GovTech

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I kinda agree but vendor might not care so much about business domain. U ask what then do what. Won't spend too much time understanding business contexf

Then u must invest in people in that. If you don’t even want to bear such responsibilities, you should just call yourself procurement partner to agency.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

career framework rating 5 is equal to A? 4 is equal to B?

How to find 4 or 5?

Govtech was having 30+ specialist roles of specific R&R, but now some champion compress the 30+ roles into just 3; Product, UX and Engineer.

And you expect every technical role to be called "engineer"....? It is like saying, all GP can perform the Cardiologist, Neurosurgeon role. This is a bloody joke and demeaning to quite a number of the current personnel.

Imagine you are a Data Scientist, you are also called engineer.
Imagine you are a Data Architect, you are also called engineer.
Imagine you are a Cloud architect, you are also called engineer.
Imagine you are a Solution architect, you are also called engineer.

Worst, they evaluate everyone now using the "Engineering competency framework" and peg you to their salary range.

<img src="s://marquetteeducator.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/5232012052424iwsmt.jpeg?w=640"/>

its the same as asking all the animals to climb the tree! Champion leadership management!

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Govtech was having 30+ specialist roles of specific R&R, but now some champion compress the 30+ roles into just 3; Product, UX and Engineer.

And you expect every technical role to be called "engineer"....? It is like saying, all GP can perform the Cardiologist, Neurosurgeon role. This is a bloody joke and demeaning to quite a number of the current personnel.

Imagine you are a Data Scientist, you are also called engineer.
Imagine you are a Data Architect, you are also called engineer.
Imagine you are a Cloud architect, you are also called engineer.
Imagine you are a Solution architect, you are also called engineer.

Worst, they evaluate everyone now using the "Engineering competency framework" and peg you to their salary range.

<img src="s://marquetteeducator.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/5232012052424iwsmt.jpeg?w=640"/>

its the same as asking all the animals to climb the tree! Champion leadership management!

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Govtech was having 30+ specialist roles of specific R&R, but now some champion compress the 30+ roles into just 3; Product, UX and Engineer.

And you expect every technical role to be called "engineer"....? It is like saying, all GP can perform the Cardiologist, Neurosurgeon role. This is a bloody joke and demeaning to quite a number of the current personnel.

Imagine you are a Data Scientist, you are also called engineer.
Imagine you are a Data Architect, you are also called engineer.
Imagine you are a Cloud architect, you are also called engineer.
Imagine you are a Solution architect, you are also called engineer.

Worst, they evaluate everyone now using the "Engineering competency framework" and peg you to their salary range.

<img src="s://marquetteeducator.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/5232012052424iwsmt.jpeg?w=640"/>

its the same as asking all the animals to climb the tree! Champion leadership management!

I also think they are a joke. Architects are those with many years of experiences including being software engineering roles. As to why govtech conveniently colllapse the roles is because of someone from shopify who join the leadership i heard. But its not realistic to appy commercial productization to government context as most of the manpower in govtech are outsourced to sites via some form of engagement programme (Selling of headcount for $X).

So applying this "engineering" approach does not make sense to the customer, so does it mean to customer that all engineers can do architecting or complex data training and modelling? Not all sites runs product strategy like how govtech sees it. And most of their central product today is either "cannot make it", or "cannot be part of the roadmap" or "we have no time for you as we have other priorities".

Its correct to say that collapsing the roles into just 3 generic role, will eventually demean quite a large group of folks to leave this bull.sh!t organisation. This organisation has started from DFS 1.0 and move to DFS 2.0, and so forth. While being agile, does not mean we should be sacrificing ourselves for these leadership to "meet some kpi".

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Govtech was having 30+ specialist roles of specific R&R, but now some champion compress the 30+ roles into just 3; Product, UX and Engineer.

And you expect every technical role to be called "engineer"....? It is like saying, all GP can perform the Cardiologist, Neurosurgeon role. This is a bloody joke and demeaning to quite a number of the current personnel.

Imagine you are a Data Scientist, you are also called engineer.
Imagine you are a Data Architect, you are also called engineer.
Imagine you are a Cloud architect, you are also called engineer.
Imagine you are a Solution architect, you are also called engineer.

