Report on IT Study Web Microsite Activities

### June 1, 2002

# Web Microsite Responses

There have been 31 e-mail comments received on the microsite to date.
The emails date from mid February 2002 when the Federal CIO Council, in
conjunction with the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA),
established a Web micro-site which provides information about NAPA\'s
report[: The Transforming Power of Information Technology: Making the
Federal Government an Employer of Choice for IT Employees.]{.underline}
This site is accessible through the
[**www.cio.gov**](http://www.cio.gov/) home page through the link \"NAPA
Report.\" The site has brief bite-sized summaries of the major elements
of the report and downloadable copies of the report and other key
documents.\
\
This site, however, is more than just a static picture of things past.
It\
is being regularly updated with actions that are happening now to make
the\
report proposals a reality. It\'s an effective on-going source of\
information. It is also a way to promote two-way communication with
anyone interested in the principles and recommendations contained in the
report. The site has an \"E-Mail the Academy\" mail slot through which
anyone can express their views or ideas.

Since February 19, 2002, when the CIO Council released its statement of
support of the IT Study report, employees have been encouraged to go to
the site and express their opinions. Many did. This report summarizes
the comments that have been received to date. Additional Web microsite
activity reports will be provided on September 1, 2002 and January 1,
2003. The microsite is currently funded to run through December 31,
2002.

We encourage any interested employees to contribute to the dialogue and
discussion of the ideas in the report.

## Emails Responses Received

The emails received to date can be divided into the following
categories:

1.  General support for the Study.

2.  Specific suggestions or comments regarding changes to IT Pay.

3.  Complaints or expressions of frustration with the current pay and
    classification system for IT jobs.

4.  Job applications.

5.  Editorial comments regarding the Study report.

Some emails fit into more than one category.

A summary of the emails by category are as follows:

1.  General support for the Study

> Seven of the 27 comments received expressed support for the study and
> its recommendations. Several respondents expressed the need for
> highlighting the difficult issues related to IT pay and IT delivery in
> the federal government and timely action with regard to pay issues.

2.  Specific suggestions or comments regarding changes to IT Pay.

> Nineteen (19) of the 27 comments received made specific suggestions
> regarding the action needed with regard to IT job recruitment,
> retention and pay in the federal government. Seven respondents said
> that increased pay was a key ingredient (some said the most important
> or only ingredient) for improving IT recruitment, retention and
> delivery in the federal government and/or they expressed support for
> the continuation of special pay rates for IT jobs.
>
> Six respondents commented on the need to change and improve IT
> classifications and to clearly define IT job categories. Training and
> development, both technical and project/contract management training
> was echoed by four other respondents. Several respondents mentioned
> the value of internships and cross training in addition to technical
> and management training. One respondent advised that contract
> employees need training as well as government employees.
>
> Two respondents mentioned recruitment and eligibility requirements. In
> one case, recruitment in schools and information regarding government
> coop programs and career ladders was stressed. This respondent also
> mentioned the need to streamline job application and processing
> requirements to make getting a government job a more efficient and
> positive experience. The other respondent spoke to the need for more
> flexible eligibility standards and the need to retain older workers in
> the federal workforce.
>
> Finally, four respondents spoke to various work/life balance issues
> such as job sharing, flexible hours, telecommuting, etc.

3.  Complaints or expressions of frustration with the current pay and
    classification system for IT jobs.

> Thirteen (13) of the respondents described their own experiences and
> frustrations with the current pay and classification system for IT
> jobs. Most of these respondents had experienced difficulties with the
> reclassification of jobs, job promotions or other salary increases, or
> lack of knowledge or understanding by management of the importance or
> technical aspects of IT.
>
> One of these respondent's comment raises a number of issues which need
> to be addressed in any solutions or new systems that are developed and
> implemented. The issues raised by this respondent can be summarized in
> three questions:

a.  Would the approach do anything new to ensure that only qualified
    people got technical jobs?

b.  Would the approach do a more effective job of holding IT executives
    accountable for their performance?

c.  Given that we are doing more work through contract support, how
    would managers and professional be held responsible for the
    performance of contractors?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
4.  Job applications.

