Skills outline codes -- how detailed?

[HMH]

What have you seen -- in actual practice -- as to what works best for
defining the skills codes? What is an optimum level of detail or amount of
discrimination at the lowest levels?

What can I do to avoid a bookkeeping nightmare?

I know that your answers will be specfic to certain implementations. But any
information from those in the trenches would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for your time.

HMH, Atlanta

Further information if you need:

My concern is that our managers want skill code outlines to show the level
of expertise at the bottom level. I don't. I am even thinking about removing
levels and simplifying codes. Even keeping them at higher levels.

In the past 7 months of our experience with Project Server 2003 I have only
seen these used once or twice. Now moving to 2007, I have a chance to
wholesale revise the skill outline codes.

My unanswered questions to them:
1. Who is going to maintain all that extra specificity on skills?
2. What determines when a novice moves to intermediate, or to advanced, or
to expert? (This sounds like a subjective can of worms.)

For example, we have 200-400 IT resources to put into Project Server. We may
have many more people (hundreds or more) to add as resources for projects.

Our outline skills codes are multiple value and have about 4 levels.

Level 1 - Platform (PC, Windows Server, Mainframe, etc.)
Level 2 - Major application group (database, .NET, network, etc.)
Level 3 - Specific application within the group ( i.e., Access, SQL Server
client, Oracle client, SQL Express, etc.)
Level 4 - Degree of expertise or experience. There used to be five (novice
thru expert) and I talked them down to three. This set is duplicated on every
skill.

Thanks

 

[Paul Conroy]

I always recommend keeping Ent.Fields used for resource skills as high level
as possible. The reasons for this our PM's may not know the level of skills
they require to complete the task, just that they need a SQL developer or
Server Engineer. Resource Managers however would have a close working
relationship with their staff and therefore a better understanding of the
level of individual skills. This schema also reduces the management overhead
of keeping this codes upto date.

An example of an IS skill code as I would implement it would be

Developer
Microsoft
SQL
.Net
Visual Basic
C++
Infrastructre
Microsoft
Server
Desktop
Cisco
Switches
Routers
Application
Microsoft
Office
Project

 

[HMH]

Thanks. Your input is helpful.

Same here. Our PMs won't care about skill levels either, just whether or not
a person has that skill. We forgot to consider this.

 

[Mark Everett | PMP]

Thanks. Your input is helpful.

Same here. Our PMs won't care about skill levels either, just whether or not
a person has that skill. We forgot to consider this.

Mac,

Basically, what Paul said. Many years ago, I worked with one client
who insisted (against my advice) that they have very detailed skills
in 10 categories, further broken down in sub-categories, followed by
proficiencies for those sub-categories. The source data was already
being maintained in an ERP application, but a custom PDS method had to
be written to load and update the data on a weekly basis. It was

You mention that you have 200 to 400 IT resources without mentioning
how many resource or project managers manage them? If it's a
reasonable ratio, then it is more than likely that the resource or
project manager already knows the compentencies and proficencies of
the staff.

In addition, and you already mentioned some of these, you have the
following issues to deal with:

1. Who will maintain the data?
2. Do you feel comfortable giving them access to the Enterprise
Resource Pool?
3. Who will have the final say if a person is a Novice or Medium
skill? What if there is a dispute between the resource and the
manager about the proficiency?
4. What skills are listed? Are they any skill in the category that
the resource has acquired, even if they are not valued by your
organization (the skill, not the resource). I worked with a client
who, in data gathering, had people indicate proficieny with Word
Perfect 5.1!
5. Do you have any operations in the EU? Detailed skill and
proficiency data use is carefully controlled and it may not be legal
to publish that information.

The intent of the skill outline codes is to make it easier to match
people with the skills required. Most of the time, people think in
terms of "I need a Windows application developement person who is
experienced with dot Net." They don't typically add to that "I need
them to be at least Moderately experienced, but I would prefer them to
be Semi-Advanced." Most people use the skills to filter the list of
enterprise resources by some broader category. Indeed, depending on
how the filters are constructed, you could filter out available and
qualified (over qualified) resources.

Finally, just because a feature is available doesn't mean that it
needs to be used. Keep it simple and keep it usable.

HTH,
Mark Everett | PMP
www.catapultsystems.com

 

[HMH]

Mark, thanks for the good ideas. And I agree. Simple is best. Your ideas will
help in providing evidence and rationale for simplicity.

I will do my best to push the simple structure. And if needed, I will lay
all the issues and problems on those requesting the complexity. I think they
will get the idea of all the extra work they are creating for themselves and
how little benefit they get from it.

Our organization is a little different than the standard project server
security groups. We have no resource managers. Team leads and managers manage
their own resources, approve timesheets, manage small projects, etc. The
other roles, such as PMs, executives, etc. are about the same as out of the
box.