This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions.

Limited Electronic Distribution Rights

Visit RAND at www.rand.org

Explore the RAND Arroyo Center

View document details

For More Information

This PDF document was made available

from www.rand.org as a public service of

the RAND Corporation.

6Jump down to document

THE ARTS

CHILD POLICY

CIVIL JUSTICE

EDUCATION

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

NATIONAL SECURITY

POPULATION AND AGING

PUBLIC SAFETY

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

SUBSTANCE ABUSE

TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY

TRANSPORTATION ANDINFRASTRUCTURE

WORKFORCE AND WORKPLACE

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world.

Purchase this document

Browse Books & Publications

Make a charitable contribution

Support RAND

This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series.

RAND monographs present major research findings that address the

challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND mono-

graphs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for

research quality and objectivity.

Ralph Masi, Anny Wong, John E. Boon, Jr.,

Peter Schirmer, Jerry M. Sollinger

Prepared for the United States ArmyApproved for public release; distribution unlimited

ARROYO CENTER

Supporting the U.S. Army Human Resources Command’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.

R® is a registered trademark.

© Copyright 2009 RAND Corporation

Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND documents to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND documents are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND permissions page (http://www.rand.org/publications/permissions.html).

Published 2009 by the RAND Corporation1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138

1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-50504570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-2665

RAND URL: http://www.rand.orgTo order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact

Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002;Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: order@rand.org

The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Army under Contract No. W74V8H-06-C-0001.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Supporting the U.S. Army Human Resources Command’s human capital strategic planning / Ralph Masi ... [et al.]. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-0-8330-4728-1 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. United States. Army. Human Resources Command—Planning. 2. United States. Army. Human Resources Command—Management. 3. United States. Army—Personnel management—Planning. I. Masi, Ralph.

UB323.S86 2009 355.6'1—dc22

2009028372

iii

Preface

This document reports findings from a project whose objective was to support the human capital strategic planning (HCSP) activities of the Army Human Resources Command (HRC) as it reorganizes and relocates to Fort Knox, Kentucky. The project had three tasks. The principal one was to identify personnel competencies that HRC staff must have. A second task was to identify and characterize gaps between these competency requirements and HRC’s ability to address them over the near and long terms, in terms of both skills and overall man-power availability. A final task was to develop training concepts first to narrow and then close the identified gaps.

This work should interest those engaged in strategic personnel analysis. The techniques described here would apply to any organi-zation that had to ensure that its staff personnel competencies were adequate to meet future demands. Others who would be interested in this research are those who must geographically relocate their organi-zations into a markedly different job market. The techniques described here will facilitate an analysis of what a new job market could provide and ways to offset a lack of specific personnel skills. This work will also interest those involved in personnel recruitment and training issues related to Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) in particular as well as those related to Army human capital strategic planning and Army transformation more generally.

Development of this research progressed from (1) attempting to depict the future environment as realistically as possible, to (2) map-ping personnel competency requirements using survey results, to (3) characterizing quantitative and quality gaps in personnel competency

iv Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

availability, to (4) articulating essential training principles, along with a strategic approach to meet those requirements.

The research was sponsored by the BRAC Office of the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, and it was conducted in RAND Arroyo Center’s Manpower and Training Program. RAND Arroyo Center, part of the RAND Corporation, is a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the United States Army.

The Project Unique Identification Code (PUIC) for the project that produced this document is DAPEM07413.

For more information on RAND Arroyo Center, contact the Director of Operations (telephone 310-393-0411, extension 6419; fax 310-451-6952; email Marcy_Agmon@rand.org), or visit Arroyo’s web site at http://www.rand.org/ard/.

v

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iiiFigures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viiTables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ixSummary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiAcknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviiAcronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix

chAPTer one

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Research Objective and Major Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Research Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Organization of This Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

chAPTer Two

Personnel competency Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Human Capital Strategic Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Competency Modeling: Evolution and Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12A Conceptual Framework for HRC’s Competency Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Survey Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Major Results by Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Major Results by Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

vi Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

chAPTer Three

workforce Analysis for the new hrc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31HRC’s Workforce Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33HRC’s Potential Workforce Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Size of the Workforce Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

chAPTer Four

closing competency Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Experiences of Major Employers in Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

United Parcel Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Geek Squad City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Toyota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Resources and Opportunities in Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Priorities in Addressing Competency Gaps and Options for Action . . . . . . . . 55Migrating to HRC’s Future State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Implementing the Institutional Human Capital Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64Training Plans for Exemplar Positions: HR Specialist and

IT Specialist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

chAPTer FIve

conclusions and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

APPendIx

A. Personnel competency Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85B. Personnel competency Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

vii

Figures

2.1. Essential Elements of Human Capital Strategic Planning . . . . . . 11 2.2. Basic Competency Model for Personnel Management,

0201, Line Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.1. Map of Fort Knox and Environs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.1. An Institutional Human Capital Strategy for HRC . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 A.1. Interpreting Survey Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 A.2. Interpreting Survey Responses Using the Kiviat Diagram . . . 108 A.3. Line-Level Personnel Management, 0201. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 A.4. Line-Level Personnel Clerical and Assistant, 0203 . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 A.5. Line-Level Miscellaneous Administrative and

Programs, 0301 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 A.6. Line-Level Information Technology, 2210 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 A.7. Senior-Level Personnel Management, 0201 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 A.8. Senior-Level Miscellaneous Administrative and

Programs, 0301 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 A.9. Senior-Level Information Technology, 2210 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 A.10. Senior-Level Combat Arms Generalist, O2A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 A.11. Senior-Level Management Analyst, 0343 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 A.12. Senior-Level Operations Research, 1515 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 A.13. Senior-Level Human Resource Technician, 420A . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 A.14. Senior-Level Human Resource Specialist, 42A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 A.15. Senior-Level Branch Chief (No Position Code) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 A.16. Senior-Level Branch Sergeant Major (No Position Code) . . . . 130 A.17. Senior-Level Deputy Director (No Position Code) . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 A.18. Senior-Level Deputy Division Chief (No Position Code) . . . . 132 A.19. Senior-Level Director (No Position Code) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

viii Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

A.20. Senior-Level Division Chief (No Position Code) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 A.21. Senior-Level Staff Judge Advocate (No Position Code) . . . . . . . 135 A.22. Senior-Level Team Chief (No Position Code) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

ix

Tables

2.1. Participation Rates by Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.2. Statistical Reliability of Survey Sections α . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.3. Major Competency Areas by Survey Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.1. Wage Comparison for Greater Louisville Metropolitan

Area and the Federal Government’s General Schedule . . . . . . . . 38 3.2. Density of Human Resource and Information Technology

Workers in the Greater Washington, D.C. and Greater Fort Knox Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

3.3. Education and Employment Indicators for the Fort Knox Area (Projected for 2008 through 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

4.1. Most Important Competency Areas for Human Resource and Information Technology Workers at Line and Senior Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4.2. Fourteen Competencies and Options for Individuals to Acquire Them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

4.3. Articulating TDA and Staffing for Notional IT Personnel, Line Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

4.4. Determining Number of Training Seats Needed Annually for Notional IT Personnel, Line Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

4.5. Training Requirements and Production Specifics for Notional IT Personnel, Line Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

4.6. Capacity at the Three Proficiency Levels for HRC Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

4.7. Performance Evaluation Summary for IT Specialist, Line Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

4.8. Linking Competency Requirements to Recruiting, Training, and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

x Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

4.9. HRC Knowledge Operational Specifications, HR Specialist, Line Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

4.10. Metrics for HRC Knowledge, HR Specialist, Line Level . . . . . . . 72 4.11. HRC Knowledge Operational Specifications, HR Specialist,

Senior Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 4.12. Metrics for HRC Knowledge, HR Specialist, Senior Level . . . . . 75 4.13. Operational Specifications for Organizational Leadership,

IT Specialist, Line Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 4.14. Metrics for Organizational Leadership, IT Specialist,

Line Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 A.1. Statistical Reliability of Survey Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 A.2. Dimensionality of Survey Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 A.3. Major Competency Areas by Survey Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 A.4. Factors Present in the Noncompetency Survey Sections . . . . . . 105 A.5. Reliability of Major Sections and Other Identified

Survey Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 A.6. Line-Level Survey Counts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 A.7. Four High-Demand Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 A.8. Four Key Line-Level Positions: Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 A.9. Senior-Level Survey Counts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 A.10. Executive-Level Survey Counts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

xi

Summary

Background

The 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) legislation directed the Army to move Army Human Resources Command (HRC) from its locations in Alexandria, Virginia, Indianapolis, Indiana, and St. Louis, Missouri to Fort Knox, Kentucky and to consolidate all functions there not later than 15 September 2011. Additionally, the Department of the Army had directed a 30 percent reduction in HRC’s staff, requiring reorganization of the command. As a result, in spring 2006, RAND Arroyo Center was asked to help HRC run a scenario-driven exercise that examined the latter’s ability to meet the Army’s military personnel demands with a modified organizational structure.

During this exercise, numerous complications arising from the reduced organizational structure were identified and documented; many of the complications centered on shortfalls in the kinds of staff expertise required to handle difficult issues occurring in a new organi-zational context. In light of the difficulties these shortfalls would even-tually pose for HRC and the Army, HRC asked Arroyo to help resolve the problem.

Research Tasks and Approach

The project had three research tasks. The first was to develop person-nel competency models for those positions that would survive HRC’s reorganization. The goal of this task was to identify the competencies required by personnel at each level of HRC (executive, senior, and line

xii Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

levels) to carry out key HRC functions. A second task was to conduct a “gap analysis” of differences between competencies that key HRC staff would need to have in the future and HRC’s ability to address them over the near and long terms, in terms of skill and manpower availability in the greater Fort Knox area. The third and final task of the project was to develop training concepts to close gaps between the future workforce’s competency needs and the availability of these skills, taking new location and organizational structure into account.

The HRC concept for the first project task—competency mod-eling—initially called for interviews with 30 subject matter experts (SMEs); this convenience sample was envisioned by HRC as being rea-sonably well-suited to providing data for the first task. Instead, and following a series of discussions with (and targeted presentations by) Arroyo staff, HRC applied a considerably larger level of effort and more analytical rigor to this key task and allowed its staff to be surveyed on competency requirements and the necessary proficiency levels associ-ated with them.

Thus, in winter 2007, Arroyo staff began archival research into the most current, reliable, and valid forms of competency modeling, and also began to interview key HRC staff members for their views on competencies critical to HRC’s functioning. This information, along with fresh insights into the command, was then considered in the con-text of HRC’s mission, the manpower demands related to its BRAC mandate to relocate and consolidate at Fort Knox, and the Army’s deci-sion to create a new, leaner HRC structure.

We identified 150 survey questions related to HRC competencies. The number and nature of questions varied based on the level in the organizational hierarchy occupied by respondents. In addition to ques-tions pertaining to competencies, we developed sections on education and training as well as background and experience, along with a section that probed prospective respondents’ understanding of HRC’s evolving future. The survey instrument was then programmed for eventual web-basing, tested across a range of volunteers (including HRC key leaders), placed online, and, finally, administered to a sizable, representative, stratified sample of selected HRC personnel during May–June 2007. Competencies required for effectiveness in respective positions, associ-

Summary xiii

ated proficiency levels, and the types of education, training, and work experience perceived as required were all surveyed, with a response rate of 68 percent.

Results and Recommendations

Findings

Analysis of our research led to the following three findings.Competency and proficiency demands will hold constant. Analy-

sis demonstrated that, with two exceptions, HRC can expect no changes in the demands for competencies or proficiencies in the future. The two exceptions were (1) management of Army Reserve (AR) and Army National Guard (ARNG) readiness and deployment, and (2) merged management of enlisted and officer personnel. Nevertheless, HRC is likely to lose a significant share of its experienced staff in the process of moving to Fort Knox, and their knowledge and experience will have to be replaced.

It will be difficult to meet workforce demands in the Fort Knox area. Gap analysis subsequently showed that it will be difficult for HRC to meet its near-term (2010–2012) workforce quantity and qual-ity demands in the Fort Knox area, both because the demands will be high and because the supply in some areas will be low. HRC’s esti-mates indicate that fewer than 40 percent of current incumbents (in 2,100 civil service and 300 contractor positions being retained in the relocation to Fort Knox) will likely move to Kentucky. Furthermore, 40 percent of the current workforce is also eligible for retirement by 2010, and an additional 30 percent is eligible for early retirement by the same date. Low retention’s effects on meeting workforce demand are compounded by the finding that the Fort Knox area is not a promising recruiting ground. Extensive field and archival research into the Fort Knox area labor market indicate that industries located there strug-gle despite extensive recruiting plans and actions and that civil service hiring rules make the problem more difficult for the Army.

Ensuring a fully staffed and competent HRC workforce beyond 2010 will require long-term recruiting, development, and manage-

xiv Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

ment strategies. These efforts will need to be greater than those ini-tially envisioned by HRC. HRC will need different near- and long-term approaches, including prioritized retention strategies, national searches, and targeted recruiting at Fort Knox. The overall process should emphasize first narrowing quantitative and qualitative gaps in the workforce in the near term (between 2010 and 2012), and then closing them by 2013 and beyond; this occurs as the workforce stabi-lizes and more and more workers gain required competencies and asso-ciated proficiency levels. Associated actions must begin presently, how-ever, and be in consonance with a clear, well-resourced institutional human capital strategy. This strategy, with modifications as appropri-ate along the way, should carry HRC from the present through 2013 and beyond.

Recommendations

Our findings lead us to four recommendations. First, HRC should for-mulate an institutional human capital strategy to provide a coherent framework to guide marketing, hiring, training, performance evalua-tion, and other activities designed to create, develop, and retain a new workforce. Development and implementation of this strategy should begin now. Designation of an executive-level staff agent to lead the development of its human capital strategy is essential. HRC would fur-ther profit by designating a Chief of Training and Staff Development at this crucial time, to integrate personnel competency requirements into training activities across the organization and to work with HRC supervisors and employees to determine staff development needs and strategies.

Second, HRC should use personnel competency modeling results from this research to determine competency and proficiency require-ments. Determination of these requirements will aid HRC in develop-ing training curricula, defining specific job requirements, and enhanc-ing the ability of supervisors to evaluate worker performance and make recommendations for staff development.

Third, we recommend that HRC’s plan for a new training frame-work rest on four concepts. Specifically, we recommend that HRC (1) narrow quantitative and qualitative gaps over the short term (from 2010

Summary xv

to 2012), (2) close those gaps over the longer term (beyond 2012), (3) use outcome-driven, competency-based recruiting, training, and eval-uation, and (4) conduct continuous training, evaluation, and upgrad-ing to build long-term workforce capacity and stability.

Fourth, HRC should adopt an approach to training and develop-ment that links competency requirements to constructs and actions tied to recruiting, training, and evaluation, to include partnering with Kentucky’s educational institutions to produce the necessary compe-tencies. With adjustments by HRC as appropriate, the approach should provide a basis for operational specifications of competencies and pro-ficiency levels, as well as means to attain them.

xvii

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the officials and staff of HRC who partici-pated in the survey that we employed to gain insights into the com-petency requirements of the HRC workforce. Their responses enabled development of the models produced for this report. MG Sean Byrne, Commanding General of HRC, and COL Gregory Gardner and LTC Joseph Huber, of the HRC Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Office, provided valuable feedback throughout our work.

Finally, we thank all the individuals outside of HRC who facili-tated introductions to other key personnel. We could not have com-pleted this research without the assistance of both groups. In particu-lar, we thank Mr. Brad Richardson, director of OneKnox in Kentucky and his staff, and especially Ms. Beth Avey and Mr. Conrad Curry, for providing OneKnox-sponsored workforce assessment research and helping us to identify and contact numerous experts in Kentucky for interviews. In addition, we thank the following individuals: Dr. Keith Bird, Chancellor of the Kentucky Community and Technical College System and his colleagues; Ms. Sharon Britton, Ms. Sharon Buchanan, Ms. Susan Craft (retired), Mr. Andrew Frauenhoffer, and Ms. Leila Todd of the Office of Employment and Training, Commonwealth of Kentucky; Ms. Sherry Johnson of the Lincoln Trail Area Development District; Dr. Linda Linville and Mr. Jim Thompson of the Council for Post-Secondary Education of Kentucky; Mr. John Marks of the Office of Career and Technical Education of the Commonwealth of Ken-tucky; Mr. Pat Murphy of United Parcel Service; Ms. Regina Phillips of Geek Squad City; Mr. Dennis Parker of Toyota, USA; Mr. George Polling of the Metropolitan College Program; Mr. Barrett Ross of the

xviii Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Department for Community-Based Services, Commonwealth of Ken-tucky; and Ms. Debbie Wesslund of the WIRED Initiative. We also thank LTC Steven Johnson, Chief of Transformation and BRAC at the Army Cadet Command; Ms. Sheree Welch, Director of the Civilian Personnel Advisory Center at Fort Knox; and Mr. Robert Eagin of the Fort Knox Education Center. To any other person or organization that assisted us that we have failed to mention here, we offer our apologies and sincere gratitude for your assistance.

xix

Acronyms

AC Active ComponentAGRMIS Active Guard Reserve Management Information

SystemANCOC Advance Noncommissioned Officer CourseAR Army ReserveARFORGEN Army Force GenerationARNG Army National GuardARSTAFF Army StaffBRAC Base Realignment and ClosureCPAC Civilian Personnel Advisory CenterDAPMIS Department of the Army Photograph

Management Information SystemDIMHRS Defense Integrated Military Human Resources

SystemEDAS Enlisted Distribution and Assignment SystemEFMP Exceptional Family Member ProgramEKOS Employ Kentucky Operating SystemEPMD Enlisted Personnel Management DirectorateG-1 Responsible office for developing, managing,

and executing Army manpower and personnel plans, programs, and policies, across all Army components

GS General ScheduleHCSP Human Capital Strategic PlanningHR Human Resources

xx Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

HRC Human Resources CommandiPERMS Interactive Personnel Electronic Records

Management SystemIRR Individual Ready ReserveIT Information TechnologyJCTC Jefferson Community and Technical CollegeKCTCS Kentucky Community and Technical College

SystemKSAO Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and Other

CapabilitiesLTADD Lincoln Trail Area Development DistrictMG Major GeneralOET Office of Employment and TrainingOJT On-the-Job TrainingOPMD Officer Personnel Management DirectoratePERSINSD Personnel Information Systems DirectorateRC Reserve ComponentROTC Reserve Officers’ Training CorpsSME Subject Matter ExpertSMS Soldier Management SystemSSI Army Soldier Support InstituteTAADS The Army Authorization Document SystemTAGD The Adjutant General DirectorateTDA Table of Distribution and AllowancesTOPMIS Total Officer Personnel Management Information

SystemUPS United Parcel ServiceUSAARMC U.S. Army Armor Center and SchoolWIAS Worldwide Individual Augmentation SystemWIRED Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic

DevelopmentWO Warrant Officer

1

CHAPteR one

Introduction

The Army’s Human Resources Command (HRC) stands at the center of the process of maintaining military personnel readiness. Its mission is to ensure execution of the full spectrum of human resources ser-vices, programs, and systems to support the readiness and well-being of Army uniformed personnel and units worldwide.1 The 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) legislation directed the Army to relocate and consolidate HRC from its headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia to Fort Knox, Kentucky and to complete the process by 2011. In part, this move was to help offset the loss of civilian employment in the Fort Knox area created by the U.S. Army Armor Center and School’s (USAARMC’s) move to Fort Benning.2

The relocation of the command presents a formidable require-ment given the size of the organization, the need to construct new space at Fort Knox, and, most important, the challenges inherent in (1) getting current staff who are adept at handling Army person-nel matters to move to Fort Knox and (2) hiring new staff to replace those highly skilled incumbents who do not make the move.3 In addi-

1 See the Army HRC web site. As of July 28, 2008: https://www.hrc.army.mil/site/Active/index2.asp 2 USAARMC will be collocated with the Infantry Center and School at Fort Benning.3 Much of the current HRC workforce has been a part of the organization throughout its more than 30 years of existence. Results of an internal HRC personnel survey suggest that less than 40 percent of its current workforce expressed interest in moving to Fort Knox. This low level of interest, among other factors, may be related to the age profile of the current workforce. By 2010, 42 percent of the current workforce will be eligible to retire and another

2 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

tion, and before the 2005 BRAC decision, the Army determined that a drawdown of HRC’s force structure by approximately 30 percent and a consolidation of functions (to streamline the organization and eliminate redundancies) should occur. This reduction would represent a valuable savings in personnel and resources for the Army in a time of war, with several hundred military billets potentially being freed up for service elsewhere.4 In short, HRC is expected to continue to pro-vide uninterrupted, effective, and timely support to both personnel and unit readiness as it undergoes its own transformation in structure and organization and moves to Fort Knox. The tasks of this project are thus geared to enhancing the command’s ability to do that.

HRC is headed by an Army major general (MG) and currently has more than 3,700 military and civilian personnel working in four major directorates.5 Officer and enlisted personnel are managed sep-arately by the Officer Personnel Management Directorate (OPMD) and the Enlisted Personnel Management Directorate (EPMD), respec-tively. These two directorates, along with The Adjutant General Direc-torate (TAGD) and the Personnel Information Systems Directorate (PERSINSD), are located at HRC headquarters in Alexandria, Vir-ginia.6 Two other directorates are located in St. Louis, Missouri and Indianapolis, Indiana: U.S. Army Reserve (AR) personnel matters are managed by HRC–St. Louis and the Adjutant General’s Directorate,

30 percent will be eligible for early retirement. The specialized knowledge and skills that this workforce possesses cannot readily be purchased from the civilian job market, and HRC’s uniformed personnel may be too stretched to expect them to assume the workload. (Data based on communication from HRC.)4 As of summer 2008, the majority of this reduction has been restored but with final resolu-tion still to be determined.5 See the HRC web site for more on its structure and organizations. As of July 28, 2008: http://www.hrc.army.mil 6 OPMD is headed by an Army brigadier general and charged with active commissioned officer assignment and development. EPMD is also headed by a brigadier general and per-forms the same functions for active enlisted soldiers. TAGD is charged with performing sol-dier support functions, e.g., casualty management, awards and decorations, and mail deliv-ery supervision. PERSINSD is charged with performing the management of all personnel databases. The Adjutant General’s Directorate in Indianapolis is responsible for the manage-ment of Enlisted Soldier Records and Boards.

Introduction 3

while Enlisted Soldier Records and Boards are managed by the Adju-tant General’s Directorate in Indianapolis. The BRAC-directed move will consolidate all of these organizations at Fort Knox.7

Research Objective and Major Tasks

The purpose of this research was to assist HRC’s move to Fort Knox and its reorganization by producing personnel competency models and a framework for training to support HRC’s future delivery of mili-tary human resource life-cycle functions and personnel services. This research was undertaken in the larger context of human capital strate-gic planning.

Revised organizational structure and functions for HRC in 2010 will change what its workforce needs to know and be able to do to provide high-quality support to the Army. This change, a reduced workforce, and the likelihood that less than half its current workforce will move to Fort Knox when HRC begins its operations there, moti-vated HRC to pinpoint the knowledge, skills, and abilities that the new workforce must have and to eventually use this information to help focus the recruiting and training of future workers.

Toward this end, the study focused on three major research tasks. The first was to identify competencies that HRC personnel must have for HRC to continue its high-quality support to the Army. The result of this task was an array of distinct competency models for positions across the line, senior, and executive levels in HRC. The second was to characterize gaps between workforce requirements for the new HRC and the labor supply available at Fort Knox, in terms of both quantity and quality. The low percentage of current HRC personnel likely to relocate to Fort Knox is problematic, and the particular knowledge and skills required to manage soldiers and provide them with personnel services complicate efforts to hire and train new staff to replace these

7 For more, see DoD’s BRAC 2005 informational web page. As of May 27, 2009: http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/vol_I_parts_1_and_2.html

4 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

individuals. The third task was to develop training concepts and an accompanying approach to close these gaps in quantity and quality.

Research Approach

Active interplay between qualitative and quantitative analyses is cen-tral to the overall approach of this research. Interviews with subject matter experts (SMEs), for example, provided an understanding of job complexities that mere job descriptions cannot impart. At the same time, administrative data from HRC and empirical data from a survey of HRC personnel on competency requirements, together with both field and archival study, provided detailed information about condi-tions and larger trends that individual observations and insights alone would not have been able to substantiate.

For the first task of the study, we used a rigorous analytical tech-nique to develop unique personnel competency models for key HRC positions. Results from an original, 150-item survey of HRC person-nel that we developed and administered for this purpose provided the basis. This survey, administered online, achieved a 68.5 percent response rate and provided the quantitative baseline for developing per-sonnel competency models. It also provided the empirical basis for the study overall.

At the outset, we determined that carefully structuring such a survey would help us analyze the potentially large number of dispa-rate competencies required for positions across HRC. We began survey development with a review of the literature on competency modeling research done over the past three decades, including an extensive body of work produced by RAND. Survey development continued with the collection of data from 30 personnel across HRC’s hierarchy and func-tions. The information gathered improved our general understanding of required competencies as well as those specifically associated with a number of key positions. Many of these respondents were senior- and executive-level staff with in-depth experience in the current HRC and knowledgeable about the future HRC. Discussions with these selected personnel covered competencies for both their own positions and those

Introduction 5

that they supervised. In addition, we solicited input on the types of education, training, and work experience important to the acquisition of required competencies.

The information gathered and insights gained were then combined with our understanding of HRC’s mission, the manpower demands related to its BRAC mandate to complete its relocation to and consoli-dation at Fort Knox by 2011, and the Army’s decision to create a new HRC in structure and size. Four major categories of competencies fol-lowed and formed the major sections of the survey: enterprise knowl-edge, management skills, domain knowledge, and leadership skills.

Each competency category of the survey would therefore include multiple questions giving rise to individual competencies. Specifically, enterprise knowledge questions would cover competencies related to knowledge about the organization, that is, the Army and HRC, their respective roles and missions, organizational makeup, knowledge of key policies and laws governing their operations, etc. Management skills questions would cover competencies related to knowledge and skills in managing people, processes, resources, and relationships. Domain knowledge questions would address competencies related to knowledge and skills specific to a particular position or job. Leadership skills ques-tions would cover competencies related to motivating one’s self and others toward the achievement of larger, shared goals.

Considering the size of the HRC workforce, the multitude of posi-tions (or jobs) across HRC, and its current and future organizational structures, we determined that grouping HRC’s positions into three discrete levels for analysis—line, senior, and executive—would also be essential. The logic behind this organizing scheme is straightforward: competency requirements vary widely across positions, based not only on their basic job differences, but also on their place in the organiza-tional structure. Similar functions at different levels would be expected to vary widely in terms of scope of knowledge, skill, ability, leader-ship, supervisory requirements, and span of control (the last expand-ing progressively, the higher up the organizational ladder one climbs). Competency requirements for those at the line level would typically be more function-specific (or job-focused) and technically oriented, as

6 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

compared with broader requirements (e.g., leadership skills) required at higher levels.

Further, just as the nature of a position (that is, its responsibil-ities and place in the organizational hierarchy) can affect the types and numbers of competencies required of an incumbent, the level of proficiency required for respective competencies can also differ widely. Building on prior RAND research on military leadership develop-ment, we thus adopted a proficiency scale to address the importance of individual competencies to particular positions. The scale ranged from “exposure” (textbook knowledge or introductory hands-on knowledge) to “experience” (depth in knowledge or skills gained through learning and practice over months or years) to “expertise” (knowledge or skills with breadth and depth that qualify one as an acknowledged SME).8 This construct was employed in the survey of HRC personnel, with respondents asked to specify whether a competency was required for their position and, if so, the associated level of required proficiency.