> Two respondents asked about finding jobs for themselves or for
> friends. One additional respondent expressed her frustration that her
> son could not get a response to his job applications with federal
> agencies.

5.  Editorial comments regarding the Study report.

> One respondent asked about a chart referenced in the Study report.
> Another respondent asked for more specific information regarding
> timing of the "workforce train wreck" as a result of the high number
> of federal retirements anticipated over the next 10 years. Finally,
> one respondent suggested that the microsite be updated with an article
> about the State Department's experience with the Virtual Job Fair.

Responses to Some of the Comments Received:

All of these comments are appreciated and additional comments are
encouraged. Through this report, the CIO Council has been made aware of
the nature and content of the comments for consideration as part of any
future action with regard to IT pay systems. Although, it is not
feasible to respond to each comment individually, some general responses
can be made.

The specific recommendations made have been compiled and provided
without attribution to the CIO Council for their consideration. Some of
these recommendations, such as the need for training and development,
were addressed in the Study recommendations. Action that can be
initiated to begin to consider, test and implement the Study
recommendations should be the focus for the future.

The complaints received are in keeping with many of the comments
received during the data collection portion of the IT Pay Study. The
need to streamline the hiring process and to provide appropriate pay and
other benefits are addressed in the Study recommendations. The need to
change the classification and pay structure for IT jobs is also
addressed in the study. Specific job situations cannot be addressed.
However, the Study approach and recommendations such as
pay-for-performance, market-based pay, competitive benefits,
improvements in recruiting and hiring processes, training for technical
currency and continuous learning, flexibility in the treatment of
individuals and occupations, promotion of a work/life balance and
building in reliability, clarity and transparency, if implemented, can
serve to address some of the kinds of problems described by the email
respondents.

The approaching wave of retirements discussed in this study is neither a
new idea, nor is it limited to the IT occupation. The question as to
when the retirement crunch occurs, within five or ten years, is
dependant on the percentage of employees that retire as soon as they
become eligible, mindful of the fact that not all employees will retire
at this point. The difference between statistical values are due to the
distinction between actual employee retirements -- those receiving
federal retirement benefits - and employees who have become eligible to
retire, but choose to continue working due to personal or general
economic reasons. OPM has estimated that 50 percent of the current
workforce will be eligible to retire by 2006; based on past experience,
most federal workers retire within three years of becoming eligible.
Therefore, both statements can be true.

With regard to job applications, the microsite is not a job referral
mechanism. Job applicants should use established sites for this purpose.
Specifically USAJOBS, the listing of federal jobs at OPM's Web site
([**www.opm.gov**](http://www.opm.gov/)) can help applicants find
openings that match their kills and interests. To improve the process of
located and applying for federal jobs, OPM has launched a "Recruitment
One-Stop" project as part of the administration's e-government
initiative. Additionally, individual agency Web sites list jobs
available at that agency and provide access to human resource contacts.

The Virtual Job Fair that was advertised on the microsite and which took
place in April was another opportunity for IT job recruitment. As an
indication of the success of this opportunity, during the five day open
period, the following number of hits were captures for the Virtual IT
Job Fair web site:

Welcome Page 1.8 million

Participating Agency Page 129,548

Locations Page 68,553

General Information Page 37,521

Questions for Resume Page 21,720

What to Include Page 46,733

Frequently Asked Questions Page 37,619

Information regarding the success of the Virtual Job Fair has been
posted on the microsite. We encourage your additional comments and look
forward to your feedback. Thank you.

The comments are listed below by category.

Updated as of 5/31/02

#### Specific Comment Summary by Topic

# **Pay**

The answer is the same as it is for any entity trying to retain good
people.\
MORE MONEY. Even with locality and special rate pay the difference is\
significant. If pay isn\'t raised we can expect to continue to be the\
training ground for the community. The government needs to stop treating
us as volunteers and start treating us as having value that needs to be
paid\
for.

