You are here: Home / SFIA 7 development / Change requests / Knowledge needs to be addressed more explicitly

#7 Knowledge needs to be addressed more explicitly

SFIA's position on knowledge while correct does need to be reviewed and enhanced. Few seem to understand the position or why the particular position was taken. Knowledge needs to be revisited and addressed in such a way that it is clearly understood and allows the position to be used effectively.

Rate this proposal

Log in or register to vote on this requirement

This requirement has come about because:

  • Several large organisations and professional bodies have requested that the Foundation addresses knowledge.
  • Many people think that SFIA does not address the importance of knowledge and do not understand the position in the reference guide.
  • As a result of many discussions and collaborations I have a formed a view and proposal for how this can be properly addressed And this needs to be worked on more widely.

It is clearly required by industry, business, academia and training providers.

Subject to approval to take this change request forward, then this can be fleshed out for wider review and contribution.  In summary we should:

  1. Clarify the SFIA position regarding knowledge in the reference guide
  2. Introduce a model to address knowledge into the Framework
  3. Consider one component of this to be an inclusion of knowledge in the generics

Further to be provided once accepted for development.

beth@catalynk.co says:
Aug 28, 2017 11:24 PM

I support the request for clarification of the SFIA position regarding knowledge in the reference guide. I support open contribution on the definition of knowledge and its application in various skills associated with activities (such as those associated with code CSMG) for this purpose.

clare.thornley@nuim.ie says:
Oct 16, 2017 08:43 AM

I agree we need to be careful that is does not look like SFIA is saying knowledge is not important and clarity on how SFIA is using 'knowledge' would certainly be useful. It is clearly not possible just to provide a list of all knowledge needed for any particular skill but there should be some alternative which meets the needs of users ( most of most of time..)

Matthew Burrows says:
Oct 18, 2017 06:15 PM

Maybe one way of recognising this is to consider Blooms taxonomy, where knowledge is level 1, understanding is level 2 and application is level 3. Currently the skills in SFIA are about level 3 as you can’t have a skill unless you have applied your knowledge and understanding enough times that you can achieve consistent results when doing what is described by SFIA and you have effectively mastered the skill at a particular level. If you consider a pilot, they don’t get their licence after reading a book or passing a theory exam. They don’t even get it when completing their first landing. They have to show they can safely and consistently operate a plane in multiple scenarios - landing in crosswind, with no power, with no flaps, in poor visibility, on short runways etc. Knowledge can be mapped to the skills to reflect the need for knowledge and understanding, but it’s not a skill and it’s not a responsibility - so, if we extend SFIA to better cover this area, it needs to be a clearly distinguishable different dimension. Level 1 Business Skills already covers the skill of being able to apply newly acquired knowledge.

Navigation