# Presentation: 114544

## 

August 28-29, 2000
Strategic Compensation Conference 2000
Classification Programs Division
Workforce Compensation and Performance Service

**August 28-29, 2000**
**Strategic Compensation Conference 2000**
**Classification Programs Division**
**Workforce Compensation and Performance Service**

**Classification Update**

## Overview

**Standards Development Schedule**
**New Strategy**
**New Approach**
**Revisiting Policy Issues**
**Job Family Standards Format Changes**
**Status of Classification Standards Studies**
**Special Projects**
**On the Horizon**
**Questions & Answers**

- USOPM:WCPS:OPCSD:CPD

- August 28-29, 2000

**Notes:**
Here is an overview of what we will talk about during this session.  

Our current standards development schedule was very aggressive - we are making adjustments--we’ll tell you how and why.

We’ll introduce some new policy issues we’re working on that we believe will result in more flexibility for you.

We’ll talk a little about the format changes for the job family standards.

And we’ll update you on the status of the ongoing studies, special projects, and

What is on the horizon.

We’ll also  leave time for questions and answers at the end of the session.  

## Standards Development Schedule

**Driven by OPM’s Strategic Plan**
**March 2000 Status**
**Strong agency reaction **
**18 final standards by January 2001**
**55% coverage of the GS workforce**
**August 2000 Status**
**Great agency participation **
**4-5 final standards by 1st Quarter FY 2001**
**55% coverage of the GS-workforce by May 2002**

- USOPM:WCPS:OPCSD:CPD

- August 28-29, 2000

**Notes:**
As many of  you know, the schedule we issued in March 2000 was driven by our Strategic Plan.  It was aggressive, and we knew it would be difficult for all of us to meet.
If we could have met it, we would have issued 18 final standards by January 2001.  That would have covered 55% of the GS population.  
Let’s move ahead to now.

August 2000:
Our sincere thanks to all of you for the cooperation and assistance you have provided, not only in factfinding, but during comment periods, keeping us advised where you have concerns, and in providing extra help, such as in our FES-9 Study where we requested help in obtaining specific position descriptions for the project.
Now we are prepared to issue 4-5 final JFS standards by 1st Quarter FY 2001.   
If we tried to keep up the pace we had envisioned, using the current schedule and traditional methods, we could not reach the same 55% state that we would have reached in January 2001 until May 2002.
We know that you all reacted strongly to our March 2000 schedule--you do not have the staffs to effectively deal with this pace, and it is difficult for us to produce them as well.
So, we have rethought our strategy.

Let’s take a look at the next two charts to see how our schedule looks.

## Agency Populations Covered by Job Family Standards to be Issued 1st Qtr FY2001

- USOPM:WCPS:OPCSD:CPD

- August 28-29, 2000

**Notes:**
This chart shows agency populations for the 4-5 standards we are prepared to issue now.

Note that we stopped the populations at 25,000--otherwise the chart would have been difficult to read.  We acknowledge that some agencies have more than 25,000 in some occupations.

This illustrates the traditional approach where every agency has or feels an obligation to comment.

Note the wide variance of agencies impacted.

## Agency Populations Covered by Draft Job Family Standards That Require Test Application

- USOPM:WCPS:OPCSD:CPD

- August 28-29, 2000

**Notes:**
Now let’s take a look at the agency populations for the remaining draft JFSs that will require test application soon.

Note that the agencies heaviest impacted vary quite a bit.

## New Strategy

**OPM Revisions Needed**
**Strategic Plan Goal**
**Development Schedule**
**Continue Job Family Standard Approach**
**Maintain Reasonably Fast Pace**
**Agencies, managers, stakeholders need/expect up-to-date standards**
**Factfinding is nearly complete on most studies started over past year**
**Pressure continues to start new studies**
**GS-1100PA**
**GS-2100AT**
**Managerial guidance**
**Alternative Dispute Resolution work**

- USOPM:WCPS:OPCSD:CPD

- August 28-29, 2000

**Notes:**
Now, let’s take a look at our proposed new strategy.

First - we have revised our strategic goal to a different measure--one using the average age of the standards.  We still need to issue new standards, but we are modifying our approach.

We will continue with the JFS approach - we believe it produces fewer reference sources, streamlines and simplifies the criteria, and provides more flexibility for you in the long run.

