In Part One, I wrote about how we developed the CF, the project management process, and the challenges faced in climbing the proverbial mountain.

Here in Part Two, I will share my project management reflections from the CF alongside quotes from my partners, Ken Trass and Graham Cameron, who were key sponsors for the CF. Two of the participants in the process, Vanessa Creamer and Julene Hope, are also quoted from the PMCoP.1

These are some of the broader lessons we drew together from the journey.

I will assume in this post that you have read Part One and that you have some familiarity with the Capabilities Framework (CF). If not, you can:

• Download the CF here

• Read a basic overview here

• Read a more in-depth overview here

• Read Part One of the CF development journey

Getting the foundations right

This project really highlighted for me the need to get the foundations right at the start of major organisational projects. Despite the tight deadline, we didn’t rush in; we spent the time up front making the right connections, getting alignment on the vision, agreeing on goals and approach, and then proceeding together. In so doing, we built collective buy-in about the future uses and purpose of the CF, which gave people a reason for contributing. We replicated this approach throughout the project, ensuring the foundations were established in each ‘unit’ of the project from the Steering Group, the project team, and the working groups.

Some aspects of the approach changed over the journey and there were many unanticipated challenges. There were creative and philosophical tensions at times too. But with a solid foundation of shared understandings about the CF, we were able to navigate through it all, together. That was essential for the successful development of the framework.

Whanaungatanga and engagement as the way of development

In Part One, I covered how the Steering Group established whanaungatanga and engagement as the foundational approach for the CF - not just one phase among many, but as the way of development itself. Here I want to reflect on what that meant in practice and why we think it matters beyond this project.

Collaboration was at the heart of the CF development. It wasn’t a tickbox exercise for us. We worked hard to help people understand the kaupapa so that their voice could genuinely shape the CF. We also wanted to make the process feel like something they were part of rather than something being done to them. That took more time, more hui, and more relational energy than a conventional process would have required. But the return has been significant - not only in the quality of what was produced, but also in the implementation that followed. We began the launch phase with a large pool of kaimahi who already had some experience of the CF and buy-in to facilitate its introduction in different corners of NPHS. That was a direct consequence from the development approach.

Whanaungatanga also enabled the kind of development kōrero we needed - the exploring, investigating, and honest debating about what capabilities are genuinely needed for public health in Aotearoa. That quality of discourse does not happen without trust, and trust does not happen without investing into relationships.

A particular highlight were the kanohi ki te kanohi (face-to-face) hui we held with kaimahi Māori and Pacific staff across all four regions. Being physically present in the room with kaimahi, sharing the work in progress, and genuinely asking: Will this work for you? Will this way of thinking about public health skills help your career aspirations? Will it make a difference for Māori and Pacific health? And if not, how can we get closer to that? - that was one of the most significant things we did across the entire project.

For me personally, those conversations stayed with me for the rest of the development. I carried the people I had met in the back of my mind - asking myself: Is this what they want? Will this empower them in their mahi? Is this responsive to their situation and their aspirations? I felt accountable to them - and all of our 200+ contributors - to use what they had so openly and generously shared to improve the CF. Those personal ties heightened my commitment to the work and shaped how I wrote the framework and led the project.

As I wrote in Part One, there was disconnection everywhere as NPHS was in its infancy. The relationships we needed for effective collaboration did not yet exist - we had to build them first. That made the whanaungatanga approach harder, but it also meant the project left something behind beyond the framework itself: new networks, relationships, and a stronger sense of shared purpose across the service. That was never in the project brief. But it may prove to be one of the enduring contributions from the CF development.

So, if there is one lesson to take from our experience and apply to your own development projects, it is to think about engagement more broadly. Consider what possibilities exist to make it the actual mode of your project management, not just one phase of it. It is harder, absolutely. It takes more time and resources. But the CF stands as evidence that it is worth it.

The strength that came from 200+ contributors

Another reason we believe the whanaungatanga approach was worth it: by enabling such broad collaboration and input, the CF now stands as a strong platform for organisational decision-making. The framework was created from the collective expertise of the workforce - people who know what public health work across Aotearoa actually looks like, and what achieving Pae Ora will take. In this way, the CF carries the credibility of the workforce that built it, and NPHS can draw on it with confidence. The wider public health sector is welcome to do the same.2

Subscribe now

Give groups something to react to

An interesting dynamic facilitating the project was how differently working groups functioned depending on whether they had a prototype to work from or were starting from scratch. For the shared capabilities, a prototype was distributed in advance - giving the group something concrete to dissect, challenge, and refine. Most of the diverse capabilities took the opposite approach, beginning with only initial ideas and open questions to explore together.

From my experience with this project, the prototype approach more quickly produces meaningful discourse. It is easier for contributors to understand and engage substantively when there is a tangible model in front of them - something that design thinking practitioners call a “boundary object” that people can engage with from different perspectives.3 The trade-off is that it requires time and expertise within the project team to build the prototype in the first place. We had both those ingredients for the shared capabilities, but could only replicate this for two of the nine diverse capabilities (Public health leadership and Public health capacity development). The rest started from scratch in the working groups.

Cross-pollination

One of the delightful aspects of running so many working groups simultaneously was the organic sharing of ideas between groups. Concepts and questions raised in one space would often surface in another, enriching the work in ways we hadn’t anticipated or designed for. The CF benefited from this cross-pollination - but so did NPHS itself. The working groups drew kaimahi across team silos and boundaries, and the discourse that flowed through them helped new thinking percolate throughout the organisation.

Subscribe now

Going for 10/10 - worth it?

This was a demanding project with significant constraints, particularly time. A pragmatic person might reasonably have looked at those challenges and concluded: given what we’re working with, a solid 5 or 6 out of 10 - in terms of framework ambition and quality - is realistic and responsible. Scale back the scope, manage expectations, and deliver something that is good enough.

That’s not what happened.

We really believed in the potential of the CF - what it could do for NPHS, enabling the greater development of the public health workforce, so that we could deliver on Pae Ora for New Zealand whānau and communities. We were committed to that vision, which made it hard to consider scaling back. Practically we also had so much material to work with: the CF is 93 pages and contains 1,000 examples of public health practice in Aotearoa - and it could have been double that. We culled a lot and there was some heartache in that!

For me personally, going for 10/10 meant this project became my life for four to five months. Eating, breathing, sleeping the CF. Working practically around the clock. The flow state I experienced within that was incredible - a real rush - but it was also terrifying and intense. I felt like I was writing a thesis chapter every couple of days, while keeping nine workstreams on track. The accountability I felt to our 200+ contributors was part of what drove that. Having asked so much of people, I felt obligated to use their contributions to its fullest extent.

So, was going for 10/10 worth it? I don’t think I’m the right person to answer that - perhaps my wife is. But I do think it’s a legitimate question for project scoping and resourcing conversations because going for 10/10 has real costs, and those costs land on people. I am happy for the CF development to be a case study in what that looks like.

