NASA Headquarters Awards Design Review Team Status to the Workforce Diversity Board

1
NASA Headquarters Awards Design Review
TeamStatus to the Workforce Diversity Board
2
NASA Headquarters Award Design Review Team
Charter

• Team Objective
• Develop options for a spectrum of NASA
  Headquarters awards which provide motivation to
  all employees for support of Headquarters mission
  and objectives. The awards process and criteria
  for awards must be fair, objective, and uniform
  throughout Headquarters. All employees must
  understand and support the rational for the
  awards made to each individual employee. Provide
  plans and options for maintaining, modifying,
  deleting, or instituting new awards processes to
  meet our objective.

3
Scope

• The scope of this initiative includes all awards
  and related
• awards processes at NASA Headquarters which
  include
• a. NASA Honor Awards
• b. Performance Awards
• c. Quality Step Increases
• d. Suggestion Awards
• e. Superior Accomplishment Awards
• f. FAST Awards
• g. Time-Off Awards
• h. Secretarial Awards

4
NASA Headquarters Awards Design Review Team

• Team Participants
• Elsie Weigel/PO Chair
• Ron Moyer/QE
• Brenda Spicer/CP
• Laura Giza/GG
• Ali Montasser/JB
• Stan Fishkind/M-2
• Consultants
• Rhoda Hornstein/YF
• Pam Richardson/QE
• Bob Kreider/YF
• Steering Committee
• Al Castillo/CP
• Don Teague/RS
• Marcie Swilley/R
• Beth McCormick/U
• Mayra Montrose/UL
• Jenny Kishiyama/RG

5
Problem Statement

• Overall employee lack of understanding and
  insight into the award process
• Inconsistent application of award criteria
  throughout NASA Headquarters
• Loss of management credibility as a result of the
  award process
• Incorrect application of awards
• Lack of communication of information about the
  organization goals for employee focus
• Lack of award opportunity assignments (all work
  should be award opportunity assignments)
• Lack of recognition for routine jobs well done
• Awards made with no clear communication to peers
  about what and why the award was made
• Inconsistent recognition for supporting Agency
  and Headquarters goals versus immediate
  organization goals

6
Awards System Issues

• Not understood by employees
• Often perceived as a secret - not open to
  employees view
• Not motivational
• Perceived as an entitlement
• Not supportive of organizational objectives
• Not perceived as a rational or fair process

7
The Teams Process

• Defined the problem
• Outlined an approach to solving the problem
• Collected data on current situation at HQ
• Collected bench-mark data from public and
  private sectors
• Used a business case type approach to identify
  alternatives to solve the problem
• As a result, selected a recommended solution

8
Key Attributes of the Recommended Process

• Emphasize openness and motivation
• Strengthen and standardize an awards process
• Tie awards to organizational objectives
• Simplify award categories
• Provide oversight of award process

9
Proposed Performance Plan Linkage

• Officials-in-Charge of Headquarters Offices
  share their yearly performance plans with their
  Direct Reports (includes staff and line managers,
  such as Division Directors) and explain how
  their plans contribute to the Administrators
  performance plan.
• Direct Reports share their yearly performance
  plans with their employees and explain how their
  plans contribute to their Associate
  Administrators performance plan.
• Managers develop employees yearly performance
  plans based on actions required to satisfy their
  performance plans.

10
Teams Recommended Review Process

• The NASA Headquarters awards process consists of
  three parts. The awards process begins with
  performance planning activities in July at the
  start of each performance year then proceeds
  through midyear reviews and ends in June with the
  annual performance review activities.
• The first part of the awards process is the
  performance planning process . The Codes
  Associate Administrator establishes their
  performance plan with the NASA Administrator 1.
  The Codes Associate Administrator then shares
  their completed performance plan with the Codes
  Directors, explaining how their plan contributes
  to the Administrator's Performance Plan. The
  Directors then formulate their performance plans
  based on the Associate Administrators
  performance plan and aligned with the Codes
  Functional Leadership Plan which is in alignment
  with the NASA strategic goals. The Directors
  then share both the Associate Administrators
  and their own performance plans with their
  respective staff members, explaining how those
  plans contribute to the NASA Administrators
  plans and NASAs and the Codes strategic goals
  and specifically explaining how their (the
  Directors) plans contribute to the Associate
  Administrators plan. The staff members then
  write their own individual plans linked to their
  Directors plan and aligned and consistent with
  Codes Functional Leadership Plan. This way the
  right work will always be identified because
  all performance plan work links to higher level
  performance plans and to strategic plans (if not,
  the performance plan should explain the
  exception).
• The second part of the awards process is the
  midyear review. During the review, progress
  towards the expected performance plan outcome is
  assessed and adjustments, if any, are
  implemented.
• The third part of the awards process is the
  annual performance review activities. This is
  where the Codes Directors come together on
  several occasions with the Codes Associate
  Administrator as the Human resource Council (HRC)
  to collectively and cooperatively allocate the
  Codes cash award funds. During these meetings
  the Directors propose recommendations for
  individual staff awards. The recommendations
  follow the NASA Headquarters Cash Award Criteria
  guideline document 2. The discussions include
  the basis and reason(s) for an award
  recommendation, comparability of award
  recommendations across the Code, and the overall
  fairness and equity of award recommendation
  allocations vis-a-vis similar work
  accomplishments within the Code.

