1
Bureau for Management Office of the Assistant Administrator
Office of Management Policy, Budget, and Performance; Performance Division October 2015
Business Process Review
of
Civil Service Pre-Hiring
Business Process Review of Civil Service Pre-Hiring Table of Contents
Tab I – Executive Summary
Tab II—Analysis of Key Issues
Issue 1: Business Flow
Issue 2: Position Descriptions and Classification
Issue 3: Job Analysis
Issue 4: Systems
Tab III—Recommendations at a Glance
Tab IV—Annexes
Annex A: Statement of Work
Annex B: Business Process Mapping Notation
Annex C: List of Interviewees
Annex D: Focus Group and Case Study Interview Protocol
Annex E: Illustrative Benchmarks and Best Practices
Annex F: Benchmarking Protocol
Annex G: OHR Hiring Map from CSS
Annex H: Glossary
Annex I: Bibliography
Executive Summary
1
Introduction
The Impetus for Business Process Review The Bureau for Management’s (M Bureau) Office of Management Policy, Budget and Performance (M/MPBP) continues to conduct Business Process Reviews (BPRs) of key management functions to identify ways to modernize the Agency’s operational processes. This effort builds from Administrator Shah’s 2010 challenge to reform or eliminate processes that inhibit our success and to help the Agency address Administration and Congressional concerns about management improvement issues. A well-functioning management support platform is a prerequisite to achieving USAID’s mission, particularly given the hiring needs anticipated over the coming years. A critical aspect of management is an efficient (time and process) and effective (quality and customer satisfaction) hiring process. With that in mind, M Bureau and USAID’s Human Capital and Talent Management (HCTM, formerly Office of Human Resources [OHR]) partnered to conduct a business process review of competitive Civil Service (CS) hiring up to General Schedule (GS)-15, focused on achieving both timely and quality hiring.1
The Imperative for Examining the Civil Service Hiring Process Improving the CS hiring system has been a government-wide imperative since the implementation of the Civil Service Reform Act over 35 years ago. Since then, Federal agencies have continually sought ways to streamline personnel business operations. Most recently, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) spearheaded a 2010 presidential initiative2 to improve the CS Federal employee hiring process.
While government-wide goals for the ideal duration of the hiring process vary, Human Resource (HR) practitioners and management experts agree that the government can no longer attract and retain qualified workers within a framework that fails to offer applicants the timely and substantive interaction they expect when courted by HR staff and Hiring Managers (HMs). The hiring process falls within USAID Forward’s “Talent Management” objective, one of seven key areas USAID has targeted for internally focused transformational change. A hiring process that spans over 1303 days—more than four months—fails to meet the needs of applicants or HMs, yet this was USAID’s 2013 time-to-hire performance.
Recognizing this, HCTM leadership has already taken several important steps focused on the recruitment phase to reduce average time-to-hire rates, including developing Civil Service Customer Service Standards4, pursuing greater collaboration with Administrative Management Services5 (AMS)
1 http://federalnewsradio.com/opm/2013/05/forecasting-the-retirement-wave-whats-behind-the-flubbed-predictions/ 2 https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-improving-federal-recruitment-and-hiring-process 3 Inclusive of pre-hiring phase time estimates. See Pre-Hiring “As Is” Map in Section II. 4 “USAID Human Capital Services Center Customer Service Standard Calendar Year 2015”, pp 28-29. https://pages.usaid.gov/system/files/hcsc_customer_service_standard_2015_final_7_14_2015_reduced.pdf
By 2016, 60% of Senior Executives and 50% of top managers will be eligible to
retire.
U.S. General Accountability Office1
2
Officers, creating cross-functional “portfolio teams” in HCTM, conducting USAID Hiring Model mapping, and incorporating customer service goals into HCTM Human Capital Services Center (HCSC) staff’s annual performance plans.
In addition to timeliness, the hiring process also needs to deliver quality hires. The 2010 presidential initiative specifies the need for the Federal Government to improve the quality of hiring, including making high quality hires and measuring the quality of the hiring process. The need is both quality and timeliness, and the mantra that represents the desired end state is “the right people, the right skills, at the right time.” The optimization of hiring at USAID must achieve both efficient and effective quality hiring.6
Objective of this CS Hiring Process BPR The specific objective of this BPR is to identify improvements that will increase efficiency and effectiveness of the pre-hiring phase of USAID’s CS hiring process.
Phases of the Hiring Process USAID currently conducts the hiring process in three “phases.” These phases include:
1. Pre-Hiring2. Recruitment3. On-Boarding
Pre-Hiring Phase: The BPR team defined this phase as the period during which USAID assesses the requirements for a new or vacant position, conducts analysis, and drafts necessary documents in preparation for posting a Job Opportunity Announcement (JOA). Sub-processes include:
o Pre-Hiring Planning: Workforce planning, identification of funding, position management,and assessment of recruitment options;
o Hiring Need Documentation and Pre-Screening: Developing and classifying a positiondescription by listing the major duties and responsibilities of a position and conducting andvalidating a job analysis by demonstrating the linkages between the duties of a position andits required competencies. Other related pre-screening activities include developing anassessment questionnaire, identifying Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), and choosinginterview panel membership and questions; and
5 The title of the AMS Officer position varies across the Agency and in the ADS. ADS 102 uses Administrative Management Staff. ADS 101 indicates that B/IOs vary internally with some using Administrative Management Services, Administrative Management Support, and Administrative Management Staff and others not listing it in their organizational structure. Furthermore, staff in the AMS Officer position are hired under varying position descriptions including the title Administrative Officer. 6 http://federalnewsradio.com/hiringretention/2014/03/opms-focus-in-hiring-reform-shifting-from-speed-to-quality/
“You don’t want to over-focus on time to the detriment of quality. You want
both.”
Federal News Radio “OPM’s focus in hiring reform shifting from speed to quality” 4
3
o Recruitment Package: Submission of a Request for Personnel Action (Standard Form 52 [SF-52]) along with all completed documents necessary for drafting and posting a JOA.
Recruitment Phase7: HCTM defines this as the period beginning from HCTM’s receipt of the complete recruitment package through the entry on duty (EOD) date of the selected candidate. USAID’s Administrator’s Leadership Council, Objective 5, has a performance metric for this phase called “time to hire.” Sub-processes include:
o Recruitment: Soliciting and actively seeking applicants to fill recently vacated or newlycreated positions through a JOA;
o Assessment: Conducting eligibility and minimum qualifications analysis, including theapplication of an assessment instrument (usually a questionnaire via the Career Connectorsystem) and/or manual review by Subject Matter Expert (SME) panels. Also includesconstructing and certifying a Certificate of Eligibles or Best Qualified (BQ) list;
o Selection: Screening, interviewing, conducting reference checks, and choosing a candidateto fill a position; and
o Staffing: Extending an employment offer, negotiating salary, processing security clearance,and entering on duty of the selected candidate.
On-Boarding Phase8: The on-boarding phase overlaps with the recruitment phase; it begins after acceptance of the job offer, continues after the EOD of the new hire, and finishes upwards to a year after the process first began. Sub-processes include:
o Pre-boarding the New Hire: Initiating and obtaining appropriate security clearance andsetting-up the new hire’s space, computer, phone, and email access;
o Orientation for the New Hire: Familiarizing new employees with USAID and their new job,providing mandatory training, obtaining completed pay and benefits forms and elections,and entering the employee into corporate systems; and
o Integration of the New Hire: Assessing training needs; identifying employee engagementand developmental activities, completing mid and end-of-year performance reviews, andassessing the probationary period.
Key Observations
Hiring is an essential function that spans all Bureau and Independent Offices (B/IOs) in the Agency. However, the “as-is” process documented in this BPR does not provide optimum value to the Agency and sometimes adversely affects efficiency and effectiveness. Examples of this include: 1) AMS Officers serving intermediary roles between HMs and HCTM staff or 2) staff omitting to tailor the standard operating procedures and job aids used. The following list captures overarching observations from the BPR:
7 See USAID’s Civil Service Delegated Examining/Merit Promotion Hiring Process map in Annex G. 8 OPM’s End-to-End Hiring Initiative. http://archive.opm.gov/publications/endtoend-hiringinitiative.pdf.
4
No Overall Owner of the Hiring Process: There is no overall owner for the entire hiringprocess at USAID. This creates challenges for optimizing and standardizing Agency hiringpractices. However, there are the three key stakeholders of HCTM, AMS Officers, and HMsthrough which improvements in the process can be made.
No Overall Owner of Pre-Hiring: There is also nosole owner of the pre-hiring process, which createschallenges for optimization. In particular, pre-hiring practices are predominantly completed atUSAID by B/IOs using their own, specificprocedures. The establishment of some form ofcentral gatekeeper and home base for the pre-hiring process would improve the implementationof this BPR’s recommendations. The key functionsof a pre-hiring home base would be advocatingwith stakeholders on behalf of the pre-hiringprocess and serving as a gatekeeper that ensures astreamlined pre-hiring process. In lieu of a singleentity, USAID can tap the current collaboration andjoint expertise of HCTM and the AMS OfficersCouncil (AOC) to perform this role.
Ineffective and Inefficient Pre-Hiring Planning: Insufficient planning and standardization of pre-hiring actions can have long-lasting, detrimental impacts on later aspects of the recruitment phase. Achieving an appropriate balance of efficiency and effectiveness remains critical to a successful process. Key aspects include:
o Unclear definition of roles andresponsibilities during the pre-hiringprocess;
o Lack of standard operating procedures forpre-hiring;
o Insufficient support and training for B/IOstaff, particularly for HMs, given theircritical value-add to the process and theinfrequency with which they typicallyengage in the CS hiring process; and
o Insufficient systems to support the pre-hiring process.
Pre-Hiring is Not Tracked, Mapped, or Measured: USAID has not analyzed the differentphases of the overall hiring process in totality. In particular,
BPR Expected Impacts
By implementing the recommendations of this BPR, USAID can expect to:
Reduce pre-hiring phase time by half.This BPR found the current timeframefor conducting pre-hiring to be 33-70business days. The recommendationsand suggested “to be” map couldreduce that down to 10-32 days, withadditional time savings possible byreducing the time for classification.
HCTM, AMS Officer, and HM effortswill be more focused on processpoints where they can provide themost effective and valuable input.Thereby improving satisfaction,efficiency, and effectiveness across theentire pre-hiring process.
Increase HM satisfaction with theoverall pre-hiring process and qualityof candidates on Certificate ofEligibles. This change should come as aresult of more focused use of HCTM,AMS Officer, and HM input in pre-hiring. No baseline of measurementfor customer satisfaction with pre-hiring exists currently, but this BPRreport recommends implementation ofa pre-hiring customer satisfactionsurvey.
5
USAID has not mapped, standardized, or established quality standards for the pre-hiring phase.9
Lack of Support for HMs in Pre-Hiring: Better tailoredengagement and optimized support for HM engagementin the pre-hiring process is critical to achieving improvedhiring efficiency and effectiveness. HMs bring crucialsubject matter expertise about the hiring need to the pre-hiring process. However, most HMs only engage in CShiring infrequently and, therefore, require tailoredsupport including: optimized training, standard operatingprocedures, and direct collaboration with HCTM.
Pre-Hiring Impacts Recruitment and Overall Hiring: Manyof the strategic issues affecting efficiency and effectiveness of the overall hiring process first arise during the pre-hiring phase.
HCTM Recommendations Validated by this BPR: In July2014, HCTM issued recommendations for improvinghiring.10 Four of those recommendations particularlyapply to pre-hiring. This BPR independently validatedthose recommendations and supports them in theoverarching context of this BPR report:
o Recommendation: “[HCTM will] Provide earlyconsultative advice and guidance to the Bureausand Offices on the recruitment documentation;job analysis, crediting plan, etc.”11
o Recommendation: “[B/IOs will]Establish interview and subject matterexpert panels in advance of Certificate issuance,preferably during the strategic recruitmentdiscussions with [HCTM], and by no later than thedate the JOA [job opportunity announcement]closes.”12
o Recommendation: “[HCTM and B/IOs will] Adoptuse of standardized position descriptions (PDs)
9 See Issue Paper 1: Business Flow for full details of findings and analysis to support these recommended indicators. 10 Action Memo for the Administrator, “Recommendations to Improve the Time to Hire USAID Staff,” signed June 27, 2014 and shared by Associate Administrator Mark Feierstein on July 7, 2014. This Action Memo was not cleared by the Office of General Counsel or the M Bureau. 11 See Issue Paper 2: Positions Descriptions and Classification and Issue Paper 3: Job Analysis and Pre-Screening for relevant findings and corresponding recommendations. 12 See Issue Paper 3: Job Analysis and Pre-Screening for relevant findings and corresponding recommendations.
Recommended Pre-Hiring Performance Indicators
The BPR team recommends the following performance indicators for the pre-hiring process:
Effectiveness Indicator: Pre-hiringcustomer satisfaction survey.Developed and implemented byHCTM before the end of therecruitment phase to gather real-time feedback from HMs and AMSOfficers.
Efficiency Indicator: Number ofdays to conduct pre-hiring.Measured from 1) the day a B/IOsubmits request to HCTM for pre-hiring support until 2) the B/IOsubmits final and completerecruitment package to HCTM.
Efficiency Indicator: Number ofdays to conduct classification.Measured from 1) date B/IO submitscomplete package of classificationmaterials to HCTM until 2) HCTMnotifies B/IO that classification isfinished. Does not include anyhiring actions where noclassification was requested.
6
and JOAs for multiple selections across B/IOs as appropriate.”13 o Recommendation: “[HCTM will] Create and/or routinely update automated trackers for
recruit actions.”14
Change Management: A robust change managementstrategy, fully incorporating the recommendations of thisBPR and future input of the AOC and HCTM, is necessaryto successfully implement the recommendations of thisBPR.
Methodology
The approach to business process improvement consists of four phases: diagnosis, optimization, implementation, and assessment. The team completed the diagnosis and began the optimization phases of the BPR approach outlined in the insert box. The following steps ensured the standardization, consistency, and replicability of the methodology:
1. Mapped the “as-is” process of the pre-hiring phase usingan industry-standard Business Process ModelingNotation;15
2. Conducted focus group discussions16 inviting:a. the entire set of HCTM CS Staffing and
Classification Specialists,b. the entire set of AMS Lead Officers and invited
them to include an additional AMS Officer fromtheir B/IO, and
c. a sample of HMs who had conducted a CS hire inthe first six months of 2014;
3. Conducted case studies of a sample of hiring actions fromthe first six months of 2014;17
4. Reviewed existing Agency policies and guidelines;
5. Examined other U.S. Government and private sector
13 See Issue Paper 2: Positions Descriptions and Classification for relevant findings and corresponding recommendation. 14 See Issue Paper 1: Business Flow and Issue Paper 4: Systems for relevant findings and corresponding recommendations. 15 See Annex B: Business Process Mapping Notation. 16 See Annex D: Focus Group and Case Study Protocol. 17 See Annex D: Focus Group and Case Study Protocol.
BPR Approach
The following framework guided M/MPBP’s approach to the BPR:
Diagnosis—Identifystakeholder needs, reviewend-to-end processes, andexamine for inefficient orineffective practices;
Optimization—Makerecommendations forpolicy, technology, and/ortraining changes to achievedesired outcomes based onempirical evidence aboutperformance;
Implementation—Act onopportunities to improvecurrent processes andensure they arestandardized and socialized;and
Assessment—Monitorprogress with the goals oftransparency andsustainability and use thedata to inform discussionsof broader institutionalreforms.
7
policies and processes on conducting CS, or equivalent, hiring to glean best practices and benchmarks;
6. Developed recommendations to improve the efficiency (time and business flow) andeffectiveness (quality and customer satisfaction) of the processes; and
7. Used the following symbols to identify recommendations.
Recommendations that address efficiency:
Recommendations that address quality, customer service, or effectiveness:
Recommendations for immediate actions:
The review team recommends the Agency now undertake the implementation phase including a monitoring plan for the assessment phase. These phases should include the following next steps:
1. Convene an implementation planning session with key pre-hiring participants andrecommendation owners18 to include review of the recommendations and benchmarks andbest practices19 included in the BPR report;
2. Create an Action Plan and Communications Plan to socialize and implement therecommendations presented;
3. Manage the Action Plan on an ongoing basis to ensure implementation ofrecommendations;
4. Develop a dashboard including a process to monitor implementation;
5. Update the dashboard on a monthly basis to monitor implementation; and
6. Conduct quarterly meetings to inform future decision-making.
The following sections present the “as-is” and “to-be” business process maps for the pre-hiring phase and HCTM’s map of the recruitment phase, as well as detailed discussions of key issues, and recommendations at-a-glance.
18 See Section IV: Key Recommendations At-a-Glance. 19 See Annex E: Illustrative Benchmarks and Best Practices.
Q
1
Issue 1: Business Flow
This issue paper examines the business workflow of the USAID’s Competitive Civil Service (CS) (up to General Schedule (GS)-15) planning and pre-hiring process. It discusses findings and provides recommendations regarding ways to achieve a consistent and standardized business flow.
Issue Statement
Across Bureaus and Independent Offices (B/IOs) at USAID the pre-hiring business workflow of the CS hiring process is inadequately defined and documented. The result is a CS hiring process that is inconsistent and irregular throughout the Agency, which leads to: a) lag in time-to-hire for recruitment actions, b) decreased morale for all stakeholders, and c) a weak pool of candidates from which to hire.
Background
The hypothesis at the start of the business process review (BPR) was that the pre-hiring phase affects the overall time and efficiency of the hiring phase measured for USAID’s time-to-hire metric with a target of 110 days or less. The BPR team defines the pre-hiring phase as the time from when USAID B/IOs identify a need to the submission of a complete recruitment package (all of Human Capital and Talent Management (HCTM) required documentation to create a Job Opportunity Announcement (JOA) on USAJobs). USAID begins measuring time-to-hire when HCTM receives a complete package via the HR-Help Desk email inbox. Nevertheless, a number of steps and deliverables in the pre-hiring phase take place before that clock starts, which we believe ultimately have a strong impact not only on the time it takes to complete the hiring phase, but also on the quality of the candidate pool.
Through a series of focus group discussions with Human Resource Staffing Specialists, Classification Specialists, Administrative Management Services (AMS) Officers, and Agency Hiring Managers (HMs), the review team found that the business workflow for the pre-hiring phase of CS hiring varies across the Agency. Overall, the team categorized the issues with the workflow during the pre-hiring phase in the following way:
a. The actors;b. The policy/guidance/training; andc. The process.