At the PMCoP, this question opened a broader discussion about supporting people through demanding project phases - and the responsibility of sponsors and leaders to sustain their people through them. I appreciated the support I received, and Ken and Graham spoke to this directly.

Living up to the CF values

At the heart of our efforts was the desire to not only do a good job, but to live up to the values of the CF itself. As I’ve written, and as we’ve shared across these two posts, this framework is for the workforce, for public health, for Te Tiriti and equity and Pae Ora - and everything those commitments mean for whānau and communities across Aotearoa. We were committed to those values, and we didn’t just want the CF to state them and leave it to others to live them out. We wanted to ‘walk the talk’ in the way we created it.

Certainly, we did not get that right all the time. There are decisions I’d make differently now, and some situations I wish I could replay.

But I hope that overall we did walk the talk - that the CF not only puts forward these great values but is itself a living example of them.

Quality and endurance of the CF

Walking the talk on values is one measure of a project’s success. Another is what the work actually produces, and whether it lasts. Having been launched in mid-2024, the CF has already endured through significant organisational turbulence and is paying off in long-term dividends for public health.

Subscribe now

Ngā mihi nui

I want to thank the many people who worked with me on this project and helped in small and big ways to bring our vision into being. All 200+ contributors are named and acknowledged in the CF (pages 87-88). But I want to push that recognition further for some key individuals.

The rest of the project team deserve praise, with special mention to Ken Trass who shepherded me and the project from start to finish while also standing up the rest of our new public health L&D function. Sheridan Rose as Principal Advisor joined us full-time in 2024 for the crazy ride of the diverse capabilities, and I could not have made it through without her. Between the three of us, we were able to be honest, challenge each other’s ideas, and positively navigate through the creative and relational challenges that came with such an undertaking. Thank you for your friendship and bearing with me through the pressure.

Tessa-Jane Dennes, Mariam Parwaiz, and Paula Birnie were great project team contributors, collaborating in the working groups, reviewing, and sharing advice. We also benefited from the wisdom of Daniel Williams, Rachel Prebble, Feala Afoa, and Susan Knox who provided sage guidance at certain moments.

The Steering Group were fantastic champions of the CF, and in addition to what I mentioned in Part One about Graham, Api Poutasi, and Megan Tunks, I want to thank Maria Poynter, who as the responsible Director did much of the critical leadership liaison and high-level reviewing.

In the working groups, there were so many incredible contributors - too many to thank individually. Two to spotlight for their outstanding efforts would be Vanessa Creamer and Lemalu Alexa Masina, whose critical thinking about disability health (Vanessa) and Pae Ora (Alexa) really challenged me and significantly shaped the CF.

To form the working groups, we relied on some key contacts to liaise and gain contributors - of note were Jeff Gibb, Sharon Kennedy-Muru, Karyn Cardno, and Nicola Birch. They convinced many busy people to give their time for the project and we were grateful for their enthusiasm in bringing others on board.

Enabling the kaimahi Māori and Pacific staff engagement events to be successful in their respective regions were Hinemoerangi Ngatai Tangirua, Jane Mountier, Jo Gemmel, and Priscilla Toitu, with admin support from Monique Solomon-Agafili. They handled the events enabling me and Ken to concentrate on building relationships and facilitation.

In the final weeks, we were absolutely saved by Siobhan Murphy with her amazing graphic design and layout. At very short notice, Siobhan did everything we needed, elevating our concepts visually and enabling the CF to be an accessible, coherent package. Thank you!

The Ipu Kakama concept did similar work, elevating the CF and providing a Te Ao Māori-informed grounding and narrative for the framework. The Ipu Kakama was developed and gifted by Graham and Matua Tau Huirama, based on the ceramic artistry of Amorangi Hikuroa (used by permission).

And speaking of Graham, nearly everyone in his team, Hauora Māori Tūmatanui, as well as Api’s Pacific Public Health team, were involved with the CF at some stage of development. Working with these teams was such a privilege and a huge learning experience for me personally. They collectively helped ensure the CF was a quality resource and responsive to Te Tiriti and equity.

And so many others were involved. My ‘home’ region of NPHS Te Waipounamu enabled all of this to happen by releasing me from my substantive role - without backfill - to take on the project. Thank you to Vince Barry, Tanya McCall, and Sandy Brinsden for that foresight which all of NPHS has benefitted from. The support of my friends and whānau - especially my wife Becs - all contributed too.

Nga mihi nui, thank you.

The view from the summit

With the CF, we set out to build something that had never been built before, in an organisation that was still finding its feet, under conditions that were frequently uncertain and sometimes stormy.

The central project management lesson - if there is one to take away - is that engagement can be much more than one phase of development. When genuinely committed to, whanaungatanga can create enduring foundations for everything else to stand upon.

The CF now stands as evidence of what becomes possible when an organisation chooses to build with its people rather than for them. That is what we attempted. That, I hope, is what we achieved.

Haere rā, and thank you for reading both parts of this series.

Samuel Anderson

At the March meeting, I had the privilege of sharing the journey behind the Capabilities Framework (CF) - presented as a case study of a successful, large-scale project in NPHS’ early years. The CF development was unique: we were trying to create something genuinely new for public health in the Pae Ora era by embedding a capabilities approach to professional skills rather than a competencies one (more on that distinction here) among other goals. That ambition made it a rich and at times, demanding project to lead - and one I think holds real lessons for anyone managing complex work in public health and other developing organisations. Understanding the journey of the CF is also relevant for those beyond NPHS, as the CF was always intended to be for the public health workforce and sector as a whole. So, I am writing this post to extend the conversation from the PMCoP out for the benefit of others.

There is a real story to the development of the CF, but it is not my story to tell alone. For the presentation I was joined by two of the project’s key sponsors, Ken Trass, our National Learning and Development (L&D) Manager, who commissioned the CF and hired me as project lead; and Graham Cameron, Ringatohu | Director Hauora Māori Tūmatanui, who served as a steering group member and partner. This post covers the development journey from my angle, with our reflections and the broader lessons we drew together in Part Two.

I will assume in this post that you already have some familiarity with the Capabilities Framework (CF), but if you need a fresher, you can:

• Download the CF here

• Read a basic overview here

• Read a more in-depth overview here

The mountain ahead

The story of the CF's development begins at the foot of the mountain, looking up at the task ahead. There were challenges brought by the nature of the product itself, and challenges from the environment we were operating in.

