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>
Three reasons: 1. It's the right thing to do to ensure job-based recruiting, hiring, classifying, training, promoting and out-placing your most valuable resource (your people); 2. It's smart business to train and retain the best qualified people; and 3. It's an insurance policy to preclude legitimate employee-initiated actions and lawsuits which could cost millions and jeopardize both the life of the organization and the jobs of other workers.
We've done our best to take the traditional main-frame "task-based" CODAP system and create a "task-anchored" occupational analysis system that is flexible on the item inventories (tasks, competencies, knowledge-skill-abilities, etc.) and scaleable to the smallest, quickest surveys on an IBM-PC compatible...
How does CODAP compare to Other OA Approaches?
CODAP scored very highly against alternative occupational analysis methods as evaluated by Levine, Ash, Hall, & Sistrunk (1983) in their article, "Evaluation of Job Analysis Methods by Experienced Job Analysts" found in the Academy of Management Journal 26 (2), 339-348. The competing occupational analysis methods included Threshold Traits Analysis (TTA: Lopez, Kesselman & Lopez, 1981), Ability Requirements Scales (ARS: Fleishman, 1975), Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ: McCormick, Jeanneret & Mecham, 1972), the Critical Incident Technique (CIT: Flanagan, 1954), Functional Job Analysis (FJA: Fine & Wiley, 1971), Job Elements Method (JEM: Primoff, 1975), and the Comprehensive Occupational Data Analysis Programs (CODAP: Christal, 1974) system. These methodologies were compared on their ability to service the 11 organizational purposes Levine, et al identified, namely: Job Descriptions, Job Classification, Job Evaluation, Job Design, Personnel Requirements/Specifications, Performance Appraisal, Worker Training, Worker Mobility, Efficiency/safety, Manpower/workforce planning, and legal/quasi-legal requirements. The methodologies were also compared for eleven practicality concerns, namely: occupational versatility/suitability; standardization; respondent/user acceptability; amount of job analyst training required; operational; sample size; off-the-shelf; reliability; cost; quality of outcome; and time to completion.
In this side-by-side comparison, CODAP did very well and was considered to be the most multi-purpose method -- although the final recommendation was to employ hybrid strategies for operational projects. The shortcomings of CODAP were noted from three major sources: the Levine review, criticisms voiced by Frank (1981), "The Philadelphia Experience: A Critique and analysis of the applicability of the Comprehensive Occupational Data Analysis Programs (CODAP) for civilian personnel management (Draft Report for the National League of Cities Service Program on Employer-Employee Relations), and the findings in Goodison (1980), "A summary of 10 cities on-site interviews and a critique of CODAP (Comprehensive Occupational Data Analysis Programs) in Report: Center for Occupational and Professional Assessment (Princeton, N.J., Educational Testing Service).
Sensible Systems, Inc.(SSI) was founded in 1982 to redesign a CODAP-like technology, but without the shortcomings noted in the literature. The result of a five-year development project was "atCODAP" which means "anchored to CODAP - but not limited by it." The atCODAP technology was designed from the ground up to run 100% on PC-based platforms and to produce streamlined (i.e., operational, not research) reports directly on laser printer paper with readable type size. atCODAP is run from a menu system which has been used to train over 200 STUDENT job analysts at the Adult and Vocational Education Department at the Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio. Dr. James E. Sage was the focal point for the Ohio State University program. Dr. Sage produced an updated version of the Levine paper that includes atCODAP as well as traditional CODAP (Hutchins & Sage, "Job Analysis Validity & Workability", 1996 Academy for Human Resource Development Conference.). The Sage paper included the following table which scored job analysis methods like the Levine paper. Note that "atCODAP" and "DACUM" have been added:
|
The IBM PC-based atCODAP successfully eliminated most complaints about CODAP in its mainframe versions on the Univac/Sperry/Unisys 1100, CDC-6600, IBM-360/370, IBM MVS, IBM VM, and IBM RISC.
SSI uses the Scenario Analysis For Effective Technology Integration (SAFETI) method to help organizations grow an in-house, organic occupational analysis unit. The SAFETI method means tailoring a very flexible data analysis tool to the specific needs and goals of your organization over time. atCODAP is designed to provide human resource products that can assist organizations with recruitment, selection, classification, training, job design, employee satisfaction and mobility. atCODAP's technical focus on actual job requirements can be easily augmented to address organizational concerns about Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and non-job based promotion discrimination (racial, gender, life style, religious, etc.) if desired. Potential clients are encouraged to migrate from small pilot CODAP studies using SSI's CODAP Service Bureau and, if that works out, move up to the in-house, end-user site license for atCODAP.
