Introduction/Background
|
Contractor |
DOE Office |
|
|
The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center is the lead Department of Energy (DOE) laboratory for electron-based high energy physics. It is dedicated to research in elementary particle physics, accelerator physics and in allied fields that can make use of its synchrotron radiation facilities—including biology, chemistry, geology, materials science and environmental engineering. Operated on behalf of the DOE by Stanford University, SLAC is a national user facility serving universities, industry and other research institutions throughout the world. Its mission can be summarized as follows:
The Human Resources Department at SLAC enables the scientific and educational mission of the Laboratory by guiding human resource matters with creativity and integrity. We provide a full range of human resource services to the organization and all of its employees. We are responsible for administering Stanford University Human Resources Policies within the SLAC environment and for assuring compliance with the Personnel appendix of our contract with the Department of Energy. The Department includes 20 (full-time equivalent) employees in ten functional areas, including Employment, Benefits, Labor Relations, Employee Relations, Workers’ Compensation, Personnel Records, Training & Development, International Services, Housing, and Compensation. (See the SLAC Human Resources organizational chart in Appendix A.) This assessment provides information on the provision of those services based on three Performance Criteria mutually agreed upon by SLAC and DOE.
Lisa Mongetta, Manager, Employment
Carmella Huser, Manager, Employee Relations and Training
Karen Lawrence, Manager, Compensation
Lee Lyon, Director, Human Resources
Process Overview
Performance Objective: 1.0 Customer Needs
Human Resources management will monitor employee/customer feedback in order to ensure high quality service to its employees.
Performance Criteria: 1.1
The requirements, expectations, and preferences of customers are collected and addressed.
Performance Measure: 1.1.a (Weight: 32%)
Based on the analysis of survey data, the Human Resources Department will establish action plans to improve those areas that do not meet customer expectations.
In order to assess customer needs and satisfaction with the Human Resources Department, we randomly selected 500 SLAC staff with e-mail access. They were asked to respond to the following questions:
On each one of these three questions responding staff were asked to rate the Department on a 1-5 scale with 1 being outstanding and 5 being unsatisfactory.
In addition, all respondees were also asked to give their written comments to the following two questions:
These questionnaires were distributed and collected by a non-Human Resources Department staff member who specializes in such matters. He gathered the data, collated it, and presented anonymous numeric results along with the written responses to the questions to Human Resources Department management.
Results from our customer satisfaction survey were received from 68 (14%) of our random sampling of 500 SLAC employees. The quantitative results of this survey are displayed in Table 1. Results indicate that over 70% of our employees consider Human Resources’ staff to be doing an outstanding or good job in the performance of their duties. Less than 10% consider the Human Resources Department’s performance to be unsatisfactory – and we surmise that these comments are primarily from staff that either had some Employee Relations’ situation during the past year or difficulties as an international visitor due to the increased rigor now being applied in the evaluation of all international visitors. The mean rating across the three questions was slightly higher this year than last, but is still an improvement over previous years. As a point of comparison, the overall average for Human Resources Department performance was 2.2 in 1999; 2.5 in 2000; 2.2 in 2001; 1.9 in 2002; and 2.0 this year.
This small reduction in our rating is more likely due to the anomalies of sampling than a change in the performance by Human Resources’ staff. On the other hand, there were numerous events during this measurement period that could have influenced employee attitudes towards Human Resources; these influences include forced vacation, 4 mandatory days of leave without pay for all staff, and no salary increase for FY 2004. All these measures were taken in light of a constrained budget and our desire not to have the involuntary layoff of staff. In addition, international visitors to SLAC and those wishing to become permanent residents encountered numerous regulatory delays in their attempts to process relevant paperwork. This has resulted in a significant number of unhappy international visitors at the laboratory.
The quantitative data is supplemented by narrative comments made by responding survey participants. In general, the Human Resources’ staff was very positively acknowledged for their technical knowledge, their respectful and courteous service, and their responsiveness to staff requests and problems. The service areas that received the most laudatory comments in the narrative section were Employment, Employee Relations and Training, Benefits, and International Services. Housing, Compensation, and International Services simply did not receive many comments in the narrative section of our survey, but those that were received were primarily positive.