Additionally, we do need to continue at a reasonable pace.in order to meet our revised strategic goals, as well as meet our obligations to you to provide you with current evaluation criteria.

Our factfinding is mostly complete for the studies we have on our current schedule.  If we allow that factfinding to become aged, we risk issuing a standard that is not the most current.

We also have continual pressure for new start-ups; e.g., OMB wants us to initiate the GS-1100 study.

And we also know we need to do work on Managerial guidance, Alternative Dispute Resolution work, as well as maintain currency on all of them.  And there are other studies we need to initiate.

## New Strategy (continued)

**Ameliorate the Current Burden on Agencies**
**Traditional Draft Test Application**** **
**“****Representative sample” of all jobs**
**Full agency participation for all studies**
**Traditional Final Implementation**
**Application to all jobs in a “reasonable” timeframe**
**Intensive workload **
**Traditional Factfinding**

- USOPM:WCPS:OPCSD:CPD

- August 28-29, 2000

**Notes:**
One of the greatest challenges we have is to come up with a method to  lift the burden to the maximum extent possible and still collect valid information to write appropriate criteria.

We view the greatest burden on you to be the test application period.

The traditional approach has all agencies commenting on drafts by testing a “representative sample” of positions.

A second burden of course is to implement the final standard once we release it.

We believe the least burden on you is the factfinding.  We do need your help in finding the right sites, within our “key city” focus.  We can take over from there once we have your sites and points of contact.  Of course, we will keep you informed as we progress, through HRMC Network meetings, agency Briefings, etc.

If there is a critical site we need to see outside the range of the “key cities” we can always deviate from that pattern, but we believe using this approach, it limits our sites, most agencies are well- represented in those cities, and it better focuses you in providing us with factfinding sites.

## New Approach

**Revise Standards Development Approach**
**New Standards Development Schedule**
**More Efficient Factfinding**
**New Test Application Approach**
**Revised Implementation Rules**

- USOPM:WCPS:OPCSD:CPD

- August 28-29, 2000

**Notes:**
So, our revised schedule will incorporate more efficient factinding as we just discussed--working with you to focus on key cities and zone in on what we really need to see.  Also, with our Business Process Reengineering effort, we will apply some different techniques soon.
We’ve discussed with OMSOE a new strategy for implementing final standards, which some of you may have heard us introduce previously.
You will able to assess the impact upon testing the draft.  For agencies who do not comment, we will devise a method to get the information to you--the HRMC Planning Committee proposed a network steering committee that can help in disseminating information.
We ‘ll provide a summary of changes between draft to final--you can assess the change impact.
You will be able to address “real life” issues, and assess what is reasonable for your agency in terms of  implementing the new standard; e.g., RIF, Base Closure, Transfers of Function etc., and define as an agency what “reasonable” means for you.
We acknowledge that many of you have automated classification systems to modify and with this new strategy, you should have additional planning time for that.
You will apply the new standard first to new and vacant postions as well as to any classification appeal or consistency review cases. Then SPD libraries.
Check the automated classification systems within your agencies.  Your action officers can begin to determine the level of changes needed by review our draft products.
And finally, initiate personal actions as “significant event” occur, such as RIF, transfer of function, etc.
The biggest impact:  we propose to revise the test application approach to a pre-planned “sampling” approach which will still comply with the requirement to consult with agencies.  

## New Approach (continued)

**Proposal: “Pre-Planned Test Application” **
**Same 55% Coverage by March 2002  **
**Applies**
**Common sense**
**Risk analysis**
**More realistic development projections**
**Depends On**
**More efficient factfinding**
**Consultation with Classification Chiefs**
**New implementation strategy in place**

- USOPM:WCPS:OPCSD:CPD

- August 28-29, 2000

**Notes:**
Using this new approach will achieve the same 55% coverage goal by March 2002. 

 It considers common sense, risk analysis, and a more realistic development projection.

It also depends on:

 the more efficient factfinding we’ve just discussed

consulting with agency classification chiefs

and having the new implementation strategy that we’ve just discussed in place.

