Forum Replies Created
April 23, 2012 at 3:28 pm #156469
What a waste of time..
April 23, 2012 at 3:22 pm #158627
When I worked for the Navy, my HR division had an office goal of 100% participation in the Combined Federal Campaign – CFC. After the first pass through the office, we didn’t get the requested 100% in “voluntary” donations so the screws were tightened and then tightened again until everyone but one person relented. In an attempt to end the drama, I put $5 in a envelope with his name on it and turned it in. That person got FURIOUS when he saw that we met the 100% voluntary goal and he filed a grievance.
It’s hard to keep it truly voluntary and avoid coersion when you publish and track (and enforce?) GOALS!
April 23, 2012 at 3:04 pm #159179
Nothing will change!
— An OPM procurement team put together a bid evaluation package for a procurement and the team put together a “compliance matrix” for evaluating the bids. This secret matrix was not included in the RFP; however an IDENTICAL matrix was included in a vendor proposal along with much of the specific verbiage from the bid evaluation package. An evaluation team member complained about the obvious leakage but nothing was done. Of course the vendor (one of the largest in the world) with the “insight” won the bid.
— A team of vendors creates, funds and executes a very successful model and practical demonstration of how their software and services can improve the federal hiring process. OPM chooses to not participate but, when the demo proves successful, creates a new service offering by the SAME NAME as the vendor project and sells it to VA using the vendor demo as their REFERENCE and model of operations. OPM made $millions off of this VA sale. (I’m sure that YOU remember it because YOU were a participant!)
— The fact that USAStaffing was largely a ripoff of the QuickHire system you designed is well known. OPM IT covered up their plagarism somewhat by leaving out many of the features they didn’t understand (but made QuickHire the better system.) What happened then? When OPM couldn’t compete fairly and win clients, they un-leveled (is that a word?) the playing field every way they could… like implementing a “requirement” in USAStaffing the same day the requirement was mandated and BEFORE it was communicated to other vendors… like having the OPM Director say that using USAStaffing would always be considered fully compliant but using a vendor application would put an agency “at risk.”
— OPM’s final requirements documentation for Onboarding was held up for TWO YEARS before issue to make sure that their new offering would be “harmonized” with the new requirements.
All the crooks are NOT in GSA..
April 12, 2012 at 2:43 pm #158444
The Google Docs link doesn’t work.
April 12, 2012 at 2:39 pm #114418
OPM is great on the “What”, “When”, and “Why” of hiring timelines but fail on the “How.” I was talking to some DoD friends last month at an event and they noted how hiring is now taking TWICE as long, now that they have implemented USAStaffing (provided by OPM.) Of course their comments were not all negative. They did comment that their past certificates seemed to be randon selections from the applicant pool without any relationship to their job requirements. After their investment of $10s of millions with OPM, their certificates now contain candidates that at least are eligible and meet minimum qualifications. Wow! Progress in meeting hiring goals.
March 23, 2012 at 10:25 pm #155923
Cloud “enabling” and cloud “creating” are two way different things. Often, cloud enabling leads to fewer jobs.
March 23, 2012 at 10:20 pm #114422
Just as I thought, nobody read it!
March 13, 2012 at 2:15 pm #114424
This is still a good idea but what’s the point of posting good material if nobody is going to read it! I believe that your idea has some merit but I question its overall value given the fact that many in the federal HR community just don’t read and learn from the wealth of information available to them. This includes our “leader” (Which Way Did They Go) OPM.
Frustrated by their 20 years of failed efforts to fix a retirement system in shambles, OPM decided to fix something that wasn’t broken, USAJOBS. The end result was a far less functional, far more expensive system that remains confusing for job searchers because, for example, it doesn’t use Boolean algebra familiar to every user of YAHOO, GOOGLE, ASK, BING, etc. OPM defends itself, saying that they use the same search technology as CareerBuilder, however, this company uses a sophisticated mix of search technologies and abandoned the search product used by OPM a few years ago because it was too expensive to maintain. (The whole sad story is documented in material freely available on the web!) How could OPM NOT know this? They must not read.
Look at OPM’s latest decision to adopt TALEO as the technology for the troubled Presidential Management Fellows Program. How could THIS be a problem? It depends. Does OPM want to exclude the disabled from applying for this Program?
“Jeffrey Neal, chief human capital officer at DHS, told Wired Workplace on Monday that the tool, called TalentLink (aka TALEO), ‘was not working for the department. The problem wasn’t with the underlying software company,’ he said. ‘The company made a good product, but it was a product that wasn’t designed for the federal hiring process. We had to build so many workarounds into the process that it wasn’t saving the kind of time that we wanted it to save.’”
Repeat, “a product that wasn’t designed for the federal hiring process.” That’s harsh!!
One of those federal deficiencies was that, after years of trying, TALEO could not pass compliance tests of accessibility and was therefore not compliant with federal 508 accessibility REQUIREMENTS. Did the fact that ORACLE recently bought TALEO instantly fix everything that was broken and couldn’t be fixed after years of trying and 10s of millions of dollars spent by DHS? Sadly NO!
But how could OPM know of Jeff Neal’s studied conclusions? Jeff Neal headed up the HRIT Group of the federal CHCO Council and received OPM’s CHCO of the Year Award during that same period
Just as “there are none are so blind as those who will not see,” there are none so dumb as those who will not read valuable information at their fingertips!