The CF was not a typical change project. We weren’t building something tangible like an IT system - we were creating an intellectual resource and a new way of thinking about professional capability in public health. The shift from a competency to a capabilities approach was transformational, and the people we would collaborate with needed to be brought on that journey to understand what they were contributing to.2

The scope added further complexity: the CF had to be universal, covering all kaimahi across NPHS in different ways - something that had never been attempted before. That demanded both breadth and depth simultaneously, thinking holistically about public health while going deep in each area. There were existing frameworks we could draw on, but most were outdated and none matched our scope. So, concerning both the product and process, there was no template to follow; we had to pioneer these ourselves.

The environment we were operating within created its own pressures. Cast your mind back to mid-2023: the health sector was newly merged, NPHS was in its infancy, and there was significant disconnection - nationally, regionally, across functions and new teams. That disconnection was constant throughout the project, acting as a barrier to participation and collaboration.3 Then the government changed at the end of 2023, with rippling effects and changes to health legislation, strategic direction, and the structure of the sector itself. This meant that some of the foundations we had committed to standing on with the CF were shaking – “it feels like the mountains are moving,” I remarked at the time. This made our hard deadline of 30 June 2024 even more consequential. What had been commissioned had to be delivered, on time, without extension.

Navigating all of this demanded certain qualities from the project team - certain capabilities, as it happens, to create a Capabilities Framework. Relationship management and communication were the most important, and I’ll expand on these shortly. Beyond that: significant knowledge of public health and L&D; curiosity to explore and investigate what capabilities were needed across NPHS and beyond; thoroughness to ensure no group was overlooked; speed - real speed - to meet the hard deadline; and adaptability and resilience to deliver all of that under sustained pressure.

Getting the foundations right

We wanted the CF to be a quality resource that was understood and accepted across the sector. So, before we could begin to climb, we needed the right partners, and the right pathway (or process) to follow.

Establishing the project governance was the first critical step. We linked up with Graham Cameron and Api Poutasi, our NPHS directors for Hauora Māori Tūmatanui and Pacific Public Health. They were enthusiastic partners as the CF aligned directly with their goals for the NPHS workforce. We were also privileged to have sponsorship from Te Aka Whai Ora | Māori Health Authority, who were at that time, the other ‘hull’ of our Health New Zealand waka hourua.4 Later, we were joined by our NPHS Director for Transformation and Deputy National Director. Together with myself and Ken representing the project team, this became the CF Steering Group.

A quick note on Te Aka Whai Ora, who were represented in the steering group by the amazing Megan Tunks. Their involvement in the CF ended with the organisation’s disestablishment by the incoming government in early 2024, which for us, cut short a genuinely valuable partnership. Te Aka Whai Ora’s contribution to the CF was significant and I hope the framework is considered part of their legacy in public health.

The steering group weren’t passive overseers. They were active shapers: guiding process design, determining whose voices needed to be included, ensuring representation was right, working through structural decisions, and resolving the harder problems when they arose. Importantly, we agreed that the steering group - and Graham and Api in particular - would have the ‘final word’ on the project. This was an outworking of the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and equity that we wanted to uphold.

The most consequential thing the steering group did was establish the project management approach. They grounded the development process in whanaungatanga - the Māori concept of relationships, kinship, and a sense of shared belonging and purpose. In most projects, engagement is one phase among many – something you do, complete, and move on from, incorporating some of the feedback. We made it the project approach itself, weaving engagement through every stage from start to finish. This meant consulting widely across NPHS, bringing people together, and creating genuine space for kaimahi to wānanga and shape what the CF would become.

Being inclusive was culturally the right process for public health; it was also a practical necessity. We needed to draw on collective knowledge across the whole service - geographically, across disciplines, subject matter experts, and both formal and informal leaders. Embracing whanaungatanga and a relationship-driven approach became our way of harnessing that collective knowledge as well as navigating the disconnection within the service.5

Two groups of public health staff warranted particular focus for engagement: kaimahi Māori and Pacific staff. Without these workforces and their unique capabilities, the health sector will not be able to reach Pae Ora; as the healthy futures we are mandated to deliver on will remain inequitably inaccessible for Māori and Pacific whānau and communities. They were therefore important to include in the CF development process.6

To engage these workforces, we dedicated time and resources at the midpoint to meet them kanohi ki te kanohi (face-to-face) across four hui in Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, and Christchurch.7 These were well attended, with about 100 kaimahi joining us to hear about the CF work in progress and share their perspectives and hopes for what it could become.

As far as I am aware, this is the only time direct engagement with NPHS kaimahi Māori and Pacific staff for a project at this scale has been achieved - let alone attempted - in recent public health history. The hui were one of the highlights of the entire project and significant in shaping the final product. I will share more reflections about these events in Part Two.

Subscribe now

Climbing the mountain

So how did we actually do it - create the CF? Principally, by inviting collaboration from NPHS kaimahi in a series of working groups, each tasked with supporting the development of a capability domain. The first was from August to October 2023,8 and focused on what would become the shared capabilities - the “horizontals” in our early language. This was the most important working group in the project’s lifecycle, setting the foundation and model. Then in 2024, nine further working groups tackled the diverse capabilities (the “verticals”). These groups were where the bulk of the intellectual work happened: the critical discourse and collective sense-making.

Pulling these groups together was a feat itself. With up to 15 subject matter experts in each group, there was a lot of reaching out, liaising, and getting on people’s radars and into their calendars. We found that in many parts of NPHS the connections needed for collaboration simply weren’t there yet – even within the same directorates and teams. Some didn’t know who each other was despite working in the same function or area. In a very real sense, we had to pioneer those connections before we could begin our mahi. This was whanaungatanga in action before it was anything else.

One thing we were intentional about was onboarding. Rather than pulling people into working groups and immediately throwing them into the deep end of our debates, we gave them time to properly digest the kaupapa first, with multiple hui to introduce the CF, allow for questions, share resources, and get to know everyone before we got to the substantive work. That took time and effort, but the investment paid off in the quality of contributions.

The most intense phase was the diverse capabilities. Creating each diverse domain required many steps beginning with process design, forming the working groups, compiling relevant literature, brainstorming, drafting, testing, and the final review. The brainstorming was at least a full day of meeting with the working groups, using facilitation techniques to explore the breadth and depth of capabilities in each function, bouncing ideas back and forth across the diverse perspectives “in the room”.9 This kōrero, plus the literature in each area, was used to create a draft, which we then returned to the group for testing and refinement.

This process had to happen nine times, simultaneously, which very quickly became overwhelming logistically. To manage this, I set up a simple Excel spreadsheet - a “verticals” development tracker - that became my day-to-day dashboard and reporting tool with partners (see below). I didn’t have time to investigate more comprehensive project management software, but in retrospect the simple tool was exactly what was required as the process for each diverse domain was not strictly linear. Development generally progressed in a ‘waterfall’ sequence but not always, and the tracker was flexible enough to reflect that reality.