Just as Employee Relations and Training was the focus of numerous positive comments, they were also the focus of some of the comments suggesting need for some improvements. Most of these related to the Lab’s implementation of a new performance evaluation during this last year (see performance objective 2.0 on page 7); this represented the first change to this form and process in approximately 12 years, so many staff are still adapting and reacting to the change. We will continue to evaluate the implementation and certainly will make some changes to the performance evaluation form and process for this coming year. The other areas of improvement relate primarily to the experiences of our international visitors. The dramatically increased regulations and scrutiny have resulted in delays in nearly all of the paperwork required by international visitors. Very little of this is due to the performance of our International Services staff, but as one would expect, they are the focus of some of our international visitors’ frustration.
In summary, SLAC staff perceive the Human Resources Department as performing extremely well. The areas suggested for improvement will be evaluated and steps taken to rectify issues when possible.
Table 1
|
RATING |
|||||||
| 1] Outstanding | 2] Good | 3] Acceptable | 4] Poor |
5] Unsatisfactory |
Mean |
SD |
|
| How well does Human Resources respond to your needs? |
20 (36%) |
24 (43%) |
6 (11%) |
1 (2%) |
5 (9%) |
2.05 |
1.16 |
| Are you treated respectfully and professionally by Human Resources staff? |
28 (51%) |
17 (31%) |
4 (7%) |
2 (4%) |
4 (7%) |
1.85 |
1.17 |
| Rate the overall Human Resources Department performance. |
16 (30%) |
25 (47%) |
7 (13%) |
1 (2%) |
4 (7%) |
2.09 |
1.09 |
Performance Gradient:
|
| Unsatisfactory - no customer survey data is collected. |
|
| Marginal - survey data is collected, but no action plans are developed to respond in needed areas. |
|
| Good – action plans are developed that are directly responsive to valid customer feedback or overall customer feedback is between 3 and 3.5 on a 5-point scale. |
|
| Excellent – action plans are implemented and measurable progress or action is taken or overall customer feedback is between 3.5 and 4.0. |
|
| Outstanding – improvements are achieved which directly respond to the survey data or overall customer feedback exceeds 4.0. |
Based on the above gradients Human Resources has earned an "Outstanding" rating in customer satisfaction, since our overall customer survey results are less than 2 (our scale was reversed but 2 is comparable to 4).
Performance Objective: 2.0 HR Systems and Processes (Weight 34%)
The Laboratory strives to provide efficient HR systems and processes.
Performance Criteria: 2.1
Human Resource systems and processes will optimize the delivery of services with respect to quality and efficiency.
Performance Assumptions:
The system or process reviewed will be characterized in one of three ways: (1) it currently provides optimal quality and efficiency, (2) it needs improvement and project will be initiated or (3) it needs improvement but it is considered not cost-beneficial to initiate a project. The Laboratory will identify the status of the system when first reviewed, will report baseline data at that time, and will report the results of either the improvement or the decision to leave the system as is.
Performance Measure: 2.1.a
The laboratory will evaluate HR systems and processes for improvements.
The Human Resources system selected for review during this self assessment period was the annual performance evaluation process. We concluded it needed improvement and formed a committee in 2002 to review the effectiveness of its performance evaluation instruments and process. Prior to 2003, SLAC had two performance evaluation instruments, one for bargaining unit employees and another for non-bargaining unit employees. (Appendix B and C). These forms had been in effect for approximately 10 years.
A committee was formed to review the performance evaluation process and forms consisting of the following people: five associate directors from each division of SLAC; 2 assistant associate directors; the Director of Human Resources; the Manager of Compensation; and the Manager of Employee Relations and Training. The committee discussed the pros and cons of having a formal performance evaluation process, the problems with the current forms and process, and the goals SLAC wanted to achieve by having a formal, annual performance evaluation process.
