At the beginning of the 2000s, I had the opportunity to be part of a committee working to develop what would become a global standard for assessment in working life: ISO 10667.
Looking back, one of the most valuable parts of that experience was the chance to work alongside so many knowledgeable and thoughtful people in the field of assessment. It was a real privilege to be part of those discussions and to learn from others who shared the ambition of improving the quality, fairness and transparency of assessment in working life.
It also showed me that developing a meaningful standard takes time. The work continued for many years before the first version was finally published in 2011.
The original plan was to create one single standard, but towards the end of the process it became clear that it would be more useful to divide it into two parts: one for the client organisation and one for the service provider. That became ISO 10667-1 and ISO 10667-2.
In simple terms, Part 1 focuses on the responsibilities of the organisation buying assessment services, while Part 2 focuses on the responsibilities of the provider delivering them.
What makes ISO 10667 so important, in my view, is that it sets a framework for what good practice should look like in assessment and selection. It reminds us that quality is not only about individual tools or methods — it is about the whole process, from defining the need to delivering feedback and recommendations in a professional, ethical and evidence-based way.
Around 2014, I also had the opportunity to support Mercuri Urval (MU), an Executive Search and Leadership Advisory firm with a strong focus on evidence-based leader assessment and selection, for a short period in its work to become certified against ISO 10667. Even though MU already met the requirements in practice, certification also requires that everything is properly documented. That process matters.
Today, MU has a real advantage in having worked with this standard for more than ten years. It provides a strong framework for development, practice and quality assurance — and that work is never really finished.
For anyone buying assessment services in the leadership field, I believe certification is something worth asking for. It means that an independent body such as DNV has reviewed not just individual methods, but the quality of the entire process — from job analysis to final recommendation.
A first revision of ISO 10667 was carried out in 2018, before the AI revolution had fully taken hold. Even then, the expert group was already taking account of the digital shift ahead. Now, with the EU AI Act on the horizon, I believe this standard can play an important role in making sure we do not lose sight of what really matters: whatever technology is used, an assessment process must still demonstrate reliability, validity and transparency.
That kind of quality assurance still feels highly relevant today. If anything, it matters even more at a time when decisions about people are expected to be both evidence-based and transparent.