Summarizing, this approach, together with detailed reviews of current and prior public- and private-sector competency modeling approaches, framed our construction of the online survey instrument; this was administered to a sizable, representative sample of selected HRC personnel in May–June 2007. The survey covered competen-cies required for effectiveness in respective positions, associated profi-ciency levels, and the types of education, training, and work experience perceived as required. In turn, we grouped HRC positions into three levels, and called for competency assessments and required proficiency levels across four distinct competency categories. After obtaining strong statistical indicators of survey instrument reliability and validity, we derived competencies specific to HRC personnel using factor analysis, and then fully developed competency requirements by position.9 This

8 Members of our research team developed this scale in connection with research on mili-tary leadership development for the Office of the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2005–2006. Research outcomes were briefed to the Defense Secretary’s Chief of General and Flag Officer Management in 2007, and resulted in competency modeling outcomes integration into Joint general and flag officer management.9 This is discussed in Chapter Two and more fully detailed in Appendix A.

Introduction 7

provided the basis for completing our first research task as well as the overall empirical foundation for the study.

Additional research and analyses were then conducted to complete tasks 2 and 3 of this study, respectively: a workforce analysis and how competency gaps might be addressed. Workforce analysis flowed from three principal data sources: (1) archival research into the field proper coupled with detailed study of the regional labor market; (2) wide-ranging interviews with educators, influencers, and human resource managers in the region; and (3) site visits to major industrial centers in the region. We subsequently identified competency gaps in this phase of the research, and then developed means to close them. The latter was done by applying state-of-the-art training concepts to examples identi-fied as especially pertinent to HRC.

Organization of This Report

The remainder of the report is organized as follows. There are four subsequent chapters, one corresponding to each of the three research tasks of the study, and a final chapter providing our conclusions and recommendations. Chapter Two describes our conceptual approach for depicting HRC workforce competency requirements and provides a review of the literature on competency modeling. In addition, it pro-vides an overview of how we developed an online survey and imple-mented it to collect data necessary for development of competency models. A more complete account of the method used to derive compe-tency requirements—and competency modeling results themselves—can be found in Appendix A. A copy of the survey instrument is in Appendix B.

Chapter Three explicates the future HRC workforce needed to support the Army. It assesses HRC’s manpower demand compared with supply, with competency requirements serving a key function in determining availability and gaps. Results presented in this chap-ter thus build upon personnel competency requirements identified for HRC, with a focus on several positions that are expected to be most critically short in quantity and quality. Key research, including exten-

8 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

sive field work conducted to characterize this gap (with a view to meet-ing the manpower needs of HRC at Fort Knox), is presented here.

Chapter Four highlights the experience of some major employers in the greater Louisville/Fort Knox region to meet their manpower needs and presents an approach to close gaps between competency demand and supply. We also offer a plan for supplementing or adapting HRC training. This approach builds upon personnel competency require-ments analysis, with a focus on several positions that are expected to have the largest gaps in quantity and quality.

Finally, Chapter Five presents conclusions and recommendations. Conclusions focus on key factors affecting HRC’s ability to acquire the quantity and quality of workforce needed for the future HRC. Recom-mendations emphasize major actions that HRC should consider taking to be successful in acquiring the workforce it needs to fulfill its mission to provide quality and timely human resource support to soldiers and dependents.

9

CHAPteR two

Personnel Competency Modeling

This chapter details the approach we took to develop personnel compe-tency models for HRC along with the results of that research. The chap-ter begins with a discussion of personnel competency modeling in the context of human capital strategic planning: activities that are germane both to HRC’s smooth transition to a new organization and to a new location by 2011. We start with a brief discussion of the essential ele-ments of human capital strategic planning, and follow it with a review of the competency modeling literature, in the process examining what competency models purport to do and how this body of knowledge is working its way into Department of Defense and Army management echelons. The chapter continues with the conceptual framework we developed for HRC’s competency modeling, and next moves to our research method proper (survey design, procedure, participants, mea-sures, analysis). We conclude with major results by level and position.

As described in Chapter One, our approach to personnel compe-tency modeling is shaped by a conceptual framework that assigns posi-tions at HRC to one of three levels for analysis: line, senior, or execu-tive. Further, our view is that competency models more fully replicate the reality they seek to capture not only by incorporating groupings of knowledge, skills, abilities, or other capabilities that go with a position, but also by considering proficiency levels associated with those com-petencies. Required proficiency might be at a minimum (exposure), moderate (experience), or high (expertise) level. With reliable informa-tion on competencies and proficiency levels required of incumbents in a position, an employer such as HRC can better determine (1) what to

10 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

seek in prospective job applicants or develop in current employees, (2) whether a particular labor pool has what it requires in numbers or in kind, and (3) how to remedy gaps between demand and supply.

Details on survey development and method, analysis, and results can be found in Appendix A, and screen shots of the online survey can be found in Appendix B. This chapter summarizes only the high points for the results of personnel competency modeling research.

Human Capital Strategic Planning

Human capital strategic planning (HCSP), the overall basis for this research, is a relatively new discipline that grew rapidly in the 1980s. Its basis, like that of strategic human resource management (which pre-ceded it, conceptually), is the integration of organizational-level stra-tegic planning with human resource planning, tying the latter to the strategic goals of the organization.1 Five major elements are common to most current depictions of the process: (1) developing a strategic direction for the organization, along with the subsequent alignment of that direction with human resource development and succession, (2) workforce analysis (supply, demand, and gap analyses), (3) developing plans to address workforce gaps, (4) acquisition of resources to enable implementation, and (5) evaluation and revision of plans.2 Workforce analysis and the process of addressing workforce gaps, the second and third elements of HCSP, are the driving forces behind this body of work. Figure 2.1 illustrates these essential elements of human capital strategic planning.

1 See also U.S. Department of Defense, Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan, Wash-ington D.C.: The Pentagon, Spring 2006; U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Strategic Human Resource Management: Aligning with the Mission, Washington D.C., 1999; and Elmer Burack, Creative Human Resource Planning and Applications: A Strategic Approach, Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1988. 2 From U.S. Department of Defense, Guidelines for DoD SHC Plans, Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense Human Capital Strategy Office, January 9, 2007. Though differ-ent variations on this theme recur throughout the HCSP literature, these elements appear common to most.

Personnel Competency Modeling 11

Figure 2.1 Essential Elements of Human Capital Strategic Planning

4. Acquireresources

3. Addressingworkforce gaps

2. Workforceanalysis

1. Strategicdirection

5. Reviseplans

RAND MG828-2.1

Three distinct activities typically characterize workforce analysis, the second essential element of HCSP.3 The first of these is to fore-cast demand, that is, to estimate staffing levels and the competencies personnel must possess. More precisely, the term “workforce require-ments” describes the output of the demand forecast. These require-ments should reflect both the required number of positions and the characteristics that workers who fill those positions must have for the organization to meet its strategic intent. Employee characteristics that are measurable and potentially relevant to the identification of per-sonnel requirements include knowledge or skills (competencies) and educational qualifications. Ideally, an organization will have a model-ing approach that translates expected workload into workforce require-ments. The demand forecast should also identify the factors that affect workforce requirements and consider how those factors will evolve in the future, e.g., the effect of technology on workforce demand.

The second activity in workforce analysis is to estimate workforce supply.4 This involves projecting staffing capability and competency profiles into the future based on current trends in hiring, attrition, retention, and the demographics of the available labor force. A third activity in workforce analysis brings together the results of the first

3 See also Georges Vernez, Albert A. Robbert, Hugh G. Massey, and Kevin Driscoll, Work-force Planning and Development Processes: A Practical Guide, Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, TR-408-AF, 2007; and Robert M. Emmerichs, Cheryl Y. Marcum, and Albert A. Robbert, Workforce Planning in Complex Organizations, Santa Monica, CA: RAND Cor-poration, RB-7570-OSD, 2004.4 Forecasts for workforce requirements and workforce supply can be executed in parallel, as in this study.

12 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

two to identify what, if any, gaps exist between supply and demand.5 Such gap analysis may reveal important differences between the supply projection and demand forecast for particular organizational subunits, occupations, and competencies. The HCSP process then moves on to its third element: that of filling gaps. This translates into develop-ing hiring, training, retention, and related strategies, and setting into motion the means to fund and execute them.

Personnel competency modeling and related analyses presented in this chapter thus formed the basis for gap analysis and research into how HRC might address these gaps—the second and third tasks of this study, respectively.

Competency Modeling: Evolution and Applications

In the ongoing search for excellence in workplace performance, orga-nizational experts and human resource managers alike have experi-mented with different ways to define jobs, in addition to devising means to gauge whether applicants will have the right knowledge, skills, and character traits for a job. McClelland’s 1973 article “Testing for Competence Rather than for ‘Intelligence’”6 is widely regarded as the first major attempt at a competency-based approach to recruitment and selection of workers. It also represented an attempt to avoid bias in testing that might be attributable to the socioeconomic background, race, and gender of job applicants.

In the years that followed, efforts to develop competency-based approaches to recruitment, training, career development, and perfor-mance evaluation expanded as it became increasingly clear that stan-dardized tests, academic qualifications, and skill certifications were inadequate or inappropriate for measuring behavioral traits, e.g., self-confidence, that frequently underlie excellence in job performance or

5 This recognizes that supply estimates are forecasts that assume no changes in workforce policy.6 David C. McClelland, “Testing for Competence Rather Than for ‘Intelligence,’” Ameri-can Psychologist, Vol. 28, 1973, pp. 1–14.

Personnel Competency Modeling 13

success in the workplace.7 By the year 2000, a study conducted by Schoonover Associates and Arthur Anderson found competency data being used in a variety of ways by organizations of different sizes and across business sectors to support hiring, training, performance man-agement, development planning, and career path development. For example, Hewlett-Packard used competency modeling to improve per-formance by creating models for each key job role and by designing and integrating training courses and performance interventions into its workforce development performance management and processes.8 All military services use competency models; in the case of the Army, competency-based leader development is required by Field Manuals 7-0 and 7-1.9

What sets competency modeling apart from conventional job descriptions and other approaches—and drives its importance to HRC, in the context of needs arising from its impending move—is its emphasis on identifying the “group, cluster or particular combination of knowledge, skills, and characteristics needed to effectively perform a role in an organization.”10 Each competency model, then, should be specific to a position or job (or groups of related jobs or positions). They must be intimately linked to the goals and objectives of the work unit to which a job or position belongs as well as the overall vision and strat-egy of the larger organization, consistent with an HCSP approach to competency modeling. Thus, properly developed, competency models can be used as a human resource tool for selection, training and devel-

7 Robert Wood and Tim Payne, Competency-Based Recruitment and Selection, West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, 1998.8 Maggie LaRocca, “Career and Competency Pathing: The Competency Modeling Approach.” As of May 27, 2009:http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/ARossett/pie/Interventions/career_1.htm 9 U.S. Department of the Army, Army Field Manual 7-0: Training the Force, Washington D.C., October 22, 2002; U.S. Department of the Army, Army Field Manual 7-1: Battle Focused Training, Washington D.C., September 15, 2003.10 Antoinette D. Lucia and Richard Lepsinger, The Art and Science of Competency Models: Pinpointing Critical Success Factors in Organizations, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, 1999.

14 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

opment, appraisal, and even succession planning.11 In short, they can be used throughout the range of strategic human resource planning activities.

Central to shaping competency models successfully is an under-standing of what the core competency needs of the organization really are; that is, what kinds of knowledge, skills, behaviors, or abilities must workers have, in given roles and positions, to deliver effective results? Consequently, while an organization’s mission statement, strategy, and other literature might provide some baseline information, an initial way to determine the competencies that are critical to excellence in a job or position is to speak with those who exemplify that excellence or who can somehow discern what constitutes it. Instead of stating that a particular academic degree is required, for example, managers might describe the kinds of knowledge, skills, abilities, and behavioral traits that high-performing workers in certain positions need to have (per-haps acquired through their academic studies and related developmen-tal activities) to deliver the desired results.12

A Conceptual Framework for HRC’s Competency Models

Development and justification of a conceptual approach to the compe-tency modeling requirement specified by HRC was a crucial early step in this research. This criticality was based on several factors: (1) the rise of the science and art of competency modeling to its present place in the training and development literature and practice, in turn driv-ing HRC’s request for this kind of research, (2) the Army’s continuing searches for new and creative means to stimulate higher levels of orga-nizational learning and outcomes in general, and (3) HRC’s interest in

11 Antoinette D. Lucia and Richard Lepsinger, The Art and Science of Competency Models: Pinpointing Critical Success Factors in Organizations, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, 1999.12 Lyle Spencer and Signe M. Spencer, Competence at Work: Models for Superior Performance, Canada: John Wiley & Sons, 1993.

Personnel Competency Modeling 15

developing a concise, practitioner-oriented framework to guide work-force planning through and after its move to Fort Knox.

In fall 2006, when concept development for this research project was beginning, HRC’s BRAC Office leadership asked Arroyo to focus competency modeling on several discrete organizational levels, regard-less of the form of the conceptual approach that would eventually be taken. Other aspects of the research approach were far less certain, e.g., whom to ask to participate in the study and how. Early indications from HRC ranged from about 30 individuals in face-to-face discus-sions as the basis for modeling; research eventually took the form of a large-scale survey that served as the empirical basis for the study. Nevertheless, the concept of multiple levels of analyses endured, with Arroyo proposing three such levels.

Analyses at three organizational levels—line, senior, and exec-utive—were eventually deemed to be capable of providing both the degree of differentiation (in terms of general position “type” and span of control) and the consistency of terminology essential to framing and guiding a range of workforce improvement efforts. Additionally, analyses at three levels would enable the structuring of research activi-ties into discrete parcels tailored to specific, emerging needs, e.g., an August 2007 request by OneKnox13 for competencies for specific posi-tions at one particular level, to begin developing educational curricula that could produce those competencies. Finally, this approach would be consistent with state-of-the-art competency modeling efforts. In sum, this levels-of-analysis construct influenced the design of the field study, associated data analysis, and presentation of results.

Turning next to competencies themselves, competency-based strategic human resource management identifies competencies, tracks them, and deliberately develops them. Competencies refer to group-ings of knowledge, skills, abilities, and other capabilities (KSAOs) that are useful to a job or to the mission/purpose of an organization. Ide-ally, the importance of competencies would also be measured, either at face value or perhaps according to some surrogate for the construct.

13 OneKnox is a consortium of public and private entities organized by the Commonwealth of Kentucky to assist BRAC initiatives in the state.

16 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

We employed proficiency levels to do this because not all competen-cies would have equal importance to all individuals in an organiza-tion.14 We determined that proficiency levels would logically follow an “exposure-experience-expertise” scale for individual competencies, to indicate facilitation levels that incumbents should possess, relative to competencies associated with respective positions.15

Exposure:• requiring only general familiarity or textbook-level understanding; no particular hands-on or operator-level knowl-edge or skills necessary.Experience• : requiring practical knowledge or skills gained through an accumulation of direct observations or participation built up over time; can be used to enhance the handling of most day-to-day problem-solving situations.Expertise• : requiring mastery of a skill or skill set; involving in-depth knowledge; normally associated with a career-long focus and recognition as a subject matter expert.

Method

To derive required competencies and associated proficiency levels for positions at HRC, we determined that going directly to where such competencies reside—to individual staff at HRC—would be the best way to begin learning of the groupings of KSAOs needed for incum-bents’ effectiveness. In turn, it also became clear that only a large-scale

14 Research we conducted indicates that much of the competency modeling performed to date, for both the public and private sectors, skips past this important qualifier.15 This construct was developed and first employed for a RAND study of competency requirements for general and flag officers serving in Joint assignments. (Published report not available.) According to a glossary by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, a compe-tency is “An observable, measurable set of skills, knowledge, abilities, behaviors, and other characteristics an individual needs to successfully perform work roles or occupational func-tions. Competencies are typically required at different levels of proficiency depending on the specific work role or occupational function.” From “Glossary,” U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Washington, D.C. As of May 27, 2009: http://www.opm.gov/hcaaf_resource_center/glossary.asp

Personnel Competency Modeling 17

field study would provide the kind of depth and breadth sought by HRC. This led to the development and deployment of a detailed, 150-item online survey administered to selected staff across the hierarchy and functional groups of the organization. Below we provide a brief overview of how this survey was developed and deployed, how par-ticipants were selected, how data were managed, and how results were employed to create personnel competency models.

Survey Design

To help frame construction of the survey instrument, we first con-ducted in-depth interviews with 30 leaders and staff at HRC in March and April 2007. These individuals were selected on the basis of their positions in the organization as well as their knowledge of HRC’s mis-sion, goals, and emerging strategy to transition HRC into a new orga-nization. In short, they functioned as SMEs to help us to understand the types and levels of competencies that would ideally be required for someone to be effective in both the current and future HRCs.16 We also sought input from these SMEs on the levels of proficiency nec-essary for essential competencies and how those levels of proficiency might be acquired.

Although SMEs belonged to different parts of HRC and oversaw differing varieties of functions, a clear consensus existed over several competency areas, suggesting that certain major skills and skill group-ings would be essential to all staff, regardless of positions held in HRC. In turn, we moved from the general to the specific in the course of this phase of the research, progressing from an initial consideration of major strategic factors (e.g., adaptability of a new workforce to HRC and vice versa), to the roles of broad concepts (e.g., emerging technology and the operational environment faced by the Army, and their roles), to constructs (e.g., precisely specified alternative HRC structures), to vari-

16 Arroyo staff also asked them to describe what would ideally be required for their subordi-nates to be effective in their positions in the current and future HRCs. These interviews were semi-structured, lasting an average of 60 minutes, and conducted one-to-one in person or via telephone.

18 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

ables (survey items), in the course of building this survey. SME inputs, to varying degrees, informed all these steps.

Input from SMEs also verified a perceived need to organize com-petency areas carefully, given the degree (or apparent degree) to which the elements comprising them are related. The outcome of this phase was four major competency categories that provided the organizing basis for the survey. The first category was enterpriseknowledge, e.g., knowledge of the Army’s size and structure and HRC mission, goals, priorities, and processes. The second was managementskills, e.g., the ability to supervise military and civilian personnel, or the ability to for-mulate a vision and goals for the organization. The third was domainknowledge, e.g., knowledge of soldier career development and map-ping, and knowledge of how to bridge existing systems and processes with new ones. The fourth was leadership skills, e.g., the ability to build trust and supported organizations, or the ability to articulate problems and goals.

In addition to the four competency sections, the survey had three sections to address (1) education and training needs for incumbent(s) of a position, (2) prior work experience requirements, and (3) what would most significantly influence a respondent’s decision to relocate to Fort Knox. In general, this framework also enabled a logical progression to the identification of definable, measurable competencies that embraced both broad concepts and more clearly defined constructs incorporating the former.

We created four versions of the survey: one for each of the three hierarchical levels of HRC, and a special one for one individual.17 Types and numbers of questions were very similar across all four versions, with only minor variations reflecting terminology and processes appropriate to the level of positions. All executive-level participants and a number of senior-level participants were asked to self-report competency and proficiency requirements for the current HRC and for two restructur-

17 A special version of the survey requesting no assessment of competencies and proficiencies for the two restructuring options went out to a single executive-level manager who had not been exposed to or involved in HRC organization restructuring discussions.

Personnel Competency Modeling 19

ing options,18 because of their depth of knowledge or involvement in developing and vetting these options. Most senior and all line-level personnel were asked to self-report only competency and proficiency requirements for the current HRC, because they were not thought to have either in-depth knowledge of or involvement in developing or vet-ting the two restructuring options.

Following the survey’s vetting by the HRC senior leadership, web-based testing of the survey by Arroyo staff, and then finally, prepara-tory announcements to the HRC staff, the survey was posted online, with data collected from May through June 2007. Invitations to par-ticipate were sent via email to each individual.

Procedure

A stratified sampling procedure was employed to invite 483 military and civilian participants to take the survey.19 Positions were selected for sampling on the basis of the HRC BRAC Office’s judgment, with cri-teria for selection including, but not limited to, time in respective posi-tions and resultant ability to make wide-ranging contributions to the research effort. Of this sample, 18 individuals (4 percent of the sample) were at the executive level, 250 (52 percent of the sample) were at the senior level, and 214 (44 percent of the sample) were at the line level. Of the 250 senior-level personnel, 25 were asked to answer additional questions on competency requirements stemming from the two alter-native reorganization structures.20 Percentages of assigned personnel

18 Option one would maintain separate officer and enlisted personnel management direc-torates with AR officer and enlisted personnel management, respectively, merged into them, while option two would have a fully integrated management directorate for active and AR officers and enlisted personnel.19 Statistical (e.g., random) sampling of the individuals at each HRC level was not per-formed. For full details on participant selection, see Appendix A.20 To assign HRC positions to one of three levels for analysis, we designated positions per their supervisory responsibilities. The heads of HRC and the four major directorates, as well as HRC-St. Louis, were all assigned to the executive level for analysis, along with others whose responsibilities are to manage or support their supervisors in the highest level of man-agement. Heads of the 20- to 40-person divisions under these directorates were assigned to the senior level for analysis. These were typically colonels and the most senior civilians at the top level of the General Schedule (GS) for federal civilian workers. These divisions, in

20 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

that were surveyed ranged from 100 percent at executive level, down to 15 percent at line level.

More specifically, individuals were also selected on the basis of knowledge about HRC and its mission, the length of their tenure at HRC, experience, and knowledge about what it takes to be effective in their positions. Selection was also predicated on which individuals would be most likely to respond fully to the survey; HRC management helped us determine this. Individuals whose job focus was narrow or who were not privy to HRC organizational change plans and discus-sions were also not ideal participants for the survey. In addition, only individuals not projected to leave or rotate out of their HRC positions during the period of the study and not new (within 90 days of the study) to their position were deemed eligible to participate. We did this to minimize the effects of personnel turnover on study outcomes. Further, respondents were also selected in order to represent the line, senior, and executive levels of the organization most fully, and to be distributed as proportionally as possible on the basis of military com-ponent status and their HRC positions and responsibilities.

Participants

Of the 483 individuals invited to participate in this survey, 292 indi-viduals completed the entire survey and 39 individuals completed at least 75 percent of one section in the survey.21 This yielded an effective completion rate of 68.5 percent, or 331 of the total. Individuals at the executive and senior levels who were identified as knowledgeable about alternative reorganization options for HRC responded at the highest rate: 88 percent. Participation rates of other senior- and line-level per-sonnel were, respectively, 68 percent and 64.5 percent. Table 2.1 pro-vides a complete breakdown.

turn, were subdivided into 10- to 20-person branches headed by lieutenant colonels, majors, and senior civilians. These positions and those under them were designated as line level for analysis.21 Individual survey responses that were less than 75 percent in at least one section in the survey were not used in our data analysis.

Personnel Competency Modeling 21

Table 2.1 Participation Rates by Level

Total Number

Executive

Senior 2/3

Senior

Line

Special

100% completes + 75% completion of one section

331 16 22 153 138 1

total number invited 483 18 25 225 214 1

Completed/emailed 68.5% 88.8% 88.0% 68.0% 64.5% 100%

100% complete 292 15 18 136 123 0

75% complete 39 1 4 17 16 1

note: “Senior 2/3” are the 25 senior-level personnel who are knowledgeable about reorganization options for HRC; “Special” denotes one executive-level participant who was asked only to assess competency requirements for his position in the current HRC structure. All other executive-level participants were asked to assess competency requirements for the current and two alternative reorganization structures.

Measures

The 483 individuals invited to participate in the survey were treated as a census with respect to analysis of survey data. Survey data were ini-tially employed to test the instrument for statistical reliability and both construct and content validity, as well as for generalizability of results to subunits with like positions, given nonuniform response rates within such subunits.22

Statistical reliability connotes the extent to which a survey will provide consistent results in repeated samples from the survey popula-tion. Such reliability, or “internal consistency” of responses, respondent-by-respondent, was measured by means of Cronbach’s α,23 with scoring across responses within each of the seven sections (of the three versions of the survey). Statistical reliability is an essential first step for generaliz-ing a survey’s results—and for eventually applying a competency model

22 For full details on method, see Appendix A.23 “Cronbach’s α” is a standard reliability measure of internal consistency, for ques-tions or items like those that appear in the master version of the survey; variations across the line-, senior-, and executive-level versions are minor. See more on its use in our analysis of survey results in Appendix A.

22 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

to all like positions in a subunit, even if fewer than all members of the subunit participate in the survey.

If responses to questions or items within a section showed strong internal consistency, then (1) constructs represented by survey sections would be said to be meaningful for each level of analysis (line, senior, and executive), and (2) correlation among these responses—enabling factor analytic groupings into competencies proper—would be mean-ingful as well at all three levels. The four competency sections of the survey all showed strong reliability, with a Cronbach’s α greater than 0.95 (see Table 2.2); the other three sections exhibited strong reliability as well. These results verify the underlying assumptions made in the survey’s construction, with respect to “like” items being placed into the same section. They further imply that it is sensible to think of the questions or items contained in a section as a related set informative of an underlying concept.

With respect to construct validity, the seven sections in the survey (see Table 2.2) served as a mechanism for creating groupings to parse the wide range of knowledge and skills required of HRC personnel into meaningful categories that are informative with respect to individual job or position requirements. We examined construct validity, using factor analysis of survey responses, in terms of whether the sections of the survey actually represented separate individual latent “factors,” i.e., the extent to which survey results indicate that we are measuring what we set out to measure in the construction of the sections—or,

Table 2.2 Statistical Reliability of Survey Sections α

Survey Sections Number of Items Cronbach’s α

enterprise perspective 44 0.96

Management skills 40 0.98

Domain knowledge 72 0.97

Leadership skills 24 0.98

education and training 8 0.91

Background and experience 19 0.93

Anticipating the future 8 0.88

Personnel Competency Modeling 23

alternatively, whether a more refined grouping of the survey questions or items (in light of data collected) would be more meaningful.

To examine content validity, we used a combination of explor-atory and confirmatory factor analysis. Results for the four compe-tency sections of the survey indicate as many as 14 dimensions of data within these sections, providing a clear indication that more than the four original competency areas exist. Given these results, we fitted a factor analytic model within each of the survey sections to determine which questions or items are most strongly related; analyses indicated 14 preliminary competency areas, so named according to the terminol-ogy employed in the very questions comprising them. Table 2.3 shows these results.

Analysis

With statistical reliability and construct and content validity con-firmed, modeling results can be generalized to larger groupings of like positions, even if only a subset of all respondents addressed a particular

Table 2.3 Major Competency Areas by Survey Section

Major Competency Sections Competency Areas (14) Present

enterprise perspective Army knowledge

HRC knowledge

AR/ARnG readiness and deployment

Professional development budget

Management skills Interactive management

workforce management

Decision making

Domain knowledge Job details

Manning

Information systems

officer/warrant officer matters

enlisted matters

Leadership skills Interpersonal leadership

organizational leadership

24 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

position completed in the survey.24 When more than one person responded for a position, the responses were aggregated by averaging, to produce interquartile ranges that demarcate responses as within the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile ranges. We focused on the median or the 50th percentile range responses and used “Kiviat” plots or dia-grams to create personnel competency models for each position.25 We initially created models for all jobs surveyed by competency factor and all competency factors per position surveyed. For example, Figure 2.2 presents survey results aggregated across 35 line-level sets of responses for “Personnel Management, 0201,” the position name and associated position code.

The basic competency model illustrated by this diagram shows (1) self-reports of competencies required for respective position by respon-dents and (2) self-reported levels of proficiency required with these com-petencies, across all four major competency categories. The “spokes” in the diagram show the 14 competencies (“factors”) we derived using factor analysis, with the range for each spoke spanning the level of proficiency for each competency, to be specified by respondents. In turn, the three points plotted on each spoke in Figure 2.2 represent the values of the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles, respectively, for responses to all questions associated with a particular competency.

