1. Life Cycle Logistics Validation and Workforce Assessment LOG FIPT Presentation March 28, 2008 LOG FIPT AT&L HCSP Competency Initiative … Enabling a High-Performing, Agile Workforce

2. 2 Participation Exceeded our aim of 1092 employees Adequate Participation Achieved: Of the 5635 LCL professionals randomly identified, 1295 completed the assessment for a total response rate of 22.9%. –This number is more than sufficient for the current analysis Focus is on Validation of the model –Ensuring competencies are related to the “job” of a Life Cycle Logistics professional –Not enough supervisor participation: Did not allow for workforce proficiency gap assessment Appropriate to focus on validation for this level of development of our competency model There are many options for building off the the current work to look into workforce assessment and workforce planning aspects

3. 3 Participation In Detail Career LevelFrequencyPercent Entry Level181.4 Journey Level108483.7 Senior Level19314.9 Total1295100.0 Military/Civilian StatusFrequencyPercent Civilian124195.8 Military544.2 Total1295100.0 Primary RoleFrequencyPercent System Sustainment68853.1 Acquisition Logistics60746.9 Total1295100.0 Years LCLFrequencyPercent 1 to 5 Years LCL Experience28922.3 6 to 10 Years LCL Experience30423.5 11 to 15 Years LCL Experience14110.9 16 to 20 Years LCL Experience906.9 21+ Years LCL Experience43833.8 Missing332.5 Total1295100.0 Average14.1 years ComponentFrequencyPercent Army46636.0 Navy (including USMC)48537.5 Air Force30223.3 4th Estate (DCMA, DLA, Other)423.2 Total1295100.0

4. 4 Technical Competency Assessment What Did We Ask The Participants? Frequency, Criticality, and Proficiency

5. 5 Competency Results – Validation Frequency and Criticality Earned Value Management Provide supportability data to ensure inclusion in EVM tracking where appropriate. (E6) Utilizing Simulation and Modeling Techniques Use modeling and simulation to estimate cost and/or performance parameters. (E2) Integrated Product and Processes Development (IPPD) Contribute to an IPT to ensure logistics considerations are represented in the program. (E12) What competencies were rated highest across all ratings? Integrated Product and Process Development (IPPD) Maintaining and Managing Customer Relationships What competencies were rated lowest across all ratings? Utilizing Simulation and Modeling Earned Value Management Maintaining and Managing Customer Relationships Communicate with the customer to verify that logistics requirements are stated accurately in the system design. (E14) Use customer feedback tools or methods to refine, maintain, and/or share logistics information. (E15) Competency Element In Assessment

6. 6 Exploratory Factor Analysis Unit 2: Performance-Based Logistics Planning and Management Unit 3: Collaborate with Customers to Enhance Supportablity Unit 1: Utilizing Test Data for Best Design, Configuration, and Processes Unit 4: Cost Evaluation for Sustainment of Systems Unit 1: Utilizing Test Data for Best Design, Configuration, and Processes Unit 2: Performance-Based Logistics Planning and Management Unit 3: Collaborate with Customers and IPT members to Enhance Supportability Unit 4: Cost Evaluation for Sustainment of Systems

7. 7 Competency Results – By Unit Level What Unit Was Rated Highest Across All Ratings? Unit 3 Collaborate with Customers and IPT members to Enhance Supportability is the highest rated across frequency, criticality, and proficiency The next highest was Unit 2: Performance-Based Logistics Planning and Management across all ratings Which Units Were Rated Lowest? The Lowest Rated Units then vary between Unit 1 and Unit 4 in Frequency, Criticality, and Proficiency Unit 4: Cost Evaluation for Sustainment of Systems Unit 1: Utilizing Test Data for Best Design, Configuration, and Processes

8. 8 Schedule and Deliverables Sponsor review version delivered to FIPT Mid-April Collect comments and feedback during the review from Complete April 30 We Plan to Formally deliver to Mr. Hall and the FIPT in May

9. 9 Logistics Competency Management Workforce Validation Questions?