Worst, they evaluate everyone now using the "Engineering competency framework" and peg you to their salary range.

<img src="s://marquetteeducator.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/5232012052424iwsmt.jpeg?w=640"/>

its the same as asking all the animals to climb the tree! Champion leadership management!

Your frustration is completely understandable. Compressing 30+ specialized roles into just three broad categories (Product, UX, Engineer) not only oversimplifies the complexity of technical work but also risks devaluing the expertise and contributions of professionals who have dedicated years to mastering their domains.

Why This Approach is Problematic:
1. Loss of Specialization – Just as in medicine, different technical roles require distinct skills, mindsets, and responsibilities. A Data Scientist is not the same as a Cloud Architect, just as a Cardiologist is not the same as a Neurosurgeon. Forcing everyone into a single "Engineer" bucket ignores critical nuances.

2. Demeaning to Professionals – Renaming roles without regard for identity and expertise can feel dismissive. A Data Architect or Solutions Engineer brings unique value—lumping them into a generic category erases that distinction.

3. Misaligned Performance Evaluation – Evaluating everyone against a generic "Engineering competency framework" likely means:

a. Biased metrics (e.g., judging a Data Scientist on system design rather than statistical modeling).

b. Unfair salary pegging (specialized skills may no longer be compensated appropriately).

4. One-Size-Fits-None – The "monkey climbing a tree" analogy is perfect. Not all animals (or professionals) thrive under the same expectations.


How to Push Back (If Possible):
1. Advocate for Role Clarity – Push leadership to define sub-categories (e.g., "Data Engineer," "ML Engineer," "Cloud Engineer") if they insist on simplification.

2. Highlight Business Risks – Oversimplification can lead to misalignment in hiring, promotions, and project success.

3. Compare to Industry Standards – Most tech-forward companies (FAANG, etc.) maintain specialized roles because they recognize the value of expertise.



Final Thought:
This move seems like either:

1. A cost-cutting measure (standardizing salaries under one umbrella).

2. A leadership team that doesn’t understand technical depth.

Either way, it’s a red flag for talent retention. If the company refuses to acknowledge the problem, it may be a sign to reassess whether they truly value expertise—or just want interchangeable cogs.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Govtech was having 30+ specialist roles of specific R&R, but now some champion compress the 30+ roles into just 3; Product, UX and Engineer.

And you expect every technical role to be called "engineer"....? It is like saying, all GP can perform the Cardiologist, Neurosurgeon role. This is a bloody joke and demeaning to quite a number of the current personnel.

Imagine you are a Data Scientist, you are also called engineer.
Imagine you are a Data Architect, you are also called engineer.
Imagine you are a Cloud architect, you are also called engineer.
Imagine you are a Solution architect, you are also called engineer.

Worst, they evaluate everyone now using the "Engineering competency framework" and peg you to their salary range.

<img src="s://marquetteeducator.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/5232012052424iwsmt.jpeg?w=640"/>

its the same as asking all the animals to climb the tree! Champion leadership management!

Err data scientist and data engineer titles unchanged lol, not lumped together as swe

Too much handover and communication overhead in our current team setup among DBA, SWE, QE and devOps. It takes 1 person to do faster than getting all these people aligned and agreed and work together. Now with AI, each task becomes much faster and doesn’t require dedicated roles. In fact all tests can be automated.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Too much handover and communication overhead in our current team setup among DBA, SWE, QE and devOps. It takes 1 person to do faster than getting all these people aligned and agreed and work together. Now with AI, each task becomes much faster and doesn’t require dedicated roles. In fact all tests can be automated.

silo worker spotted!

Originally Posted by Unregistered

silo worker spotted!

Power worker …
If you think the traditional way still better, just go ahead with your two-pizza team and long timeline. Good for most people for a living.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Power worker …
If you think the traditional way still better, just go ahead with your two-pizza team and long timeline. Good for most people for a living.

That’s futuristic. Most people don’t work this way in this organisation. forward looking, it is worth experimenting.