Although some supervisors were using the performance evaluation forms and process well, many evaluations were not a complete and/or accurate summary of the year’s performance. For example, these performance evaluation instruments had six ratings (outstanding, excellent, very good, satisfactory, marginal and unsatisfactory). In most divisions at SLAC, however, performance ratings were skewed to the "excellent" and "outstanding" categories, with little differentiation between truly excellent and outstanding performers and those employees whose performance was average or below. In addition, some supervisors were preparing and giving the performance evaluations to their employees without any employee input and sometimes without meeting with their employees to discuss the year’s work. These practices often resulted in both supervisors and employees believing that the process was perfunctory and not worthwhile or helpful in recognizing commendable performance or improving performance.
The review committee agreed that a formal performance evaluation process was useful in:
(1) setting performance expectations for employees; (2) giving feedback to employees on their performance; (3) reinforcing and recognizing positive performance; (4) correcting and/or improving inadequate performance or inappropriate behavior; and (5) documenting performance and/or behavior. The committee wanted a simplified form that would apply to both bargaining unit and non-bargaining unit employees. Some members of the committee wanted to retain an overall performance rating in order to provide a documented basis for salary decisions and to allow a statistical analysis of the performance results. Some committee members also expressed the desire to have a rating scale that operated on a continuum, rather than with a single, fixed rating such as "outstanding," "excellent," etc.
Process used to achieve objectives:
A subcommittee was established to review performance evaluations from other Stanford departments, selected industry, and other laboratories. After reviewing many performance evaluation instruments, the subcommittee prepared a draft of a new performance evaluation instrument and sent it to the full committee for review. Individual members of the full committee made suggestions for improving the draft evaluation instrument. These suggestions were incorporated into a new draft document. The newly revised document was then sent out to various department heads and both management and administrative supervisors for comment. The subcommittee considered the input from these various constituencies and revised the evaluation instrument. After several rounds of revisions, the subcommittee submitted the proposed performance evaluation instrument and the rationale for the new process to the full committee. After additional changes and discussion of objectives, a new process and form were approved. (Appendix D).
Changes in the new performance evaluation process and form:
The new performance evaluation process and form were intended to give SLAC a "fresh start" in the way supervisors looked at employee performance. To do that, the committee made two major changes in the performance evaluation form: (1) there was only one form for both bargaining unit and non-bargaining unit employees; and (2) there were significant changes in the way performance was to be measured.
Under the new process, supervisors were required to rate an employee’s performance in two areas: (1) job competencies, and (2) overall job performance.
Job Competencies
In the job competencies section, supervisors were asked to rate each employee individually based on the employee’s particular job description, job classification, number of years in the position, education and/or other skills or experience the employee brought to the job, resources to do the job and the employee’s past performance in the job. Three ratings were established: (1) Needs Improvement; (2) Meets Expectations; and (3) A Strength. Thus, an individual with an advanced degree related to the job and 5 years of experience was expected to perform at a higher level than someone with the same degree and no experience. The same criteria applied in the evaluations of supervisors/leads.
It was anticipated that most employees working at an acceptable level would be rated "M – Meets Expectations." Employees who had a deficiency in their performance or behavior or who needed to "grow" in a certain area in order to advance in their jobs would be rated "N- Needs Improvement." Employees who excelled in a certain aspect of their jobs would receive recognition for the strength and be rated "S – A Strength." It was anticipated that even high performing employees could need improvement in a particular area or that low performing employees could have a particular strength that deserved to be recognized.
Supervisors were advised that the ratings on the Job Competencies should not be treated like grades on a report card. They were advised that they should not substitute an "S" rating for what had formerly been "excellent" or "outstanding" ratings. Rather, they should recognize that most employees have some areas of strength or some areas in which they needed to grow or improve and that those areas should be noted as such.
Overall Performance
In the Overall Performance category, the performance evaluation instrument established a rating scale from "1" to "4." The numbers were placed on a ruler so that supervisors could rate their employees on a continuum rather than at one specific number. In this category, supervisors were to rate their employees’ overall performance in comparison with other employees in the same or similar jobs. Descriptions of the overall ratings were on the performance evaluation form to assist supervisors in determining how to rate an employee’s overall performance. Employees meeting their job expectations overall were expected to be rated at the "2" level. Employees with performance or behavioral problems were expected to be rated at less than "2." A "4" rating was to be reserved for only those employees who had an opportunity to and did make a major contribution to a work group, department or the Laboratory.
