- Количество слайдов: 102
RGE AND EDGE TRAINING FY 07 U. S. Department of the Interior U. S. Geological Survey
Objectives of the R&D Panel Process Training • Discuss Bureau-wide procedures in the R&D panel processes. • Provide guidance on using the RGEG and EDGEG
USGS R&D Policies • All R&D panels operate according to Bureau guidelines • GS-15 career ladder for all permanent R&D staff • Mandatory review of permanent R&D staff every 4 years and STs every 6 years
Highlighted Changes in the Bureau Process for FY 07 Bureau guidance has been modified to reflect changes in the new RGEG (09/2006). • New rating scale • No use of odd numbers in scoring • Deletion of Gray Area between grades • No option for Science Center Manager to forward packages to the 2 nd level panel beyond the recommendations of the 1 st level panel.
Position Classification and the Role of Panels
The Classification Act of 1949, As Amended Provides for: • Equal pay for equal work • Rates of compensation proportional to difficulty, responsibility, and qualification requirements • Positions grouped by series based on duties, responsibilities, and qualification requirements
The Evaluation Tools - RGEG (amended in 2006) and EDGEG The grade-level evaluation guide for: • Basic or applied research is the RGEG • Experimental and investigative activities to develop new and improved equipment and to advance technology is the EDGEG Part 3
The RGEG and the EDGEG “Person-in-the-Job Concept” The evaluation considers the interaction between the assignment and the individual qualities of the scientist.
The Panel Role in Evaluating R&D • To evaluate the grade level of a position using OPM classification criteria • To review submissions of non-R&D scientists requesting conversion to R&D positions To identify major work assignments that are not research or development •
Why a Panel Process? • To use the technical expertise of peers to evaluate the relevance and impact of the work and the stature of the individual • Impact can be both scientific and societal
Why is Documenting the Work of the Panel so Important? The consensus scores and resulting recommendations are the official position classification record. The classification decision is the foundation for the authorization of Federal funds for an employee’s pay and fulfill the legal requirements of the Classification Act.
Panels Should Not Discuss • • Problems of an employee on a PIP Conduct problems Unrelated personal information Team, cost center, or project financial limitations
R&D Work in the 21 st Century
The Changing Face of R&D Work • Interdisciplinary Science • Societal and Scientific Impact • Directed Science • Team Focus • Goal and Performance Driven Work
Technical Assistance Research Leadership and Direction Professional Society Services Core R&D Work Peer Reviewed Strategic Planning Education and Outreach
Comparing Research and Development Work
RESEARCH Purpose Assignments DEVELOPMENT • Expanding knowledge and understanding. • New or improved products, processes, and techniques. • Problems to be solved: – Entail relative freedom to explore promising areas in relation to organizational programs. – May stem from an intent to close gaps in knowledge in a given field, or to develop new theories or explanations of phenomena; and – Are difficult to define in terms of expected outcomes and measurable results. • Problems to be solved: – Are defined in advance or assigned; – May stem from an intent to exploit an understanding of phenomena and principles, or – Have predictable outcomes or measurable results.
RESEARCH Results DEVELOPMENT Products are: • Papers describing new and modified theories and principles; • Explanations of phenomena; and • Information to improve the understanding of techniques and processes. Products are: • Papers describing application of theories and principles; • Design concepts, models, patents, and inventions, and • Equipment, techniques and processes.
Evaluating Research Positions Using the RGEG and EDGEG
Who is Covered by the RGEG or EDGE Part III? Those with : • Personal performance of research or development as a substantial portion of the job • Direct leadership of AND participation in the activities of a research or development team when the basis for selection is competence in research
Research Systematic, critical, intensive investigation directed toward the development of new or fuller scientific knowledge of the subject studied. It may be with or without reference to a specific application. The work involves theoretical, taxonomic, and experimental investigations or simulation of experiments and conditions to: • Determine the nature, magnitude, and interrelationships of natural and social phenomena and processes, • Create or develop theoretical or experimental means of investigating such phenomena or processes; and • Develop the principles, criteria, methods, and data of general applicability.