The tracker used a traffic light colour scheme: yellow cells marked the current active phase(s) in each row/workstream; green was completed; red was behind schedule; and white cells were used for planning - working backwards from the deadline to map when each milestone needed to land. At the end of every day, I would update and mentally check through each row, informing the next day’s priorities. I liked that I could see the whole project in one little grid.

The tracker tells its own story. The above picture was from early April, which was about the time I was getting very stressed because the Drafting column was the critical milestone in each “vertical” - and I was personally responsible for every draft. At that time, only two drafts were completed and out for testing, with seven more required within about an eight-week window.

This was the tracker a month later, when some of the earlier workstreams had solidly moved into the testing phase. That involved meeting again with the working groups to examine the drafts and fine tune, moving parts around and rewriting if necessary.

But there were still five drafts to go, let alone testing and reviewing with only seven weeks till the deadline. The tracker helped me feel like I was in control of what was happening, but it was also a tyrant, dictating what progress had to be made at any moment so we could deliver on time.

The next month flew by as we strained at the climb. The last drafts were finished with two weeks to go, leaving a tight window for the final testing and review.

And then, the happiest of days in late June when…

…everything went green. There was still work to do beyond this - graphic design, layout, proofing, review of the whole document, and sign-off. But this was the moment that the main climb was done and we were near the summit. The little tracker had done its job.

Phew. So, that’s how we did it, climb the mountain and create the CF. It is available for download here - the outcome of our collective efforts which is now being applied across public health.

The CF’s development process was quite a journey, and me, Ken, and Graham each shared some reflections on its project management at the PMCoP. In a couple of days, I will share Part Two with these reflections. I also want to publicly write some thank yous to our many collaborators and partners - that will be in Part Two.

You can subscribe to Capability Matters to receive it direct to your email inbox.

Thanks for reading,

Samuel Anderson.

• Fit for the purpose of the day - to grow the workforce towards Pae Ora.

• Comprehensive in scope covering all public health functions and workers.

• Representative of and informed by the diverse and experienced National Public Health Service (NPHS) workforce - the experts about operational public health work for our communities and populations.

Another reason the CF is better than what’s gone before is the CF’s approach to professional skills as ‘capabilities’ rather than ‘competencies’. These words sound similar and are often used interchangeably, as if they mean the same thing. But there are nuanced and important differences between the concepts. It is therefore worth teasing out these differences and understanding why capabilities are a superior paradigm for public health going forward.

As we begin, if you’re a bit confused - don’t worry, you’re in good company. It took us a lot of time during the CF development to explain and demonstrate the value of capabilities. Whenever we presented to new groups we’d have to start here. It got to the point of cliche where my colleagues would often ask, as a joke, “Hey Samuel, what are capabilities again? Hahaha…” Not everyone is an HR nerd and fair enough!

We also faced scepticism from some groups about changing from competencies. There are lots of competency standards already in place and familiar across public health, and don’t we want the workforce to be competent? Why reinvent the wheel just to change definitions? (Even though public health loves stupid debates about definitions…)

I get it - I was sceptical at first too. Which is why credit deservedly goes to Ken Trass, NPHS National Learning and Development (L&D) Manager. He believed in the transformational potential of capabilities and convinced me and NPHS leadership that it was the right approach for public health instead of more competencies. We would not have reached the great outcome of the CF without his vision.1 Thanks Ken :)

Breaking down competencies

Competencies have been entrenched in human resources practice over the past 50 years as thinking and evidence about the drivers of job performance and productivity has evolved. Many sectors and organisations globally have developed competency frameworks to guide recruitment, training, and performance management including in health.

A traditional definition is usually along the lines of competencies being “the skills, knowledge, and behaviours that enable individuals to perform effectively in their roles” - which is fairly generic and sounds similar to our definition of capabilities. Indeed, there can be a spectrum between the two paradigms, and some of the modern competency frameworks actually lean more towards capabilities in my opinion. But classically they are different approaches and outlooks. Capabilities are superior and more useful for public health going forward, but in some roles and industries competencies remain appropriate.

The easiest difference to spot between competencies and capabilities is the scale of human skills being assessed. Competencies are a more micro approach, focusing on an individual’s observable and measurable attributes that contribute to the performance of specific tasks at different levels of proficiency. For example, a competency in using Microsoft Teams to set up and host virtual meetings. This task could be broken down into different levels of competence from beginner to expert depending on the user’s application of different Teams functions, the size and length of the meetings hosted, and so on.

Importantly for competencies, the performance of tasks must be measurable, as measuring enables evaluation and comparison between workers and business units. For example, two workers performing the same task at different speeds suggests variance in competency. I am a faster typist than my four-year-old son; ergo I am more competent at typing than him (take that boy!).

There is an innate appeal in being able to measure yourself and your competence. Workers often like having tangible, demonstrable evidence of their competency and progression which can be used as leverage for higher pay. Employers like it too because it sets expectations and creates consistency.

But this measurability also limits competencies as an approach. Competencies are most effective when tasks can be clearly defined and prescribed. They are therefore quite valuable in sectors where tasks are standardisable and roles can be tightly aligned to those tasks, for example in manufacturing.

But the harder it is to define and measure tasks, the less useful competencies become. When tasks are more complex, ambiguous, or context-dependent, it can become tricky to pinpoint which competencies are required, how they should be demonstrated, or how performance can be fairly assessed and compared. For example, teachers working in different countries may have the same job title and seek similar education outcomes. But the actual tasks involved may be radically different due to their students, the language and culture, the subject matter and curriculum, the equipment and resources, and so on. Attempting to do the job in exactly the same way according to the same competency definitions is likely to lead to disaster. There is therefore limited usefulness in basing comparisons on the same, micro-level competencies. The tasks need to be the same or similar enough for competencies to work well.2

Subscribe now

A related issue is evolving circumstances. Competencies are prescriptive and most effective when they are clearly defined to enable measuring. But when the situation changes, workers may need to do tasks differently or apply new thinking or techniques. Competencies are therefore prone to becoming outdated as their definitions cease to be relevant. Competency frameworks must therefore be continually updated to account for changes; the longer between revisions, the less useful the competencies become. Worse is when outdated competencies continue to be expected which can constrain creativity and innovation impacting on quality improvement. Transferable skills may be overlooked and emerging trends may be ignored. This can result in organisations struggling to take advantage of opportunities or overcoming new challenges.

Finally for now, competencies are limited due to their outlook and emphasis on current performance and proficiency. Competencies are typically designed to describe what someone can do now within the boundaries of existing roles and known tasks. This focus privileges the present by default. For example, the starting point for a worker figuring out how to apply competencies is usually to reflect on their current performance, asking themselves questions like:

• Can I do this [specific competency] right now?

• What level of proficiency am I demonstrating?

Afterwards they may seek to grow in their abilities, but if they are satisfied with their current competency, they may check that box and do nothing more. This can create blind spots going forward, where the need for adaptation may be missed resulting in performance diminishing over time.

