The IT Skeptic - Comments for "Why I can't talk about SFIA to my clients"

tighter than a duck's arse

skeptic — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 01:08:39 +0000

" the blog implies that we should not supply SFIA free of charge without insisting they get help. " No it doesn't, you misunderstand. Read the comments. Andy Doyle offered the argument that "The IP of SFIA is protected as you mentioned. The reason for these processes is to ensure the framework is thoroughly understood and implemented effectively." I was merely pointing out that this argument is clearly fallacious, since consultants are restricted in its use but end-users are not, as if end-users were MORE qualified in its use than the professional consultants they had engaged for advice.

"To say one cannot talk to one's clients about SFIA it is also incorrect." Clients don't pay me solely for verbal advice - I give them a written deliverable like any professional. I am unable to use SFIA as the formal rationale for my advice nor am I able to quote the relevant portions. If I can't write advice down without being sued I won't be saying it.

i think your understanding of developing a collaborative community is reflected by the use of the phrase "commercial exploitation". I DON"T exploit SFIA commercially. I don't offer trainign or accreditation, nor do I consult on SFIA. I advise clients on how to structure their IT operations, and in the course of doing that I reference formal bodies of knwoledge so as to show them I'm not just making it up. SFIA is tied up tighter than a duck's arse so I can't do what I need to without paying for flights, training, and royalties. That's why I don't refer to SFIA - I use e-CF instead. Nothing that you nor Andy have said addresses that point let alone changes my mind.

You're out of line with community expectations. If you don't want to hear that advice that's not my problem.

SFIA

Ron McLaren — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 13:12:01 +0000

The comment in the blog is inaccurate.

SFIA is not owned by BCS, but by The SFIA Foundation - a non-profit body that develops SFIA, based exclusively on input from the IT industry, and distributes SFIA free of charge to users. Only those who plan commercial exploitation of SFIA need pay any royalties or fees. Many respected consultancies, including PA and IBM, but including much smaller orgainsations, are doing just that. They clearly see the sense in it.

Regarding the users - the blog implies that we should not supply SFIA free of charge without insisting they get help. Any IT user who has thought seriously about developing and exploiting staff skills will know how to use SFIA. Moreover, we would consider such a condition as a restricted practice designed to treat Chief Informaton Officers as idiots.

To say one cannot talk to one's clients about SFIA it is also incorrect.

Ron McLaren
Operations Manager
SFIA Foundation

under-playing the IP barriers

skeptic — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 18:58:00 +0000

Sorry for the delay in publishing, Peter: your comment got caught in the spam filter for some reason

I think you're in danger of under-playing the IP barriers here. the fact is that the terms are precisely as stated in the original post and those terms are tighter than those around ITIL and much tighter than those around COBIT, and infinitely tighter than those around e-CF. Protection from "taking their spreadsheet and re-branding it" has absolutely nothing to do with the terms applied to SFIA. Simple copyright deals with that. in fact so does copyleft such as Creative Commons, under which the Microsoft Operating Framework is released for example.

Thank-you for deciding that "I don't think you would come into the category of SFIA Partner and therefore would not be subject to the licence fee". Can I have that in writing from the Foundation's lawyer please? Sure I can point clients to SFIA but I cannot "work with them from there". I cannot write in my own recommendations report that a role "should be made up of the following SFIA skills..." nor can I construct a job description from extracts from SFIA. I can't use it.

As I said in reply to Andy, If SFIA really cared about "using SFIA as a quick fix" then SFIA would not provide the framework for free to any end user who wants to go their own way without professional assistance of any sort.

I'd like to be in agreement with someone nice enough to read my books, but not in this case. I think SFIA damages its credibility and restricts its growth through anally-retentive out-dated commercially-motivated attitudes to knowledge frameworks.

feed at the trough

skeptic — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 18:43:55 +0000

Thank-you for that correction. I had intended to amend the post yesterday but New Zealand's third world broadband infrastructure prevented me from doing so.

Allow me to translate "The costs are modest compared to the business you could do as a certified consultant" into "buy into our monopolistic franchise and you too can feed at the trough". I advise on role descriptions as only one aspect of my IT consulting business so the costs are not at all modest. I'm not an IT HR specialist. Even if I were, I would prefer to use a framework that was established in the public interest rather than for commercial gain.