More specifically, we computed the median of respondent answers on each competency to characterize the self-reported proficiency level required for that competency. If half of respondent proficiency level responses (to all questions describing a particular competency) fell at or above a specific value and half at or below it, then we assigned that

24 When only one participant provided responses for a single position, or if there was only one incumbent for a position, we used data from that single respondent to create the compe-tency model for his or her position. In the interest of protecting the anonymity of the partici-pant and confidentiality of the information provided, competency models in such instances are not detailed in this report.25 Kenneth W. Kolence and Philip J. Kiviat, “Software Unit Profiles and Kiviat Figures,” ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, Vol. 2, No. 3, September 1973, pp. 2–12. These diagrams are also commonly known as “radar plots,” as they are named in Microsoft Excel. More on how we created the interquartile ranges and used the Kiviat plots can be found in Appendix A.

Personnel Competency Modeling 25

Figure 2.2 Basic Competency Model for Personnel Management, 0201, Line Level

75th percentileMedian25th percentile

Army knowledge

Job details

HRC knowledge

Decision making

AR/ARNG readiness and deployment

Professional development budget

Workforcemanagement

Interactive management

Organizational leadership

Interpersonal leadership

Enlisted matters

Officer/warrantofficer matters

Information systems

Manning

5

4

3

2

1

0

0 54321NA Exposure Experience Expertise

Proficiency levels

RAND MG828-2.2

competency a required proficiency level equal to that value, the median. For example, the Army knowledge competency (i.e., survey factor), shown in Figure 2.2, consisted of 15 separate survey questions.26 Half the responses from the 35 line-level respondents to this group of ques-tions were at or above 3, and half were at or below 3. Thus, the median is 3, indicating that persons filling the “Personnel Management, 0201” position at the line level should have the “experience” level of profi-ciency (rated at 3) for this competency. The 75th and 25th percentiles were also plotted. The 75th percentile is the level at which 75 percent of the responses are equal to or below that level (4 in the case we are discussing here); the 25th percentile is the level at which 25 percent of the responses are equal to or below that level (2 in this case).

26 The questions or topics that fall under each factor can be found in Appendix A, and screen views of the survey can be found in Appendix B.

26 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Although presenting competencies for positions in this fashion may not provide the optimal level of detail for more specific purposes (e.g., for structuring a job description or a performance evaluation), this suffices for the primary purpose of our first research task: develop-ing personnel competency models for this stage of the HRC reorgani-zation and relocation. It also suffices as the baseline for our other two research tasks (given the ability to measure against a certain, empiri-cally derived, verifiable standard): (1) identify potential gaps between required competencies thus identified and those that potential new HRC personnel might possess in the future, and (2) produce training concepts and an approach to training that assists HRC in developing the required competencies and their associated proficiency levels, i.e., “closing” those gaps.

Results

Summarizing, a 68.5 percent response rate to the online survey pro-vided the empirical basis for the study and a solid quantitative “base-line” from which to develop over 50 personnel competency models. Many of these results, in turn, would eventually prove to be generaliz-able to larger subunit populations in HRC, based on statistical indica-tors for survey instrument reliability and validity that ensued (when associated testing was conducted). Those same indicators of instrument reliability and validity were also an essential precursor to the factor analysis of survey responses. This latter technique enabled the identifi-cation of 14 discrete competencies for HRC staff, organized into four major categories that served as the basis for competency models: enter-prise perspective, management skills, domain knowledge, and leader-ship skills.

Each of the 14 competencies was comprised of multiple elements, i.e., survey items describing a competency. (Competencies were eventu-ally “named” according to survey items, and the associated terminol-ogy, comprising them.) Each element—survey question—describing a competency also received a required proficiency rating through respon-dent self-reports; these too are shown on individual models. In turn,

Personnel Competency Modeling 27

individual respondents would have assigned different proficiency levels to each of the elements describing a single competency. Some 19 ques-tions on “decision making” were asked, for example. Analyses focused on pooled respondent answers to characterize the self-reported profi-ciency level required for a designated competency. If half of respondent proficiency level responses were at or above a self-reported 4 and half at or below 4, for example, we assigned a proficiency level of 4 to that particular competency. The latter is shown on individual competency models.

With two exceptions, analysis shows that HRC can expect no major changes in the demands for competencies or proficiencies. The two exceptions are the management of Army Reserve (AR) and Army National Guard (ARNG) readiness and deployment and the merged management of enlisted and officer personnel. This occurred in light of the fact that at the time of the survey, an organizational structure that involved full integration of AR and ARNG into a merged directorate was favored by the command. More important, respondents typically assigned proficiency levels ranging from experience to expertise to key competencies associated with respective positions, supporting the view that HRC’s senior civilian workforce has a knowledge base—coupled with the experience—that will prove difficult to replace once the orga-nization moves, given the likely loss of a significant share of its experi-enced staff.

Major Results by Level

In the course of analysis by level, it became clear that with some excep-tions, the higher the level of a respondent, the greater the self-reported proficiency requirement, across a broader array of competencies (than at lower levels). In short, the lower the level, the fewer the self-reported competency requirements—and the lower the associated, required pro-ficiency level—in the view of respondents. There was also little vari-ability in participants’ responses to questions on several competencies, including information systems and interpersonal leadership. This lack of variability may result from the fact that, regardless of job functions or day-to-day responsibilities, a similarly high level of proficiency was deemed necessary. Where significant variability does exist, it is with

28 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

respect to responses to specific questions within a competency area that are specific to a particular job or responsibility. For example, all respon-dents involved in EPMD placed low emphasis on proficiency require-ments associated with competency areas in AR and ARNG readiness and deployment.

Responses from executive-level personnel in PERSINSD, like those at the line and senior levels, emphasized proficiency in compe-tency areas that enable information support to other HRC organiza-tional entities over those tied to specific functional aspects of HRC activities. Of note, however, is a lower reported proficiency requirement for enlisted matters, officer/warrant officer matters, AR and ARNG readiness and deployment, and manning—the functional aspects of HRC activities—among executive-level participants in PERSINSD (as compared with their line- and senior-level counterparts).

Major Results by Position

By position, as would be expected, competency requirements and associated proficiency levels that should reside in the ideal incumbent varied considerably; these appear in detail at Appendix A. More impor-tant, though, from the standpoint of addressing HRC’s major con-cerns, nine competency requirements and associated proficiency levels stood out from the rest at both the line and senior levels for (1) human resource (HR) and (2) information technology (IT) specialists. Posi-tions in these categories will likely become shortage positions once the command moves to Fort Knox, based on available indications.27 These competency requirements, which are also central to the gap analysis and training approaches developed and presented later in the report, are Army knowledge, HRC knowledge (both associated with enterprise perspective); interactive management, workforce management, and decision making (all associated with management skills); job details and information systems (both associated with domain knowledge);

27 A OneKnox-sponsored study was performed by Workforce Associates in 2007. The study projects a significant personnel shortage for HRC in the HR and IT positions, possibly in excess of 1,000, given the size of the HRC demand and the relatively low number of workers in these areas in the Fort Knox region.

Personnel Competency Modeling 29

and interpersonal and organizational leadership (both associated with leadership skills).

For the position code 0201 series or line-level personnel manag-ers, HRC knowledge, interactive management, decision making, job details, and interpersonal leadership all had a median profiency level of 4 (n = 36) in the view of respondents. For the 0203 series or line-level personnel management assistants, job details, interpersonal lead-ership, and organizational leadership had a median of 4 or higher, with interactive management, workforce management, and decision making showing 3s (n = 17). For line-level information technology personnel (position code: 2210s), interactive management, decision making, job details, and interpersonal and organizational leadership were all scored 4s; these individuals clearly felt that more than a “passing” level of pro-ficiency was needed in certain management KSAOs.

At the senior level for the 0201 series or personnel managers, HRC knowledge, interactive management, decision making, job details, interpersonal leadership, and organizational leadership (in contrast to line-level 0201s) were all considered important; these all had a median of 4 in the view of respondents (n = 12). For senior-level informa-tion technology personnel (2210s), interactive management, decision making, job details, and interpersonal and organizational leadership were all scored 4s, as was the case for those at the line level. Consis-tency across levels, in addition to consistency of responses within levels, is encouraging and lends support to the recommendations we make regarding the types and nature of training approaches.28

In the course of examining general modeling outcomes by level and in looking beyond HR and IT positions, some clear distinctions emerged. At the executive level, a perception exists that leadership skills are paramount; these consistently received the highest proficiency scor-ings from respondents, as would be expected. At the senior level, inter-active management and interpersonal (versus organizational) leader-ship were areas of high emphasis. At the line level, respondents saw strong proficiency in HRC knowledge and interpersonal leadership as necessary.

28 For additional details on these, see Table A.8 in Appendix A.

30 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

In sum, competency modeling developed for the first task of this project not only suffices for the latter but also served as the baseline for our other two research tasks by providing the ability to measure against an empirically derived, verifiable standard. These tasks, again, are to (1) identify potential gaps between required competencies and those that potential new HRC personnel might possess, and (2) pro-duce training concepts and an approach to training that assists HRC in developing required competencies, i.e., in “closing” those gaps.

31

CHAPteR tHRee

Workforce Analysis for the New HRC

Meeting near-term workforce requirements looms large in terms of both the number of positions to be filled (quantity) and the competen-cies and proficiency levels (quality) needed. Both factors are essential to a smooth HRC transition to a new organization structure, to its reloca-tion to Fort Knox beginning in 2010, and, most important, to the pro-vision of uninterrupted and effective HRC support of Army personnel and unit readiness. Other factors that could hinder this transition gen-erally fall behind that of meeting near-term workforce requirements.

In several respects, the relocation of HRC to Fort Knox signifi-cantly complicates recruiting and retention. First, the new HRC will remain a relatively large military organization with over 2,100 civilian authorizations that are not easy to fill in general. As of summer 2008, it had several hundred unfilled civilian positions even in a relatively supply-rich greater Washington, D.C. labor market. Within this popu-lation, approximately two-thirds are civilians, with a number of these being college-educated, skilled professionals. This is the population of interest, and replacing them does not appear easy in the Fort Knox environs. Fort Knox is an Army post about 35 miles south of Louis-ville, Kentucky (see Figure 3.1). Its 109,000 acres cover parts of Bullitt (population 72,851), Hardin (population 97,087), and Meade counties (population 27,994).1 Other communities nearby are Brandenburg, Elizabethtown, Hodgenville, Radcliff, Shepherdsville, and Vine Grove. While these communities are working to move away from agriculture

1 Kentucky 2006 Census data.

32 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Figure 3.1 Map of Fort Knox and Environs

SOURCE: Google Maps.RAND MG828-3.1

and industry toward employment with higher value added, they cur-rently do not have a high density of workers with postsecondary educa-tion qualifications, as shown below in Table 3.2.

Second, and complicating the first factor, more than half of the current HRC workforce will most likely not move to Fort Knox.2 These are incumbents with critical knowledge, skill, and experience. Many will be eligible to retire in 2010 or soon after, according to HRC personnel data. Third, the local labor market at Fort Knox lacks the number and type of workers HRC will need to hire. On a related note, research car-

2 According to results of a personnel survey conducted by HRC in 2006.

workforce Analysis for the new HRC 33

ried out for this study shows that HRC will have to compete intensively with other employers for qualified candidates. Fourth, HRC does not have the same flexibility or resources that private-sector employers pos-sess to plan, recruit, train, hire, and retain workers. Fifth, HRC’s reor-ganization, which will occur in tandem with the move to Fort Knox, complicates the task of retaining current workers, hiring new ones, and training a new HRC workforce. Consequently, it appears unlikely that HRC will have the workforce it needs—in number or in kind—when it begins operations at Fort Knox in 2010.

This chapter next presents data on and analysis of gaps between HRC’s future workforce demand and its supply in the Fort Knox and greater Louisville area. To characterize HRC’s future workforce demand, we built on the personnel competency modeling results dis-cussed in the previous chapter. We also benefited from HRC input on the evolving timeline of its move to Fort Knox and relevant actions planned or already in progress. To characterize supply in the Fort Knox and greater Louisville areas, we held extensive discussions and site visits with experts in industry, education, government, and nonprofit groups in the region and carried out a field study of local area conditions.3 We also consulted with RAND experts knowledgeable about the organi-zational effect of BRAC-directed moves for their personal insights into the experiences of other military organizations.

HRC’s Workforce Demand

To characterize HRC’s future workforce demand, we began with an examination of the driving forces behind HRC’s aggregate workforce demand for September 15, 2011, when HRC is officially expected to complete its transfer of functions and operations to Fort Knox. In terms

3 Experts we consulted included professional staff at the Kentucky Department of Labor, the Kentucky Department for Workforce Investment, the Kentucky Council for Postsec-ondary Education, the Kentucky Community and Technical College System, the Jefferson County Public School System, the Metropolitan College Program, Best Buy’s Geek Squad City, Toyota of North America, United Parcel Service, Fort Knox’s Civilian Personnel Advi-sory Center, the Lincoln Trail Area Development District, and OneKnox.

34 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

of the aggregate number of personnel required, a driving factor, as men-tioned above, is the likelihood that a significant share of its current staff will not move to Fort Knox. More than 2,100 civilian authorizations, and an as-yet uncertain number of contractor positions (around 300 based on HRC estimates), are planned for the new HRC at Fort Knox in 2010 and beyond. However, results of an HRC personnel survey in 2006 indicate that only about 30 to 40 percent of the current work-force will consider relocating to Fort Knox.4

Several reasons might explain why more HRC personnel are unin-terested in moving to Fort Knox. An important one is that the cost of moving for an entire household might be too high. With spouses holding jobs and children going to school in the greater Washington, D.C. area, a move to Fort Knox for an HRC employee could mean uprooting a family, reducing household income if the spouse cannot find an equally well-paying job, and undergoing the stress of finding satisfactory education and after-school programs for the children. Per-sonal lifestyle preferences and familial ties to the greater Washington, D.C. area might also have a significant influence on decisions to reject a move to Fort Knox. Additionally, the greater Washington, D.C. area offers more prospects for alternative employment for those who choose to stay. The concentration of federal and private-sector jobs in the national capital region consistently makes it one of the best job mar-kets in the country.5

A major additional reason why many current HRC civil service personnel might not consider a transfer to Fort Knox is that over 40 percent are projected to be eligible for retirement by 2010; another 30 percent would be eligible for early retirement in the same year.6 This means that over 70 percent of the current civil service workforce at HRC could choose to stay in the national capital region to retire by 2010 and avoid the ordeal of moving families and facing a new work-place at Fort Knox.

4 HRC data and communication to RAND.5 Interviews with HRC staff.6 HRC data on staff age profile.

workforce Analysis for the new HRC 35

HRC has plans to conduct another personnel survey to gain further insight into how many current workers will consider moving to Fort Knox. Even if results indicate that more staff than currently expected will move, experts who have managed BRAC moves indicate that actual losses can significantly exceed projected losses. For example, people might realize they do not like what they find in the new envi-ronment, or they might move only long enough to reach retirement eligibility.

Regarding the quality of the workforce that HRC will need for 2010, our analysis of required competencies and proficiency levels underscores the importance of domain knowledge (job-related) com-petencies at an experience or expertise level. Also important will be enterprise perspective, that is, knowledge of the Army, HRC, AR, and ARNG. Those among the current HRC workforce who will move to Fort Knox will have a high level of proficiency in domain knowledge and enterprise perspective to use as a foundation on which to build additional competency requirements for their new jobs in the restruc-tured HRC at Fort Knox.

By comparison, few new hires at Fort Knox will likely have expe-rience- or expertise-level proficiency in domain knowledge or enterprise perspective competencies. Individuals with prior Army service might have some level of proficiency with enterprise knowledge competencies, e.g., how the Army is structured, Army personnel policies and proce-dures. However, unless their experience includes time spent in Army human resource management, it is unlikely that they will possess expe-rience- to expertise-level proficiency in the domain knowledge compe-tencies necessary to handle, say, deployment, promotions, or retirement processes. An exception would be service members currently at HRC who will choose civilian employment at HRC at Fort Knox after they leave the military. All this suggests that many new staffing vacancies in HRC at Fort Knox are unlikely to be filled at experience or expertise levels, at least with respect to the domain knowledge and enterprise perspective competencies. Even if postsecondary educational institu-tions at Fort Knox and elsewhere can help foster proficiency in lead-ership and management competencies, staffing with employees with knowledge of these would likely fall well short of requirements.

36 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

To sum up, the manpower available to HRC is constrained not only by the number of workers in the region, but also by the quality of the workforce available. The present HRC workforce is clearly one source for the future HRC workforce. However, as stated, the numbers willing to move to Fort Knox will likely be small. Even if more are will-ing to move, HRC will still need to hire new staff, given that 40 to 70 percent of the current workforce can retire by 2010.

HRC’s Potential Workforce Supply

In looking at prospective sources for labor, we find six major groups with potential to meet HRC’s quantitative and qualitative demands for its future workforce at Fort Knox. Current HRC personnel, both civilians and uniformed personnel who will retire in the coming years, are the first source. They may be the biggest source of workers and the most qualified for the restructured HRC at Fort Knox. Training requirements for members of this group will be minimal because they can build on their high proficiency in domain knowledge and enter-prise perspective competencies. However, the experience of the U.S. Navy’s Bureau of Personnel, in its own BRAC-directed move,7 suggests that caution is needed in forecasting the number that will move to Fort Knox and stay with their new jobs there. The Navy suffered a much higher rate of civilian turnover than expected after the move, when a disproportionate share of staff quit for a host of reasons.

Current civil service personnel at other organizations at Fort Knox who will choose to stay in the area when their employers move out of Fort Knox (also as part of BRAC-directed moves) are a second possible source. More than 1,000 civil service employees and more than 300 contractors at Fort Knox today are expected to need new employment as their organizations “BRAC out” of Fort Knox in the coming years. A major Army organization “BRACing out”—as HRC “BRACs in”—is USAARMC, which will begin its move in the summer of 2010 and

7 To Millington, Tennessee in 1998.

workforce Analysis for the new HRC 37

complete its relocation to Fort Benning, Georgia by September 2011.8 Although these workers represent a potential pool for recruitment by HRC, there is no guarantee that they will choose to work for HRC.

Organizations will relocate into and out of Fort Knox on different schedules so that hiring organizations and potential workers will not necessarily work on the same timetable. Thus, when HRC is authorized to hire, candidates might already have found other jobs, especially con-sidering that other organizations moving into Fort Knox will also be looking to hire new personnel as they deal with their own personnel losses.9 Yet apart from the timing issue and competition, many of these people will not likely qualify for HRC positions or be able to per-form effectively without training to acquire the required competencies. Establishing training courses, motivating people to take them to meet eligibility requirements for job application, and allocating resources and time to train new hires will pose significant challenges to trans-forming this pool of workers into effective members of a new HRC workforce.

A third source is the local workforce in the greater Fort Knox area that includes the city of Louisville and counties contiguous to Hardin County, where Fort Knox is situated. This may be the most important pool available to help meet HRC’s near-term manpower demand, in particular at the line and senior levels where a significant number of vacancies are expected across the organization. This regional workforce might find the higher pay, superior health and retirement benefits, and job security offered by the federal government sufficiently attractive to leave current positions in the private sector and local and state govern-ment offices in Kentucky. Table 3.1 shows mean salaries for human resource and information technology workers (two areas where HRC will most likely have the greatest need for new hires) and a determination

8 According to COL Mark Needham, garrison commander at Fort Knox, “Increased Num-bers Forecast as BRAC Efforts Intensify,” The Meade County Messenger (Kentucky), July 9, 2008, p. 10A.9 For example, the U.S. Army Cadet Command will “BRAC in” to Fort Knox around the same time as HRC. The relocation of engineer, military police, and combat service support units from Europe and Korea to Fort Knox will also create new job opportunities for those workers whose organizations will “BRAC out” of Fort Knox.

38 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Table 3.1 Wage Comparison for Greater Louisville Metropolitan Area and the Federal Government’s General Schedule (2007)

Occupation Titles

Mean Salary in Louisville

Metropolitan Area

GS Grade and Pay Level (2007)

employment, recruitment, placement specialists $38,970 GS-8, $35,151 to $45,699

training and development specialists $46,370 GS-10, $42,755 to $55,580

Compensation, benefits, and job analysis specialists $50,490

GS-11, $46,974 to $61,068

Human resource, training and labor relations specialists (all other) $46,270 GS-10, $42,755 to $55,580

Human resource assistants $32,880 GS-6, $28,562 to $47,130

Managers of office and administrative support workers $41,990

GS-9, $38,824 to $50,470

Computer operators $35,660 GS-7, $31,740 to $41,262

Computer programmers $61,270 GS-12, $56,301 to $67,194

Computer support specialists $40,870 GS-8 to GS-9, $35,151 to $54,070

Database administrators $62,870 GS-12, $56,301 to $73,194

network computer systems administrators $55,930 GS-11, $46,974 to $61,068

network systems and data communication analysts $68,970 GS-13, $66,951 to $87,039

SoURCeS: Kentucky Department of Labor statistics, 2006; and U.S. office of Personnel Management web site at www.opm.gov.

of their position and wage levels in the federal government’s General Schedule (GS) for civil service workers, as of 2007.

However, research indicates nothing to suggest that many will leave current jobs for HRC. Current jobs might offer at least competi-tive wages and benefits, and competition for high-quality workers in the greater Louisville area will likely push employers to offer higher wages and better benefits. Table 3.1 shows that GS pay levels compare favorably at the high end of the GS scale, but not so at the lower end. This might help to attract more experienced and senior-level workers to consider HRC, but may not do so at the line and entry levels. And just as current HRC workers might choose not to leave the greater Wash-

workforce Analysis for the new HRC 39

ington, D.C. area for personal or family reasons, workers in greater Louisville, too, might be sufficiently vested in current employment and work-life arrangements to reject employment at Fort Knox.

In an absolute sense, the number of well-qualified workers is rela-tively small in this region. The number of workers most suited to fill the four line-level HRC positions in human resources management and information technology support—areas in which the largest number of vacancies is expected to occur—is far lower in the greater Fort Knox area (Hardin and contiguous counties) than in the greater Washing-ton, D.C. area. Table 3.2 compares the density of human resource and information technology professionals in these two regions.

Again, as with any potential employee with no experience in Army, HRC, or Army personnel management, proficiency in the required domain knowledge and enterprise perspective competencies would be expected to be low. To become truly effective workers in HRC, they will need classroom and on-the-job training to acquire proficiency in these and other required competencies.

The fourth group is the national workforce, which may be most relevant to filling vacancies at the GS-9 to GS-12 levels at the new HRC. We emphasize positions at the GS-9 to GS-12 levels because wages for positions at GS-8 and below might not be sufficiently high to attract workers from outside the Fort Knox area (or Kentucky) to move to the area. The financial and nonfinancial effect of any job-related move for a worker and his or her family might also render GS-8 and lower-level jobs sufficiently unattractive to those not already in the Fort Knox area (or those with other reasons to want to move there, such as returning home to the Fort Knox area or joining spouse or family in the region). The quantity, quality, and willingness of such potential workers to move to Fort Knox are difficult to determine. And it would also be safe to assume that, as with other groups described here, most would not have the required competencies and the associated profi-ciency levels in domain knowledge and enterprise perspective.

A fifth group consists of military retirees, inactive reservists, and military spouses, particularly those of the Army. These personnel might be viewed as a subset of the workforce in the Fort Knox region and across the nation. For the first two groups, these are individuals who are

40 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Table 3.2 Density of Human Resource and Information Technology Workers in the Greater Washington, D.C. and Greater Fort Knox Areas

Occupation Titles

Greater Washington, D.C. (No. of persons)

(A)

Greater Fort Knox Area

(No. of persons) (B)

Percent in (B) Compared to (A)

employment, recruitment, and placement specialists 5,190 820 16%

training and development specialists 8,150 670 8%

Compensation, benefits, and job analysis specialists 2,740 290 11%

Human resource, training, and labor relations specialists (all other) 11,270 1,080 10%

Human resource assistants 4,810 780 16%

Managers of office and administrative support workers 28,600 6,820 24%

Computer operators 3,500 380 11%

Computer programmers 16,680 1,390 8%

Computer support specialists 22,210 2,000 9%

Database administrators 6,340 550 9%

network and computer systems administrators 19,350 1,130 6%

network systems and data communication analysts 13,560 1,030 8%

SoURCe: Kentucky Department of Labor.

likely to have exposure to experience-level proficiency in some, if not all, enterprise perspective competencies. Drawing on their own experi-ence in the military, they might also have exposure to experience-level proficiency in several domain knowledge competencies (officer matters, enlisted matters, and manning). In fact, some might be current and past uniformed personnel from HRC and its forerunners, such that they might even have experience- to expertise-level proficiency in rel-

workforce Analysis for the new HRC 41

evant competencies for positions at the new HRC. For those who are retired or will be retiring, employment at Fort Knox might be appeal-ing given the lower cost of living and housing in the area. They might also have some familiarity with Fort Knox, minimizing the need for HRC to “sell” the location to them.

For reservists already based in Kentucky, employment at HRC might fit well with their active service obligations. The Kentucky Army National Guard, for example, is a 7,500-person force with a roughly 10 percent annual turnover.10 Many of these individuals would be familiar with life in Kentucky in general and perhaps with the Fort Knox and greater Louisville area in particular and thus might find it attractive. While it cannot be assumed that these individuals will possess required competencies and have them at their associated proficiency levels, their training needs in Army- and HRC-specific knowledge and processes will likely be less than for others who have had no military experience, or Army experience in particular.

As for military spouses, those having spouses assigned to Fort Knox might welcome employment at HRC. A soldier’s lifestyle can be trying for spouses and often harmful to their careers. With mili-tary posts frequently located some distance from metropolitan areas where employment opportunities are scarce, military spouses might not find work at all or earn lower wages in less robust job markets. Mil-itary spouses too might have at least exposure-level proficiency in some enterprise perspective competencies through their spouses and through their own experience (as spouses of service members) as well. Although such military spouse employees will most likely leave HRC when their service member spouses receive assignment to a new location, they rep-resent a steady pool of quality candidates as military personnel rotate in and out of Fort Knox. For all three subgroups, there may be a need for additional education and training for relevant domain knowledge competencies as well as for competencies in other areas according to the requirements of the position(s) of interest.

The sixth and final group of note is the future generation of work-ers in the Fort Knox area and Kentucky as a whole. This group is the

10 The 149th Brigade of the 35th Infantry Division is located in Louisville, for example.

42 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

most important pool of human capital available to meet HRC’s long-term manpower needs. In the short term and toward 2010, however, data do not indicate sufficient availability in quantity or in quality. Also, to ensure that future generations of workers in Kentucky will meet HRC’s manpower demand in quantity and quality, this popu-lation must be aware of the employment opportunity available, be motivated to obtain those jobs, and regard pay and other benefits of employment at HRC as superior to or at least competitive with other options. Fully informing these potential recruits and having resources on the ground to help them improve their eligibility for employment at HRC will be critical.

The future HRC at Fort Knox is expected to become a younger workforce and one with higher education credentials. Table 3.3 shows selected education and employment indicators for Hardin and neigh-boring counties, which have a low density of workers with higher edu-cation or professional qualifications. Numbers in italics, for example, show where Hardin, Bullitt, Jefferson, and Meade counties are worse off than the Kentucky average; numbers in boldface show where they are better off than the Kentucky average.