I’m not saying don’t reflect on the present (and past).3 Continuous reflection on how you’re doing is a necessary ingredient for personal growth. But in the context of workforce and organisational performance, the purpose of examining what’s gone before is to lead us into better outcomes in the future. Achieving that potential is the true end - the goal and prize to aim for. Competencies tend to miss that by fixing us too much in the present.

Competencies and public health

So, are competencies a good fit for public health? In Aotearoa New Zealand, they have had some value historically. Currently most medical officers, nurses, and statutory officers have mandatory competencies or standards that must be maintained in order to continue in a role, make use of legislative powers, and oversee interventions and responses. These are determined by the Ministry of Health and medical professional bodies and colleges - NPHS is beginning to be involved in the review and revision of these standards. Beyond these are competency frameworks that can be adopted voluntarily by individuals to demonstrate their proficiency, for example in generic public health competencies, in Māori public health, and in health promotion.4 For these “legacy frameworks” still in effect for NPHS kaimahi (staff), the CF was designed to work alongside rather than replace them. I will discuss this dynamic further in my next post.

The legacy frameworks have been useful but for NPHS they are not adequate by themselves. Many public health disciplines and roles have had no competency or skills frameworks and have therefore relied on whatever performance indicators were written into job descriptions. While the mandatory competencies have been regularly reviewed and updated, the voluntary frameworks have been more static and outdated. And none of the frameworks are very task specific, making them less effective as tools for assessment and comparing performance. In this sense they are not even true competency frameworks, merely giving an appearance of maintaining standards by ticking a few boxes. Just to name a few issues.

Making the existing competencies more measurable and thus more competency-like would be a hard ask. Public health work is very context specific. Staff with the same role titles in one part of the country may have entirely different day-to-day responsibilities as counterparts elsewhere depending on their specific populations, environments, health determinants, and more. Some of this diversity is due to the regional public health units evolving independently during the district health board era; creating a more consistent and aligned public health service was one of the reasons for the Pae Ora reforms. But many differences will remain despite unification. Health Protection work, for example, is determined by risks from the specific local environment, climate, industries, population density, ports of entry, disease patterns, and more. Many of the same issues crop up but actions and approaches must be tailored to the situation. Adaptability is essential in public health responses. A one-size-fits-all national competency system therefore cannot afford to be overly task prescriptive.

I was fortunate to have some understanding of this prior to the CF development. In 2022, I led a project to establish individual development plans (IDPs) for all NPHS kaimahi in my home districts of Canterbury, West Coast, and South Canterbury.5 My partners and I anticipated that public health competencies could be updated as part of the health reforms (I did not foresee that I would be leading that effort), and so for the IDPs we did not reinvent the wheel, choosing to adapt the Public Health Association’s Generic Competencies for Public Health (2007) - the most recent national framework at the time.

I will say more about this framework in my next post, but adapting it to our context was a real slog. Aligning the generic competencies to each role - including assigning proficiency levels required - took months of negotiation with the various leadership teams. While the framework was helpful in providing a platform for development conversations, the 15-year-old competencies themselves were awkward and ill-fitting, with many deemed unnecessary for large numbers of kaimahi challenging whether they were actually “generic”. There were also a lot of gaps, and we had no way of objectively assessing whether kaimahi were growing in the specific competencies. In hindsight, the main outcome of the IDPs was it enabled kaimahi to re-engage in professional development post-COVID. I think that was more thanks to having a process than from the competencies themselves.

Subscribe now

So, when the opportunity arose in 2023 for a new national framework, NPHS opted not for competencies but a new paradigm to imagine public health skills for the Pae Ora era. Doing competencies again, properly, would have required a more granular, task and job-centric approach that would not have been suitable for public health, would not meaningfully drive future performance, and would have been difficult to create and maintain given the diversity of roles across the system among other practical concerns.

But the most compelling reason for change was to shift public health’s focus from present abilities to future potential. Competencies would keep us stuck in tickbox mentalities where minimum standards being maintained are satisfactory. We need approaches that influence our attitudes towards growth and continual improvement so that collectively we can adapt and realise public health’s potential.

Capabilities - the new paradigm

Emerging from complexity theory and organisational learning research, capabilities are a more expansive and adaptive conceptualisation of professional skills than competencies. In the CF (page 12), we defined capabilities as “the broad skills, knowledge, and behaviours that NPHS needs collectively and individually to deliver on Pae Ora…”

The keyword there is “broad”. Where competencies are micro focusing on mechanistic tasks and doing things, capabilities are more macro encompassing the holistic thinking and abilities that enable people to achieve outcomes.

And when I mean outcomes, I mean the real ends that tasks are meant to serve. Take our earlier example of using Microsoft Teams to set up and host virtual meetings. Looking at Teams through a competencies lens will focus us on whether the software is used successfully. Capabilities, on the other hand, push us to consider the underlying purpose - of enabling online collaboration and communication. That’s the point of using Teams - the why, the true ends. So rather than asking “Can this person use Teams?” the capability lens invites us to ask, “Can this person facilitate meaningful collaboration in a virtual environment?” That subtle shift opens up space for creativity, adaptability, and a focus on impact rather than just technical execution. Someone might tick every competency box for operating Teams, yet still fail to engage well with others, foster trust, or achieve shared understanding - all of which are needed for effective collaboration.

Once you’re focused on the outcomes and ends, the specific means to achieve them becomes secondary. Right now, Microsoft Teams is ubiquitous across NPHS; collaborating as a national service would be much more difficult without it. But Teams is just a means of achieving that greater goal. Other software, techniques, or arrangements might achieve the same or better results. Capabilities allow for that flexibility in means and for doing things differently if the situation requires it. This enables wider skills to be drawn upon, and for the wider context to be factored in, ensuring that actions are fit for purpose. This is crucial for public health work as our earlier Health Protection example demonstrated. A capabilities approach empowers kaimahi to apply Protection knowledge as fits their local contexts and as situations evolve, ensuring better outcomes. A more overtly competencies approach, with prescribed tasks and processes, risks that actions will be less suitable and effective.6

There’s a few caveats and philosophical threads we could go down at this point.7 The means absolutely still matter, and the ends do not always justify the means. There is wisdom in having consistency of tasks, tools, and techniques, and that may be a requirement in compliance and regulatory areas. Oftentimes, doing the same thing, applying “best practice” will be best. But having consistency is not as important as getting the right outcome. I am confident that public health already understands this principle; the CF with its capability lens is merely bringing that dynamic to bear in our thinking about skills and development.

