Skills Framework for the Information Age
The SFIA version 4.0 consultation continues.....
This site has been live for two months and has seen a gradual increase in activity.
We are now starting to consolidate the suggestions, reviews and other material which has been received, and will be posting proposed changes here over the next few weeks.
The site will continue to be open for new comments, which will be reviewed and processed until the end of September 2008. At this stage, it will be necessary to freeze the content of SFIA version 4, in order to make the necessary preparations for launch at the SFIA conference, on 4 December.
The main discussion to date has focussed on Information Management, Architecture, Business Analysis, and People Management. Input has also been received on other topics, such as IT Audit, Security, and Governance.
Many thanks to all who have contributed. There is still time to raise any issues (on these, or any other aspect of SFIA) should you wish to do so.
If you are new to SFIA, you may want to read the information here about the origins of SFIA, the objectives of the update and details of how you can get involved. But if you just want to get going, here are the essentials.
- Anyone can browse the site looking at the existing content and the comments that others have left. Draft new content will also be added as we go through the consultation, which is due to conclude at the end of September.
- If you want to leave comments yourself then you must first register. This is a simple process which just gives us some basic information about yourself and enables us to see who is saying what. To register, please go to New user?
You can leave specific comments on the relevant pages of the site. To leave a general comment, please scroll down to the bottom of the multi-coloured Overview matrix below.
If you experience any problems using this site, please contact the Editor, Mike Chad at: mike.chad@btconnect.com
SFIA 3: Overview matrix
|
Category |
Subcategory |
Skill |
|
Strategy & planning |
Information strategy |
|
|
Advice and guidance |
||
|
Business/IS strategy and planning |
||
|
Technical strategy and planning |
||
|
Development |
Systems development |
|
|
Human factors |
||
|
Installation and integration |
||
|
Business change |
Business change management |
|
|
Relationship management |
||
|
Service provision | ||
|
Infrastructure |
||
|
Operation |
||
|
User support |
||
|
Procurement & management support |
Supply management |
|
|
Quality management |
||
|
Resource management |
||
|
Ancillary skills |
Education and training |
|
| Sales and marketing | ||
URIs
Posted by
asimong
at
2008-05-06 04:56 PM
To use SFIA in other web systems (particularly electronic portfolios, personal development and skills profiling systems) it would be very useful to have a unique URI associated with each distinguishable skill. After devising a good system for these, they could be prominently displayed at appropriate times. Furthermore, an RDF or RDFa page could be constructed or generated for each skill, such that an http request for the URI returned information that could be used by other tools, as well as read by people.
Competency, skill or role?
Posted by
tgmcewan
at
2008-05-13 10:24 AM
An unresolved debate (at least fromt he point of view of educators) was what exactly each definition in SFIA represented - competency, skill, role, knowledge.
With SFIA/4 we need to be clearer about what industry expects the output from universities at each level to be capable of. (NB this is completely decoupled from the issue of coping with practitioners who do not have formal qualificaitons)
For example one could aim for (after induction) an HND to be ready for work at level 1, an hons graduate at level 2 and an MSc at level 3. But would this be in only one competency or across a portfolio. Would BCS want SFIA-matching to be part of the degree accreditation process?
With SFIA/4 we need to be clearer about what industry expects the output from universities at each level to be capable of. (NB this is completely decoupled from the issue of coping with practitioners who do not have formal qualificaitons)
For example one could aim for (after induction) an HND to be ready for work at level 1, an hons graduate at level 2 and an MSc at level 3. But would this be in only one competency or across a portfolio. Would BCS want SFIA-matching to be part of the degree accreditation process?
Commenting on groups of related skills
Posted by
dcflint
at
2008-05-20 10:25 AM
Many useful comments can be made on individual skills and levels. However the Information Management Group has found that we can only fully understand skills if we consider them in groups such as the set of skills needed to support a business decision or to maintain information quality. It would be helpful if the site provided a convenient means of commenting on such groups.
Comments on related skills
Posted by
mikechad
at
2008-05-20 12:53 PM
Comments can be recorded against individual Skills, Categories, Sub-categories and Levels, and also (on any topic) at the foot of the Home page. It is unlikley that further avenues will be implemented, and contributors are requested to try to use those available. If this proves too difficult, please email comments to the editor - mike.chad@btconnect.com
SFIA Framework - Evidence Base / consistency
Posted by
fijs01
at
2008-05-22 09:28 PM
Re: SFIA v3 (as in BCS Careerbuilder - SFIAplus), there is an unfortunate mix of experience, vocational / short course and academic attainment in the model, plus many gaps and inconsistencies. If the framework is to be useful it needs a strong and robust evidence base and reference model (say aligned to NVQ/SVQ Levels) – As it is (to me) V3 is unusable, take the detail behind specific descriptors – for example “Consultancy Level 7”, for educational background this states “Probably educated to degree level or holds a professional qualification” – In my opinion this needs to be "mandatory masters level attainment, with chartered level professional body membership” - Qualifications in many descriptors are very erratic or missing completely. For the NHS we need solid agreed Knowledge and Skills if to map to AFC (particularly for Factor 2) and to be of use in building skills based job descriptions or in support of the KSF. Happy to help, but this aspect of the V3 model needs complete revision and evidence based reference for V4. We are really struggling as an unregulated profession, the model as it stands does nothing to improve this. Compared to Marketing and Finance we are way behind.