Other areas evaluated:
The new evaluation form also contained a Summary of Accomplishments and Progress on Goals, which was designed to recognize what the employee had accomplished during the performance year. This section gave the supervisor and employee the opportunity to look at the prior year’s goals and to determine what was accomplished and what still needed to be done. Another section of the new form called for employees and their supervisors to jointly establish goals for the following year. Finally, a section was provided for employee comments and for signatures of the employee and supervisor.
Training and Feedback
Fourteen training sessions were held to educate supervisors on the new process and the new evaluation form. Approximately 250 supervisors attended these two to four hour sessions. (Appendix E). In addition, a Question and Answer form was sent to all SLAC employees explaining the new process and forms. (Appendix F).
The training team welcomed input from supervisors regarding the new process and forms, and supervisors responded with both oral and written comments. Some comments on the form resulted in immediate changes being made. For example, supervisors commented that the "2" rating should be in the middle of the ruler, not to the left as it was originally located.
Some supervisors objected to the elimination of the "outstanding" and "excellent" categories, complaining either that all of their employees were excellent or outstanding or that these categories were needed to provide employee recognition. Some supervisors believed that it would be demoralizing to rate employees at SLAC as simply "meeting expectations." Some argued that a "2" overall rating would be viewed in the same way as getting a "C" on a report card.
Many of the initial complaints were brought to a meeting of the SLAC Directorate. The Directorate determined that supervisors should be given more leeway to rate their employees higher in the overall performance category, while still retaining a "4" rating for employees who had made significant contributions to their group, department or the Laboratory during the performance year.
Many supervisors and employees commented that the new process and evaluation forms were a step in the right direction toward achieving more accurate performance evaluations.
Next Step
A review committee will go through the performance evaluations to determine how well the objectives of the process were achieved. All suggestions for changes to the form and/or process will be considered. Changes will be implemented in the next performance evaluation cycle.
Performance Gradients:
|
|
Unsatisfactory: little or no effort has been demonstrated towards achievement of the performance measure. |
|
|
Marginal: some effort is demonstrated, but the results fall short of the expectations for "good" gradient. |
|
|
Good: one or two major systems or processes are identified for review, baseline data has been taken, and, if action is initiated, there is measurable progress toward improvement. |
|
|
Excellent: if action was initiated, analysis against baseline data for the system or process improvement shows clear improvement or the system is streamlined, enhanced or eliminated or baseline data and the review show the systems meet our expectations. |
|
|
Outstanding: in addition to the significant improvements in "excellent", the completion of the project is ahead of schedule and the expected results are achieved or analysis against baseline data indicates the systems are excellent. |
Based on these performance gradients, we rate our performance as "Excellent". We rate excellent rather than outstanding because we did get significant feedback that the new form and process need additional refinements.
Performance Objective: 3.0 Attraction and Retention of Qualified People
SLAC will attract and retain highly qualified people by having a cost effective total compensation program competitive with the relevant job market and by initiating methodologies to attract and recruit qualified candidates.
Performance Criteria: 3.1 Total Compensation (Weight 17%)
Total compensation is assessed for competitiveness of its tangible intangible elements.
Performance Assumptions:
SLAC will identify three significant positions from the various job families and benchmark these positions with our surrounding employment market. The benchmark positions will be compared to a small sample of the relevant market for total compensation that will include average salary, paid leave, holidays, health and welfare, education benefits, retirement, benefits, and other intangibles. The intangibles might include health promotion activities and classes, employee assistance program, availability of childcare, internal employee recognition aware programs.
Performance Measure: 3.1.a (Weight: 17%)
SLAC will compare the total compensation for its benchmark positions to those in the surrounding labor market.