I agree with the special salary.

Continue with the special pay rates for IT workers which are
competitive\
with non-Government IT pay. Don\'t \"back-peddle\" on giving the full
annual\
Federal pay raises and locality pay for the IT special pay like the
Government did in 2002.

I pray that someone recognizes the need to support and nurture current\
employees of the US Gov and boost morale before bring in new employees
and paying them more from jump street. you know US Gov has many talented
individuals being wasted so lets get on the ball and quit BS-ing each
other.

Each time we interview for new co-ops I feel lucky if I can get anyone
to accept an offer at the rock-bottom salary level of GS-3! Even with
1-2 years of college under their belt these kids (computer science
majors) possess a lot of skills that we can put to work immediately,
yet, they are offered the same salary as clerks. I do not stand a chance
to hire them when they graduate because of salary gaps.

Has OPM rendered a decision concerning this matter? \[IT
Competency-based Job profile\] Their own deadline for a final decision
is Jan. - Feb., 2002, per information on their website. I have 14 years
of government IT experience to date. The hardest thing I\'ve had to do
during my career is decide whether to seek employment in the private
sector. But I must say that when outside employers are offering a 15 -
30% starting pay raise, it\'s beginning to get easier. I prefer to
continue in government service, but I\'m tired of taking it on the chin.

I agree that pay banding is appropriate and pay based on performance
should\
be done I think that pay based on specialties within the 2210 series
should be\
adjusted based on managerial being the highest and technical being the\
lowest I also believe IT workers who possess advanced degrees and IRM
certificates, CIO certificates, etc. should be paid more similar to how
the State Department operates. Their results have been dramatic as far
as the number of employees seeking education and the resulting retention
rate of success. I also believe that IT workers should migrate to the
2210 series prior to getting any differential. I also believe that older
workers could be enticed to stay longer with pay retention allowances.
This will offset the exodus of government employees particularly in the
IT field.

# **Classification**

There are select individuals throughout the nation who have been\
jumping through the hoops required by agency guidelines to try and get
the\
position reclassified; however, so far they\'ve been met with
widespread\
stonewalling from above.

IT professionals should include those employees working in base-level\
positions and doing IT professional work. OPM has changed many positions
to the GS-0335 series from the GS-0334 series. The GS-0334 series is
changed to the new IT series. Many of those employees who were forced
out of the IT series are actually accomplishing IT work and should be
re-included in this study. A lot of good professionals will be lost if
they are not included.

The change by OPM was strictly to save money.

Also, form a relaxed method of requirements to classify a graduate as
eligible. This will make the interview process more difficult for
managers, but they will have more choices to fill positions.

It seems the Agency believes that if computer people are classified as\
clerical, they will be less appealing when attempting to find work at
other\
agencies or in the private sector. If a policy would be in place to
promote\
competent Automation Staff Assistants to IT positions, this would
definitely improve morale and create less future turnover and retain
employees knowledgeable with their specific Agency needs and procedures.

Final Job Family Position Classification Standard for Administrative
Work\
in the Information Technology Group GS-2200xx. The final GS-2200xx
standard identifies job duties which can be termed to those of an IT
specialist. Typical duties include customer support, data management and
information system security, webmaster, software engineer, systems
analyst and other. My suggestion is to give Management the opportunity
to start the\
reclassification of all those Series (0334, 0335, etc..) that would
fall\
under this new PD to start the ball rolling and get it over with. As\
directed by OPM.

Although I am not in the GS-334 series I am an employee within the IT
part\
of my organization. I think that the federal government as a whole has
and\
continues to think that anyone who uses a computer can with OJT become a
334 and this is just not true. The IT functions tend to be the \"place\"
where\
employees are put when they can\'t seem to perform anyplace else or want
a\
career change. This attitude has had an adverse impact on those of us
who\
at times need the assistance of a 334. I strongly agree that the pay
rates\
need to be in line with private industry, but I also think that not all
who\
are currently in the GS-334 series are true computer IT employees.
There\
needs to be serious thought given to what is a true GS-334 and possibly\
establish a new series to cover those employees who may give assistance
on\
the \"how to\" issues but do not perform any system administration or\
programming, etc.

