for ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL, AND TECHNOLOGICAL POSITIONS For evaluation purposes, the Task Force has grouped Federal positions into six broad categories. Models for evaluating positions in these categories are in various stages of development and testing. The Administrative, Professional, and Technological category covers most nonsupervisory positions in the Federal Government that possess similar characteristics to those nonsupervisory jobs classified as exempt status employees in private industry. Other models under development are: Executive Evaluation System (EES), which will be available for agencies to use in ranking positions in the Federal Executive Service; Clerical, Office Machine Operation, and Technician Evaluation System (COMOT) applicable to productionoriented jobs requiring nonprofessional qualifications; Special Occupations Evaluation Systems (SOES), designed for ranking positions and personal competence of incumbents in occupations such as teachers, attorneys, doctors and nurses, scientists and engineers engaged in research and development work, and certain protective jobs; and Supervisor and Manager Evaluation System (SAMES), which is to be used in evaluating all such jobs regardless of occupation. is anticipated that the Coordinated Federal Wage System (CFWS) will remain essentially unchanged except for the transfer of certain supervisory positions to SAMES. It In some instances, other evaluation systems will be closely linked with APTES. The need for linkage between APTES and SAMES and FES is apparent and will be dealt with in the design of those systems. SOES present a somewhat unique problem of relationships since those systems introduce level of personal competency into the ranking process. Benchmark job descriptions for one or more key tie-in levels in several of these occupations have been included in the APTES model, i.e., nurse, physician, research scientist. However, incumbents would actually be ranked under the appropriate system. The SOES may be viewed as extensions to APTES. Since each of the SOES is unique, the linkage with APTES will be included in their design. The Administrative, Professional, and Technological Evaluation System (hereafter abbreviated a. b. c. Administrative. This group includes occupations where entrants frequently have college-level education, but there normally is no qualification requirement for specialized subject-matter courses. Included are such occupations as personnel, procurement, budgeting, management analysis, etc. Professional. This group includes occupations where typically there is a Technological. This group includes occupations where entrants frequently have * That is, exempt as defined under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Task Force's investigations revealed a number of inadequacies in the position classification system as applied to this group of positions which, in its opinion, cannot be adequately corrected by simply modifying the present system. Some of these problems are: --The current occupational grade alignment within this category does not permit --There are more grade levels used in the General Schedule for some individual --The present classification standards have weaknesses; i.e., some standards are written in terms too general to be specifically applicable, some do not define the full range of either levels or kinds of work in a given series adequately, and some standards appear to define artificial levels. The conclusions of the Task Force thus confirm the findings of the House Subcommittee Position Classification Report that the present General Schedule system is too complex and requires more time and effort than is available to adequately maintain it. Practices of Other Employers Explored With the deficiencies of the present system in mind, the Task Force investigated various systems now in use in the Federal Government--i.e., Atomic Energy Commission, National Security Agency, etc.--and those used by the more progressive State governments and major private employers to determine what methodology of job evaluation would best fit the current needs of the Federal service. The factor ranking method with benchmark job descriptions and guide charts was found to utilize techniques which overcome the deficiencies of the present classification system. Factor ranking is essentially a technique of comparing the job to be evaluated with all others, one factor at a time. The technique forces the rater to make critical analyses of the job on a factor basis, each job in relation to each other. A system of benchmark job descriptions extends the adaptability of the evaluation system to a wide variety of jobs and work situations and gives the user clear-cut standards and guidelines for application of the guide charts. In varying forms, this method has been widely used successfully in private industry and the basic methodology is well established. Basic Concept of the System The factor ranking system as conceived for possible application to the administrative, professional, and technological category jobs consists of: --Definition of factors to be used in measuring the relative worth of jobs. It --A system of benchmark jobs described in terms of the significant factors and --Factor rating scales which identify the measurable levels within each factor and provide appropriate numerical values for each level. --A simple set of instructions, reference keys, and conversion tables. The benchmark positions serve as the key element in this system. They are the standards and guides for the evaluation of positions and for interpretation and application of the factor |