## New Approach (continued)

**Pre-Planned Test Application:  An Illustration**
**Compares **
**Traditional test application**
**Pre-planned test application**

- USOPM:WCPS:OPCSD:CPD

- August 28-29, 2000

**Notes:**
We do plan, as we said a few minutes ago, to consult with the Classification Chiefs.  We would jointly need to take a close look to see whether we are getting the right populations for a final projection. 
And, as always, all comments are welcome from non-sampled agencies.

Let take a look at an illustration of this new approach, and contrast the traditional with the new pre-planned approach.

On both charts, we show 4 JFS standards with drafts almost ready to go out at the same time for test. 

## New Approach (continued)Traditional Test Application

**New Approach (continued)****Traditional Test Application**

- USOPM:WCPS:OPCSD:CPD

- August 28-29, 2000

**Notes:**
Note that on the traditional approach, many agencies would be providing comments using a “representative sample.”  

This approach has proven time-consuming and difficult to use.

Now let’s take a look at the  “pre-planned approach.”

## New Approach (continued)Pre-Planned Test Application

- (Agency Populations Covered by Draft Job Family Standards)

**New Approach (continued)****Pre-Planned Test Application**

- USOPM:WCPS:OPCSD:CPD

- August 28-29, 2000

**Notes:**
Note that on the pre-planned approach, we would expect agencies with the largest populations to provide comments using a “sample” of jobs you feel would give you the best response. 

 E.G., for the 0800 study, agencies we would expect to hear from are Navy, Agriculture, Transportation, NASA.  This approach also uses a “trust” factor among agencies. 

We always review everything you tell us, and we evaluate appropriate adjustments.  We only need to hear some things once--if we are wrong, we adjust the criteria.

There could be times when one agency would be commenting on more than one draft at a time, but it would most likely be in different sub-components of the agency.  

## New Approach (continued)

**Alternatives**
**Rollout as Ready**
**Use longer test application period across the board**
**55% coverage of the GS workforce by May 2002**
**Would  have to “refresh” factfinding on last rollouts**
**Slowdown Rollout**
**Limit simultaneous test applications**
**55% coverage of the GS workforce by March 2003**
**Would  have to “refresh” factfinding” on last rollouts**
**Neither Effectively Responds to Expectations**

- USOPM:WCPS:OPCSD:CPD

- August 28-29, 2000

**Notes:**
We did consider other alternatives.  

Take a look at the next chart for a visual of this discussion.

## Alternative Schedules for Issuing Job Family Standards

**Alternative Schedules for Issuing Job Family Standards**

- USOPM:WCPS:OPCSD:CPD

- August 28-29, 2000

**Notes:**
The x shows our March 2000 projection - reaching 55% coverage by January 2001.

The “star” shows you what our pre-planned schedule would look like, using the current studies on our agenda.  Drafts would be released about 7 months in advance of the final release date.  This depicts test application in a much different way - only dealing with a few agencies at a time.

The diamond shows the slow rollout.

If  we roll them our as we get them ready, but use a longer test application period , we reach the same 55% coverage by May 2002.  (This is not depicted - chart would be too confusing.)

If we slow down the rollout to limit simultaneous test application, we don’t reach the same 55% coverage until March 2003.  And our factfinding data would be stale.

We feel these other two alternatives are ineffective at responding to our customer needs

The real key is to alter the burden.  So we have focused on that.

## The Bottom Line

**HRMC Planning Committee**
**Favors new pre-planned test approach**
**Concurs with briefing the HRMC Executive Committee **
**HRMC Executive Committee**
**Provide feedback on approach**
**Provide support from HR Director community**
**Make Classification Chiefs available**

- USOPM:WCPS:OPCSD:CPD

- August 28-29, 2000

**Notes:**
So, our bottom line is this:

We briefed the HRMC Planning Committee on August 15, and they agreed that we should brief the HRMC Executive Committee in September.

We expect the HRMC Planning Committee to provide feedback on our proposed strategy and we will proceed from there.

We know success depends upon support from HR Directors  and  Classification Chiefs.

We will finalize our schedule with expected release dates once the HRMC Executive Committee provides feedback.  

When Hook and Del provide their updates, they will give you the current status, which may be released at a slightly different date, again depending upon feedback and coordination with the agency Classification Chiefs.

