Know who is ready for each position before it opens.

It is a map of who can take over each critical position in the company and how soon. It matters because a manager's departure does not come with advance notice: without a plan, the company finds out it has no replacement on the day it needs one, and goes to the market in a hurry and at high cost. With a plan, there is a list of names for each position, with each person's stage of preparation.

By combining what the other modules already record: review cycle results, position on the 9-box grid, IDP progress and completed training. The system shows the picture; the decision stays with HR and leadership, with the data in view instead of the memory of whoever was in the meeting.

A career path looks from the person upward: which paths exist from the current role and what needs to be developed to follow each one. A succession plan looks from the position downward: who the candidates are to fill it if it becomes vacant. Both use the same competency base, which is why they live in the same module.

No. It is built from the structure of roles, units and reporting lines already in the platform, so it follows new hires, departures and department changes without being redrawn. Someone who changes teams appears in the new place right away.

It is the same subject under another name. Career hub, career portal and career and succession management describe the same function: bringing together in one place the possible paths from each role, the competencies required at each step and who is prepared to take over critical positions. The name varies between companies and vendors; what matters is whether the paths connect with performance reviews and the development plan, or sit in a separate document nobody opens.

Yes, and that is often where it starts. You can first map the critical positions, the ones whose absence would stop an operation, and only then build out full career paths. You do not need a finished job architecture to identify succession risk.