tag:haftofthespear.com,2007:/briefings//2 2007-06-19T15:00:59Z Issues In-Depth Movable Type 3.35 tag:haftofthespear.com,2007:/briefings//2.27 2007-06-19T14:58:27Z 2007-06-19T15:00:59Z

The recent publication of the IC Human Capital study suggests that while the powers that be are starting to see the light with regards to developing a high caliber workforce, they're still wearing dark, rose-colored glasses. Metrics in key...

Michael

Performance rankings should take into consideration two primary factors; supervisor’s input and peer input. Supervisor input is a well-established process that needs little further elaboration. Peer input is built on eBay or Amazon-like rankings of employee output as it is disseminated. The latter mechanism allows for a broader base of inputs than a potentially overworked supervisor can consider and mitigates the effects of supervisor bias (intentional or not).

A skill-set ranking should be an additional factor that may raise or lower one’s compensation. Masters of obsolete weapons systems used by adversaries who no longer exist have no place sitting in highly-paid positions of authority when the world and its problems have long since passed them by. Their service is appreciated, but at this stage they are expensive overhead.

Establish both an active and inactive Reserve that can be tapped for both regular Red Team and Team-B efforts as well as a means to surge on the lesser and mundane when the next significant crisis breaks out.

Issues like the third-place and the highly mobile/flexible nature of the future workforce are not things that I am confident IC HR experts are paying enough attention to (serious planning skills seems to be something that anyone above 15 seems to lack). When the vast majority of people you'll want to tap won't understand or accept the idea that they'll have to stay fixed in the same spot for 30 years, which leaves you with a shallow pool of people who lack the traits that you need; flexibility, curiosity, willingness to step out of comfort zones. ]]> tag:haftofthespear.com,2007:/briefings//2.26 2007-06-19T14:56:19Z 2007-06-19T14:58:04Z

In its quest to attract and retain the best and brightest, the IC has undertaken an effort to retool its compensation and benefits offerings so as to more effectively compete with the bandits that poach its highly and expensively-trained...

Michael

Implement pay-banding now and make skills and performance (see Workforce briefing for addt’l details) the primary factors in determining where one falls out in the bands. Time in Grade or Service means nothing anymore. Make it clear that it is entirely probable that you will slide down the compensation ladder if you opt to rest on your laurels.

Allocate division-level discretionary funds that can be applied to membership fees in professional societies, subscription fees to professional journals, or other pro-dev activities that people now pay for out of pocket. Fund attendance to at least one conference a year – conferences have long ceased to be boondoggles and in some cases are where the most current training is available. Demonstrate in the most powerful way possible (checkbook) that pro-dev is valued.

Implement a substantial performance bonus system that operates on two tracks; annual (cash) and ad hoc (time off). The lowest rung in cash compensation should start in the five-figures range and only the top 3-5% should even be in the running. Push ad hoc reward authority to the division-level.

No one gets into the business to get rich, but when the same job can be done regardless of badge color people are going to pay more attention to the money and fringe benefits. When bennies are a wash the probability that people will jump ship (all things being equal) drops precipitously. ]]> tag:haftofthespear.com,2007:/briefings//2.12 2007-06-19T02:46:30Z 2007-06-19T02:47:50Z

Perhaps the most overlooked aspect of IC reform efforts is the quality of life the workforce must endure. With the vast majority of tasks executed in office space around the DC area, competition for housing, schools and recreation is fierce...

Michael

Start by identifying the top 10-20 non-coastal metro areas, sorted by geo-location and livability factors. You won’t please everyone, but when you get within one or two states from home vice half a continent . . .

Maximize existing or establish new IC facilities with appropriate connectivity, security, etc. Work through/with existing Federal telecommuting centers to upgrade infrastructure and build up to SCIF-standards (or provide funds to State centers that are prepared to do the same). Co-location with existing or planned DHS “fusion” centers would be a nice plus but not essential.

Pay for most of physical plant and personal relocation expenses with the funds that would have been going to DC-area real estate.

Now that I think more about it, it would not be out of line to call it “The FBI Model.” HQ does what HQ does, but everyone really wants to work out in the field or “all the real work is done in the field” depending on your point of view. Of course, you wouldn’t want to adopt their IT model, but that’s another briefing. Timing is probably as important a factor as any, as the impact on local housing markets, transportation and telecommunication infrastructure (gaining and losing) would be significant and probably draw the ire of those politicians representing affected areas. A timeline that is short enough to please the workforce but long enough not to send local economies into the toilet would be needed, as would some kind of time-limited tax dance. Impact on contractors? Hey, it’s a cost of doing business, though they too would benefit from many of the same changes. Aside from the fiscal benefits and instant boost to the morale and welfare of the workforce, consider that spreading the workforce across the nation provides for at least one additional tangible and another intangible benefit; an increased resilience to future attacks/disasters (think DNS) and a greater connection between the previously separated workforce and those they are sworn to serve. ]]>