This paper will analyze the problems associated with these categories, discuss what is working well, cases where things are not working optimally, and provide concrete recommendations to make the process more effective and efficient.
Critical Assumptions In this issue paper, the BPR team makes three critical assumptions that:
1) There is a sufficient funding source for filling the position.
2) After identifying a hiring need, the Hiring Manager has chosen to recruit through theCompetitive CS hiring mechanism. The team does not assume that the Hiring Manager has had a consultative conversation with an HR Specialist to determine if a competitive CS hire is, in fact,
2
the best way to meet their hiring need. The problem analysis section of this paper further discusses this point.
3) Each of the identified problems are inherently linked. There is significant overlap betweenthe problems and the corresponding recommendations.
Problem Analysis
Problem 1: USAID has not optimally engaged all actors in Civil Service hiring
Based on the focus group discussions, the BPR team determined that the major actors in a CS recruitment action at USAID are:
B/IO Hiring Manager; Administrative Management Services (AMS) Officer of the requesting B/IO; HCTM Civil Service Staffing Specialist assigned to the particular B/IO; and HCTM Classification Specialist.
While a formal and exclusive “Roles and Responsibilities” document does not exist for the CS hiring process, ADS Chapter 413 titled “Civil Service Appointments and Employment” outlines the overarching Agency-wide responsibilities. The actors listed in the ADS are consistent with the responses from focus group interviewees. The assignments for each actor correspond with OPM’s Hiring Elements End-to-End Hiring Roadmap. For reference, the relevant responsibility assignments are below as they are assigned in ADS Chapter 413.21. Note that the actions, order, and responsibility assignments derive directly from ADS 413.2. The BPR team does not consider this to be the intended business flow or responsibility assignments. This is to demonstrate the current state of agency guidance on the issue.
Action
Reporting recruitment
needs to HCTM
Deciding method of filling position
Submitting recruitment
documentation to HCTM
Classifying positions
Responsible Hiring Manager,
through AMS staff
HCTM, in consultation with
B/IO AMS HCTM
*The actions in this chart are the only actions listed in ADS 413 relevant to the pre-hiring phase.
The team also heard from many participants that they sometimes engage a Subject Matter Expert (SME) to assist in the review of documents for particular vacancies. This was most common in the Bureau for Economic Growth, Education and Environment and Global Health who tend to have more technical positions in their bureaus.
Overall, the theme was that each actor has a significant and meaningful role to play in the CS hiring process and USAID does not utilize the opportunity to capitalize on each actor’s value- add for a
1 “USAID ADS Chapter 413: Civil Service Appointments and Employment”. 2015. http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1877/413.pdf
3
variety of reasons. The review team identified four sub-problem areas regarding the actors and assesses them below.
1. Does each actor provide as much value-add as possible in their current role?The review team conducted focus group discussions from September 2014 – April 2015 with 51 of the primary actors in the recruitment process. The breakdown of the groups included 17 Human Resource Specialists (Staffing and Classification Specialists); 17 AMS Staff (AMS Leads and AMS Officers); and 17 Hiring Managers from 14 USAID B/IOs. Currently, most units operate in the manner outlined in the chart above. Each Staffing Specialist services a specific B/IO, with the hope that this will foster a relationship between the AMS Officer and HCTM, and the Staffing Specialist can gain familiarity with the types of positions that the B/IO typically fills. The review team sees the optimal role of each primary actor in the pre-hiring process as the following:
A Hiring Manager who has reviewed their staffing pattern and budgetary needs withtheir AMS Officer before reporting a recruitment need;
An HCTM Staffing Specialist who, once notified of the need, engages with the HiringManager before the recruitment documentation is prepared, to have a critical andconsistent consultative conversation about: the method of recruitment and the bestmethod for meeting their need; if the Hiring Manager would like to use/will need a SME;how widely the Hiring Manager would like to advertise, and the implications of thatdecision; the impact of veterans’ preference, if applicable; if the current positiondescription will need to be classified and the time implications of this process; andprovide any further hiring technical assistance; and
An AMS Officer who provides advice on how to complete the hiring package and isfamiliar enough with the B/IO to assist the Hiring Manager in preparing and reviewingthe final hiring package and identify any gaps before submitting to the HCTM HelpDesk, at which point HCTM begins measuring against USAID’s 110-day time-to-hiremetric.
2. Are the roles and responsibilities, as outlined in ADS 413 and in practice, appropriate andaccurate? Even if specific task assignments exist, the primary issue is that the duties often do not fall with whom they should. Of the Staffing Specialists, AMS Officers, and Hiring Managers interviewed, the assignment of nearly every task fell into the purview of a different party across B/IOs. These tasks, mentioned below, are the development of the position description, job analysis, and questions that will be included in the JOA. Due to this lack of understanding of who was responsible or available for completing certain critical tasks, the business flow often lags leaving less time for thoughtful review of each part of the process, shifting the focus to simply finishing the process. The review team found that the lack of codified roles and responsibilities allowed for each party to determine and interpret policy based on their knowledge of the subject. This lack of clarity also led to a lack of ownership of the process overall.
For example, if a Hiring Manager is new or infrequently hires Civil Servants, they sometimes defer to their AMS Officer for guidance on the hiring process. If this AMS Officer does not provide sufficient guidance to the Hiring Manager about how to move forward with the recruitment for a multitude of reasons – workload, lack of knowledge on the subject, personality/work style, etc. – time is often wasted during the back and forth of fixing mistakes or the AMS Officer being required to determine what the Hiring Manager really wants or needs. This same back and forth communication may take place if the Hiring Manager reaches out to their Staffing Specialist directly. Ultimately, the review
4
team believes that clarifying roles and responsibilities will relieve some of the common problems in the business flow discussed below.
The review team sees value in most of the current roles and responsibility assignments in both ADS chapters, but finds the list incomplete. This is also addressed below.
3. Are there processes that should have an owner and are not currently, formally assigned to aresponsible party? Through a series of focus group discussions, the review team found that some of the major roles and responsibilities for critical parts of the pre-hiring phase are not codified in the ADS or documents produced by HCTM, AMS Officers Council (AOC), or elsewhere. Therefore, the way in which each B/IO undertakes a recruitment action varies throughout the Agency. Some critical actions in the pre-hiring phase not assigned to responsible parties in the ADS are:
1. Position description development;2. Job analysis development; and3. The development of questions that will be included in the JOA.
The review team found that these steps were often the most confusing for stakeholders and resulted in the most back and forth communication. Issue Papers 2 and 3 on Position Descriptions and Job Analysis, respectively, discuss in further detail the process-based issues regarding these topics. What is important here is that the lack of ownership for any of these actions often places a “cog in the wheel” during the pre-hiring business workflow. To reduce errors, ensure consistency, and maintain expectations, it is important that these particular actions are given an owner.
4. Are there actors who should be more formally addressed in the pre-hiring phase?Some Hiring Managers indicated the need or desire to engage with a SME during the hiring process to review the recruitment package and the resumes and applications received, and/or participate in the interview panel. According to OPM, a SME is a “person with bona fide expert knowledge about what it takes to do a particular job. First-level supervisors are normally good SMEs. Superior incumbents in the same or very similar positions and other individuals can also be used as SMEs if they have current and thorough knowledge of the job's requirements".2 With their expertise, SMEs can provide important information and recommendations to the Staffing Specialist about the best ways to fill a vacancy. Most Hiring Managers indicated that they were not aware of how to pull a SME into the process or had actually been told by their servicing Staffing Specialist that they could not use a SME.
In turn, one Staffing Specialist provided the review team with an SOP on “Subject Matter Expert Involvement in the Hiring Process,” an example of SME Panel Instructions, and an SME Competency Panel Form. All of these documents proved to be useful in clarifying HCTM’s view of an SME’s role in the hiring process and how to select a SME. However, the problem is that the existence of these reference documents is not widely known or distributed across B/IOs. This particular specialist did share the documents with the B/IOs he serviced, but the documents are only effective when there is knowledge transfer. It should also be noted that the SME SOP makes a reference to AVUE, USAID’s
2 "Frequently Asked Questions Assessment Policy." U.S. Office of Personnel Management. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2015. <https://www.opm.gov/FAQs/QA.aspx?fid=a6da6c2e-e1cb-4841-b72d-53eb4adf1ab1&pid=c9d6d33b-a98c-45f5-ad76-497565d58bcf>.
5
former human resources hiring system, so that may be a reason why the SOP is no longer widely distributed. Regardless, the review team sees value in either updating or providing new guidance on using a SME in the hiring process and posting this guidance in a place that is accessible by all relevant parties.
Another actor to consider in the pre-hiring phase is the Office of Security (SEC). Discussed further in Issue Paper 2 on Position Descriptions and Classification, SEC could play a critical consultative role during the stage in which a Hiring Manager identifies the sensitivity designation for a position on the Optional Form-8 (OF-8). This sensitivity designation feeds into the eventual request for security clearance after the hiring office selects a candidate. A consultation between SEC, HCTM, and the Hiring Manager during the pre-hiring phase could assist in the portion of the hiring phase that includes clearance and on-boarding – particularly in the mitigation of initiating a clearance and investigation that is more than necessary for a given position.
Problem 2: The pre-hiring phase is inadequately mapped, measured, and documented in USAID policy.
Pre-Hiring Performance Indicators Partly due to the lack of a single owner for pre-hiring and the challenges of coordinating many different B/IOs participation, Agency-wide performance indicators for the entire pre-hiring phase do not exist3. However, a system for tracking pre-hiring efficiency via timeliness does exist through HCTM’s current HelpDesk system. It may be possible for the same system to also assist in tracking effectiveness via end of pre-hiring customer satisfaction surveys.
Each stakeholder in the CS hiring process at USAID provides critical value when it comes to hiring in an efficient (time) and effective (quality) manner. However, B/IOs do not always fully meet this potential, particularly because the pre-hiring process is inadequately mapped and documented. This gap in documentation allows each party to determine and interpret policy based on their knowledge of the subject, which in turn leads to widely varying processes across the Agency.
For example, of the Agency Hiring Managers interviewed, most indicated that they “infrequently” initiate a CS recruitment action. For the purposes of this review, the team has defined “infrequent” as less than three times in a calendar year. There are a variety of reasons for this – staffing patterns, funding, turnover rates, the multiple types of hiring mechanisms available to managers (Foreign Service, Fellowships, Pathways, Schedule A, etc.), and available time to focus on hiring. However,
3 HCTM’s Civil Service Personnel Customer Service Standards state that classification should take either 14 or 20 calendar days depending on the complexity of the classification request. The BPR team found considerable back and forth communication between HCTM and B/IOs happens around classification, primarily because of weak PD development. The 2015 version of the Human Capital Services Center Customer Service Standard includes performance metrics for some elements of the pre-hiring phase such as Classification and the receipt of a completed job analysis, but metrics have not been assigned or codified regarding the additional components of the pre-hiring phase, as outlined in the ‘To-Be Map’ in this paper. “USAID Human Capital Services Center Customer Service Standard Calendar Year 2015”. pp 28-29. https://pages.usaid.gov/system/files/hcsc_customer_service_standard_2015_final_7_14_2015_reduced.pdf
6
when Agency Hiring Managers do begin the process to recruit for a CS vacancy, many are unaware of where to begin. Most Hiring Managers reach out to their B/IO AMS Officer, as recommended in the ADS policy and is the most common practice, and indicate that they have a hiring need.
The next steps often vary based on the technicality of the position, but what remains is that the Hiring Manager’s specific value-add to the hiring process is often lost because of their unfamiliarity with their role. The same can be true for AMS Officers, depending on their level of expertise with the different phases of the hiring process, their workload, etc. Many Hiring Managers and AMS Officers expressed a desire to receive fundamental training that discusses their role in the process to ensure that they are able to navigate the process with minimal confusion and ultimately are able to select a high-quality candidate.
Also, AMS Officers play a critical role, but HCTM Staffing Specialists hold the technical expertise on recruitment as it currently exists. Many managers emphasized in focus group discussions that they would like to engage with their servicing HCTM Specialist earlier in the hiring process. Due to the incorrect notion of some Hiring Managers that they should not engage with HCTM without their AMS Officers, many Hiring Managers are under the impression that they are at the mercies of their AMS Officers when it comes to developing a thoughtful strategy for recruiting the best talent. It would be remiss to say that the Hiring Manager – AMS Officer – HCTM Specialist relationship was broken across B/IOs, but it is evident that there is lack of understanding about where each person fits in the process and the approach to hiring varies from procedural to being viewed as a customer service opportunity.
Through updated ADS policies, HCTM and B/IO guidance, SOPs, pre-hiring mapping, and adoption of standard performance indicators, Agency stakeholders will have the resources available to make more efficient and effective pre-hiring decisions.
ADS Policy The relevant ADS Chapters on CS hiring—101: Agency Programs and Functions; 413: Civil Service Appointments and Employment; 456: Personnel Operations: Position Classification; and 469: Civil Service Personnel Recruitment— are not robust and have not been recently updated. For example, the human resources section of ADS Chapter 101 was last updated in 2007 and ADS Chapter 456 last updated in 1998. ADS Chapter 413 was partially revised in 2015 but only with the an addition of new Internal Mandatory References, none relevant to the hiring process; and ADS Chapter 469 was last updated in 2012.
ADS Chapter 101 is currently under partial review4 by HCTM but the review team is not privy to which content will be updated. In addition, ADS Chapter 469 is scheduled to begin revision in 2015. ADS Chapter 501 on the Automated Directives System indicates that “POCs responsible for ADS material must regularly review their ADS chapters and references and modify the material where required to ensure that it is current and consistent with laws and regulations, and management practices. This includes determining when material is no longer relevant or necessary and can be archived.”5 As the formal policy guidance for the Agency, it is critical that all of these chapters not
4 “USAID ADS Chapters Under Review”. http://auslnxapvweb01.usaid.gov/ADS/chapterreview.html 5 “USAID ADS Chapter 501: The Automated Directives System (ADS)”. 2013. http://auslnxapvweb01.usaid.gov/ADS/500/501.pdf
7
1
only remain up-to-date but also provide useful information for Agency staff, particularly if FAQs or guidance do not exist on a platform accessible to all responsible parties.
HCTM and B/IO Developed Guidance Approximately 23 Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), checklists, or guidance documents were provided to the BPR team throughout the review of the planning and pre-hiring phase. Of these, only one of the documents, the Human Capital Service Center Customer Service Standard6, is posted online (via pages.usaid.gov or my.usaid.gov) for access by supervisory staff or anyone who may be interested in the CS hiring process. This lack of accessible guidance leads to many HR Specialists or AMS Officers developing their own tools. While these B/IO-specific tools are useful and sometimes necessary, it is imperative that standard procedures and appropriate roles and responsibilities are in place for both consistency and accountability.
Pre-Hiring Mapping USAID currently does not have a map of the pre-hiring phase of CS hiring. This phase can sometimes overlap with the actual 80-day hiring process, which is why the business workflow is somewhat problematic. If the hypothesis is that pre-hiring affects the 80-day hiring phase, it is likely that if the pre-hiring phase improves, the hiring phase (all controllable variables considered) will also improve. However, USAID has not previously identified the pre-hiring phase as a critical phase (outside of the workforce planning) that significantly affects hiring and that should be mapped, tracked, and standardized.
Recommendations
HCTM and the AMS Officers Council (AOC) clarify roles and responsibilities, specifically addressing each piece of the pre-hiring process with input from and concurrence with the Management Operations Council (MOC), and HCTM codify them in the ADS Chapters.
Rationale: Since the ADS serves as USAID’s official policy guidance, it is critical that it is both updated and robust, so that it is useful. It is often the first place that USAID staff look to find an answer about a process and if it is out-of-date or incomplete, staff will either be at a loss for where to look or will create their own process. To ensure consistency and transparency, the ADS should be more complete.
The review team recommends: HCTM annually review the relevant CS ADS policies via M/MPBP annual ADS Work Plan
meetings and update accordingly to coincide with any changes in OPM guidance or changesin HCTM management practices or procedures.
After coming to consensus with the AOC, HCTM assign an owner to and clearly identify therole and responsibility of HCTM, HMs, and AMS Officers regarding the development of theJob Analyses; Position Descriptions; and Qualification Questions in accordance with therecommendations in Issue Papers Two and Three for this BPR.
HCTM and the AOC gather input and concurrence with the MOC and codify in the ADS.
6 https://pages.usaid.gov/HCTM/hcsc-customer-service-standard-2015
8
2HCTM updates, augments, and maintains the “What We Provide” page on its intranet site with necessary SOPs, checklists, FAQs, and links them as mandatory references to the relevant ADS Chapters and OPM guidance.
Rationale: Many stakeholders in the hiring process indicated that they create personalized SOPs and checklists to assist them in the hiring process. However, some HR Specialists indicated that they provide guidance to the bureaus they service. To streamline this process and to ensure that all stakeholders are receiving the same reference documents, it makes sense to synthesize the various resources and upload them to a place where all who are interested can easily access them.
The review team recommends: HR Specialists (Recruitment and Classification Specialists) and AMS Officers (via the AOC and
bi-weekly AMS-HCTM meetings) work together to review and synthesize existing SOPs andguidance to develop a hiring Toolkit that includes:
o A “Decision Analysis Tool” that allows Hiring Managers to ask the critical questionsabout:
If competitive CS recruitment is the best way to meet their identified hiringneed; and
The time implications and level of effort expected of them in a CSrecruitment action.
o CS Recruitment checklist that outlines all of the required steps and documentationfor a complete hiring package,
o FAQs and guidance about: Recruitment Strategies Position Management Developing a Position Description Classification Position Sensitivity Designation Using a Subject Matter Expert Developing a Job Analysis Selection Questions for the Job Opportunity Announcement (JOA) Veterans’ Preference Requirements Information on USAID-only; U.S. Government-only; U.S. Citizens
advertisemento Forms or templates (such as OF-8, SF-52, etc.), ando Best practices or examples.
We recommend that all guidance be written in plain language for non-HCTM staff.*While recognizing that the internal structure of B/IOs varies, the review team does not findit necessary to remove all B/IO specific guidance. However, as a best practice, overall Agency-level processes should be standardized to greatest the extent possible.*
In addition to HCTM posting on the intranet site, all developed SOPs, checklists, and FAQsshould be included as mandatory references or help documents in the updated, relevantADS chapters.