To counter historical problems with mainframe CODAP, atCODAP provides automated support to curb survey costs, expedite survey production, minimize project timeframes and permit smaller samples to become practical. This is accomplished by starting earlier in the occupational survey process (i.e., assists with automated surveys for the Job Inventory booklets), streamlines processing to facilitate quality control, minimizes operator training through the use of a menu-driven request system, and produces products more tailored to the concerns of the modern workplace.
At present, Sensible Systems, Inc. is primarily a technology-provider. To contract for daytime consulting to assist in your projects, SSI knows and works with many qualified consulting firms. Depending on your situation and types of job families, SSI can provide informed recommendations and possibly even draft job inventories/task lists.
Why CODAP is the Job Analysis Methodology of Choice.
The reasons for undertaking job analysis vary. Typically, though, a job analysis is conducted to form a solid foundation for one or more of the following requirements: classification/restructuring, selection/promotion (testing), training, career path counseling, job evaluation/compensation, or performance appraisal. Less typical applications include analysis of occupational safety issues, job redesign/productivity opportunities, or differential utilization and promotion by gender or race.
How one chooses to approach these issues is a fundamental decision. The Comprehensive Occupational Data Analysis Programs (CODAP) system is based on the assumption that one begins by defining all jobs of interest down to the task performance level. CODAP identifies the "task list" as the primary anchor for job data which is augmented and modified by other background items such as equipment used or current job classification. Other competing methodologies either define jobs down only to broad areas or ignore the job definition entirely and focus on the human abilities thought to be required. The benefits of the other approaches include the ability to use standardized inventories and produce quick and inexpensive results which can be easily compared across diverse job families. The drawbacks to those approaches include the inability to reasonably defend or demonstrate "job relevance" of decisions which were made based on those products or to use those results as coordinating blueprints across a host of human resource applications.
The term "CODAP" refers not only to a set of computer programs, but also to analysis guidelines and a theoretic approach to job & occupational analysis. "CODAP", in the theoretic sense, means the application of the scientific method to job analysis. This means that the CODAP process involves several iterations of 1) research/observe, 2) establish a best guess (hypothesis) about requirements in the job space, 3) submit the hypothesis for verification, 4) analyze the results, 5) decide on the next appropriate step. The first formal hypothesis about requirements in the job space is generated in the form of a job inventory. The job inventory itself, is the result of reviewing the literature, proposing items, then submitting them for review by panels of subject-matter experts (SMEs) for identification of incorrect or missing information. The resulting inventory is ultimately validated by administering the survey to a large number of job incumbents.
Given the field results from a survey, one can determine the nature of jobs which exist within the surveyed job family. Job descriptions for current classifications can be compared to empirically defined classifications (call "job types" and "job clusters") if desired. Training programs can be developed or validated against easily documented job requirements. Current selection and promotion tests may be anchored to field-validated job requirements. Career paths may be defined with specifics detailing increasing responsibilities and domain-enlargements requiring additional training. Some organizations have added completed job inventory booklets to respondents' personnel files and used it in the performance appraisal process.
Using older CODAP systems, one always heard the complaint, "Well, I could had done a training-only study much cheaper" or "I could have assembled SMEs to do the classification project", etc. The traditional complaints have basically been "I could have done this faster and cheaper with a quick-and-dirty" survey. Even with the greatly enhance speed of the atCODAP process, developing valid job inventories takes time. Validity takes time. The second point is that one "quick and dirty" survey for training may be cheaper than the CODAP approach, but five departments each doing their own survey probably evens-out the cost difference. In addition, when a CODAP survey is done, eveyone is signing from the same sheet of music (appropriate to their own section of the choir). With one unified source of occupational definitions within an organization, the human resources department at least has a chance of fending off legal challenges about a "quick and very dirty" hiring or promotion action.
While using the CODAP approach produces data to address a number of person-job issues, it does not create the training program nor does it perform test validation. CODAP provides a tool box for organizing occupational data into a practical, common foundation on which subject-matter-experts from various diciplines can start and anchor their work.
Copyright © 1997-2001 Sensible Systems, Inc.