2004-2005 NASA/Centers implemented a three-level performance appraisal program focusing on results and cascaded goals.
Fall 2005 Agency-led focus groups to determine concerns with the three-level program.
In 2006 NASA led a performance management workshop with stakeholders from all Centers, and made policy changes.
Background Goals of Revised Program Make meaningful distinctions with r ewards linked to performance ratings Model GS plan after the SES performance plan Identify meaningful performance distinctions Link individual objectives to Agency, Program, and Project objectives Consider customer and employee perspective
Current vs. New May 1 – April 30 2007 – Plans in place by Aug 1 May 1 – April 30 Implement performance plan by May 31 – OR within 30 days of the employee coming into the position. Appraisal cycle (No Change)
Minimum appraisal period (No Change)
Results-oriented, cascading. Link to Program and project goals
Results-oriented, cascading methodology Element Style (No change) New Current Program Component
Strategic Management and Governance Handbook (NPD 1000.0) Goal 3: Develop a balanced overall program of science, exploration, and aeronautics consistent with the redirection of the human space flight program to focus on exploration: 3.1 Study earth from space to advance scientific understanding and meet societal needs; 3.2 Understand the sun and its effects on earth and the solar system; 3.3 Advance scientific knowledge of the solar system, search for evidence of life, and prepare for human exploration; 3.4 Discover the origin, structure, evolution, and destiny of the universe, and search for Earth-like planets. Goal 6: Establish a lunar return program having the maximum possible utility for later missions to Mars and other destinations.
Performance assessment required for assignments of 90 days or more
Written input is required for details of 90 days or more.
Input provided, in writing, at the option of the Rating Official Detail/Matrix Leader input into performance assessment
Fails to Meet
Fails to Meet
Element rating levels
Define Meets Only
Complete review by Nov 20 . By November 30, Center will certify to HQ progress reviews held First certification in December 2006 Progress Review Certification (Minimum of one review approximately mid-point) New Current Program Component
Element Rating Definitions SIGNIFICANTLY EXCEEDS Performance that consistently exceeds the performance standards to an exceptional degree for the element. EXCEEDS Performance that consistently exceeds the performance standards to a high degree for the element. MEETS Performance that fully and consistently meets the performance standards identified for the element. NEEDS IMPROVEMENT Performance that does not fully meet the performance standards for the element. FAILS TO MEET Performance that fails to meet the established performance standards for the element.
Summary Rating Definitions DISTINGUISHED Performance when all elements are rated Significantly Exceeds. ACCOMPLISHED Performance when all elements are rated no lower than Exceeds Expectations. FULLY SUCCESFUL Performance when no element is rated below Meets Expectations. NEEDS IMPROVEMENT Performance when any element is rated below Meets and no critical element is rated Fails to Meet. UNACCEPTABLE Performance when any critical element is rated Fails to Meet Expectations.
SUPERVISORY APPRAISAL When appraising a supervisor’s performance, the rating official must seek and consider employees’ and customers’ perspectives.
Meetings or other methods that provide for customer input or involvement
ACCEPTABLE METHODS CONTACT THE OFFICE OF HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT FOR ASSISTANCE.
Current vs. New New Current Program Component Agency policy emphasizes the OPM regulatory requirement. OPM prohibits use of quotas Rating distributions Organizational-level process for review of program goal achievement prior to rating GS performance. Informal Organizational Performance Review
Make meaningful distinctions with greater awards for higher ratings
Total combination of monetary and time off no greater than the established percentage value.
Award Amount Eligibility: Distinguished Within 120 days of appraisal cycle end Eligibility: Distinguished No requirement regarding effective date Quality Step Increase effective date New Current Program Component
Review and approve agreed upon Distinguished, Needs Improvement, and Unacceptable ratings.
Responsibilities Reviewing Official (2nd Level)
Key Events May 2007 New Performance Plan Form availability April and May (2 sessions) “ Maximizing Performance through Coaching” Training (for supervisors) April 13 Online EPCS training ( required for supervisors) May – June “ Developing Performance Elements and Standards” Training (for supervisors) March – until obligation has been fulfilled. Negotiation with Unions August 1, 2007 Performance plans are signed and issued for the 2007-2008 Appraisal Cycle May-June Briefing and Question & Answer Sessions (All) Timeframes Event