PSC Capability Framework: Structure, Levels and Application

The phrase "PSC capability framework" gets used loosely. People mean the document, or the role descriptions built from it, or the recruitment process that references it, and they rarely say which. I want to be precise, because the PSC capability framework is one specific thing, and treating it as a vague catch-all is how organisations end up applying it badly. For me it is the common language the NSW public sector uses to describe what people need to be able to do, and it sits underneath almost every role description, recruitment process and capability conversation in the sector.

So why not the Queensland or Victoria state frameworks? Or the APS framework? Well our friends in QLD have the CLF, VIC has the VPS framework and the feds have the ILS. An exact science? No. But you get the gist.

What is the PSC capability framework?

The PSC capability framework is the NSW Public Sector Capability Framework, maintained by the NSW Public Service Commission (now I believe just been rebranded as The Office of the Public Service Commissioner). It is a structured description of the capabilities expected of public sector employees, organised so that the same language applies across every agency, occupation and classification level.

A capability framework defines what people must be able to do, expressed independently of any single role. The PSC version applies that idea to one of the largest and most varied workforces in the country. It does not describe jobs. It describes the capabilities that jobs draw on, and then lets each role specify which capabilities matter and at what level.

If you want the broader concept first, I have written separately on what a capability framework is and how its structure and levels work. The PSC capability framework is a concrete, sector-wide instance of that general model. It's been around a while, but is very relevant given the most recent refresh was in January 2026.

Why the PSC capability framework exists

The NSW public sector employs hundreds of thousands of people across health, education, transport, justice, customer service and dozens of other functions. Before a shared framework, each agency described roles in its own terms. A "senior analyst" in one department and a "senior analyst" in another could mean almost nothing in common.

That created three problems. Recruitment was inconsistent and hard to compare. Movement between agencies was harder than it should have been, because capabilities did not translate. And workforce planning across the sector was nearly impossible, because there was no common unit of measurement.

The PSC capability framework exists to solve the language problem first. Once every agency describes work using the same capabilities and the same levels, roles become comparable, mobility becomes easier, and the Commission can see capability patterns across the whole system. I have argued before that most dysfunction in work design is really a semantic problem, and the PSC framework is a deliberate, large-scale attempt to fix that at the source.

How the PSC capability framework works in practice

The framework has three moving parts: capability groups, individual capabilities, and levels.

Capability groups

The core capabilities are organised into five groups: Personal Attributes, Relationships, Results, and Business Enablers. A separate People Management group applies to anyone who leads a team. Each core group holds four capabilities, giving sixteen core capabilities plus the people management set.

Individual capabilities

Within those groups sit named capabilities such as Act with Integrity, Communicate Effectively, Deliver Results, Think and Solve Problems, and Demonstrate Accountability. Each one is a distinct, observable area of capability, not a personality trait.

Levels and behavioural indicators

Every capability is described at five levels: Foundational, Intermediate, Adept, Advanced, and Highly Advanced. Each level is written as a set of behavioural indicators, so the difference between Intermediate and Adept is described in concrete terms rather than left to interpretation.

The framework is applied through role descriptions. Every NSW public sector role description identifies a small set of focus capabilities and the level required for each. Recruitment then assesses candidates against those focus capabilities, performance conversations refer back to them, and capability development is planned against the gap between current and required levels. There are also occupation-specific capability sets for fields such as finance, ICT and human resources. The ICT capability sets, for example, align with established standards such as SFIA, the Skills Framework for the Information Age, where the general capabilities are not specific enough on their own.

A revised version of the framework is currently replacing the long-standing 2020 edition, with agencies expected to update role descriptions and systems to reflect it. The underlying structure, four core groups plus people management, described through five levels and behavioural indicators, has stayed stable through that review.

What the PSC capability framework is not

This is the section that prevents the most mistakes.