# **Training, Development and Development Programs**

I agree with the special salary and would also like to comment on how
there never seems to be enough money for training and programs that keep
us up to date. The government is always behind and it\'s a bad thing to
always have to play catch-up in a big IT world. I also believe that we
need a system that makes all the IT employees feel a part of the program
instead of individualizing like so many agencies seem to do. Cross
training is another big key.

I totally agree with the report recommendations!!

The unwillingness to spend money on technical training is an even
greater burden in the IT Security field, where new threats/technologies
are introduced almost daily. Also I feel agencies should be paying for
the continued training of contractor personnel as well. I see a lot of
corporate knowledge and experience leaving the contractor ranks simply
because they cannot afford to keep current in their chosen profession
while under government contract.

I am a Computer Specialist (GS-12) who entered the IT field as an
intern. This program was for the most part very successful and
contributed to a high degree of morale among employees striving to enter
a career field with upward mobility. The agency is rewarded by retaining
employees who became highly skilled IT workers who already understand
the agency and who can assimilate back into the organization rapidly. I
believe the Government should provide internships for current and new
employees who have already demonstrated self-motivation and an aptitude
for an IT career. Let the interns retain full pay and benefits while
they attend formal classroom IT training and on-the-job assignments.
Upon successful completion of each phase of the internship, promote the
interns two grades per promotion until journeyman level. Interns start
at GS-5 and progress to 7, 9 and finally GS-11.

Additionally offer \"just in time\" high quality technical training on
a\
regular basis and pay all or part of all fees required for
certifications.\
Offer the opportunity to cross-train to gain expertise in different
areas of\
the IT field. Continue Government college tuition assistance programs.

I believe that the public would be best served by hiring contractors
using\
performance-based contracts while at the same time training government\
employees on how to properly manage contracts. Salaries in the GS13 and
GS14 ranges should attract quality project managers.

I would also like to promote some sort of student co-op program for all
agencies and departments, and actively participate. This will promote
the agency to local schools, and stimulate interest in future
employment.

As a team leader of a small group of application developers I certainly\
welcome the ideas mentioned in the report. I have 2 co-op students from\
Drexel University on my team for 6 month rotations. Each time we
interview\
for new co-ops I feel lucky if I can get anyone to accept an offer at
the\
rock-bottom salary level of GS-3! Even with 1-2 years of college under\
their belt these kids (computer science majors) possess a lot of skills\
that we can put to work immediately...

# **Work/Life Balance Issues**

Another idea to make the IT field more appealing to some skilled
workers\
would be to offer \"job sharing\"\...two employees \"share\" a job. Also
certain\
jobs such as web developers and documentation and technical writers
could be done from home.

The Academy\'s report also stated IT staff is concentrated in the DC
area.\
With all the telecommuting and teleconference available, this doesn\'t
have\
to be the case anymore. IT jobs can be more spread out across the
country\
for all agencies, again stressing the importance of competency in the
IT\
employees.

... the reason people work for the government is a sense of pride, job
security and decent benefits. Let your new recruits go work for a
company like Enron if they want to make more money and see where they
are after putting in 15 years and have nothing to show for it. Some
people, including college recruits, can actually see the benefits of
working in a secure job, where you get to go home to your family each
night for dinner and not have to put in 16 hour work days to get ahead.

I find it interesting that you recommend flexible work hours. My
agency(in my division) just barred any new employees from having
flexible work hours.

Recruitment

I have been in the job market in recent history I feel that our most
important role in regrouping our IT workforce is to advertise the
positions in the schools. Very few students were considering working for
the federal government while I was in school, and this was attributed
mainly to the fact that they were unaware of the possibilities. Of
course job postings are on the USAJOBS website, but current students
without any knowledge of federal opportunities are not aware of the
website. ...I would like to include a bulleted recommendation list that
I feel will be attractive to recent and future grads.

