Ben Satchwell explores why well-intentioned frameworks often cause confusion rather than clarity. Drawing on common mistakes and missed opportunities, he shows how better integration, rather than wholesale replacement, can unlock value. One global reference for digital skills, SFIA9, offers a powerful example of what works when frameworks align, not compete.

There is no shortage of frameworks in organisations today. Leadership frameworks, capability frameworks, technical standards; each designed with the hope of shaping how people perform and grow. The challenge is not scarcity, but coexistence.

SFIA9 is a perfect example. It is gaining traction as the global reference point for digital skills, and it will be one of the central themes I am exploring when I speak at SFIA Week this November. Yet in my experience, many SFIA9 initiatives stall not because the framework is flawed, but because of how it is implemented alongside what already exists.

When frameworks work together, they bring clarity, not complexity

The common thread? A failure to understand what SFIA9 is actually for, and how it should integrate with the frameworks that define behaviours, culture, and technical expectations. If we want SFIA9 to create impact rather than duplication, we need to stop treating it as a competitor and start treating it as a specialist tool.

When frameworks work together, they bring clarity, not complexity. Here are the most common mistakes I see in SFIA9 implementations, and how to avoid them.

Treating SFIA9 as a replacement

This is the most frequent misstep. Organisations often rip out their existing capability or leadership frameworks and drop SFIA9 in as the new backbone. The result is predictable: behaviours and culture get lost in translation, and SFIA9 is left to carry weight it was never designed for.

SFIA9 defines skills. Capability frameworks define application. Leadership frameworks define culture. Remove one and the structure collapses. The goal is not replacement but alignment.

Forcing one-to-one mappings

Another trap is the attempt to align every SFIA9 skill directly to a capability. I have seen spreadsheets where teams spend weeks forcing matches that do not really exist. The result is confusion, overlap, and an unhelpful illusion of neatness.

A capability like “innovation” will never match line-for-line with a SFIA9 skill. At best, it draws on a cluster of them. Mapping at the right altitude means recognising broad relationships, not chasing false equivalence.

Over-engineering frameworks

It is tempting to build a mega-framework that merges everything: leadership, capability, and SFIA9 all in one. The result usually looks comprehensive but ends up unused. I have reviewed dozens of these, and the pattern is always the same. They are too dense, too abstract, and too hard to maintain.

More is not more. SFIA9 adds value when it is constrained to where technical and digital skills matter. Keep your core frameworks simple and let SFIA9 do the specialist work.

Writing vague or generic descriptors

Some organisations treat SFIA9 as if its language speaks for itself. It does not. Dropping SFIA9 skills into documents without context leaves users guessing. What does this mean for their role? How should it guide their development?

The fix is translation. Frame SFIA9 descriptors in the language of your business. Show what “level 4 analysis” or “level 6 enterprise architecture” means in your environment. Without that, SFIA9 remains a reference list, not a development tool.

Designing in isolation

I often see SFIA projects led entirely by IT or HR, with little input from the people whose jobs are being defined. The outcome is predictable: leaders and employees do not recognise their work in the framework, so they disengage.

Co-design matters here. Involve operational leaders and practitioners early. When they see their work reflected in the language, SFIA9 becomes something they can own, not something imposed.

Failing to embed in processes

This is the single biggest reason SFIA9 fails. Even a well-structured implementation will fall flat if it is not built into core processes. If SFIA9 is not visible in role design, assessment, career pathways, or development planning, it becomes a document that sits on the shelf.

Make it part of the system of work. Use it in conversations, build it into platforms, and assign clear ownership. And review it regularly, because digital skills evolve quickly.

Everything becomes clear

SFIA9 is not a rival to your existing frameworks. It is a lens. Used well, it brings clarity to the technical skills your organisation relies on, while your capability and leadership frameworks continue to define culture and behaviours.

As I will argue at SFIA Week, the question is not whether to adopt SFIA9, but whether you have the capability to integrate it meaningfully into your own context.

When frameworks connect rather than compete, people gain clarity, leaders gain consistency, and organisations gain agility. The real question is not which framework to choose. It is whether you have the discipline to make them work together.

---