Strategy and planning
Posted by
ghibbs
at
2008-05-27 10:56 AM
Design D E S I G N is incredibly important at this stage, but it is relegated to development. Information architects (and other types of architects) make their most important contributions at the strategy and planning stages. www.designcouncil.org.uk/en
Where is Architecture and Design?
Posted by
vmarchese
at
2008-05-27 01:44 PM
Architecture and Design are broadly established disciplines, often carried out by well defined organisational structure. Most large organisations have established "Strategy and Architecture" teams, where the primary goal is to bridge the gap between strategy/planning and development.
I believe that this construct (Architecture and Design) is not properly represented in SFIA3.
To address this, I would call for a new category or sub-category specifically to position architecture and design skills in the framework.
I believe that this construct (Architecture and Design) is not properly represented in SFIA3.
To address this, I would call for a new category or sub-category specifically to position architecture and design skills in the framework.
Qualifications
Posted by
JohnCKirk
at
2008-06-06 05:25 PM
Now that Microsoft have changed their certifications, the SFIA tasks should refer to specific MCTS/MCITP qualifications where appropriate, as well as MCSD/MCDBA/MCDST/MCSE.
Also, I think it would help (save duplication of effort) if there was a more detailed mapping between qualifications and the individual parts of a task. E.g. if someone has qualification X, that covers 10 out of the 15 skills, so you only need to assess them on the other 5.
Also, I think it would help (save duplication of effort) if there was a more detailed mapping between qualifications and the individual parts of a task. E.g. if someone has qualification X, that covers 10 out of the 15 skills, so you only need to assess them on the other 5.
"Skill" terminology
Posted by
JohnCKirk
at
2008-06-06 06:10 PM
At the moment, it's slightly confusing that "skill" is used in two different ways. There's the main list of skills (in various categories), then a skill at a particular level is a task. However, a task is defined in terms of knowledge/skills (e.g. "analytical thinking"). Could we use different terms? Maybe change the description inside a task to be "Abilities"?
Governance
Posted by
eeaaa00
at
2008-06-07 09:59 AM
The Strategy and Planning area of the framework does not seem to cover the tasks associated with ensuring good IT governance within the organisation (eg using the COBIT framework); there are elements of risk management, information management etc as subsets of governance (but much more than just these) and it would be worth considering the inclusion of governance as an overall topic somewhee in the framework. The tasks, knowledge&skills etc associated with governance are wide-ranging and exist at several levels
Management
Posted by
eeaaa00
at
2008-06-07 10:16 AM
This issue may have already been covered in previous developments, but it seems to me that the skills associated with management of an IT organisation (from team leader to CIO) are not well covered. This would cover the normal management skills (people, finance, strategy, stakeholders, governance etc). The issue is whether you wish to be able to build a job description solely from the SFIA content or not. If not, it may be worth including in the overall documentation that this aspect is excluded.
expansion of SFIA
Posted by
mikechad
at
2008-06-17 12:35 PM
There was a suggestion (at the PD National Forum) that we should include business monitoring, business trend analysis, information analysis and use of information. There are scope issues here, which need to be considered. Originally SFIA covered “IT Skills”, and excluded “use of IT”. The scope seems to have broadened to embrace the concept of an IT Professional at the heart of the business, and more emphasis on “Information” as well as “Technology”)
People Management
Posted by
mikechad
at
2008-06-17 12:41 PM
There was a suggestion (at the PD National Forum) that a “People management” Skill should be introduced. There are two interpretations of this – one is the leadership and motivation etc as indicated in comment about Project Mgt. The other is the usage as in some major employers, where the People Managers are resource managers and mentors to the front line practitioners. They are responsible for facilitating development and also handle individual Performance management. Any specific proposals for inclusion, or content on either of these meanings would be welcome.
People Management
Posted by
mikechad
at
2008-06-18 09:45 AM
Comment from PD Forum - people management could be part of a “generic” category. Should we have a "generic" category?
Skill combinations
Posted by
mikechad
at
2008-06-18 09:49 AM
Comment from Professional Development Forum - Need to introduce some conglomerate skills for SMEs and small IT departments.
Note: This really relates to combinations of skills to create Role Profiles. This has not been part of SFIA in the past. Should we include some "sample role descriptions suitable for small IT departments".
Note: This really relates to combinations of skills to create Role Profiles. This has not been part of SFIA in the past. Should we include some "sample role descriptions suitable for small IT departments".
Updating of SFIA
Posted by
colinr
at
2008-07-03 10:23 PM
I woukd be interested in helping to ensure that SFIA is updated to stay in line with ITIL V3
Forgot your password?
New user?