Subscribe now

There’s a few more things to explain about capabilities and the CF before I wrap up. Flexibility is not just important in terms of skills but also in educational approaches. There are many ways to gain skills, knowledge, and behaviours; the same capability can be learned in different ways in different places. Capabilities allow for such flexibility in pedagogy. For example, learning aimed at building understandings about “the history of public health work in own local districts and communities including recent efforts” (as per the example in History of public health, CF, page 23) will look different depending on where the learning takes place, with what kaimahi and professional group, what the specific history is, and so on. The CF gives educators the strategic learning objectives for NPHS, which need to be aligned to going forward. But it is not prescriptive about learning design and gives educators space to find the right pathways to those objectives. Competencies sometimes are more restrictive in how skills must be taught.

The broad nature of capabilities also enables skills, knowledge, and behaviours to be more readily recognised as transferable or “role agnostic” - meaning they can be demonstrated and developed across a variety of roles regardless of job titles or functions. For example, the shared public health capability of “partnering with communities to understand and harness their lived experience…” (Lived experience of communities, CF, page 25) is just as relevant for a health promotion advisor engaging in community development activities as it is for an intelligence analyst interpreting trends in non-communicable disease prevalence. While their day-to-day tasks differ, both roles rely on similar underlying strengths to connect with and reflect community realities.

Recognising that capabilities are transferable and can span roles has a range of benefits including:

• promoting integrated ways of working and collaboration, where people from different roles and disciplines are supported to contribute to outcomes. It encourages the question “who has the right capabilities?” rather than the narrow “whose job is this?” which can lead to silos.

• enhancing workforce development, where flexible development pathways are supported enabling higher staff mobility across functions. For example, health protection staff being able to move into health promotion or PHCD (public health capacity development) work as they may already have many of the underlying strengths required.

• fostering staff cohesion, where all team members can be seen as bringing valuable capabilities and make contributions to shared outcomes.

A defining strength of capabilities is their emphasis on future potential. While competencies focus on current performance and proficiency, capabilities are concerned with what people and teams can become. They recognise that learning is ongoing because what skills are needed tomorrow may be different to what we have today. This is especially important in public health where future challenges are uncertain and emerging. Continual growth, development, and improvement will support public health to navigate whatever situations we face.

What does harnessing a capabilities mindset look like then? For individuals, it is by reflecting not just on current performance but on our goals and aspirations, answering questions like:

• How do I want to grow?

• What kind of contributions do I want to make?

• What impact could I have if I grow in this [capability]?

• How can I deepen my capabilities?

• What is new in this [capability area]?

• How might I need to grow in future?

• What would growing in my capabilities mean for me and for public health?

This kind of reflection shifts the focus from meeting standards to exploring opportunities and improvement. It empowers individuals to imagine how growth can benefit us and our teams, communities, and the public health system. Weighing up our current capabilities can be a component of this process. But to truly reach our potential we need to go further: embracing a mindset oriented towards continual learning, future possibilities, and the contributions we are yet to make.

The challenge for public health now is to embed the CF and capabilities thinking in our organisational practices to support ongoing growth across the workforce. This is a vital step in our collective journey towards Pae Ora.

Subscribe now

How do capabilities work in the Capabilities Framework?

Finally, I want to show some of how capabilities thinking manifests in the CF. Being broad and flexible throughout was crucial. At the structural level, we chose a more abstract, core functions approach to public health rather than focusing on specific roles or professions. This encourages public health skills, knowledge, and behaviours to be seen as transferable and potentially useful for growth by anyone. We hope the CF will encourage NPHS staff to engage in learning in core functions they don’t typically work in; this will grow shared understandings and collaboration, improving our public health initiatives and organisational effectiveness.

Concerning specific capabilities, being broad and flexible meant focusing on the true and enduring ends of skills, knowledge, and behaviours. The capability statements/definitions (left side of the below example) are pitched at a higher level than competencies, giving space for individuals to demonstrate and grow in them as appropriate for their work and context.

Illustrating the capability statements are the extensive examples labelled “Capability in action - some examples (not exhaustive)”. In the end, we compiled almost 1,000 of these examples across the CF, and so some might feel that they are quite exhaustive! That is what happens when you have over 200 collaborators sharing their rich experience in such a project!

There are heaps of examples, but it is still true that they are not exhaustive. There will be many more ways that these capabilities can manifest, and that will evolve over time. The absence of proficiency levels means the CF is not prescriptive about what capabilities should look like at different stages - that will evolve too. Being broad and non-prescriptive allows room for diverse expressions of strength and proficiency.

Lastly for now, is that the CF is framed as the collective growth needs of NPHS and public health. There are simply too many capabilities, and too many examples, for them to be treated like a checklist of skills to be performed. As amazing as some of our kaimahi are, that is not expected or possible. As an organisation, NPHS needs to ensure it is growing in the capabilities, but this growth will be spread across the workforce.

I like to think of the CF as a smorgasbord - a rich and varied spread where every capability has value, contributing strategically to public health. For individuals, the key questions become: which capabilities do I most need to strengthen, and in what ways do I want to grow, so I can continue to contribute to the success of public health?

I hope you too can imagine your possibilities as you engage with the CF.

Thanks for reading,

Samuel Anderson.

What’s next on Capability Matters?

I’ve got lots more planned to share about the CF. Upcoming posts include:

• the legacy frameworks and how the CF relates to these;

• the Te Tiriti o Waitangi, equity, and Pae Ora foundations of the CF; and

• an overview of the development process.

Subscribe to Capability Matters to continue the journey with me.

Subscribe now

If you want to get in touch, send me an email at capabilitymatters [at] proton [dot] me - inserting the obvious punctuation. Cheers.

This post is a sequel to: Capabilities Framework - a basic overview where I covered most of the high-level information about the CF in one place to support sharing and people dipping into it for the first time. I hope that was a good place to start. You can access the full framework here.

Now that we have a foundation, let’s delve deeper into the CF.

Why was the Capabilities Framework developed?

The question that led to the CF was: What skills are needed across the public health workforce to fulfill our ongoing objectives, priorities, and obligations?

A key word there is ‘ongoing’. The public health environment is constantly evolving. So must the workforce. Public health needs people and teams and organisations that can continually adapt and grow to enable ongoing success.

That leads to the what: what people and capabilities are needed now and in the future? What do we prioritise for recruitment? What do we target for training and professional development? What do we focus on for onboarding? What do we cultivate individually and collectively across public health?

These are not new questions for public health and different groups have answered it in different ways over past generations. In 2025, a holistic and strategic approach is required, but first…

Sidenote: what & who is public health?

A tangent to talk about the who of the CF because ‘public health’ is a confusing term. If you don’t need an explainer, skip to the next section.

When I refer to the ‘public health workforce’ I am not talking about people working in hospitals, clinics, care facilities, etc. Their focus is primarily on individual patients, providing treatment and ongoing medical care when you get hurt, sick, or face health problems. These healthcare or personal health service professionals are an essential part of the ‘public health system’, and for any of you reading (hello!) please forgive my simplifications as there are lots of crossovers and exceptions.

