The document discusses strategies for enhancing in-house training and development for the public service workforce in the Philippines, highlighting various human resource challenges faced in office environments, such as skills mismatch and ineffective problem-solving. It questions the current training budget allocation and emphasizes the importance of competency levels relative to job criticality in evaluating training needs. Suggested interventions focus on on-the-job training and mentoring to address identified deficiencies in employee performance.

1. Maximizing in-house training and
development alternatives for a professional
public service workforce in the Philippines
Hilario P. Martinez 1

2. The Foundation of this Yardstick
Hilario P. Martinez 2

3. SOME OBSERVATIONS IN HUMAN
RESOURCES SITUATION IN OFFICES
Hilario P. Martinez 3

4. Familiar situations in offices (1)
Increasing
Paperwork
Older folks’ extra effort to cope
with the evolving hi-tech workplace
Hilario P. Martinez 4

5. Familiar situations in offices (2)
Hilario P. Martinez 5
Undue obedience to
certain officials
DUE TO REWORKS
AND BACK JOBS

6. Familiar situations in offices (3)
Difficult employees especially
when the boss is out
Inexperienced employees,
fresh graduates, new hires
Hilario P. Martinez 6

7. Office politicians, jesters and
“in-crowd” guys of the boss
Familiar situations in offices (4)
Working with/for
Incompetent Bosses
Hilario P. Martinez 7
Unstable Team
Performance

8. Familiar situations in offices (5)
Inadequate/weak
problem-solving capabilities
Hilario P. Martinez 8
Finger pointing
and fault-finding
Opportunism and
Malpractices

9. Familiar situations in offices (6)
Skills – Job mismatch Demotivated and
Timid Employees
Difficult coordination even among team members
Hilario P. Martinez 9

10. ATTENDANT HUMAN RESOURCE
ISSUES
Hilario P. Martinez 10

11. Should Staff Training be a Regular
Program in Government Agencies?
Hilario P. Martinez 11
Why do government agencies
spend so much for staff
training (5% of MOOE) every
year?
If COMPETENCE is a pre-
requisite in hiring, what then
is the rationale for in-service
staff training programs?
How much of a government
agency’s productivity issues
are resolved thru staff
training?
If government treats staff
training as investment, what is
the magnitude of ROI achieved
so far?

12. Policy in Hiring and Manning
Hilario P. Martinez 12

13. Command responsibility of the
Supervisor/Team Leader
Hilario P. Martinez 13

14. Training and Development
Interventions
Hilario P. Martinez 14

15. HR Perception
Hilario P. Martinez 15
Is 5% of MOOE* a standard training
budget for all agencies? Why so much?
Do we always have so many “dumbbells-
that-never-learn” every year?
* MOOE – Maintenance and Other
Operating Expenses (Operating Fund)
Training is imperative
ONLY if there is a shift in
strategy, a change in
systems, or the
introduction of new
technology

16. THE CRITERIA
Hilario P. Martinez 16

17. LEVELS OF CRITICALITY TO JOB:
HIGH = 3
MODERATE = 2
LOW = 1
Criticality to Job
where the
competency
element/unit
is a vital
contributor to
job delivery,
requiring
significant
time and
effort on the
part of the
jobholder
High
where the
competency
element/unit
has a definite
impact on
time and
effort in the
delivery of
job outputs
Moderate
where the
competency
element/unit
may not be a
major
component or
contributor to
the overall job
delivery in
terms of time
and effort
Low
Hilario P. Martinez 17

18. Level of Competency
Basic – where the
jobholder is able to
execute the
competency element
with supervision
Sufficient – where
the jobholder is able
to execute the
competency element
without supervision
Expert – where the
jobholder is not only
able to execute the
competency element
independently but is
also able to guide
others and to
innovate in the task
execution
COMPETENCY LEVEL
EXPERT = 1
SUFFICIENT = 2
BASIC = 3
Hilario P. Martinez 18