Research Responsibility Professionals engaged in research have one or both of the following responsibilities: • Personally performs responsible research a substantial portion of the time • Directly and personally leads and participates in the activities of a research team and/or organizational unit when the primary basis of selection for the position is competence and capability in performing responsible research.
Professionally Responsible Research • Involves applying scientific methods, including exploring and defining problems, planning the approach for study, analyzing data, interpreting results, and documenting or reporting findings; • Requires creativity and critical judgment, which may materially affect the nature of the end product; • Requires research capability attainable through graduate education or demonstrated research experience;
Professionally Responsible Research cont’d • Is performed at a level of responsibility typically associated with independent research investigation; and • The researcher’s contributions, stature, and recognition have a direct and major impact on the level of difficulty and responsibility of the research.
Excluded from Evaluation by RGEG Positions: • With paramount responsibility for management, coordination, or administration of research programs • Involving primarily engineering development, test, and evaluation • Limited to the conduct of field surveys to collect scientific data on natural phenomena
Development Systematic application of scientific knowledge directed toward the creation of new or substantially improved equipment, materials, instrumentation, devises, systems, mathematical models, processes, techniques, and procedures which will perform a useful function or be suitable for a particular duty. Development, like research, advances the state of the art, but it is further characterized by the creation of specific end-items in the form of equipment or equipment systems ("hardware" development) and/or methodologies, mathematical models, procedures and techniques ("software" development).
The work involves such activities as • Establishing requirements for technical objectives and characteristics; • Devising and evaluating concepts for design approaches, including: criteria, parameters, characteristics, and interrelationships; • Experimenting, investigating, and testing to produce new data, mathematical models, or methods to test concepts, formulate design criteria, and measure and predict natural and social phenomena and performance; designing and developing prototypes, breadboards, and engineering models including the direction of their fabrication as required; developing standards and test plans to assure reliability; and managing specific developments being executed in-house or under contract. Source: Federal Personnel Manual Supplement 292 -1
Excluded from Coverage by EDGEG Positions are excluded from coverage in part III when engaged in the following: • Planning, directing, evaluating and integrating others' (e. g. , contractors, in‑house, etc. ) work in developing new equipment and concepts; • Serving as staff consultants or advisors, while not personally engaged in experimental development work; • Managing the combined efforts of contractors and Government to accomplish a specific development project; • Engaged primarily in basic and applied research; • Engaged primarily in supervision of experimental development work;  • Engaged in the conventional design of equipment including the redesign of development prototypes for production/manufacture, which can be accomplished by applying/adapting standard references, criteria, practices; • Concerned primarily with the conduct and reporting of tests.
Factor I: Research or Development Assignment What is it? • The nature, scope, difficulty, and characteristics of the current assignment How large, complex, and difficult?
Factor I: (cont’d) What should be considered first? • Current assignment - the regular and recurring duties versus atypical projects • Team role and responsibility
Factor I: (cont’d) What should be considered for the researcher? • Scope, complexity, and objectives (of the science project, not any related management issues) and means of accomplishment • Necessity to translate abstract concepts to easily understood theory or models • Relevance and impact of expected end products and outcomes
Factor I: (cont’d) What should be considered for development staff? • The degree to which the problem is isolated and defined • The number and nature of variables • The difficulty of approach or techniques • The number of problems involved • The relevance, quality and impact of expected results • The extent and complexity of the validating process • The need for converting abstract concepts into hardware • The effectiveness of the project in solving other problems and in opening new areas of investigation
Factor II: Supervision Received What is it? • The scientist’s current level of independent performance • The technical and administrative guidance and control exercised over the research by the supervisor
Factor II: (cont’d) What should be considered? • The manner in which the supervisor assigns work • Individual’s freedom to determine the direction of the work and a course of action • Degree of acceptance of the scientist’s recommendations, decisions, and final products • The opportunity for procedural innovation.
Factor III. Guidelines and Originality What is it? The creative thinking, analysis, synthesis, evaluation, judgment, resourcefulness, and insight that characterize the work currently performed.
Factor III: (cont’d) What should be considered for researchers? • • • The extent and nature of guidelines. The degree of technical judgment required to select, interpret and adapt guidelines. The information sources available including technical handbooks, periodicals, reports, patents, etc.