## Revisiting Policy Issues

**Classification References - Revised**
**Introduction to the Position Classification Standards**
**The Classifiers’ Handbook**
**Presence of Factor Level 1-9**
**Multidisciplinary Concept**

- USOPM:WCPS:OPCSD:CPD

- August 28-29, 2000

**Notes:**
We are revisiting many of our policy references to update them and provide more flexibility where needed.

Factor Level 1-9 has traditionally been limited to scientific and other professional types of work.  

But, the FES primary standard has always stated “

We are revising classification reference material - we plan to update and combine the Introduction to the Position Classification Standards and the Classifiers’ Handbook.

We are about to conclude a study of the use of “professional” and “administrative” in the Government.  This will help us address issues such as work in our occupational standards.

We will expand the use of the “interdisciplinary concept” to administrative work,  A suggested name for this expanded concept is “interchangeable work.”

## Job Family Standards Format

**Changes Resulting from Agency Feedback **
**Change Factor 1 from “Competencies” to “Knowledge”**
**Move to Front**
**Occupational data **
**Evaluation summary**
**Leave Illustrations in Appendix**
**Embedded File Features**
**Leave links in PDF version**
**Remove links from all other versions**

- USOPM:WCPS:OPCSD:CPD

- August 28-29, 2000

## Status of Classification Standards Studies:  GS-200A

**Summary of Key Issues**
**New Roles/Grading Criteria**
**Generalist Concept/Series Consolidation**
**Retain generalist concept**
**Retain series consolidation**
**Parenthetical Specialty Titles**
**Classification**
**Information Systems**
**Performance Management**
**Competence/Knowledge**
**Retain knowledge**
**Qualification standards to address competencies**
**HR Directors “quick look”**

- USOPM:WCPS:OPCSD:CPD

- August 28-29, 2000

**Notes:**
The GS-200A study, while it covers our own occupation, it is no exception in terms of  typical agency reactions---not all agencies agree on issues or their resolution--we have many conflicts to resolve.  We see our job as trying to find the right balance between providing the flexibility you need and maintaining the integrity of the system.  Let’s take a look at the handout on key issues for the GS-200A. 
New Roles/Grading Criteria:  While most of you favor recognizing the new roles, many of you do not have staff performing these functions and had difficulty evaluating traditional jobs with the draft criteria.  Solution:  Add language to clarify traditional roles where they exist and clarify Factor Level 1-8 illustrations; recognize emerging work--we cannot ignore it; and also provide criteria for Factor Level 1-9.  In this age of accountability, we are certain agencies will apply it appropriately.
Generalist Concept/Series Consolidation:  Again, we have some conflicts.  Most of you favor moving to the generalist concept; but you both favor and oppose series consolidation to the GS-201 series.  You also want flexibility to move staff as the work needs arise.  Solution:  To better align with the world of work and the SOC approach, we plan to proceed with both the generalist concept and series consolidation.  We believe the data systems will allow you the flexibility to create the distinctions you need.  And we do need to simplify and streamline the reference sources.
Parenthetical Specialty Titles:  We believe these titling options will provide the distinctions you need.  We will accommodate the changes you’ve proposed. The next chart shows the revisions.
Competence/Knowledge:  We heard you--we are returning to “Knowledge.”  The competency-based job profiles will address the competencies.  Factor 1 information will relate to technical competencies that equate to knowledge and skill, but this will be the most direct correlation you will see.  
HR Directors:  We will provide a “final” version for a very quick review in early September.

## Status of Classification Standards Studies:  GS-200AParenthetical Titles

**Draft Proposed **
**Recruitment & Placement**
**Affirmative Recruitment**
**Compensation**
**Employee Relations**
**Labor Relations**
**Performance Management**
**Employee Recognition**
**Employee Assistance**
**Employee Development**
**Employee Benefits**
**Military**

**Revised **
**Retain.**
**Add to Recruitment & Placement.**
**Retain.  Revise definition to exclude Classification.**
**Add Classification.**
**Retain.  Revise definition.**
**Retain.**
**Retain.  Revise definition.**
**Delete.**
**Retain.**
**Retain.**
**Add Information Systems.**

- USOPM:WCPS:OPCSD:CPD

- August 28-29, 2000

**Notes:**
Here’s what the revised parenthetical titles will be.  We heard you!  We’ll:

Delete “Affirmative Recruitment” and add to the definition of Recruitment & Placement.