11
Teams Recommended Review Process (Contd)

• This is a very straightforward process. The
  performance planning activities of the awards
  process in any given performance year provide the
  basis which enables the Code Directors to get
  together at the end of the performance year
  during the performance review activities as a
  group to discuss, decide and agree on each others
  cash award recommendations. The key is the
  sharing and linking of performance plans from the
  NASA Administrator on down into the organization
  and the alignment of performance plans with Code
  Functional Leadership Plans and the sharing and
  linking of awards recommendation information.
  With this structure the Codes have a foundation
  on which to develop cash awards and recognition
  criteria that are independent of "favored or
  opportunity" work assignments. Rather, this
  awards process enables an environment that
  communicates what the organization wants to do
  and then rewards individuals who contribute to
  that goal. However simple, easy and
  straightforward the process is, it will not work
  for the staff and will not be remotely
  equitability effective without full and
  consistent management ownership and practice.
• 1. According to NPG 1000.2, NASA Strategic
  Management Handbook, October 1996, the process
  actually begins with the establishment of a
  performance agreement between the NASA
  Administrator and the President and then cascades
  through the organization to the performance plans
  of all NASA employees.
• 2. The NASA Headquarters Cash Award Criteria
  guideline document contains criteria which are
  flexible and can underpin a changing work
  program. The criteria described within the
  document were developed and approved by the
  Headquarters Code staff and are subject to change
  by staff members and managers through awards team
  discussion groups.

12
NASA Headquarters Cash Award Criteria

• Cash Award Criteria for individual, office, team,
  or group
• Value To Organization
• Amount of Award
• Cash award Category 1 - Substantial ( of Salary
  TBD)
• 1. An important contribution to the value of a
  product, activity, program, or service to the
  public.
• 2. Significant change or modification of
  operating principles or procedures.
• Cash award category 2 - High ( of Salary TBD)
• 1. A highly significant contribution to the value
  of a product, activity, program, or service to
  the public.
• 2. Complete revision of operating principles or
  procedures with considerable impact.
• Cash award category 3 - Exceptional ( of Salary
  TBD)
• 1. A superior contribution to the quality of a
  critical product, activity, program, or service
  to the public.
• 2. Initiation of a new principle or major
  procedure with significant impact.
• Factors to consider when awarding cash in any of
  the three cash award categories (see next chart)

13

• The above are generic criteria. However, other
  factors are taken in to consideration such as is
  it the employees first endeavor into this field
  of work, what impromptu assignments have been
  placed on the employee, does the employee make
  good use of their time, is the employee working
  at their grade level, is the employee willing to
  adapt to the changing nature of work, and
  consider the employees willingness to help other
  team members. It must be realized that there are
  varying degrees of Substantial, High, and
  Exceptional. Factors that you should strongly
  consider when deciding on a cash award follow.
• clearly exceeded duty requirements
• special effort which resulted in significant
  economies or highly desirable benefits
• improved value of a product, activity, program,
  or service to NASA, or the public
• overcame unusual difficulties or adversities
• heroic act or deed related to performance of
  duties
• enhanced the operational efficiency of office
• demonstration of initiative, creativity, enormous
  skill, or motivation
• contributions that had significant impact on
  outcome of assignment
• revised a principle or operating procedure to
  achieve goals
• innovative use of resources
• development of a technique that has set a
  precedent for future assignments
• devoted extra time to ensure completion of
  assignment
• set a professional example for others
• displayed quality leadership, motivated employees
• voluntarily assumed additional duties
• outstanding statistical accomplishments
• effective interaction with other governmental
  agencies to achieve goals or forge cooperative
  relationship
• unusual travel demands

14
Schedule for Completing Action

• Need to ensure buy-in since process involves
  all employees
• Status to WDB today -- Feedback Helpful
• Need to coordinate formally in following order
• Award Design Review Team Steering Group
• AA for Headquarters Operations
• Administrative Contacts
• Employee Groups
• Workforce Diversity Board
• Associate Administrators
• Union Partners

15
Timeframe for Completion

• Have in place prior to conduct of mid-term
  performance reviews to guide discussions with
  employees
• Fully implemented, including necessary formal
  documentation (i.e, HQ Common Process and/or HQ
  Policy Document) to guide allocation of awards
  during current performance period