Reference and guide to SFIA version 7. Framework status: Beta.

#40 RLMT - separate out supplier and stakeholder management skills: change request accepted

SFIA6 merged 2 skills - Stakeholder Relationship Management and Supplier Relationship Management. Although there are similarities - the 2 skills should be de-merged. Going back to the SFIA5 definitions would be a short-cut - but, ideally, both skills should be revisited. Developments of the SIAM model should be taken account of as well.


Responses from SFIA Council survey - 2015 Q3
  1. I am quickly finding the loss of Supplier management (SURE) quite a serious omission in v6. Increasingly, many diverse roles that were previously technical now require managing supplier / service provider relationships. Relationship management (RLMT) is 'client' or stakeholder focused, so is not a substitute.
  2. The implications of combining relationship management have not been thought through - as a result Supplier relationship management (one of the big enablers for changing digital organisations) has gone

Attached to Relationship management

accepted

What we decided

Accepted. Solution must also look at impact on Sourcing skill.

What we changed

Minor changesa and some re-ordering of overall skill description and level 4,5,6 & 7.

Some examples removed which aere quite specific and not of general appliacation.

The overall description amended to emphasis that this skill should be reserved for the systematic, planned management of stakeholders. The generic Business Skills covers management of individual, team relationships. Or in other words not every role or every individual needs to have the RLMT skill.

Ian Seward says:
Oct 03, 2017 07:34 AM

Agreed - I've heard this a few times from companies, both from the perspective that currently RLMT doesn't do justice to managing suppliers particularly where a service is outsourced and the internal activity is managing the provider (often without the operational skills at L1-L4.) and also from the pov that some roles are more about coordinating and managing internal stakeholders, rather than external clients.

SFIA7 Project Manager (Peter Leather) says:
Oct 07, 2017 09:21 AM

Below was the rationale described in "Moving to SFIA version 3" when Stakeholder Relationship Management was first included in SFIA

"A new skill, which recognises the importance of the relationship between all stakeholders, during business change."

Peter Leather says:
Oct 07, 2017 09:30 AM

I think there also needs clarity on the distinction between RLMT as a "professional skill" and the generic responsbilities which include related behaviours such as communications, influence.

RLMT was intended for specific roles involved in creating, executing stakeholder relationship management strategies and plans e.g. for roles such as change managers, communications roles attached to change programmes, some project managers

SFIA7 Project Manager (Peter Leather) says:
Oct 07, 2017 11:04 AM

by coincidence, today I came across this job advert for a Senior Project Manager.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxPnnaZQGOASWFNvR2tPX3ZOVzQ

Note the highlighted SFIA skills - the recruiting organisations has reverted to BOTH Stakeholder and Supplier relationship management

Matthew Burrows says:
Oct 18, 2017 05:58 PM

Why would suppliers not be considered stakeholders? The input received for V6 that lead to change highlighted that the activity across a couple of other skills already covered what the supplier skill was trying to cover - it wasn’t a case of combining skills, so RLMT wasn’t replacing it. There’s no problem with making further change for v7, but we need to identify the actual specialist professional activity that happens and ensure it isn’t already covered - SLMO, ITCM, SORC and Influence cover quite a bit of ground in this space. SIAM recognises the need for suppliers to be integrated and working as part of a single ecosystem, defining roles and activity that has to happen and can be done by suppliers or the customer organisation, so reference to this may actually be supporting not separating out some aspects of this.
So, if you could define the activity which you think is missing then we can ensure it’s covered if we don’t find it already elsewhere in SFIA.

Navigation