Higher-than-Kentucky-average access to the Internet combined with innovative and aggressive efforts by local and state authorities

Table 3.3 Education and Employment Indicators for the Fort Knox Area (Projected for 2008 through 2010)

County Name

Unemploy-ment Rate

Percent of Population with High

School Diploma

Percent of Population

with Bachelor or Higher Degree

Number of Workers in Financial,

Professional, Services

Percent of Homes

with Internet Access

Hardin 5.4% 34.3% 16.0% 6,654 65.0%

Bullitt 6.0% 41.1% 9.2% 1,051 69.5%

Jefferson 5.6% 29.1% 24.8% 98,456 69.3%

Meade 6.4% 39.9% 11.3% 405 68.3%

U.S. 4.6% 28.6% 24.4% — —

Kentucky 5.7% 33.6% 17.1% — 64.0%

SoURCe: Kentucky Department of Labor.

workforce Analysis for the new HRC 43

in Kentucky to promote knowledge-based and value-added jobs hold promise for HRC. For example, the Jefferson County Community and Technical College works with Toyota to develop and deliver course curricula that will prepare students for jobs at Toyota. Such efforts pro-vide important insights and models for HRC to use to develop long-term strategies to expand the quantity and quality of the future labor pool in Kentucky and to improve access to the best talent available.

Size of the Workforce Gap

Based on data and analysis produced for this report, HRC will find it difficult to meet its civilian manpower needs for 2010 and beyond if trends persist. Given that civilian employees at HRC occupy most positions across the organization and at all levels of HRC, the disparity between demand and supply will affect all parts of the organization. Positions at the line and senior levels in human resource, administra-tive and clerical, and information technology areas might suffer partic-ularly significant gaps because of (1) the large number of jobs associated with them, (2) the possibility that not many current HRC employees at these levels will relocate to Fort Knox for these jobs, and (3) the fact that required competencies and proficiency levels in domain knowl-edge and enterprise perspective will likely make it difficult for HRC to hire individuals with prior experience or training in Army human resource matters.

Various unknowns limit precision in determining the size and nature of the HRC staff shortages that will likely occur. The most sig-nificant of these are the number of current HRC civilian personnel who will relocate to Fort Knox, when this will be known, and how long those who do make the move will stay with the new HRC. Also unclear is how competitive the Army’s employment package will be in the regional economy and nationally to attract qualified applicants and to retain new hires in light of changes in the local and national econ-omy (and expectations among youths who are entering the workforce today and in the future). United Parcel Service, Toyota, Ford, Best Buy’s Geek Squad City, Humana, and others in the greater Louisville

44 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

economy invest considerable resources to identify, develop, recruit, and provide incentives to the most qualified workers in a local labor market where the density of educated and skilled workers is not particularly high in either quantity or in quality. The same will be true of efforts aimed at attracting qualified workers on a nationwide scale.11 The Army might face competition from other employers across the country. Competitive pay and benefits aside, potential recruits will need to be made aware of (and eventually accept) the lifestyle that the Fort Knox or greater Louisville area provides. Finally, in some cases, competition for qualified candidates might come from firms the HRC employs as contractors.

In conclusion, reducing the size and scope of this gap and even-tually eliminating it are tied to the quantity and quality of workers who will be available from the six sources described. Workforce anal-ysis clearly demonstrates that HRC is virtually certain to encounter difficulty in meeting demand in 2010 and beyond, a finding that prompted HRC to reconsider, in spring 2008, its plan to merge officer and enlisted personnel management into a single directorate. Thus, any HRC human capital strategy must look beyond 2010. Competency models and approaches to training produced in connection with this research should serve as an enduring basis for coordinating the long-range recruiting, hiring, training, and performance evaluation activi-ties that are central to such a strategy. In the process, this will help position the HRC workforce to carry the Army’s human resources sup-port activities into the future.

Strategies and options selected to deal with gaps will have to accommodate these uncertainties and will likely require constant review and adjustment to help HRC meet its workforce requirements.

11 Researchers designate youths born between 1980 and 2000 (about 70 million) as “Gen-eration Y” or “Millennials.” Research has found that significant numbers of these youths place greater value on personal freedom, autonomy, and flexibility in the workplace, and place work-life balance over job security or financial rewards. This outlook and the expecta-tions connected with it are causing many major corporations in America to reconsider exist-ing workplace cultures and processes to recruit and retain workers. See, for example, Carolyn Martin, Managing Gen Y, Amherst, MA: HRD Press, 2001; Neil Howe and William Strauss, Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation, New York: Vintage, 2000; and Eric Chester, Employing Generation Y, Vacaville, CA: Chess Press, 2002.

45

CHAPteR foUR

Closing Competency Gaps

Broadly, the third and final task of this study was to address compe-tency gaps identified in the course of our research and develop training concepts and a plan to close them. Personnel competency requirements presented in Chapter Two provide a foundation for analysis. As illus-trated in the previous chapter, there are both quantitative and qualita-tive dimensions to meeting HRC’s workforce requirements, and the two are closely related.

This chapter begins with a look at the experiences of three major employers as they tried to meet respective workforce requirements in Kentucky. The second section examines some key resources and oppor-tunities available in these labor markets to help build a future HRC workforce. The third section presents our view of the top priorities for HRC as it tries to meet its workforce requirements and its options for doing so. Competencies—and their presence or absence in the future workforce—are central to determining these priorities and options.

The final section of this chapter lays out concepts for training and how these might fit into an HRC institutional human capital strategy geared to meet workforce requirements for 2010 and beyond. Here, we focus on line- and senior-level positions in human resources and information technology expected to experience the largest manpower shortfall. Again, we draw heavily upon results of personnel competency modeling performed for HRC, in the course of developing a training approach and tools to help determine training course content, recruit-ing criteria, and performance metrics. These conceptual and operational tools should assist HRC in developing and implementing a compre-

46 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

hensive human resource strategy, along with an action plan to simulta-neously close competency gaps and meet manpower requirements.

Experiences of Major Employers in Kentucky

Research into the experience of several major employers and innovative approaches used to address their manpower needs, conducted in winter of 2008, provides useful insights into labor markets in the Fort Knox and larger Kentucky regions and their capacity to expand workforce quantity and quality. These organizations and approaches were selected (at the recommendation of experts we consulted) as best-practice exam-ples of employers with deep knowledge of these labor markets who are implementing successful strategies to hire the workforce they require. What we learned helped us inform HRC of opportunities and chal-lenges in these labor markets and how it might increase the quantity and quality of the kind of workers it needs—the central focus of this chapter.

United Parcel Service

An innovative experience that stands out in the region is that of United Parcel Service (UPS) and how it dealt with unsustainable personnel turnover in its Louisville operation. In the 1990s, UPS in Louisville struggled with such high personnel turnover in its air freight opera-tions that it considered leaving Louisville, a major operation hub—this after the state and the city had completed a new airport expan-sion undertaken largely for UPS.1 Any move, though, would have also been costly as well as disruptive to the company’s operations and to the greater Louisville economy. UPS instead determined that it had to reduce the cost of continuously working to recruit, replace, and retrain its workforce; it needed to hire the right kinds of people and motivate them to stay.

1 UPS reported that 6,000 to 9,000 workers had to be hired each year, imposing an enor-mous cost on the company in recruiting and training new employees. Interview with human resource manager for UPS, Louisville, December 19, 2007.

Closing Competency Gaps 47

UPS turned to the state government, the University of Louis-ville, and the Jefferson Community and Technical College (JCTC) for assistance. Together they created the Metropolitan College Program, a tuition assistance or scholarship program for four-year college students who work part-time in the UPS air freight operations.2 UPS, the Com-monwealth of Kentucky, and the city of Louisville now jointly provide financial support to this program. Those in the program are both stu-dents and part-time UPS employees. They attend school during the day and go to work at UPS at night, receive regular UPS part-time pay and benefits, and have all tuition paid by the program. Maintaining minimum required grade point averages and employment at UPS are basic requirements for full tuition support, for up to all four years of undergraduate study. While in the program, these UPS workers also receive regular counseling from Metropolitan College Program staff on a variety of academic and career matters, including selection of col-lege majors, how to prepare resumes, and how to do well in interviews. All this is to help them to find full-time and permanent positions after they finish college, given that they will not—with few exceptions—find full-time, permanent employment with UPS.3

Tuition support for college students thus serves as a recruiting and retention incentive for UPS. The company reported that the effective-ness of this program in bolstering recruitment and retention quickly became evident. UPS credits the program for raising retention to over 85 percent today, thereby significantly reducing its recruiting and train-ing expenses. In the 2007–2008 academic year, about 2,200 student/UPS employees were enrolled in the Metropolitan College Program. The number will likely rise if UPS succeeds with its plan to add 800 positions to its air cargo operations in 2009 and 1,000 more in 2011. This program’s success has so impressed UPS that it is now replicated

2 See the Metropolitan College Program’s web site. As of July 29, 2008: http://www.metro-college.com/ 3 UPS reported that few of these part-time workers will obtain full-time jobs at UPS after they finish college. Using part-time workers for package processing is core to its personnel and business strategy. Consequently, these part-time workers/college students are expected to seek full-time employment outside UPS upon graduation from college, and such counseling prepares them for that future.

48 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

by UPS operations in several other states, and it has won accolades for UPS from industry and education leaders.4 UPS’s success has also moti-vated two other Louisville employers to join the Metropolitan College Program and similarly use it to provide a highly valued recruiting and retention incentive to workers.5

Geek Squad City

Another experience of note is that of Best Buy’s Geek Squad City, its computer repair and technology subsidiary.6 Geek Squad City opened in October 2006 in Bullitt County, near Louisville. It now has a staff of some 680 persons, up from 200 locally hired employees and 100 who transferred to Louisville from Geek Squad operations elsewhere in the country. Current plans call for a staff of 1,000 or more, to include a significant number of computer repair technicians. When Geek Squad teams (at individual Best Buy stores) are unable to help customers solve their computing problems, computers are sent via courier service (thus leveraging UPS operations in Louisville) to this site—the first of its kind in the country—for advanced technical assistance. To acquire the quantity and quality of computer repair technicians it needs, Geek Squad City too worked with JCTC to develop curricula to prepare stu-dents to qualify for jobs at Geek Squad City. Employees of Geek Squad City can also receive full tuition reimbursement for training at JCTC.

Geek Squad City acknowledges that finding the right workers in quantity and quality in the region is not easy. Although the region

4 Over the next several years, UPS plans to add 1,600 workers to its Louisville operations, and this recruiting and retention will likely to continue to play an important role in its human resource strategy.5 Community Alternative Kentucky is a subsidiary of ResCare and provides direct care to persons with developmental and physical disabilities; Humana is a healthcare solution company.6 For more information on Geek Squad and Geek Squad City, see its web site. As of July 29, 2008:http://www.geeksquad.com/agents/detail.aspx?id=535 See also John R. Karman III and Brent Adams, “Geek Squad City to Employ Addi-tional 350 Workers,” Business First of Louisville, January 26, 2007. As of July 29, 2008: http://louisville.bizjournals.com/louisville/stories/2007/01/29/story1.html

Closing Competency Gaps 49

needs new jobs to transition from a manufacturing-based economy to a knowledge-based one, relatively few job-seekers hold required qualifi-cations. Hence, the region does not present an ideal buyer’s market for this kind of labor. This reality motivated Geek Squad to copy the UPS approach, and to begin working with local educational institutions to meet its near- and long-term recruiting goals. Further, Geek Squad City managers participate in local economic development forums to represent its interests. Apart from these efforts, Geek Squad City also tries to be responsive to the characteristics of the 20- to 30-year-olds, the “Generation Y” youths who make up the bulk of its information technology staff. Recruiting emphasizes that Geek Squad City is a “fun” and “cool” place to work. Employees can try out the latest video games and technology during break periods, for example. The firm also emphasizes work-life balance, recognition, and rewards for every-day successes. All this has helped Geek Squad City to keep turnover at 20 percent per year. Geek Squad City clearly indicated that this will distinguish it from other employers of information technology workers in the region, including various current (e.g., USAARMC) and future (e.g., HRC) Army organizations at Fort Knox.7

Toyota

Senior executives at Toyota’s North American Production Support Center, collocated with a major production facility in Georgetown, Kentucky, consider state community college systems to be one of their most important partners in producing qualified workers for production and maintenance operations and administrative positions.8 In addition to modifying curricula to emphasize elements critical to Toyota and to produce graduates who can qualify for jobs with the company, schools selected by Toyota provide initial training for Toyota employees on Toyota standards and processes (on-site at its plants or at the schools). In recruiting new staff, Toyota requires candidates to take an intensive

7 Interview with human resource manager for UPS, Louisville, December 19, 2007.8 Interview with Toyota executives and site visit of the Toyota plant in Georgetown, Ken-tucky, February 7–8, 2008. Management personnel are recruited nationally; the focus in Kentucky is on hiring qualified production, maintenance, and administrative workers.

50 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

written test to assess their situational judgment and a hands-on test in a simulated work environment. These tests emphasize job compe-tence, applying knowledge and skills in the real work environment, and interpersonal skills, all geared to ensuring that these are the right workers for Toyota’s unique corporate culture and skill requirements. Newly hired experienced staff must also go through routine assess-ment, and state community colleges again help. In all these efforts, the Georgetown campus of the Kentucky Community and Technical College System (KCTCS) has been a major partner for Toyota in Ken-tucky. Comparable efforts have been undertaken, with great success, to support its other North American production centers.

Toyota, in its experience of more than a decade in Kentucky, finds the local labor market to have improved over time and also finds the state community college system a willing and able partner in general. However, it can take considerable time (years) and effort to effect major change: parties involved need time to get to know one another, to build trust, and to overcome bureaucratic inertia. In Toyota’s view, a long-term partnership with educational institutions is central to the suc-cess of its human resources and operations strategy, as new workers are continually added to support expansion and existing staff upgrade their knowledge and skills for success in the workplace. Indeed, for all these mid- and large-size companies just discussed, meeting workforce requirements in Kentucky took deliberate and proactive efforts, in a labor market they uniformly characterized as “challenging.”

Resources and Opportunities in Kentucky

The experiences of UPS, Geek Squad City, and Toyota demonstrate that state educational institutions are willing and able to work with employers. Top executives and managers of the KCTCS and several state community and technical colleges we queried all expressed a strong interest in working with HRC to develop and deliver courses that will meet HRC competency requirements. Several existing programs and course curricula were reported to be ready to help students acquire pro-ficiency—at least at the minimum “exposure” level—in those compe-

Closing Competency Gaps 51

tencies that are not unique to the Army or HRC.9 These efforts include courses on information systems, data management, written commu-nication, and human resource management.10 For those competencies that involve knowledge and skills unique to the Army or HRC, exist-ing courses might be modified (or new ones developed), offered as part of a degree program or certificate course, and delivered via classroom instruction or over the Internet (or through a combination of both) to help interested job-seekers qualify for work at HRC. Educators’ experi-ence and success in working with Toyota and other employers to cus-tomize course curricula for specific job profiles should certainly prepare them to work with HRC.11 Two major concerns, from the perspec-tive of these educators, are the lack of clear guidance and input from HRC on course content to help them fully qualify students for HRC jobs and the lack of time available between now and 2010 for them to develop and begin delivering courses and for students/job-seekers to complete them.

Our research also indicates that assistance is available from numer-ous state offices and public-private partnerships in the Fort Knox area that work with employers to meet workforce requirements. The relo-cation of HRC to Fort Knox promises new jobs for the citizens of Kentucky. For a region still transitioning from a manufacturing and agrarian-based economy to a knowledge- and service-driven one, the prospect of jobs with the federal government offering good pay, ben-efits, and stability is welcome; we found this to be the case in numer-ous discussions with senior officials in both education and industry.

9 Interview with KCTCS, Jefferson County, and Elizabethtown Community and Technical College executives, December 2007 and January 2008. More information on KCTCS and how it supports workforce development is available at its web site. As of July 29, 2008:http://www.kctcs.edu/ 10 For example, the Elizabethtown Community and Technical College offers strategic human resources and Microsoft Certified System Engineer certificate programs. It also has special programs and resources to assist employers in workforce development. Details are available at its web site. As of July 29, 2008:http://www.elizabethtown.kctcs.edu/wrkdevel/wrkdevel.htm 11 For example, schools in the KCTCS work with employers to design curricula around spe-cific job profiles.

52 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

For employers like HRC, the challenge is in finding enough workers of the requisite quality who meet requirements. Here we describe several entities that either have a relationship with HRC or might be poten-tial partners to assist HRC in marketing the region and HRC jobs to potential recruits.

The Lincoln Trail Area Development District (LTADD) is one of several area development districts in Kentucky; it covers the Fort Knox area.12 LTADD has sponsored a number of research and related efforts to characterize and assess human capital in the region. It works with a range of partners—private, public, local, state, and federal (including Army organizations at Fort Knox)—to prepare to meet the demands and deal with the effects of different BRAC-related activities, includ-ing completing HRC’s relocation to Fort Knox by 2011 and its need for human resources. WIRED, or the Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development, is a new initiative launched in the second half of 2007 to seed capital to bring together key local and regional entities across 15 counties, including Hardin (where Fort Knox is located), in an economic development strategy for the central Kentucky region.13

Another such agency is OneKnox, a nonprofit consortium created to attract investment and workers to the Fort Knox area.14 OneKnox directly supports BRAC activities at Fort Knox, and supporting HRC’s relocation is one of its highest priorities. It is heavily involved in a range of public-private efforts to promote education and training for regional economic development in the region and has also sponsored studies on the labor supply, the housing market, infrastructure, and transportation to inform government, business, education and the community on how BRAC-related activities might affect the region. One such OneKnox-

12 Area development districts began in Kentucky in the 1960s with the development of Area Development Councils in all counties in the state. Their mission is to be a focal point for federal-state-local partnership in promoting economic and social development. For more on LTADD, see its web site. As of July 29, 2008:http://www.ltadd.org/ 13 For details on the WIRED Initiative, see its web site. As of July 29, 2008:http://www.doleta.gov/wired/ 14 For details on OneKnox, see its web site. As of July 29, 2008:http://www.oneknox.com/

Closing Competency Gaps 53

sponsored study in particular helped us to understand why the most significant gaps between HRC demand and supply in the Fort Knox area will be in the human resource management and information tech-nology fields.15

As for matching job-seekers and employers, the Commonwealth of Kentucky operates several organizations throughout the state.16 The Employ Kentucky Operating System (EKOS) in the Department of Workforce Investment’s Office of Employment and Training (OET) is one such entity.17 Job-seekers can submit resumes to EKOS and employ-ers can ask OET to identify potential candidates and invite them to apply for jobs. Job-seekers and employers can also post information on “E3,” a new data warehouse and job bank sponsored by the state.18 OET also sponsors job centers to provide a physical space for job-seekers to go for assistance to write their resumes, learn about training and job opportunities, as well as to submit job applications. In addition, OET field managers attend job fairs, participate in chambers of commerce meetings, and visit local workforce investment areas to market these and other services. OET has even assigned staff to work at Fort Knox to help returning troops and veterans find training and jobs.

Another resource for HRC in Kentucky is the Civilian Personnel Advisory Center (CPAC). CPAC is the office at Fort Knox responsible for the post’s external contacts with the Office of Personnel Manage-ment, job applicants, other civilian personnel offices, educational insti-

15 This OneKnox-sponsored study was performed by Workforce Associates in 2007. The study projects a significant personnel shortage for HRC in the HR and IT positions, possibly in excess of 1,000, given the size of the HRC demand and low number of workers in these areas in the Fort Knox region.16 For details on what the Commonwealth of Kentucky offers, see its web site. As of July 29, 2008:http://oet.ky.gov/ 17 For details on EKOS, see “Employ Kentucky Operating System Business Rules,” January 16, 2008. As of May 27, 2009:http://my.edcabinet.ky.gov/ekosmanuals/ekosbasic081215.pdf 18 For details on how E3 works, in this case in Central Kentucky, see the Central Kentucky Job Centers web site. As of July 29, 2008:http://www.ckyjobs.com/

54 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

tutions, and community organizations. CPAC is currently working with OneKnox and other local organizations to aggressively market HRC jobs to local job-seekers, including visits to high school and col-lege campuses. Once HRC knows how many jobs will be available for hiring, what kind they are, when new hires are needed, and the quali-fications and training required, CPAC can put out job announcement notices and work through the process of bringing new hires into the Army.19

What is clear, though, is that at the time of this writing, HRC in Alexandria, Virginia still has about 600 vacancies to be filled.20 If eligi-ble workers in the Fort Knox or larger Kentucky market are willing to relocate to Virginia to work there temporarily until they return to Ken-tucky with HRC, these new hires would gain on-the-job experience to help make the HRC transition a smoother one. The high cost of living in the national capital region, though, may be the biggest hindrance to HRC success in such a recruiting effort, and Army and federal person-nel regulations bar options to provide additional financial incentives.21

With respect to education and training, the experience and suc-cess of KCTCS and the Metropolitan College Program reflect a larger statewide effort to expand access to education and training with the goal of creating more knowledge- and skill-driven jobs. The Kentucky Council for Postsecondary Education is a key player in this regard, coordinating change and improvement to Kentucky’s postsecondary education system.22 Several initiatives and efforts already under way appear to have the potential to benefit HRC in its search for the right workforce, in terms of both quantity and quality. These include an

19 Interview with CPAC managers, August 17, 2007. For details on CPAC, see its web site. As of July 29, 2008:http://www.knox.army.mil/center/cpac/ 20 As reported by COL Mark Needham, Garrison Commander at Fort Knox, on July 2, 2008 in the article “Increased Numbers Forecast as BRAC Efforts Intensify” in The Meade County Messenger (Kentucky), July 9, 2008.21 Interview with HRC and CPAC officials, summer and fall 2007.22 For details on the Council, see its web site. As of July 29, 2008:http://cpe.ky.gov/

Closing Competency Gaps 55

“Adult Learning Initiative” that calls for a doubling of baccalaureate degree holders in Kentucky by 2020 and the “Go Higher Kentucky” web site, a site that provides information on college admission and financial assistance and services for adult education. The “P-16 Coun-cils” at the state and local levels bring together industry, education, and community leaders to increase education success for economic devel-opment. Finally, its “Virtual University” initiative will enable postsec-ondary institutions in Kentucky to deliver courses via the Internet to users inside and outside of Kentucky. Specifically to support HRC, the Council for Postsecondary Education has promised to identify institu-tions and programs that offer courses relevant to HRC’s staffing needs, such as in human resource and information technology.

Given their resources, manpower, and enthusiasm, these organi-zations represent potential key partners on the ground in Kentucky. For HRC to work successfully with them to meet requirements by 2010 and beyond, it needs a robust and long-term strategy backed by steadfast leadership, resources, and manpower.

Priorities in Addressing Competency Gaps and Options for Action

The vision for the HRC civilian workforce of the future is one that is younger. Its members are also expected to have postsecondary educa-tion because a higher level of knowledge and more advanced skills will be required in a work environment in which electronic data manage-ment and other technologies are central to jobs, as well as for handling increasing workloads and complexities for an expanding Army in an HRC that is reducing in size.23

The results of Arroyo’s personnel competency modeling indicate the specific competencies and associated proficiency levels that will be most important to positions across line, senior, and executive levels at HRC. There is clearly variation among them, as would be expected

23 The Active Army will grow from 482,000 to 547,000 soldiers. HRC’s entire workforce will reduce by an as-yet unknown percentage at Fort Knox.

56 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

given the nature of the work performed and the leadership and super-visory responsibilities for each position. A general emphasis on com-petencies related to knowledge about the Army or HRC is a common theme. Of particular interest, though, is the high value still placed on management, interpersonal, and communication skills by the HRC staff we surveyed. The former competencies may require special courses not currently in college curricula and on-the-job training for individu-als to enable proficiency; the latter should reside in ordinary college programs. This will have clear implications regarding what HRC needs to do to prepare current and new staff.

Workforce analysis performed for this study indicates that over the near term, HRC will be challenged to fill all positions across the organization at Fort Knox, for the reasons specified in Chapter Three. The largest shortfall appears to be for line- and senior-level positions in human resources (including administrative/clerical) and information technology.24 This shortfall is in no small way due to the competency requirements for these positions, which means that HRC will have a relatively small pool of qualified candidates from Kentucky over the near and long term without deliberate efforts to grow the pool. Table 4.1 highlights in bold italic text the most important competency areas required for line- and senior-level workers in these two positions, based on an across-the-board look at proficiency requirements associated with competency models derived from the results of our online survey with HRC personnel.

Thus, for HRC, ensuring the right tools and means to enable indi-viduals—current staff and job-seekers—to acquire required competen-cies is a clear priority. In this context, training courses need to be set up and delivered as quickly as possible to allow students time to complete them and go through the hiring process when new operations begin in 2010. Complicating matters for HRC is the possibility that other employers too will train and hire out of the Fort Knox and Kentucky-wide labor markets. As noted in the previous chapters, companies like Geek Squad City and UPS have plans for future expansion, and they plan to compete intensively for the best staff they can find.

24 Based on OneKnox-sponsored study results.

Closing Competency Gaps 57

Table 4.1 Most Important Competency Areas for Human Resource and Information Technology Workers at Line and Senior Levels (in bold)

Major Competency Groupings Major Competency Areas

enterprise perspective Army knowledge

HRC knowledge

AR/ARnG readiness and deployment

Professional development budget

Management skills Interactive management

Workforce management

Decision making

Domain knowledge Job details

Manning

Information systems

officer/warrant officer matters

enlisted matters

Leadership skills Interpersonal leadership

Organizational leadership

For competencies required for human resource and information technology workers, our research suggests that some training options do exist. Table 4.2 lists possible options to acquire the 14 competen-cies (with the most important ones in boldface) and their likely out-comes, with an emphasis on tertiary education resources in Kentucky (based on consultation with HRC and higher education officials in Kentucky).

Table 4.2 also indicates that few resources in Kentucky and else-where are available to build competencies in the enterprise perspec-tive grouping. With the exception of Army Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) courses offered at 130-plus colleges and universities worldwide, there exists little outside the Army proper that will teach any interested job-seeker about the Army. Even ROTC, though, falls short of building competencies in the other three categories. Army Sol-dier Support Institute (SSI) courses, for example, as well as on-the-job training (and prior military service experience) might be helpful, but

58 Sup

po

rting

the U

.S. Arm

y HR

C’s H

um

an C

apital Strateg

ic Plann

ing

Table 4.2 Fourteen Competencies and Options for Individuals to Acquire Them (Required Competencies for Human Resource and Information Technology Workers in Bold)

Enterprise

PerspectiveManagement

SkillsDomain

KnowledgeLeadership

Skills

Options Arm

y K

no

wle

dg

e

HR

C K

no

wle

dg

e

RC

Rea

din

ess

and

D

eplo

ymen

t

Pro

fess

ion

al D

ev.