Q
9
3
4
HCTM provides mandatory training on the Civil Service hiring process and related systems to all Hiring Managers and AMS Officers.
Rationale: Once the policy guidance and SOP updates are complete, all stakeholders should complete training on the most recent information. USAID currently requires mandatory training for all supervisors. This training is to occur upon appointment and reoccur every 3 years. However, the current supervisory training does not have a module focused on the actual role a hiring manger plays during a vacancy recruitment action, specifically in hiring a civil servant. Further, given that the interviewed Hiring Managers indicated only engaging in a CS recruitment action one to three times a year, a training and refresher on the process and updated policies and procedures should be in place and made available on the Manager’s Resources page on the HCTM intranet site.
The review team recommends the following: HCTM and the AOC work together to develop a 30-minute, online training specifically on the
CS hiring process that includes information on:1. The Hiring Manager’s specific roles and responsibilities in the process;2. Where to find hiring resources on USAID or OPM websites; and3. The related systems.
After the decision has been made to recruit for a vacancy, Hiring Managers must take themandatory training before moving forward with the request to their AMS Officer. HiringManagers need not take this training more than once per year, but a downloadabletranscript of the training should be made available to them as a resource.
AMS Officers must not move forward with a recruitment request until Hiring Managers havecompleted the mandatory training on CS hiring and related systems.
HCTM and the AOC work with the M Bureau to finalize the new planning and pre-hiring map and set time standards.
Rationale: The current HCTM “Civil Service Delegated Examining/Merit Promotion Hiring Process” Map7 serves as a useful reference to the major hiring stakeholders at USAID. Maps are more visually appealing than ADS policy chapters and allow for a quicker way to understand the time and process expectations for hiring at USAID. The new planning and pre-hiring map identifies key steps and decision points during this stage in a detailed way. Given the BPR team’s hypothesis that the planning and pre-hiring stage greatly influences the overall time-to-hire, providing a supplement to the current map with a resource that clearly outlines this stage will benefit all stakeholders in the overall hiring process.
The review team recommends that all relevant stakeholders – HCTM, AOC and M Bureau - finalize and rollout the planning and pre-hiring map by December 31, 2015.
7 See Annex G: USAID Civil Service Delegated Examining/Merit Promotion Hiring Process Map.
Q
10
5Through coordination of the Management Operations Council (MOC), HCTM and B/IOs adopt agreed upon performance indicators for pre-hiring and conduct performance management. Additionally, HCTM and B/IOs hold an annual statistical review of performance indicator data at a MOC meeting and discuss how to improve.
The BPR Team recommends the following performance indicators:
Efficiency Indicator 1: Number of days to conduct pre-hire.
Measured from 1) the day a B/IO submits request to HCTM for pre-hiring support until 2)the B/IO submits a final and complete recruitment package to HCTM.
Averaged and disaggregated by 1) whether a PD was classified for the hiring action or not,and 2) Bureau and Independent Office (B/IO).
Efficiency Indicator 2: Number of days to conduct classification.
Measured from 1) the date B/IO submits complete package of classification materials toHCTM until 2) HCTM notifies B/IO that classification is finished. This does not include anyhiring actions without a classification request.
Averaged and disaggregated by Bureau and Independent Office (B/IO).
Effectiveness Indicator 1: Customer satisfaction
Measured by survey to Hiring Manager soon after pre-hiring process, preferably at time ofselection or decision not to hire via the conducted pre-hiring actions. This will enable fullestevaluation of the pre-hiring actions by the Hiring Manager.
Issues to query in the pre-hiring customer service survey:o HM satisfaction with HCTM support during pre-hire.o HM satisfaction with AMS support during pre-hire.o HM satisfaction with quality and timeliness of the position description and job
analysis produced.o HM satisfaction with quality and quantity of candidates on the selection
certificate(s). HCTM may wish to survey their own Staffing Specialist staff on the same questions to
compare perspectives and find opportunities to improve the pre-hiring process.
Rationale: In combination with updated ADS policies, HCTM and B/IO guidance, SOPs, pre-hiring mapping, and adoption of standard performance indicators, these indicators will empower Agency staff to effectively conduct performance management of pre-hiring assessing both efficiency and effectiveness. Since pre-hiring can greatly influence the overall time-to-hire, performance management will aid not only pre-hiring activities but also the overall hiring effectiveness. Holding an annual statistical review of performance data at the MOC will ensure accountability for results and provide a venue for discussing results and how to improve.
Q
1
“The purpose of a PD is…not to spell out in detail every possible activity during the work day.”
OPM.gov “Classification FAQs” http://www.opm.gov/faqs/topic/classification/index.aspx?page=1
Issue 2: Position Descriptions and Classification
This issue paper examines USAID’s Civil Service (CS) pre-hiring process as it pertains to position descriptions (PDs) and classification. It discusses findings and provides recommendations to streamline and clarify the process by which PDs are developed and classified.
Issue Statement
Currently, the process by which USAID develops, stores, updates, and classifies PDs is confusing and inconsistent across and within USAID’s Bureaus and Independent Offices (B/IOs), whether for a backfill or brand new position. Furthermore, the Hiring Manager’s (HM) level of engagement varies depending on the B/IO and his or her understanding of the hiring process. These disparities cause frustration for the staff involved; time delays in the process; the use of PDs that are potentially weak, outdated, or overly detailed; and ultimately, an inadequate candidate pool. Weaknesses in this step can negatively impact the steps that follow, including job analysis, screening, and selection.
Background
What is a position description? A PD is a statement of the major duties, responsibilities, and supervisory relationships of a position. In its simplest form, a PD indicates the work to be performed by the position.1
According to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)2, it is up to each Federal agency to decide who will be responsible for preparing a PD, depending on the individual circumstances within an organization. At USAID, PDs generally must be written in accordance with the Factor Evaluation System3, in which the major duties are described in terms of nine evaluation factors, including knowledge required by the position, supervisory controls, complexity, physical demands, etc. PDs for supervisory positions are outlined differently with fewer factors. Detailed guidance for developing a PD can be found in “The Classifier’s Handbook.”4
OPM does not maintain a library of PDs and directs employees to their agency’s human resources office in order to access PDs for that agency. Thus, it is implied that the human resources unit within an agency is responsible for maintaining and storing its agency’s PDs.
What is classification? Position classification is a process through which Federal positions, using the PD, are assigned to a pay system, job series, title, and pay grade or band, based on consistent application of position
1 OPM’s FAQs, http://www.opm.gov/faqs/topic/classification/index.aspx?page=1. 2 OPM’s “The Classifier’s Handbook.” 3 ADS 456.3.2.3, Writing Position Descriptions. 4 OPM’s “The Classifier’s Handbook;” https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/classification-qualifications/classifying-general-schedule-positions/classifierhandbook.pdf
2
“Since supervisors and managers play major roles in the
management and classification of subordinate positions, they are responsible for assuring a sound position structure in the
organizations they lead.”
OPM’s “Introduction to the Position Classification Standards”
classification standards.5 When a PD is classified, it is assigned a unique numerical identifier called a job code.
What are position classification standards? Position classification standards provide a common reference across organizations, locations, and agencies for classifying positions and usually include a description of the work performed, official job titles, and criteria for determining grade levels.6
Why are position descriptions and classification important? The PD is the first step in a continuum of interrelated documents and information. It is a key resource in defining and describing the important duties during job analysis, which in turn informs the choice of questions that will be included in the Job Opportunity Announcement (JOA).
Furthermore, PDs and classification play an important role in position management. Agencies have the authority, and the responsibility, to establish, manage, and classify their own positions with the goal of achieving the right structure and blend of skills and assignments to carry out the organization’s mission. Good position management requires the establishment of an economical and efficient position structure that has the right balance between employees carrying out the major functions of the organization and those who provide support. Consideration of grade level, which is determined when a PD is developed and classified, is critical to ensuring effective position management and that grade levels do not exceed what is necessary to perform the work. Position management includes ensuring that the duties and responsibilities listed in the PD are commensurate with the stated job series, ensuring that the appropriate grade level is assigned, scrutinizing the staffing pattern to ensure that the grade level fits within the organizational structure, and ensuring that the position is reporting to the appropriate grade level.
How do position descriptions relate to security and background investigations? The PD is the primary document used in determining the requisite level of risk, sensitivity, and investigation for a particular position. Employing agencies are required to assess the level of risk (low, moderate, or high) associated with a position, as determined by “the position’s potential for adverse impact to the efficiency or integrity of the service.”7 A position of moderate or high level risk is designated as one of Public Trust.8 At the same time, agencies must designate the sensitivity level (Non-Sensitive, Noncritical-Sensitive, Critical-Sensitive, or Special-Sensitive) of each position depending on the degree of material adverse effect on the national security the occupant could bring about by virtue of the nature of the position.9 This sensitivity level is recorded in the position description cover sheet, OF-8. The determination of the nature of the position and its sensitivity level includes a determination of the employee’s need for access to classified information, which
5 OPM’s “Introduction to the Position Classification Standards.” 6 OPM’s “Introduction to the Position Classification Standards.” 7 5 CFR 731.106 (a), Designation of public trust positions and investigative requirements, Risk designation. 8 5 CFR 731.106(b), Designation of public trust positions and investigative requirements, Public Trust position. 9 5 CFR 732.201, Designation and Investigative Requirements, Sensitivity level designations and investigative requirements.
3
informs whether it is a National Security position10 and what type of clearance the employee may need (Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, SCI, etc.).11 The combined assessment of the risk level and the sensitivity level of a position determines what type of background investigation is required and how closely a prospective employee is screened.12 The different types of background investigations increase in time and complexity starting with basic credit checks and progressing to include checks of law enforcement databases; written inquiries to employers, schools, and references; and interviews.13 OPM has established the Position Designation System (PDS)14 to guide agencies through the various steps of these analyses.
Problem Analysis
Problem 1: Decentralized Storage of PDs
Storage of PDs is decentralized with most B/IOs maintaining their own PD libraries. While Human Capital and Talent Management (HCTM) maintains a more comprehensive library on a SharePoint site15 and its own shared drive, access to the drive is only available to HCTM employees. These disparate PD sources lead to inconsistencies both in the actual job descriptions and in the numbers assigned to them, creating confusion and extra work.
Findings:
The system previously used by USAID to post JOAs, AVUE, also served as the storage facilityfor PDs. When USAID stopped using AVUE several years ago, HCTM transferred the PDs to anetwork drive.
One senior Administrative Management Services (AMS) Officer commented that theSharePoint site does not appear to contain a complete library of all PDs that were housed inAVUE.
In all focus groups, HCTM staff, AMS Officers, and HMs indicated that the PDs used to fillvacant positions (when not created from scratch) all come from different places, includingAMS Officer and HM personal files, B/IO PD electronic libraries, HCTM’s library, and B/IOphysical binders.
In several focus groups, AMS Officers and HMs described multiple incidents where the PDprovided by a B/IO and a PD for the same position provided by HCTM had different PDnumbers.
Several AMS Officers have noted that they will search for a specific PD number in HRConnect and are unable to find it. HR Connect is USAID’s personnel system where itprocesses actions related to an employee’s personal and position information.
Problem 2: Lack of Knowledge and Engagement in the Development and Reclassification of PDs
The quality of PDs suffers because HMs and AMS Officers either do not always understand or receive inconsistent guidance regarding what must be included in a PD for classification purposes and what triggers the need to re-classify it. This leads to PDs that must be re-written because they
10 Designation of National Security Positions in the Competitive Service, and Related Matters, 80 Fed. Reg. 108 (June 5, 2015) (5 CFR Chapter IV). 11 Executive Order 12968, Access to Classified Information. 12 https://www.opm.gov/investigations/background-investigations/position-designation-tool/#Automated-Tool 13 http://news.clearancejobs.com/2011/10/09/security-clearance-investigations-process-updated/ 14 https://www.opm.gov/investigations/background-investigations/position-designation-tool/oct2010.pdf 15 http://sharepoint.usaid.gov/teams/pd_library/default.aspx
4
don’t meet the standards for classification; are too specific and must be constantly re-classified after more duties have been added; or did not attract the right candidates. This problem adds time to the process, increases workload unnecessarily, adds more PDs to the already overwhelming number at USAID, and may require the Agency to re-advertise the position.
Findings:
AMS Officers indicated that HMs are not always involved enough in either writing a new PDor reviewing and providing input into an existing PD, leaving the AMS Officer to write andmake substantive changes to PDs. Conversely, Classification Specialists indicated that HMsare too involved and make numerous modifications and additions to PDs.
Several AMS Officers expressed confusion over having received conflicting informationabout the level of detail that should be included in a PD.
The Agency is creating an excess of new PDs because old ones did not get the qualitycandidates for which a HM was looking.
Classification Specialists said that they often receive PDs for classification that do notadequately represent and substantiate duties commensurate to the grade and positionbeing sought.
Classification Specialists stated that a PD need only be re-classified when changes are madeto the major duties per OPM’s Classification Standards. Furthermore, they could not alwaystell what was new or changed in a PD submitted to them for classification. They wastedtime examining the PD only to find that there were no changes major enough to warrant re-classification.
Both Staffing and Classification Specialists stated, in all focus groups, that the PD is not theappropriate place to include the specific duties for a specific person. Those duties should becaptured in the employee’s performance plan.
HCTM staff also stated that particular needs for a position may also be articulated in the JOAwithout resorting to modifying, and potentially re-classifying, the PD. However, AMSOfficers indicated that this standard is not consistently applied by HCTM staff.
In all focus groups, AMS Officers, HCTM staff, and HMs indicated that there was a lot ofback-and-forth and time wasted in revising and finalizing modifications to a PD.
Problem 3: Too Many Position Descriptions
There are too many PDs at USAID, more than actual employees, creating confusion for employees, HMs, and others. Some instances include: PDs that are outdated; employees “sitting” on the wrong, possibly unclassified, PD; and PDs containing the wrong titles and job series.
Findings:
Some HMs and Classification Specialists indicated thatthey will approve the use of an old, possibly outdated,PD in order to save time.
AMS Officers and HCTM staff indicated that there arecases where the same position has multiple, different PD numbers and where there are oldPDs that have the wrong series and title.
Some AMS Officers noted that discrepancies in PD numbers could be related toreorganizations. There appears to be a disconnect between a reorganization and the people
“The description of each position must be kept up to date and
include information about the job which is significant to its
classification.”
OPM’s “Introduction to the Position Classification Standards”
5
“sitting” on the wrong PD. A lot of reorganization issues are affecting hiring because USAID did not appropriately update PDs during a reorganization.
One HM manager described a situation where a potential PD could not be used to fill aposition because it could not be found in HCTM’s PD library; therefore, HCTM was unable toconfirm that it was classified. Surprisingly, there was already another, current employeeassigned to that same PD.
Problem 4: Lack of Analysis in Determining Appropriate Position Sensitivity Level USAID may not appropriately analyze the amount of risk associated with a position when choosing the sensitivity level in the PD cover sheet, OF-8. This lack of analysis in the pre-hiring phase may lead to many positions being improperly designated.
Findings:
SEC indicated that there may not be adequate analysis of whether a position is Non-Sensitive, one of Public Trust, or one requiring access to classified information.
The number of employees that each agency determines are eligible for access to classifiedinformation should be kept to a minimum required for the conduct of agency functions.16
While all positions require that a sensitivity level be assigned, not all positions require accessto classified documents. Agency policy is currently being revised to remove the requirementfor all direct hire employees to maintain a secret clearance.17 Background investigationsand security clearances are aligned with the position designation.
Different types of investigations can vary in cost, and higher sensitivity designations andclearances require a more comprehensive background investigation, both for the initialinvestigation and any subsequent re-investigation.
OPM offers an automated, online position designation tool18 that assists in determining theappropriate sensitivity level for a given position. The tool is available to everyone on theOPM website and is “required for all positions in the competitive service,….”19; due to thecomplexity of the various analyses required, OPM offers a brief (2.5 hours) in-persontraining on the PDS20. This training is heavily geared toward human resource specialists.
Classification Specialists are trained in the PDS and use the online tool to finalize thesensitivity designation on the OF-8. However, deference is often given to the designationgiven by the AMS Officer or HM because they have the most knowledge about the duties ofthe position. Nevertheless, the PD should contain enough information for the Classifier toassess the risk and sensitivity levels of a position.
Classification Specialists save a print screen of the results of the automated tool, thoughthese saved results are not attached to the associated PD.
AMS Officers tend to choose the sensitivity level based on past practice for similar positions.For example, an AMS Officer may choose the same sensitivity level for all Civil Service directhires and a different level for all Foreign Service Officers (FSO).
16 Executive Order 12968, Access to Classified Information, Part 2, Sec. 2.1(b). 17 ADS Chapter 566. 18 OPM Background Investigations, Position Designation Tool; https://www.opm.gov/investigations/background-investigations/position-designation-tool/#Automated-Tool 19 OPM Notice No. 10-06, Position Designation Requirements, August 11, 2010. 20 https://www.opm.gov/investigations/background-investigations/agency-training/position-designation/
6
1
SEC is not involved in the pre-hiring phase. The OF-8 is filled-out by the HM or AMS Officerand is submitted to HCTM. SEC never sees the OF-8. Once a candidate selection has beenmade in the recruitment phase, form AID 6-1, Request for Security Action, is submitted toSEC by HCTM with the position designation information to initiate a backgroundinvestigation.
Currently, there is no training offered to HMs or AMS Officers in conducting the requiredrisk assessment and sensitivity selection, and there is no documentation required to justifythe selection made on the OF-8.
Recommendations
HCTM should devote resources to update, purge, consolidate, and standardize existing PDs for major job series, in collaboration with B/IOs. This streamlining should address, at a minimum, those PDs that are electronically stored in its own library and by the B/IOs.
Rationale: This BPR found that there are a large number of PDs at USAID, more than is necessary for the number of Civil Service employees. There are out-of-date PDs that no longer accurately reflect the major duties and responsibilities of the positions they describe, PDs that should no longer be in use because they are previous versions of a PD that USAID has now updated and reclassified, and multiple PDs for similar positions across the Agency. The volume of PDs, along with the potential for using a PD that is no longer accurate, makes it extremely difficult to conduct good position management and ensure that the position structure in place at USAID is as efficient and as economical as possible.