10. 10 Competency Results – Differences by Component Army is different in Frequency & Criticality Army (mean 2.4) does significantly less Unit 1,2, & 3 activities than Air Force or Navy Army participants see Unit 1,2, & 3 as significantly less critical than Air Force or Navy The job of an Army Life Cycle Logistician may be significantly different than that of a practitioner in Air Force or Navy. We know there are more Army LCLoggies than others They may have a more wide variety of duties, beyond our competency model There are no differences in Proficiency between the major Service Components

11. 11 Framework Development Framework Development Phase I - Convene an expert panel (EP) Actions: Develop a competency framework & input model EP identifies Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) EP communicates competency effort to the SMEs Develop communications package Goal: Establish baseline of existing competency model. Communicate effort Products: FA provides list of targeted high-performing SMEs Obtains expert panel concurrence on baseline competency framework Obtain approval from Dir, HCI and FA on competency model input Phase I - Convene an expert panel (EP) Actions: Develop a competency framework & input model EP identifies Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) EP communicates competency effort to the SMEs Develop communications package Goal: Establish baseline of existing competency model. Communicate effort Products: FA provides list of targeted high-performing SMEs Obtains expert panel concurrence on baseline competency framework Obtain approval from Dir, HCI and FA on competency model input Phase IV – Validate and Assess Actions: Launch competency assessment tool Analyze results to evaluate model validity and generalizability to the workforce Goal: Identify competencies required for superior performance Evaluate proficiency gaps for validated competencies Plan for continual updates and use of competency model Products: Deliver proven (validated) competency model in HR XML format Provide competency validation and assessment and obtain Dir, HCI and FA approval Phase IV – Validate and Assess Actions: Launch competency assessment tool Analyze results to evaluate model validity and generalizability to the workforce Goal: Identify competencies required for superior performance Evaluate proficiency gaps for validated competencies Plan for continual updates and use of competency model Products: Deliver proven (validated) competency model in HR XML format Provide competency validation and assessment and obtain Dir, HCI and FA approval AT&L Competency Management Process Model Testing & Refinement Model Testing & Refinement Model Development V 1.0 CompetencyModel Proposed Competency Model Report Approved Initial Competency Model V 0.5 Phase III – Perform a beta test & refine model Actions: Collect and synthesize feedback from proposed model report Pre-assessment communications to workforce Identify stratified workforce sample Goal: Further refine model to include input from functional leads Obtain FA and Dir, HCI approval for validation assessment Products: Obtain concurrence from FIPT on competency model Obtain approval from Dir, HCI and FA on competency model Phase III – Perform a beta test & refine model Actions: Collect and synthesize feedback from proposed model report Pre-assessment communications to workforce Identify stratified workforce sample Goal: Further refine model to include input from functional leads Obtain FA and Dir, HCI approval for validation assessment Products: Obtain concurrence from FIPT on competency model Obtain approval from Dir, HCI and FA on competency model Phase II – Develop the model Actions: SMEs review the competency framework and provide essential job data through structured interviews and online data collection tools. SMEs engaged to identify key “work” situations and competencies contributing to successful performance Analyze results and develop competency model content Goal: Model development and identification of key behaviors Products: Deliver Proposed Model Report to Dir, HCI and FA for review Phase II – Develop the model Actions: SMEs review the competency framework and provide essential job data through structured interviews and online data collection tools. SMEs engaged to identify key “work” situations and competencies contributing to successful performance Analyze results and develop competency model content Goal: Model development and identification of key behaviors Products: Deliver Proposed Model Report to Dir, HCI and FA for review Collect Existing Competency Data CompetencyValidation & Assessment Report Approved Input Competency Model Competency Validation, Assessment, and Sustainment Competency Validation, Assessment, and Sustainment May 06 – July 06Sep - 06 - Jun 07 Nov 07 - Present Jan 22 08 - Apr 08

12. 12 Sample Size Criteria Assumption 50%Population # Sample Size based on Component Breakdown PM127752600 LCL123312184 SPRDE SE351422516 BCEFM76082220 Property530 Using components to stratify the sample we need: Assumptions: 1. Assume a 50 percent response rate 2. Stratified sample based on component population Note: Samples are different with similar population numbers due to differing stratification across components. If you have a large concentration of staff in one or two major components you will need less than expected from those areas

13. 13 Logistics Competency Management Workforce Validation What has been done? LCL experts met with CNA to refine competency elements Website has been tested and feedback has been collected A random sample from each component has been selected and will be e-mailed by CNA with login information Launch details have been finalized Changes are being implemented and a final round of testing will close Jan-14 E-mail to be sent co-signed from Mr. Hall and Mr. Anderson to be sent Jan-14

14. 14 Analysis Business Rules for Inclusion/Exclusion in Sample –Extreme proficiency rating differences between supervisor and employee will be discarded –If employee-supervisor pair incomplete, only importance and frequency ratings will be factored into final results Assumptions/Approach for Reporting Results –Gap scores are combined to make a composite score –Composite score of employee and supervisor data will be compared to a standard –Gaps will be reported based on the magnitude of difference to the proficiency standard to identify most to least critical