The Human Resource Practices Development (HRPD) Project

Project Sponsor: Joan F. Rice, V.P. for Human Resources

The HRPD Core Team
Patricia A. Brady, Project Director, Team Leader
Maureen Bednarek, Personnel Department
Mark Cason-Snow, Brain and Cognitive Sciences, mediation@mit*
Melissa Damon, Personnel Department*
Margaret Ann Gray, Personnel Department (Performance Consulting and Training)
Alyce Johnson, Personnel Department
Peter Narbonne Student Financial Aid Services*
Steven Wade Neiterman, Information Systems*
Barbara Peacock-Coady, School of Engineering
Affiliates     Daniela Aivazian, Information Systems, Researcher, Analyst*
   Cynthia Vallino, Personnel Department *

Core Team Members Who Prepared the Final Report

Patricia A. Brady, Project Director, Team Leader
Daniela Aivazian, Information Systems, Researcher, Analyst
Maureen Bednarek, Personnel Department
Mark Cason-Snow, Brain and Cognitive Sciences, mediation@mit
Margaret Ann Gray, Personnel Department (Performance Consulting and Training)
Alyce Johnson, Personnel Department
Barbara Peacock-Coady, School of Engineering

* Term of appointment shorter than full term of the project.

The world is changing around us.  It demands lower costs in education; it views us as clinging to the past, unwilling to change and improve.  We must regain the public trust if we are to realize our aspirations and serve the future as we always have.  We will not regain that trust until we change substantively, becoming organizationally lean and effective. This cannot and will not be accomplished by thoughtless budget-cutting.  It will be accomplished by you as you open your minds, pick up a blank sheet of paper, go back to basics and design administrative organizations, processes and systems for the 21st century.

President Charles M. Vest
Letter to Reengineering Design Teams
September 21, 1994

Executive Summary

I. Introduction and Project Scope
II. The Case for Change
III. A Rationale for Competency-based Practices
IV. Recommendations
V. Discussion of Benefits and Risks
VI. Implementation Strategy
VII. Measuring Impacts
VIII. Project Methodology

Index of Exhibits

Exhibit 1: Phases of the HRPD Project
Exhibit 2: HRPD Project Chronology
Exhibit 3: Forces for Change
Exhibit 4: Integrated Competency-based System
Exhibit 5: Proposed Sequence of Implementation
Exhibit 6: Fully Integrated Implementation Plan for Year 3, Parts I and II
Exhibit 7: Integrated, Competency-based HR System Scorecard
Exhibit 8: HRPD Project Structure: A Federation of Teams
Exhibit 9: Pros and Cons of HRPD Team Structure
Exhibit 10: Summary of Collaborations
Exhibit 11: Summary of Research

Executive Summary

This report (Volume I) summarizes the work of the Human Resource Practices Development (HRPD) core team and project teams chartered under its auspices during the period February 1997 through January 1999. The core team was authorized to continue the work of a design team, which found in 1996 that current human resource practices no longer aligned with the Institute’s changing environment. The work of the HRPD team followed the advice of senior faculty and administration who reviewed the design report early in 1997. They cautioned that in the next phase of development, the team should:

• be mindful of the different cultures and work environments within the Institute
• be realistic about the role of technology
• consider that all human resource (HR) management does not need to be done centrally.

Recommendations

The output from the project includes recommended enhancements to existing HR practices, new strategic HR approaches, and customized tools and resources for modernizing the Institute’s HR management. The recommendations for changes in the Institute’s classification and compensation structures, delivered in the fall of 1997, are under development within the Personnel Department.

During the last two years, the core team learned about both the theories of effective human resource management and the applications that have worked well in practice in other organizations. Through empirical research and engagements with several areas of the Institute, it was possible to define HR practices specifically for MIT. Based on the results to date, the core team recommends that MIT continue development and complete implementation of an integrated system of competency-based human resource practices over the next three years.

The two defining attributes of the new system are first, that it is based on job designs that encompass both technical and behavioral competencies; and second, that it is integrated. Paying attention to behavioral competencies makes it possible to match individuals and jobs more satisfactorily for all concerned; for example, it allows technical competencies to be applied more successfully. Integration occurs on at least  two planes: (1) among the several HR practices (such as linking performance management and compensation) to create an environment in which people can do their best work; and (2) across the boundaries of technology, strategic planning and day-to-day activities in a way that will help MIT manage the operating budget more effectively.

A key finding of the HRPD research is that performance management is a critical process in the integrated system. It is the means through which employees:

• are able to link their work to the Institute’s goals
• get feedback on their performance from colleagues and constituents
• have access to training and development related to their roles
• be compensated, recognized and rewarded for performance
• identify opportunities for career growth and advancement.

Generally it takes three to five years to implement an integrated system of competency-based human resource practices, provided the leadership support and resources are available. If that is the case, the work of the last two years has positioned MIT to complete full implementation within the next three. In addition to a strong leader/champion and an adequate budget, the following components are key to successful implementation:

• an implementation resource team held accountable for meeting goals and authorized to implement new practices
• collaboration with Information Systems for technology support
• continued links to the Personnel Department for two-way knowledge transfer and coordinated service to constituents
• phased, integrated work plan
• a strong employee communications function
• separation from the urgencies of day-to-day operations

I. Introduction and Project Scope
This is the first of five volumes contained in the final report from the core team of the MIT Human Resource Practices Development (HRPD) Project that began in 1996. It summarizes the work of several research teams and recommends a comprehensive strategy for modernizing human resource management at the Institute.

In June 1996 MIT chartered a design team, under the sponsorship of Joan Rice, Vice President for Human Resources (HR), to define an integrated system of human resource practices to support the changing needs of MIT and its workforce. That led to the development of a work plan in 1997 to formulate the research-based recommendations, tools, and implementation strategy presented in this report.

A federation of teams executed the work plan during the next two years. Under the auspices of the core team, 57 team members were recruited from academic and central areas for part-time, short-term assignments. They worked on the following teams:

At the inception of the HRPD project (June 1996), the scope of work was defined in three dimensions: geography, population and practices.

• the geographic reach of the project was limited to the MIT campus
• the population considered in the project was all non-academic employees. As the charge was to develop human resource practices that are generally applicable to the Institute, the project did not address particular requirements of employee groups whose work may be defined by collective bargaining agreements, funding agreements, or other factors. Accordingly, the term "employee" in this report means support and administrative staff, unless otherwise qualified. Nevertheless, the HRPD team urges and expects that the Institute will consider all employee categories during implementation.
• the human resource practices within the scope are: Career and Succession Planning, Classification, Compensation, Generic Roles and Competencies (job design), Organization Development, Orientation, Performance Management, Recognition and Rewards, Selection, Strategic Planning, and Training and Development

A Focus on Behavioral Competencies

The mismatch between what people do best and what their jobs require was a common theme heard in the design phase. The mismatch was seen most often in managerial roles and when people needed to move to new types of work. Data showed that both individuals and the Institute suffered the consequences of the mismatches. Individuals spoke about low morale, disenfranchisement and frustration. In the worst cases, the Institute suffered from employees’ strong resistance to change; in many other cases, talent was being underutilized. Based on its research, the design team hypothesized that MIT could be much more successful about getting the right people in the right jobs if work requirements were understood and described more fully. Simply put, paying attention to behavioral competencies (how people perform their jobs) makes it possible to match individuals and jobs more satisfactorily. Furthermore, behavioral competencies allow employees and the Institute to capitalize more fully on technical skills and knowledge. Competencies are not a new way of working, per se; they are a means for working better and smarter. (A sample information packet about competencies, developed as part of the communication plan, is found in Supporting Documentation, Section C, of this Volume.)