Factor III. (cont’d) What should be considered for development staff? • Available written guides • Difficulty in applying guides • Degree of judgment required in the use of guides • The requirement for original and independent creation, analysis, reasoning, etc. • Originality in interpreting and translating findings • The impact of theories, principles, concepts, techniques, and approaches on the scientific field
Factor IV: Contributions, Impact and Stature What is it? The researcher or development scientist’s total contributions, impact and stature as they bear on the current assignment NOTE: This factor is double weighted
Factor IV: (cont’d) What should be considered for the researcher? • Research publication quality, relevance, impact • Innovations, technology and information transfer • Impact and contribution to agency, bureau, or program • Scientific advisory, consultant, and committee activities • Invitations to write papers or deliver keynote addresses • Professional leadership • Recognition by professional societies and external groups • Non-publication scientific contributions • Recency
Factor IV: (cont’d) What should be considered for development staff? • Product, innovation and publication quality, relevance and impact • Difficulty of circumstances under which contributions are achieved • Impact and contribution to agency, bureau or program • Scientific advisory, consultant, and committee activities • Professional leadership • Recognition by professional societies and external groups • Non-publication scientific contributions • Recency
Factor IV: (cont’d) • • Recent research or development contributions are essential for full credit of this factor. Generally 3 – 5 years Employees on a part-time schedule or those who have broken time or intervening assignments should be judged over a broader span of time.
Evaluating and Scoring Factors
General Information • Five levels to each factor A – E • Definition of A, C, E • Factors are interrelated
Comparison of Rating Scales Total of factor point values for Research Positions Grade Level Total of factor point values for Developmental Positions Grade Level 4 - 6 GS-09 8 -14 GS-11 8 - 11 GS-11 16 - 24 GS-12 13 ‑ 16 GS-12 26 - 34 GS-13 18 ‑ 21 GS-13 36 - 44 GS-14 23 ‑ 26 GS-14 46 - 50 GS-15 28 and above GS-15
Scoring STEPS • Review the guide • Apply criteria of RGEG or EDGEG (Make sure panels have these in hand) • Assign a degree level A through E and associated point values (Use checklists to help. ) • Interpolate for B , D, and Excess of Degree E CONSIDER • The overlap of factors • Multiple elements for evaluation in each factor • The definition as a whole
Scoring Changes as a Result of the New RGEG • A specific degree level (A, B, C, etc) must be assigned. • The use of odd numbers is no longer allowed. • If an individual package does not fully meet a particular degree level, the next lower degree level must be assigned. • The new RGEG does not have Gray Areas. A position must be assigned to a grade level.
Do’s and Don’ts for Panel Evaluations DO • Focus on the total qualifications, professional standing and recognition, and scientific contributions • Place emphasis on high quality scientifically and societally significant publications and products that have impact • Consider the entire history with an emphasis on recency DON’T • Just count the number of publications or products • Give full credit for a record which does not show evidence of continued scientific contributions
Confidentiality CONFIDENTIALITY IS CRITICAL TO THE FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION IN THE PANEL. • All deliberations, discussions and documents of the panel process are strictly confidential. • The Panel Chair must destroy all interim discussion materials and scoring forms. • It is the SOLE responsibility of management to provide feedback to the employee.