Bu

dg

et

Inte

ract

ive

Man

agem

ent

Wo

rkfo

rce

Man

agem

ent

Dec

isio

n M

akin

g

Job

Det

ails

Man

nin

g

Info

rmat

ion

Sy

stem

s

offi

cer/

war

ran

t o

ffice

r M

atte

rs

enlis

ted

Mat

ters

Inte

rper

son

al

Lead

ersh

ip

Org

aniz

atio

nal

Le

ader

ship

College or university degree programs ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✔ ● ✔ ● ✖ ✔ ✖ ✖ ● ●

College or university certificate programs ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✔ ● ✔ ● ✖ ✔ ✖ ✖ ● ●

College or university short courses ✔ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✔ ● ✔ ● ✖ ✔ ✖ ✖ ✔ ✔

High school classes and diploma ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ● ✖ ● ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

Army Soldier Support Institute (SSI) courses ● ● ● ● ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ● ✖ ● ● ✖ ✖

other (e.g., Distance education) institutions ● ✖ ✖ ✖ ✔ ✔ ✔ ● ✖ ✔ ✖ ✖ ✔ ✔

oJt at HRC (internship or post-hire) ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Prior military service experience ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Army courses on post ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✔ ● ✔ ✖ ✖ ● ✖ ✖ ✔ ✔

✔ [GReen] Capacity to assist individuals to develop competency exists (ready for roll out or with modification). ● [oRAnGe] Capacity to assist individuals to develop competency is uncertain or unclear. ✖ [ReD] Capacity to assist individuals to develop competency is absent.

Closing Competency Gaps 59

the extent to which they can build even exposure level of proficiency in these competencies is uncertain.

For example, someone who has spent a career in the Active Army might not know much about the AR or ARNG. The same can be said of competencies in the domain knowledge grouping. These compe-tencies involve knowledge of matters specific to the Army. Even an Army veteran with a career in the active or reserve components might have scant knowledge of such details, unless he or she worked in Army human resources. An exception is information systems. Nevertheless, for information technology workers to provide effective support to those in officer and enlisted personnel management, they, too, will need to have a basic understanding of Army human resource management pro-cesses. Several competencies in the management skills and leadership skills groupings are more readily supported by tertiary education insti-tutions. Work and supervisory experience in any setting, including the Army, would also be helpful. In fact, under the new civilian person-nel system, personnel with supervisory responsibilities are required to complete courses to build skills in management and leadership.25

Experts in Kentucky concurred that local resources to build com-petencies and proficiency in competencies unique to the Army and HRC are most lacking. Nevertheless, they are confident that if HRC can provide course content materials and work with educational insti-tutions to develop curricula, they can do for HRC what they did for Toyota. With 65 campuses and satellite locations in the entire KCTCS, and current efforts to deliver education over the Internet, both class-room and virtual facilities can be deployed to reach students in Ken-tucky and across the world.

Considering, then, (1) that the time it takes to build and launch courses, and (2) that the final number of persons HRC needs to hire from labor markets in Kentucky and elsewhere might not be known till early or mid-2009,26 retaining as many as possible from the current

25 For details on the National Security Personnel System, see its web site. As of July 29, 2008: http://www.cpol.army.mil/library/general/nsps/ 26 Federal regulations require HRC to issue binding canvass letters to all current employees and offer them the opportunity to apply for jobs at the new HRC. Current HRC staff will

60 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

workforce must be a top priority for HRC, if only to meet manpower needs in time for the 2011 relocation and for a few years beyond. The current workforce will bring with it most if not all competencies required for the new HRC.27 Without an experienced workforce to anchor the new HRC at Fort Knox, though, the uninterrupted delivery of high-quality personnel support to soldiers will suffer. Current personnel at the new HRC will also be critical to assisting new hires in learning their jobs and growing into the new workforce over the long term.

Consequently, building the workforce for the new HRC should involve a human capital strategy that has near-term goals for 2010 (e.g., motivate current staff to relocate to Fort Knox and establish capacity to train future workers, market HRC jobs, and recruit and hire new employees). It should also have longer-term goals (e.g., capacity to build and retain a high-quality workforce and be competitive as an employer for knowledge and skilled workers).

Migrating to HRC’s Future State

The final phase of this study aimed at (1) considering the competency gaps identified and (2) identifying and developing appropriate means to narrow these gaps over the near term and fully close them over the long term. Personnel competency requirements presented in Chapter Two formed the basis for this step. The goal of this phase was the devel-opment of training concepts and an approach to training—a frame-work—to transition the current and future HRC workforce toward a reorganized structure and future environment and to best position HRC for the move to Fort Knox.

have some weeks to decide whether to apply for a new job and relocate to Fort Knox. HRC will then subtract the number of jobs that will be filled by current staff from the total number it is authorized to hire. The difference is the number that HRC will need to hire from outside sources, such as from labor markets in Kentucky and elsewhere.27 The integration of reserve management functions into the enlisted and officer personnel management directorates will require the current workforce to do some learning. Introduc-tion of DIMHRS, too, will require learning and adjustments as personnel management pro-cesses are transferred from existing systems to this new platform.

Closing Competency Gaps 61

As such, we see the need for an institutional human capital strat-egy for HRC both to meet its hiring and staffing needs in the near term and to transition to a competency-based human capital man-agement system and sustain its workforce in the longer term. Figure 4.1 illustrates our vision of this institutional human capital strategy and highlights core concepts that we believe are important to its execution.

The institutional human capital strategy we envision begins now with the refinement and integration of competencies and proficiency levels into marketing, hiring requirements, and training programs. HRC should refine competencies and proficiency levels based on per-sonnel competency modeling results and the latest information avail-able on the future HRC structure and manpower requirements, and integrate that information into training programs, hiring requirements, and marketing campaigns.

Figure 4.1 An Institutional Human Capital Strategy for HRC

,

in s

HR activities shaped by competencies and proficiency levels, by position.

Institutional humancapital strategy

HiringTrainingRecruitmentMarketing Evaluation/Retention

2008Refine/integrate

competencies andproficiency levels into

training programs,hiring requirements;

marketing

Marketing,recruiting,hiring for

2010;prioritizeretention

2009 2010NEAR TERM

“Narrow gaps”

ImplementTDA for

2010

2013 andbeyond

LONG TERM“Close gaps”

Build a high-capacity,

stableworkforce

2011 2012Build a newworkforce

base;institutionalize

competencytraining

1. Narrow gaps in the near term

2. Continuous trainingevaluation, upgrades

4. Close gaps in the long term

3. Outcome-driven, competency-based recruiting,

training, evaluation

CORE CONCEPTS

RAND MG828-4.1

62 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

As HRC begins implementation of the new Table of Distribu-tion and Allowances (TDA)28 for 2010, it should prioritize retention of its current personnel to achieve the near-term goal of narrowing gaps in the quantity and quality of its workforce. With over 2,100 civilian authorizations in the new HRC at Fort Knox, the reasons described in Chapters Two and Three would make it challenging for HRC to hire the full number of qualified staff by 2010 (and likely in the immediate years to follow). To motivate current personnel who are not opposed to relocating to Fort Knox, especially those in the most in-demand positions, i.e., in human resources and information technology, aggres-sive marketing of the new HRC and Fort Knox to these groups may be one option to consider.29 Another is to provide financial incentives, e.g., using options provided by the Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004.30

Having clear statements of competency and proficiency require-ments for each position and having training programs up and run-ning in 2009 would help HRC to assess current personnel for new jobs at Fort Knox and to market positions to persons outside HRC. Integration of those personnel into training programs inside the Army or those offered by organizations in the private sector would also help HRC to ensure that workers obtain the training they need before they assume their new jobs.

28 TDAs define the positions and number of workers in institutional Army organizations. Knowing how many workers the HRC is authorized to have in each part of the organization also helps to clarify the required competencies for each position and thereby indicate what the hiring criteria might be and what training courses would need to cover.29 The HRC personnel survey in 2006 on interest in relocating to Fort Knox indicates a high demand for information among respondents.30 The Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004 encourages flexible use of bonuses for more strategic purposes. This flexibility allows for waiver of the normal cap on recruiting and retention bonuses, offering recruitment bonuses to current federal employees, offering retention bonuses to those most likely to leave, giving recruitment, retention and relocation bonuses in both installments and lump sums, and granting retention bonuses of up to 50 percent of the base salary based on critical agency needs. See memo on the Federal Work-force Flexibility Act of 2004 from Kay Coles James to Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, November 1, 2004. As of July 29, 2008:http://www.opm.gov/oca/compmemo/2004/2004-22.asp

Closing Competency Gaps 63

Current data and analysis suggest that it will be difficult for HRC to meet its manpower requirements fully by 2010 or even by September 15, 2011, when it is expected to complete transfer and consolidation. The actions outlined above can thus help HRC to narrow but most likely not close gaps in the number of qualified workers (our first core concept).

Thus, personnel in place in 2010 will constitute the foundation for a new HRC workforce, and it might take a few years to close all gaps in number and quality. Continuous training, evaluation, and upgrade or improvement in the workforce’s competency and proficiency levels (our second core concept) need to be institutionalized by this point, i.e., formally and coherently tied to other human resources activities of the new HRC. Moreover, such activities would be outcome driven and competency based (our third core concept). This means job appli-cants would be assessed on the basis of required competencies, workers would be assessed on the basis of their proficiency in the required com-petencies, and staff development would be driven by the competencies and proficiency levels that workers are expected to have in the current jobs or for promotions. All this is essential because the new workforce will be smaller but will be managing a growing Army. The merging of reserve and regular Army personnel functions in the enlisted and offi-cer personnel directorates will also demand new knowledge and skills not only among new hires but also among current staff who will relo-cate to Fort Knox.

We believe it will take at least two fiscal year cycles (into 2011 and 2012) for HRC to institutionalize training, evaluation, and staff devel-opment planning. During this period, HRC will likely be affected by stress and turbulence associated with the move and consolidation and merging of functions beginning in 2010.

In the end, it may be possible to close gaps in workforce numbers and quality by 2013 (our fourth core concept). This can result in a high-quality and stable HRC workforce if elements of this institutional human capital strategy are carried out beginning now.

64 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Implementing the Institutional Human Capital Strategy

We illustrate here a notional IT staff at the line level at HRC and use results of our competency modeling effort to show how competencies and proficiency levels might be integrated into recruiting, training, and performance appraisal. HRC should consider what is presented here in developing tools for implementing the institutional human capital strategy.

Tables 4.3 and 4.4 illustrate, with notional entries, some prelim-inary steps involved in filling positions for IT specialists at the line level.

If competency requirements for a position remain the same in the future HRC, then current workers relocating to Fort Knox will not need additional training. If competency requirements differ, then training may be needed. For new hires, training will likely be necessary for reasons described in Chapter Three. Thus, depending on the com-petency requirements of a position and the number of current versus

Table 4.3 Articulating TDA and Staffing for Notional IT Personnel, Line Level

Year

Total Funded

Current Staff (Number expected)

New Hires (Number expected)

2010 250 60 80

2011 250 140 50

2012 250 190 40

2013 250 230 20

Table 4.4 Determining Number of Training Seats Needed Annually for Notional IT Personnel, Line Level

Year

For Current Staff (Number expected)

For New Hires (Number expected)

Cost to HRC ($)

2010 0 80 to be determined

2011 30 50 to be determined

2012 45 40 to be determined

2013 60 20 to be determined

Closing Competency Gaps 65

new staff, HRC can estimate the cost of providing that training. This cost might involve both the cost of a course, as well as payment for backfill staff, e.g., overtime for staff not sent to training or to hire tem-porary contracted workers (to enable incumbent staff to take time for training).

The cost of training would be tied to content, length, location, and medium of instruction. Annual production capacity of training programs is another consideration. HRC’s decisions on each of these will affect the cost of training, number of personnel it can afford to train each year, and how quickly it can develop a workforce with the required competencies. Table 4.5 illustrates these elements for the example IT specialist position.

Here, we list two competencies for IT specialists at the line level, drawn from survey research and competency modeling. Still, not all personnel will require training by HRC or other organizations after a worker has been hired. Current staff or new hires might have acquired competencies through employment at HRC or with other organiza-tions. They might also have acquired them, e.g., information systems, through college courses. As to proficiency levels for these competencies, shown here is the ideal for an incumbent based on survey responses and modeling outcomes.

Although we recognize that the highest proficiency is typically gained through a combination of practice and education rather than

Table 4.5 Training Requirements and Production Specifics for Notional IT Personnel, Line Level

Required Competencies and Proficiency Levels

Course Title

Course Length

Location

Medium

of Instruction

Annual

Production Capacity

Course Cost

HRC knowledge, 3.5

“HRC 201” 1 week fort Knox Classroom + online

200 persons

$1,000 per person

Interactive management, 4.0

“team Building–Level II”

3 days KCtCS online no limit tBD

66 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

via education or training alone, we show courses of instruction here because they could be useful in guiding HRC’s views on alignment of courses with proficiency levels. For example, if the dominant pro-ficiency requirement for hrc knowledge is 5.0, a more expansive “HRC 201” course might be an option. What might differentiate expo-sure level (0.5 to 2.5 on the proficiency scale) from experience level (3.0 to 4.5) or from expertise level (5.0) is the general ability to apply that competency, as illustrated in Table 4.6.

Such a construct can also aid HRC supervisors in learning about annual training capacity and other specifics for courses. Thus, for personnel required to hold the HRC knowledge competency at a 3.5 level (“experience”), a supervisor could note what courses are available, learn about training length, location, medium, and annual produc-tion capacity, and incorporate this into staff development planning and budgeting.

A third function of the construct is to provide production met-rics to monitor provider delivery of training. If the number of training seats required annually exceeds what a provider can deliver, it will have clear implications for HRC’s staff development planning. This might present an opportunity to explore whether training seats can be added, for example—or whether an alternative medium to expand training capacity could be added. Further, the effectiveness of training courses could be regularly assessed by examining evaluations of workers who have completed the courses.

Table 4.6 Capacity at the Three Proficiency Levels for HRC Knowledge

Proficiency Levels for HRC Knowledge The Job Holder Must . . .

0.5 to 2.5 (exposure) Understand . . .

Know . . .

3.0 to 4.5 (experience) Know . . .

Be able to teach peers and subordinates . . .

5.0 (expert) Be able to teach peers and subordinates . . .

Be able to advise supervisors . . .

Have broad recognition of knowledge and ability . . .

Closing Competency Gaps 67

The concept of continuous outcome-driven, competency-based training and evaluation plays a central role in creating a high-quality workforce over the long term. All HRC personnel must demonstrate required competencies and ability to perform at the proficiency level expected for respective positions. Regular reviews of training needs and performance using metrics defined by job details and competency and proficiency requirements for each position would enable staff to provide feedback for training, along with self- and supervisor-led evaluations. Using the same metrics to define training requirements and perfor-mance expectations would thus provide all personnel and supervisors a common basis for training requests and performance evaluation. By retaining only workers who meet performance expectations, HRC can better ensure a high-quality workforce. Table 4.7 illustrates a perfor-mance evaluation summary for our notional line-level IT personnel.

Thus, competency and proficiency requirements for each position will be at the core of an institutional human capital strategy geared to defining eligibility in recruiting, coursework content in training, and targets in performance evaluation for coherence and consistency in staff recruiting, hiring, and staff development. Table 4.8 illustrates this with a sample definition of competency and proficiency requirements for the line-level IT specialist position, along with sample questions asked to determine whether an applicant has the required competen-cies, the ability of a training program to build these competencies, and how well a worker demonstrates these competencies.

Table 4.7 Performance Evaluation Summary for IT Specialist, Line Level

time on Job: 3 months

Last evaluation: none

next evaluation: november 2008

Competencies and Proficiency Levels Required

Performance Assessment

Recommendation(s)

HRC knowledge, 3.5 Below requirement Retake HRC 101 course online; consult with supervisor

Interactive management, 4.0 Meets requirement none

Information systems, 3.0 Meets requirement none

68 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Table 4.8 Linking Competency Requirements to Recruiting, Training, and Evaluation

Defining Competency and Proficiency Requirements

Recruiting

Training

Performance Evaluation

HRC knowledge, 3.5

• KnowHRC’smission, structure, organization, history, evolution

• Knowfunctionsandresponsibilities of major HRC divisions and offices

• Understandkeydifferences in managing officers, enlisted, and reserve personnel

• Knowthemajordatabases and It tools used for managing soldiers

• Whatknowledge of these does applicant show?

• Sourceorbasis of the applicant’s knowledge?

• Doesapplicantneed training to acquire the required competency and proficiency level?

• Doestrainingcover deficien-cies?

• Howwelldoestraining cover these?

• Howarestudentstested on their knowledge of these matters?

• Howdostudentsdemonstrate retention/ability to apply the knowledge?

• Doesthe worker demonstrate knowledge of these constructs?

• Howdidthe worker acquire that knowledge?

• Doestheworker need remediation or new training?

Organizations change over time. As changes occur in HRC’s organizational structure, mission and objectives, personnel, and pro-cesses, changes to specifications for required competencies and pro-ficiency levels must also follow. Hence, HRC’s current definitions for competency and proficiency requirements may not endure. In fact, we expect that experiences in the initial years of this transition (e.g., to a new organizational structure and move to Fort Knox) will high-light where changes are needed. The task is for HRC to capture these insights—and habitually incorporate them into competency models for use in recruiting, training, evaluation, and other domains of its human capital strategy.

Training Plans for Exemplar Positions: HR Specialist and IT Specialist

The timeline for HRC to deal with its 2010 and beyond manpower requirements begins now. If HRC chooses to use an outcome-driven and competency-based approach to recruiting, training, and evalua-

Closing Competency Gaps 69

tion, then defining the operational specifications for all required com-petencies and their associated proficiency levels becomes an immediate task. Priority should also be given to those positions expected to suffer the most significant shortfall in quantity and quality, so that training can be developed as soon as possible to narrow gaps in the near term.

In this section, we detail sample operational specifications for the hrc knowledgecompetency for two exemplar positions: human resource specialist and information technology specialist. Our research indicates that seven line- and senior-level HRC positions (four at the line level, three at the senior level) of these two general types will likely have the biggest gap between demand and supply. We show the HR specialist position at both the line and senior levels—with differing pro-ficiency requirements for each—to provide contrast, and then cover the IT specialist position at the line level only. Each case depicted features a pair of tables. The first table shows operational specifications for the competency and the associated proficiency level for that position and level, along with questions that HRC might ask to guide its thinking about such specifications relative to recruiting, training, and evalua-tion. The second table shows sample metrics that might be used to aid in addressing these.

Table 4.9 shows that HRC specialists at the line level need an “experience” level of proficiency in HRC knowledge. That level, based on our approach, would mean that the incumbent of the position should know and be able to teach peers and subordinates about HRC. Based on our survey analysis, the major items of knowledge might cover (1) the HRC mission and structure, (2) the organizational functions and responsibilities of various HRC offices, (3) key distinctions in man-aging officers, enlisted, and reserve personnel, (4) major policies and regulations governing HRC’s mission, functions, and major processes that define the day-to-day work at HRC, and (5) major databases and IT for HRC processes. The incumbent is also expected to have the abil-ity to teach peers and subordinates about these items.

In recruiting, then, candidates should be able to demonstrate working knowledge of these items, explain how they acquired this knowledge, and indicate whether they can teach peers and subordi-nates. Such questions, as shown in the second column in Table 4.9,

70 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Table 4.9 HRC Knowledge Operational Specifications, HR Specialist, Line Level

HRC Knowledge, “Experience” Level

Recruiting

Training

Performance Evaluation

Knows and can teach peers and subordinates:

• HRCmission and structure

• Organizationalfunctions and responsibilities

• Keydistinctionsin managing officers, enlisted, and reserve personnel

• Majorpoliciesand regulations governing HRC’s mission, functions, and major processes

• Majordatabasesand It for HRC processes

• Doesthecandidate have “working” knowledge of these?

• Whatisthesource of this knowledge?

• Canthecandidate impart knowledge to peers and subordinates?

• Doestrainingcover these areas?

• Howwelldoes it cover these?

• Howdotraineesshow acquisition and retention of this knowledge?

• Anyothertraining needed to complement or supplement this training to build this competency and proficiency level?

• Doestheworkerat initial hire (or promotion) show knowledge of and ability to teach peers and subordinates?

• Doestheworkerdemonstrate this competency and proficiency level in regular performance reviews?

• Whatdiagnostictools are used in each instance?

might be woven into a job vacancy announcement or be part of a job interview.

When considering the viability of training options, questions in the third column might guide HRC to assess whether available options adequately cover the matters listed in the first. HRC might also want means to assess how well trainees have learned or retained new knowl-edge. Exams could be one way to assess; putting trainees into live situa-tions to observe performance might be another. Based on those results, HRC might consider whether additional complementary or supple-mentary training might be needed to help an employee build experi-ence-level proficiency in HRC knowledge.

As indicated in the fourth column, HRC might ask whether the employee—a new hire or someone from within the organization—

Closing Competency Gaps 71

demonstrates experience-level proficiency in HRC knowledge (and other required competencies for the position), at the point of hire and in regular performance reviews. Answers to this question would not only help HRC to determine whether employees have what it takes to succeed, but also help in personnel development planning. Employees who demonstrate knowledge but lack proficiency in communicating, for example, would benefit from communications training. Conversely, another person might have communication skills but lack knowledge about HRC. In performance evaluation, using the right diagnostic tool and metrics is critical. Online, on-paper or in-person interviews, as well as formal self-evaluations and assessments by superiors, might be supplemented by formal or informal confidential input from peers and subordinates for a 360-degree review.

While Table 4.9 illustrates what HRC might need to know to define competency and proficiency requirements for a position (in this case, HR specialist, line level) and ties that information to recruiting, hiring, and performance evaluation, Table 4.10 provides notional met-rics to accompany these elements.

The first two recruiting metrics in the second column in Table 4.10, for example, address experiential activities that might be used to demonstrate experience-level proficiency in HRC knowledge. A test might be administered to validate proficiency in the required compe-tency. Alternatively, the candidate might have prior Army HR experi-ence at the staff level. The latter two recruiting metrics address profi-ciency level and the timing/currency of the activities shown. Generally speaking, experience gained more recently is more up-to-date, and we believe five years to be a reasonable cutoff mark.31 Also, we believe experience of a minimum of two years in a similar HR position with or

31 In the knowledge-based work environments of today, marked by ever-growing volumes of information and rapid adoption of new technologies, research finds a growing need for professionals to continuously absorb new information and learn new skills. Otherwise, what they know or can do can quickly become outdated. Thus, in some cases, five years may be overly optimistic. See, for example The Knowledge Management Yearbook, 1999–2000, Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann Press, 1999; and Peter T. Knight and Moore Knight, “The Half-Life of Knowledge and Structural Reform of the Education Sector for the Global Knowledge-Based Economy,” 1997. As of February 27, 2009:http://www.knight-moore.com/pubs/halflife.html

72 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Table 4.10 Metrics for HRC Knowledge, HR Specialist, Line Level

HRC Knowledge, “Experience” Level

Recruiting Metrics

Training Metrics

Performance Evaluation Metrics

Knows and can teach peers and subordinates:

• HRCmission and structure

• Organizationalfunctions and responsibilities

• Keydistinctionsin managing officers, enlisted, and reserve personnel

• Majorpolicies and regulations governing HRC’s mission, functions, and major processes

• Majordatabasesand It tools for HRC processes

• Passedvalidationexam

• PriorArmyHRexperience at the staff level; e.g., AC or RC; in a battalion, brigade, division, or installation

• Twoormoreyears in a similar HR position in the past 5 years

• Twoormoreyears in a similar HR position with supervisory experience in the past 5 years

• Successfulcompletion of “HRC 101” short course or Army civilian education, e.g., Army Management Staff College

• Performanceappraisal that explicitly addresses this competency

• Regularself-and supervisor appraisal

• Firstat3to6months after assuming position

• Secondat9to 12 months after assuming position

• Beyond12thmonth in position as part of regular performance appraisal schedule

without supervisory experience might be appropriate to account for the time it takes to learn, observe, and experience how organizations and processes work across two fiscal or calendar year cycles.

The third column shows typical training activities that, once com-pleted, might suffice for certification of items listed in the first column. Here we have a notional “HRC 101” short course as one example and Army civilian education, such as courses offered by the Army Manage-ment Staff College, as another.

On performance evaluation, we believe that self- and supervisor appraisals would be the minimum required (if not 360-degree reviews), and they should ideally occur with greater frequency in the first year of incumbency in the position to ensure that the employee is up to the job and has received the training or guidance necessary to build

Closing Competency Gaps 73

a solid foundation for success at the individual level and to contrib-ute to building a high-quality workforce at the organizational level.32 We recommend the first self- and supervisor appraisal occur within three to six months after the employee assumes the position, followed by another between the ninth to twelfth month after the employee assumes the position, and then moving into a regular performance appraisal schedule.

Table 4.11 shows the same approach for an HR specialist at the senior level. The HRC knowledge competency is now at an expert level of proficiency. Since this position is at the senior level, we believe the questions that HRC might ask to guide thinking on recruiting, train-ing, and evaluation would differ from those used for line-level HR specialists.

With proficiency in HRC knowledge for HR specialists at the senior level, the ideal incumbent is expected not only to know and teach peers and subordinates (as with line level), but also to be able to “advise supervisors.” The major items of knowledge would remain the same.

In recruiting, similar questions are asked about the source of that knowledge and proficiency—but with an emphasis on ability to “advise upward,” as expert-level proficiency requires the incumbent to have the ability to advise supervisors.

32 The frequency of appraisal suggested is based on the authors’ judgment, with special consideration of the issue of brand-new staff replacing seasoned incumbents. Frequency will also depend upon stipulations of civilian personnel policy in effect. The references listed here provide a framework for assessing the issue of frequency. Feedback, whether through formal or informal evaluations, can be critical to continuous improvement. Surveys and other research indicate that more workers, especially those belonging to Generation Y or the Millennials, desire more frequent and candid feedback. Research also suggests that clear statements of expected performance can help managers to design professional staff devel-opment and to motivate workers to improve job performance. See, for example, Kevin R. Murphy and Jeannette Cleveland, Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social, Organiza-tional, and Goal-Based Perspectives, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1995; Shawn A. Smith and Rebecca A. Mazin, The HR Answer Book: An Indispensable Guide for Managers and Human Resource Professionals, New York: American Management Association, 2004; Nancy Mercurio, “The Link Between Training and Outcome,” The Canadian Manager, Fall 2006; and Brittany Hite, “Feeding Generation Y,” The Wall Street Journal, October 13, 2008.

74 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Table 4.11 HRC Knowledge Operational Specifications, HR Specialist, Senior Level

HRC Knowledge, “Expert” Level

Recruiting

Training

Performance Evaluation

Able to teach peers and subordinates and advise supervisors:

• HRCmission and structure

• Organizationalfunctions and responsibilities

• Keydistinctionsinmanaging officers, enlisted, and reserve personnel

• Majorpoliciesand regulations governing HRC’s mission, functions, and major processes

• Majordatabasesand It tools for HRC processes

• Whatisthesource of this knowledge?

• Isexpertproficiency gained experientially over two or more years in like position?

• Canthecandidate demonstrate strong ability to teach peers and subordinates and advise upward?

• Isthereacustomized staff develop-ment plan to include classroom instruction, on-the-job training, and apprenticeship under a senior executive?

• Doesthestafferat initial hire (or promotion) show knowledge of and ability to teach peers and subordinates and advise supervisors?

• Doesthestafferdemonstrate this competency and proficiency level in regular performance reviews?

• Whatdiagnostictools are used in each instance?

Training in this case would likely require customized staff devel-opment plans because of more advanced levels of knowledge and abil-ity. Hence, a combination of classroom instruction, on-the-job train-ing, and apprenticeship under a senior executive would be one option for training, as shown in the third column. Finally, on performance evaluation, we propose using questions similar to those at the line level, but with the addition of the ability to “advise supervisors.”

Table 4.12 shows some potential metrics for HRC knowledge for HR specialists at the senior level. Again, training in this case may require customization beyond live or virtual classroom instruction.