Exhibit 1: Phases of the HRPD Project
 
 

A Transition to Performance Management

The HRPD project research confirmed that a well-designed and uniformly executed performance management process is required to ensure the effective use of competencies and help people do their best work at the Institute. Like the performance appraisal program that was introduced a few years ago at MIT, performance management links work to organizational goals; however, performance management is a broader, more interactive, and continual process. It shifts emphasis from year-end "grading" to performance planning at the beginning of the year, multi-source feedback, and coaching throughout the year.

Project Chronology

Exhibit 2 presents a summary of major milestones and implementation initiatives for the project.

Exhibit 2: HRPD Project Chronology

II. The Case for Change
The Big Picture

The rationale for modernizing MIT’s human resource (HR) practices is both clear and complex. It arises from a number of pressures and interests felt not only at MIT, but also across higher education in general. Inasmuch as higher education is a sector of the United States economy that employs some 2.5 million people, the ways that leading universities manage themselves have widespread implications. Recent articles and special studies published in the business press, scholarly journals, and in-house organizations have discussed the plight of universities in terms of the forces of change. These include: shifts in demand among students whose work lives are expected to include multiple career roles; the disconnect between market-based values and intellectual values; the growing imbalance between operating capital and costs; the effects of demographics, political environments, and technological innovation; and changing competency requirements and expectations in the workplace.

In the 1990s, a number of universities set out on major change initiatives. In 1995, the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) sponsored a study to define current practices, evaluate current and future priorities, and identify critical success factors in managing the human resource investment that generally absorbs a large percentage of universities’ operating budgets. At the same time, scholarly research about university effectiveness was concluding that "managers in institutions of higher education remain the key determinants of how their institutions will perform regardless of the condition of the external environment."

Disequilibrium is evident not just in the higher education arena, but in the workplace in general. There, too, the business press, scholarly journals, and research papers have been examining rising tensions. Issues of global competition, work and family balance, the "glass ceiling," the pace of technological change, new competency requirements, and "right-sizing" are challenging organizations to remain competitive. In short, the "social contract" between employees and employers is being rewritten.

The MIT Picture

In the context of general trends in higher education, MIT took stock of its own situation and identified particular risks arising from the confluence of technological change, the globalization of the economy and shifts in its sources of research funds. In 1994 MIT began a multi-year reengineering effort of administrative processes "to gain new levels of flexibility, robustness and cost-effectiveness." On the academic front, in the summer of 1996, President Charles M. Vest appointed the Task Force on Student Life and Learning to determine how MIT’s educational mission and its implementation should reflect the dynamism in the environment, the first such comprehensive review since 1949.

The cost-containment reengineering efforts generated both excitement and anxiety, the latter because attention was focused necessarily on the huge proportion of the Institute’s operating budget absorbed by salaries and benefits. In 1994 the Institute issued a set of principles reaffirming that "people are an Institute resource" while stating that employees would work in new ways in what was expected to be a leaner organization. Two years later, under the sponsorship of Joan F. Rice, Vice President for Human Resources, the Human Resource Practices Development (HRPD) Project began.

Forces for Change at MIT

The case for changes in HR practices at MIT is multi-dimensional. It reflects the long-standing tension in HR management of reconciling the expectations of employees (who seek satisfaction through work) with meeting the goals of the organization (that needs to maintain competitive advantage). At its core are three main issues: community desire, workplace expectations, and financial imperatives.

Community Desire

Through its comprehensive community outreach and collaboration activities, the core and project teams found that the recurrent themes of dissatisfaction with current HR practices that were documented by the design team still resonated:

• management expertise is uneven; management decisions are inconsistent
• the performance appraisal process is neither uniform nor consistent
• access to training programs depends on "local conditions"
• HR administrative processes are cumbersome
• hiring and classification processes are politicized
• good work is under appreciated and often unacknowledged
• poor performance is ignored
• career paths and career planning are rare
• lack of succession planning puts the Institute at risk
• staff work and morale are undermined by unclear priorities and the lack of recognition ( the "praise-free zone")

Exhibit 3: Forces for Change

It is also still clear that MIT employees care a great deal about the Institute. They want to help MIT maintain its position as a world-class leader through the collective efforts of a diverse community. There is support for HR practices that provide clarity for employees, support career development, and recognize and reward high performance. The core team believes that as the Institute moves out of reengineering and into a mode of continuous improvement, a renewed emphasis on "people as an Institute resource" is warranted.

Workplace Expectations

The expectations of both the Institute and employees are changing, although they are not necessarily consistent across campus or among groups. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the inconsistencies and ambiguities are, at the least, unsettling and often disruptive to work flows and productivity.

How are MIT’s expectations changing? In a number of ways. For one thing, the policy requiring written performance appraisals (introduced in 1994) was the Institute’s first significant step toward holding employees accountable for work results, even though the Institute has been operating since the middle of the nineteenth century. Second, the 1994 Human Resource Principles reinforced that "the organization of the future will place an emphasis on high performance and flexibility." Third, to realize the full potential of new computer systems, MIT may need to create new organizational units and redesign work. Fourth, in his 1997-1998 report, President Vest stated that we must "be committed to excellence, yet thrive on change." And in discussing the need to create "an integrated educational triad of academics, research, and community," the Report of the Task Force on Student Life and Learning (1998) cited the critical role played by staff in providing high quality service to students, faculty, and peers.

The changing expectations among employees are just as compelling, particularly in a period of very low unemployment when competition for qualified staff is extremely keen. The employees who provided input to the HRPD project expect to have opportunities to be trained for new work, to be compensated fairly, to be recognized for outstanding performance, and to understand how their work advances the Institute’s goals. Analyses of the labor market document other shifts in employee expectations that relate to MIT. It is also true that employees today expect to have their career development interests supported and to have flexibility in designing jobs in order to meet personal commitments. The community involvement and collaborative aspects of the project left the HRPD team with the clear impression that the unwavering loyalty to MIT generally identified with Institute employees is being strained seriously.