If SFIA really cared that "the framework is thoroughly understood and implemented effectively" then you would not provide the framework for free to any end user who wants to go their own way without professional assistance of any sort.

RE: Why I can't talk about SFIA to my clients

Andy Doyle — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 11:01:19 +0000

As someone working for BCS and familiar with the SFIA Foundation, I read you comments with interest.

It is worth highlighting an inaccuracy in the article. SFIA is not owned by BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT. It is entrusted to a foundation made up of members including BCS, but also e-skills, IET, IMIS and recently ITSMF UK. This is known as the SFIA Foundation.

It is true that SFIA is a UK government recognised skills framework. It is used all over the world. The IP of SFIA is protected as you mentioned. The reason for these processes is to ensure the framework is thoroughly understood and implemented effectively.

The costs are modest compared to the business you could do as a certified consultant. A worthy investment as the proceeds are fed back into keeping the framework up to date and organising the annual SFIA conference.

I am more than happy to fill any other gaps directly, feel free to make contact via - http://uk.linkedin.com/in/addoyle

Using SFIA

Peter Leather — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 11:32:12 +0000

Great fan of your work and have bought the books to prove it!

I run the SFIA global on-line user forum (www.sfiauser.ning.com). I am not employed by SFIA but I am an accredited SFIA consultant and have been using SFIA since 2003 (the organisation I worked for was a early adopter of the model and helped create the early versions).

I think you're in danger of over playing the IP barriers here. In essence SFIA is "open source". The SFIA Foundation (not the BCS) own the SFIA framework. The ITSMF are also leading members of the SFIA Foundation. The SFIA Foundation is very small (has only 1 part-time employee) and is a not-for-profit organisation. It is actively working on how to operate now that SFIA has worldwide interest. Our Linkedin group has a discussion on this topic

The best way to think about SFIA's IP stance is that the SFIA foundation want SFIA users to be clear that the framework and the content comes from SFIA. (e.g. They don't want you taking their spreadsheet and re-branding it as the "IT Skeptics Skills Framework" or taking a sub-set of the skill definitions and calling them the Service Management Skills Framework).

Your comments about the UK centric nature od the training are reasonable but are a bit out of date now. You can take the training in New Zealand. Rob Sewell (used to work with me in the UK) regularly runs the accredited training course in Australia and New Zealand - see http://icdi.co.nz/sfia-training/

Note that the training provides an in-depth view of the SFIA framework and focusses heavily on the use of SFIA for the purpose of creating role profiles and job descriptions. It does not provide a comprehensive view of skills and capability management or the implementation issues which are associated with that or with using SFIA in support of frameworks such as ITIL / CMMi etc. I make use of the People Capability Maturity Model (also freely available) for that. Just like ITIL there are number of traps and blind alleys which first time users of SFIA can run into - an experienced SFIA consultant can help you avoid these.

SFIA Partners are typically organisations such as
- training providers (they align their courses to the SFIA framework)
- skills database providers (they include the skills and skill level defintions in their applications)
- salary / reward consultants (using SFIA to benchmark salaries and conduct salary surveys)
- Universities / professional bodies (using SFIA to align their qualifications etc)

From the brief description of your consulting work I don't think you would come into the category of SFIA Partner and therefore would not be subject to the licence fee.

If, in the course, of your consulting you were advising your clients to use a skills framework. You can point them at SFIA (get them to download it for use in their own company) and work with them from there.
Of course if you were describing yourself as a skills framework / SFIA expert who was the source of the reference material then I think its reasonable that the SFIA Foundation's restrictions would apply.

For me the main issue with consultants downloading and using SFIA is if they are not experienced in the art and science of people management and people management processes and are using SFIA as a quick fix. SFIA can only be one of the tools in an overall solution. Having read "Owning ITIL" - there are obvious parallels in the cult use of ITIL without questioning why or not having clarity on the business objectives you are trying to achieve. I consider myself a "SFIA Skeptic" for that very reason!

Peter Leather
SFIA User Forum Host
www.ex-p.co.uk/sfia