19. Making Sense to a Critical Imbalance?
Criticality
to Job
Level of
Competency
3
2
1
1
2
3
Hilario P. Martinez 19

20. FORMULATING THE SCORING
MECHANICS
Hilario P. Martinez 20

21. Level of Competency Criticality to Job
LEVEL OF
COMPETENCY
CRITICALITY
TO JOB
3
3
2 2
1
1 Expert
Sufficient
Basic
High
Moderate
Low
B x H = 9
B x M = 6
B x L = 3
S x H = 6
S x M = 4
S x L = 2
E x H = 3
E x M = 2
E x L = 1
B x H = 9
B x M = 6
S x H = 6
S x M = 4
B x L = 3
E x H = 3
E x M = 2
S x L = 2
E x L = 1
Hilario P. Martinez 21

22. 9 6 3
6 4 2
3 2 1
Numerical Rating
B x H = 9
B x M = 6
S x H = 6
S x M = 4
B x L = 3
E x H = 3
E x M = 2
S x L = 2
E x L = 1
Hilario P. Martinez 22
HIGHEST
LOWEST
RangeofTraining&
DevelopmentNeeds

23. Adjectival Rating
BASIC
HIGH
SUFFI-
CIENT
HIGH
EXPERT
HIGH
BASIC
MODE-
RATE
SUFFI-
CIENT
MODE-
RATE
EXPERT
MODE-
RATE
BASIC
LOW
SUFFI-
CIENT
LOW
EXPERT
LOW
B x H
B x M
S x H
S x M
B x L
E x H
E x M
S x L
E x L
LEVEL OF
COMPETENCY
CRITICALITY
TO JOB
Hilario P. Martinez 23

24. B·H S·H E·H
B·M S·M E·M
B·L S·L E·L
9 6 3
6 4 2
3 2 1
Numerical Rating = Adjectival
Interpretation
Hilario P. Martinez 24

25. BH SH EH
BM SM EM
BL SL EL
9 6 3
6 4 2
3 2 1
Objective-wise: Numerical ≠ Adjectival
Hilario P. Martinez 25
From greatest training
needs to the least
training needs?
From basic skills to
expert level, from low
criticality to high?

26. . . .
Deriving the equivalent % rates
B S E Total
L 3 2 1 6
M 6 4 2 12
H 9 6 3 18
Total 18 12 6 36
B S E Total
L 8.33% 5.56% 2.78% 16.67%
M 16.67% 11.11% 5.56% 33.33%
H 25.00% 16.67% 8.33% 50.00%
Total 50.00% 33.33% 16.67% 100.00%
BL = 3 / 36 = 0.0833
BM = 6 / 36 = 0.1667
BH = 9 / 36 = 0.2500
SL = 2 / 36 = 0.0556
SM = 4 / 36 = 0.1111
SH = 6 / 36 = 0.1667
EL = 1 / 36 = 0.0278
EM = 2 / 36 = 0.0556
EH = 3 / 36 = 0.0833
Hilario P. Martinez 26

27. Weighted Score Equivalent for
Competency Level Criticality to Job
B S E Total B S E Total
L 3 2 1 6 8.33% 5.56% 2.78% 16.67%
M 6 4 2 12 16.67% 11.11% 5.56% 33.33%
H 9 6 3 18 25.00% 16.67% 8.33% 50.00%
Total 18 12 6 36 50.00% 33.33% 16.67% 100.00%
Hilario P. Martinez 27
9 6 3
6 4 2
3 2 1
B·H S·H E·H
B·M S·M E·M
B·L S·L E·L

28. T.D.N.A. RATING SCHEME
Hilario P. Martinez 28

29. T.D.N.A. Tool Rating Scheme
Hilario P. Martinez 29
STANDARDIZED
JOBTITLE
COMPETENCY
STANDARD
Elements
minimum
Elements
maximum
Elements
minimum
Elements
maximum
PRIMARYRATINGAREA
UNITS OF
COMPETENCY
minimum
UNITS OF
COMPETENCY
maximum SCOREROLL-UPAREA