In sum, at the same time that the Institute is placing greater emphasis on performance and flexibility, personal pressures added to work responsibilities are making employees’ lives more complex. Balancing and blending the interests of both entities is imperative in order for MIT to fulfill its responsibilities as the largest employer in Cambridge and to provide high-quality service to its many constituencies.

Financial Imperatives

The budget imbalance that moved MIT to reengineer its administrative processes in 1994 still exists. According to Dr. Vest’s Report of the President for the Academic Year 1997-1998, "meeting MIT’s [financial] goals will require new revenues, new approaches to the use of our resources, and revised processes and procedures in our operations." The right people in the right jobs accomplish goals. Since the largest component of the operating budget is salaries and wages, it stands to reason that an integrated system of human resource practices to manage that investment in people is a worthwhile development for the Institute. Not providing a system to ensure that qualified employees are recruited, trained, motivated, coached, held accountable, and compensated for helping MIT meet its goals would be shortsighted and unwise.

The Future is Now

As early as 1996, the design team recognized that two compelling HR needs had to be addressed: first, giving immediate assistance to areas of MIT in the throes of change, and second, making more strategic investments in human resource programs affecting the whole Institute. An integrated system of human resource practices addresses both needs. The team sees the following "future" work environment beginning to take shape in some areas of the Institute:

• managers and employees meeting Institute goals through collaborative working relationships
• responsibility for human resource practices accepted at the department level
• engagement in the commitment to create a diverse community
• opportunities for assignments outside of one’s home department
• technology optimization
• flexible work designs

III.A Rationale for Competency-based Practices

The rationale for basing the Institute’s human resource practices on the competencies linked to successful performance is sound. First, a definition: Competencies are underlying characteristics (typically related to skills, knowledge, self-image, traits, or motives) which cause or predict outstanding performance or behavior in a particular role within a specific organizational context. Competencies predict successful performance when they are identified through rigorous research methods. Traditionally, MIT has paid the most attention to technical competencies in its HR practices. Acknowledging the importance of technical expertise, the core team’s research has focused on behavioral competencies.

Background in Research

In 1973, David C. McClelland, Ph.D., published a paper entitled "Testing for Competence Rather Than Intelligence" (American Psychologist, 28, 1-14) that launched the competency movement in organizational and industrial psychology. In the paper, Dr. McClelland argued that neither traditional academic aptitude and knowledge content (IQ) tests, nor school grades and credentials predicted more than a threshold level of job performance success. Furthermore, he maintained that traditional criteria were often biased against minorities, women, and persons from lower socioeconomic strata.

Dr. McClelland went on to maintain that by closely studying the superior and typical performers in a role or job, the characteristics that differentiate the superior performers could be identified. He called these characteristics "competencies." In contrast to traditional approaches, which analyze job requirements and people separately and then put them together, the competency approach considers the challenges and context faced by the person in the job and determines what characteristics are associated with successful performance. As a result, competencies both reflect an organization’s reality and culture (versus what management theory says should be necessary) and predict superior job performance without age, race, gender, or demographic bias.

More than 25 years after Dr. McClelland’s ground-breaking article, the job competency movement has advanced the ways that organizations go about their important tasks of getting the right people into the right jobs and supporting them in their careers. Additionally, the competency-based approach has proven successful both in not-for- profit and for-profit organizations. In fact, the earliest clients of Dr. McClelland and the consulting firm he founded, McBer & Co. (now a division of the Hay Group), were the U.S. Department of State and the United States Navy.

Competencies and Performance

While competencies include both technical (skills, knowledge, and experiences) and behavioral characteristics, subsequent research has shown that even though technical competence is necessary for successful performance, it is not sufficient. In fact, behavioral competence accounts for 67 percent of success in most jobs, and rises as high as 80 percent for certain senior management positions. Underscoring the connection between performance and competency is the finding that the more people feel successful in their jobs, the more likely they are to stay with their organizations, and the more likely they are to be committed to their organization’s success. Competencies are a powerful bonding agent among people, work, and organization performance: the better the "fit," the better the performance.

Competencies at MIT

MIT began testing the appropriateness of competency-based practices in 1996. Fact-finding conducted during the design phase of the HRPD project revealed widespread desire on the part of Institute staff to understand their performance and what was required to be successful, to be promoted, and to build a career. The HRPD team further discovered that most hiring and selection into administrative staff positions is based on technical competencies, a person’s resume. Once in the position, however, success often hinges on the person’s ability to "learn one’s way around MIT," "figure out how to get things done," "keep one’s sense of humor," "handle difficult people," etc. In other words, successful performance in MIT jobs and roles depends as much (if not more) on behavioral competencies than on technical competencies. Through the language of behavioral competencies, the HRPD team members have been able to help departments, laboratories, and centers at MIT describe the "softer skills" necessary for successful performance at the Institute.

To date, largely through the efforts of the HRPD team, 46 competency models have been built for specific positions or roles in central administration and academic areas using a multi-perspective method called The Expert Panel Process. In addition, models have been built for IS roles and for Rank List III administrative staff positions using rigorous research approaches based on The Behavioral Event Interview. (See Volumes II, III and IV.) In using these competency models, MIT is laying the foundation for an integrated system of basic human resource practices.

IV.  Recommendations for an Integrated System

The design team made a strong recommendation for an integrated system of practices. Throughout the course of this project, as individual teams conducted research and made recommendations for specific practices, the core team focused on common elements and patterns across the spectrum of work. As each piece of the project was completed, the critical need for an integrated, competency-based system was confirmed. It is true that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Exhibits 4A and 4B illustrate how competencies and performance management form the core of the system. Imbedded in the design are the tools MIT needs to establish equilibrium between the goals of the Institute and the interests of its employees. (See Volume II for the tools.)

Exhibit 4a: Integrated Competency-Based System from the Institute's Perspective
 
 

Exhibit 4b: Integrated Competency-Based System from Employee's Perspective

Overview of the Integrated System

The core team recommends an integrated HR system at MIT in which:

• the values of the Institute and its expectations for employee performance are clearly articulated to all employees and all prospective employees
• competencies are at the core:
• all jobs are described with a competency model
• the classification structure is defined in terms of both technical and behavioral competencies
• selection and recruitment are based on competencies
• a continuum of performance management (including goal-setting, coaching, multi-source assessment, and competency development) supersedes the annual performance appraisal event
• training and development programs are aligned with MIT goals, accessible to all employees, and support competency development
• related practices reinforce the relationship between the Institute and the employees:
• performance consulting effects new capabilities to support organizational change
• employees are oriented properly to the Institute, the department, and the job
• compensation and recognition/rewards programs reinforce MIT’s pay-for-performance philosophy and position MIT favorably in the employment market
• HR planning is part of strategic planning and begins with succession planning for critical positions
• career development activities support both MIT’s goals and employees’ interests
• impacts of HR practices are measured at the Institute level
• HR practices are supported by an integrated information system; web-based applications are the main mode of access
• an employee communications program ensures consistent messages about HR practices, programs, and issues

The following summary of the recommendations illustrates the overall fabric of the system. These recommendations are presented in more detail in Supporting Documentation, Section D, of this Volume.