Metrics for recruiting are the same as those for HR specialists at the line level. On metrics for training, one option could be learn-ing from someone with expert-level proficiency with this competency through direct observation and counsel. As such, formal or informal internships or apprenticeships might be options to consider. Finally,

Closing Competency Gaps 75

Table 4.12 Metrics for HRC Knowledge, HR Specialist, Senior Level

HRC Knowledge, “Expert” Level

Recruiting Metrics

Training Metrics

Performance Evaluation Metrics

Able to teach and advise peers and executives:

• HRCmissionandstructure

• Organizationalfunctions and responsibilities

• Keydistinctionsin managing officers, enlisted, and reserve personnel

• Majorpoliciesand regulations governing HRC’s mission, functions, and major processes

• Majordatabasesand It tools for HRC processes

• Passedvalidation exam

• PriorArmyHRexperience at the staff level in AC or RC; in a battalion, brigade, division or installation

• 2ormoreyearsin a similar position in the past 5 years

• 2ormoreyearsin a similar position with expertise at supervisory level in the past 5 years

• Successfulcompletion of an internship or apprenticeship (formal or informal) under staff with expert-level proficiency

• Performanceappraisal that explicitly addresses this competency

• Regularself-and supervisor appraisal

• Firstat3to6months after assuming position

• Secondat9to12 months after assuming position

• Beyond12thmonth in position as part of regular performance appraisal schedule

with respect to performance evaluation, we envision the same approach of self- and supervisor-led appraisals, with higher frequency in the first year after assuming the position, and regular performance appraisal thereafter.

Next we turn to illustrating notional operational specifications for organizational leadership for IT specialists at the line level.

Similar to our illustration for HR specialists at the line and senior levels, the first task here is to define what proficiency in a required competency might mean; in this case, it is organizational leadership at “experienced-plus” level. Table 4.13 illustrates that a job candidate or incumbent of the position might need to have in-depth knowledge of the KSAOs listed in the first column. In recruiting, training, and per-formance evaluation, questions would be the same as the ones for HR specialists at the line and senior levels.

76 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Table 4.13 Operational Specifications for Organizational Leadership, IT Specialist, Line Level

Organizational Leadership, “Experience-Plus” Level

Recruiting

Training

Performance Evaluation

Know and can teach peers and subordinates:

• Conflictresolution

• Howtodeterminelong-term HR requirements for own organization

• Recruitandgroomfuture leaders

• Leadpeopleandteams

• Teambuilding

• Motivate

•Doesthecandidate have “working” knowledge of these?

•Whatisthesource of this knowledge?

•Canthecandidate impart knowledge to peers and subordi-nates?

•Doestrainingcover these areas?

•Howwelldoesitcover these?

•Howdotraineesshow acquisition and retention of this knowledge?

•Anyothertraining needed to complement or supplement this training to build this competency and proficiency level?

•Doestheworkerat initial hire (or promotion) show knowledge of and ability to teach peers and subordinates?

•Doestheworkerdemonstrate this competency and proficiency level in regular performance reviews?

•Whatdiagnostictools are used in each instance?

Metrics for recruiting, training, and performance evaluation (see Table 4.14) are also similar to what we proposed in our notional exam-ples for HR specialists at the line and senior levels. Differences are in highlighting the importance of prior leadership and management experience in an organization of similar size (under recruiting) and completion of private industry or college training (under training). The latter is notable in that unlike HRC knowledge, organizational leader-ship is an area in which there is extensive private-sector involvement in research, development, and delivery of content. Thus, HRC might look to using both the private-sector and Army training options to build proficiency in KSAOs in this competency.

Summing up, specified here is a framework for thinking about how competency models can be integrated into core human resource activities. How these models can be employed across the range of activ-ities central to the recruitment, retention, and development of work-ers needed in a high-quality HRC workforce is the central outcome.

Closing Competency Gaps 77

Table 4.14 Metrics for Organizational Leadership, IT Specialist, Line Level

Organizational Leadership, “Experience-Plus”

Recruiting

Metrics

Training Metrics

Performance

Evaluation Metrics

Know and can teach peers and subordinates:

• Conflictresolution

• Howtodeterminelong-term HR requirements for own organization

• Recruitandgroomfuture leaders

• Leadpeopleandteams

• Teambuilding

• Motivate

• Priorleadership and management experience in an organization of similar size

• 2ormoreyearsin a similar position in the past 5 years

• 2ormoreyearsin a similar position with expertise at supervisory level in the past 5 years

• Successfulcompletion of private-sector industry/college coursework or certificates or comparable military education (e.g., AnCoC) or Army civilian education

• Performanceappraisal that explicitly addresses this competency

• Regularself-and supervisor appraisal

• Firstat3to6months after assuming position

• Secondat9to12 months after assuming position

• Beyond12thmonth in position as part of regular performance appraisal schedule

Hence, the concepts described here offer guidance for the development and implementation of operational tools that link human resources activities. They also address the human capital needs of HRC across a timeline, along with challenges likely to arise in workforce acquisi-tion, development, and retention. The metrics suggested are intended to illustrate these points and guide HRC staff and managers in devel-oping actual metrics. In turn, metrics would have to be reviewed and revalidated periodically, as the organization learns and adapts.

79

CHAPteR fIve

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions

Relocating HRC to Fort Knox and reorganizing it would be no small tasks under normal circumstances. These tasks are made all the more challenging by the limited time available to complete the move to Fort Knox and by the need to support an Army at war, grow the Army, and do it with a reduced HRC workforce. Consequently, HRC should refine the results of personnel competency models and use them in con-junction with an institutional human capital strategy—as proposed in Chapter Four—to meet its long-term manpower requirements.

More specifically, the high likelihood that a range of factors will hinder HRC’s ability to timely meet manpower requirements (in quan-tity and quality) underscores the need for HRC to consider a compre-hensive, multistage process to deal with this issue. This process should emphasize first narrowing quantitative and qualitative gaps in the workforce in the near term (between 2010 and 2012), and then focus on closing them starting in 2013; the gap will close as the workforce stabilizes and more workers possess the required competencies and asso-ciated proficiency levels. Actions must begin soon and in accordance with a clear, robust, and well-resourced institutional human capital strategy. This institutional human capital strategy, modified appropri-ately along the way, should carry HRC from the present through 2013 and beyond.

Unlike private employers, a broad and complex set of federal policies, laws, and regulations constrain Army options to create train-ing programs, select partners, and provide incentives for training and

80 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

recruitment. For example, HRC cannot provide financial incentives or support to train individuals before they are hired. As a result, compe-tencies unique to HRC could be absent altogether or exist only at the exposure level of proficiency by the time a new worker assumes a posi-tion. Further, safeguards against conflicts of interest preclude the Army from participating in something akin to the Metropolitan College Pro-gram, in which the local or state government would co-fund scholar-ships or grants with the Army for individuals who are either employees of HRC or looking to apply for jobs with HRC. Neither can HRC necessarily share course curricula that it uses to train employees, e.g., “Introduction to the Army and HRC,” with training providers like KCTCS to create classroom or online courses for individuals interested in applying for HRC employment. The options available, the timeline HRC faces, and the gap between labor demand and supply make the task of acquiring the right quantity and quality of workers for HRC at Fort Knox by 2010 (and beyond) a challenging one. Specific actions can be taken within the scope of law and policy, though, and to HRC’s credit, it is doing so.

As this report is being written, HRC is exploring options to create internal and external training capacity. This effort includes the cre-ation of a training academy within the new HRC at Fort Knox to train new hires directly once HRC begins its first phase of operations there in mid-2009.1 On-the-job training will complement classroom and online instruction to help new hires gain competency and proficiency.2

1 The training academy information is based on RAND Arroyo Center consultation with HRC BRAC and HRC training academy personnel in summer 2008. HRC hopes to begin hiring new staff by spring or summer 2009, subsequent to the issuance of the binding can-vass letter to current employees in January 2009. Federal law requires HRC to issue binding canvass letters to current employees to apply for new jobs at the new HRC. The law requires that employees have 10 days to respond; HRC plans to give them 30 days. The difference between the total TDA and the number choosing to relocate to Fort Knox is the number of new hire positions HRC will need to fill.2 Many of these new hires will likely be telecommuters at Fort Knox because permanent facilities for HRC at Fort Knox are not expected to be completed until 2011, when HRC is expected to finish its relocation and consolidation. Also, it would be too costly to move these new hires to one of the current HRC locations in Virginia, Missouri, or Indiana and to move them again within a year or less.

Conclusions and Recommendations 81

Formally incorporating the competency and proficiency requirements identified in this research will be critical for both current employees and new hires as they adapt to the new HRC. Imparting evolving com-petency and proficiency findings to workforce trainers and educators in the Fort Knox region and addressing our research findings with the civilian personnel community as well will help structure those parties’ efforts to assist HRC.

Recommendations

As a result of this research, we offer a series of recommendations. First, HRC should develop and institutionalize a human capital strategy, similar to the one described in this report, and use it as a framework to guide recruiting, hiring, training, performance evaluation, and other activities geared to create, develop, and retain a new workforce. Devel-opment and implementation of that strategy must begin now.

Of particular urgency is having all parts of HRC working together, in a coordinated fashion, to develop and institutionalize the strategy. The creation of job books—a compilation of critical tasks an incum-bent must be able to perform to accomplish duties3—utilizing well-defined competency models and metrics for recruiting, training, and performance evaluation, for both the current and future HRC struc-tures, may be the most logical first step in the process.

Designating an executive-level staff agent to lead the development of an institutional human capital strategy will enhance its chances for success. This agent should be someone with deep knowledge of HRC and significant experience in managing organizational change. HRC would also profit from the designation of a Chief of Training and Staff Development to integrate personnel competency requirements into training activities across the organization and work with HRC supervisors and employees to determine staff development needs and strategies.

3 See TRADOC Regulation 350-70, Systems Approach to Training Management, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, VA, March 1999.

82 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Second, HRC should formally incorporate personnel compe-tency modeling outcomes offered in Chapter Two and Appendix A as a basis for determining competency and proficiency requirements for the new TDA—and for training to those standards. These compe-tency models should provide a firm basis for actionable recommenda-tions both today and in the future. The competency models developed for this research—employing enterprise, management, domain, and leadership skills areas to help classify competencies—are comprehen-sive and detailed. These models give rise to 14 specific competencies viewed by incumbents as essential to optimum individual (and hence organizational) performance. As important as the competencies them-selves are the stated proficiency requirements for each competency. These requirements provide the added perspective—generally lacking in other state-of-the-art competency modeling efforts—so essential to translating competency needs into tailorable training activities.

Third, HRC should adopt the types of example approaches to training and development offered in Chapter Four. The strength of these approaches lies in linking competency needs to constructs and actions tied to recruiting, training, and evaluation. With adjustments as appropriate based on HRC’s own preferences and changing organi-zational and environmental demands, they should provide a basis for establishing operational specifications for competencies and associated proficiency levels. Four concepts provide an underlying rationale for this training framework and should become central to HRC’s plan-ning. HRC should focus its efforts on the following, then: (1) narrow-ing quantitative and qualitative gaps over the short term (from 2010 to 2012); (2) closing those gaps over the longer term (beyond 2012); (3) using outcome-driven, competency-based recruiting, training, and evaluation; and (4) conducting continuous training, evaluation, and upgrading to build long-term workforce capacity and stability.

The first concept—narrowing gaps—is driven by the expected shortfall in quantity and quality of labor available to fill HRC vacan-cies. With over 2,100 civilian authorizations at the new HRC at Fort Knox, a host of reasons (as described in Chapter Two) will make it challenging for HRC to hire the number of qualified staff it needs by 2010. Motivating the current workforce to relocate to Fort Knox is a

Conclusions and Recommendations 83

key first step. Another is to bring in new hires to fill current vacancies with the condition that incumbents will have to relocate to Fort Knox. Marketing jobs to current HRC staff and delivering training to build competencies will help job applicants and new hires alike to prepare for work at the new HRC.

Work to close quantitative and qualitative gaps over the long term (2013 and beyond) should also start now because it will likely also help to meet near-term goals. Even if a high percentage of current HRC personnel relocate to Fort Knox, many will become eligible to retire between 2010 to 2012, and others might leave within a few years as well. As a result, vacancies will open, and HRC will need the capacity to train, recruit, and hire new staff as well as to evaluate performance so that only staff with required competencies and associated proficiency are retained.

The third concept supports the previous two. Outcome-driven and competency-based recruiting, training and development, and eval-uation mean that staff will be hired, trained, and evaluated on the basis of competencies required to be effective in respective positions. The fourth and final concept emphasizes continuous training and perfor-mance evaluation to build long-term workforce capacity and stability. Both the current workforce and new hires will need that training to acquire the competencies or to enhance proficiency to levels required for positions in the new HRC.

HRC’s future TDA and the number of staff who opt to move to Fort Knox will determine the gap between HRC’s workforce demand and the available supply. Workforce analysis done for this study demon-strates that HRC is virtually certain to encounter difficulty in meeting the demand, a finding that prompted HRC to reconsider its decision to merge officer and enlisted personnel management into a single direc-torate. Thus, any HRC human capital strategy must look beyond 2010. Competency models and approaches to training produced during this research should serve as an enduring basis for coordinating the recruit-ing, hiring, training, and performance evaluation activities that are central to such a strategy, in the process positioning the HRC work-force to carry the Army’s human resources support activities into the future.

85

APPenDIx A

Personnel Competency Modeling

Presented in this appendix is a detailed description of the method used to develop the online survey for selected HRC personnel, along with resulting personnel competency models. The purpose of this online survey was to obtain data from incumbents in HRC positions, in order to understand the competencies and associated proficiency levels required for effective or successful performance in their positions.

Building the Survey Instrument and Participant Selection

The steps taken to develop personnel competency models began with the collection of data from across the HRC hierarchy and functions, to acquire an understanding of required competencies for a number of key positions. Most of these were senior- and executive-level staff with in-depth experience in the current HRC and knowledge of different Army proposals to create a new HRC. Collective judgment by RAND Arroyo Center and senior HRC staff was behind the selection of these individuals. Emphasis was on the length of time spent in positions and knowledge of what it takes to be effective in jobs that support the HRC mission. Discussions covered competencies spanning four categories—enterprise perspective, management skills, domain knowledge, and leadership skills—required by incumbents in their own positions and by those they supervised. In addition, we solicited input on the types of education, training, and work experience that are important in devel-oping the required competencies.

86 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

These qualitative data were then used to help build an online survey instrument that went out to 483 military and civilian personnel. These participants were selected from subsets of individuals to represent the line, senior, and executive levels of the HRC structure. Statistical (e.g., random) sampling of the individuals at each HRC level was not performed. Selection was first predicated on HRC, manager-assessed, designation of individuals most likely to respond fully to the survey. Individuals whose job focus was particularly narrow and/or who were not privy to HRC organizational change plans and discussions were not included. Further, only individuals not projected to leave or rotate out of respective positions during the period of study and not new (within 90 days of the study) to their position were deemed eligible to participate. This reflected an effort to minimize the effects of personnel turnover on study outcomes.

Further, individuals selected for participation were distributed as proportionally as possible on the basis of military component status, length of employment as civilian personnel at HRC, and HRC posi-tions and responsibilities. The last was the determinant for designation as the line, senior, or executive levels for analysis—a key component of our analytical framework. The level designation for a position was deter-mined by the supervisory responsibilities of that position. The heads of HRC and the four major directorates, as well as HRC-St. Louis, were all assigned to the executive level, along with others whose responsibilities were to manage or support their supervisors in the highest level of man-agement of these organizations. Heads of the 20- to 40-person divisions under these directorates were assigned to the senior level. These divi-sions are, in turn, subdivided into 10- to 20-person branches that are headed by lieutenant colonels, majors, and senior civilians. These posi-tions and those under them were assigned to the line level for analysis.

We created four versions of the survey: one for each of the three levels in our framework and one special one.1 All executive-level par-ticipants and a number of senior-level participants were asked to assess

1 The “special” version of the survey, requesting no assessment of competencies and profi-ciencies for proposed HRC restructuring options, went out to a single executive-level manager who had not been exposed to or involved in HRC organization restructuring discussions.

Personnel Competency Modeling 87

competency and proficiency requirements for incumbents of their posi-tions for the current HRC and the two restructuring options,2 given depth of knowledge and/or involvement in developing and vetting these options. Most senior-level and all line-level personnel were only asked to assess competency and proficiency requirements for incumbents of their positions in the current HRC, because they were not deemed to have either in-depth knowledge of or involvement in developing or vet-ting any restructuring options.

After applying the selection criteria discussed, subsets of individu-als within each subcategory were selected by managers and the HRC BRAC Office according to the following rule: if 20 or fewer persons occupied a subcategory, all persons in the subcategory would be asked to participate in the survey; otherwise at least 20 persons from the sub-category would be selected to participate in the survey.

Some 483 individuals were selected to participate in the survey, with 18 individuals (4 percent) residing at the executive level, 250 (52 percent) at the senior level, and 214 (44 percent) at the line level. Of the 250 senior-level participants, 25 were asked additional questions on competency requirements stemming from alternative reorganiza-tion structures for HRC because of their knowledge of or involvement in the reorganization.

Survey Structure

To delineate required competencies for HRC personnel across the three broad levels of the organization (line, senior, and executive), we developed separate versions of surveys for respondents at each of these three levels. Specific survey items were taken as appropriate from the master version of the survey we created to build these three versions of the survey. Further feedback from a small number of HRC personnel who were considered subject matter experts also helped us to determine

2 Option one maintains separate officer and enlisted personnel management director-ates with AR officer and enlisted personnel management, respectively, merged into them, while option two is a fully integrated management directorate for active and AR officers and enlisted personnel.

88 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

appropriate wording and placement of questions into various sections of the survey.

Variations across the three versions were small. The single biggest difference was that the line-level version only required respondents to assess the proficiency level associated with required competencies under the current HRC structure. In contrast, many senior- and all executive-level versions of the survey asked respondents to assess the proficiency levels associated with required competencies for their positions in the current HRC structure and for two future options for organizational structure as well. Unlike the current HRC structure, the first option had AR functions integrated into the existing separate officers and enlisted management directorates. A second option called for a single, and fully integrated, officer, enlisted, AC and AR directorate—a more daunting change from the current one.

Each version of the survey had seven sections. The first four sec-tions asked respondents to identify competencies and their associated proficiency levels required for incumbents of their positions to be effec-tive. Respondents were to base their assessments on their perceptions and experience, with competencies organized under the four catego-ries listed. Although questions were asked about how respondents rated their own proficiency levels against the ideal, these assessments were not intended to assess participants per se. As participation was volun-tary, respondents could answer as many or as few questions as they chose. For each competency determined as required, respondents were also to rate the associated proficiency level on a scale of 1 through 5, with

1 representing exposure level2 representing between exposure and experience levels3 representing experience level4 representing between experience and expertise levels5 representing expertise level

exposure:• requiring only general familiarity or textbook-level understanding; no particular “hands-on” or operator-level knowl-edge or skills necessary.

Personnel Competency Modeling 89

experience:• requiring practical knowledge or skills gained through an accumulation of direct observations or participation built up over time; can be used to enhance the handling of most day-to-day problem-solving situations.expertise:• requiring mastery; in-depth knowledge or skills; nor-mally associated with a career-long focus and recognition as a sub-ject matter expert.

For competencies not considered required, respondents could choose “not applicable” as their answer. The remaining three survey sections focused on “Education and Training,” to identify what type and level of education and training activities respondents believed to be essential to acquire required competencies, “Background and Expe-rience,” to understand whether certain civilian or military work expe-rience might be prerequisites for effective performance in a position, and “Anticipating the Future,” to uncover concerns most significantly affecting a respondent’s sense about future employment with HRC at Fort Knox. In the “Education and Training” and “Background and Experience” sections, respondents were asked to rate—again on a scale of 1 through 5—the importance of each element chosen. For the last section, respondents were to rate only the top two of eight options listed. Again, in these three sections, respondents answered as many or as few of the questions as they chose.

Finally, at the end of each of these seven sections, respondents pro-vided additional input on competencies not listed in the survey, as well as on additional options and issues in education and training, back-ground and experience, and individual preparedness for Fort Knox.

Tests for Reliability

The survey structure assumed and anticipated correlation among responses within each section; hence, the resulting structure of the survey as described in the preceding section. Checks for statistical reliability were conducted before in-depth analysis to produce individual person-

90 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

nel competency models. By statistical reliability we mean the extent to which a survey’s results will provide consistent results in repeated sam-ples from the survey population, respondent by respondent. We sought consistency in scoring across responses within each of the seven sections of the three versions of the survey; statistical reliability is a necessary condition for generalizing a survey’s results to the survey population.

Responses to surveys targeting HRC personnel at the line, senior, and executive levels were kept separate in reliability analyses because required competencies and the associated proficiency levels differ at each level. For a particular required competency, executive-level per-sonnel might need the expert level of proficiency; for line-level person-nel, only the exposure level of proficiency. If questions or items within a section have high statistical reliability, the construct represented by each survey section should be meaningful for each of the three command levels (line, senior, and executive), and correlation among responses should apply to all three levels.

We tested for reliability through the calculation of Cronbach’s α, a standard reliability measure of internal consistency, for questions or items in the master version of the survey only; variations across the line-, senior-, and executive-level versions were minor.3 For N questions and an average multiple correlation of r across all questions, Cron-bach’s α is defined as

αρρ

=+ −

NN1 1( )

.

Cronbach’s α takes on values up to 1, with a value of 0.70 typically considered adequate for reliability.

Table A.1 displays Cronbach’s α for each of the seven survey sec-tions. Calculation of Cronbach’s α is based on the set of full responses to each of the survey questions in that section.4 The four competency

3 See L. J. Cronbach, “Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests,” Psychometrika, Vol. 16, 1951, pp. 297–334.4 Except for the final section on preparedness, personal preparedness questions found at the end of some sections were not included in the reliability analysis because they represent a different concept from that of the construct of an ideal level presented in the section.

Personnel Competency Modeling 91

Table A.1 Statistical Reliability of Survey Sections

Survey SectionsNumber of Items Cronbach’s α

Enterprise Perspective 44 0.96

Management Skills 40 0.98

Domain Knowledge 72 0.97

Leadership Skills 24 0.98

education and training 8 0.91

Background and experience 19 0.93

Anticipating the future 8 0.88

sections all showed exceptionally strong reliability, with a Cronbach’s α greater than 0.95; the other three sections exhibited high reliability as well. These results verify the assumptions made in the survey’s con-struction with respect to “like” items being placed into the same sec-tion. They further imply that it is sensible to think of the questions or items contained in a section as a related set, informative of an underly-ing concept.

However, classifying the survey items into a correlated set that comprises a survey section does not imply that each of the four compe-tency sections is a stand-alone competency area. A high Cronbach’s α measurement alone does not necessarily imply that a set of questions is unidimensional. (Cronbach’s α, by definition, does increase with the number of questions for a fixed average multiple correlation.)

Since the relatively large number of questions (40 or more) in three of the four competency sections might have at least partially con-tributed to the high Cronbach’s α measurements shown in Table A.1 (and since the survey sections may be susceptible to misclassification of individual questions), we paid extra attention to the potential for multidimensionality and misclassifications in verifying the statistical reliability of the survey sections and in analysis of survey responses.

92 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Tests for Validity

The seven survey sections served as a mechanism for creating groupings to parse the wide range of knowledge and skills required of HRC per-sonnel into meaningful categories that are informative with respect to individual job or position requirements. Here we show how we deter-mined whether structuring of sections in the survey was optimal, in light of the actual data collected.

We examine construct validity in terms of whether the sections of the survey actually represented separate individual latent factors, i.e., the extent to which survey results indicate that we are measuring what we set out to measure in the construction of the sections. Alternatively, we consider whether or not a more refined grouping of the survey ques-tions or items in light of the data collected would be more meaning-ful in terms of competency areas. There are two alternatives to such a representation. The first may have two or more distinct latent factors in a single survey section. This would indicate the need to recognize the multidimensionality in analyses of that section and the utilization of results derived from it. The second may find individual latent fac-tors spanning questions in multiple sections. This would indicate that either certain sections should be combined or certain survey questions should be reclassified to a different section.

To examine content validity, we used a combination of explor-atory and confirmatory techniques. To examine the dimensionality within each survey section, we used a principal components analysis and anticipated a large majority of the total variance in the section’s data contained in the first principal component. The presence of multi-ple large principal components would suggest greater than one dimen-sion present in the section. To examine whether factors are contained within or span individual survey sections, we conducted a factor analy-sis across sections with the number of factors set to the expected total number of factors present given the principal component results.

Missing data presented a minor challenge to computing the prin-cipal components for these survey data. For a given set of survey ques-tions, either within or across sections, we utilized responses from all participants to that set of questions. Individual participants may have

Personnel Competency Modeling 93

responded “not applicable” (NA) to certain questions. They also had the option of skipping any question that they did not wish to answer. Disqualifying all responses of an individual because of skipping or answering NA to a subset of the questions would have meant eliminat-ing valid information. Taking this into consideration, we computed correlation matrices for a given set of items by using all pair-wise sets of responses available for each pair of items. We then used these resultant matrices as the inputs for computing principal components and factor analyses.

Table A.2 indicates the number of dimensions present in each of the seven survey sections, as indicated from the principal components analysis. Results for the four competency survey sections indicated as many as 14 different dimensions of data within these sections, provid-ing a clear indication that more than four major competency areas existed. Given these results, we fitted a factor analytic model within each of the survey sections to determine which questions or items are most strongly related—and analysis indicated 14 preliminary compe-tency areas. Within each survey section, the resulting factors were thus a function of such relatedness, as indicated in Table A.2.

We then pooled responses across the four survey sections cover-ing competencies (in boldface in the table above) to determine if any of the individual factors across sections should be merged. We did

Table A.2 Dimensionality of Survey Sections

Survey SectionsNumber of Items

Number of Dimensions

Enterprise Perspective 44 4

Management Skills 40 3

Domain Knowledge 72 5

Leadership Skills 24 2

education and training 8 1

Background and experience 19 3

Anticipating the future 8 1

94 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Table A.3 Major Competency Areas by Survey Section

Major Competency Sections Competency Areas (14) Present

enterprise Perspective Army knowledge

HRC knowledge

AR/ARnG readiness and deployment

Professional development budget

Management Skills Interactive management

workforce management

Decision making

Domain Knowledge Job details

Manning

Information systems

officer/warrant officer matters

enlisted matters

Leadership Skills Interpersonal leadership

organizational leadership

this by pooling responses across the four competency survey sections into factor analysis models based on pair-wise combinations of survey sections and for all four sections. Although this pooling did not pro-vide evidence that any cross-section factors should be formed, we did identify and reassign five individual questions that were more strongly related to a factor in another section than to any of the factors in the section where the question was first assigned. We thus established the presence of 14 factors across the four competency areas; these 14 fac-tors, in turn, would come to comprise the major competency areas represented by the survey questions. Table A.3 shows the named major competency areas by survey section.

