A Competency Framework for Software Development Organizations

Orsoni, Alessandra; Colaco, B.

doi:10.1109/uksim.2013.101

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This simplifies the framework and means, in future, there will never be a situation where the permissible range of levels of responsibility that apply to a given professional skill needs to change from one version of the framework to the next. This recommendation aligns to some extent with the work of Orsoni and Colaco (2013), who cited the complexity of the skill/proficiency mapping in SFIA v5 as a weakness and indeed a point of confusion among users of the framework, because it is not explained in publicly available documentation. However, Orsoni and Colaco also suggested using less than 7 levels of responsibility for simplicity.…”

Section: Solutionssupporting

confidence: 66%

“…With respect to the academic literature that examines the suitability of SFIA for defining specific ICT disciplines, von Konsky et al (2008) investigated the utility of SFIA v3 to describe software engineering skill sets in particular and concluded that it was an excellent fit at that time, with the caveat that it needed to be complemented with knowledge of commercial products and technologies. However, Orsoni and Colaco (2013) somewhat disagreed with this conclusion when examining SFIA v5. They selected SFIA as the starting point for a software development competency model, but cited limited treatment of transferable skills and the complexity of the skill/proficiency mapping as reasons to develop extensions/modifications to the framework.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The issue surrounding the treatment of transferable skills in SFIA has been touched upon by other researchers (von Konsky, Jones and Miller, 2016;Orsoni and Colaco, 2013). Even if this is recognized as an issue by the wider SFIA community, it will be difficult to resolve without fundamentally changing the representation of skills and proficiencies in a future version of SFIA.…”

Section: Representation Of Transferable Skillsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An examination of the Skills Framework for the Information Age (SFIA) version 7

Brown

2020

International Journal of Information Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Skills Framework for the Information Age (SFIA) is a popular international skills framework for the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector for which version 7 was released in June 2018. This paper provides an overview of this most recent version of the framework and compares it to the previous version, version 6. Some potential issues with the framework are then discussed, perhaps the most important of which is that version 7 is not backwards compatible with version 6, which can lead to undesirable results when two users of the framework (e.g. an employer and job applicant) interact with one using version 6 and the other using version 7. Other issues examined are the lack of universal certification criteria for objective assessment of skills (which affects the portability of the framework between users), the complexity of the framework in terms of skill/proficiency mapping, the representation of soft or transferable skills and the limited scope for automating skill management tasks. Some solutions to these issues are offered, including structuring the skill definitions to include mappings between different SFIA versions and creating mappings to recognised formal qualifications, industry certifications and job experience.

show abstract

Section: Solutionssupporting

confidence: 66%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Representation Of Transferable Skillsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An examination of the Skills Framework for the Information Age (SFIA) version 7

Brown

2020

International Journal of Information Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Being able to challenge the status quo is typical of a critical thinker (CT3). S/he would use analytical thinking as in CT6, a desirable behavior in developers and testers (Orsoni & Colaco, 2013). Critical thinking would be applied in the studies conducted before the development of a new product so as not to affect its future success (Sokmen & Gozlu, 2012).…”

Section: Ct6mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to the competence model set out in Erpenbeck and Heyse (1999), Initiative could be considered a part of Personal Competence also presented as "Initiative and enterprise" by Casanovas, Colom, Morlán Pont and Ribera (2004). In addition, the SFIA plus behavior competence framework for software development organizations (Orsoni & Colaco, 2013) includes the initiative competence common to all IT roles and the competence of leadership as being specific to Senior Developer and Senior Tester roles. It is grouped under the Passion and Effectiveness set forming part of the Personal Effectiveness cluster that also considers Stress Handling and Follow-up and Monitoring, which are factors that correspond to all the FINCODA indicators for Initiative (Table 5).…”

Section: Initiativementioning

confidence: 99%

Contrasting innovation competence FINCODA model in software engineering: Narrative review

Andreu-Andres

González-Ladrón-de-Guevara

García-Carbonell

et al. 2018

JIEM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Innovation competences are expected both in businesses and in higher education. Software organizations, in particular, require engineers that collaborate to deliver better services and products. Staff recruitment and training are human resource management tasks that are crucial to insuring that applicants and job holders have the competences that will facilitate quality output in software development processes.This paper seeks to determine the competences that describe high-performing, innovative professionals in software engineering in order to weigh them against the FINCODA model on innovation competences devised to assess and enhance individuals’ capacity to innovate, a core outcome of the Framework for Innovation Competences Development and Assessment Project.Design/methodology/approach: A review protocol was followed to examine the literature on software engineering to identify the innovation competence and behavioral indicators that are required in individuals.Findings: According to the literature, the innovation competences required of the staff in software companies are creativity, critical thinking, initiative, team work and networking, dimensions that are contained in the FINCODA model. Findings also support the inclusion of the thirty-four behavioral indicators that constitute the five dimensions of the FINCODA model.Originality/value: Business organizations need tools to assess innovation competences in employees. Universities, as well, lack the instruments to measure development of innovation competence in undergraduates that teaching/learning methods should enhance before students reach the workplace. This research sheds light on innovative workplace behaviors of software engineers and on feasible designs of training programs for staff and undergraduates by using the FINCODA model and its behavioral indicators. Future research will focus on ratifying the validation of the model and the online assessment tool derived from it.

show abstract

Soft Competencies and Satisfaction Levels for Software Engineers: A Unified Framework

Assyne

2019

Software Quality: Quality Intelligence in Software and Systems Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The importance of software engineers' competency has long been established as a key pillar for the development of robust software in order to achieve quality software. Software engineering competency research is not necessarily lacking. Nevertheless, the satisfaction derived from using software competency needs more investigation. The aim of this study is to identify soft competencies from empirical data and create satisfaction levels for software engineers' soft competencies. The result shows 63 soft competencies with three different satisfaction levels consisting of basic, performance and delighters. The paper contributes to the SEC research by highlighting the satisfaction levels of soft competency for the benefit of the educators (academia), software engineers (possessor) and users of software competency (practitioner).

show abstract

A Competency Framework for Software Development Organizations

Cited by 5 publications

References 3 publications

An examination of the Skills Framework for the Information Age (SFIA) version 7

An examination of the Skills Framework for the Information Age (SFIA) version 7

Contrasting innovation competence FINCODA model in software engineering: Narrative review

Soft Competencies and Satisfaction Levels for Software Engineers: A Unified Framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About