1.  Describe jobs using competencies as well as duties and responsibilities.

• develop core competency models, similar to the one developed for Administrative Staff, for Sponsored Research and Support Staffs
• continue to provide staff trained in the Expert Panel process to facilitate customized model development
• modify the guidelines for position descriptions to include competencies

Require that every job applicant, upon demonstration of technical competencies, be interviewed for behavioral competencies using competency-based selection interviewing. How it is implemented:

• ensure that each new hire and new position description has an associated competency model
• develop expertise in competency-based selection interviewing across the Institute through training; use accredited trainers to develop a cadre of local resources
• adopt clear policies and guidelines on the use of competency-based interviewing to ensure appropriate and consistent use of the tool
• investigate software tools to support and streamline the process

• adopt a set of new tools, including a multi-source assessment process and a planning/goal-setting document
• establish specific roles to support the performance management process
• train employees and managers in the new process
• support the development of coaching competencies among managerial and supervisory staff through the use of the coaching competency model and training courses
• make senior management responsible for compliance with performance management policies, supported by central Human Resources
• clarify and strengthen policies relating to performance management to ensure consistent application across the Institute
• tie merit review percentage increases to actual performance results
• phase in the new process by senior management areas
• provide web-based technology to support each phase of the process

• establish a Training Advisory Team to ensure training programs are aligned with Institute priorities
• establish a G/L account in SAP to budget and track training expenditures across the Institute
• develop and disseminate a set of training principles that gives all staff access to training
• provide a curriculum of training programs to support competency-based practices and support competency development across MIT
• ensure that training content experts are identified and adequately funded
• develop guidelines for measuring the tangible impacts of training programs, individually and collectively

• Performance Consulting & Training (PC&T) is now an established, permanent work group
• services to MIT departments, laboratories, and centers include organization development, needs assessment, planning, measurement, process improvement, team development, custom-designed training, meeting facilitation, and resource referrals

• appoint a project manager to spearhead program development and implementation at the Institute level
• develop web-based applications to support orientation efforts
• work with departments, laboratories, and centers to develop and implement local programs

• develop and communicate a comprehensive classification and compensation philosophy that reflects the values and mission of the Institute
• collapse the current 43 salary levels into a few wide bands or super ranges
• implement salary components that allow managers to recognize performance and compete for scarce and necessary skills

• provide a program that is easily accessible to all staff and provides a variety of ways to recognize and reward employees
• appoint a project manager to spearhead program development and oversee implementation
• link the program with performance management to ensure consistent and integrated messages to employees
• coordinate implementation with the new classification and compensation programs

• appoint a project manager to serve as a resource for HR issues to MIT’s evolving strategic planning process
• implement the succession planning approach introduced to senior officers in the Spring of 1998
• research human resources planning approaches among benchmark organizations, e.g., IVY+, and recommend approach for MIT

• chart career paths embedded in the classification structure
• research and document scope of career service needs among MIT employees
• explore shared services opportunities with the Office of Career Services and Preprofessional Advising and the Boston Consortium
• develop options for providing needed services, including the establishment of a Career Services Center

• conduct an employee survey to obtain baseline information about satisfaction with jobs and HR practices
• develop a "balanced scorecard" for HR practices, including systems to monitor and report on results
• ensure that all HR practices have measures for tracking their impacts on MIT results

• commission a discovery project to select web-based applications to support HR system components
• commission a discovery project to define system requirements for a comprehensive HRIS
• provide knowledge about competency-based HR practices to the discovery team

• select a qualified employee communications specialist to develop and implement a program

V. A Discussion of Benefits and Risks

Benefits

When fully implemented, the recommendations will yield the following benefits for the Institute and its employees:

• better understanding of the requirements for excellent performance at MIT
• better selection, development, and retention of people who meet those requirements
• higher quality management and leadership for MIT’s continued growth
• broader compensation program that rewards results and allows MIT to compete successfully in the market
• increased capacity to respond to opportunities and constraints and adapt to change effectively
• improved methodology for measuring the multi-dimensional impacts of human resource practices
• keener ability to leverage technology, people management, and strategic planning investments more effectively

Risks

Throughout the project, demand for competency-based integrated practices has been growing across the Institute, particularly as collaborations have yielded successful outcomes. People now understand that the wholeness of the system is its strength. In the view of the team, the risks to the Institute if the integrated system is not implemented are more serious today than they were at the beginning of the project. The risks can be categorized as negative impacts at four levels: constituents, internal processes, innovation and learning, and financial.

• increased cynicism about the benefits of change, small or large
• the old practices (which employees have identified as "broken") will be legitimized
• erosion of MIT’s reputation as a "good employer"
• inefficient use of staff across the Institute and impression that "wealthy departments [are] favored"
• increased burnout among staff, with accompanying stress-related disorders, such as absenteeism and lower productivity
• greater proportion of management time spent dealing with disgruntled, misplaced, ill-prepared employees

• savings from new technology (such as SAP) delayed if staff are not prepared to deal effectively with implementation
• HR practices are out of step with the new ways of working
• service to students and faculty will deteriorate as staff struggle both with mismatched and fewer resources (human and technical)
• quick-fix, piecemeal approaches to outdated HR practices will overlook interdependencies, result in duplicate effort, and may send mixed messages
• MIT is out of step with most organizations, which are moving towards competency-based systems
• increased turnover as staff become more desirable to outside employers and vice versa

• the Institute will send a powerful message that the status quo, however ineffective, is appropriate for staff employees
• the Institute will squander the opportunity to create a desirable employee environment for the 21^st century
• MIT’s reputation as a leading institution will erode

• costs will increase because:
• more resources will be required to get work done
• recruiting fees will escalate as turnover increases
• addressing performance issues will become more costly
• HR practices are addressed one at a time
• departments may feel the need to maintain duplicate systems
• productivity improvements will be limited because:
• staff will have narrow technical skills
• options for restructuring work will need to address staff inflexibility
• innovation will not be valued
• benefits costs associated with stress-related disorders will increase
• the investment in the HRPD project will not be returned

VI.  Implementation Strategy

The design team foresaw two important roles for human resources management at MIT. On the one hand, they saw the need to continue, but improve, day-to-day HR operations. Equally important, they identified the need for the Institute to develop a high-level strategic capability to support MIT’s investment in people in a way that would be congruent with the Institute’s overall strategic plan. The core team has confirmed that these two roles are as necessary today as they were two years ago.

Working together, efficient HR operations and strategic perspective yield an integrated human resource system that accommodates the interests of both the organization and the employees. Furthermore, this combined effort has been known to create significant, measurable improvements in financial performance.