Good luck Andrew, assemble those experts, have them write away even if their “pearls of wisdom” are more like a tree falling deep the forest, soundless, because no one is around to hear it.
February 28, 2012 at 6:18 pm #153593
In my many years as a supervisor in the federal government, I only had 4 discipline cases but 2 went sour fast! I had one employee threaten my life numerous times over proposed discipline and another attempt suicide – TWICE – over his discipline.
In the first case, the employee was fired for conduct. He not only made threats to me, he had physically assaulted a number of his co-workers — tackling one and throwing another to the floor by the scarf around her neck during his 30 days notice period (CRAZY!!). He filed a succession of complaints to MSPB, and then to federal courts in EEO and finally Civil Rights suits. After 7 years of complaining, he was awarded 7 years full back pay and benefits and allowed to retire on a disability retirement because EEOC was not timely in responding to the court. (It didn’t help that he had an 11 year history of bad behavior and assaults in the agency and had worked in nearly every division as the problem child was moved instead of being dealt with.)
In the second case, the employee was an alcoholic in the Employee Assistance Program. He was sent to Rehab but pulled himself out and was trying to get his GS-15 girlfriend to come to his house and talk. She called me, I called him and told him to go back to rehab, he pulled the trigger but the rifle barrel was too long and he just blew away the side of his face. Two months later, he came back to work — still in the highly confidential Employee Assitance Program and after his “serious auto accident” (which explained the disfigured face.) Every day I searched his briefcase and desk when I could, looking for a gun or bomb or booze, knowing that he would try again but unable to send him home. The day I went on vacation, he convinced his girlfriend to talk to him, he brought a gun over and took her hostage in her home for hours until she convinced him to put the gun in the car, locked the door and called police. After the police left, he pulled out front of her house and pulled the trigger — successfully this time. (Prior to working for me, he had worked for “a friend” in another agency who gave him her highest recommendation “to get him a second chance.”)
I am a strong advocate of the federal government moving to “at will” employment just like the state governments of Texas, Georgia and Florida that have become the incubators, innovators and experimentors of HR transformation — some good, some great, some bad.
February 28, 2012 at 5:43 pm #154100
A team is established and assigned work by management. (Consensus on mission is appropriate for situations like, for example, groups of friends are deciding whether to form a Wine Club or a Gourmet Club.) The purpose of the team (OUTCOMES sought) should be specified on establishment and THEN team input is sought on organization, process, interim goals and metrics.
February 28, 2012 at 5:14 pm #154363
February 26, 2011 at 6:18 pm #123692
Some have challenged my earlier $50M-$100M Estimated Lifecycle Costs for USAJOBS 3.0, stating that even $50M was far too high (???) Here is my rationale for $100M. Disagree? Point out where I’m wrong.
Start with about $20M in additional costs to agencies that are NOT included in estimates of USAJOBS 3.0 lifecycle costs. I have provided a rationale for this estimate below.
To consider the full lifecycle costs, OPM would have to include the significant contributions (staff and funds) of their lead agency partners (DHS and DoD) as well as the other costs passed onto agencies in addition to the 20% surcharge that OPM will add to USAJOBS bills.
USAJOBS 3.0 launches in October 2011 but, before that launch, 1) agency and vendor systems have to be changed to accommodate the data and other changes made in the new and different USAJOBS architecture and then 2) the agency and vendor systems will have to develop new integrations to USAJOBS.
Some of the agency and vendor systems will need to change significantly and others will change to a lesser degree. For example, USAJOBS will no longer be collecting and sending SSNs to the agency and vendor systems. For USA Staffing, that is a significant change (as it was explained to me) because they index their data base on SSN. I would estimate an average of 12 staff months (fully loaded $200K) for each of the ten agency and vendor systems. Do the math, 10 systems times $200K each equals $2M.
The integration framework for USAJOBS 3.0 will also change, requiring all of the agency and vendor systems to create, test and deploy, and operate new integrations. While I would expect these integrations to normally cost between $100K-$200K, I am actually expecting this integration to be more costly ($250K each) because 1) OPM has not locked down the requirements and 2) OPM has proposed a collaborative and iterative development process over 7 months. Do the math, 10 systems times $250K each equals $2.5M.
However, then there is USAJOBS 3.0 Phase 2, and USAJOBS 3.0 Phase 3 and USAJOBS 4.0 and USAJOBS 5.0. In each case, there will be continuing changes to the data structure and the integrations. The one cycle of change noted above could cost at least $4.5M. If you multiply that times the number of Phases and releases noted to date (x4), that cost grows to $18M. If you add the 20% surcharge ($2M), the costs passed on to agencies already will already total over $20M before any OPM or partner costs are added to get the full lifecycle charges. (DHS has volunteered that they have invested $Millions!)
$100M USAJOBS 5 Year Lifecycle costs, as follows
USAJOBS 2011 $12M
USAJOBS 2012 $14M
USAJOBS 2013 $16M
USAJOBS 2014 $18M
USAJOBS 2015 $20M
Costs Passed to Agencies $20M
Total of $100M
February 23, 2011 at 9:18 pm #124051
February 23, 2011 at 9:13 pm #124053
This OPM file lists the benefits of USAJOBS 3.0 and provides additional insight on the phasing and implementation schedule.
February 23, 2011 at 9:07 pm #124056