1.  First and foremost, advertise in the schools. If nothing else use
    poster boards of the OPM job site on the web. And a brief
    description of positions within IT.

2.  Advertise the career track - now that we are in a nation wide
    7/9/11/12 track that is very attractive. Not very many private
    sector companies can guarantee an increase in pay that we currently
    have in place.

3.  Advertise the Student loan repayment program recently established.
    Starting out pay at \$38,000 (DFW area) plus paying off student
    loans is very attractive to students who worry about how to pay them
    off.

4.  I would also like to promote some sort of student co-op program for
    all agencies and departments, and actively participate. This will
    promote the agency to local schools, and stimulate interest in
    future employment.

5.  Also, form a relaxed method of requirements to classify a graduate
    as eligible. This will make the interview process more difficult for
    managers, but they will have more choices to fill said positions.

> In the recent demise of the IT industry the federal government is a\
> promising, stable environment to be in. I think that in and of itself
> will\
> be the driving force to gain in the workforce. If we get the word out
> that our pay has increased, the career path of an IT professional in
> the\
> government, and begin programs that interact with schools and students
> the federal government can highly benefit in gaining productive
> employees.

# **Other Issues**

One idea that I did not see was paying bonuses to existing employees who
help recruit another who stays 6 month or a year in Federal service.
This leveraging of existing employees works well in private industry and
saves on recruitment costs so there is a large ROI.

Another idea not developed is a strategic executive dashboard for
monitoring the status and trends in strategic human capital management
either government-wide or department wide. This could be the next step
under the President\'s HC management initiative below the stop light
level.

We have competing visions at work in the Federal service for IT workers.
One vision is the muddle through or ostrich vision where most management
is clueless and in denial that there is a problem. These are usually the
ones that don\'t recognize the strategic value of IT to the
organization....A second competing vision is to make IT a strategic core
competency for the entire government. Most of the recommendations assume
that vision. A third competing vision (and there could be others) is
that IT skills aren\'t and shouldn\'t be a core competency of the
government, that they are easily outsourced as a commercial activity.
That would leave Federal IT talent limited to roles of contracting
officer\'s technical representatives i.e. someone who oversees mostly IT
contractors for most aspects of IT in the Fed. Gov.

I suggest that the debate needs to resolve the choice of visions first
to set the context, in order to better evaluate the NAPA
recommendations.

One thing I feel is left out or not stressed enough. If you want to
recruit and retain highly technical people they have to be assured that
they will be given highly technical hands on assignments. The study
states percentages of IT budget being outsourced to Contractors and it
also states that Agencies still need technical IT people to manage
projects and such. What most of management and most of these studies
don\'t take into consideration is that a large majority of Technical
people like doing the technical work. Government has this big push to
only have Federal employees oversee the work the contractors do. You can
send an individual to school to train him 26 out of the 52 weeks of the
year, but if he/she doesn\'t get to do the hands on work that he/she is
being trained for they will lose their skills and their interest in the
job. They will still go elsewhere unless they have too much time in
Federal service. These people don\'t really have a choice but will only
do what is minimal until they can retire.

One suggestion for encouraging folks to return to federal employment is
to\
reduce the number of years qualifying one for \'reinstatement\'
eligibility\
and the like from three (3) years to two. I ended up being excluded from
a position requiring reinstatement eligibility, the reason given that my
\"service comp date\" was about 30 days short of three years. I wonder
how many other folks who like me separated from federal service before 3
years were up, but would relish the chance to return\...

Finally, there was one respondent's comments that is categorized as a
complaint but which raises a number of issues which need to be addressed
in any solutions or new systems that are developed and implemented. The
issues raised by this respondent can be summarized in three questions:

1.  Would the approach do anything new to ensure that only qualified
    people got technical IT jobs?

2.  Would the approach do a more effective job of holding IT executives
    accountable for their performance?

3.  Given that we are doing more work through contract support, how
    would managers and professionals be held responsible for the
    performance of contractors?