The question of how to implement a more comprehensive, integrated system of human resource practices within the current organization structure has been a concern expressed in many quarters during the project. First, the stress resulting from several years of reengineering has some departments, laboratories, and centers longing for a period of equilibrium. Others are eager to embrace innovation. Second, the constraint of limited resources in the Personnel Department was discussed at length during the joint Personnel/HRPD retreat in August of 1998, even though the benefits of implementing a new system were clearly endorsed. Third, because the implementation of a modern Human Resource Information System is several years away, shifting Personnel staff work from a highly transactional to a more consultative mode is not yet possible. Finally, inasmuch as the Personnel Department expressed a need for strategic planning of its own organization, it may not be well positioned to manage the continued development and implementation of the proposed new system. (See Summary of Retreat for Personnel Managers and the HRPD Team in Supporting Documentation, Section H, of this Volume.)

Implementation strategy should be seen in the context of other changes at the Institute. There are lessons that can be gleaned from recent initiatives. For example, in the wake of the initial disruption related to the SAP rollout, the school coordinator team approach to helping departments, laboratories, and centers migrate successfully to the new technology has been working very satisfactorily. Similarly, the team of performance consultants that was formed to provide consultative and educational services in organization development, facilitation, meeting management, and other aspects of day-to-day work, is helping the Institute improve not just individuals’ competencies but also organizational efficiency and agility. Throughout the HRPD project, it was the close collaboration with departments, laboratories, and centers; the personnel officers; the performance consultants; and reengineering teams through which the goals of the project were met. The success of these models illustrates both the importance and effectiveness of providing coordinated support services as new initiatives are rolled out. It is clear to the core HRPD team that continuing the collaborative, "design/build" approach is the best way to implement an integrated system of competency-based human resource practices that will support MIT. Concentrated, accountable focus is essential.

The fact is that implementation of integrated human resource practices has already begun and needs to continue. A number of departments have been selecting staff using competency models and are now ready to implement additional practices. More recently, a core competency model for all MIT administrative roles was developed through rigorous empirical research involving senior leadership and administrative staff. (See Volume IV.) This model is the platform for implementing consistent practices affecting approximately 1200 on-campus administrative staff. The new competency-based classification system is under development. The proposed performance management system can begin in areas that have competency models.

To continue the implementation, the core team proposes that the Institute establish and support a dedicated unit to help MIT move to the competency-based, integrated system through the continued execution of a phased plan, in collaboration with departments, laboratories, and centers.

Definition and Scope of the Unit

What would such a unit do? It would be an Implementation Resource Team (IRT) with three main purposes:

• support adoption of new practices through consultation with departments, laboratories, and centers
• provide quality assurance during implementation, including communication
• manage new strategic initiatives, such as succession planning, human resource measurement, and career services

1. be a technical resource in competency-based practices and HR strategic planning for the Institute
2. plan and execute a roll-out plan for HRPD recommendations by:

• providing local forums to introduce competency-based practices
• helping to build support for implementation within local units
• transitioning from performance appraisal to performance management

1. monitor and report progress on the implementation plan roll-out
2. continue development of the HR tool kit
3. execute an employee communications strategy
4. act as liaison with strategic planning processes to incorporate HR issues
5. implement a human resource strategic planning process linked to an HRIS discovery process
6. facilitate the MIT succession planning process
7. implement a "balanced scorecard" approach for measuring the impact of integrated, competency-based HR practices

As noted earlier, implementation of the integrated system has begun in the sense that a number of generic roles and competencies have been developed and defined. The "how to" tools in Volume II of this report will be the means for continued implementation. The tools will be refined based on specific needs for adaptation and "customization" as necessary to address the various administrative and academic settings across MIT. Exhibit 5 presents the sequence for implementing the recommendations. Exhibit 6 outlines a work plan for the next year, in six-month increments, as well as estimates of involvement by departments, laboratories and centers in the system implementation.

Exhibit 5:  Proposed Sequence of Implementation
 

Exhibit 6: Fully Integrated Implementation Plan for Year 3, Part I
 
 
 

Development Area	Actions in First Six Months	Level of DLC Involvement
Generic Roles & Competencies	Communicate and establish buy-in for Admin Staff competency model. Establish competency-based selection practices for Admin Staff Complete core competency model for support staff Develop a competency assessment tool Be a resource for MIT’s competency evolution Set up and manage competency database	New modeling by request only. Some participation in Support Staff expert panels. Selection interview training as needed for new hires.
Performance Management	Set up roll-out plan Engage implementation site(s) Assess options for performance management training (including coaching)	High for implementation sites; Minimal for others
Orientation	Appoint Project Mgr. Develop roll-out plan for campus-wide orientation activities Engage collaboration of participants Get funding commitments	Minimal
Recognition & Rewards	Appoint Project Mgr. Refine budget & secure funding Initiate roll-out for beginning of FY00; link with Performance Management rollout	Minimal
Training Policies & Admin. (PC&T)	Appoint Training Advisory Committee Establish web page Continue developing content experts Develop competency curriculum Be a resource to MIT for Organizational Development	Minimal
Succession Planning	Convene Senior Officers to start the process	Senior officer level only
HR Balanced Scorecard	Conduct employee survey to get baseline data Set up other data collection and feedback processes Track competency roll-out activity; Manage budget.	Moderate to High for survey; Minimal for other
HR Investment (Strategic) Planning	Be a resource to the Chancellor et al Research HR strategic planning approaches (Ivy +?)	Minimal
Technology Development	Assemble Technical Team for implementation ; be a resource to IS in the discovery process for the MIT HRIS Assess web-based performance management tools	Minimal
Communications	Recruit Communications Specialist Develop an employee communications plan	Moderate
Classification/Compensation	Continue affiliation with Class/Comp Core Project Team	Moderate to High

 

Exhibit 6: Fully Integrated Implementation Plan for Year 3, Part II
 
 
 

Development Area	Actions in Second Six Months	Level of DLC Involvement
Generic Roles & Competencies	Conduct feasibility study for delivering career management services Communicate and build buy-in for core competency model for support staff  Be a resource for MIT’s competency evolution	Service by Request only. Minimal participation in information gathering for career services study.
Performance Management	Work with implementation sites for Phase I (includes process and goal-setting training); will be combined w/ Rewards and Recognition roll-out.  Engage implementation site(s) for next phase of roll-out Develop training program for coaching	High for pilot sites; Minimal for others
Orientation	Set up orientation web page Initiate campus-wide orientation activities Continue collaboration in DLC’s  Assist in planning department-level programs	Service by request only; minimal participation in campus-wide orientation
Recognition & Rewards	Begin roll-out (same implementation sites as for Performance Management) Design program for tracking use and measuring impacts	Moderate
Training Policies & Admin. (PC&T)	Continue developing content experts Continue development of competency curriculum Be a resource to MIT for organization development	Minimal; DLC will track training costs as part of financial management processes
Succession Planning	Categorize types of critical positions; define competency models	Senior officer level only
HR Balanced Scorecard	Implement data-collection and feedback processes Communicating employee survey results Track competency roll-out activity; manage budget.	Moderate for data collection; minimal for other
HR Investment (Strategic) Planning	Be a resource to the Chancellor et al Propose HR strategic planning process	Minimal
Technology Development	Assess web-based performance management tools Set up orientation page  Be a resource to IS in the discovery process for the MIT HRIS	Minimal
Communications	Initiate employee communications plan Be a resource to rest of implementation team and Personnel Department	Moderate
Classification/Compensation	Continue affiliation with Class/Comp core project team	Moderate to high

Staffing the Unit

Based on the work plan outlined in Exhibit 6, the HRPD team proposes a team comprised of three accredited competency experts, an employee communications specialist, a technical assistant, and a unit director who would serve in the dual role of team leader and competency expert. Roles and competency models would be defined and used in recruiting staff for the unit.