Per USAID policy21, which states that Civil Service position classifications “shall be maintained in a current manner,” USAID should streamline and clean up the universe of PDs, and eliminate any outdated, duplicative, and unclassified PDs. Furthermore, each current employee should be attached to an accurate, up-to-date, classified PD contained in their Electronic Official Personnel Folder with the correct title and job series; this will provide HMs and HCTM the ability to plan for and perform solid position management. USAID/Washington should conduct maintenance reviews of one-third of all its positions annually in accordance with USAID policy.22
Additionally, HCTM should implement its plan to standardize PDs, i.e., create generic PDs, for major job series in a way that makes sense for B/IOs, provides flexibility where required, and allows for greater specification in the JOA and screen-out questions, as appropriate. This BPR found that while standardized, generic PDs have the potential to provide time savings and streamlining during the pre-hiring phase, standardization will not be possible in every job series or grade level. HCTM should work with the B/IOs to standardize where it is practical to do so and where a generic PD will still attract high-quality candidates. B/IOs should be encouraged to use these standardized PDs, and the corresponding job analyses and JOAs, as much as possible, for future hiring actions.
21 ADS 456.3.2, Position Classification – Civil Service. 22 ADS 456.3.2.5, Classification Accuracy and Maintenance Reviews.
7
2
3
Provide training, tools, and support, in accordance with the Business Flow recommendations, to HMs and AMS Officers that:
Provide for early engagement between the HM, AMS Officers, and Classification andStaffing Specialists in order to discuss the appropriate PD, job series, and grade levelfor a vacant position;
Use consistent, plain language throughout;
Stress the importance of HM engagement in providing an accurate PD ultimatelyleading to a strong JOA that will attract quality candidates;
Explain what kind of information OPM requires in order to successfully classify a PDfor the requested series and grade;
Clarify the use of the JOA and performance plan as the appropriate place for detailand specificity.
Rationale: This BPR found that there is a general lack of knowledge not only about how the Agency should formulate a PD and what is required by classification, but about how the PD connects to other steps in the process, including position management, job analysis, and JOAs. Many HMs either do not hire often enough or are Foreign Service Officers serving in Washington and do not have enough experience with competitive Civil Service (CS) hiring to feel comfortable with the process. AMS Officers also have varying levels of human resources expertise depending on their grade level and how much CS hiring their particular B/IO is engaged in.
In conjunction with the recommendations made in the Business Flow Issue Paper and in order to provide continuity and consistency across B/IOs, the mandatory training for HMs and AMS Officers, along with the online toolkit, should demonstrate where PDs and classification fit within the pre-hiring phase and how PDs connect to the job analysis. HMs should understand the importance of the PD in ensuring they attract high-quality candidates and be strongly encouraged to take the time to review and provide input into the PD. They, along with AMS Officers, should also have a clear understanding of the kind of changes that require re-classification and what information to include in a PD for classification purposes. HMs and AMS Officers should understand the role the PD plays in position management and as a primarily grade-controlling document, not a scope of work. Furthermore, they should understand the level of specificity required for a PD and what documents are most suitable for addressing more specific job details and duties without having to modify and re-classify a PD, thus saving time.
Centrally and electronically store all classified PDs for CS positions and related documents and templates, including job analyses and JOA questions, with access for HCTM, AMS Officers, and HMs. Eliminate separate B/IO libraries, and mandate the use of the central database as the sole repository and source for classified PDs.
Rationale: This BPR found that there was no consistency in PD storage and little to no quality control for ensuring that available PDs, wherever they are located, are up-to-date, accurate, and fully classified. Because PDs are stored in so many different places, even if the Agency
Q
8
4
removes an outdated PD from one storage area, it may remain accessible elsewhere. Over time, the disparities in these separate PD libraries will only increase, with multiple PDs for the same position and which have minor and major differences from one another. USAID wastes time in an ongoing back and forth between the stakeholders as they attempt to resolve the differences and come to consensus on the PD to use for the job vacancy at issue. These differences only serve to create confusion in the communication between HMs, AMS Officers, and HCTM staff and create time delays in the business workflow.
Storing all classified PDs in a single, central database and which is accessible not only by HCTM staff, but by AMS Officers and HMs as well, will eliminate this confusion and the time wasted in resolving it. It will ensure that all stakeholders are on the same page earlier on in the hiring process. The database should be the only source from which to pull classified PDs and would, ideally, be searchable by position title, key word, grade level, series, and PD number. Additionally, because the PD is central to describing the duties of a position as part of the job analysis, which in turn forms the basis of the JOA questions, the database should also centrally store this information alongside the PDs, for ease of use by all stakeholders.
Provide guidance to HMs and AMS Officers on determining a position’s level of risk and designating the appropriate position sensitivity level for security purposes. Encourage increased early communication and discussion between the AMS Officer, HM, and Classification Specialist to ensure the appropriate amount of analysis and consideration of the various steps in the Position Designation System.
Rationale: This BPR found that not enough analysis is conducted to determine the risk level, sensitivity level, and need for access to classified information for a position. The sensitivity level chosen on the OF-8 will impact what required clearance level is stated in the JOA and what type of investigation is later requested and performed by SEC in the Request for Security Action (AID 6-1). If the HM or AMS Officer chooses a higher than necessary sensitivity level, time and money will be wasted in conducting an investigation that is more complicated than necessary, not only during the initial investigation but during any required reinvestigations.23 Conversely, if the HM or AMS Officer chooses a lower than required sensitivity level, key positions (e.g., individuals with fiduciary responsibilities, IT administrators with privileged access, policymakers, etc.) may be encumbered by individuals who have not had the requisite investigation for the public trust level of the position.
The number of employees at an agency with access to classified information “shall be kept to the minimum required for the conduct of agency functions.”24 The more employees that potentially have access to classified documents, the greater risk to the Agency, our national security, and themselves. Therefore, it behooves the Agency to ensure its position sensitivity levels are correctly designated such that employees have access only to the information they need to perform their job. HCTM should provide the appropriate training, guidance, and help documents to HMs and AMS Officers to assist them in conducting the complicated, and sometimes confusing, analysis required to choose the correct sensitivity level.
23 5 CFR 732.203, Periodic reinvestigation requirements. 24 Executive Order 12968, Access to Classified Information, Part 2, Sec. 2.1(b).
Q
1
Issue 3: Job Analysis and Pre-Screening
This issue paper examines the job analysis aspects of USAID’s current competitive Civil Service (CS) hiring up to General Schedule (GS) 15. It discusses findings and provides recommendations regarding the most appropriate way to achieve improved efficiency and effectiveness of job analysis.
Issue Statement
Currently, USAID splits the job analysis between the Hiring Manager (HM) and Administrative Management Services (AMS) Officer with limited and inconsistent support from Human Capital and Talent Management (HCTM). Available reference documents are insufficient to guide and empower Bureaus and Independent Offices (B/IOs) staff to conduct effective job analysis which slows down the activity and results in weak job analysis. Weak job analysis leads to delays later in the process and lack of high-quality candidates on selection certificates. Pre-screening activities directly related to job analysis are not consistently conducted at the same time as job analysis.
Background
What is job analysis? Pursuant to 5 CFR 300.103, Federal Government employment practices must be based on job analyses that identify the basic duties and responsibilities of a position; the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) required to perform those duties; and the factors that are important in evaluating candidates. At USAID, this job analysis typically consists of listing the duties of a position; linking each duty to a specific KSA, or competency; and using the identified competencies to decide what questions will be asked in the Job Opportunity Announcement (JOA).
Why do job analysis? In terms of the overall hiring process, job analysis is done to support effective recruitment and selection, particularly through identification of assessment questions for the JOA. Hence, quality job analysis enables strong assessment questions, which allow for better screening of applicants and improved referrals of qualified candidates for consideration and selection. Job analysis also serves to document USAID’s hiring practices in case of any legal challenges.1
What are the steps of job analysis? The steps taken to complete job analysis include:
1 http://www.opm.gov/faqs/topic/assessment/?cid=53ba7f0d-6d08-4b1d-aa0f-1688056c7b7b&page=1
"39% of federal Hiring Managers reported candidates on selection certificates could
not do the job being recruited for.”
April 7, 2015 Partnership for Public Service event "The Hiring Process: Identifying and Addressing Critical Barriers"
“The greater the Hiring Manager's involvement and contribution . . . the more likely they are to receive high-
quality candidates.”
OPM.gov “Job Analysis FAQ” 1
2
Listing the important duties of the position; Linking duties to competencies needed to successfully perform the position at the identified grade
level; Identifying competencies needed at entry and weighting all competencies based on ability to
distinguish superior performance; and Ensuring competencies are valid, consistent, and job-related.
What Pre-Screening steps related to job analysis will also be considered in this section?
Developing a specialized experience statement; Choosing JOA questions, including screen-outs, based on the competencies identified; Identifying and using SMEs; Choosing interview questions; and Identifying interview panel membership and availability.
Problem Analysis
Problem 1: Misalignment of Job Analysis Expertise and Lack of Collaboration Between HCTM and B/IO Staff HCTM staff understand the purpose, process, and deliverables of job analysis. However, B/IO staff are expected to conduct job analysis and they lack sufficient understanding of job analysis’s purpose, process, and how it impacts quality and efficiency of hiring, including at later steps such as the creating the JOA and selection certificates. The misalignment of knowledge and lack of collaboration between HCTM and B/IO staff leads to weak and delayed job analysis.
Findings:
In two HM and all AMS Officers’ focus group discussions, an overarching theme cited was that jobanalysis had formerly been an automated processwithin the AVUE application, but now is aresponsibility of the B/IO despite insufficientsupport and training.
All AMS Officers focus groups reported challengesconducting job analysis because they serve asproxies but lack both the HM’s knowledge of thejob need and HCTM staff’s expertise in jobanalysis;
Out of five case studies, twice HMs commentedthat they did not have knowledge regarding whyor how job analysis is done, and in a third casestudy, HCTM staff commented that job analysiswent well as a result of the AMS Officer’sbackground in human resources.2
All three Staffing Specialist focus groups
2 https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-improving-federal-recruitment-and-hiring-process
“Agency heads shall . . . require that managers and supervisors with
responsibility for hiring are more fully involved in the hiring process, including planning current and future workforce
requirements, identifying the skills required for the job, and engaging
actively in the recruitment and, when applicable, the interviewing process.”
May 11, 2010 Presidential Memorandum "Improving the Federal Recruitment and Hiring Process"2
3
commented on the challenges when they do not receive quality job analyses from B/IO staff that are specific and appropriate to the position and grade level sought.
Problem 2: Insufficient Standard Operating Procedures, Tools, and Direct Support Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and tools are either nonexistent or insufficiently tailored to the HMs and AMS Officers who rely on them. In particular, most HMs infrequently engage in Civil Service hiring actions and require user-friendly SOPs and job aids.
Findings:
Paperwork for supporting and completing job analysis is unnecessarily voluminous and unclear.The Agency uses four different forms to list duty statements, link them to ranked and weightedcompetencies, and recommend competencies on which applicants will be assessed at each grade inthe JOA.
In USAID Job Analysis SOPs, which are provided upon request, language is inconsistent. The SOPsuse multiple terms throughout without clarity as to differentiations and inter-connectedness.o At least five different terms are used for ‘competency’: critical work behaviors; characteristics;
competencies; knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs); and factor/rating factor;o Other language is also confusing and unnecessarily varied, such as use of both screen-out
questions and selective factors; ando The Subject Matter Expert (SME) SOP states that a SME should not take part in both pre and
post certificate reviews, but does not clearly distinguish the two different roles or how theyadd value to and improve the process.
Examples in job analysis SOPs are not always sufficient to aid the end user. The need for quality hiring support is demonstrated by the various B/IOs that, since losing AVUE’s
capability to automate job analysis, have hired AMS Officers with human resource experience toaccommodate the lack of support for job analysis.
In focus groups, both AMS Officers and HMs indicated that HCTM staff had provided them withresources on OPM's Multipurpose Occupational Systems Analysis Inventory - Close-Ended(MOSAIC) methodology and identified competencies, but that they were not trained on and did notknow how to use it to support job analysis.
In every HM focus group, HMs described:o Lack of guidance from HCTM in terms of SOPs, templates, and support for job analysis;o AMS Officers doing most of the job analysis
and reusing old job analyses to shortentimeframes; and
o Considerable lack of understanding andconfusion about SMEs, particularlyregarding pre and post certificate reviews,and how they could get better qualitycandidates by using SMEs.
All three Staffing Specialist focus groups discussed weak job analysis and poor use of SMEs resulting in difficulties with the selection certificate–time to process, selection of, and number of eligible
“If you don’t have a strong vacancy announcement, if you don’t view your HR
specialist as consultant prior to posting the vacancy announcements, then you
are going to get people not qualified for your job.”
- Tania Allen, Veterans Employment Program3
Manager, EPA3
4
1
candidates.3 B/IO staff expressed confusion and reported differing guidance on topics that SOPs or direct
consultation with HCTM should address, such as screen-out questions, role of SMEs, and number ofcompetencies and JOA questions allowed or suggested.
Problem 3: Inconsistent Timing and Linking of Related Activities Job analysis is not consistently performed at the same point in time in the process. Additionally, related activities such as development of JOA questions including screen-outs, identifying and using SMEs, identifying interview panel membership, and choosing interview questions are currently performed later in the process. These are all inherently linked to job analysis, achieving better quality candidates on selection certificates, and preparing for later screening of candidates. Efficiencies could be achieved by grouping these activities together.
Findings: The map of the pre-hiring phase, developed with the support of the AMS Officers Council, shows submission of the recruitment package before submission of the job analysis. The HCTM map of the hiring phase shows the job analysis being submitted as part of the recruitment package. This is important because the SF-52 is the Request for Personnel Action and should be a complete and final package that marks the end of the pre-hiring phase and the beginning of the recruitment phase. Job analysis, JOA questions including screen-outs, use of SMEs, interview questions, and reference
checks are all part of a continuum of related activities to screen applicants, establish Certificates ofEligibles, and make a strong selection but they are not planned or conducted in a coordinatedstrategic manner.
Staffing Specialists, AMS Officers, and HMs all reported that developing JOA questions, use andselection of SMEs, identifying interview panel members and ensuring their availability, anddetermining a reference check procedure occur much later than job analysis and completing the PDclassification, which separates related screening activities. This separation creates delays whichslow down recruitment—both from USAID’s and from applicants’ perspectives.
Recommendations
Conduct a quality review of and update all screening SOPs and tools, with particular attention to:
Use consistent language throughout;
Optimize ease of use for HMs who conduct job analysis infrequently;
Streamline the SOPs, in particular consolidate all aspects of selecting, linking, ranking,and weighting competencies;
Guide HMs in developing and employing a holistic screening approach including jobanalysis, use of SMEs, JOA questions, interview questions, and reference checks;
Standardize the timing of position description development, job analysis, and JOAquestion selection as simultaneous/immediately following each other;
3 Quote from November 2014 “Rethinking People Strategies in Government” Conference as quoted in Government Executive, January/February 2015 edition “Can’t hire, can’t fire” p16.
Q
5
2 Q
3 Q
Q
Provide practical guidance on the linkage from job analysis to JOA questions includingscreen-outs to quality of candidates on selection certificates; and
Clarify and distinguish the SME purpose, process, and deliverables for both pre and postcertificate SME reviews.
Rationale: This BPR found that most HMs reused previous job analysis or had their AMS Officer complete job analysis. Simultaneously, AMS Officers reported challenges doing job analysis well since they lack both the specific knowledge of the hiring need that the HM possesses and the job analysis expertise of HCTM staff.
Improved clarity, usability, and standardization of job analysis SOPs and tools will speed up the process. Furthermore, improved quality of job analysis and improved use of SMEs will result in better JOA assessments and improved quality of candidates on selection certificates. Improving HM and AMS Officer understanding of the interconnected nature of position description development, job analysis, and JOA questions, SME reviews, and standardizing the aligned completion of each will save time, improve quality of candidates on Certificates of Eligibles, and ensure that both the HM and AMS Officer are providing maximum value in the process.
Continue and advance the HCTM practice of engaging B/IOs earlier in the pre-hiring phase by having HCTM Specialists provide direct support to HMs in completing job analysis and developing a comprehensive screening approach utilizing JOA questions, interview questions, pre and post certificate SME reviews, and other techniques. Job Analysis should be completed by the HM with HCTM support.
Rationale: Improved direct support from HCTM on the purpose, value, and process of completing job analysis and will help ensure consistent, valid, and job-related job analysis. Improved HCTM direct support for developing and employing a comprehensive screening approach will lead to improved quality of candidates on selection certificates. It will also lead to better coordination between HCTM and HMs, resulting in streamlined screening at the interview stage and better selections for HMs and reduced time for HCTM staff creating Certificates of Eligibles. All available and appropriate techniques should be considered for the screening strategy, including pre and post certificate SMEs, JOA questions including screen-outs, interview questions, reference checks, and other techniques.
Simultaneous to job analysis and with support from HCTM Specialists, HMs should develop and select JOA questions, including screen-outs, and related screening techniques such as identifying areas of consideration (JOA type) and any SME.
Rationale: While not technically part of job analysis, job analysis naturally leads to developing the rest of the screening strategy. Rather than break these up as separate activities which requires HMs to “connect the dots” after the fact, it is more efficient and effective to conduct these activities as simultaneously as possible. The “to be” pre-hiring map provided in Section II of this BPR
6
5
4
report breaks down these activities into steps with allotted time frames to capture the efficiencies of improved organization.
Currently, these activities are conducted later after USAID classifies the PD. With PD classification improved through the recommendations found in this BPR and with strong HCTM Specialist support, earlier implementation of these activities will link similar work sequentially and save time.
Immediately after designing the screening strategy, including developing job analysis and JOA question selection, HMs should identify related needs for the hiring phase including: identifying interview panel membership and availability, selecting interview questions, and establishing a reference check process. Rationale: Job analysis, JOA questions, use of SMEs, selection of interview questions, identifying interview panel members and ensuring their availability, and determining a reference check procedure and related activities are all part of a continuum of related activities to screen applicants and make a strong selection. Currently these activities are delinked and typically done later in the process where any issues or delays slow down recruitment—both from USAID’s and from applicants’ perspective.
Conducting these activities earlier in the pre-hiring phase aligns related tasks and avoids issues and time delays later in the hiring phase process at which point applicants are engaged. Applicants expect timely interaction in the recruitment process, and the USG must respond in order to attract and retain qualified workers. See the “to be” pre-hiring map in Section II of this BPR report for a breakdown of these activities with allotted time frames to capture the efficiencies of improved organization.
