Below is a complete board skills matrix template you can copy into a spreadsheet or a board paper today: twenty-four competency rows grouped into eight areas, eight director columns, a 0 to 3 rating key with definitions, and a worked example showing what two real gaps look like once the grid is filled in. Nothing here is gated or summarised. The process for running the exercise sits in our step-by-step board skills audit guide; this page is the artefact itself.
It is written for company secretaries and governance leads building or refreshing a competency grid for a nomination committee, in any UK sector.
What should a board skills matrix template include?
A usable template has four parts: a competency list of roughly fifteen to twenty-five rows drawn from the organisation's strategy and principal risks, one column per director, a rating scale with written definitions of each level, and a summary row showing depth and coverage per competency. Anything less produces a grid nobody can act on.
The list below is a starting point, not a finished answer. Delete rows that do not reflect your strategy and add rows that do. A grid that survives contact with a nomination committee is one where at least a quarter of the rows would look odd on any other board's version.
The rating key
Ratings only work if the levels mean the same thing to every director. Agree these definitions before anyone fills in a cell:
| Rating | Label | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | None | No working knowledge. The director would not be able to interrogate a paper on this subject. |
| 1 | Aware | Can follow a paper and ask sensible questions, but relies on management or advisers for judgement. |
| 2 | Practitioner | Has held direct responsibility for this area, or has overseen it at board level elsewhere. Can challenge management substantively. |
| 3 | Expert | Recognised depth: a career specialism, a professional qualification, or sustained senior accountability. Could lead the board's thinking on it. |
Two rules make the scale hold. A 3 requires evidence a chair could state out loud in a committee meeting, not a self-perception. And self-assessment is always moderated: the chair reviews every director's ratings, and the senior independent director or committee chair moderates the chair's.
The template
Copy this grid and replace A to H with director initials or role titles. Keep the group headings; they are what make the summary readable.
| Competency | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | Depth (2+) | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sector and market | ||||||||||
| Sector operating model and delivery | ||||||||||
| Customer, tenant or service user insight | ||||||||||
| Commercial strategy and growth | ||||||||||
| Financial | ||||||||||
| Financial reporting and audit | ||||||||||
| Treasury, funding and capital structure | ||||||||||
| Value for money and cost control | ||||||||||
| Legal and governance | ||||||||||
| Company or charity law and the constitution | ||||||||||
| Board and committee chairing | ||||||||||
| Regulatory engagement and reporting | ||||||||||
| Risk | ||||||||||
| Enterprise risk and internal control | ||||||||||
| Health, safety and asset compliance | ||||||||||
| Cyber security and operational resilience | ||||||||||
| Technology and AI | ||||||||||
| Digital and data strategy | ||||||||||
| AI oversight, model risk and data provenance | ||||||||||
| Major systems and programme delivery | ||||||||||
| People and culture | ||||||||||
| Executive remuneration and reward | ||||||||||
| Workforce, talent and executive succession | ||||||||||
| Culture, speak-up and whistleblowing | ||||||||||
| ESG and climate | ||||||||||
| Climate risk, net zero and transition planning | ||||||||||
| Social impact and outcome measurement | ||||||||||
| Sustainability and non-financial reporting | ||||||||||
| Stakeholder and public affairs | ||||||||||
| Regulator and government relations | ||||||||||
| Investor, funder or lender relations | ||||||||||
| Communications and reputation management |
Two summary columns do the analytical work. Depth (2+) counts how many directors rate 2 or 3 on that row; Total sums the row. Depth matters more, because it answers the question a nomination committee actually has: if the director who covers this leaves, who is left?
Alongside the grid, keep a separate sheet recording each director's tenure, committee memberships and appointment end date. Personal characteristics collected for diversity reporting are held separately again, with their own retention period, and never merged into the competency grid.
How do you read the gap heat map?
A gap heat map is the same grid with each cell shaded by rating, pale for 0 and dark for 3, so patterns are visible before anyone reads a number. Three patterns matter: a pale row where no director reaches 2 is a coverage gap, a row with a single dark cell is an over-reliance, and a pale column is a director development question.
Shading is not decoration. A nomination committee has perhaps twenty minutes on this item, and the eye finds a pale horizontal band faster than a low number in a table of 192 cells. Read the map in this order:
- Coverage gaps first. Any row with Depth of 0 means no director can substantively challenge management on that subject. This is a recruitment brief, or a decision to buy the expertise in through a co-opted adviser.
- Over-reliance second. Depth of exactly 1, especially where that director's term ends within two years, is a succession risk disguised as adequate coverage. It is the most commonly missed pattern on the map.
- Concentration third. If the same two directors carry every 3 on the sheet, the board has a workload and dependency problem whatever the totals say.