The staff would work both as individual contributors and in sub-teams to implement the work plan. It is expected that in the first six months, approximately 70 percent of the team’s effort would be focused on continued tool development and start-up activities; 30 percent would be spent collaborating with different parts of the Institute in accordance with their needs. In the next six months, it is expected that the proportions of the team’s effort spent on development and collaboration would be reversed. By continuing the practice begun by the core team of partnering with the personnel officers and performance consultants, the proposed new unit would be able to engage departments, laboratories, and centers on a number of levels with a comprehensive and consistent approach.

The Recognition and Rewards project team and the Orientation project team each recommended the appointment of a full-time project manager to support the development and implementation of those practices. Whether these project managers are positioned within the Implementation Resource Team (IRT), as well as whether two full-time positions are needed should be revisited once IRT is established.

Integration into MIT’s Organization Structure

Because the integrated system is in the "incubator stage" of implementation, the HRPD team believes strongly that certain conditions are necessary for the resource unit to be effective. It must be:

• visibly championed by a strong leader
• authorized to collaborate with staff to implement new practices
• separated from the urgencies of day-to-day operations
• supported by an adequate budget
• held accountable for achieving measurable goals

VII.  Measuring Impacts

The integrated, competency-based Human Resource system has been developed to ensure that the Institute has the right numbers of staff, with the right competencies to achieve its mission and strategic plan. The result is both successful performance for MIT and personal satisfaction for employees. The HRPD team has adapted the Norton and Kaplan tool, the Balanced Scorecard®, for this project. It provides an excellent framework for defining the measurable impacts of the system’s implementation.

Exhibit 7: Integrated, Competency-based HR System Scorecard

From the very beginning of the HRPD project, the combination of community outreach, continuous learning, and collaboration was the foundation of the team’s methodology. This section describes the project’s continuum and includes summaries of the many collaborations and research activities, in Exhibits 10 and 11 respectively.

HRPD Project Retrospective

In 1994, the Reengineering Steering Committee chartered a team to identify critical ways or processes the Institute could re-organize to work more effectively. As reengineering at the Institute progressed, it became clear that areas undergoing reorganization needed human resource practices complementary to a team-driven work environment. Through its work the Training and Development Planning Team (an enabling team that was formed to support reengineering) confirmed the need and proposed the formation of a separate design team focused on human resource practices. In 1996, the Steering Committee authorized the formation of the Human Resource Practices Design Team under the sponsorship of Joan F. Rice, Vice President for Human Resources. For approximately four months during 1996, eleven team members drawn from a cross-section of central administration and academic departments conducted research into nine human resources practices deemed critical for employees to operate in the changing world of work at MIT.

Design Team Report

The design team report (included in Supporting Documentation, Section F, of this Volume) articulated a dynamic, open system of interrelated human resource practices, enabled by technology, that would be applied and accessible to all employees, and measured for its overall impact. Furthermore, in response to clearly expressed needs, the team proposed broadening the scope of human resource practices at MIT. Specifically, it recommended that the Institute evolve to work design and performance management based on both the technical competencies that MIT has always valued and on well-defined behavioral competencies. Both types of competencies are necessary for successful fulfillment of duties and responsibilities in one’s role. In sum, the nine specific recommendations of the design team were based on (1) the broadly held and consistently expressed needs of the community, (2) best practices in the external environment, and (3) current scholarly research on the subject of human resource practices.

A first draft of the design team’s study was delivered in October 1996 and subsequently reviewed by the Reengineering Steering Committee, the Academic Council, and the five School Councils. In general, the reviewing bodies agreed that the project should go forward; however, they stressed that the value of people should not be de-emphasized in the quest for technology solutions. Also, the team was cautioned to be sensitive to the multiple, sometimes competing, interests among MIT sub-cultures. The team amended the plan to incorporate comments from the reviewers. A summary of comments from the School Councils is included in Supporting Documentation, Section I, of this Volume.

Development Team Commencement

During the same period, in February 1997, the next phase of work – to develop and pilot new competency-based practices for the Institute – was authorized. Reconvened as a smaller unit, the core development team prepared a work plan to give form and functionality to the design recommendations. The Sponsor and Steering Committee received both the final design team report and the new work plan in April 1997. Immediately thereafter, that same core team began the work summarized in this Volume.

Concurrently (based on the design team recommendations), the Performance Consulting and Training Team (PC&T) was becoming established (as a successor to the Training and Development Planning Team) to support the changing organizational structures at MIT with an expanded menu of services to departments, laboratories, and centers. (See separate report, Volume III.) The PC&T team leader continued as a member of the core HRPD team.

The project reached a particularly significant milestone in July 1997 when President Vest presented the HRPD project team’s work plan and declared his support of the project in a letter to the community published in a special supplement to Tech Talk. He encouraged all "to read and discuss the team’s report and participate in the development of appropriate changes to MIT’s human resource practices." The HRPD team’s methodology provided many opportunities for employees to become involved in the project.

The competency-based approach was applied within the project structure as well as with other parts of the Institute. All members of the core team, the project teams, and the permanent Performance Consulting and Training Team were recruited on the basis of both technical knowledge (skills required) and behavioral competencies associated with successful performance on a team.

Team Structure and Practices Development Process

The structure and work plan of the HRPD core team followed recommendations and guiding principles set forth by the design team:

Implementation of the human resource practice recommendations will occur over time in a way that favors testing, measurement, and continual assessment. Further, the implementation process will be open, inclusive of the MIT community and designed to ensure success across the wide variety of sub-communities within MIT.
(See Supporting Documentation, Section F, for the final report of the Design Team.)

Following the design team’s recommendation that MIT develop an integrated system of competency-based human resources, the core team’s main focus was testing the validity of such a system for MIT. In order to be well-grounded in the practices they were helping MIT to test, most core team members also completed formal training and became accredited practitioners in Selection Interviewing Techniques, Behavioral Event Interviewing, and Competency Modeling (see Volume II). This training was delivered by consultants from Hay/McBer, technical advisor to the HRPD project, and recognized experts in competency-based human resource practices.

