Report - Government Executive

More documents

Recommendations

Info

HOW DCIPS COMPARES TO NSPS As discussed in Chapter 2, NSPS was developed to replace the GS/GG system for DoD’s nonintelligence workforce. Like DCIPS, it reflected Executive Branch concerns that the GS system was no longer adequate to recruit, hire, and compensate the workforce needed to support DoD’s national security mission. NSPS encountered legal challenges from employees and unions alleging that its provisions were applied inconsistently, resulting in disparate pay outcomes for affected employees. The FY 2010 NDAA repealed NSPS’ statutory authority and directed the Secretary of Defense to terminate it and transition all covered employees out from it no later than January 1, 2012. 92 DCIPS and NSPS share several design characteristics. 93 Both were designed to foster a strong performance culture by creating an HR system that more directly links employee pay to performance and contribution to the DoD mission. 94 Both employed pay bands that replace the 15 GS or GG grades, with salary progression within the bands based on annual performance assessments. They also increased communication between employees and their supervisors. Finally, they both use pay pools funded from available resources to provide for performancebased compensation. NSPS policies required the integration, rather than separation, of performance management and pay pool processes, a key area where it and DCIPS diverge. Other key differences are the areas that have the greatest impact on employees’ compensation and their perceptions of system fairness. Given that DCIPS’ performance evaluation and pay pool processes are separate, for example, there is no commingling of salary and bonus pool funds. Unlike NSPS, DCIPS policy requires that employee ratings be prepared and approved prior to the pay pool process. Further, DCIPS does not permit pay pool officials to change ratings in the process of deciding salary or bonus payouts. In contrast, NSPS pay pool panels had authority to change performance management ratings during their deliberations to determine performance-based payouts and require the supervisor to accept them, even if the supervisor disagreed. 95 The Defense Business Board Report noted this as a major area fueling employee mistrust of the system and its processes. OUSD(I) officials indicated that they were attentive to DoD’s challenges with NSPS and applied those lessons learned to DCIPS’ design features. Although some online dialogue and open forum participants expressed concern about the fairness of ratings and pay pool processes, these do not appear to be a function of the DCIPS’ design, but a result of how supervisors and managers are implementing the system’s provisions. Table 3-6 provides a more detailed comparison between DCIPS and NSPS. Key differences are highlighted in yellow. 92 Pub. L. 111-84, Sec. 1113. 93 NSPS changed the classification, compensation, recruitment, and staffing of DoD positions, but this comparison is limited to aspects of NSPS that can be compared to DCIPS’ existing features, as officially documented in approved policies. 94 DoD 1400.25-M, SC 1940, Subchapter 1940, Performance Management, dated Dec. 1, 2008. 95 As reported in the Defense Business Board Report to the Secretary of Defense, “Review of the National Security Personnel System,” July 2009, which references the NSPS 2008 Evaluation Report, pp. 5-10. 52
Table 3-7. Comparison of DCIPS and NSPS Design Design Feature DCIPS NSPS Merit Systems Principles Merit Systems Principles and other employee protections are retained and supported by governing policies. Merit Systems Principles and other employee protections were retained and supported by governing policies. 96 Mission Alignment Alignment with intelligence and organizational mission documented in policy. Alignment with national security mission documented in policy. Occupational Structure Three work categories and several occupational groups. Four career groups; job titles aligned with these groups. 97 Pay Structure One common pay band structure that uses five pay bands arrayed across three different work categories. Performance Management Rating Cycle Fiscal Year cycle. Same. Performance Objectives Each employee generally rated on three to six performance objectives linked to the agency mission; one is the minimum objective required. Performance Elements Six performance elements used and considered separately from the objectives: 1. Accountability for Results 2. Communication 3. Critical Thinking 4. Engagement and Collaboration 5. Personal Leadership and Integrity/Leadership 6. Technical Expertise/Managerial Proficiency Elements evaluated separately from job objectives. Multiple pay bands within four career groups and several pay schedules. 98 Each employee rated on three to five weighted job objectives. 99 Seven contributing factors 100 used to assess the manner of performance important for the accomplishment of each objective: 1. Communication 2. Cooperation and Teamwork 3. Critical Thinking 4. Customer Focus 5. Leadership 6. Resource Management 7. Technical Proficiency 96 DoD 1400.25-M, SC1940, Subchapter 1940: Performance Management, p. 2. 97 NSPS career groups included Standard Career Group, Medical Career Group, Scientific and Engineering Career Group, and Investigative and Protective Services Career Group. 98 The four pay schedules are Professional/Analytical, Technician/Support, Supervisor/Manager, and Student. 99 DoD 1400.25-M, SC1940, Subchapter 1940: Performance Management, p. 7-8. 53