 Revise the definition of Compensation and add one for Classification.

Revise the definition of Employee Relations to delete Performance Management.

Revise the definition of Performance Management to incorporate Employee Recognition.

Add Information Systems to cover HR work such as data systems management, etc.

## Status of Classification Standards Studies

_**Winford G. Hooker**_
**GS-200A,**** ****HR Management**** **
**GS-400P,**** ****Biological Sciences**
**GS-500P/A,**** ****Accounting & Budget**
**GS-600C/T/P,**** ****Medical, Hospital, Dental, ****	****                      & Public Health**
**GS-700 P/T,**** ****Veterinary Medical Science **
**GS-800P,**** ****Engineering & Architecture**
**GS-900P,**** ****Legal & Kindred**
**GS-1500P,**** ****Mathematics & Statistics**
**RGEG/EDGEG,**** ****Research & Equipment ****	**** ****	****           Development**

_**Delmar D. White**_
**IT, GS-2200A,**** ****Information Technology**
**GS-200C,**** ****HR Management Assistance**
**GS-300C/T,**** ****Clerical & Office Services**
**GS-800T,**** ****Engineering & Architecture                                     ****	****                 Technical **
**GS-900C/T,**** ****Legal & Kindred Assistance**
**GS-1300T,**** ****Physical Sciences Technical**
**GS-1600A,**** ****Equipment, Facilities, & Services**
**GS-1800A,**** ****Investigation**
**5306,**** ****Air Conditioning Equipment Mechanic**
**3806,**** ****Sheet Metal Mechanic**
**4352,**** ****Composite & Plastic Fabricating**

- USOPM:WCPS:OPCSD:CPD

- August 28-29, 2000

**Notes:**
Hook and Del will now provide you with updates on their teams studies.

## Status of Classification Standards Studies:  IT

**Fast Track**
**IT Specialty Titles:  March 2000**
**Draft Job Family Standard:  July 2000**
**Factor Level 1-9 Underway**
**Factfinding During Review**
**Final Job Family Standard:  Winter 2001**

- USOPM:WCPS:OPCSD:CPD

- August 28-29, 2000

**Notes:**
The IT study continues on a fast track.  We are working closely with the CIO Council as we proceed.
We are also working closely with ES as the IT Pilot continues.
Issued IT specialty titles March 30, 2000.
Issued IT JFS draft July 17, 2000.
We are developing Factor Level 1-9 ---
We will continue factfinding during review---

The Final will be ready in Winter 2001.  ---

## Special Projects

**GS-081, Firefighter Work Group**
**March 2000 membership call **
**Purpose**
**Status**
**SOC Work Group**
**July 2000 membership call **
**Purpose**
**Status**

- USOPM:WCPS:OPCSD:CPD

- August 28-29, 2000

**Notes:**
Del

## Special Projects (Continued)

**Fewer than Nine Study**
**March 2000 Startup**
**Purpose**
**Status**
**Business Process Improvement**
**April 2000 Startup**
**Purpose**
**Status**

- USOPM:WCPS:OPCSD:CPD

- August 28-29, 2000

**Notes:**
Hook

## On the Horizon

**Study of ADR and Managerial Work**
**Study on Use of “Professional” and “Administrative”**
**New Classification Standards Studies**
**GS-1000A****	****	****	**
**GS-1100PA**
**GS-1300P**
**GS-2100AT**
**IT support work**

- USOPM:WCPS:OPCSD:CPD

- August 28-29, 2000

**Notes:**
Coming up:
We will study ADR and managerial work as they cross occupational lines and issue revised guidance.

And, we will initiate some new classification standards studies.  These will begin from where we left off from the data call two years ago, and will include spin-offs from ongoing studies.

## Questions? And Answers!Classification ProgramsDivision

**Questions? And Answers!****Classification Programs****Division**

**Judy Davis, Division Chief**
**Winford G. Hooker, Team Chief**
**Delmar D. White, Team Chief**
**Phone:  (202) 606-2950**
**FAX:  (202) 606-4891**

**jadavis@opm.gov**
**wghooker@opm.gov**
**ddwhite@opm.gov**
**fedclass@opm.gov**

- USOPM:WCPS:OPCSD:CPD

- August 28-29, 2000

**Notes:**
Questions??