Core team members held four retreats (ranging in duration from the four-day kick-off event to one-day planning sessions) to assess progress, recalibrate the work plan, and renew team commitment to the project. In addition, they asked the managers in the Personnel Department to help plan and participate in a retreat to explore how the emerging HRPD recommendations could be implemented and integrated into a more comprehensive system of HR practices for the Institute. That two-day retreat in August 1998, in which the Vice President for Human Resources also participated, was very helpful for defining the implementation strategy presented in Section VI of this Volume.

The Project Director/Core Team Leader, Patricia Brady, had alternate, biweekly meetings with Joan Rice, Vice President for Human Resources (Project Sponsor), and Professor James Bruce, Vice President for Information Systems (Program Manager for MIT’s reengineering project) to discuss project progress and seek their wisdom and counsel.

The Federation of Project Teams

Following the design team recommendation, the core team set up a network of interrelated teams to test the hypothesis that a system of competency-based practices made sense for MIT. Through their efforts, the issues of integrating practices and specific practice development both were addressed.
 

Exhibit 8:  HRPD Project Structure:  A Federation of Teams

The core team considered the team recruitment process carefully because a recurring theme in the design phase indicated that many staff who were interested in helping the Institute prepare for the future felt shut out of the reengineering processes. Also, the core team believed that involving employees from many parts of the campus community in the HRPD project would be consistent with both its commitment to community involvement and to a basic tenet of organization development, participation. Consequently, project team members were recruited from departments, laboratories, and centers in an open process that included competency-based interviewing. (See Volume V for methodology.) In total, representatives from 24 departments, laboratories, and centers were loaned by their supervisors for short-term, part-time participation as project team members.

Although it is reasonable to presume that full-time involvement would have been easier to manage, in retrospect, the pros of involving a large number of people in this particular project outweighed the cons. (See Exhibit 9.)

Exhibit 9: The Pros and Cons of the HRPD Project Teams Structure
 

The Pros and Cons of the HRPD Project Teams Structure
Pros	Cons
Opportunities for administrative and support staff to "work in new ways"	Difficult to maintain continuity of team work at 20% level of participation
Transfer of "local knowledge" from DLCs to project team	Uncertainty about support in DLCs among managers and peers of team members
Transfer of project team knowledge and experience back to DLCs	Team members may find returning to non-collaborative environments in DLCs problematic
Team leadership development opportunity for HRPD core team members	Takes more time to complete work plan
Build MIT community through shared learning about Institute-wide issues
Learn about the environment for project team work at MIT
Assemble adequate resources to get the work done w/o increasing project cost

In fact, the decision to structure the project as a federation of teams proved to be a research opportunity itself. In August of 1998, the core team decided to sponsor a separate study that would capture "lessons learned" from the HRPD and other recent project team experiences for the benefit of future teams. The results of that study are included in this report (See Project Team Formation Tool in Volume II and the complete report in Volume III.)

Executing the Work Plan

These two issues were deemed equally important: how to recruit and organize the right people for the project and how to design a project work process that would be sensitive to MIT’s culture and engage the community. Initially, the core team defined a decision process to ensure that its work would not cross the boundaries of the defined scope, would be respectful of community interests, and would be flexible enough to accommodate special assignments from the project sponsor or other senior officers of the Institute. Additionally, each project team used community outreach and research methodologies that are described in the separate project team reports included in Volume III. In general, however, the core and project teams all engaged in five types of activities, unless otherwise noted:

1. Communication and Community Involvement

A cornerstone of the project work plan was recurrent, two-way communication and involvement with the MIT community. Modes of communication included interviews, focus groups, HRPD core team’s responses to requests for help from departments, laboratories and centers, presentations to various groups, e-mail, a Web page, meetings with individuals, a special IAP series, articles in Tech Talk and the Faculty Newsletter, and regular meetings of the Project Director with senior officers. An overview of the communication plan is in Supporting Documentation, Section B, of this Volume.

2. Collaborations with Departments, Laboratories, and Centers

1. The project plan included many collaborations through which competency models were developed and/or generic roles defined for work in departments, laboratories, and centers. See Exhibit 10. Most of the collaborations were negotiated and managed by the Generic Roles and Competencies project team. Each affected the evolution of the MIT Competency Reference Guide (included in Volume II).
2. One of the more comprehensive collaborations involved the Facilities Department. It was unique in that the department provided funding for a part-time team member to increase his participation in the HRPD project. Mark Cason-Snow was dedicated to the Facilities Department two and a half days a week for seven months. His role encompassed research, educating the department about competencies, and facilitating meetings in which the department defined seven generic roles (covering several like positions) and developed the associated competency models.
3. Through its work with departments, laboratories, and centers, the permanent Performance Consulting and Training Team has customized an approach to organization development for MIT. (See tool in Volume II and the team’s annual report in Volume III.)

Exhibit 10: Summary of Collaborations
 

Central Administrative Sites			Key Players	Goal	Dates
Facilities			K.Nilsson	Development of seven generic roles	1/98 - 7/98
	Project Leader: Mark Cason-Snow			and corresponding competency models
		Generic Roles and Competencies Team		for Coach, Manager, Assistant Director
				Project Manager, Sr. Project Manager
				Power Plant Supervisor, and Sr.
				Engineer
Human Resource Practice		Prof. L.Bacow (Chancellor), S.Bridburg,		Development of competency model	1/98
Development Team (HRPD)		J.Castro, J.Snover, J. Dezieck, S. Frangos,  P. Narbonne, K. Schenck, J. Stein, E. Stordy,  A. Waugh		for Communications Specialist
		HRPD: P. Brady, B. Peacock-Coady,
		M. Bednarek, A. Johnson, M.Cason-Snow
Information Systems (IS)		A.Dolan, D.Aivazian, C.Cavanna, J.Crockett,		Development of five generic roles	5/98
		W.Fitzgerald, D.Lambert, L.McGhee, M.Vale,		and corresponding competency models
		HRPD: L.Dollet		for IS Administrative Business Services
				Team
Information Systems (IS)		G.Anderson, IS staff		Development of competency model	10/97
		Personnel: K.Franco		for Director, I/T Staff Development
		HRPD: P. Brady, B. Peacock-Coady		and Resource Management position
Office of the Dean of Students		Prof. R.Williams (Dean, ODSUE)		Development of four competency	11/97
and Undergraduate Education		HRPD: P. Brady		models for Chief Financial Officer,
(ODSUE)				Special Assistant to the Dean for
				Finance and Personnel, Director of
				Career Services and Pre-Professional
				Advising
ODSUE - Financial and Academic		C.Bunker, S.Hudson, R.Rippcondi,		Development of two competency	5/97 - 2/98
Services Transition Team (FAST)		C.Scribner		models for Team Leader and Team
		HRPD: M. Bednarek, B. Peacock-Coady		Member
Office of Sponsored Programs		J.Norris, T.Duff		Development of competency model	6/97
(OSP)		Personnel: W.Cain		for Assistant Director for Negotiation
		HRPD: B. Peacock-Coady, A. Johnson		position
Performance Consulting and		M.A.Gray, J.Pankin, J.Squillante, M.Taub,		Development of position descriptions	11/97 - 4/98
Training Team (PCT)		K.Warren, J.Dezieck, S.Ziemba, R.B.Rump,		and competency models for
		D.Haladay, F.Crystal, K.Hewitt III		Performance Consultants, Instructional
		HRPD: M. Bednarek		Designer, and Facilities Administrator
Personnel Office		R.Lewis, Personnel Officers		Development of generic role and	6/98 - 10/98
		HRPD: M. Bednarek, A. Johnson,		corresponding competency models for
		B. Peacock-Coady		Personnel Officers; Competency
				Assessment Tool for Personnel Officers