• It is not a competency framework. Competency frameworks bundle skills, knowledge and behaviours together around a role. The PSC framework deliberately keeps capability separate from role and from task, which is a different and more durable design choice. If the distinction is unclear, it helps to be precise about what capability actually means as a construct.
• It is not a skills taxonomy. It does not list discrete skills such as "Python" or "contract drafting". Capabilities are broader and more stable than skills, and the framework is not intended to track granular skill inventories.
• It is not a performance rating scale. Capability levels describe the demands of a role, not a verdict on an individual. Using the framework to score people misreads what the levels are for.
• It is not occupation-specific by default. The core sixteen capabilities are intentionally general. Occupation-specific capability sets exist, but the core framework is built to apply to everyone, from a frontline officer to a department secretary.

How the PSC capability framework compares to other public sector models

The PSC framework is one approach among several. The Australian Public Service takes a different route, anchoring classification in APS Work Level Standards that describe the work value of each classification level, with separate leadership capability material layered on top. NSW chose instead to make a single capability framework the spine of role design across the sector.

Internationally, the move toward capability and competency frameworks in government is well documented. The OECD's work on skills for a high performing civil service sets out why public administrations increasingly describe work through capability rather than fixed task lists. The PSC capability framework is the NSW version of that shift.

Leadership is where the comparison gets sharpest. The People Management group functions as the framework's leadership layer. If you are comparing it to standalone leadership models, it is worth understanding how a leadership competency framework is structured and where the two approaches diverge.

Where the PSC capability framework commonly fails

The framework itself is sound. Most failures are failures of application.

The most common is overloading role descriptions. A role description is meant to identify a focused set of capabilities that genuinely matter. When every capability is marked as a focus capability at a high level, the role description says nothing, recruitment cannot prioritise, and the framework loses its discriminating power.

The second is treating levels as seniority. Highly Advanced is not a synonym for senior, and Foundational is not a synonym for junior. A capability level reflects the demand of the work in that capability, and a specialist role can require an Advanced level in one capability and a Foundational level in another.

The third is ignoring behavioural indicators. The indicators are the framework. Skipping them and assessing against the capability name alone reintroduces exactly the inconsistency the framework was built to remove.

The fourth is set-and-forget. Role descriptions get written once and never revisited, so the capability profile slowly drifts away from the actual work.

When the PSC capability framework is the right tool

For NSW public sector agencies the framework is mandated, so the real question is how to apply it well rather than whether to use it.

The framework is strong when you need a shared language across many agencies, comparability for recruitment and mobility, and a stable structure that does not need rewriting every time roles change. It is genuinely good at those things.

It is weaker as a fine-grained skills tool. If you need to track specific technical skills, plan against emerging capabilities, or manage a detailed skills inventory, the core framework is too broad, and you will need occupation-specific capabilities or a separate skills approach alongside it. Recognising that boundary is the difference between using the framework for what it does well and stretching it until it breaks.

PSC capability framework FAQ

What does PSC stand for in the PSC capability framework?

PSC stands for the NSW Public Service Commission, the body that maintains the NSW Public Sector Capability Framework. The framework applies across the NSW public sector, not only to the Public Service Commission itself.

How many capabilities are in the PSC capability framework?

The core framework has sixteen capabilities, arranged in four groups of four: Personal Attributes, Relationships, Results, and Business Enablers. A separate People Management group applies to people who lead teams, and occupation-specific capability sets exist for some fields.

What are the levels in the PSC capability framework?

There are five levels: Foundational, Intermediate, Adept, Advanced, and Highly Advanced. Each level is defined by behavioural indicators that describe what the capability looks like in practice at that level.

Is the PSC capability framework the same as a competency framework?

No. A competency framework bundles skills, knowledge and behaviours around a role. The PSC framework keeps capability separate from role and task, which makes it more stable but less role-specific.

Who has to use the PSC capability framework?

NSW public sector agencies use it as the basis for role descriptions, recruitment, performance and capability development. It is the common framework for the sector rather than an optional tool.

Is the PSC capability framework being updated?

Yes. A revised version replaced the 2020 edition in January 2026, and agencies are updating role descriptions and systems to reflect it. The underlying structure of groups, capabilities and levels has stayed consistent through the review.