Centrally store job analysis and JOA questions in the same location with classified PDs with access for HCTM, AMS Officers, and HMs (see Position Description and Classification Issue Paper).
Rationale: The Agency should centrally store all items related to the classified PD with ease of access for HCTM, AMS Officers, and HMs. This should include the completed job analysis, and if possible, the JOA questions used for relevant JOAs derived from the PD. USAID should eliminate separate libraries and storage locations and mandate use of the central database.
Q
1
“For recruitment/talent management to come together
holistically, it’s imperative to combine strategic insight with analytical technology solutions to drive down to where human
capital management roadblocks thrive….Technology will help
address a myriad of recruitment questions and dilemmas….”
NGA.net publication “The Transformative Power of Talent Management”
Issue 4: Systems
This issue paper examines the use of information technology (IT) systems in USAID’s Civil Service (CS) hiring process. It discusses findings and provides recommendations to improve and provide systems that support the various steps and stages of the hiring process.
Issue Statement
Currently, there is no single system in place at USAID that manages the entirety of the CS hiring process, including the pre-hiring stage. Furthermore, the systems that are in place to conduct parts of the overall hiring process are not integrated. These disconnects and system gaps lead to weaknesses and inconsistencies in data quality, including collection, tracking, and reporting, which further leads to a lack of standardization and a decreased ability to identify when and where time lags occur in the process. Moreover, the lack of automation provided by IT systems means that more time is spent in back and forth communication among stakeholders to verify and manually input and track key information.
Background
What IT systems does USAID use in the Civil Service hiring process? CareerConnector1 CareerConnector is an online hiring system powered by Monster Government Solutions. It is a Human Resources Line of Business (HR LOB), as awarded by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and administered by the Department of Treasury (Treasury) as part of its Shared Services Center. CareerConnector integrates with www.usajobs.gov, a web-based job board and the Federal Government’s official source for federal job listings.
USAID uses CareerConnector to: Choose questions, including screen-out questions, to
include in the Job Opportunity Announcement (JOA) toevaluate applicants (pre-hiring phase);
Draft and post JOAs (recruitment phase); and Track the progression of a candidate's application from
submission through the offer of employment (recruitment phase).
CareerConnector also provides users with the option to manually enter some of the dates related to the overall hiring process, thereby providing the opportunity to collect and manage time-to-hire data. However, CareerConnector is not an end-to-end solution for hiring actions and does not support other parts of the pre-hiring phase, including planning, position description (PD) development and classification, or job analysis.
HR Connect2 At USAID, HR Connect is the system that primarily supports activities after the Agency selects a candidate at the end of the recruitment phase and during the on-boarding phase. HR Connect is a
1 http://www.treasury.gov/services/gov-shared-services/HR-Connect/Pages/CareerConnector.aspx. 2 http://www.treasury.gov/services/gov-shared-services/HR-Connect/Pages/HR-Connect.aspx.
2
personnel processing system administered by Treasury as a Shared Services Provider (SSP) and an OPM HR LOB. At USAID, HR Connect allows hiring professionals to process actions related to an employee's personal and position information. This system currently collects and maintains all personnel data related to USAID’s direct hires and U.S. Personal Services Contractors. HR Connect's self-service component allows employees to log in and view their personnel data.
ServiceNow3 ServiceNow is a cloud-based service management system. At USAID, it serves as the ticketing tool for entering and tracking IT and HR-related service requests through the use of dedicated help desk email addresses. In the pre-hiring phase, Administrative Management Services (AMS) Officers or Hiring Managers (HMs) will submit the recruitment package to Human Capital and Talent Management (HCTM) HelpDesk email address, from which a ServiceNow request, or “ticket,” is automatically generated such that the status of the task may be tracked. The ticket is manually assigned to the correct area within HCTM for action and later closed out when complete.
Why are IT systems important in the hiring process? The Federal Government recognizes the importance of IT systems in the recruitment process, and OPM is the managing partner of the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) HR LOB effort to build an interagency enterprise architecture for the human resources business function. The overall vision of the HR LOB is “government-wide, modern, cost-effective, standardized, and interoperable HR solutions providing common, core functionality to support the strategic management of human capital and addressing duplicative HR systems and processes across the federal government.”4 It is important to note, however, that the HR LOB does not appear to provide IT solutions that support the planning and activities of the pre-hiring phase at this time. Moreover, USAID has not integrated its use of these HR LOB systems, thus inhibiting its ability to realize this vision.
Additionally, in order to assess how well a program or process is performing and to evaluate its outcome, it is vital to collect quality data that will allow for robust analysis. That analysis, in turn, will demonstrate the strengths or weaknesses in the process and will help identify when and where agencies can implement a change or solution and thus improve the process. IT systems are essential to the collection of accurate, reliable data, and many systems are capable of assisting in the analysis of it as well. Essentially, IT systems are an efficient and effective way of gaining insight into a process and conducting continuous performance improvement.
Problem Analysis
Problem 1: Inconsistent Methods of Logging and Collecting Data While HCTM reports time-to-hire data to OPM, it is primarily data collected during one phase in the hiring process, the recruitment phase. There is very little data collected during the pre-hiring phase before USAID posts the JOA. Stakeholders in the process record and track information in a variety of different places; consequently, the data are difficult to cross-reference and not useful for analysis. Furthermore, when USAID utilizes one of the Treasury-backed systems, there is inconsistent use of the data fields, making the resulting reported data incomparable and incomplete.
Findings:
3 https://www.usaid.gov/data/dataset/20aa954e-25f9-4937-a48f-0718cda841c3 4 http://www.opm.gov/services-for-agencies/hr-line-of-business/#url=Vision-Goals
3
“…organizations with ‘best in class’ metrics programs perform 25
percent better than average ones on time to hire, according to
Staffing.org.”
HRO Today article “How government agencies can vastly fix their personnel problems through analytics.” http://www.hrotoday.com/contributors/public-sector-policies/#sthash.hi4yMvBO.dpuf
The Agency lacks a documented, data-driven, efficient process in the overall pre-hiringphase. Please see Issues 1, 2, and 3 for further details.
HCTM staff, AMS Officers, and HMs utilize a variety of different tools to track hiringinformation including CareerConnector, Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, Google documents,and self-made trackers.
There are no metrics for the pre-hiring phase, which incentivizes a focus on the recruitmentphase at the expense of pre-hiring actions, which can lead to a lack of position managementand weak PD and job analysis development, as noted in the previous issue discussions.
Staffing Specialists indicated that HCTM needs a document management system becausethere was confusion regarding the status of actions or with whom a document was currentlylocated.
Staffing Specialists manually enter data related to time in CareerConnector, such as when acomplete recruitment package is received. This process relies on the Staffing Specialist toenter the correct date in a timely fashion. Also, the HCTM HelpDesk email account receivesthe recruitment packages, which automaticallygenerates a time stamped ServiceNow ticket.However, the Staffing Specialist either enters thedate the package was actually received, even if itwas incomplete or needed revision, or enters thedate the corrected package was received. Thismeans that the date entered may not beconsistent with how other Staffing Specialistsentered date information for other hiringpackages. Furthermore, because the receiptdate for a recruitment package starts the time-to-hire clock of the recruitment phase, if thedate entered reflects the receipt of anincomplete or inaccurate package, the resultingtime-to-hire period may be inflated as a result ofthe extra time it takes to revise, complete, and return the package.
HCTM staff indicated that they are not using CareerConnector in the same way. Forexample, as described in the bullet above, the way Staffing Specialists choose and enterdates for certain fields varies by employee. Furthermore, inconsistent file namingconventions make it impossible to search accurately or quickly.
Data pulled from one source, such as CareerConnector, are inconsistent or incomparable todata pulled from a different source, such as a Google document.
HCSC’s Customer Service Standards5 (CSS) indicate that it measures time-to-hire metricsthrough CareerConnector and reports the data annually6. However, feedback suggestedthat this tracking should take place in HR Connect so that Agency employees can more easilyand transparently access the results. Nevertheless, it is unclear how USAID is using or canuse HR Connect in the pre-hiring or recruitment phases, and CareerConnector does notappear to reliably track data or deliverables prior to the formulation of the JOA. Both
5 “USAID Human Capital Services Center Customer Service Standard Calendar Year 2015”. pp 28-29. https://pages.usaid.gov/system/files/hcsc_customer_service_standard_2015_final_7_14_2015_reduced.pdf 6 Ibid., p 9.
4
systems seem to have an incomplete capacity to collect and track data at all points during the overall hiring process, especially as they do not communicate with one another.
Problem 2: Lack of IT System Functionality, Automation, and Integration USAID’s current systems lack full functionality, are not integrated with one another, and do not share information. Furthermore, while USAID utilizes CareerConnector and HR Connect during the recruitment phase to manage the development of the JOA, the review of applicants, and selection of the candidate, no system supports the activities of the pre-hiring phase, with the sole exception of choosing questions for the JOA in CareerConnector. These gaps and inefficient system structure lead to either the inability to collect essential data or the collection of unreliable data. This in turn makes it difficult to report accurate information or perform the type of analysis that would provide clarity and understanding of the barriers impeding the hiring process as a whole.
Findings:
AMS Officers indicated that current staffing information systems are not meeting theAgency’s staffing and reporting requirements. As a result, workarounds are contributing toincreased inefficiencies.
HCTM staff indicated that CareerConnector and HR Connect are supposed to interface butdo not. The reasons for this were unclear.
Benchmarking meetings with other federal agenciesdemonstrated that they use varied but integratedsystems to automate and coordinate all aspects ofthe hiring process.
As referenced in the PD and Classification issuepaper, there is no centralized PD storage system,which can lead to significant confusion and lags inthe process.
There is a lack of automation in CareerConnector,specifically in its question library, where users chosequestions to be added to the JOA. For example,when an AMS Officer or Hiring Manager (HM)chooses questions, he or she must record thenumerical identifier of each selected question andsend the question numbers via email to HCTM’s HelpDesk Inbox. HCTM must then go intoCareerConnector and manually search for the selected questions. If the HM wants to use aparticular question that is not in the library, he or she must contact the HCTM Help Desk,who will have to manually input the question into the library so that the HM can choose itfor the JOA. If a question in the library needs editing, it must be pasted into a MicrosoftWord document, revised, and emailed to the HCTM Help Desk.
AMS Officers, HMs, and HCTM staff indicated that the CareerConnector question library isdifficult to search. If the AMS Officer or HM is unable to find certain questions, HCTM mustdo it. Hiring staff lose time in the back and forth communication to finalize the questions forthe JOA.
Often, users create questions in CareerConnector and use them for only oneannouncement. This adds to the high volume of questions in its library and ultimatelymakes the library more difficult to search.
“Present-day IT structures reinforce the segmented
scenario. Legacy systems stay in place…each one with a
designated ‘job.’…without any inoperability…there is no sharing of the critical data that can shed light upon the many bottlenecks
within recruitment….”
NGA.net publication “The Transformative Power of Talent Management”
5
1
2
The many new questions added to CareerConnector makes it difficult to implement qualitycontrol for OPM audit purposes.
Recommendations
For the short term, HCTM should define, document, and track its current pre-hiring systems and manual processes in order to improve data collection and consistency within current system constraints and functions. Once these procedures have been documented and are being followed, HCTM should consider initiating any available functionality within CareerConnector and HR Connect that will support them.
Rationale: It is essential that processes, whether manual or system-supported, be finalized and documented in standard operating procedures (SOP), and that the Agency hold staff accountable for following them. These SOPs should direct the standardized and mandatory completion of specific system data fields and the systematic performance of manual processes. For example, consistent use of the HCTM HelpDesk to log the submission of classification actions and job analyses would utilize an existing tool and provide improved, though limited, data tracking for the pre-hiring phase in the near-term.
Once this improved documentation and tracking of processes has taken place, HCTM, in conjunction with M Bureau, should take measures to enhance current systems, particularly CareerConnector as the only current system able to assist in managing some portion of the overall hiring process. As such, increased functionality and standardized usage would provide the best means for short-term improvement by potentially expanding functionality for users and improving the quality of data that USAID currently collects. If there is functionality within CareerConnector or within HR Connect that is not currently “turned on,” and which would provide increased efficiency or additional value to the end-user in any stage of the overall hiring process, the Agency should initiate these.
To ensure that data collection and reporting is accurate over time and that users can easily find and retrieve necessary information, stakeholders (HCTM staff, AMS Officers, and HMs) must use these systems consistently. There should be clear rules provided to users mandating how to complete particular data fields and how to name actions, files, and documents. If possible, users should be unable to bypass data fields that are critical to accurate data collection.
For the long term, in order to more comprehensively improve system functionality and data collection, HCTM should develop a comprehensive business case in conjunction with M Bureau that: 1) analyzes all phases of the hiring process, along with its associated documents, and 2) leads to the implementation of an IT system solution that, at a minimum, tracks and manages the pre-hiring and recruitment phases.
Q
Q
6
Rationale: Before USAID can improve, streamline, or expand IT systems related to the hiring process, it is essential that the Agency first understand exactly how the current systems work, what data they collect, and where there are gaps. USAID must identify gaps both in process steps that are unsupported by systems and in data that it is not collecting consistently or accurately. The business case exercise should include conducting an inventory of all USAID hiring systems, including those supporting the on-boarding phase; identifying gaps; and assessing overall hiring needs.
Ultimately, stakeholders in the hiring process should have a system or systems that are easy to use, provide value and functionality, and are commensurate with the desired business flow at USAID. It is essential that the IT systems used in the hiring process are either integrated and “speak” to one another or they send and retrieve data from the same infrastructure. Systems that are not interoperable, known as system “silos,” only contribute to disparities in data collection and reporting and time spent in duplicating work. If USAID cannot integrate such silos, it should remove and replace them with an integrated system. The Agency should streamline and improve remaining systems such that there is maximum functionality and benefit, as well as provide single sign-on capability for greater ease of use by stakeholders who participate infrequently.
These systems, including any new IT system(s) and solutions, should include the ability to: Ensure that it is gathering the right data consistently at all major data points; Report data easily and dependably; and Track results over time accurately.
Users should be able to: More easily navigate and manage the entire hiring process; and Centrally store and easily retrieve essential data and documents (see Job Analysis,
PD and Classification issue papers).
The Agency should not roll-out a new system if it cannot integrate it with other platforms. Lastly, the ultimate system(s) would preferably allow for self-service so users can see the status of a hiring action, how long it took to complete a particular step, etc.
As in Recommendation One above, stakeholders must use the resulting system architecture consistently. In particular, there should be clear rules:
Defining all data standards; Mandating how to complete particular data fields; and Providing consistent naming conventions.
Users should be unable to bypass data fields that are critical to accurate data collection.
This inventory and evaluation will help identify which systems cannot integrate properly and are effectively preventing multiple systems from functioning as one. Moreover, this review will help pinpoint when and where the Agency needs to collect data so that it can establish appropriate baseline and target metrics where none currently exist.
1
Civil Service Pre-Hiring Business Process Review: Section IV - Recommendations At-a-Glance
The following recommendations are compiled from the Issue Papers of the Business Process Review (BPR) of USAID’s Civil Service Pre-Hiring Process.
Recommendations Owner Impact Feasibility
Issue 1: Business Flow
1.1 USAID’s Human Capital and Talent Management (HCTM) and the Administrative Management Services (AMS) Officers Council (AOC) clarify roles and responsibilities, specifically addressing each piece of the pre-hiring process, with input and concurrence with the Management Operations Council (MOC), and HCTM codify them in the ADS Chapters.
HCTM and AOC
1.2 HCTM updates, augments, and maintains the “What We Provide” page on its intranet site with necessary SOPs, checklists, FAQs, and links them as mandatory references to the relevant ADS Chapters. HCTM
1.3 HCTM provides mandatory training on the Civil Service (CS) hiring process and related systems to all Hiring Managers and AMS Officers. HCTM
1.4 HCTM and the AOC work with the M Bureau to finalize the new planning and pre-hiring map and set time standards by December 31, 2015. HCTM, AOC and
M Bureau
1.5 HCTM and Bureaus and Independent Offices (B/IOs) adopt pre-hiring performance indicators, conduct performance management, and hold an annual statistical review at a Management Operations Council (MOC) meeting and discuss how to improve. Recommended indicators: Efficiency Indicator: Number of days to conduct pre-hiring. Efficiency Indicator: Number of days to conduct classification. Effectiveness Indicator: Customer satisfaction survey.
HCTM, B/IOs
Issue 2: Position Descriptions and Classification
2.1 HCTM should devote resources to update, purge, consolidate, and standardize existing position descriptions (PDs) for major job series, in collaboration with B/IOs. This streamlining should address, at a minimum, those PDs that are electronically stored in its own library and by the B/IOs.
HCTM and B/IOs
2.2 HCTM provide training, tools, and support, in accordance with the Business Flow Issue Paper recommendations, to Hiring Mangers (HMs) and AMS Officers. HCTM
2.3 Centrally and electronically store all classified PDs for CS positions and related documents and templates, including job analyses and job opportunity announcement questions, with access for HCTM, AMS Officers, and HMs. Eliminate separate B/IO libraries; and mandate the use of the central database as the sole repository and source for classified PDs.
HCTM and B/IO AMS Officers
Quality
Time 1-6 Months Minimal Complexity Immediate Actions
6-12 Months Medium Complexity
12-24 Months High Complexity
2
Recommendations Owner Impact Feasibility
2.4 Provide guidance to HMs and AMS Officers on determining a position’s level of risk and designating the appropriate position sensitivity level for security purposes. Encourage increased early communication and discussion between the AMS Officer, HM, and Classification Specialist to ensure the appropriate amount of analysis and consideration of the various steps in the Position Designation System.
HCTM and USAID Office of Security (SEC)
Issue 3: Job Analysis and Pre-Screening
3.1 Conduct a quality review of and update all screening SOPs and tools, with particular attention to:
Use consistent language throughout; Optimize ease of use for HMs who conduct job analysis infrequently; Streamline the SOPs, in particular consolidate all aspects of selecting,
linking, ranking, and weighting competencies; Guide HMs in developing and employing a holistic screening approach
including job analysis, use of SMEs, Job Opportunity Announcement (JOA)questions, interview questions, and reference checks;
Standardize the timing of position description development, job analysis,and JOA question selection as simultaneous/immediately following eachother;
Provide practical guidance on the linkage from job analysis to JOAquestions including screen outs to quality of candidates on selectioncertificates; and
Clarify and distinguish the SME purpose, process, and deliverables forboth pre and post certificate SME reviews.
