Experience is routinely framed as a pre-requisite (i.e. do you meet Experience X? yes or no).
In my Agency (Canada Revenue Agency), we’ve had a long history of also considering and evaluating the quality of one’s experience in order to make appointments/placements. So from a pool of qualified candidates, a hiring manager would define a key type of experience (eg. project management) and gather information from candidates to determine who had the richest experience (sort of a Good, Better, Best approach). We are currently debating the appropriateness of drawing distinctions in experience in this manner. One proposed alternative is to only frame experience in a “meets/does not meet” context and/or to draw out the elements of “richer experience” by measuring the elements of knowledge and abilities that are inherent with “richer experience”.
Personally, I think evaluating and rating experience to help tease candidates apart has value and is more efficient as a concept than trying to elicit the same information by way of assessing knowledge. For example, a candidate with 10 years experience as a manager vs a candidate with 18 months could easily summarize key features of their experience (job roles, key projects, etc) in 2-3 pages and the one with the “richer” experience could be identified by the board with a suitable rating guide. Conversely, trying to draw out similar info by way of a knowledge test is a more daunting (less efficient) exercise.
Would be interested to know how other departments/agency’s evaluate experience as part of a staffing proces.