30. The T.D.N.A. Cube
9
25.00%
6
16.67%
3
8.33%
6
16.67%
4
11.11%
2
5.56%
3
8.33%
2
5.56%
1
2.78%
Numerical
Score
Percent
Equivalent
Adjectival
Score
Hilario P. Martinez 30

31. The T.D.N.A Table
Hilario P. Martinez 31

32. Equivalent Proficiency Rates
Hilario P. Martinez 32
LOWEST
HIGHEST
SORTED . . .

33. Proficiency and Deficiency Rate by
Competency-Criticality Group
Hilario P. Martinez 33

34. The “Deficiency Scale”
Hilario P. Martinez 34
Group1
Group2
Group3
Group4
Group5
Group6
HIGHEST T/D Needs
LOWEST
T/D Needs
D E F I C I E N C Y G A P S

35. PRESENTING THE T.D.N.A. TOOL
Reinforcing Objectivity and Fairness in Needs Assessment
Hilario P. Martinez 35

36. Employee-
Ratee Form
TDNA FORM DESCRIPTION
This instrument needs to be
accomplished separately by three
Individuals: (1) an employee-ratee, (2)
the supervisor-rater, and (3) a peer rater.
The supervisor-rater should be the
immediate supervisor of the employee-
ratee, while the peer rater should be any
member of the group the employee-ratee
belong and chosen at random. For
employee-ratee who supervises
subordinates, a subordinate-rater
likewise chosen at random shall be the
fourth rater.
Select your answer from the list in the
appropriate column. Be informed that
the information you provide in this form
shall be held in strictest confidence and
maybe subject to verification whenever
necessary
Hilario P. Martinez 36

37. Supervisor-
Rater FormTDNA FORM DESCRIPTION (Continued)
Space is allotted for a maximum of seven
(7) units of competency and maximum of
seven (7) elements per unit.
Scale Guide for CRITICALITY to JOB: the
importance this competency element has
in relation to the delivery of outputs and
the execution of job. Scale of Low [L] -
where the competency element may not
be a major component or contributor to
the overall job delivery in terms of time
and effort; Moderate [M] - where the
competency element has a definite
impact on time and effort in the delivery
of job outputs; and High [H] - where the
competency element is a vital
contributor to job delivery, requiring
significant time and effort on the part of
the jobholder.
Hilario P. Martinez 37

38. Peer-Rater
Form
TDNA FORM DESCRIPTION (Continued)
Scale Guide for Level of COMPETENCY:
the current proficiency which jobholder
has in the execution of the competency
element. Scale of Basic [B] - where
jobholder is able to execute the
competency element with supervision;
Sufficient [S] - where jobholder is not
only able to execute the competency
element without supervision; and Expert
[E] - where the jobholder is not only able
to execute the competency element
independently but is also able to guide
others and innovate in the task
execution. For each response marked [E]
as Expert, the respondent is required to
indicate/attach reference material/s
(reports, citations, certifications, etc.) for
verification in accordance to rules of
evidence.
Hilario P. Martinez 38

39. Subordinate-
Rater Form
TDNA FORM DESCRIPTION (Continued)
For all respondents, answers found to be
inadequate or not supported by verified
facts and/or relevant documents shall be
reduced to the next lower mark/rating.
Hilario P. Martinez 39

40. Attendant TDNA forms to be accomplished depending
of on classification of Employee-Ratee
Employee-Ratee – is a
supervisorial employee
Employee-Ratee form
Supervisor-Rater form
Peer-Rater form
Subordinate-Rater form
Employee-Ratee – does not
exercise supervisorial function
Employee-Ratee form
Supervisor-Rater form
Peer-Rater form
Average is ÷ by 4 per
Unit of Competency
Average is ÷ by 3 per
Unit of Competency
Hilario P. Martinez 40