But ‘public health’ is different from healthcare, and treating people for their specific ailments is not what the ‘public health workforce’ does.

Public health is the proactive side of health. Our mission is to prevent, delay, and mitigate diseases and bad health from happening in the first place. This means focusing wider than individuals with interventions targeting communities and whole populations. Even when we do work with individuals, we apply population approaches - for example, mass vaccinations where the same vaccine is administered for every person.

Lots of groups and organisations make up the public health sector including the National Public Health Service (NPHS) - who I work for - which is part of Health New Zealand | Te Whatu Ora (HNZ).1

As a workforce, some of our aims include to:

• keep people healthy and stop needless suffering by preventing diseases and other conditions from occurring and spreading

• support communities to take control of their own health

• work with other sectors to tackle the causes of bad health in society

• enable everyone to have fair & equal health outcomes (health equity)

• reduce the demand for costly healthcare services

On that last point - public health is smart financially. Systematic reviews (e.g. Masters et al., 2017) have shown that for every $1 that governments invest in proactive public health interventions like regulating harmful substances (e.g. tobacco, alcohol), addressing environmental health issues (e.g. pollution), and engaging in community development and health promotion, there is a median return of $14 including health costs saved and increased tax revenue. Basically, less people get sick and need ever-expensive medical services, which also means they can keep working and paying taxes. That return on investment (ROI) is phenomenal and some interventions are even higher. Public health is one of the best financial investments we can make as a society, and it produces great social outcomes too.

The most frequent metaphor for public health is that we are the fence at the top of the cliff rather than the literal ambulance at the bottom. In my opinion, good public health is more like the sign way off from the edge warning against the threat before you even approach it.

We still need to invest in hospitals, GPs, and other healthcare providers. But investing long-term in public health and prevention will support our public health system to be more affordable for the government and taxpayers, less strained and thus safer for the workforce, and more effective as a whole therefore producing better outcomes for whānau and communities.

In summary, prevention is better than the cure. Public health is good policy. And supporting all communities to be healthy is the right thing to do. This is what the public health workforce is all about achieving.

So, what skills does public health need?

Lots of capabilities and it is a very diverse sector with a wide range of roles, disciplines, and expertise working together. Some are clinically trained and they are very important. But more so than healthcare, public health needs people of different professions and backgrounds to accomplish its objectives.

We need sciency people. We need data specialists. We need ‘people’ people and creative communicators and systems navigators. We need kaimahi of different cultures and those with community networks to facilitate connections. We need policy wonks and partnership forgers and clinical medicine practitioners. We need HR, IT, and admin professionals because they enable and grow our system’s capacity to perform.2 We need Māori, Pacific, and disabled kaimahi as these are priority populations for improving health outcomes under the Pae Ora strategies. We need people of different generations and lived experience. We need all kinds of subject matter expertise. Most of all, public health needs effective leadership to bring this diversity together and enhance our efforts. Public health has a wide job to do and we need a wide range of skillsets to succeed.

This is where the Capabilities Framework comes in.

What I wrote in the last section - that’s what the CF outlines in a more structured manner. The metaphor that we used the most during development is that the CF is a strategic ‘map’ of the capabilities needed across NPHS and public health in Aotearoa New Zealand. Like a map, the CF surveys the landscape of the workforce, identifying what skills, knowledge, and behaviours are needed collectively. Only by harnessing and continually growing in these capabilities will public health be able to navigate to our objective - Pae Ora, healthy futures for all New Zealanders.

Importantly, the CF is universal in that it covers all of the public health workforce. It does not list every role and profession, instead viewing the workforce through the lens of the Core Public Health Functions for New Zealand (2015). This model established that there are five core functions needed for an effective and robust public health service in our context; the CF uses these functions to map out the capabilities.3 The CF is therefore holistic in its approach, considering the totality of capability needs across public health.

To explain how this relates to individuals: usually, public health roles will align with capabilities from a primary core function. For example, Health Promotion Advisors mostly use capabilities from the Health Promotion core function or Public Health Analysts from the Health Intelligence core function. But individuals may use capabilities from a range of functions depending on their task. For example, a Health Promoter recording data from a community development activity is employing Intelligence function skills. That’s a simplistic example, but it illustrates how the capabilities are flexible and independent of specific roles or teams and thus potentially useful for anyone. It means that if you work in public health, you will be able to see yourself in the CF not by your role title but depending on what capabilities you bring and use in your work. It also encourages your future potential by demonstrating what value you could bring by growing in other areas and deepening your existing capabilities.

This universal, core function approach of the CF enables it to be useful for all individuals in public health. It also makes it useful for public health leaders who can better understand the holistic totality of the workforce, supporting better management, growth, balancing, and utilisation of the sector’s collective capabilities.

Why the CF now? How is it better than other frameworks?

As mentioned at the start, the questions that the CF answers are not new for public health. Different groups have detailed public health skills and knowledge in various ways for various purposes - both in Aotearoa New Zealand and abroad.4 There are currently a range of ‘competency’ frameworks, standards, and continuing professional development (CPD) systems applying for some NPHS cohorts. There have also been sector-wide plans and strategies to strengthen the workforce, most notably Te Uru Kahikatea.

While some of these are now outdated, the “legacy frameworks and systems” were a fantastic reference and starting point for the CF development. We recognised the leadership and thinking of those involved by aligning where possible and borrowing liberally, bringing their best ideas forward into the present era through the lens of Pae Ora. For the legacy frameworks still in effect for NPHS kaimahi, the CF was designed to work alongside rather than replace them. The CF can be complementary. I will write more about this dynamic and the CF literature review in a future post.

The CF was developed at this time due to the opportunity of the health reforms and its merging of the 12 regional public health units - and a few other organisations - to be the new NPHS within HNZ. For the first time in a generation, a large proportion of the public health sector across Aotearoa New Zealand are working together under the same “roof”. Consequently, the responsibility for growing the workforce professionally including the wider sector now belongs to NPHS.

The health reforms also reframed the vision and aims of public health to achieve Pae Ora, healthy futures for all New Zealanders. This includes the elimination of disparities in health outcomes between populations (health equity), in particular for Māori who continue to experience worse outcomes. These are longstanding public health aims, but they have been renewed, entrenched, and extended by the new legislation to apply to the whole public health system (including healthcare). By law, the purpose of NPHS and all others within health is to achieve Pae Ora.

This was the main reason the CF was created at this time: the NPHS learning and development (L&D) team + NPHS leadership believed a new framework was necessary to facilitate the growth of the sector towards delivering on the Pae Ora vision and mandate. Pae Ora thus became one of the three foundations of the CF alongside Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the principle of equity. In the CF, there are Pae Ora specific capabilities; and Pae Ora is also interwoven throughout, informing all the other capabilities.

