T-shaped roles

Disclaimer:
These pages are part of the SFIA 8 project.
This is still work in progress.
The content may be changed and/or removed at any time.
They do not form part of the published SFIA framework.

Contents

1. Different approaches for describing the concept of T-shaped

2. SFIA positioning

3. How SFIA 7 already supports T-shaped roles

4. Opportunities for SFIA 8 and/or the wider SFIA ecosystem

5. Further experimenting. T-shaped roles - SFIA and Bloom's taxonomy

Your comments...

• You can add comments in the box at the bottom of the page - you will need to be logged in.
• Alternatively send your feedback to the SFIA Updates Manager.

Different approaches for describing the concept of T-shaped

• There’s lots of different shapes and letters used to describe the concept.
• We have captured a few in the slide share below
  • I-shaped, T-shaped, Dash-shaped, Pi-shaped, Comb-shaped, A-shaped, V-shaped
  • Specialist, Generalist, Versatilist
• Looking at all of these models it is clear that
  • the different models do not describe the mechanics/detail consistently - in fact it would be a miracle if they did
  • generally the difference between knowledge, skills, competencies is all mixed up and sometimes used interchangeably
  • even where the same model is used (T-shaped being the most popular) it is used to describe different concepts

SFIA positioning

There is no industry standard definition of T-shaped

• This should not be a surprise. Its just like job titles, role profiles, organisation structures. The industry is fast moving in picking (and throwing away) concepts and ideas to help themselves.
• So SFIA cannot/does not need to map to an "industry standard"
• The flipside is also true. Organisations also need to think hard about what they need from a T-shaped role. There is no proven or consistent model to be picked up off the shelf.

Our key message is both familiar and consistent “SFIA is flexible by design”

• You can map any approaches to role design, working patterns, career development using the existing components of the SFIA framework – see graphic

To incorporate SFIA skills and levels of responsibility into the T-shaped model

• The vertical of the T should list the things you have to be able to do
  • This can be described by SFIA skills & levels/levels of Responsibility
• The horizontal of the T should be the things you need to know
  • Increased / in-depth knowledge required for those things in the vertical
  • On the outer edges of the horizontal line - being aware of concepts, processes, tools and how they fit your role is sufficient

How SFIA 7 already supports T-shaped roles

SFIA has been helping organisation's resolve issues and design solutions for a long time. Here's some ways that SFIA can help with the concept of T-shaped people.

1. Diagnosis
   • what problem am I trying to resolve if a T-shaped role is the answer
   • difference between skills/competencies, behaviours and knowledge
2. Planning and organising
   • organisation design – do we want T-shaped people, T-shaped roles, multi-skilled teams
   • filling skill gaps e.g. development paths to fill cyber security gaps
3. Design T-shaped roles
   • bring clarity to what the person in the role needs to know and what they need to do - (SFIA skills and levels)
4. Recruit/Acquire and Assessing
   • identifying T-shaped people,
5. Deploying
   • Targeted deployment also provides the best opportunity for individuals to develop new skills and knowledge
   • Project and operational risks are reduced by assigning the right skilled people. Using SFIA means this is based on their actual capability, not just their technical knowledge.
6. Developing 
   • Difference between developing new knowledge and being able to enact new skills and responsibilities for a T-shaped role
   • Career paths encouraging people to be T-shaped
7. Accreditation/Recognition
   • accreditation for the different SFIA elements – knowledge and SFIA levels – to recognise T-shaped people

Opportunities for SFIA 8 and/or the wider SFIA ecosystem

Here are some areas to be explored...

1. Guidance on linking/mapping to sources of knowledge…

   • SFIA does not describe knowledge.
   • BUT – SFIA’s design explicitly recognises knowledge and has started to help organisations link knowledge to skills and competency levels.
   • ACTION for SFIA 8 - create/refine guidance

2. Create prototype T-shape role profiles with SFIA skills and knowledge mapped…

   • ACTION for SFIA 8 -  Choose a DevOps role and a Service Management role

3. Developing a proficiency scale for knowledge…

   • while SFIA has a proven scale (the 1 to 7) for skill/competency level the framework has never described a scale for knowledge.
   • This is a step away from SFIA's current scope so needs to be considered before taking this direction
   • There is benefit in SFIA recommending a scale for knowledge as it would visibly highlight how a knoeledge scale it is different than a scale for competency / responsibilities
   • Other organisations have published knowledge scales but these rarely fit with SFIA's design principles
   • ACTION for SFIA 8 – research / identify different approaches to a scale for knowledge. Publish and explain a scale which can work alongside SFIA to support T-shaped roles (and all other letters of the alphabet)

Further experimenting

• The following graphics explore some opportunities to describe and exploit SFIA and knowledge.
• These are experimental and are shared to encourage constructive feedback and comment.

T-shaped roles and Bloom's Taxonomy.

What happens if we try to combine the T-shape role with Bloom's taxonomy. 

Can we align the highest levels of knowledge required with the core competencies/responsibilities of a role

Click for larger image

Some worked examples

• For a given role the model is not static - over time thing on the periphery of your knowledge may become more important 

• Topics that only needed knowledge may increase in importance and become a skill required for the role

• This is a natural result of changes in the external environment (impact of social media channels on a service desk), changes in your responsibilities, organisation structures etc.

• A model like this can be used to define the learning needs for roles and for individuals.

• In this way the learning needed to develop competencies, skills can be distinguished from learning for knowledge and awareness.

Click for larger image

Click for larger image

Click for larger image