No. The national qualification remains the sovereign foundation and the source of formal value. This methodology strengthens and complements it — through competence-based curriculum, evidence and optional competence signals — but never replaces, re-levels or revalues it.

No. IFP-LATAM applies EQF descriptor logic only as an indicative comparison tool. Assigning a level is a reserved act of a competent national authority. IFP-LATAM documents readiness against descriptor expectations; it does not perform levelling.

Yes. The approach is designed to map onto existing national qualifications, occupational standards and curricula, identify competence gaps, and add structured practice, evidence and readability where they are useful — without disturbing the national framework.

Competence is a person’s actual ability to perform in an occupational situation. A qualification is a formal award issued by a recognised body. A person can have competence without a matching qualification, and a qualification without current competence — which is why evidence matters.

Readiness is whether a person can actually do the work. Readability is whether an external reader — employer, institution or authority — can understand and trust the evidence of that ability. Both matter; this methodology strengthens both.

They make a specific, assessed competence visible and verifiable. As competence signals they close readability gaps that a single national certificate may leave open, and they can be stacked and shared digitally where systems allow.

No. They are complementary partial credentials and competence signals. They carry no assigned level, are not degrees or licences, and do not replace a national qualification.

RPL identifies, documents and assesses what a person already knows and can do — from work, informal training or experience. It can support admission, exemption, bridging or further assessment where a competent institution accepts it. It does not by itself create a national qualification or assign a level.

Evidence should be valid (it measures the right competence), authentic (it is the learner’s own work), current (it reflects present ability) and sufficient (there is enough of it). Useful evidence covers what the learner knows, what they can do, and how independently and responsibly they can do it.

Yes. The IFP-LATAM resources are self-contained HTML files that work offline by double-clicking, and the methodology is designed to run with a board, notebooks and paper where technology is limited.

Yes. Companies provide workplace learning, supervision and evidence of real tasks; they do not need to deliver classroom theory. Learning-location cooperation shares responsibility between the institution and the workplace.

Chambers and employer bodies typically connect employers, support workplace learning and help confirm workplace evidence and sector relevance. Their exact role and authority vary by country and rest on national arrangements.

Instructors need to plan learning, explain work processes, guide practice, observe performance, give feedback, assess evidence and document progress — and to link classroom and workplace. Instructor development is essential, because curriculum alone does not produce competence.

By building competence around real workplace situations and turning it into readable evidence, young people leave training able to perform and able to show it — which lowers the barrier employers face when reading a candidate. It supports employability; it does not guarantee employment.

A pilot usually takes one occupational field, maps the existing qualification, defines occupational action situations, prepares instructors, runs a small cohort with workplace cooperation and portfolio evidence, and reviews the evidence and outcomes before any scale-up — all under quality assurance.

It can improve readability, which lowers the information barrier when competence is read abroad. It does not guarantee labour mobility, visas, licensing or recognition — those decisions rest with competent authorities and employers.

It is methodologically grounded in German (and Swiss) dual vocational education — work-process orientation, learning fields, learning-location cooperation, instructor development and quality assurance — adapted for international TVET implementation. It draws on the logic; it does not copy national laws or confer German recognition.

Use safe wording consistently: describe descriptor-based comparison and readability, never an assigned level or recognition; present micro-credentials as competence signals; and attach the standing disclaimer to every badge, profile and document. National qualifications remain the foundation, and recognition rests with competent authorities.