HCTM and B/IO AMS Officers
3.2 Continue and advance the HCTM practice of engaging B/IOs earlier in the pre-hiring phase by having HCTM Specialists provide direct support to HMs in completing job analysis and developing a comprehensive screening approach.
HCTM
3.3 Simultaneous to job analysis and with support from HCTM Specialists, HMs should develop and select JOA questions, including screen outs, and related screening techniques such as identifying areas of consideration (JOA type) and any SME.
B/IO Hiring Managers with guidance from
HCTM 3.4 Immediately after designing the screening strategy, including developing job
analysis and JOA question selection, HMs should identify related needs for the hiring phase including: identifying interview panel membership and availability, selecting interview questions, and establishing a reference check process.
B/IO Hiring Managers with guidance from
HCTM 3.5 Centrally store job analysis and JOA questions in the same location with classified
PDs with access for HCTM, AMS Officers, and HMs (see Position Description and Classification Issue Paper).
HCTM and AOC
Issue 4: Systems
4.1 For the short term, HCTM should define, document, and track its current pre-hiring systems and manual processes in order to improve data collection and consistency within current system constraints and functions. Once these procedures have been documented and are being followed, HCTM should consider initiating any available functionality within CareerConnector and HR Connect that will support them.
HCTM and M Bureau
4.2 For the long term, in order to more comprehensively improve system functionality and data collection, HCTM should develop a comprehensive business case in conjunction with M Bureau that: 1) analyzes all phases of the hiring process, along with its associated documents, and 2) leads to the implementation of an IT system solution that, at a minimum, tracks and manages the pre-hiring and recruitment phases.
HCTM and M Bureau
Annex A – Statement of Work
1
Bureau for Management USAID Civil Service Time to Hire Business Process Review
Statement of Work
Description:
This Statement of Work serves as the roadmap for a Business Process Review (BPR) of the United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID) processes for hiring civil service (CS) U.S. Direct Hire (USDH) employees. The intent of this review is to develop a common understanding across all USAID hiring stakeholders about steps involved in the hiring process, each step’s anticipated processing time, and the stakeholders accountable for each step of the process. Comprehensive mapping and analysis of this process will contribute to a more efficient and effective end-to-end hiring process.
The Bureau for Management (M Bureau) will lead the BPR in collaboration with the Office of Human Resources (OHR), the AMS Officers Council (AOC), and selected operating units, which will provide subject matter expertise. BPR deliverables will include a comprehensive map of the process and recommendations to improve efficiency, effectiveness, and customer satisfaction. The recommendations will reduce the amount of time needed to hire and ensure USAID hires quality CS staff (the right people, with the right qualifications, at the right time).
For the purposes of the BPR, the hiring process consists of three phases:
1) Pre-Hiring: from identifying a workforce need to the transmission of a complete recruitmentpackage from a hiring manager to OHR/CSP;
2) Recruitment: from receipt of a complete recruitment package in OHR/CSP to a new hire’sentrance on duty; and
3) On-boarding: from a new hire’s entrance on duty to the new hire’s successful integration intothe work unit as a fully productive employee.
This BPR will focus on the first two phases. The period of review will be approximately six months: the first 90 days will focus on Pre-hiring and the second 90 days will focus on Recruitment. There are currently no plans to review the On-boarding phase of CS hiring in this BPR, but this scope of work may be amended at a later date to include this phase.
Background:
The Impetus for the Business Process Review
In a May 2010 Town Hall Meeting, the Administrator challenged us to reform or eliminate processes that inhibit our success, to be innovative and to take risks. Energized by this charge, M Bureau developed a concept paper to initiate a series of Business Process Reviews (BPRs) of key management functions. M Bureau BPRs are coordinated with the Administrator’s ongoing reform efforts under the USAID Forward agenda.
Annex A – Statement of Work
2
The Imperative for Examining the Civil Service USDH Hiring Process
Improving the civil service hiring system has been a government-wide imperative since the implementation of the Civil Service Reform Act over 35 years ago. Since then, Federal agencies have continually sought ways to streamline personnel business operations. Most recently, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) spearheaded an initiative to reduce the length of time necessary to recruit and hire a civil service Federal employee. While government-wide goals for the ideal duration of the hiring process vary widely, HR practitioners and management experts agree that the government can no longer attract and retain qualified workers within a framework that fails to offer applicants the timely and substantive interaction they expect when courted by HR staffs and hiring managers.
The hiring process falls within USAID Forward’s “Talent Management” objective, one of seven key areas USAID has targeted for internally-focused transformational change. A hiring process that spans over 130 days—more than four months—fails to meet the needs of applicants or hiring managers, yet this was USAID’s 2013 time-to-hire performance. Recognizing this, USAID OHR leadership has already taken several steps towards reducing its average time-to-hire rate, including developing Civil Service Customer Service Standards, greater collaboration with AMS staff, the creation of cross-functional “portfolio teams” in OHR, USAID Hiring Model mapping, and incorporation of customer service goals into OHR staff’s annual performance plans.
Goal and Objectives:
A well-functioning management support platform is a prerequisite to achieving USAID’s development goals. As such, the goal of this BPR is to further improve the CS USDH hiring process. The objectives of this BPR are to conduct analysis and make recommendations to improve efficiency, effectiveness, and customer satisfaction with pre-hiring and recruitment.
Approach:
The BPR will use the framework below to assess and achieve key management business process improvements:
Mapping: Conduct a comprehensive map of the end-to-end hiring process that identifiesstakeholders for all parts of the process and also delineates roles and responsibilities.
Diagnosis: Identify stakeholder needs, review end-to-end processes, and examine for possibleimprovements to efficiency and effectiveness of practices.
Recommendations: Propose recommended actions to improve current processes and ensurethey are standardized and socialized.
The BPR effort will yield three key deliverables:
1. A business process map of the current-state (“as-is”) of the pre-hiring and recruitment phases.2. Recommendations to USAID senior leadership to make systems-level changes that improve the
workflow of the pre-hiring and hiring phases of the hiring process.3. A business process map of the future-state (“to-be”) of the pre-hiring and hiring phases, based
on adoption of the aforementioned recommendations.
Annex A – Statement of Work
3
Roles and Responsibilities:
Executive sponsorship from M Bureau. The M Bureau will provide primary resources associatedwith conducting the BPR, gaining buy-in from management staff, selecting officials forinvolvement, and bringing management’s perspective to the process of presentingrecommendations to USAID senior leadership. M Bureau will champion effective, efficientprocesses that accomplish the work of this BPR effort in line with best practices in businessprocess improvement. M Bureau will share recommendations with the Chief Human CapitalOfficer (CHCO) prior to presenting the recommendations to the Management OperationsCouncil (MOC).
BPR facilitation. Staff from the M Bureau will have day-to-day responsibility for theadministrative work associated with eliciting material that informs each of the three keydeliverables, producing all three key deliverables for review by the Executive Sponsors, andmanaging the work plan in order to accomplish the project’s scope within the given timeframe.
Subject-matter expertise by major stakeholder type. Subject-matter experts from OHR, SEC,AMS, CIO, and Operating Unit hiring managers will provide in depth knowledge of the process.OHR will review BPR draft products to ensure recommendations comply with Federal humancapital requirements. OHR will champion the preservation of Merit Systems Principlesthroughout the recommendations and the “to-be” map, as well as compliance with the laws,regulations, and policies that govern the competitive civil service personnel system and thetenets of equal employment opportunity.
Parameters:
The following parameters guide the scope of this BPR:
The BPR will address the CS hiring process from the point of an operating unit identifying a needfor staffing through an employee’s entry on duty.
The BPR will be focused on USAID/Washington because CS employees are hired forUSAID/Washington positions only.
Final draft reports will be reviewed by the Assistant Administrator for Management (AA/M) andDirector, OHR.
The BPR will include all candidate types eligible for CS hiring into General Schedule positions—U.S. citizens, Status-eligible Federal employees, and Agency employees. Individuals hired underspecial hiring authorities—including attorneys, the Presidential Management Fellows Program,and the Disabilities Employment Program—are exempted from this business process review.Also exempted are hires in the Senior Executive Service, Administratively Determined andSchedule C political appointees.
Definitions:
Annex A – Statement of Work
4
Pre-Hiring: The process of identifying requirements and preparing a request to solicitapplications to meet the requirements. Sub-processes include:
o Workforce planning, securing funding for a vacancy, position management, developingand classifying a position, assessing recruitment options, conducting and validating a jobanalysis, and drafting an announcement.
Recruitment: The process of recruitment, public notice fulfillment, assessment, selection, andstaffing for vacant positions. Sub-processes include:
o Recruitment: Soliciting and actively seeking applicants to fill recently vacated or newlycreated positions using a variety of methods.
o Public notice: Satisfying OPM regulations regarding the public notice of an agency’sintent to fill or recruit for a position, usually via the USAJOBS website. (NOTE: therecruitment and the public notice processes are not always identical, but they areusually simultaneous.)
o Assessment: Conducting eligibility and minimum qualifications analysis, including theapplication of an assessment instrument (usually a questionnaire via theMonster/Career Connector system) and/or manual review by Subject Matter Expert(SME) panels. Also includes constructing and certifying a certificate of eligiblecandidates or Best Qualified (BQ) list.
o Selection: Screening, interviewing, and choosing a candidate to a fill position.o Staffing: Extending an employment offer, negotiating salary, processing security
clearance, and finalizing entry on duty date.
On-boarding: The process of establishing employee pay and benefits, setting up newemployees to perform their job functions, and orienting new employees to USAID during thefirst six months of employment.
Human Resources (HR) Workforce: The HR Workforce encompasses those professionalswho conduct HR operations or provide HR management advisory services in accordancewith the Agency’s delegated authority from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management touphold the laws, regulations, and policies of merit selection (see 5 U.S.C. §§ 2301 and 2302).This includes the Agency Appointing Official and all individuals accountable for certifyingpersonnel actions on the Appointing Official’s behalf. (Generally, these employees areclassified in the GS-0201 or GS-0203 series.)
Human Resources (HR) Stakeholder Cadre: All non-HR Workforce staff who are involved inthe end-to-end human resources processes but who do not effect personnel actions onbehalf of the Appointing Official. This includes Bureau Administrative Management (AMS)staff, Hiring Managers, SMEs, and the Office of Security (SEC). (These employees may beclassified in any series.)
Methodology:
The M Bureau will use the following methodology to conduct the business process review:
Step Purpose Deliverable(s)
Annex A – Statement of Work
5
1 Prepare for Business Process Review
To develop the roadmap for the BPR
Statement of Work, Action Plan, Electronic File Structure
2 Conduct desk research on key questions
To become familiar with existing data and information related to the BPR
Bibliography of Source Files, Benchmarks and Best Practices, Glossary
3 Conduct stakeholder analysis To understand stakeholder needs, conduct interviews, and identify additional resources
Stakeholder Analysis, Synthesized Interview Notes
4 Document and validate current processes
To document current end-to-end processes
“As-Is” Process Maps
5 Conduct synthesis and analysis
To examine for inefficient or ineffective practices
“To-Be” Process Maps, Other Analytical Products
6 Develop recommendations To make recommendations to achieve desired outcomes
Draft Issues Papers with Recommendations
7 Issue draft BPR report To issue the draft report in order to solicit additional feedback
Draft BPR Report (including all deliverables)
8 Publish report and close out BPR
To finalize the complete study and present it to decision makers
Professionally-printed BPR Report, After Action Review, Print and Electronic Directory Archives (including all BPR artifacts)
Team Composition:
The M Bureau will undertake the BPR with critical input from stakeholders and subject matter experts. An estimated 2.5 full time equivalents (FTEs) will be needed to successfully conduct the BPR as follows:
Team Leader, .5 FTE from M Bureau 2 Senior Analysts, 1 FTE from M Bureau 2 Support Analysts, 1 FTE from M Bureau Subject Matter Experts, 3 (1 AOC and 2 OHR representatives).
Period of Performance:
The period of performance for phase one of the BPR (Pre-Hiring) will be 90 days and the period of performance for phase two of the BPR (Hiring) will be 90 days. Below is an illustrative work plan for each of the 90-day periods of performance.
Illustrative Work plan
Task
1.0 Prepare for Business Process Review
Develop statement of work Develop work plan Brainstorm data needs Develop file structure for electronic and hard copy files
2.0 Conduct desk research on key questions
Annex A – Statement of Work
6
Gather existing resources Review existing resources Research best practices and gather benchmarks Develop bibliography of sources Develop glossary and acronym list
3.0 Conduct stakeholder analysis
Identify stakeholder needs Adapt interview protocol Develop interviewee list and interview schedule Conduct and document interviews Gather follow-up evidence
4.0 Document and validate current processes
Document each As-Is process Validate each As-Is process
5.0 Conduct synthesis and analysis
Conduct data analysis Conduct SWOT analysis Develop To-Be process maps Develop other analytical products as needed
6.0 Develop recommendations
Synthesize key findings First draft of issues papers with recommendations Second draft of issues papers with recommendations
7.0 Issue draft BPR report
Develop draft BPR report (including all deliverables) Present draft BPR report Finalize BPR report
8.0 Publish report and close out BPR
Professionally-print BPR report Conduct After Action Review (AAR) Finalize and close out electronic files Finalize and close out hard copy files
Budget:
Because the BPR will be conducted by in-house staff, no additional budget is required.
Report Deliverable:
The BPR Report will be delivered to the AA/M and Director of OHR. The report will also be briefed to members of the Management Operations Council, the Agency’s business committee, and to the Agency’s senior leadership team at the Agency’s Leadership Council. The recommendations will be categorized by: owner, impact, timeframe, and feasibility.
Annex A – Statement of Work
7
Existing Information Sources:
The following existing information sources are relevant to the BPR and will become the Bibliography of Source Files. New sources will be added as they are identified.
Federal Competitive Service Human Resources Guidelines (Primary Literature)
Office of Personnel Management (OPM)o Delegated Examining Operations Handbooko Introduction to the Position Classification Standardso The Classifier’s Handbooko Handbook of Occupational Groups & Familieso Position Classification Standards & Functional Guides for White-collar Worko The Vet Guideo General Schedule Qualifications Manualo Guide to Data Standards
Functional specifications of the Monster/CareerConnector tool U.S. Department of Labor
o Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)o OMB Circular A-76o FAIR Act Implementing Guidance
Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) Councilo Transmittals, including reporting requirements for time-to-hire, delegated examining
information, etc. Government-wide Regulatory Principles
o Merit System Principles (5 U.S.C. § 2301)o Prohibited personnel practices (5 U.S.C. § 2302)
Other Federal Human Capital Thought-Leading Sources (Secondary Literature)
Partnership for Public Service Merit Systems Protection Board
USAID General Human Resources Information
ADS Series 100: Organization and Series 400: Personnel OHR on USAID Internet OHR on USAID Intranet OHR/CSP Customer Service Standard Hiring information given to hiring managers On-boarding information given to new employees
USAID Human Resources Reform Information
USAID Human Capital Strategic Plan Jon Brause Human Resources Study M/CIO Human Resources Business Process Review Other previous Human Resources Business Process Reviews
Annex A – Statement of Work
8
Tab 1
Guiding Questions:
Following are illustrative questions that will be used to guide mapping of the end-to-end hiring process and focus group discussions.
Policy Strategy:
How was the HR Strategy developed and used? How does the HR Strategy align with the classification, hiring, and on-boarding
processes? How is the HR Strategy communicated and implemented across the HR workforce? What goals and objectives are incorporated regarding efficiency, effectiveness, and
customer satisfaction?
Policy:
Do ADS classification, hiring, and on-boarding policies accurately reflect recentchanges to OPM policies?
Do ADS policies accurately reflect the HR Strategy? Do ADS policies accurately describe the standard operating procedures (SOPs)? Do ADS policies accurately describe assigned responsibilities?
Procedures Overall Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs):
How are the strategy and policies incorporated into the SOPs? How are the SOPs communicated and implemented across the OHR workforce and
stakeholders? What sources of information do OHR, AMS, and hiring managers use to interact with
each other on the hiring process?Detailed Steps:
What are the detailed SOPs for the classification, recruitment, and on-boardingprocesses?
What is the purpose of each step? What is the process for each step? What are the inputs/ outputs for each step? Which steps are manual and which are automated? Who is involved in each step? What is their role? How is communication handled among those involved? What is the actual duration for each step? What is the target duration for each step? Workflow: What happens before/ after/ concurrently? Quality Control: What are the approval criteria? Audit Trail: Where is the documentation maintained? Risk Management: What are the risks?
Un-documented Procedures:
Annex A – Statement of Work
9
When does USAID workforce deviate from the documented SOPs? What critical steps are missing from the SOPs? What steps add the greatest value to the customer? (May also need to clarify who
we consider to be the customer?) What steps are necessary but may not necessarilyhave value-add benefits?
What gets in the way of implementing the process as we’d hoped? How could thosebarriers be mitigated or removed?
Technology IT Systems:
What IT systems are used for the classification, hiring, and on-boarding processes? How are the SOPs mapped in the various IT systems? When and how doHR, AMS, and hiring manager workforce interact with the IT
systems? When and how do candidates and new employees interact with the IT systems? When and how do managers interact with the IT systems?
Help Desk System: Is there an automated Help Desk system(s)? How is it used? Are additional manual Help Desk functions performed? How?
Other Tools: Are there automated checklist(s) or similar automated tools? How are they used? Are additional manual checklist(s) or similar manual tools utilized? How? What automated systems or manual processes are used for institutional learning?
Staff Perceptions of Problems and Best Practices: What are staff perceptions about what works well that should remain? What are staff perceptions about what doesn’t work well that should be changed? How are problems communicated across HR, AMS, and hiring manager workforce
and to management? How are best practices communicated across HR, AMS, and hiring manager
workforce and to management?
Workload and Time Management:
What transaction volume do various members of HR, AMS, and hiring managerworkforce carry at a given time? What factors contribute to changes in volume?
What percentage of time do various members of the HR workforce dedicate toclassification, hiring, and on-boarding vs. other job activities?
How do HR, AMS, and hiring manager workforce members prioritize classification,hiring, and on-boarding-related tasks and why?