In accordance with this performance measure, Compensation Office attempted to compare SLAC’s total compensation (salary plus benefits) with a sample of relevant competitors. Three benchmark positions were chosen because they represent a cross section of the Laboratory and are positions that SLAC competes for in the local market:
Administrative Associate (nonexempt, working level)
Applications Programmer (working level)
Senior Engineer
These three positions were surveyed at three local high-tech companies that are engineering and research oriented. We requested data for direct salary, all varieties of paid leave, education and training benefits, contributory retirement programs, and other benefits. We compared the averages of those areas that were quantifiable to SLAC data, and then attempted to quantify the overall results. This worked well for certain of the areas, but was difficult, if not impossible, for other areas.
Salary
These three positions were surveyed at three high technology local companies. Data was sought for direct salary, time off, education, retirement, and other benefits. Although we did review health plans last year, the data was very difficult to evaluate, so we elected not to include that in our comparison this year.
Even with a zero salary program at SLAC for FY04, the results of the salary comparison are still encouraging. Our ranges appear to be comparable. We are definitely in a solid mid-market salary position relative to these three competitors. On average we lead about 2% for the administrative associate, about 6% for the Applications Programmer. Senior Engineers are split – we lead 11% for Mechanical Engineers, but are about even (0.2%) for the Electrical Engineer. Averaging these numbers, we’re overall about 4.9% in a leading position. (One of the comparators is about to implement a 4 to 5% salary increase; if that were factored in, our overall average lead would drop to about 4%.) (See Appendix G)
Benefits
We found comparisons for employee assistance programs, health care, and employee recognition programs too unreliable to incorporate into our data. In general, other benefits are unchanged in areas of our comparisons this year.
Of those benefits that we can more reliably compare (See Appendix H), we found that, on average, SLAC has 13.3 more holiday and leave days per year than the other organizations. However, some organizations have these as PTO hours which can all be used or paid out; our 12 days of sick leave per year are ‘insurance’ that get paid out if they are not used, although it can accrue indefinitely for the future. We conclude we are about 5% more generous in the paid leave we grant.
SLAC also has a richer retirement program (6.7% higher), SLAC also has two strong benefits that appear to be unique – the child care subsidy (up to $5,000/year) and the dependent college tuition program (up to $13,602/year). These are valuable benefits for those that can use them; however, not all employees can take advantage of these specific benefits.
If SLAC only allows employees the University’s $5,250/year tuition benefit then we lag slightly in education assistance. However, on a case-by-case basis, SLAC supplements employee tuition up to 90% of the total annual tuition which makes us comparable in those cases.
It should also be noted that none of the surveyed organizations are providing profit-sharing payout this year, although the potential is there for about 8% of salary in years when their financial basis is more sound.
Performance Gradient:
|
|
Unsatisfactory – benchmark positions are not identified or are not compared to the market. |
|
|
Marginal – total compensation is not within 20% of the average market for the benchmarks. |
|
|
Good – total compensation is within 10% of the local market. |
|
|
Excellent – total compensation is within 5-10% of the local market. |
|
|
Outstanding – total compensation is within 5% of the local market. |
Based on those areas we could reliably compare, we concluded we are about 11.7% higher than our competitors. This merits a "Good" rating. Since this measure has proven very difficult to asses, we have negotiated a more meaningful measure for the 2004 assessment.
Performance Criteria: 3.2 Attraction and Recruitment Methodologies
HR maximizes the use of attraction/recruitment methodologies to meet critical hiring goals.
Performance Assumptions:
SLAC Employment Services will identify critical positions that are defined as those with a target hire date negotiated between Employment Services and the hiring officer.
Performance Measure: 3.2a (Weight: 17%)
SLAC Employment Services will utilize methodologies specifically designed to attract and recruit candidates for each critical position, to meet each target date.
Employment Services identified fifteen critical positions, filled between October 1, 2002 and September 30, 2003, to measure the actual time to hire against a target hire date. These position titles include: Administrative Associate, Mechanical and Civil Engineer, Physicist, Technician, and Software Developer among others.