41. SAMPLE FILLED-UP RATING SHEETS
Hilario P. Martinez 41

42. Filled –up Employee-
Ratee Form
Hilario P. Martinez 42
3MB 16.67%
3HS 16.67%
3MS 11.11%
4LS 5.56%
4LB 8.33%
4MS 11.11%
4MS 11.11%
4MB 16.67%
4MS 11.11%
4LS 5.56%
4HS 16.67%
3MB 16.67%
3MS 11.11%
3MB 16.67%
3MS 11.11%
3HB 25.00%
3MS 11.11%
3LB 8.33%
3MB 16.67%
3MS 11.11%
13.16%
14.82%
14.82%
15.74%
12.04%
9.03%
12.50%
1
4
5
6
2
3
SUMMARYOFPOINTSEARNED:
byElement,UnitandPositionTitle

43. Filled-up Supervisor-
Rater Form
Hilario P. Martinez 43
3HB 25.00%
3MB 16.67%
3HB 25.00%
4MB 16.67%
4HB 25.00%
4MB 16.67%
4MB 16.67%
4HB 25.00%
4HB 25.00%
4MB 16.67%
4MB 16.67%
3HB 25.00%
3MB 16.67%
3HS 16.67%
3HB 25.00%
3HS 16.67%
3HS 16.67%
3MS 11.11%
3MB 16.67%
3HB 25.00%
19.72%
22.22%
18.75%
20.84%
19.45%
19.45%
17.59%
1
2
3
4
5
6
SUMMARYOFPOINTSEARNED:
byElement,UnitandPositionTitle

44. Filled-up Peer-Rater
Form
Hilario P. Martinez 44
3MB 16.67%
3HB 25.00%
3MB 16.67%
4MS 11.11%
4MB 16.67%
4HB 25.00%
4MB 16.67%
4MB 16.67%
4MB 16.67%
4MS 11.11%
4MB 16.67%
3MB 16.67%
3HB 25.00%
3LB 8.33%
3MS 11.11%
3MB 16.67%
3MB 16.67%
3HS 16.67%
3MB 16.67%
3MS 11.11%
16.40%
19.45%
17.36%
15.28%
16.67%
14.82%
14.82%
1
2
3
4
5
6
SUMMARYOFPOINTSEARNED:
byElement,UnitandPositionTitle

45. Filled-up Subordinate-
Rater Form
Hilario P. Martinez 45
3MB 16.67%
3HB 25.00%
3HB 25.00%
4MS 11.11%
4MB 16.67%
4LS 5.56%
4MS 11.11%
4MS 11.11%
4MB 16.67%
4HS 16.67%
4MS 11.11%
3MS 11.11%
3MS 11.11%
3MB 16.67%
3HS 16.67%
3LB 8.33%
3MB 16.67%
3LS 5.56%
3MS 11.11%
3HS 16.67%
14.20%
4 12.96%
5 13.89%
6 11.11%
1 22.22%
2 11.11%
3 13.89%
SUMMARYOFPOINTSEARNED:
byElement,UnitandPositionTitle

46. Summary of
Tabulation
of Individual
Rating
Sheets
Hilario P. Martinez 46
The responses for
“Moderate” Criticality
to Job and “Basic”
Competency Level
dominate the inputs
given by all respondents

47. Overall Average Rating = 15.87%
Overall Average Rating
Hilario P. Martinez 47
All scores, except one,
are within Groups 1 and
2 area, where the T/D
needs are higher.
Respondent-wise, the
raters, especially the
Supervisor, gave
derogatory scores. UC-
wise, the ratee was
more wanting in UC #6

48. D E F I C I E N C Y G A P S
Locating the Sample Rating Result in
the “Deficiency Scale”
Hilario P. Martinez 48
Group1
Group2
Group3
Group4
Group5
Group6
Overall Average Rating = 15.87%
SH, BM
Sufficient-
High //
Basic-
Moderate