Case Materials Panels use the following case materials: • The RDSR • The position description • Significant publications • Optional supervisory letter of advocacy
1 st Level Panel • • Reviews all grades to ST using the RGEG or EDGEG Makes final recommendations for promotion up to GS-13 Recommends GS-14/15 and ST to 2 nd Level Panel Makes final decision to admit scientists to R&D positions (Use HR assistance) Identifies mixed positions (Use HR assistance) Makes final below-grade assessments and forwards them to the 2 nd level for review only Provides comments on RDSR
2 nd Level Panel • Provides final recommendations for all promotions to GS-14 and GS-15 • Recommends ST nominees to the ST Panel • Reviews all below-grade recommendations • Provides timely feedback to managers and employees on the results of the panel process
Chief Scientists of Each Discipline • Provides for RGE and EDGE training • Ensures timely evaluation of R&D staff • Addresses concerns about the panel process • Provides for timely feedback from the 1 st and 2 nd level panels • Chairs the 2 nd level panel
Discipline RGE Coordinators • Maintain database of R&D employees • Manage master file system for discipline • Ensure communication linkages among employees, managers and the Servicing Human Resources Offices
Regional Executives • Encourage staff to participate in panel processes • Serve on 2 nd level panels, as appropriate • Raise any issues of concern about panel operations to their Chief Scientists
Field Center Managers • Assist in the identification of panel members • Delay review of scientists on a Performance Improvement Plan or with conduct issues • Consider employee requests for early review • Provide mentors for new staff developing RDSRs • Review panel feedback and address any concerns with panel chair before providing feedback to the employee • Provide timely feedback to employees on the results of the panel process • Initiate promotion or reassignment actions • Address below-grade evaluations • Arrange for evaluation of non-research portions of mixed positions
Servicing Human Resources Offices Provide classification support to the panels
R&D Scientist Roles
R&D Scientist Roles • Read USGS RGE/EDGE Handbook • Read the RGEG and/or EDGEG • Develop and submit RDSR in accordance with USGS guidelines • Request early review if there is good evidence of growth since the last review • Serve on panels, as requested • Have a mentor review your RDSR • Review other scientist’s packages for them
Panel Member Roles 1 st Level Panel Process
1 st Level Panel Chairs • Provide case materials to panel members • Assign primary reviewer responsibilities • Establish guidelines and set tone for panel operations • Manage panel discussions • Ensure adequate documentation of panel decisions and recommendations • Report findings to the cost center chief
1 st Level Panel Members • Read the RGEG and EDGEG and checklists before the panel • Review case materials • Score each package prior to the panel meeting using the Panel Member Evaluation Score Form • Contribute actively to the evaluation discussion and work to reach consensus during the panel
1 st Level Panel Primary Reviewers • Become thoroughly familiar with the employee’s record including the significant publications • Supplement the RDSR with additional information gleaned from discussions with supervisors, colleagues, customers or others • Help panel members understand the % of contribution to multi-authored publications
1 st Level Panel Recorders • Record scores during the discussion period, as requested • Complete a digital copy of the Individual Panel Results Forms and Summary Panel Results Forms • Document panel decisions to justify the final score for each factor in relation to the RGEG or EDGEG criteria
Panel Member Roles and Responsibilities 2 nd Level Panel Process
2 nd Level Panel Chairs • Provide case materials to panel members • Establish guidelines and set tone for panel operations • Manage panel discussions • Ensure adequate documentation of panel decisions and recommendations
2 nd Level Panel Members • Read the RGEG and EDGEG and checklists • Review case materials • Contribute actively to the evaluation discussion and work to reach consensus
2 nd Level Panel Recorders • Record decisions of panel • Record new scores when the panel does not support the decision of the 1 st level panel • Complete Individual Panel Results Forms and Summary Panel Results Forms • When not supporting the 1 st level panel decision, record factor write ups to justify the panel final score decisions
The Feedback Process
Panel Feedback • • • Individual Panel Results Form Forwarded to Team Chief Scientist with copy to Regional Executive, and RGE coordinator Reviewed by TCS, any concerns addressed with panel chair. NOTE: Findings are recommendations to management
Management Feedback to Employees • Use Individual Panel Results Form • Feedback to scientists should be: – Timely – Constructive – Face-to-face, or personally delivered
What is a Mixed Position? A position that performs two or more different types of work such as research and non-research science work
Mixed Positions Policy and Guidance: • Bureau guidance - R&D positions should only be established where scientist can spend 50% or more of the work time performing research or development • OPM requirement – Any work in excess of 25% of time must be evaluated if it might be grade controlling
Mixed Positions Role of employee and supervisors if they believe a mixed position exists: • Identify the R&D and the non-R&D components of the work • Distinguish R&D in the RDSR and, as appropriate, request panel review according to established processes • Ensure the review of the non-research components of the position using appropriate guides and processes
Panel Role with Mixed Positions Role of Panel: • Evaluate the R&D assignments of the position • Remind supervisor that non-research assignments should be evaluated through other processes • Consider recency
Panel Role in Evaluating Positions Moving from Operations to Research or Development
Conversion to an R&D Position • Methods for conversion: – Creation of new R&D position which requires competition through vacancy announcement process – Evolution of an employee’s work as an extension of the current work assignment which requires application for conversion through the panel process
Applying Through the Panel Process • • • Issue is identified. Supervisor and employee determine if the work is assigned and part of the position. Is the work is part of the position and 25% or more of the scientist’s time, an RDSR is developed highlighting the research or development activities. RDSR is submitted to a panel. Supervisor forwards a letter to the panel identify the work, % of time spent on the function and his/her belief that the work is research or development, or not. – This may be a point of disagreement. The panel decides if the position is research or development.