As necessary, Employment Services representatives worked closely with these hiring managers to source, advertise, attend job fairs, interview and hire for these fifteen positions, with the following results:
The sampling produced 12 critical positions with actual target dates. For those positions, the hire took place an average of 14 business days after the target date. The shortest time to hire was 11 days (6 days prior to the target date) and the longest hire took 71 days (57 days past the target date).
| Req. No. |
Job Title
|
Beginning Posting Date |
Requested Date
|
Offer Date
|
+/- From Target |
| 22064 |
Software Developer, Res. |
02/04/03 |
03/01/03 |
03/11/03
|
+6
|
| 22055 |
Principal S&E Elect. Tech. |
11/20/02 |
12/10/02 |
12/11/02 |
+1 |
| 22379 |
Mechanical Engineer |
09/10/02 |
10/01/02 |
10/22/02
|
+16 |
| 24242 |
Administrative Assoc.
|
11/04/02 |
11/15/02 |
11/21/02
|
+4 |
| 24485 |
Mechanical Engineer
|
05/20/02 |
06/10/02 |
08/29/02
|
+57 |
| 24578 |
Administrative Assoc. |
12/09/02 |
01/02/03 |
01/15/03
|
+10
|
| 21991 |
Sr. S&E Mech. Tech. |
04/30/03
|
05/01/03
|
05/30/03
|
+22
|
| 24681 |
Sr. Contract Administrator
|
12/06/02
|
01/08/03 |
12/20/02 |
-6 |
| 24677 |
Administrative. Assoc. |
11/13/02 |
11/30/02 |
01/17/03 |
+27 |
| 22077 |
Mechanical Engineer |
04/18/03 |
05/01/03 |
05/14/03 |
+10 |
Performance Gradient:
|
|
Unsatisfactory – no activity is undertaken at all to meet the negotiated target date. |
|
|
Needs Improvement – actions are initiated by Employment Services but critical positions on the average are hired more than one month beyond the target date. |
|
|
Good – actions are initiated and critical positions on the average are hired between 3 weeks and one month after the targeted date. |
|
|
Excellent – actions are initiated and critical positions on the average are hired within one week after the target date. |
|
|
Outstanding – actions are initiated by Employment Services and critical positions on the average are hired before the target date. |
This year, our performance rates a "Good" rating since the average hire date was 14 days over the target date. Since this measure has not proven useful and much is out of Employment Services control, we have negotiated a different performance measure for our next 2004 assessment.
2003 Customer Satisfaction Action Plan Results:
Based on last year’s Customer Survey feedback, the Human Resources Department established one customer service goal during this evaluation period; to focus on our communication to our customers in those areas of importance to our employees.
During this evaluation period, the primary communication challenges facing Human Resources was a communication to all of our staff regarding SLAC’s activities to reduce costs during fiscal year 2003. This included communicating the necessity of all staff taking 4 days of leave without salary, using all of the vacation they had accrued during fiscal year 2003, and shutting down SLAC for a full 2 weeks during the 2003 winter holiday period. All three of these focus areas were communicated to staff via e-mail memo and hard copy memo from the Director of Human Resources, posting of those memos on the SLAC Human Resources Intranet site, and posting them on the "Announcements" section of the SLAC webpage. In addition, with regard to our international visitors holding H1B visas, we advised them of their legal rights and requested them to participate in our four days of leave without salary. It is our opinion that all of these communications were effective since we had 100% participation in the four days of leave without salary and 95% participation in the vacation utilization request.
2004 Customer Satisfaction Goals:
Not all of the customer feedback in this current survey was positive; the areas noted for improvement are not amenable to easy goal setting. There were no themes running through the survey responses this year, so our only goal for next year in this area will be to improve our overall services.
Overall Summary:
Overall, Human Resources has a positive self-assessment. Both quantitative and qualitative customer feedback were positive; this, to us, is the single most relevant measure of our performance. Two of our measures have been renegotiated from 2004 because they are either difficult to measure, or not under Human Resources control, and do not provide meaningful measures of Human Resources performance. For this performance period, with one Outstanding, one Excellent, and one Good rating in our 3 major and equally-rated assessment areas, we conclude that our overall performance is "Excellent".