Further, each of the 14 competencies covers knowledge, skills, abilities, or other capabilities. These, in effect, are the specific things that an incumbent of a position is expected to know or be able to do. Details for each, with survey items arranged in accordance with the competencies they were shown to describe, are as follows:

Personnel Competency Modeling 95

Army knowledge1. How the Army runs (e.g., strategic goals, organization, etc.)•Army roles, now and upcoming, in the National Security •StrategyDepartment of Defense Strategic Human Capital philoso-•phy, and how it plays into Army/HRC requirementsArmy war fighting and Joint war fighting integration•Army size and structure; all components•Structures for brigades and divisions•Deployment timelines for Active Component (AC) brigades, •divisions, and other unitsOperational environment and its implications for your work•What’s deployed (by unit), readying, and recovering—as it •relates to functions and processes of your subunit at HRCRoles played by key persons at the brigade combat team/ •division level in the fieldArmy staff (ARSTAFF) processes and players•Organization and functions of Army commands•Roles played by key persons and their functions at the Army •command levelOrganization and functions of the Army Human Resources •Policy Directorate (G-1)Roles played by key persons and their functions at the Army •G-1

HRC knowledge2. How the HRC fits into the Army’s strategic (long-range) •visionHow the HRC runs (e.g., the HRC mission, goals, priorities, •organization, etc.)Roles played by key persons and their functions at HRC•How your HRC subunit (directorate, division, branch) runs•Processes in the HRC transformation/realignment of mis-•sions and functionsSeams between HRC subunits (i.e., where handover of a pro-•cess occurs)

96 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

A position’s authority and influence within HRC and beyond•How to develop processes and evaluate new ideas to achieve •HRC’s mission and objectives

AR/ARNG deployment and readiness3. Deployment timelines for ARNG brigades, divisions, and •other unitsDeployment timelines for AR units•Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) deployment time-•lines for AR unitsKnowledge of organization and functions of the Office of •the Chief, Army Reserve (OCAR)How the Army/HRC manages Army reserve officer/warrant •officer readinessHow the Army/HRC manages AR enlisted readiness•How the Army/HRC manages AR Individual Ready Reserve •(IRR) readinessHow the Army/HRC manages mobilization process of the •IRRHow the Army/HRC manages ARNG officer/warrant offi-•cer readinessHow the Army/HRC manages ARNG enlisted readiness•Soldier career development and mapping, AR•Soldier career development and mapping, ARNG•

Professional development budget4. Army Planning, Programming, Budgeting, Execution System •(PPBES)Professional development budget process—Officer (AC)•Professional development budget process—Enlisted (AC)•Professional development budget process—Officer (AR)•Professional development budget process—Enlisted (AR)•Professional development budget process—Officer (ARNG)•Professional development budget process—Enlisted (ARNG)•Professional development budget process—Civilian•

Personnel Competency Modeling 97

Interactive management5. Formulate and articulate a vision and goals for your •organizationDefine priorities and manage expectations, both downward •and upwardCommunicate verbally (clarity; talking to military and civilian •personnel; articulate issues and make persuasive arguments)Communicate in writing (clarity; writing for military and •civilian personnel; articulate issues and make persuasive arguments)Present briefings to senior Army military and civilian leaders •and external audiencesPossess interpersonal skills (“people skills”—know how to •listen, “reach out,” have a sense of empathy)Employ human resource and general management concepts, •tools, and techniquesMultitask management (self and subordinates)•

Workforce management6. How to supervise personnel—military and civilian•How to evaluate performance—military and civilian•How to promote growth in performance—military and civil-•ian (e.g., giving feedback orally and in writing)Ensure quantitative and qualitative balance of civilian, military, •contractors, and availability to meet mission requirementsUniformed workforce-specific matters (e.g., assignments, •military occupational specialty (MOS), career development)Civilian manning of HRC•Civilian workforce-specific matters (e.g., labor law and •policy; benefits; promotions; employee union relations and requirements)Contractor workforce-specific matters (e.g., contracts; the •contracting process; physical and virtual access to secure information and sites)Equal Employment Opportunity and affirmative action law •and policy

98 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Promote shared viewpoints in the mixed military and civil-•ian workforce of HRCPartner with and promote buy-in among the diverse military •and civilian workforces of HRCUnderstand internal management controls required by law •(to include: disclosure agreements; enforcing adequate con-trols to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse of government assets; ethics requirements; whistleblower protections)Delegate responsibilities to subordinates•

Decision making7. Identify, assess, and balance risks (versus benefits) of decisions•Demonstrate decision logic (able to articulate reasons and •costs and benefits behind decisions; not just “giving orders” to subordinates)Create plans of action to maximize the benefits of emerging •opportunitiesCreate strategic plans that achieve long-term goals and meet •anticipated challengesAdapt to change (e.g., new organizational structure, new •processes to support functions)Develop and execute actions effectively•Exercise resource stewardship (e.g., applying procedures, •requirements, regulations, policies, and business principles to make sound resource decisions)Project management skills (e.g., ability to plan, organize, •schedule, manage contracts, manage events, develop teams, work with matrix organizations, communicate, conduct cost-benefit analysis)Self-regulate; retain composure in stressful situations•Operate in a complex bureaucracy (e.g., knowing how to •navigate in an organization with many subunits/people and competing interests)Be flexible and adaptive to fast-changing requirements and •circumstances

Personnel Competency Modeling 99

Work with imperfect information to produce timely, viable •outcomesDevelop processes and evaluate new ideas to achieve HRC’s •mission and objectivesUse information technology to support business and man-•agement processesAdapt business processes to existing information technology •architecture and infrastructureProactive development and use of personal or professional •human resource networksConsider varied perspectives in decision making (e.g., civil-•ian and military perspectives, enlisted and officer personnel perspectives; AC and RC perspectives)Bring about change (ability to plan, resource, direct actions •to support change; undertake personal actions to learn new processes)Foster initiative among subordinates•

Domain knowledge8. Functional items associated with your position specified •here (e.g., knowledge of the noncommissioned officer edu-cation system (NCOES) and the role it plays in enlisted assignments)Specific actions and processes not directly associated with •your positionLaws, policies, and regulations that affect the processes asso-•ciated with your positionWho-does-what for guidance and support/resources•Differentiate among competing organizational priorities to •find practical solutionsHow the soldier life cycle works, and life-cycle management•Communication: verbal (clarity; able to convey technical or •specialized subject matter in plain language; and “talk Army” when necessary)

100 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Communication: written (clarity; able to convey technical •or specialized subject matter in plain language; and able to write in Army style)Communication: presentation skills (clarity; able to prepare •and convey technical or specialized subject matter in plain language to different types of audiences)Multitask (self)•Take on new tasks outside your position’s scope•Take on both generalist and specialist assignments, tasks, •and roles

Manning9. Soldier career development and mapping, AC•Manning strategy (e.g., life-cycle management and ARFOR-•GEN), and how it may affect soldier and unit readinessConsider varied perspectives in synchronizing officer and •enlisted personnel distribution planConsider varied perspectives in streamlining officer and •enlisted personnel processes (e.g., Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP)/the Army Married Couples Pro-gram (AMCP) and impact on the force)

Information systems10. Role of technology in supporting the mission and functions •of your HRC subunit (directorate, division, branch)Respond to requests under the Freedom of Information Act •(FOIA)Army veteran inquiries processed by HRC•Purpose and function of electronic systems and applications •thereinCurrent and emerging information technologies, tools, and •techniquesTwo or more human resource computer information systems •(e.g., Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS), Keystone, Total Officer Personnel Management Information System (TOPMIS), The Army Authorization

Personnel Competency Modeling 101

Document System (TAADS), Defense Integrated Mili-tary Human Resources System (DIMHRS), Department of the Army Photograph Management Information System (DAPMIS), Enlisted Distribution and Assignment System (EDAS), Soldier Management System (SMS), Active Guard Reserve Information System (AGRMIS), Worldwide Indi-vidual Augmentation System (WIAS))One human resource computer information system (e.g., •iPERMS, Keystone, TOPMIS, TAADS, DIMHRS, DAPMIS, EDAS, SMS, AGRMIS, WIAS)Joint computer information systems (for example, the •Deployed Theater Accountability Software (DTAS))Information management and distribution (process and •technical)Requirements for information security (to prevent inadver-•tent disclosure); know proper requirements for labeling, han-dling, and distribution of information to include Freedom of Information Act, document classification, and command operations security (OPSEC) requirementsNew architecture and infrastructure with DIMHRS as the •new core Army human resources data systemBridge transition of existing processes and paperwork to new •processes and electronic data systemsAdapt business processes to existing information technology •architecture and processesManage computer information systems (administrative: for •example, enforce regulations on access to secure networks, data storage, and transfer)Maintain computer information systems (technical: for •example, programming support)

Officer/warrant officer matters11. How the Army/HRC manages AC officer and warrant offi-•cer readinessConsider varied perspectives in decision support (for exam-•ple, balancing Army needs with personal goals in present-

102 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

ing career development options to soldiers; balancing system functions with user demands in presenting options for infor-mation technology solutions)Accession•Distribution•Prioritization•Assignments•Permanent change of station•“Dwell” time•Career management•Professional development•Retiree recall policy•Incentive pay•Promotions and promotion boards•Transmittal of promotion and selection information•Special assignment programs (e.g., Exceptional Family •Member Program (EFMP), home-basing, joint domicile)Handling officer information flows associated with your posi-•tion (for example, data entry, data access, creating reports such as Officer Record Briefs (ORBs))Inventory management•Retention•Separations•Retirement•

Enlisted matters12. How the Army/HRC manages AC enlisted readiness•Accessions•Distribution•Prioritization•Unit readiness•Assignments•Permanent change of station •Career Management Field reviews•“Dwell” time•Professional development•

Personnel Competency Modeling 103

Retiree recall policy•Incentive pay•Promotions and promotion boards•Transmittal of promotion and selection information•Special assignment programs (e.g., EFMP, home-basing, •joint domicile)Handling enlisted information flows associated with your •position (e.g., data entry, data access, creating reports such as Enlisted Record Briefs (ERBs))Inventory management•Reenlistment•Separations•Retirement•Modeling and simulation to support decision analysis (e.g., •Enlisted Distribution Target Model (EDTM))Requirements identification and specification•

Interpersonal leadership13. Accurately interpret and operate within commander’s intent, •both HRC’s and “the field’s”Set goals and articulate a vision for your organization that •are consistent with those of the larger organizationEstablish, model, and promote the highest moral and ethical •conduct on and off the jobPromote an atmosphere of honest and candid feedback•Communicate goals and requirements for success•Lead change, champion change (motivate peers and subordi-•nates to help bring about change, harness resources needed to enable change)Embrace and promote changes in organizational culture and •mindsetRespect perspectives different from your own•Build trust with customers/supported organizations•Build trust in relationships with critical contacts inside and •outside HRC

104 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Build trust and respect in relationships with peers and subor-•dinates (e.g., listen, respect the other’s viewpoints, and look at issues from the other’s perspective—even if you disagree with them)Personal leadership (character, courage, self-confidence, •candor, commitment, competence, compassion, honesty, initiative)Identify and articulate problems and solutions•Anticipate, develop, and execute actions to mitigate prob-•lems, anticipated or currentWork well with others (e.g., listen, take in different perspectives)•

Organizational leadership14. How change—organizational, IT infrastructure, leadership— •might affect the responsibilities of a positionSpot incompetence/waste and rectify it•Conflict resolution (negotiate; mediate; build consensus)•Determine long-term human resource requirements for your •organizationRecognize, recruit, and groom future leaders for your •organizationLead people and teams•Team building techniques (skills; processes)•Build cross-cultural awareness; champion diversity•Motivate organizational members (e.g., proactive coaching, •counseling, mentoring, bolstering morale)

The remaining three survey sections, Education and Training, Background and Experience, and Anticipating the Future, were treated similarly to the competency sections. Pooling across these three ques-tions also did not show that any cross-section factors should be formed, nor was there any indication that any question or item in these sections should be reclassified to another section. Thus there were five major factors in these three sections, as shown in Table A.4.

Personnel Competency Modeling 105

Table A.4 Factors Present in the Noncompetency Survey Sections

Survey Sections Factors Present

education and training education and training

Background and experience Recent military experience

Position-related experience

Interorganizational experience

Anticipating the future Anticipating the future

Content validation thus identified 19 separate factors across the seven sections of the survey, which includes the 14 major competency areas. At this point, we once again examined the statistical reliability of these 19 factors to ascertain sufficient reliability in results. Table A.5 shows that the 14 major competency areas have a Cronbach’s α of at least 0.89, indicating strong reliability; high reliability is also shown for the remaining factors.

Depicting Competencies

Having established that survey construction and responses were reli-able and valid, we turned our attention to communicating data and results to the research sponsor and other audiences inside and outside the Army—those that are interested in the HRC’s structural change and move to Fort Knox.

Our first task was to define the method by which we would inter-pret responses to each survey question. We did not use the standard numerical average or weighted numerical average of the responses to a question; if we had, we would have lost the ability to illustrate the range of responses. We instead opted to use a method that retains as much information about the survey responses as possible, and specifi-cally, the ratings on proficiency levels associated with required compe-tencies and importance of certain types of education and training and background and work experience.

We sorted responses to each question and their ratings first and identified the minimum and maximum response values, and then

106 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Table A.5 Reliability of Major Sections and Other Identified Survey Factors

FactorsNumber of Items Cronbach’s α

Competencies

Army knowledge 15 0.93

HRC knowledge 8 0.91

AR/ARnG readiness and deployment 12 0.95

Professional development budget 8 0.96

Interactive management 8 0.89

workforce management 13 0.93

Decision making 19 0.96

Job details 12 0.90

Manning 4 0.89

Information systems 15 0.93

officer/warrant officer matters 20 0.97

enlisted matters 22 0.98

Interpersonal leadership 15 0.97

organizational leadership 9 0.94

other Areas

education and training 8 0.91

Recent military experience 7 0.95

Position-related experience 4 0.84

Interorganizational experience 8 0.90

Anticipating the future 8 0.88

values for the 25th percentile, median, and 75th percentile. The mini-mum and maximum response values helped us identify those ques-tions or items in the survey that had small and large response ranges, while the 25th and 75th percentile values helped interpret the range of responses to a question fully utilizing the distribution of response values. Figure A.1 illustrates this.

Personnel Competency Modeling 107

Figure A.1 Interpreting Survey Responses

Experience 3

Expertise 5

Exposure 1

2

4

Notapplicable 0

Surv

ey s

cale

(le

vels

of

pro

fici

ency

)

Position EPosition DPosition CPosition BPosition A Position F

Maximumresponse

value

Proficiencylevel

required

Minimumresponse

valueMedian

responsevalue

Range of middle 50%of response values

RAND MG828-A.1

Dotted boxes in Figure A.1 denote the range of survey response values provided by the middle 50 percent of respondents (the inter-quartile range). When more than one person responded for a position, all of their responses were merged to produce the interquartile ranges. Other responses are for the 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively, below and above the interquartile range. These ranges are illustrated by bold vertical lines above and below the dotted boxes in the dia-gram. The median or the 50th percentile responses are illustrated by the donut shape.

Our interviews with HRC personnel and responses to the online survey indicate that different positions can demand different levels of proficiency for the very same competency. In Figure A.1, the solid rect-angles behind the dotted box represent what we interpret as the required proficiency level, which depends on the size of the interquartile range and the location of the median within that range.

108 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Then, and to present such information for competencies and pro-ficiency levels in the form of personnel competency models for indi-vidual HRC positions covered in our survey, we chose to use “Kiviat” plots or diagrams.5 We initially created Kiviat diagrams for all jobs sur-veyed by competency factors and for all competency factors per posi-tion surveyed. However, the resulting diagrams were difficult to com-prehend when answers to as many as 22 questions within a single factor were presented. To produce more comprehensible visual diagrams, we decided to aggregate data to a level—as shown in Figure A.2—that would be effective and accurate in supporting analyses and presenta-tion of results. This figure presents survey results aggregated across 35 line-level personnel responses for “Personnel Management, 0201,” the

Figure A.2 Interpreting Survey Responses Using the Kiviat Diagram

75th percentileMedian25th percentile

Army knowledge

Job details

HRC knowledge

Decision making

AR/ARNG readiness and deployment

Professional development budget

Workforcemanagement

Interactive management

Organizational leadership

Interpersonal leadership

Enlisted matters

Officer/warrantofficer matters

Information systems

Manning

5

4

3

2

1

0

0 54321NA Exposure Experience Expertise

Proficiency levels

RAND MG828-A.2

5 Kenneth W. Kolence and Philip J. Kiviat, “Software Unit Profiles smf Kiviat Figures,” ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, Vol. 2, No. 3, September 1973, pp. 2–12. These diagrams are also commonly known as “radar plots,” as they are named in Microsoft Excel.

Personnel Competency Modeling 109

position name and associated position code, respectively. (Note: while 50 competency models were produced via this research and made avail-able to its sponsor, the 21 most critical of these, based on position level and/or potential manpower shortages, are shown here. This is done to conserve space.)

The “spokes” in the Kiviat diagram in Figure A.2 show the pro-ficiency range for the 14 competency factors. Recall that proficiency levels were assigned as follows:

0 – Not applicable1 – Exposure level2 – Exposure to Expertise level3 – Experience level4 – Between Experience and Expertise levels5 – Expertise level

To specify self-reported required proficiency levels, we computed the median of respondent answers to the questions associated with a particular competency. If half of respondent proficiency level responses (to all questions describing a particular competency) fell at or above a specific value, and half at or below it, then we assigned a required proficiency level equal to that value to that particular competency. The Army knowledge competency consisted of 15 separate survey ques-tions. The median response from the 35 line-level respondents to this group of questions indicates that persons filling the “Personnel Man-agement, 0201” position at the line level should have an “experience” level of proficiency. That is, the median of proficiency-level responses to the questions comprising Army knowledge fell at 3. The 75th and 25th percentiles too were plotted; 75 percent of responses to the 15 individ-ual questions were 4 or lower, and 25 percent were 2 or lower.

Survey Results

Analysis of survey results for each of the three levels of command (exec-utive, senior, and line) required some tailoring of the analysis approach

110 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

in each case. Executive-level survey participants consisted of the com-plete roster of HRC executive-level personnel. Typically, these positions are unique within HRC, that is, only one person occupies each one of these positions. As such, we had one response per position to produce a unique personnel competency model for each position. Senior-level and line-level personnel, though, consisted of a subset of all HRC per-sonnel who were selected—as described in the preceding sections on participation selection—based on consultation between Arroyo and HRC. Some HRC populations from which survey participants were selected were as large as 183 persons and some as small as one person.

In presenting analyses of survey responses, the total respondents for each competency were identified. However, we did not present information for those positions that were unique, i.e., designated for a single occupant, in order to comply with research protocols requir-ing anonymity of respondents and confidentiality of their information. Further, our analysis did not produce inferences about senior-level and line-level positions in general, but addressed competency and profi-ciency requirements identified in the context of the gap analysis to be conducted in support of HRC’s relocation to Fort Knox.

Line Level

The positions surveyed at the line level and resultant respondent counts are contained in Table A.6. Columns for “Position” show identifiers for civilian occupational series, military branch codes, or descriptive position responsibility monikers; “All” shows the number of persons asked to participate in the survey who completed all questions in all sections of the survey for a particular position; “NB” (not begun) for the number of persons asked to participate in the survey who accessed the survey but never entered data into survey response fields or who did not complete at least 70 percent of at least one survey section; NR (no response) for the number of persons asked to participate in the survey who did not access the survey at all; and “Partial” for the number of persons asked to participate in the survey who completed at least 75 percent of one or more sections of the survey.

Personnel Competency Modeling 111

Table A.6 Line-Level Survey Counts

Position

All

NB

NR

Partial

Grand Total

0080, Security Administration 1 1 2

0101, Social Science 1 1

0132, Intelligence 1 1

0201, Personnel Management 30 11 1 6 48

0203, Personnel, Clerical and Assistant 15 6 4 2 27

0301, Misc. Administrative and Programs 8 4 1 1 14

0303, Misc. Clerical and Assistant 1 1

0309, Correspondence Clerk 2 2

0332, Computer operation 1 1

0335, Computer Clerk and Assistant 1 1

0343, Management Analyst 2 1 3

0344, Management Clerical and Assistant 2 2

11B, Infantryman 1 1

11C, Indirect fire Infantryman 1 1

15Y, AH64D, Armament, electrical and Avionics System Repair

1 1

19Z, Armor Senior Sergeant 1 1

21B, Combat engineer 1 1

2210, Information technology 5 8 1 14

25A, Signal 1 1

25B, Information technology Specialist 1 1

37f, Psychological operations Specialist 1 1

42A, Human Resource Specialist 13 7 1 21

42B, Human Resource officer 4 2 6

49A, operations Research/Systems Analysis 1 1 2

68w, Health Care Specialist 1 1

79S, Career Counselor 1 1 2

91w, Medical worker 1 1 2

94w, electronic Maintenance Chief 1 1

Action officer 1 1 2

Admin Asst 1 1

Assignment Manager 1 1 2

Assignment officer 13 1 14

Branch Chief 11 4 1 1 17

Branch nCoIC 1 1 2

Career Manager 1 1 1 3

112 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Table A.6 (continued)

Position

All

NB

NR

Partial

Grand Total

Deputy Division Chief 2 2

Division executive officer 1 1

future Readiness officer 1 1

nCoIC 1 1

operations officer 1 1

team Chief 2 2 4

Grand total 122 63 11 15 211

For most positions, fewer than 10 persons were asked to partici-pate in the survey. As noted previously, participants were selected for participation based on the time the person had held a position and the judgment of HRC personnel that the participant could respond in an informed manner about the move to Fort Knox and the accompanying HRC organizational redesign.

Of the positions in Table A.6, only four are analyzed in detail in this document. These four positions—listed below in Table A.7—were identified as positions for which the Fort Knox region’s workforce is “relatively thin” and are “skills most in demand to fill incoming Army positions” at Fort Knox.6

Table A.8 shows a summary of the competencies and their associ-ated proficiency levels for these four positions. Data for other line-level positions are available from responses by survey participants, but are

Table A.7 Four High-Demand Positions

Position Description Position Codes

Personnel Management 0201

Personnel Clerical and Assistant 0203

Miscellaneous Administrative and Programs 0301

Information technology 2210

6 The Fort Knox BRAC Process: A Summary of Research Findings of the Workforce Project, Workforce Associates, Inc., and Thomas P. Miller Associates, Inc., June 21, 2007.

Personnel Competency Modeling 113

Table A.8 Four Key Line-Level Positions: Summary

Self-Reported Required Competencies and Associated Proficiency Levels

Position

Exposure

Minimal Experience

Experience

High Experience

Expertise

Personnel Manage-ment

Professional development budget, officer/warrant officer matters, enlisted matters

AR/ARnG readiness, manning

Army knowledge, information systems, workforce management, organizational leadership

HRC knowledge, interactive management, job details, interpersonal leadership

Personnel Clerical and Assistant

AR/ARnG readiness, professional development budget, manning, enlisted matters

Army knowledge

HRC knowledge, decision making, workforce management, information systems, interactive management

organizational leadership, job details

Inter- personal leadership

Misc. Administra- tive and Programs

Manning Army knowledge, AR/ARnG readiness, information systems, professional development budget

HRC knowledge, workforce management, job details, organizational leadership

Interactive management, decision making, interpersonal leadership

Information technology

AR/ARnG readiness, professional development budget, manning

Army knowledge, HRC knowledge, workforce management, information systems

Interactive management, job details, decision making, interpersonal leadership, organizational leadership

not especially pertinent to gap analysis—i.e., the primary expected use of the competency models developed via the survey.

A first observation about the reported proficiency levels for the position of Personnel Management, 0201 at the line level is that the 30 complete sets of responses and six sets of partial responses generated fairly broad ranges of proficiency level requirements in many compe-tency areas. Recall that the notations on each “spoke” of the Kiviat dia-

114 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

gram represents, from the outermost recorded point inward, the values of the 75th, 50th, and 25th percentile, respectively, as reported by the respondents. Such broad interquartile ranges as depicted in Figure A.3 can be interpreted for the purposes of this research as variability between job responsibilities (e.g., managing enlisted or officer personnel, manag-ing active or reserve personnel) among personnel holding this position. Our survey design included the aforementioned job variance in the per-sonnel selected to participate in the survey. Competency areas that are HRC-specific and that may not be easily mastered outside the HRC environment, such as HRC knowledge and job details, have proficiency requirements at the experience level or higher. In contrast, while inter-active management, decision making, and interpersonal leadership have similar proficiency requirements, the skills and knowledge in these areas are more amenable to acquisition through education and training out-side the HRC environment. Next, we turn to another critical position: Line Level Personnel Clerical and Assistant, 0203.

Figure A.3 Line-Level Personnel Management, 0201

75th percentileMedian25th percentile

Army knowledge

Job details

HRC knowledge

Decision making

AR/ARNG readiness and deployment

Professional development budget

Workforcemanagement

Interactive management

Organizational leadership

Interpersonal leadership

Enlisted matters

Officer/warrantofficer matters

Information systems

Manning

5

4

3

2

1

0

0 54321NA Exposure Experience Expertise

Proficiency levels

RAND MG828-A.3

Personnel Competency Modeling 115

There were 15 complete and two partial responses for this posi-tion. As in the previous position, variability in reported proficiency levels may be due to differences in job responsibilities. In general, there were few key differences between reported proficiencies for this and the previous position. The most notable difference is the lower level of proficiency (experience) in HRC knowledge, interactive management, and decision making competency areas assessed for this position, while a higher level of proficiency (expertise) is assessed for the interpersonal leadership competency area. We turn next to Line-Level Miscellaneous Administrative and Programs, 0301.

Nine responses are represented in Figure A.5. Eight respondents completed all sections of the survey and one respondent partially com-pleted one or more survey sections. Responses in the enlisted mat-ters and officer/warrant officer matters competency areas reflect less emphasis on HRC-specific proficiency in these positions than in the

Figure A.4 Line-Level Personnel Clerical and Assistant, 0203

75th percentileMedian25th percentile

Army knowledge

Job details

HRC knowledge

Decision making

AR/ARNG readiness and deployment

Professional development budget

Workforcemanagement

Interactive management

Organizational leadership

Interpersonal leadership

Enlisted matters

Officer/warrantofficer matters

Information systems

Manning

5

4

3

2

1

0

0 54321NA Exposure Experience Expertise

Proficiency levels

RAND MG828-A.4

116 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

other line-level positions highlighted here. They are otherwise generally consistent with the proficiency levels reported by respondents for other competency areas for these line-level positions. Five line-level respon-dents completed all survey sections. Another nine respondents either did not respond or did not complete 75 percent of one or more survey sections. Overall, compared with the other line-level positions exam-ined here, there is relatively low emphasis on proficiency in HRC func-tional areas (e.g., AR/ARNG readiness and deployment, manning, officer/warrant officer, and enlisted matters).

Turning now to Information Technology positions, presurvey interviews with PERSINSD leaders indicated that the information technology mission relies heavily on being able to listen to informa-tion system requirements, translate these requirements into system solutions, and the subsequent management of activities associated with delivery of information system services and solutions.

Figure A.5 Line-Level Miscellaneous Administrative and Programs, 0301

Army knowledge

Job details

HRC knowledge

Decision making

AR/ARNG readiness and deployment

Professional development budget

Workforcemanagement

Interactive management

Organizational leadership

Interpersonal leadership

Enlisted matters

Officer/warrantofficer matters

Information systems

Manning

5

4

3

2

1

0

0 54321NA Exposure Experience Expertise

Proficiency levels75th percentileMedian25th percentile

RAND MG828-A.5

Personnel Competency Modeling 117

Figure A.6 shows that interactive management, workforce man-agement, and decision making are all rated on the high end of the proficiency scale for this position. Interpersonal and organizational leadership competency areas are likewise rated in the high end of the proficiency scale. This suggests that education and training for infor-mation systems personnel should not be limited only to information systems skills, to the detriment of the associated management and lead-ership skills required for them to be effective in their positions.