Competency and Training: How are HR workforce competency requirements established and aligned to specific
work functions? How are AMS and hiring managers held accountable for HR competency? How are individual HR workforce members evaluated against HR competency
Annex A – Statement of Work
10
requirements? How are aggregated HR workforce competency levels evaluated and reported?
How are HR workforce training needs determined? How is the HR workforce trainingprovided?
How do AMS and hiring managers get training on HR issues? Where and how canthe training be changed to improve their participation in the process?
Performance Management Efficiency/ Effectiveness/ Customer Satisfaction:
What Performance Management framework is currently in place for theclassification, hiring, and on-boarding processes
How did HR use the 2003 Customer Service Standards to manage performance? Currently, how is customer satisfaction defined and measured?
Data and Trends:
What data are currently available to measure efficiency, effectiveness, and customersatisfaction?
What data are produced by the IT systems and what data are generated manually? Are trends and dashboards used? How? Is ticketing used to track workflow? What additional data are available to determine workflow trends? What are USG-wide benchmarks and how does USAID compare? How are USAID benchmarks captured and utilized?
Management and Accountability:
How are data presented to inform decision making at all stages and levels? How is compliance with OPM policy managed? How is compliance with the HR strategy managed? How is compliance with ADS policies managed? How is compliance with SOPs managed? How is HR workforce accountability assigned and evaluated? What are the existing internal controls related to classification, hiring, and on-
boarding? Do managers and HR workforce staff utilize goal-based accountability? How?
Annex B- Business Process Mapping Notation
1
1. Activities
2. Possible Activities
3. Sequence Flow10. Swim Lanes
10.a. Pool
10.b. Lanes (within a Pool)
5. Sub-Process
6. Start Event
7. End Event
Start
End
4. Possible SequenceFlow
1. Activities- An activity is work that is performed within a business process.
2. Possible Activities- Possible activities are work that may be performed within a business process.
3. Sequence Flow- A sequence flow shows the order that activities will be performed in a process.
4. Possible Sequence Flow- A possible sequence flow shows the order that activities may beperformed in a process.
5. Sub-process- A sub-process is a compound activity that is included within a process. It iscompound in that it can be broken down into a finer level of detail through a set of sub-activities.
6. Start event- Start events indicate where a process begins.
7. End event- End events indicate where a process ends.
8. Swim Lanes- Swim Lanes help partition and organize activities. There are two main types of swimlanes: Pool and Lane.
8.a. Pool- Pools represent Participants in an interactive Business Process Diagram. A participant may have a role or may be an entity.
8.b. Lanes (within a pool)- Lanes represent sub-partitions for the objects within a pool. They often represent organization roles (e.g., Manager, Associate), but can represent any desired Process characteristics.
* Diagrams and definitions were taken from the IBM Software Group, Introduction to BPMNby Stephen A. White. *
8. Decision Points
9. Document(s) To Be Completed
Annex C – List of Interviewees
1. Kelly Anderson
AMS LeadM/MPBP/AMD
2. Morgan Brady
DirectorM/CFO/FPS
3. Lawrence Brown
Office DirectorHCTM/OPS
4. Ruth Buckley
Division ChiefM/MPBP/PERF
5. Belinda Burroughs
AMS OfficerME
6. Keya Cooper
HR SpecialistHCTM
7. Christina Corbett
AMS OfficerLAC
8. Corey Croom
AMS OfficerM/MPBP/AMD
9. Douglas Daisey
HR SpecialistHCTM
10. Jeffrey Denale
Division ChiefM/MS/OMD
11. Marcus Dinkins
HR SpecialistAFR
12. Tiffany Ditzel
AMS OfficerPPL
13. Emilio Estevez
AMS OfficerME
14. Dallibeth Estevez-
Checo
HR Specialist,ClassificationHCTM
15. David Ferguson
Senior AnalystLAB
16. Carla Garcia
AMS OfficerE3/PDMS
17. Dorothy Hawkins
HR SpecialistHCTM
18. Tracy Hembry
AMS OfficerSEC
19. George Higginbotham
Senior Policy AnalystM/MPBP/POL
20. Donielle Hines
HR SpecialistHCTM
21. DeShanta Hinton
HR SpecialistHCTM
22. Alice Holland
HR Specialist
HCTM
23. Dana Jenkins
AMS OfficerBFS
24. Terry Jones
AMS OfficerOAPA
25. Tonya Jordan
AMS OfficerAFR
26. Joshua Kaufman
Office DirectorLAB/EIA
27. Constantine Koulouris
Division ChiefM/MPBP/BUD
28. Edward Liverani
HR SpecialistHCTM
29. Michael Lowery
HR SpecialistHCTM
30. Theresa Lyles
AMS OfficerLPA
31. Maria Marigliano
Chief AMS OfficerLPA
32. Lorraine Meehan
Security SpecialistSEC
33. Deborah Melton
HR SpecialistHCTM
1
Annex C – List of Interviewees
Composition of Interviewees, N=51
AMS Officers 33.3%
Hiring Managers 33.3%
Human ResourceSpecialists 33.3%
34. Mikaela Meredith
AFR
35. Jeanne Mills
AMS OfficerE&E
36. Angela Muenzer
AMS OfficerE&E
37. Sharon Nichols
Supervisory ProgramAnalystLAC
38. Robert O'Neill
AMS OfficerGH
39. Anne Peniston
Division ChiefGH/HIDN/N
40. Rose Rakas
Office DirectorLAC
41. Stephanie Robinson
HR SpecialistHCTM
42. Rashanda Sanders
HR SpecialistHCTM
43. Richard Shelton
HR SpecialistHCTM
44. David Stanton
Office Director
GH/OHA
45. Dane Thomas
AMS OfficerBFS
46. Shelia Tolliver
Branch ChiefHCTM
47. Carol Tucker
HR SpecialistHCTM
48. Lynn Vega
OST
49. Michelle Walker
AMS OfficerE3/PDMS
50. Linda Wilson
HR SpecialistHCTM
51. Sylvia Wimbley
BFS
2
Annex D - Focus Group and Case Study Protocol
CS Time to Hire BPR: Focus Group and Case Study Protocol and Discussion Guide Page 1
Civil Service Time to Hire Business Process Review Focus Group and Case Study Protocol and Discussion Guide
Protocol
Approximately 5-7 participants per focus group or case study. Focus groups organized by: HCTM/CSP, AMS Officers, and Hiring Managers. Case studies organized by: individual hiring actions completed. Facilitated discussion, guided by questions. Mapping exercise (requires room with large whiteboard): during discussion, participants will be
asked to comment on the hiring map and any deviations or missing steps will be drawn on thewhiteboard as well as time spent on each step of the timeline.
Note-takers (2 per focus group) should take highly detailed running notes of participants’ discussionand comments, NOT “summary notes” like might be taken for a meeting.
1 ½ hour session (requires reserving a room for 2 hours).
Framework
Preparation 1. Schedule the session: Email invitation to participants (purpose, scope, and items needed)2. Facilitator(s) and note-takers meet to establish readiness
a. Articulate goals of the sessionb. Prepare standard and supplemental questionsc. Prepare relevant information (e.g. responses to questions interviewees may ask)d. Prepare any materials including handouts for participantse. Print out fact sheet, agenda, and hiring maps for all participants
Conduct the Session 1. Before participants arrive: have flipchart paper and whiteboard ready2. Introduction <<<See below>>>3. Follow questionnaire4. Record information5. Allow any concluding feedback from participants6. Conclude interview with THANK YOU
Post Session Wrap Up 1. Ensure capture of all relevant interview information
a. Facilitator(s) and note-takers meet immediately after interviewb. Fill-in any gaps in notesc. Photograph the map or any other notes on the whiteboard and flipcharts
2. Re-organize notes for a clean copy according to prescribed form; designate process and Point ofContact (POC) for finalizing notes
3. Review to ensure all documentation has been properly completed4. Designate POC to send thank you to participants <<<See below>>>
Interview Introduction:
Annex D - Focus Group and Case Study Protocol
CS Time to Hire BPR: Focus Group and Case Study Protocol and Discussion Guide Page 2
Thank you for taking your time today to meet with us on the Business Process Review of USAID’s civil service time to hire. I’m ____________ and this is _____________. We’re from M Bureau—the unit conducting the reviews. I’ll be the one primarily asking the questions while my colleague(s) will be taking detailed notes.
Today, we’d like to discuss the civil service time to hire process. We’ve already done a desk study of the process by going through existing literature and documentation. Now, we’re going to be taking a more in-depth look at how you experience the process in your regular duties. Your input will help further the review and strengthen the final product.
This is a safe space to talk candidly about the civil service hiring process. Comments are for the review and improvement of the process only, and not attribution. We have already heard many opinions about hiring, including through surveys. However, now we want to get to solutions for improved efficiency and effectiveness of the hiring process.
During this interview, we’d like to accomplish three things:
1) Gather feedback on our current map of the hiring business process model;2) Understand from you what’s working and what’s not; and3) Receive any recommendations for improvement.
Do you have any questions before we get started?
Let’s get started…
Annex D - Focus Group and Case Study Protocol
CS Time to Hire BPR: Focus Group and Case Study Protocol and Discussion Guide Page 3
Session Notes
Date Facilitator(s) Note-takers (2) Focus Group Type (e.g., AMS Officers, hiring managers, HR specialists) or Case Study name Participants (name, title, unit)
Discussion Questions I am handing out the current map of the hiring process. (DISTRIBUTE)
1. (MAPPING) Please look over the hiring map. Go through it step by step and identify any missingsteps or steps that are different from your experience processing hiring actions. I will draw up anymissing steps or differences on the whiteboard for us.
What else is missing or different? What else?
2. (MAPPING) Go back to the start of the mapped process, and now please describe at each step of theprocess the standard operating procedures, guides, trackers, etc. that you use (Add to map)?
What else?
3. (TIME/Level of Evort [LOE]) Do you track the time or level of effort needed to complete theseresponsibilities at each step of the process? What tools do you use to track the process? (Ask forelectronic copies of any tools)
4. (TIME/WORKFLOW) Looking at the map step by step, can any of these steps happen at the sametime? Are there steps where the passing of products and information could be smoother? If so,how or in what way?
5. (ROLES) Starting at the beginning of the map, please tell us what your role is at each step of theprocess. Who else you interact with, and what their roles are throughout the process?
6. (RESPONSIBILITES) Starting at the beginning again, what are your CS hiring responsibilities at eachstep? What are your deliverables (“services and products”)? Please clarify the input/output of eachstep of the process. (Ask for examples)
7. (RESPONSIBILITES) Starting at the beginning, what are the responsibilities of the other people youhave mentioned at each step and what are their deliverables?
Annex D - Focus Group and Case Study Protocol
CS Time to Hire BPR: Focus Group and Case Study Protocol and Discussion Guide Page 4
Of the deliverables we just talked about, which best meet your needs? Are any deliverables not meeting your needs/expectations for you to perform your CS hiring responsibilities efficiently and effectively?
8. (TRAINING) What training is provided to you to help you complete your hiring process duties? Whoprovides the training? Does your Bureau/Office provide briefings/training to others to help guidethem through the hiring process? How else are you or staff you interact with prepared in order toengage in the hiring process? What else could be done to build skills?
9. (COMMUNICATION) At each step of the process, how do you make contact with other stakeholdersin the process? How are expectations and requests communicated? How could this be improvedthroughout the process?
10. (QUALITY CONTROL) Starting at the beginning of the map, what are the approval criteria/points inthe process, and at what steps? In your opinion, what factors contribute most to theneeds/expectations of stakeholders not being met in your Bureau/Office, and why?
11. (SYSTEMS) Starting at the beginning, what tools software or other tools (e.g., Excel spreadsheets) doyou use at each step of the hiring process? Describe the tools you use and indicate the developer(e.g. Bureau/Office, OHR, etc.) of the tools utilized? What tools are most useful and why? What elsedo you need in regards to the systems facilitating the hiring process?
12. (GENERAL) What is the one thing that the Agency can do (SOPs, training, IT system, etc.) that wouldmake the CS hiring process more efficient and effective? How would it change the process?
13. (FINAL) Is there anything else you would like to tell us?
Conclude the session:
Thank you for taking the time today to meet with us on the Business Process Review of USAID’s civil service time to hire. Your input will be used to inform and improve the CS time to hire process at USAID. If you think of further comments later, feel free to contact us.
Annex D - Focus Group and Case Study Protocol
CS Time to Hire BPR: Focus Group and Case Study Protocol and Discussion Guide Page 5
Standard Communications
Email Invitation:
Dear [title] [last name],
The Bureau for Management (M Bureau) is conducting a Business Process Review (BPR) of the Agency’s Civil Service time to hire (CST2H) process. The BPR is being carried out in collaboration with the Office of Human Resources (OHR) and the AMS Officers Council (AOC), both of which are providing important subject matter expertise. Attached you will find a fact sheet on the BPR.
The objective of the business process review is to identify improvements to the competitive Civil Service hiring process that help ensure a more efficient and effective process. It will not focus on SES or non-competitive hiring. Attached you will find the current map of the hiring process.
[Insert one only:] 1) You were identified/selected by _________________ (Name/Means) to participate in a focus groupinterview of __________ (Group: eg AMS, OHR/CSP, hiring managers) to gather your perspective of the hiring process.
2) You were identified for a case study of the hiring action _________________ (Position/Date) that youwere involved in.
Purpose: To gather your feedback on our current hiring process model, to understand from you what’s working and what’s not, and to receive any recommendations for improvement. [If a case study]: There will be no evaluation of the candidates or actual selectee for the position.
What to Bring: Please bring with you to the focus group interview any standard operating procedures, guides, trackers, or other tools that you use in the hiring process.
We propose to meet at one of the following dates/times: a) [Date/Time]b) [Date/Time]
If this/these time(s) is/are not convenient for you, please provide a recommendation for a substitute. Substitutes will only be accepted with advanced confirmation and based on experience with civil service hiring at USAID.
Please reply to confirm your availability. If you have any questions or would like additional information before we meet please contact me directly at [email protected] or 2-XXXX.
Sincerely,
[Scheduler Name]
Annex D - Focus Group and Case Study Protocol
CS Time to Hire BPR: Focus Group and Case Study Protocol and Discussion Guide Page 6
2 attachments: BPR Fact Sheet and Hiring Map
E-mail to follow-up on the interview:
Thank you for taking your time to meet with M Bureau on the Business Process Review of USAID’s Civil Service time to hire. We really appreciate you sharing your knowledge of the existing processes as well as your recommendations for improvement.
During the meeting, I noted the following items for follow-up:
Please provide the requested materials by ____________ (a date one week after the e-mail is sent).
Thanks,
[Name]
Annex E – Illustrative Benchmarks and Best Practices
1
Methodology: The BPR team conducted key informant interviews with representatives from nine U.S. Government departments or agencies from December 2014 to February 2015. The sample began with the group of 24 agencies that previously reported their Time to Hire on www.performance.gov1 and narrowed based on contacts provided by USAID’s Deputy Chief Human Capital Officer and availability to schedule meetings.
The Partnership for Public Service considers each of the nine department or agencies as “large”, while USAID is in the mid-size category. The Partnership for Public Service designates an agency or department as large if it is an organization with more than 15,000 permanent employees, while mid-size agencies have 1,000 to 14,999 permanent employees2. The BPR team did not find that the size difference of the agencies prevented making major comparisons in the actual planning and pre-hire phase of the Civil Service hiring process.
The BPR team discussed best practices and approaches with the other agencies with an aim to understand if there were applicable approaches to improving efficiency and effectiveness of USAID’s Civil Service hiring process. The team asked each agency a standard set of seven overall questions related to policy, process, and lessons learned (see Annex F for the benchmarking protocol).
The BPR team also reviewed documents from 10 comparable U.S. Government departments or agencies and private sector thought leaders to compare benchmarks and best practices for a more streamlined and timely hiring process. These organizations are as follows:
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Department of Defense (DOD) Department of Homeland Security – Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Department of Justice (DOJ) Department of State (DOS) Department of the Treasury – Bureau of the Fiscal Service Department of Veteran’s Affairs National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Social Security Administration (SSA) United States Coast Guard
The following pages of this annex provide additional detail including: an expanded explanation of what makes the reference document a benchmark or best practice and a hyperlink to the original reference document.
1 After the publication of the President’s memorandum on Hiring Reform, OPM required agencies and departments to publish their time-to-hire numbers on the public website, Performance.gov. This was no longer required after fiscal year (FY) 2012 but the data are still available at http://archive-hr.performance.gov/initiative/hire-best/home. 2 http://bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/about/methodology.php
Annex E – Illustrative Benchmarks and Best Practices
2
Overview: Eleven illustrative best practices and benchmarks are presented below. Issue Source Benchmark/Best Practice
Human Resource system integration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Electronic Position Description System (ePDS)
US Department of Agriculture (USDA)
OneUSDA Integrated Electronic Hiring Process3
Agency-level standardized templates
and guidance
NASA Classification Process Quick Reference Guide for Managers and Supervisors
NASA Agency-level Hiring Toolkit NASA Manager’s Guide to the NASA Hiring
Process
US Department of State Integration and Execution of the Civil Service HR Hiring Tool Policy Memo
Department of Veteran’s Affairs
Periodic Reviews of Job Analysis
Codified roles and responsibilities of
stakeholders
Department of the Treasury Critical Conversations Guide– HR Specialist and Hiring Manager
Department of Defense Management Hiring Satisfaction Survey
TSA Codified SOPs US Coast Guard Notional Hiring Timeline
Findings - What is driving performance? After the interviews and literature review, the BPR team identified three major factors driving performance in the hiring process:
1. Human Resource system integration,2. Codified roles and responsibilities of stakeholders, and3. Agency-level standardized templates and guidance.
The BPR team found that comparing time to hire numbers outright is not an accurate comparison given the differences in what agencies report to OPM4. That said, the numbers do tell a story, but it is not the most important aspect when it comes to efficiency and effectiveness. For example, the BPR team would argue that NASA with 17,645 employees5 and TSA with 50,174 employees6 had the most integrated and systematic Civil Service hiring process out of the agencies interviewed. However, both of these agencies had relatively high time to hire numbers as of FY 2012* at 94 and 163 days respectively.
