Introducing SFIA: early considerations

Starting from a question rather than the framework

SFIA tends to be most useful when an organisation introduces it to help answer a specific question it already has. Common examples include:

• employee engagement issues linked to a perceived lack of development opportunities
• the need to review roles and skills during restructuring
• career progression that is hard to explain
• training spend with no clear link to need
• difficulty in seeing where capability gaps lie
• managers grading similar roles differently
• managers applying different standards when hiring for the same role

When the purpose is clear, the framework has something concrete to support. Organisations that introduce SFIA without a clear purpose sometimes find it harder to realise value from it.

Designing for the long term

Organisations sometimes treat skills work as a one-off project rather than a way of working, so what they set up does not persist. It can help to consider, from the first decisions, how to sustain the use of SFIA: how it connects to existing processes rather than running alongside them, who will look after it, and how to keep it current as work changes. Considering this early may shape different choices than leaving it until later.

Considering what needs to be in place

SFIA can make capability and gaps more visible, but on its own it does not close them. Many organisations find it useful to reflect on whether the surrounding practices are in place: whether managers take part in decisions about their people, whether they hold regular conversations about how work is going, and whether the development needs they identify have somewhere to go. An organisation can still introduce SFIA where these are developing. Introducing SFIA can itself help to build them, since the shared language and the conversations it prompts give these practices something concrete to work with.

Tailoring rather than adopting wholesale

Organisations typically find it more useful to select the parts of SFIA relevant to their work than to use the whole framework. What counts as relevant will vary by sector, size and operating model.

Where a tool fits

Many organisations consider a tool early, sometimes as their first step. A range of tools can support the use of SFIA, including tools built around the framework: holding and updating skills data, supporting self-assessment and profiling, and connecting to existing HR systems. A tool can make the framework easier to work with, particularly at scale. Early on, many organisations work with tools they already have, such as a spreadsheet, which is often enough for initial exploration and for working through what needs to be in place. A dedicated tool tends to earn its place later, as scale and ongoing use grow.

A tool tends to help most once an organisation knows the question it is answering and has tailored the framework to its work, because it then has something specific to support. Introducing a tool before the purpose and scope are clear can settle choices earlier than an organisation might want, and can shift attention onto the tool rather than onto the use it is meant to support. A tool supports how an organisation uses SFIA; it does not decide why the organisation is using it, and it does not replace the practices around it. Which tool suits an organisation, and when to introduce it, will depend on its existing systems, scale and context.

Using AI to support the work

Some organisations expect to use AI tools to speed up the work. AI can help with specific tasks such as first‑pass drafting or exploring candidate skills, as long as people who understand the framework review the results. Much of the value, however, comes from the conversations, reflection and agreement that the work prompts. These parts do not usually benefit from being compressed to the speed of generation. The related guidance on choosing the right pace looks at this in more detail.

Identifying who will look after it

It often helps to name someone with reach into the business, not only into HR, to look after the use of SFIA. Early on, this can be a light responsibility. Many organisations introduce more formal governance, such as a skills council, later, once there is enough activity across teams to coordinate and a framework to maintain, rather than at the outset.

Assessments - what SFIA is, and is not

SFIA provides descriptions and a common language. It does not assign levels to individuals, and professional judgement remains essential to how people use it. People, or an assessment or certification scheme, carry out any assessment of individuals, referencing SFIA rather than relying on the framework to do it. Treating SFIA mainly as a tool for people to self-rate, owned within HR systems, tends to deliver less than using it more widely as a shared language in everyday decisions. Keeping this in mind helps to use the SFIA framework as a support to decisions rather than a substitute for them.

A note on 'implementation sequence'

Organisations naturally ask what to do first. Rather than follow a fixed sequence, it can be more helpful to think about what depends on what.

1. Shared understanding – of how SFIA works - levels of responsibility, skills and generic attributes 

2. Basic practices – in place (e.g., role clarity, performance conversations, development planning)

3. Using SFIA for significant decisions – e.g., hiring, progression, workforce planning, organisation and job design

The order in which an organisation takes its steps will depend on its context, and the considerations above are intended as prompts rather than a method to follow.