#26 Extend Skills one level down to address trainees or allow entry paths change request pending

Some individuals do not have the skills as identified at the lowest level in SFIA but are working in this area - could we recognise the lower level as a trainee?

From Australian Public Sector SFIA Forum:

Consider recognising the skills 'one level down' as a entrant path.

Current status of this request: pending

What we decided

Revisit with the work to documnt Skills Assessment guidelines.

Ian Seward (General Manager) says:
Sep 06, 2017 10:07 AM

Need to think about this one - it might be better as a guidance/usage issue. As the Framework identifies the levels of the skill and is experiential - it probably does't make sense to extend below the level the skill exists. But there is a need to address the requirements of industry and so look at ways to accommodate this?

Consider the implications of extending the skill levels below where the skills reasonably start as this potentially raises issues of consistency across skills (other frameworks have sort of done this but where they have this has caused all sorts of consistency and levelling problems which they generally ignore)

Needs careful consideration but warrants discussion Framework or Guidance?

John Godsell says:
Sep 07, 2017 04:57 PM

I think it is useful to remember that a role may be at level 3 and have skills of level 2 and level 3. The person performing the role does NOT have to have all the skills to do the role. Some roles are developmental and providing they have the right access to training, coaching and mentoring then this is their entry point

Matthew Burrows says:
Oct 18, 2017 06:22 PM

Yep, throughout the framework it needs to be positioned so people understand that you can be performing aspects of what SFIA is describing but not have mastered the whole of the description - this is normal and correct. There is always an argument for skills at a lower level if it truly represents a level at which it is professionally practiced, but not as a staging post to say it is still in development. So, if a lower level description represents an appropriate end point for some professionals, then it should be described at a lower level in SFIA, but not if it is purely a staging post to recognise the journey to a professional skill.

Ian Seward says:
Nov 21, 2017 01:55 PM

I think the comments so far are spot on in this one. Assuming the final decision is in line with these comments then they can form part of the guidance. We do have to make more use of (and much more noise about) guidance material.

Ian Seward (General Manager) says:
Jun 25, 2020 11:33 AM

There is andother angle to this and that is specific skills are components of apprenticeships. As a result of an apprenticeship many would have real experience f performing a skill but the LOR may be Level 3 rather than L4.

Matthew Burrows says:
Jun 25, 2020 11:53 AM

Agree with this, but I would say my previous comment is still correct - during apprenticeship you are actually doing real work at a professional levels, so this should be described by SFIA. LoR characteristics and Skill levels are related, but not quite so rigidly as some have applied them historically (the introduction of knowledge in SFIA7 has made this more so) - you can be performing a skill at a higher level than some of the responsibility attributes. You don't have to demonstrate all the responsibility attributes at the same level as a skill which you are being recognised for - but typically they are often at or around the same level, but perfectly normal to see someone practicing a skill at level 6 and only having level 5 for some of the responsibility attributes.