3 http://www.nga.net/announcements/nga-net-and-u-s-department-of-agriculture-earn-elite-eight-status-at-the-2015-act-iac-igniting-innov 4 Due to the nuances within each department or agency’s hiring process, the published time-to-hire data cannot be compared in the same way. 5 http://bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/rankings/detail/NN00#workforce 6 http://bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/rankings/detail/HS10
Annex E – Illustrative Benchmarks and Best Practices
3
The discussion below outlines some highlights related to the identified “performance drivers” from various agencies. Practices are certainly similar across agencies, but the BPR team determined those highlighted as the best and most adoptable by USAID.
USDA USDA experienced the same challenges faced at USAID and many other agencies within the US government. USDA has over 30 agencies, comparable to USAID’s bureau structure, while not comparable in size. Some of their challenges are: –
“Rapidly changing cost-constrained environment making it difficult to maintain disparatetechnology systems”;
“Inefficiencies due to using and maintaining fragmented HR technology systems to performsimilar functions across USDA”;
“Lack of standardized policies and workflow, and no consistent processes for all HR businessfunctions”; and
“Lack of data quality and data integrity, leading to inaccurate reporting, leading toineffective decision making”.
USDA took this challenge and invested resources into streamlining and integrating their HR IT systems to improve efficiency and effectiveness. Through a partnership with NGA.net, now known as Acendre, USDA developed a cloud-based talent management solution that integrates HR systems across all of USDA’s agencies. USDA’s Chief Human Capital Officer ensured that HR staff and SMEs across the different agencies had a role in the development of this IT architecture. The final product is a single sign-on system that provides a solution from the recruitment stage to the creation of a system of record for any given employee. Acendre asserts that this solution can reduce time to hire by 50 percent, but this has yet to be proven at USDA.
TSA The Department of Homeland Security’s Transportation Security Administration (TSA) uses an integrated data warehouse called HRAccess. This data warehouse integrates 64 data streams related to human resources throughout their agency. Users are able to generate quarterly reports on trends and the status of a variety of HR processes. HRAccess also conducts data validation to ensure that time to hire requirements are met. TSA uses many of the same systems used by USAID such as CareerConnector and NFC. The difference is the developed warehouse where this data is integrated and can be easily used for workforce planning and other business intelligence needs.
NASA Of the agencies interviewed, NASA possesses one of the more sophisticated data integration systems within the USG. Similar to USDA’s “One USDA” system that integrates systems across agencies, NASA created their own enterprise architecture, linking the policies and regulations to their data systems, to meet their specific needs. This architecture is a web-based “portal” where employees and the public can access all of the relevant data systems related to Human Resources. In addition, NASA created a “Personnel Data Warehouse” that allows for all of the systems to speak to each other.
Annex E – Illustrative Benchmarks and Best Practices
4
Once again, NASA is an agency with over 18,000 employees and 10 centers across the country. Therefore, their efforts to streamline data entry and management pre-dated the Time to Hire initiative due to the basic need of reducing redundant systems and easing efforts for all employees. NASA also mentioned that their investments in systems stems from the desire to “cut down on the administrative burden of employees”.
Another item to note is that this web portal is single sign-on and has different interfaces for different users. All actions are executed electronically from the request for personnel action to the selected candidate’s onboarding. NASA found that their data quality – including time to hire data collection – is excellent due to this system integration and streamlining, in large part because of the standardized data fields across systems. Some of the NASA-specific hiring systems within the portal are:
1. Electronic Position Description System (ePDS) – This is a Position Description System thatpopulates factor levels after entering the title, series, and grade of a position. The system then generates an evaluation statement and a Hiring Manager can enter the required duties. NASA sold this system to the Department of the Interior.
2. NASA Supplemental Classification System (NSCS) – NASA uses personalized Classification Codes,which are entered into this system. The public-facing version of this website also lists the OPM Classification Standards, a FAQ about the NSCS and a Desk Guide about the different classification codes.
3. NASA STARS – This system is where candidates upload their resume to be considered for an openposition at NASA. This is the equivalent to USAJobs, which most USG agencies use to advertise positions. NASA STARS differs from USA Jobs in that it is not questions-based and only requires a resume. NASA found that it was harder to get qualified candidates with the questions-based application portal.
4. NASA People – This is NASA’s onboarding system for selected candidates and current employees.The public-facing version of the website links to NASA’s additional HR websites and provides an array of HR information at NASA.
Department of State The Department of State (DOS) issued a Policy Memo in 2010 that outlined the plan for compliance with OPM’s mandate for Civil Service hiring reform. The memo addresses new hiring tools created by the Office of Civil Service Human Resource Management (CSHRM); the establishment of a Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO) Recruitment Survey, which captures the Hiring Manager’s impression of the hiring process for the particular vacancy; and a list of responsibilities for the relevant actors in the Civil Service hiring process. Accessible on the HR/CSHRM intranet site, this memo still serves as a reference document for DOS employees.
The significance of this memo is important. Its guidelines outlived the changes in OPM guidance that occurred after FY 2012. This benefits the memo-issuing office as they will not have to continuously update it and the stakeholders as they will not have to adapt to frequently changing guidance.
Annex E – Illustrative Benchmarks and Best Practices
5
Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Department of the Treasury) A major challenge in USAID’s hiring process is the lack of clarity about each stakeholder’s role and responsibilities in the process7. Many of the interviewed departments or agencies aim to mitigate this through codifying the expectations of each actor via policy or checklists. The Department of the Treasury has a decentralized HR process with individual HR offices and practices across their 12 agencies. The review team interviewed a HR representative from the Bureau of the Fiscal Service who explained the steps their bureau took to establish a more streamlined Civil Service hiring process and lowering their time to hire numbers.
The Bureau has a very systematic process. The first aspect of this is the completion of a job analysis prior to the recruitment process. This cuts down on the time tracked in the time to hire measurement. Further, the Bureau has an internal shared drive with a database of job analyses that is accessible across offices. These job analyses are developed from templates that are stored in CareerConnector (Monster). The standardization continues with the use of standardized checklists and guidance documents among the human resources staff – for example, a “Strategic Conversations Guide” (referenced below) and a checklist on how to use Veteran’s Preference.
Conclusions USAID’s small size8, relative to other USG agencies, allowed room for error in the Agency’s hiring processes. For example, the lack of standardization or system integration has not been as much of a problem as it would be at an agency of a larger size. Nonetheless, USAID has an opportunity to streamline the hiring process and make it more effective at filling vacant positions with high quality staff. Recognizing that limitations related to financial and workforce resources exist, the illustrative best practices and benchmarks provided in this document are resources to support implementation of this BPR’s recommendations. By modifying, refining, or otherwise building upon these selected reference documents, many of this BPR’s recommendations can be more easily implemented.
While agencies invested a large amount of time and effort to develop integrated data systems, the effort was worth the investment as users are able to easily and reliably retrieve data points, such as time to hire data or simply ease the hiring process. It is evident that some sort of system streamlining is necessary for the most efficient pre-hiring process to exist. Those agencies with connected data streams and systems indicated a stronger ability to input data, trust the data, and have a clearer understanding of the process overall as different steps can be tracked.
Codified roles and responsibilities and standardized templates as performance drivers inherently complement each other. More times than not, the Agency level standardized templates and guidance contain the codified roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in the hiring process. However, templates and guidance were found that address issues besides roles and responsibilities and focus on specific tasks. For example, in some instances departments or agencies had standalone documents, such as a guidebook for managers or a reference document on a particular system. All of these documents or templates were easily accessible and frequently reviewed and updated so that stakeholders always had the most up to date information.
7 See Issue Paper 1: Civil Service Hiring Business Flow. 8 With 2,669 direct-hire employees, USAID is considered a “mid-size agency” by the Partnership for Public Service. http://bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/rankings/detail/AM00#workforce
Annex E – Illustrative Benchmarks and Best Practices
6
Electronic Position Description System (ePDS)
Issue: Human Resource system integration
Benchmark/Best Practice:
Standardized, web-based method of developing a position description Embedded business rules and process flows to align user input with federal classification
rules, standards, and policies
Source: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Link: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/techtransfer/technology/MSC-24585-1-epds.html#.VVDc9NNVikp
One USDA
Issue: Human Resource system integration
Benchmark/Best Practice:
Cloud-based end-to-end talent acquisition Embedded business rules and process flows to align user input with federal classification
rules, standards, and policies
Source: US Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Link: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/techtransfer/technology/MSC-24585-1-epds.html#.VVDc9NNVikp
Classification Process Quick Reference Guide for Managers and Supervisors
Issue: Agency-level standardized templates and guidance
Benchmark/Best Practice:
Online guidance on the Hiring Manager’s role and responsibility in the classification process,developed and managed by Human Resources Department
Source: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Link: Position Classification QRG_11x17_FINAL.PDF - http://us.hdle.it/611434
Annex E – Illustrative Benchmarks and Best Practices
7
Manager’s Guide to the NASA Hiring Process
Issue: Agency-level standardized templates and guidance
Benchmark/Best Practice:
Guide for managers to understand the hiring process and their role
Source: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Link: https://searchpub.nssc.nasa.gov/servlet/sm.web.Fetch/Reviised_Manager_Hiring_Guide_-_Final_8-5-11.pdf?rhid=1000&did=1120495&type=released
Integration and Execution of the Civil Service HR Hiring Tools Policy Memo
Issue: Agency-level standardized templates and guidance
Benchmark/Best Practice:
Leadership level guidance on expectations from Hiring Managers in the hiring process
Source: US Department of State
Link: Policy Memo 09-10 Integ. and Exec. of the CS-HR Hiring Tools.pdf - http://us.hdle.it/608477
Periodic Review of Job Analysis
Issue: Agency-level standardized templates and guidance
Benchmark/Best Practice:
Hiring Manager with guidance from Human Resources performs job analysis prior tosubmitting vacancy
HR periodically reviews job analyses to ensure they are currentSource: Department of Veteran’s Affairs
Link: http://www.diversity.va.gov/products/files/RSG.pdf
Annex E – Illustrative Benchmarks and Best Practices
8
Critical Conversations – HR Specialist and Hiring Manager
Issue: Agency-level standardized templates and guidance
Benchmark/Best Practice:
Conversation guide for HR specialist to use to discuss important components of the hiring process with the Hiring Manager such as: -SME involvement -Advertisement strategies -Job Analysis -Timeline and more.
Source: Department of the Treasury
Link: Overview of HR Specialist Conversations with Hiring Manager.docx - http://us.hdle.it/553004
Chief Human Capital Officer’s 6-Month Management Hiring Satisfaction Survey
Issue: Codified roles and responsibilities of stakeholders
Benchmark/Best Practice:
Formal assessment of: quality of new hire and Hiring Manager’s overall experience with thehiring process
Source: Department of Defense
Link: Final 6-Month Manager Survey.docx - http://us.hdle.it/627822
Notional Hiring Timeline
Issue: Codified roles and responsibilities of stakeholders
Benchmark/Best Practice:
Clear identification of hiring process actions, the owner, and recommended number ofcalendar days to complete each action in a public facing guide
Source: United States Coast Guard
Link: Civilian_Hiring_Guide US Coast Guard.pdf - http://us.hdle.it/885069
Annex F – Benchmarking Protocol
Civil Service T2H Benchmarking Protocol
1. What are some steps your agency took to reduce your T2H after the implementation ofthe Hiring Reform Initiative?
2. What were the necessary resources for you to streamline and make changes in your T2Hprocess?
a. What metrics/ratios do you have pertaining to HR staff and workload?b. Did you have to make any significant resource requests or changes to make your civil
service hiring process more efficient?3. What does your civil service hiring process look like (big picture) i.e. who is involved (do you
have an AMS/support staff function), what systems do you use, etc.?a. Do you have a process map you can share with us?b. Do you have checklists or SOPs for the civil service hiring process? If so, how are they
governed? (i.e. who owns and updates these documents and where are they stored?)c. Does your agency have any performance metrics on T2H? If so, when and how do you
monitor the T2H data?4. If applicable, how do you use Career Connector/Monster?
a. If you don’t use Career Connector/Monster, what do you use?5. Where do you store your PDs? (in Monster or somewhere else)6. Does your agency offer any training (provided by HR or elsewhere) on the hiring process,
particularly for hiring managers? If so, do you think that has helped in your time to hire?a. Could you share resources with us?b. If training is offered, how often is it held? Is it mandatory? If so, how often are hiring
manager required to attend?7. Do you have any overall lessons learned in the process of reducing T2H?
1
Annex H – Glossary
Administrative Management Services (AMS) Officer
An AMS Officer performs tasks related to the administrative management of an organization. This includes activities such as interpreting administrative policies, developing and implementing organizational policies, defining administrative requirements, and/or providing advice to management on related issues.
Automated Directives System (ADS)
The ADS is a standardized system comprising (1) USAID internal policy directives and required procedures; (2) external regulations applicable to USAID; and (3) non-mandatory guidance to help employees interpret and properly apply internal and external mandatory guidance.
Benchmark
A structured approach for identifying the best practices from industry and government, and comparing and adapting them to an organization’s operations. Such an approach is aimed at identifying more efficient and effective processes for achieving intended results based on outstanding practices of other organizations.
Business Process Review (BPR)
A business process review is an analysis of specific operational processes of an organization with the objective of identifying recommendations for improving efficiency and effectiveness.
Classification
The orderly assignment of positions to a series, title, and grade. Such classification is in accordance with published classification and job grading standards or guides promulgated by the Agency (for Foreign Service positions) or by the US Office of Personnel Management (for Civil Service positions).
Electronic Official Personnel Folder (eOPF)
A digital recreation of an employee’s paper personnel folder, which results in a comprehensive electronic personnel data repository that spans the lifecycle of Federal employment.
Effectiveness Effectiveness is the accomplishment of a process with minimal errors and maximum customer satisfaction.
Efficiency Efficiency is the accomplishment of a process in minimal time.
Grade Includes all classes of positions which, although different with respect to kind or subject matter of
1
Annex H – Glossarywork, are sufficiently equivalent as to level of difficulty and responsibility and level of qualification requirements of the work to warrant their inclusion within one range of rates of basic pay in the General Schedule or the Foreign Service pay plans.
Guidance
Guidance is a general term that includes policy directives and required procedures, rules, regulations, advice, and other information relevant to the conduct of USAID business. The critical distinction is between mandatory and non-mandatory guidance, as defined below. A particular document may contain both mandatory and non-mandatory guidance.
Hiring Manager
The individual responsible for making a particular hiring decision, often the future employee's supervisor. May be the same as the “selecting official.1
Job Analysis
The process of identifying the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics essential to a position in order to provide a job related basis for evaluation and selection for the position.
Job Opportunity Announcement (JOA) A recruitment tool that allows potential candidates to understand what a job entails and what qualifications are required.2
Key Informant A key informant is a person with first-hand knowledge about a topic of interest.
Optional Form 8 (OF-8)
An official Optional Form governed by the General Services Administration under 41 CFR 102-194, Standard and Optional Forms Management Program. This form is used as a cover sheet when developing a Position Description.
Position Description
A statement of the principal duties and responsibilities and supervisory relationships of a position with sufficient clarity to provide information necessary for its proper classification.
Selecting Official
The individual responsible for making a careful analysis of the qualifications of each candidate certified for a vacancy and judging which candidate could perform best in the job to be filled.
1 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wps/portal/aphis/ourfocus/business-services/sa_publications/sa_hr_desk_guide/sa_hrdg_4030/ct_4030_intro/!ut/p/a0/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfGjzOJNPC2MjIwNjDwNTHyMDBwNnMKMDZxDDQ1DDPQLsh0VAdZi6Go!/ 2 http://www.hr.commerce.gov/s/groups/public/@doc/@cfoasa/@ohrm/documents/content/prod01_009384.pdf
1
2
Annex H – Glossary
Standard Form 52 (SF-52)
A request for personnel action used by operating officials or supervisors to request personnel actions and to secure internal agency clearance of requests for personnel action.
Subject Matter Expert (SME)
An individual selected to evaluate candidates and establish the candidate's relative merit for promotion to the targeted position. He or she must be competent in the technical areas of the position.
3
Annex I – Bibliography
5 CFR Part 330 Recruitment, Selection and Placement (General)
5 USC 33 Examination, Selection and Placement
5 CFR Part 731, Suitability.
5 CFR Part 732, National Security Positions.
Department of Veterans Affairs, Recruitment & Selection Best Practices Guide: Avoiding Equal Employment Opportunity Pitfalls to Create a Diverse Workforce, April 2010.
ClearanceJobs.com; http://news.clearancejobs.com/2011/10/09/security-clearance-investigations-process-updated/
Executive Order 12968, Access to Classified Information.
Executive Order 10450, Security Requirements for Government Employment.
Federal Register, Designation of National Security Positions in the Competitive Service, and Related Matters, 80 Fed. Reg. 108 (June 5, 2015) (5 CFR Chapter IV).
Fox, Tom, Hiring tips for federal leaders, The Washington Post, September 3, 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2013/09/03/hiring-tips-for-federal-leaders/ .
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Manager’s Guide to Recruitment Best Practices, Version 1, May 2009.
NGA.net http://www.nga.net/announcements/nga-net-and-u-s-department-of-agriculture-earn-elite-eight-status-at-the-2015-act-iac-igniting-innov
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
- “Classification & Qualifications”. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/classification-qualifications/
- “OPM End-to-End Hiring Initiative”. http://archive.opm.gov/publications/endtoend-hiringinitiative.pdf
- “Hiring Authorities: Competitive Hiring”. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/hiring-authorities/competitive-hiring/
- “Human Capital Management: Hiring Reform”. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/human-capital-management/hiring-reform/
USAID. - Chapter 101; “Agency Programs and Functions." Automated Directives System (ADS). 2013.
http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/101.pdf - Chapter 102; “Agency Organization." Automated Directives System (ADS). 2012.
1
Annex I – Bibliography - http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/102_0.pdf - Chapter 413; “Civil Service Appointments and Employment." Automated Directives System
(ADS). 2015. http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1877/413.pdf
- Chapter 456; “Personnel Operations: Classification." Automated Directives System (ADS). 1998. http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1877/456.pdf
- Chapter 469; “Civil Service Personnel Recruitment." Automated Directives System (ADS). 2002. http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1877/469.pdf
- Civil Service Delegated Examining/Merit Promotion Hiring Process Map, 2014. - Human Capital Services Center Customer Service Standard. 2015
https://pages.usaid.gov/system/files/hcsc_customer_service_standard_2015_final_7_14_2015_reduced.pdf
- USAID Five Year Workforce Plan FY 2009-FY 2013. 2008 http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pdacy035.pdf
2