Potential Outcomes from a Panel Review • Job is not research or development • Position re-titled to R&D with new FPL if: – R&D work is predominate and same or higher grade – R&D work is grade controlling
Supervisory Options For Positions Found to be Research or Development • Accept decision of panel • Consider time-limited assignment • Remove the research or development activities
Other Panel Considerations • Evaluating classified work • Rotational management • No Term or Faculty positions
FAQs • Appropriated vs. reimbursable work • Kitchen table research • Impact of funding on R&D work
Special Supervisory Issues • Linkage to performance reviews • Awards • Managing below-grade panel finding
Crossing Disciplines for Panel Review
Crossing Disciplines for Panel Review Why would you be reviewed by another discipline? • Ensure technical expertise for a thorough and accurate review Who decides to use another panel? • Employee or supervisor may request • Chief Scientist must concur • Other discipline’s Chief Scientist must agree
USGS Website • http: //internal. usgs. gov/ops/hro/class/rgeg / These documents are available on USGS website. • • • OPM’s RGEG and EDGEG USGS Research and Development Evaluation Process Handbook RGE, EDGE and ST Checklists Other OPM standards and Guides Training Materials
Research/Development Science Record (RDSR) The official record developed by R&D staff to record their career record. These are saved in the Master File for historical purposes.
Panel Member Evaluation Score Form For use by panel members in developing their initial evaluation of employees under review. These are destroyed after the panel.
Panel Member Evaluation Score Form for Research Scientists Employee: Grade: FACTOR I – Research Situation or Assignment Points: _______ Scope Complexity Importance or expected results FACTOR II – Supervisory Controls Points: ____ On assignment In process On completion FACTOR III – Guidelines and Originality Points: ____ Guidelines available and difficulty of application Originality required Demonstrated originality FACTOR IV – Contributions, Impact and Stature Points: ____ Demonstrated research ability Products/Publications Advisory/Consultant/Scientific Committee Activities Research-related activities and accomplishments (non-publication contributions) TOTAL POINTS: _____
Individual Summary Evaluation Score Form For use during the panel process, either digitally or on a white board, to capture panel member scores on each individual and to help panel members come to consensus on each factor and on the final score. These are destroyed after the panel.
Individual Panel Results Form Records findings of panel and grade level justification for each employee evaluated. These are the forms used for feedback to the employee. These are saved in the Mater File for historical purposes.
Individual Panel Results Form for Research Scientists Employee Name: __________________ Does this position include any non-research assignments that should be evaluated by the supervisor outside of the panel review process? Consensus Scores: • Factor I ____ • Factor III____ • Factor IV____ Final Consensus Score ____ Factor I: Research Assignment (Address the scope, complexity and importance of expected results) Factor II – Supervisory Controls (Address the level of supervision received on the assignment of work, when work is in progress and upon completion) Factor III: Guidelines and Originality (Address the availability of guidelines and the originality required) Factor IV: Contributions, Impacts and Stature (Address the demonstrated research ability, research products or publications, advisory, consultant, or scientific committee activities, and research-related activities and accomplishments (nonpublication contributions) Recommendations or other comments (for example, research direction, career issues, RDSR quality) PANEL CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATION (CIRCLE ONE) Promotion Stay-in-Grade Rated Below Grade
Panel Recommendation Summary Form Identifies the final recommendations of the panel for all employees evaluated These are saved in the Master File for historical purposes.
Master Files • • Maintained by disciplines except for ST files. Contain for historical purposes: – Current RDSR packages – Individual Panel Results Forms – Panel Information by Year – panel name, dates, membership, and resulting Panel Recommendation Summary Forms