Senior Level

Table A.9 lists the distinct senior-level positions held by persons asked to participate in the survey. The following jobs have no competency graph or analysis due to “not begun,” “not returned,” or “partial” status: Traffic Management, 2130; Human Resource Officer, 42B; Operations Research/Systems Analysis, 49A; Patient Administration, 70E; Health

Figure A.6 Line-Level Information Technology, 2210

75th percentileMedian25th percentile

Army knowledge

Job details

HRC knowledge

Decision making

AR/ARNG readiness and deployment

Professional development budget

Workforcemanagement

Interactive management

Organizational leadership

Interpersonal leadership

Enlisted matters

Officer/warrantofficer matters

Information systems

Manning

5

4

3

2

1

0

RAND MG828-A.6

0 54321NA Exposure Experience Expertise

Proficiency levels

118 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Table A.9 Senior-Level Survey Counts

Position

All

NB

NR

Partial

Grand Total

0101, Social Science 1 1 2

01A, officer Generalist 1 1

0201, Personnel Management 11 5 1 1 18

02A, Combat Arms Generalist 2 2

0301, Misc. Administrative and Programs 8 1 1 10

0340, Program Management 1 1

0343, Management Analyst 4 4

1515, operations Research 3 3

15B, Aviation Combined Arms operations 1 1

1740, education Services 1 1

2130, traffic Management 1 1

2210, Information technology 13 22 3 7 45

420A, Human Resource technician 2 2

42A, Human Resource Specialist 3 3 6

42B, Human Resource officer 1 1 2

49A, operations Research/Systems Analysis 1 1

66H, Medical-Surgical nurse 1 1

70e, Patient Administration 1 1

70f, Health Service Administration 1 1

70H, Health Services Plans 1 1

91w, Medical worker 1 1

Branch Chief 45 16 2 4 67

Branch SGM 3 1 4

DCSPAL 1 1

DCSRM 1 1

Deputy Director 2 2 4

Deputy Division Chief 10 1 11

Director 6 1 7

Directorate SGM 1 1

Division Chief 23 5 1 3 32

Division SGM 1 1

executive officer 1 1

Personnel Competency Modeling 119

Table A.9 (continued)

Position

All

NB

NR

Partial

Grand Total

IG 1 1

office Chief 1 1 2

operations nCoIC 1 1

oPMS tf Chief 1 1

PAo 1 1

SJA 2 2

team Chief 3 3 1 7

Grand total 154 63 12 21 250

Service Administration, 70F; Division Sergeant Major (no position code); Executive Officer (no position code); Operations Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge (no position code); and Officer Personnel Manage-ment System Task Force Chief (no position code).

Of the four key positions identified in the OneKnox analysis, three are represented at the senior level: Personnel Management, 0201; Miscellaneous Administrative and Programs, 0301; and Information Technology, 2210. There were 12 responses for Personnel Manage-ment, 0201 at the senior level that could be processed for results and analysis; eight for Miscellaneous Administrative and Programs, 0301; and 20 for Information Technology, 2210.

120 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Figure A.7 Senior-Level Personnel Management, 0201

75th percentileMedian25th percentile

Army knowledge

Job details

HRC knowledge

Decision making

AR/ARNG readiness and deployment

Professional development budget

Workforcemanagement

Interactive management

Organizational leadership

Interpersonal leadership

Enlisted matters

Officer/warrantofficer matters

Information systems

Manning

5

4

3

2

1

0

0 54321NA Exposure Experience Expertise

Proficiency levels

RAND MG828-A.7

In general, proficiency requirements at the senior level for Person-nel Management, 0201 were the same or one index higher than those for positions at the line level—as would be expected. There is no other significant difference or variation.

Personnel Competency Modeling 121

Figure A.8 Senior-Level Miscellaneous Administrative and Programs, 0301

75th percentileMedian25th percentile

Army knowledge

Job details

HRC knowledge

Decision making

AR/ARNG readiness and deployment

Professional development budget

Workforcemanagement

Interactive management

Organizational leadership

Interpersonal leadership

Enlisted matters

Officer/warrantofficer matters

Information systems

Manning

5

4

3

2

1

0

0 54321NA Exposure Experience Expertise

Proficiency levels

RAND MG828-A.8

Most proficiency requirements for positions at the senior level for Miscellaneous Administrative and Programs, 0301 were reported as one index higher (experience or expertise level) than those for the line level. Exceptions are competency areas in AR/ARNG readiness and deployment, professional development budget, decision making, and officer/warrant officer matters, which were rated at the same profi-ciency level as for positions at the line level.

122 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Figure A.9 Senior-Level Information Technology, 2210

75th percentileMedian25th percentile

Army knowledge

Job details

HRC knowledge

Decision making

AR/ARNG readiness and deployment

Professional development budget

Workforcemanagement

Interactive management

Organizational leadership

Interpersonal leadership

Enlisted matters

Officer/warrantofficer matters

Information systems

Manning

5

4

3

2

1

0

0 54321NA Exposure Experience Expertise

Proficiency levels

RAND MG828-A.9

Like the two preceding positions, senior-level proficiency require-ments for Information Technology, 2210 were, with few exceptions, very similar to line-level proficiency requirements. Exceptions are in competency areas in Army knowledge, AR/ARNG readiness and deployment, professional development budget, and decision making, in which the proficiency level reported for the line level is one index higher than for the senior level. Nevertheless, these levels are all within the reported senior- and line-level interquartile ranges.

For other senior-level positions surveyed, in general, proficiency requirements in the interactive management and decision-making competency areas are at the high experience or expertise levels. Inter-personal leadership and organizational leadership competency areas are also generally rated at the high experience or expertise proficiency levels. Since these competency areas do not require HRC-specific train-ing or experience, education and training outside HRC can be tapped to build knowledge, skills, and abilities in these competency areas.

Personnel Competency Modeling 123

Overall, professional development budget was rated as needing exposure-level proficiency. It is not clear whether survey participants were involved in processes associated with professional development budgeting. This low rating may be a reflection of most respondents not performing these processes on a regular basis. This contrasts with job details and HRC knowledge, which were often rated as needing high levels of experience or expertise. Slightly surprising, though, is that Army knowledge was usually rated as needing a lower level of profi-ciency than the competency areas of job details and HRC knowledge.

Competency areas in AR/ARNG readiness and deployment, manning, officer/warrant officer matters, and enlisted matters showed varied responses. The survey design did account for personnel in posi-tions by the type of personnel (officer or enlisted) or the component (active or reserve) in which they serve. Still, care should be exercised in interpreting results of competency areas and proficiency levels shown in competency models, as variability in responses may render standard-ized training approaches (deemed as applicable to all such positions) too broad.

Finally, information systems showed a wide variability in pro-ficiency requirements across positions. The size of the interquartile range for this competency area is large compared to that of most other competency areas. This may reflect the varying utilization of informa-tion systems across positions. It may also reflect uncertainty about the information systems environment in current and future HRC activi-ties, in particular with the impending arrival of the Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System (DIMHRS).

On the next several pages are competency diagrams for senior-level positions for which data were complete enough for processing.7

7 To protect the anonymity of respondents and in respect of the confidentiality of informa-tion received, competency diagrams for HRC positions that have only one incumbent are not shown here. This includes all executive-level positions and a few senior-level positions.

124 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Figure A.10 Senior-Level Combat Arms Generalist, O2A

Median

Army knowledge

Job details

HRC knowledge

Decision making

AR/ARNG readiness and deployment

Professional development budget

Workforcemanagement

Interactive management

Organizational leadership

Interpersonal leadership

Enlisted matters

Officer/warrantofficer matters

Information systems

Manning

5

4

3

2

1

0

0 54321NA Exposure Experience Expertise

Proficiency levels

NOTE: Number of responses coded: 2. Only median proficiency-level assessments are shown with this model for privacy reasons.RAND MG828-A.10

Personnel Competency Modeling 125

Figure A.11 Senior-Level Management Analyst, 0343

Median

Army knowledge

Job details

HRC knowledge

Decision making

AR/ARNG readiness and deployment

Professional development budget

Workforcemanagement

Interactive management

Organizational leadership

Interpersonal leadership

Enlisted matters

Officer/warrantofficer matters

Information systems

Manning

5

4

3

2

1

0

0 54321NA Exposure Experience Expertise

Proficiency levels

NOTE: Number of responses coded: 4. Only median proficiency-level assessments are shown with this model for privacy reasons.RAND MG828-A.11

126 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Figure A.12 Senior-Level Operations Research, 1515

Median

Army knowledge

Job details

HRC knowledge

Decision making

AR/ARNG readiness and deployment

Professional development budget

Workforcemanagement

Interactive management

Organizational leadership

Interpersonal leadership

Enlisted matters

Officer/warrantofficer matters

Information systems

Manning

5

4

3

2

1

0

0 54321NA Exposure Experience Expertise

Proficiency levels

NOTE: Number of responses coded: 3. Only median proficiency-level assessments are shown with this model for privacy reasons.RAND MG828-A.12

Personnel Competency Modeling 127

Figure A.13 Senior-Level Human Resource Technician, 420A

Median

Army knowledge

Job details

HRC knowledge

Decision making

AR/ARNG readiness and deployment

Professional development budget

Workforcemanagement

Interactive management

Organizational leadership

Interpersonal leadership

Enlisted matters

Officer/warrantofficer matters

Information systems

Manning

54

3

2

1

0

0 54321NA Exposure Experience Expertise

Proficiency levels

NOTE: Number of responses coded: 3. Only median proficiency-level assessments are shown with this model for privacy reasons.RAND MG828-A.13

128 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Figure A.14 Senior-Level Human Resource Specialist, 42A

75th percentileMedian25th percentile

Army knowledge

Job details

HRC knowledge

Decision making

AR/ARNG readiness and deployment

Professional development budget

Workforcemanagement

Interactive management

Organizational leadership

Interpersonal leadership

Enlisted matters

Officer/warrantofficer matters

Information systems

Manning

5

4

3

2

1

0

0 54321NA Exposure Experience Expertise

Proficiency levels

NOTE: Number of responses coded: 3.RAND MG828-A.14

Personnel Competency Modeling 129

Figure A.15 Senior-Level Branch Chief (No Position Code)

75th percentileMedian25th percentile

Army knowledge

Job details

HRC knowledge

Decision making

AR/ARNG readiness and deployment

Professional development budget

Workforcemanagement

Interactive management

Organizational leadership

Interpersonal leadership

Enlisted matters

Officer/warrantofficer matters

Information systems

Manning

5

4

3

2

1

0

0 54321NA Exposure Experience Expertise

Proficiency levels

NOTE: Number of responses coded: 45.RAND MG828-A.15

130 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Figure A.16 Senior-Level Branch Sergeant Major (No Position Code)

75th percentileMedian25th percentile

Army knowledge

Job details

HRC knowledge

Decision making

AR/ARNG readiness and deployment

Professional development budget

Workforcemanagement

Interactive management

Organizational leadership

Interpersonal leadership

Enlisted matters

Officer/warrantofficer matters

Information systems

Manning

5

4

3

2

1

0

0 54321NA Exposure Experience Expertise

Proficiency levels

NOTE: Number of responses coded: 3.RAND MG828-A.16

Personnel Competency Modeling 131

Figure A.17 Senior-Level Deputy Director (No Position Code)

75th percentileMedian25th percentile

Army knowledge

Job details

HRC knowledge

Decision making

AR/ARNG readiness and deployment

Professional development budget

Workforcemanagement

Interactive management

Organizational leadership

Interpersonal leadership

Enlisted matters

Officer/warrantofficer matters

Information systems

Manning

5

4

3

2

1

0

0 54321NA Exposure Experience Expertise

Proficiency levels

NOTE: Number of responses coded: 2.RAND MG828-A.17

132 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Figure A.18 Senior-Level Deputy Division Chief (No Position Code)

75th percentileMedian25th percentile

Army knowledge

Job details

HRC knowledge

Decision making

AR/ARNG readiness and deployment

Professional development budget

Workforcemanagement

Interactive management

Organizational leadership

Interpersonal leadership

Enlisted matters

Officer/warrantofficer matters

Information systems

Manning

5

4

3

2

1

0

0 54321NA Exposure Experience Expertise

Proficiency levels

NOTE: Number of responses coded: 10.RAND MG828-A.18

Personnel Competency Modeling 133

Figure A.19 Senior-Level Director (No Position Code)

75th percentileMedian25th percentile

Army knowledge

Job details

HRC knowledge

Decision making

AR/ARNG readiness and deployment

Professional development budget

Workforcemanagement

Interactive management

Organizational leadership

Interpersonal leadership

Enlisted matters

Officer/warrantofficer matters

Information systems

Manning

5

4

3

2

1

0

0 54321NA Exposure Experience Expertise

Proficiency levels

NOTE: Number of responses coded: 6.RAND MG828-A.19

134 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Figure A.20 Senior-Level Division Chief (No Position Code)

75th percentileMedian25th percentile

Army knowledge

Job details

HRC knowledge

Decision making

AR/ARNG readiness and deployment

Professional development budget

Workforcemanagement

Interactive management

Organizational leadership

Interpersonal leadership

Enlisted matters

Officer/warrantofficer matters

Information systems

Manning

5

4

3

2

1

0

0 54321NA Exposure Experience Expertise

Proficiency levels

NOTE: Number of responses coded: 23.RAND MG828-A.20

Personnel Competency Modeling 135

Figure A.21 Senior-Level Staff Judge Advocate (No Position Code)

Median

Army knowledge

Job details

HRC knowledge

Decision making

AR/ARNG readiness and deployment

Professional development budget

Workforcemanagement

Interactive management

Organizational leadership

Interpersonal leadership

Enlisted matters

Officer/warrantofficer matters

Information systems

Manning

5

4

3

2

1

0

0 54321NA Exposure Experience Expertise

Proficiency levels

NOTE: Number of responses coded: 2. Only median proficiency-level assessments are shown with this model for privacy reasons.RAND MG828-A.21

136 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Figure A.22 Senior-Level Team Chief (No Position Code)

75th percentileMedian25th percentile

Army knowledge

Job details

HRC knowledge

Decision making

AR/ARNG readiness and deployment

Professional development budget

Workforcemanagement

Interactive management

Organizational leadership

Interpersonal leadership

Enlisted matters

Officer/warrantofficer matters

Information systems

Manning

5

4

3

2

1

0

0 54321NA Exposure Experience Expertise

Proficiency levels

NOTE: Number of responses coded: 4.RAND MG828-A.22

Personnel Competency Modeling 137

Executive Level

Since the number of executive-level positions at HRC was far lower than at the senior and line levels, all incumbents were invited to par-ticipate in the online survey. Table A.10 lists the distinct executive-level positions in the group. In the case of executive-level management, it was essential to retain association between a position title (e.g., Chief of Staff) and the HRC organization in which the position is held (e.g., HRC, Alexandria). Of the executive-level positions surveyed, we are unable to produce results and analysis for four of them, because incum-bents for these positions did not complete the minimum 75 percent of at least one section in the survey.

Table A.10 Executive-Level Survey Counts

Position

Directorate

All

NB

Partial

Grand Total

Chief of Staff CMD, ALex 1 1

CMD, StL 1 1

Commander CMD, ALex 1 1

CMD, StL 1 1

Deputy Director ePMD 1 1

oPMD 1 1

PeRSInSD 1 1

tAGD 1 1

Deputy Division Chief DCSoPS, ALex 1 1

Director ePMD 1 1

oPMD 1 1

PeRSInSD 1 1

tAGD 1 1

Division Chief DCSoPS, ALex 1 1

ePMD 1 1

ePMD SGM ePMD 1 1

HRC CSM CMD, ALex 1 1

StL CSM CMD, StL 1 1

Strategic tech Director PeRSInSD 1 1

Grand total 15 2 2 19

138 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Because the majority of executive-level positions are unique—that is, they have only one incumbent—we could not report results and analysis in this report in the interest of respecting anonymity and protecting the confidentiality of information received. We offer here instead an overall summary of results and analysis, highlighting partic-ular features or characteristics of note regarding positions at this level of the HRC organization.

The proficiency requirements of positions at the executive level were generally self-assessed at high experience or expertise for all rele-vant competency areas. The primary differences between job proficiency requirements may be attributable to differing component management emphases, i.e., between HRC operations in Alexandria, Virginia and in St. Louis, Missouri. The former has many positions that manage active officer and enlisted personnel only; the latter, only AR and some ARNG personnel.

Across the board, the professional development budget compe-tency area was assessed as requiring only exposure or minimal experi-ence for positions that did not directly manage one of the professional budget processes (active component officer or enlisted, AR officer or enlisted, ARNG officer or enlisted, and civilian). This assessment by participants may be attributable to the possibility that executive-level personnel are not directly involved in professional development bud-geting processes.

There was also little variability in participants’ responses to ques-tions in several survey competency areas, including information sys-tems and interpersonal leadership. This lack of variability may be due to the possibility that regardless of job functions or day-to-day respon-sibilities, a similarly high level of proficiency is deemed necessary to support work, across positions. Where significant variability exists, it shows up in responses to specific questions within a competency area that are job- or responsibility-specific. For example, all respondents involved in EPMD placed low emphasis on proficiency requirements associated with competency areas in AR and ARNG readiness and deployment.

Responses from executive-level personnel in PERSINSD, like those at the line and senior levels, emphasized proficiency in competency areas

Personnel Competency Modeling 139

that enable information support to other HRC organizational entities over those tied to specific functional aspects of HRC activities. What stood out, however, was the lower reported proficiency requirement for enlisted matters, officer/warrant officer matters, AR/ARNG readiness and deployment, and manning—the functional aspects of HRC activ-ities—among some executive-level participants in PERSINSD as com-pared with their line- and senior-level counterparts.

141

APPenDIx B

Personnel Competency Survey

Three versions of the online survey were developed in accordance with our organizing scheme (of three levels) for analysis: line, senior, and executive. A single master version was first developed (detailed in Appendix A), which served as a basis to build modified versions for each level, with emphasis on creating questions or items relevant to respon-dents. Variations across the three versions were generally minor. Hence, in the interest of brevity, we show here a portable document format (PDF) copy of the executive-level online survey. An introduction to the survey (and a practice page for respondents) is not shown. Respondents were asked to type the value of the proficiency level associated with competencies into the boxes shown, and to check “NA” (not applicable) if a competency did not go with their particular position.

There were two options for restructuring HRC at the time of the survey. The first would merge Army Reserve and Army National Guard officer and enlisted life-cycle management functions into the currently existing (officer and enlisted) personnel management directorates at HRC. The second would fully merge officer, enlisted, and active and reserve personnel life-cycle management into a single new unit. Line- and senior-level personnel were not asked to assess competencies and associated proficiency levels required for these two restructuring options because we were advised by HRC that few would have sufficient under-standing of these options to make robust determinations. In summer 2008, HRC chose the first option as its course of action.

142 Sup

po

rting

the U

.S. Arm

y HR

C’s H

um

an C

apital Strateg

ic Plann

ing

Person

nel C

om

peten

cy Survey 143

144 Su

pp

ortin

g th

e U.S. A

rmy H

RC

’s Hu

man

Cap

ital Strategic Plan

nin

g

Person

nel C

om

peten

cy Survey 145

146 Sup

po

rting

the U

.S. Arm

y HR

C’s H

um

an C

apital Strateg

ic Plann

ing

Person

nel C

om

peten

cy Survey 147

148 Su

pp

ortin

g th

e U.S. A

rmy H

RC

’s Hu

man

Cap

ital Strategic Plan

nin

g

Person

nel C

om

peten

cy Survey 149

150 Sup

po

rting

the U

.S. Arm

y HR

C’s H

um

an C

apital Strateg

ic Plann

ing

Person

nel C

om

peten

cy Survey 151

152 Sup

po

rting

the U

.S. Arm

y HR

C’s H

um

an C

apital Strateg

ic Plann

ing

Person

nel C

om

peten

cy Survey 153

154 Sup

po

rting

the U

.S. Arm

y HR

C’s H

um

an C

apital Strateg

ic Plann

ing

Person

nel C

om

peten

cy Survey 155

156 Sup

po

rting

the U

.S. Arm

y HR

C’s H

um

an C

apital Strateg

ic Plann

ing

Person

nel C

om

peten

cy Survey 157

158 Sup

po

rting

the U

.S. Arm

y HR

C’s H

um

an C

apital Strateg

ic Plann

ing

Person

nel C

om

peten

cy Survey 159

160 Sup

po

rting

the U

.S. Arm

y HR

C’s H

um

an C

apital Strateg

ic Plann

ing

Person

nel C

om

peten

cy Survey 161

162 Sup

po

rting

the U

.S. Arm

y HR

C’s H

um

an C

apital Strateg

ic Plann

ing

Person

nel C

om

peten

cy Survey 163

164 Su

pp

ortin

g th

e U.S. A

rmy H

RC

’s Hu

man

Cap

ital Strategic Plan

nin

g

Person

nel C

om

peten

cy Survey 165

166 Sup

po

rting

the U

.S. Arm

y HR

C’s H

um

an C

apital Strateg

ic Plann

ing

Person

nel C

om

peten

cy Survey 167

168 Sup

po

rting

the U

.S. Arm

y HR

C’s H

um

an C

apital Strateg

ic Plann

ing

Person

nel C

om

peten

cy Survey 169

170 Sup

po

rting

the U

.S. Arm

y HR

C’s H

um

an C

apital Strateg

ic Plann

ing

Person

nel C

om

peten

cy Survey 171

172 Sup

po

rting

the U

.S. Arm

y HR

C’s H

um

an C

apital Strateg

ic Plann

ing

Person

nel C

om

peten

cy Survey 173

174 Sup

po

rting

the U

.S. Arm

y HR

C’s H

um

an C

apital Strateg

ic Plann

ing

Person

nel C

om

peten

cy Survey 175

176 Sup

po

rting

the U

.S. Arm

y HR

C’s H

um

an C

apital Strateg

ic Plann

ing

Person

nel C

om

peten

cy Survey 177

178 Sup

po

rting

the U

.S. Arm

y HR

C’s H

um

an C

apital Strateg

ic Plann

ing

Person

nel C

om

peten

cy Survey 179

180 Sup

po

rting

the U

.S. Arm

y HR

C’s H

um

an C

apital Strateg

ic Plann

ing

Person

nel C

om

peten

cy Survey 181

182 Sup

po

rting

the U

.S. Arm

y HR

C’s H

um

an C

apital Strateg

ic Plann

ing

Person

nel C

om

peten

cy Survey 183

184 Su

pp

ortin

g th

e U.S. A

rmy H

RC

’s Hu

man

Cap

ital Strategic Plan

nin

g

Person

nel C

om

peten

cy Survey 185

186 Sup

po

rting

the U

.S. Arm

y HR

C’s H

um

an C

apital Strateg

ic Plann

ing

Person

nel C

om

peten

cy Survey 187

188 Sup

po

rting

the U

.S. Arm

y HR

C’s H

um

an C

apital Strateg

ic Plann

ing

Person

nel C

om

peten

cy Survey 189

190 Sup

po

rting

the U

.S. Arm

y HR

C’s H

um

an C

apital Strateg

ic Plann

ing

Person

nel C

om

peten

cy Survey 191

192 Sup

po

rting

the U

.S. Arm

y HR

C’s H

um

an C

apital Strateg

ic Plann

ing

Person

nel C

om

peten

cy Survey 193

195

References

Burack, Elmer, Creative Human Resource Planning and Applications: A Strategic Approach, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1988.

Chester, Eric, Employing Generation Y, Vacaville, CA: Chess Press, 2002.

Conley, Raymond, and Ralph Masi, “Joint Serving General and Flag Officer Competencies,” unpublished manuscript, Santa Monica CA: RAND Corporation, 2006.

Cronbach, L. J., “Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests,” Psychometrika, Vol. 16, 1951.

Emmerichs, Robert M., Cheryl Y. Marcum, and Albert A. Robbert, Workforce Planning in Complex Organizations, Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, RB-7570-OSD, 2004. http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB7570/

Hite, Brittany, “Feeding Generation Y,” The Wall Street Journal, October 13, 2008.

Howe, Neil, and William Strauss, Millenials Rising: The Next Great Generation, New York: Vintage, 2000.

“Increased Numbers Forecast as BRAC Efforts Intensify,” The Meade County Messenger (Kentucky), July 9, 2008.

Interview with Geek Squad City executive, December 18, 2007.

Interview with HRC and CPAC officials, summer and fall 2007.

Interview with human resource manager for UPS, Louisville, Kentucky, December 19, 2007.

Interview with KCTCS, Jefferson County and Elizabethtown Community and Technical College executives, December 2007 and January 2008.

Interview with Toyota executives, Georgetown, Kentucky, February 7–8, 2008.

196 Supporting the U.S. Army HRC’s Human Capital Strategic Planning

Knight, Peter T., and Moore Knight, “The Half-Life of Knowledge and Structural Reform of the Education Sector for the Global Knowledge-Based Economy,” 1997. As of February 27, 2009: http://www.knight-moore.com/pubs/halflife.html

The Knowledge Management Yearbook, 1999–2000, Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann Press, 1999.

Kolence, Kenneth W., and Philip J. Kiviat, “Software Unit Profiles and Kiviat Figures,” ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, Vol. 2, No. 3, September 1973.

LaRocca, Maggie, “Career and Competency Pathing: The Competency Modeling Approach,” web page, undated. As of July 28, 2008: http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/ARossett/pie/Interventions/career_1.htm

Lucia, Antoinette D., and Richard Lepsinger, The Art and Science of Competency Models: Pinpointing Critical Success Factors in Organizations, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, 1999.

Martin, Carolyn, Managing Gen Y, Amherst, MA: HRD Press, 2001.

McClelland, David C., “Testing for Competence Rather Than for ‘Intelligence,’” American Psychologist, Vol. 28, 1973.

Mercurio, Nancy, “The Link Between Training and Outcome,” The Canadian Manager, Fall 2006.

Murphy, Kevin R., and Jeannette Cleveland, Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social, Organizational, and Goal-Based Perspectives, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1995.

Smith, Shawn A., and Rebecca A. Mazin, The HR Answer Book: An Indispensable Guide for Managers and Human Resource Professionals, New York: American Management Association, 2004

Spencer, Lyle, and Signe M. Spencer, Competence at Work: Models for Superior Performance, Canada: John Wiley & Sons, 1993.

U.S. Bureau of Census, “State and County Quick Facts.” As of October 6, 2008: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/21000.html

U.S. Department of the Army, Field Manual 7-0, Training the Force, Washington, D.C., October 22, 2002. As of July 28, 2008: http://www.army.mil/features/FM7/FM%207-0.PDF

U.S. Department of the Army, Field Manual 7-1, Battle Focused Training, Washington, D.C., September 15, 2003. As of July 28, 2008: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/7-1/fm7-1.pdf

U.S. Department of the Army, “Fort Knox.” As of October 6, 2008: http://www.knox.army.mil

References 197

U.S. Department of Defense, “Base Closure and Realignment Report,” Vol. 1, May 2005. As of July 28, 2008: http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/vol_I_parts_1_and_2.html

U.S. Department of Defense, Civilian Human Strategy Capital Strategic Plan, Washington, D.C.: Pentagon, Spring 2006.

U.S. Department of Defense, Guidelines for DoD SHC Plans, Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense Human Capital Strategy Office, January 9, 2007.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Strategic Human Resource Management: Aligning with the Mission, Washington, D.C., 1999. As of July 28, 2008: http://www.opm.gov/studies/alignnet.pdf

Vernez, Georges, Albert A. Robbert, Hugh G. Massey, and Kevin Driscoll, Workforce Planning and Development Processes: A Practical Guide, Santa Monica CA: RAND Corporation, TR-408-AF, 2007. http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR408/

Wood, Robert, and Tim Payne, Competency-Based Recruitment and Selection, West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, 1998.

Workforce Associates, Inc., and Thomas P. Miller Associates, Inc., The Fort Knox BRAC Process: A Summary of Research Findings of the Workforce Project, June 21, 2007.