The CF is therefore better than the older frameworks because it is fit for the purpose of the day - to grow the public health workforce towards Pae Ora.

Furthermore, the CF is a ‘capabilities’ rather than a ‘competencies’ framework, representing a new and superior paradigm for strategic workforce development focusing on continual learning and future potential rather than maintaining standards. I will write more about ‘capabilities’ in my next post [available here].

The CF is comprehensive. It is broad and holistic in its coverage of public health functions, universally covering all kaimahi working in the sector - a first for Aotearoa New Zealand. It is also deep, with almost 1,000 examples of public health capabilities in action. Yet it remains flexible and able to be applied diversely by different groups as appropriate for their contexts. The CF is not perfect, but its comprehensive nature enables it to be more capable of being a true foundation for workforce development in public health than any of the older models.

Lastly, for now, is that the CF is representative of the perspectives and capability needs of the operational public health workforce. It was created by hands-on practitioners with experience of what doing public health work in all corners of Aotearoa New Zealand is about. Not that other organisations, researchers, and frameworks have had invalid perspectives. But NPHS is the bringing together of the most diverse and experienced public health workforce in this country’s history, over 200 of whom contributed to the CF development. The CF is a rich representation of our collective expertise.

I don’t mean to disparage other parts of the sector. Many people and organisations contribute to public health in valuable ways such as providing research, policy guidance, advocacy, global connections, and other services - some of which are gaps for NPHS. Many of our kaimahi were trained by and have worked for these organisations. Our mates in healthcare are important too. We all have a part to play in supporting public health aims and Pae Ora. Any success NPHS has will be the result of collective action and partnerships internally and externally.

NPHS is still in its infancy in many ways. We need support - practically and politically. That includes help growing our workforce, and we would love for other groups and education providers to align training and public health curriculum to the CF.5 This would better prepare the future workforce for operational public health work and thus improve our organisational effectiveness going forward.

In exchange for the sector’s support, we proudly offer the CF to enhance professional development across all of public health. Part of the strength of the CF is that it has come from NPHS informed by our workforce’s hard-earned experience and insights. I hope that the wider sector can make use of our wisdom, and that the CF provides an effective foundation for the growth of public health capabilities everywhere.

Lets use the CF together and mature towards public health’s potential in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Thanks for reading,

Ngā mihi,

Samuel Anderson

What’s next on Capability Matters?

Even in this lengthier post I’ve skimmed over a lot. There’s many more things to say and discover about the CF. Subscribe to continue the journey with me.

Subscribe now

Next time, I will unpack the CF as a ‘capabilities’ framework and how capabilities are superior to competencies. Future posts will include how the CF was developed and what public health can learn from that process.

If you want to get in touch, send me an email at capabilitymatters [at] proton [dot] me - inserting the obvious punctuation. Cheers.

The CF can be downloaded here.

This post is an overview of the CF covering the basics for anyone interested across public health.

Sharing the CF across the sector is one of the objectives of Capability Matters, and in my next post I will expand upon this one, going over the what and why in greater detail before branching out to cover different angles and learnings.

I hope this helps the wider sector to learn about the CF and begin using it beyond NPHS. We are all in the public health and Pae Ora game together.

What is the Capabilities Framework?

The CF is a strategic map of the capabilities – skills, knowledge, and behaviours – needed across NPHS and public health in Aotearoa New Zealand. The capabilities are needed for continual growth to deliver on Pae Ora, achieve health equity, and support healthy futures for all New Zealanders.

The CF is a New Zealand-specific, holistic framework covering all public health workers (kaimahi), roles, and disciplines through its use of the Core Public Health Functions for New Zealand model (2015).

Note: ‘public health’ in this context is not healthcare like hospitals, GPs, etc. Rather than treat individuals, our aim is to prevent, delay, and mitigate diseases and bad health from happening in the first place across communities and all of society. The CF covers kaimahi working in this proactive side of health.

What are the capability areas?

The capabilities are in two groupings:

• Shared capabilities – for all kaimahi including foundational knowledge and professional practices that enable all public health work.

• Diverse capabilities – for specific groups and individuals depending on their team, role, function, or other characteristics.

All capabilities are based on the foundation and values of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, equity, and Pae Ora. There are specific capabilities for these areas and they are also interwoven throughout providing context for all skills, knowledge, and behaviours in public health.

What does the CF enable?

In public health, the CF is a strategic foundation for:

• human resources management including recruitment, learning and development (L&D), onboarding, workforce planning, team and programme leadership, etc.

• development of public health education, curriculum, and learning activities

• individuals identifying growth areas and supporting professional development planning

In these ways and more, the CF enables the workforce to be fit for purpose and continually growing to meet the challenges of the ever-evolving public health environment.

The CF is itself a great learning resource for anyone engaged in the sector. It gives a macro view of public health in Aotearoa, highlights the diversity of the workforce and what each part brings, and thus encourages interconnections and cross-functional collaboration. I hope it inspires public health to work together for enhanced collective action.

What are capabilities?

Capabilities are defined as the broad skills, knowledge, and behaviours that public health needs to be continually growing in to deliver on Pae Ora.

The CF is not like a competency checklist for everyone working in the sector; that’s not expected or possible. Rather, the CF represents the collective growth needs of the whole public health workforce to meet our shared Pae Ora objectives. I will write about the differences between capabilities and competencies in a future post.

Individuals should consider how they can be developing in the shared capabilities and what mix of the diverse capabilities are relevant to them.

How was the CF developed?

It was created by the NPHS L&D team across 2023 and 2024 in partnership with over 200 NPHS kaimahi representing diverse voices and subject matter experts. The CF thus represents the perspectives and capability needs of the operational public health workforce; of public health’s hands-on practitioners who intimately understand the work and know what it takes to succeed.

The project lead and author was me, Samuel Anderson. It was commissioned and shepherded through to completion by the NPHS National L&D Manager, Ken Trass. Our governance group was made up of NPHS directors including Māori, Pacific, and clinical leadership. We also partnered with Te Aka Whai Ora | Maori Health Authority. Many people helped in different ways; a full list of acknowledgements is in the CF.

Who can use the CF?

Anyone within public health. The CF is flexible to be used by different groups for different purposes. Please let me know how you’re using it!

How does it relate to other frameworks?

The CF covers all of public health ensuring for the first time that all public health workers in Aotearoa New Zealand are covered by such a framework.

Some roles and cohorts have pre-existing competency frameworks, standards, and continuing professional development (CPD) systems in use; the CF has been designed to work alongside these rather than replace them.

How can I find out more?

Read the full framework – download link here.

Subscribe to Capability Matters for future posts, information, and resources unpacking the CF delivered directly to your email inbox.

If you want to get in touch, send me an email at capabilitymatters [at] proton [dot] me - inserting the obvious punctuation.

Thanks for reading,

Cheers :)

Samuel