Methodology

The assessment in this tool is a self-assessment that helps you explore your development priorities across the eight domains. It is a starting point for a development conversation, not a measurement of your ability.

You rate each skill on a 0–4Editorial scale, and a domain score is the mean of its skill ratings. The score converts to one of 4 levelsEditorial at the thresholds 1.25 · 2.25 · 3.25Editorial.

The thresholds are declared editorial choices not derived from data, and the scale has not been statistically validated. A level helps you read your self-rating; it does not describe your actual performance.

At the start you choose your role category from 5 categoriesEditorial:

• General
• Applied
• Specialist
• Team leadership
• Executive

The scenario bank holds 40 scenariosEditorial, one per domain in your role category. Each has four options scored 0–3Editorial by the maturity of the response, and the rationale appears after you answer.

The knowledge check holds 40 questionsEditorial on foundational knowledge in each domain. It keeps how many you answered and how many were correct, and consistency with your self-rating is not judged before 3 questionsEditorial in the domain.

The scenarios and knowledge-check questions are editorial: written and edited by the tool’s author, not field-tested with pilot entities and not statistically validated.

One priority engine reads four inputs and suggests development priorities. The results page, the plan and the printed report all read from it, so the priority never differs from one page to another.

Reasons for a priority

• Your self-rating is below the indicative target for your role category.
• Your scenario responses are below your self-rating.
• Both your self-rating and your scenario responses are below the target.
• A high self-rating that neither the scenarios nor the knowledge check support, so checking it in practice is suggested.

If you choose a specific role from the role library (24 rolesEditorial), its indicative target replaces the category target.

No overall score, no general “readiness” and no ranking of people. The target is an indicative editorial one for the role category, not a job standard. A suggested priority is an invitation to develop, not a measurement of a shortfall in your ability.

A list of 48 technologiesEditorial, each linked to the skills it requires. The aim is to show which skills to prepare for, not to rate the technologies themselves.

• Horizon: 0–2 · 2–5 · 5–10 yearsEditorial. It is an editorial judgment of when a technology’s use in government work broadens.
• The technology readiness scale TRL 1–9Editorial describes a technology’s global maturity, not its adoption in Saudi Arabia, and appears only in the details with an “editorial” badge.
• Each judgment is a desk review against named published signals, with a written rationale.
• The list is an independent reading, not an official radar of any organization.

Entity figures come from two source workbooks: the enablement service records (training and consulting) and the entity and sector directory. Both are internal records of the government digital-skills program and the consulting and studies platform, up to the end of the third quarter of 2026. The two units differ, training participation records (not unique people) and consulting services, so they are never added into one figure.

The tool shows the sheet totals because they are consistent with the sector aggregates, and states the other two figures with their dates. The owner decides the confirmed figure, and the tool is updated then.

• The public build shows aggregates only, national figures and sector aggregates, and a sector total appears only when its entities with records reach n ≥ 10Editorial.
• No per-entity records, no official logos, no ranking of entities, no labelling of an entity as not served, and no inferred needs for a named entity.
• The per-entity layer exists only in a private demonstration build and is not published.
• “Government entity” means government entities only; other types (owned companies, non-profits, clubs) are named by their type.

The consulting categories in the service records are used to suggest “development domains linked to the consulting record” at sector level. This is an editorial inference: an entity requesting a consultation does not measure its staff’s needs, and the weights below are declared assumptions, not measurements.

• The indicator is shown at sector level only, with the record count and period, and an “editorial inference” badge.
• No percentages are shown for the top three domains after rescaling them, because that treatment exaggerates differences.
• Cybersecurity appears lower than it really is, because national cybersecurity services are not part of these consultations.

• Nothing leaves your browser: your answers and results are stored on your device only, and you can delete them at any time.
• No accounts, no analytics or tracking tools, and no advertising cookies.
• Fonts are hosted with the site itself, so the page sends no request to any third party on load.
• If you choose to copy your result code, it carries only rounded scores and your role category, with no name or personal data, and it is never sent to a server.
• No link to an employee file or to any HR system.

The Digital Skills Radar is an independent concept, not an official product of any organization. Its author prepared it in a personal capacity; it represents no official position of any government entity and uses no official logos. Citing frameworks, reports and indices does not mean their publishers endorse this tool.

• The scale, scenarios and knowledge-check questions have not yet been statistically validated.
• Thresholds, weights and indicative targets are editorial.
• Entity data stops at the end of the third quarter of 2026, and training records are participation records, not people.
• The Arabic text is the reference; the English translation is editorial.
• Some sources on the standards page have not yet been matched to their original text, and are marked medium or low confidence.

• A half-yearly review of the technology list and its horizons.
• A quarterly review of fast-moving national figures and entity data.
• A yearly review of the role library, its indicative targets and the scenario bank.
• Every claim carries its last review date, and the evidence register flags it as needing review once 12 monthsEditorial have passed.

1. v92026-10-22
   • Rebuilt around decision support for government workforce development: five user-goal sections and a real link for every page in Arabic and English.
   • One priority engine read by the results, the plan and the printed report, and a fix to the professional-judgment step of the assessment.
   • A single claims registry and the “evidence register” page: every figure carries its source, type, confidence and review date, with automated content and terminology checks.
   • Government-entity data in the public build is national and sector aggregates only: no per-entity records, no logos, no rankings.
   • A binding glossary, and corrected standards facts: the SFIA 9 skill count, and DigComp alignment stated as an editorial crosswalk rather than a direct mapping.
   • Career-guidance tools for individuals removed from this release and kept in the archive of the previous release.
   • Fonts hosted with the site, so no requests go to third parties on load.
2. v82026-10
   • Consulting categories linked to the eight domains through a declared editorial weight table, with detail pages for sectors and entities (entity pages left the public build in v9).
3. v72026-10
   • Views built on the enablement service records: national indicators, sectors and the entity directory.
4. v6-B2026-10
   • Professional-judgment scenarios as a layer independent of self-assessment, a separate record for every skill, and the related international indices.
5. v62026-10
   • The organizing question became government workforce development; role categories were added and level thresholds unified.
6. v42026-10
   • The future-skills layer, the institutional adoption guide and source-type badges.
7. v3.22026-10
   • Two expert-review rounds: a consistency indicator between self-rating and the knowledge check, removal of unsourced figures, and accessibility improvements.
8. v32026-10
   • A track for individuals and families, and a green visual identity.
9. v22026-10
   • The technology list with a readiness scale, a role library referenced to SFIA, learning resources and knowledge-check questions.
10. v12026-10
    • Launch: the radar with its domains and skills, development plans and the standards page.