ePerformance: What Weve Learned

1
ePerformance What Weve Learned

• Data collected and presented by
• AFGE Council 222
• In preparation for national negotiations
• June 12-15, 2007

2
Presentation

• Data Sources
• Assessment of ePerformance
• Orientation and Training
• Development of SMART standards
• Use of HIHRTS
• Compliance with SMART
• Anticipated Application of SMART standards
• Actual Application--Progress Reviews

3
Data Sources

• AFGE Council 222 conducted two electronic surveys
  of all Bargaining Unit employees in CPD, Admin,
  FHEO, CIO, OCPO, GNMA, OCFO, and OHHLHC
• February 2007, after implementation. 22 of
  employees surveyed responded.
• June 2007, after Progress Reviews. During the
  two days the survey was available, 17 of
  employees responded.

4
Assessment of ePerformance Orientation and
Training

• HUDs promise
• HUD will deliver a dynamic ePerformance learning
  tool . . ..
• In addition to the web-based training module,
  HUD will provide classroom demonstrations for all
  employees.
• See p. 15, Performance Management An
  Information Guidebook for HUD Employees,
  September 2006 (ePerformance Guidebook).

5
Orientation and Training (cont.)

• What HUD delivered on its promises.
• No hands-on training in the field reported.
• 19 of respondents reported that they had not
  received any orientation or briefing by any
  means.
• 13 of respondents reported that they had
  received training during the week before
  Christmas.
• HUD had to extend the EPPES deadline to
• January 12, 2007.

6
Orientation and Training (cont.)

• Model for Success Requires ePerformance only
  works if you the employee understand and
  actively participate in all stages of the
  process.
• See p. 3 ePerformance Guidebook

7
Orientation and Training (cont.)

• How well did employees understand?
• In February 2007, 30 of respondents reported
  that they did not understand ePerformance and the
  concept of SMART standards well.
• In the same survey, 30 of respondents that
  received a briefing did not have an opportunity
  to ask questions and receive meaningful answers.

8
Assessment of ePerformance Development of SMART
Standards

• Model for Success Requires ePerformance only
  works if you the employee understand and
  actively participate in all stages of the
  process.
• See p. 3 ePerformance Guidebook.

9
Development of SMART Standards (cont.)

• To what extent were employees able to offer input
  into the creation of elements and standards at
  the draft stage?
• 65 of respondents reported that they could not
  offer input into the creation of elements and
  standards before presented with a draft.

10
Development of SMART Standards (cont.)

• To what extent did employees participate in the
  development of their final elements and
  standards?
• 67 of respondents reported little or no
  involvement, as follows
• 46 reported that they had no involvement in the
  creation of their elements and standards for the
  current rating period.
• 21 of respondents reported that they had minimal
  involvement in the creation of their elements and
  standards.

11
Development of SMART Standards (cont.)

• What was the impact of employee input?
• Only minimal changes were made in the elements
  and standards of the 45 of employees who sought
  changes.

12
Assessment of ePerformance Use of HIHRTS

• HIHRTS is an easy-to-use tool that guides you
  through the steps of the performance planning and
  review process, formalizes performance
  expectations and achievements, and provides the
  foundation for meaningful manager and employee
  interaction.
• See hud_at_work FAQs for ePerformance, a feature
  of HIHRTS

13
Use of HIHRTS (cont.)

• HIHRTS as an easy-to-use tool
• 52 of respondents reported they were not able to
  input comments about their elements and standards
  into HIHRTS because either they did not know how
  (37) or they were unable (15).
• In June, (30) of respondents reported that they
  were unable to input comments during their
  progress review.

14
Assessment of ePerformance Compliance with SMART

• Specific
• In February 2007, 74 of respondents reported
  that their elements and standards are specific.
• In June 2007, 68 of respondents found their
  elements and standards specific.

15
Compliance with SMART (cont.)

• Measurable
• Just because some aspect of your performance can
  be measured does not necessarily mean that the
  measure will be useful to you. To maximize the
  value of performance measures, they must reflect
  accomplishments that are meaningful and important
  to you. See p. 10, ePerformance Guidebook.

16
Compliance with SMART (cont.)

• Measurable (cont.)
• In February, 68 of respondents reported that
  their elements and standards are measurable. In
  June, only 55 believed their elements and
  standards were measurable.
• In February, only 24 indicated that their
  elements and standards measure things that are
  important to measure. In June, only 8 of
  respondents believed their elements and standards
  measure things that are important to measure

17
Compliance with SMART (cont.)

• Attainable
• In February and June, 52 of respondents did not
  consider their elements and standards attainable
• In February and June, 53 of respondents reported
  that those elements and standards that are
  attainable, do not reflect things within the
  employees control.

18
Compliance with SMART (cont.)

• Relevant
• In February, 58 and in June, 60 of respondents
  reported that their elements and standards are
  relevant.
• Time-bound
• In February, 50 and in June, 54 of respondents
  reported that their elements and standards are
  time-bound.

19
Assessment of ePerformance Anticipated
Application of SMART

• In February, 43 of respondents reported they
  were very concerned about their ability to
  succeed under their new elements and standards.
  20 were concerned, and 24 were somewhat
  concerned.
• In February, 43 of respondents reported that
  they believe the ePerformance system would be
  less fair and more subjective.

20
Assessment of ePerformance Actual
Application-Progress Reviews

• In June, employees were surveyed after their
  progress reviews. The goal was to investigate
  how the Progress Review process worked, and to
  determine if employee attitudes towards
  ePerformance had changed. The results . . .

21
Actual Application-Progress Reviews (cont.)

• Self-Assessment
• 60 of respondents reported providing a self
  assessments in HIHRTS.
• 12 provided a self-assessment, but not in
  HIHRTS.
• 23 of respondents were not asked to provide a
  self-assessment.
• 20 of respondents that provided a
  self-assessment had one business day or less to
  complete their self-assessment (the Red Book
  states at least 3 days are required).

22
Actual Application-Progress Reviews (cont.)

• Progress Review meetings with supervisors
• 40 of respondents did not meet in private with
  their supervisors to discuss Progress Reviews.
• Of these respondents, 47 stated that they were
  merely told their Progress Review was available
  in HIHRTS with no discussion about employee
  progress.

23
Actual Application-Progress Reviews (cont.)

• Assessment of change in performance evaluation
  process
• 14 stated the performance evaluation process
  improved under ePerformance.
• 21 of respondents stated the performance
  evaluation process has gotten worse.
• 24 reported no change, the process is still
  good.
• 24 reported no change, its still mediocre.
• 16 reported no change, its still poor.

24
Actual Application-Progress Reviews (cont.)

• Change in rating under ePerformance
• 52 of respondents believe that they will receive
  a lower rating during this ratings period under
  ePerformance.
• 36 of respondents continue to be very concerned
  about their ability to succeed under
  ePerformance. 22 remain concerned and 23
  remain somewhat concerned, for a total of 81
  expressing some level of concern.

25
Actual Application-Progress Reviews (cont.)

• Overall satisfaction with ePerformance process
  utilized in their office
• 66 of respondents are somewhat or very
  dissatisfied with the process
• Only 3 are very satisfied.