- Columns last. A director with no 2s anywhere is either miscast or under-used. That is an appraisal conversation, not a grid problem, and it belongs in the individual director review, not the nomination committee minute.
Set the action threshold before you look at the results, so the committee is not tempted to negotiate with its own data. A workable default: Depth of 0 triggers a recruitment or advisory decision within the year; Depth of 1 combined with a term ending inside 24 months triggers a documented succession action.
Worked example: an eight-person housing association board
The board below belongs to a fictional housing association with around 6,000 homes, eight board members, and a development programme paused for two years to fund building safety work. Ratings were self-assessed, moderated by the chair, and signed off by the governance committee in March.
| Competency | A (Chair) | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | Depth (2+) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sector operating model and delivery | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 |
| Customer, tenant or service user insight | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Financial reporting and audit | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Treasury, funding and capital structure | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Company or charity law and the constitution | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| Enterprise risk and internal control | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| Health, safety and asset compliance | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Cyber security and operational resilience | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| Digital and data strategy | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| AI oversight, model risk and data provenance | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Executive remuneration and reward | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Workforce, talent and executive succession | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
| Climate risk, net zero and transition planning | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Social impact and outcome measurement | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Regulator and government relations | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Communications and reputation management | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 |
Two findings came out of the heat map, and neither had been raised in the previous year's board discussion.
Gap one: AI oversight, Depth 0. The association had approved a repairs triage tool and a tenant contact assistant in the previous eighteen months, both procured through the executive on an IT business case. No board member rated above 1 on model risk or data provenance, so decisions affecting tenant service had been accepted with nobody able to test the assumptions behind them.
Gap two: climate risk, Depth 1. Director D held the only rating above 1, at expert level, and D's second three-year term ended fourteen months later. On the totals alone the row looked survivable. On the heat map it read as a single dark cell in an otherwise pale line, with a known expiry date attached.
What the nomination committee did, minuted in April:
| Finding | Decision | Owner | Timing |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI oversight, Depth 0 | Add AI and data governance to the brief for the non-executive vacancy arising in the autumn, rather than recruiting a second finance-weighted director as originally planned | Committee chair | Recruitment opens September |
| AI oversight, interim cover | Commission an external briefing for the full board on AI risk in housing services, and require an AI section in the next risk report | Company secretary | Before the July board |
| Climate risk, Depth 1 | Two directors identified for development, with a named training route and a shadow role on the asset and sustainability committee | Chair, with D | Reassess at next refresh |
| Climate risk, succession | Confirm whether D's term can be extended by twelve months to overlap with the incoming director, and record the rationale | Chair | June board |
The committee also changed the process itself: the matrix now goes to it eight weeks before any recruitment brief is signed off, rather than being produced to justify a brief already drafted. That sequencing change did more for the credibility of the exercise than any refinement to the grid.
Which competency rows change by sector?
The eight competency groups hold across UK sectors, but the specific rows and the evidence a board needs to show differ. The table below sets out what to add, drop or rename, and the primary source that drives it.
| Sector | Add these rows | Drop or de-emphasise | What drives it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Listed company | Investor and analyst relations; internal control effectiveness; executive pay policy and shareholder consultation; audit committee financial competence | Social impact measurement, unless material to strategy | The FRC's UK Corporate Governance Code 2024, Principle K and Provision 23 |
| Charity | Charity law and trustee duties; fundraising regulation and ethics; volunteer and beneficiary engagement; restricted funds and reserves policy | Investor relations; executive remuneration depth, where pay is modest | The Charity Governance Code, Principle 8 (board effectiveness) |
| Housing association | Building and fire safety compliance; asset management and stock condition; tenant voice and consumer standards; lender covenants and stress testing | Investor relations, replaced by lender and funder relations | The Regulator of Social Housing's Governance and Financial Viability Standard, sections 2.1 and 2.2 |
| NHS provider trust | Clinical quality and patient safety; system and integrated care partnership working; workforce planning at scale; statutory duties and NHS oversight framework | Commercial growth; capital structure, replaced by capital regime and system funding | NHS England's Code of governance for NHS provider trusts, Provision 2.2 |
Group boards and mutuals usually need one more row than any of these: the relationship between subsidiary boards and the parent, and who holds which reserved matter. It is a competency in its own right, and it is routinely missing.
What the UK codes expect on composition and succession
No UK code prescribes a skills matrix by name. Four codes ask for the judgement a matrix records, which is why the grid has become the standard way to evidence it, and each expects the assessment to be made at least annually.
