Gap Analysis

A Gap Analysis is used because interviews — even well-run ones — have limits.

In interviews, candidates respond in real time. Answers are verbal, often high level, and shaped by the dynamic in the room. What is difficult to test properly in that environment is depth of reasoning, decision logic, and where experience genuinely runs out.

The Gap Analysis is a structured, written assessment completed by the candidate in their own time, and in their own words. Candidates are given space to think, reflect, and respond without being prompted or guided in the moment. Responses are not
edited, rewritten, or interpreted on the candidate’s behalf. Their language, structure, level of detail, and reasoning are captured exactly as provided.

Before completing the Gap Analysis, candidates are clearly briefed on its purpose and asked to be honest, open, and direct. The value of the output comes from candour, not polish.

The questions are deliberately designed to probe beneath surface experience.

They explore:

-what the candidate has actually done, including scope, context, and decisions made

-how they have approached complexity, pressure, and trade-offs

-exposure to technical, commercial, contractual, and leadership realities

-where experience is solid, adjacent, or genuinely limited Importantly, the Gap Analysis does not treat gaps as automatic disqualifiers.

Its role is to distinguish between:

– gaps that represent real delivery or execution risk, and

– gaps that are bridgeable through mentorship, support, or exposure.

This is particularly relevant in renewable energy hiring, where sector or technology experience is often specified, but the underlying skills may be transferable.
The Gap Analysis helps surface whether a candidate’s background can realistically translate into the role, what support would be required, and whether that support is practical or unrealistic.

The output provides a clear, documented view of alignment and gaps against the role as it actually exists, not an idealised job description. It shows what is missing, why it is missing, and what would be required to bridge it — rather than relying on assumptions formed during interviews.

For clients, this leads to better judgement and fewer surprises.

For candidates, it allows fairer, more informed assessment.

For both, it reduces the risk of ruling people in or out for the wrong reasons.