through independent execution, mapped to the baseline's actual gaps and scheduled alongside the engagement's own workplan.
Session Materials
The specific template or worked example used in each session, so it can be run consistently by whoever leads it.
Session Tracker
The session-by-session record of what ran, who attended, and who did or didn't demonstrate the competency that stage called for.
Capability Assessment
The closeout scoring against the same rubric, the delta from baseline, and a named finding for anything below its target.
How it works
- 1
Open in River, or take it blank
Edit with AI installs the pack as a private Space and starts the baseline scoring. Download gives you the Word documents and CSV sheets free, no account.
- 2
Score the baseline first
Score every named person against the Competency Definitions rubric before any session is scheduled, so there is a number to compare the closeout score against.
- 3
Run the plan, session by session
Run the Training Plan's modules, logging each session and adding a coaching repeat the moment someone doesn't demonstrate what that stage required.
- 4
Score the same rubric again
Score the Capability Assessment against the same rubric and write the finding: how many competencies hit target, and what happens to the ones that didn't.
Frequently asked questions
Is this capability transfer plan free?
Yes. Download gives the whole pack with no account and no email: three Word documents and three CSV sheets, opening natively in Word, Pages, Google Docs, Excel, Numbers and Sheets, with a PDF option on the documents via ?format=pdf. Edit with AI creates a free account and installs the same pack as a private Space.
How is this different from a standard knowledge-transfer plan?
Most knowledge-transfer plans validate once, at the end, with a recipient demonstrating the skill and a manager signing off. This pack scores the same rubric before training starts too, so the closeout score has an earlier number to compare against, which is the only way to tell a genuine gain from someone who already had the skill.
Where does the capability-transfer clause this checks even come from?
Almost every consulting Statement of Work includes one: a sentence promising the client's own team will be able to run the work independently once the engagement ends. That sentence is usually unfalsifiable on its own, because nothing about the team's starting ability was ever measured before the engagement began.
Is this the same as the deliverable quality review checklist?
No. That pack checks whether one deliverable's claims survive being traced back to their own source. This one checks something else entirely: whether the client's own people, not the document, can run the work again without a consultant in the room.
What happens to a competency that misses its target at closeout?
It gets named in the Capability Assessment with the after-score, the target it missed, and a specific reason if one exists, then a dated follow-up such as a 90-day check-in rather than a vague promise to keep monitoring. It does not get rounded up to match the rows that did clear.
Does an unmet target here belong anywhere else, like the practice's own retrospective?
Only if it says something about the practice's own training method, not just this one client's timeline. A gap caused by this engagement running too short to observe a full cycle is specific to this client. A gap that keeps recurring across clients belongs in the engagement retrospective's Lesson Register instead.
Prove the transfer, don't just claim it
Take the Word documents and CSV sheets blank, or send River the competencies your SOW promises and get the scored baseline back.
Edit with AI