The Financial Reporting Council's UK Corporate Governance Code 2024, which applies to accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2025, sets Principle K: the board and its committees should have a combination of skills, experience and knowledge, with consideration given to the length of service of the board as a whole and membership regularly refreshed. Principle J adds that appointments and succession plans should be based on merit and objective criteria and should promote diversity, inclusion and equal opportunity. Provision 17 places the work with a nomination committee, which leads appointments, ensures plans are in place for orderly succession to the board and senior management, and oversees the development of a diverse pipeline. Provision 23 then requires the annual report to describe the process used in relation to appointments, the approach to succession planning, and how both support developing a diverse pipeline. That disclosure is where a maintained grid earns its keep. Our company secretary's guide to the 2024 Code covers the wider reporting picture, including the internal control provision landing for financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2026. Checked on 3 September 2026.
For charities, the Charity Governance Code sets board effectiveness as Principle 8, with the outcome that the board works well together using an appropriate balance of skills, experience, backgrounds and knowledge. Its suggested evidence names the exercise directly: periodic assessment of the competencies needed by the board to understand any skills gaps, and evidence of efforts to fill those gaps through board training, recruitment or specialist advice. Compliance with the Code is not a regulatory requirement; it is applied or explained. Checked on 3 September 2026.
For registered providers of social housing, the Regulator of Social Housing's Governance and Financial Viability Standard requires providers to adopt and comply with an appropriate code of governance, to explain areas of non-compliance with it, and to assess the effectiveness of their governance arrangements at least once a year. Section 2.2 requires providers to manage their affairs with an appropriate degree of skill, independence, diligence, effectiveness, prudence and foresight. A current competency grid is the most direct evidence that the skill element has been tested rather than assumed. Checked on 3 September 2026.
For NHS provider trusts, NHS England's Code of governance for NHS provider trusts, in effect since 1 April 2023, is the most explicit of the four. Provision 2.2 requires the nominations committee to evaluate, at least annually, the balance of skills, knowledge, experience and diversity on the board of directors, and in light of that evaluation to describe the role and capabilities required for appointment of executive and non-executive directors, including the chair. Checked on 3 September 2026.
Where skills matrix templates fail in practice
Four failure modes account for most matrices built once and never used again.
- Everyone scores highly. If the average rating across the grid is above 2, the definitions were too loose or the moderation did not happen. A matrix with no pale cells has told you nothing.
- The rows come from the template, not the strategy. Generic competency lists produce generic results. Rows should be traceable to a strategic priority or a principal risk in the current annual report.
- The grid is produced after the recruitment brief. At that point it is a justification exercise. The sequencing above, matrix first and brief second, is the fix.
- It is refreshed on a calendar rather than on events. Annual refresh is the floor. A change of strategy, a new principal risk, or an unplanned departure should each trigger a look at the grid, not a wait until next spring.
Next step
If the grid surfaces gaps, the next question is whether the board's wider effectiveness review is picking up the same signals. A skills matrix answers who is around the table; a performance review answers how well they work once there, and the two findings should reconcile. BoardServe's board effectiveness reviews run the assessment, the evidence trail and the action tracking in one place, so a composition gap identified in March is still visible when the nomination committee meets in October. Our guide to the annual board effectiveness review sets out how the two exercises fit together across a governance year.
This page is maintained as guidance changes, and the codes cited above are re-checked at the annual update.
FAQ
How many competencies should a board skills matrix have?
Between fifteen and twenty-five rows for most boards. Fewer than fifteen and the grid lacks the resolution to show a gap; more than twenty-five and directors disengage and rate generously across the sheet. The template above uses twenty-four, grouped into eight areas so the summary stays readable.
Should directors rate themselves?
Self-assessment is the practical starting point, but never the finished rating. The chair moderates every director's scores against evidence, and the senior independent director or committee chair moderates the chair's. Without moderation, ratings drift upward each year and the grid stops discriminating between directors.
What rating scale works best, 0 to 3 or 1 to 5?
A 0 to 3 scale with written definitions is easier to moderate and produces clearer heat maps. Five-point scales invite directors to cluster on the middle value, flattening the differences the exercise exists to surface. What matters more than the range is that each level has a definition agreed in advance.
How often should the matrix be refreshed?
At least annually, aligned with the board performance review cycle so the two sets of findings can be read together. Refresh sooner if the strategy changes, a new principal risk is added, or a director leaves unexpectedly. The NHS code and the social housing standard both set an annual floor for the underlying assessment.
Does the skills matrix go in the annual report?
The grid itself usually does not, but its conclusions often should. The UK Corporate Governance Code 2024, Provision 23, asks the annual report to describe the nomination committee's approach to appointments and succession and how both support a diverse pipeline. Many boards publish a simplified competency summary rather than individual director ratings, which keeps the disclosure useful without exposing personal assessments.