 

Exhibit 10: Summary of Collaborations
 

Central Administrative Sites	Key Players	Goals	Dates
President's Office - Ombudsperson	Prof. M.Rowe (Ombudsperson), Prof. L.Bacow	Development of competency model for	2/98
	(Chancellor), P.Clay (Assoc. Provost),	Ombudsperson
	S.Kanode, K.Nilsson, C. Orme-Johnson
	(Asst. Dean, ODSUE), K.Schenck, C.Vallino
	HRPD: P. Brady
President's Office - Administrative	L.Mersky, N.Kelly, M.Baenen, M.Doeden,	Development of competency model for	12/98
Secretary	E.Klett, D.Cross, L.Miller, P.Parravano,	Administrative Secretary
	J.Walsh
	HRPD: B. Peacock-Coady, M. Bednarek
Technology Review	J.Benditt, W.Cain, G.Hammond	Development of seven competency	5/97 - 2/98
	HRPD: P. Brady	models for the roles of Associate
		Designer, Associate Editor, Creative
		Director, MIT News Associate Editor,
		MIT News Editor, Senior Editor, and
		Traffic Manager

3.  Collaboration with the Personnel Department

Exhibit 11: Summary of Research
 

Who	Interviews	Surveys	Focus Groups	Internal/External Benchmarking	Collaborative Efforts	Other
HRPD Core Team	90 interviews with deans, associate deans, faculty, directors, senior administrators, department administrators and professional experts		12 focus groups with officers and personnel administrators, support staff, administrative staff, faculty, personnel officers, redesign and reengineering teams	Benchmarked 6 organizations Solicited input from internal and external HR experts	On-going meetings with the Personnel Officers to discuss scope and approach to the project	15 Speak-Ups, open forums attended by 152 employees 1998 IAP: 8 presentations on HRPD related issues
Classification and Compensation Project		A survey of teams with responses from 70% of academic, administrative and research department, labs and centers.	13 focus groups with employees who administer the class/comp system or manage Rank List III employees	Phone interviews with 11 organizations	Mapping of the current system through discussions with experienced staff	Brainstorming sessions and case studies developed with 2 MIT areas
Generic Roles and Competencies Team	4 interviews with MIT employees using competencies		2 focus groups with competency users	Collected benchmarking data from 9 universities	18 collaborative project in various academic and central administrative departments	Reviewed competency literature
Orientation Team	Interviewed employees who participated in the Benefits Orientation, and local orientations; solicited comments from Personnel Officers	Surveyed Administrative Officers on current orientation practices	Two focus groups  1. new employees < 3 months at MIT;  2. AAC	Conducted interviews with 5 universities and 4 businesses; Reviewed web sites from 8 universities and 2 businesses,  Reviewed 9 companies through journal research		Reviewed current MIT orientation programs; collected and reviewed over 100 MIT publications; heard presentation by an external consultant; Attended Harvard Fair

Exhibit 11: Summary of Research
 

Who	Interviews	Surveys	Focus Groups	Internal/External Benchmarking	Collaborative Efforts	Other
Performance Management Team	Interviews at: Resource Development, Lab for Nuclear Science,  Facilities, Administrative Services, Organization, MIT Libraries	surveys of - support staff (11.5% response)  - administrative/ managers (3.4 % response rate) - 49 MIT employees who had taken the coaching course (25% response rate)	17 focus groups: - 7 focus groups with support staff; - 10 focus groups with administrative staff (held for specific departments and as open forums)	Collected bench marking data from 4 universities  and 3 companies; reviewed web sites of 2 universities	Presented preliminary recommendation to PC&T & PO’s Ongoing discussions with PC&T	Attended conference on coaching; collected documents from local universities; met with representative from Brandeis, shared documents; extensive review of current literature on performance management
Recognition and Rewards Team	23 one-on-one interviews with mid-high level administrators	Two surveys: - (1) Managers (1) Admin & Support Staff	Brainstorming sessions with the Working Group on Support Staff Issues and members of the HRPD team	Collected date from 3 universities and 9 organizations		Researched current trends and literature on  rewarding and recognizing employees
Team Formation Project	28 one-on-one interviews with employees who participated in REE and IS project teams	Surveyed ACC, IS, C-group	2 focus groups with IS staff (20 employees); brainstorming sessions with HRPD, PC&T			Reviewed literature on teams, met with Professor Ancona, Sloan School
Training Policies and Administration Team	Interviewed the administrator of MIT’s Tuition Assistance Plan; conducted interviews with 12 senior administrators	Surveyed 2000 employees (16% return from Support Staff and 9 % return from Administrative Staff)	Six focus groups: HRPD &PCT (1) Support staff (2) Admin. Staff (2) AAC (1)	Collected benchmarking data from 6 universities, 3 healthcare organizations, and 3 businesses		Reviewed MIT documents relating to training, Working Group on Support Staff Issues recommendations, ASTD literature  Interviewed 12 MIT organizations offering training;

The Role of the Consultant

In June 1996, Hay/McBer was selected as technical consultant for the HRPD project on the basis of the firm’s breadth and depth of experience in the fields of human resources and strategic planning. It turned out, also, that Hay/McBer’s familiarity with the Institute’s culture (as a result of assignments with other parts of MIT) enabled easy project start-up and quick acceleration of the work plan.

The firm has been represented throughout the project primarily by two senior consultants who were treated as bona fide members of the core team and served as technical resources to the project teams. The consultants’ roles were primarily:

• educator (in state-of-the-art, integrated human resource practices systems)
• research advisor (in testing the validity of competency-based practices at MIT)
• quality assurance (through rigorous training and accreditation programs for MIT staff)
• design assistant (in helping the team adapt practices to fit MIT’s environment)

Together, the MIT staff and the consultants were a cohesive team. In sharing and transferring knowledge about the Institute’s special operating environments and HR "best" practices, they generated new ideas. Testing those ideas through collaborations with colleagues across the Institute produced customized HR applications for MIT based on sound principles. A system for the 21^st century is underway.