atCODAP
by SSI ...
Sensible Systems, Inc -- A leader in
Automated Support for Responsible Occupational Analysis
For Historical Interest
ONLY!
For current information,
please see: <http://www.icodap.org>
Welcome to the World of CODAP! (Ideal Project)
History of CODAP |
|
Phase 4: Report and Compare Real Jobs & Traditional Classifications |
| Phase 5: Review, Expand, and Validate new Job Structure |
History
of CODAPCODAP is an acronym for Comprehensive Occupational Data Analysis Programs - a set of programs originally developed by the Air Force Human Resources Laboratory (AFHRL) from the late 1950's through 1995 here in San Antonio, Texas.
CODAP was the United States Air Force's answer
to managing a workforce in a rapidly changing, high-tech world.
Although the term "CODAP" started out as an acronym for a set of
computer programs, the term has grown to cover operational and research
protocols for structuring, collecting, organizing, and reporting large
quantities of detailed occupational data.
Back
To Welcome to CODAP
The atCODAP system was designed to extend the power and application of occupational analysis studies beyond the "large scale training application" of the older, mainframe CODAP system. This overview is intended to illustrate a possible multi-method application of the atCODAP software system that is no longer tied exclusively to "time spent on tasks." For more on this redesign philosophy, please see the Full Story page.
Phase 1 would cluster task statements based on time spent, part-of-job, or importance to empirically define sets of tasks performed by common set of incumbents (task modules). These task modules are called Performance Dimensions and characterize the real dimensions of the workplace. Except in fields affected by major technology insertions, these modules tend to retain their identity through organizational restructuring and therefore represent stable building blocks in job and career-path redesign. When linked to existing training packages, performance dimensions can be used to immediately specify training content for new jobs that needs to be integrated and augmented to meet new demands. These modules should be mapped into the traditional Functional Analysis Framework pre-dating this study to establish validity and a framework for later reporting.
While any factor may be used in the clustering (such as competencies) tasks still remain the clearest linkage to "job requirements." These job requirements separate the workspace into manageable units as a COMMON basis for formulating objective decisions for many organization policies. Tasks can be translated into "matching people" parameters spanning the entire HR life cycle including recruiting, selection, assignment, promotion, detailing, mentoring and outplacement. In addition, the Training Community can use the same information for scheduling when training should be given in a career path (programming), what training is appropriate (content), and how well training meets operations needs (training evaluation). Task performance data is also used in establishing pay equity issues in the area of compensation (equal pay for equal work). Note that compensation is done by looking at what the job requires, not how competent the current incumbent happens to be. The employee's ability to discharge the requirements of the job is the employee performance appraisal function. Other applications, such as gender or racial bias also need to fall back on the actual work performed by "comparably qualified" individuals and track their promotion records.
Economies in job-training
development can be recognized here, not because of a common Knowledge, Skill,
Ability, and Other (KSAO) Characteristics constellation from a knowledge
outline, but because a task module defines work done by a somewhat identifiable
group of job incumbents who have the same training needs. This type of
modular training approach is in line with computer-based and Internet-based
just-in-time training strategies.
Back
To Welcome to CODAP
Phase 2 would cluster job
incumbents based on ratings of task time spent (relative or absolute) or
performance dimension subtotals or functional job area values to empirically
define groups of people performing similar jobs (job types). The
statistical clustering process produces empirically defined job descriptions
that document units of work that actually exist in the workplace, regardless of
specifications in traditional classification documents. These empirical
groups of work and workers are called job types. Job types form the
backbone of responsible planning for recruiting strategies, establishing and
revising classification structures, identifying key elements for selection
decisions, determining training program content, deciding when training is
needed, evaluating training effectiveness, creating fair promotion tests,
developing career paths, and conducting pay equity evaluations. The
"job typing" process is not considered complete until the job types
are mapped into a career path chart that shows long-term growth possibilities
for an employee.
Back
To Welcome to CODAP
Phase 3 would integrate
global "item evaluation factors." In mainframe CODAP, these
factors were called "task factors" because "tasks" were the
only available list items. In atCODAP, an item evaluation factor (IEF) is
any global rating set, usually made by Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) that
provides an assessment that spans across all items in a list. In some
projects the "computed average monthly salary" or "average pay
grade" are used to establish pay equity and while these are NOT ratings by
experts, these factors are used as an evaluation tool in assessing the relative
"importance" of one item to the next. Typically though, these
are SME-rated item factors such as importance, consequences of inadequate
performance, responsibility level, task learning difficulty, training emphasis,
etc. -- where the raters are NOT responding to the needs of a single job, but
acting as an expert with knowledge across the entire list. The assumption,
is, therefore, that all raters are rating the same factor and SHOULD demonstrate
inter-rater agreement. This is contrasted with job incumbents who rate
tasks as related to their own job and may be expected to NOT match other job
incumbents. SME ratings are typically reduced down to a single mean vector
(unless multiple policies are detected) and displayed along side any job
incumbent job descriptions (see below.) For example, one may wish to
report task learning difficulty and training emphasis next to a job description
when formulating training for that job. atCODAP incorporates a product
called the Automated Training Indicator (ATI) which uses those two factors to
recommend appropriate training settings from self-student to class-room with
lab. Real live trainers are still expected to review the automated
"indicators" and make rational decisions beyond the reach of the data.
Back
To Welcome to CODAP
Phase 4 would calculated and
print "Job Descriptions" for each identified group of respondents for
each list-factor combination. In this way, for each job identified, one
could have a job description in terms of: tasks performed, performance
dimensions supported, functional areas supported, competencies required, tools
used, knowledge employed, etc -- whatever was collected in the survey or merged
in from a master personnel file (if personal identifiers are used).
Although the simple display of the items may seem sufficient, for each list
there is also one or more rating scales which help to prioritize the item
listed. Because of the internal structure of atCODAP, any group may be
cross-compared at the item level. This means the group identified as
"Supervisors, Level I" may be compared to "Supervisors, Level
II" on ANY list-factor combination. One could report how these groups
differ based on competencies (or levels thereof), on tasks performed (or
relative emphasis therein), or on knowledge used -- any factor in the study.
Differences are displayed in ascending order -- floating items more relevant to
the first group on the top of the report and sinking items more relevant to the
second group to the bottom of the report. While atCODAP programs exist to
perform this type of report, specific data can now be exported to alternative
formats such as HTML/XML (Web Display, inter-system transfer), CSV (Excel, etc),
and fixed-format ASCII w/data base definition images for the Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences (SPSS).
Back
To Welcome to CODAP
Phase 5: Review, Expand, and Validate new Job Structure
Phase 5 is the process of taking recommended structuring and job descriptions and coordinating with all involved parties. This process typically includes identifying and resolving missing functions (lost in the restructure), specifying and injecting new functions (mandated by technology or management directive), and making a reality check with potential workers, supervisors and managers responsible for ultimate performance. Upon acceptance, job descriptions may be posted in accessible electronic locations for use in all derivative applications as mentioned in Phase 1 above.
Copyright © 1997-2001 Sensible Systems, Inc.