Page 1 and 2:
A Report by a Panel of the NATIONAL
Page 3 and 4:
FOREWORD The terrorist attacks of S
Page 5 and 6:
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD.........
Page 7 and 8:
Governance ........................
Page 9 and 10:
ACRONYMS Academy CWB DCIPS DIA DIHR
Page 11 and 12:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The terrorist att
Page 13 and 14:
• It is too soon to draw conclusi
Page 15 and 16: CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND, METHODOLOGY A
Page 17 and 18: • The adequacy of the training, p
Page 19 and 20: • Chapter 6: The Way Forward for
Page 21 and 22: CHAPTER 2 THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT FO
Page 23 and 24: National intelligence is still orga
Page 25 and 26: ewarded longevity over performance
Page 27 and 28: OTHERS FACTORS THAT IMPACTED DCIPS
Page 29 and 30: • Partisan politics could play an
Page 31 and 32: Administration (TSA), which operate
Page 33 and 34: NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
Page 35 and 36: CHAPTER 3 ASSESSING DCIPS’ DESIGN
Page 37 and 38: FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DCIPS’ DE
Page 39 and 40: Figure 3-1. Objectives of the NICCP
Page 41 and 42: PRINCIPLE The system is transparent
Page 43 and 44: The Defense Intelligence Enterprise
Page 45 and 46: discourage teamwork…to the organi
Page 47 and 48: Figure 3-2. DCIPS 2010 Pay Band Str
Page 49 and 50: enable managers and supervisors to
Page 51 and 52: they achieve their goals. Given the
Page 53 and 54: Element Definition Supervisory/Mana
Page 55 and 56: cooperation with ODNI. The review w
Page 57 and 58: Source: OUSD(I) Human Capital Manag
Page 59 and 60: eplaces the current government-wide
Page 61 and 62: esults, but the final DCIPS evaluat
Page 63 and 64: The Panel believes that adequate fu
Page 65: HOW DCIPS COMPARES TO THE GS/GG SYS
Page 69 and 70: Design Feature DCIPS NSPS quality s
Page 71 and 72: Recommendation 4. To ensure equitab
Page 73 and 74: CHAPTER 4 ASSESSING DCIPS’ IMPLEM
Page 75 and 76: Table 4-1. Overview of the OPM Obje
Page 77 and 78: In the DCIPS context, “leaders”
Page 79 and 80: intelligence component would do so.
Page 81 and 82: • Credible, timely, and original
Page 83 and 84: Finding 4-5 The DCIPS website and R
Page 85 and 86: Finding 4-6 The lack of a communica
Page 87 and 88: No training needs assessments have
Page 89 and 90: pay pool exercises to be helpful an
Page 91 and 92: • The Commerce Department used fo
Page 93 and 94: 3. Implementing DCIPS; 4. Evaluatin
Page 95 and 96: created a separate document for som
Page 97 and 98: lack of an overall change strategy
Page 99 and 100: changed and by whom. 149 This appea
Page 101 and 102: How pay pools are constructed and w
Page 103 and 104: DCIPS survey results indicate that
Page 105 and 106: CONCLUSIONS The Panel finds that a
Page 107 and 108: CHAPTER 5 ASSESSING DCIPS’ IMPACT
Page 109 and 110: • Disincentives to become a super
Page 111 and 112: employees received performance rati
Page 113 and 114: Figure 5-1. DCIPS Interim Array of
Page 115 and 116: Table 5-1. NGA Indices and Comparat
Page 117 and 118:
of implementation. Nonetheless, OUS
Page 119 and 120:
CHAPTER 6 THE WAY FORWARD FOR DCIPS
Page 121 and 122:
OUSD(I) has advised the Panel that
Page 123 and 124:
CHAPTER 7 PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS Bas
Page 125 and 126:
• Clarify and strengthen its guid
Page 127 and 128:
Recommendation 23. OUSD(I) should d
Page 129 and 130:
APPENDIX B APPENDIX A PANEL AND STA
Page 131 and 132:
APPENDIX B Committee on U.S. Nation
Page 133 and 134:
APPENDIX B PARTICIPATING INDIVIDUAL
Page 135 and 136:
Michael Jackson*—President and Fo
Page 137 and 138:
Defense Intelligence Agency Kendrea
Page 139 and 140:
APPENDIX C APPENDIX C BIBLIOGRAPHY
Page 141 and 142:
APPENDIX C Langbein, L. “The impa
Page 143 and 144:
APPENDIX D APPENDIX D MERIT SYSTEMS
Page 145 and 146:
APPENDIX D (10) Discriminating agai
Page 147 and 148:
APPENDIX E APPENDIX E DCIPS PERFORM
Page 149 and 150:
APPENDIX E EMPLOYEE NAME: _________
Page 151 and 152:
APPENDIX E EMPLOYEE NAME: _________
Page 153 and 154:
APPENDIX F APPENDIX F OPEN FORUM LO
Page 155 and 156:
APPENDIX G APPENDIX G MITRE’S PER
show all

Report - Government Executive

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?