49. SUGGESTED INTERVENTIONS
ACCORDING TO “DEFICIENCY RATE”
Maximizing Investments and
Resources
Hilario P. Martinez 49

50. Group 1: Basic Competency / High
Criticality (BH)
Hilario P. Martinez 50
O n - t h e - J o b
Tra i n i n g
Supervisor
Mentoring
Job-Specific
Workshops
Provided …
1. Employee has positively
verified potential
2. Employee manifest
improvement in
performance
3. These Interventions
are limited to 1 year
only
Remedial
Measures

51. Group 1: Basic Competency / High
Criticality (BH)
Hilario P. Martinez 51
Professional
Counselling
Demotion
In Rank
Transfer of
Assignment
You are FIRED!
Corrective
Measures

52. Group 2: Basic Competency / Moderate Criticality
(BM), Sufficient Competency / High Criticality (SH)
Hilario P. Martinez 52
Provided …
1. Employee has positively
verified potential
2. Employee manifest
improvement in performance
3. These Interventions are
limited to 1 year only
Self Study Group Mentoring
By Supervisor
Peer to Peer
Mentoring

53. Group 3: Sufficient Competency /
Moderate Criticality (SM)
Hilario P. Martinez 53
Supervisor
Coaching
Recognition
Delegate More
Responsibility

54. Group 4: Basic Competency / Low Criticality
(BL), Expert Competency / High Criticality (EH)
Hilario P. Martinez 54
Job EnlargementJob Enrichment
Ad-hoc group
Membership
Team
Leadership
Task Sharing
for Training

55. Group 5: Sufficient Competency / Low Criticality
(SL), Expert Competency / Moderate Criticality (EM)
Hilario P. Martinez 55
Multiple
Tasking
Change/Upgrade
Assignment
Assign Additional
Responsibilities

56. Group 6: Expert Competency / High
Criticality (EH)
Hilario P. Martinez 56
Multiple
Tasking
Delegate More
Responsibility
Peer Work-
Group Mentoring

57. A Strategic HRD and Top
Management Issue
How then should
Team Leaders be
affected if, at the
conclusion of a
TDNA, their Team
Members
Made
significant
improvement?
Manifested
NO or
negligible
change?
Deteriorated
farther?
Hilario P. Martinez 57

58. POLICIES, PROGRAMS, ACTIONS
MANAGEMENT MAY PUT INTO PLACE
TO SUPPORT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
THIS T.D.N.A. TOOL
Hilario P. Martinez 58

59. In-house Expertise
Prioritize in-house training
programs with internal
subject matter experts (SMEs)
as Resource Persons
Accreditation/designation of
Internal expertise as Trainors for
In-house training programs
Hilario P. Martinez 59

60. Business Reliability
Outsourcing of critical job
accounts when no sufficient
internal expertise is available
Streamlining and/or
Enhancement of Business
Operation / Processes
Hilario P. Martinez 60

61. Competency Standardization Program
Institutionalize workplace-
based skills development
modalities organization-wide
particularly the direct
participation of personnel
with supervisorial functions
Implement job / competency
standardization with direct
participation of employees in
the development process
Hilario P. Martinez 61

62. Human Resource Development
Implement a competency-
based Human Resource
Development System
Make available and accessible
all possible in-house
technology and job-pertinent
materials to employee-
learners in the workplace
Hilario P. Martinez 62
INFORMATION
SHARING
DIFFERENTIATED
WORKFORCE
PROGRESSIVE
SUCCESSION
PLAN

63. On In-Service Scholarship
Only graduate and post-graduate programs are to be funded,
and only to highly technical and science-based government
agencies, and only to highly deserving employees
Hilario P. Martinez 63

64. EXPECTATIONS OVER TIME
Hilario P. Martinez 64

65. Why is this tool being proposed, most
especially, for the government sector?
Hilario P. Martinez 65

66. ENSURING JOB FIT
Hilario P. Martinez 66

67. Hilario P. Martinez 67