Performance Management 
Project Team

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 *

The Performance Management Project Team

Lisa Bartolet, Resource Development*
Maureen Bednarek, Personnel Department
Alyce Johnson, HRPD, Team Leader
Stephanie Neal Johnson, Personnel Department*
Kate Kibbee, Information Systems
Peter Narbonne, Student Financial Aid Services*
Lianne Shields, Personnel Department
Eleanor Wolcott, Student Financial Services, Office of the Dean of Students and
                            Undergraduate Education

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

Table of Contents

Team Names
Summary
Recommendations
Appendix
  1. Preliminary Research Results
    1. Survey Results
      1. Administrative
      2. Support
    2. Benchmarking
      1. Benchmarking Questions
      2. Internal
      3. External
    3. Focus Groups
      1. Administrative
      2. Support
  2. Research that Informs the Recommendations
    1. Research Support for the Recommendations
    2. Coaching
      1. Coaching Profile
      2. Coaching Survey Results
      3. Critical Event Interview Findings
      4. Coaching Competency Modeling Session and Model
    3. Multi-source Assessment Research
    4. Role Definitions
  3. Bibliography
 A Special Note about the HRPD Team Reports

This is one of a series of Human Resource Practices Development (HRPD) Team reports containing recommendations for MIT human resource programs and policies.  It is important to note that the HRPD teams have been charged with developing recommendations about human resource practices changes.  However, implementation of these recommendations is outside of the purview of the HRPD Team which will be disbanded in January 1999 after all work has been completed.

Summary

Evolution of the Performance Management Team

The Human Resource Practice Design Team was chartered in the spring of 1996 to define human resource practices to support the changing needs of MIT and its workforce.  After extensive research that relied heavily on input from the MIT community, the design team recommended that an effective performance evaluation process for MIT should “build on the existing performance planning and monitoring process for individuals and implement a similar process for teams.”  The recommendation is in accordance with the following Human Resource Principles that call for a greater emphasis on high performance through goal setting and coaching:
  • The organization of the future will place an emphasis on high performance and flexibility.  This will require an increased focus at all levels on establishing performance goals, measures and evaluation, training when necessary, and rewarding employees according to the achievements of those goals.
  • The manager of the future will move from supervisor to coach, supporting those on the ‘front line’ who deliver the services.  To accomplish this, managers will receive training in coaching, team building and performance management.
When the design team made its recommendation, it was responding to a strong sentiment in the MIT community.  In spite of Institute-wide efforts to require performance appraisals, the current appraisal process, the team discovered is neither uniform nor consistent.  Where appraisals are conducted, they may not be used strategically to link individual and department goals to the goals of the Institute.  In addition, many employees regard the process as cumbersome and difficult and its success as being highly dependent on the management skills and savvy of the supervisor.

In response to the design team’s findings, the Performance Management Team was formed in 1997 to review the current performance appraisal system and recommend improvements to the existing process.

The Design Team originally recommended that a similar appraisal process be developed for teams.  However, when the Human Resource Practices Development Team did a census of teams, they found that respondents to the survey were working in collaborative or team-like ways, but few of them were part of permanent work teams.  Since there was also an indication that this would be the case in the near future, the Performance Management Team decided to focus its recommendation on the individual performer.
 The Performance Management Team was charged with delivering the following:

  • A review of best practices in higher education and industry.
  • A review of policies on performance appraisals
  • Documented guidelines and/or other material with suggestions for the performance planning and assessment processes.
  • A pilot system for testing new practices.
  • A process for evaluating and disseminating pilot data.
  • A system-wide performance planning and assessment process throughout MIT by January 1, 1999.
Because the Performance Management Team was not able to begin its work until October of 1997, the projected two-year project team process was reduced to fifteen months.  Consequently, a pilot system for testing new practices was not achievable.  However, team recommendations do address the issue of evaluating and disseminating lessons learned through a gradual rollout of the system.  Consistent with the overall core team recommendations, performance management implementation follows a systematized approach consistent with the implementation of competencies.

Methodology

The Performance Management Team surveyed the MIT community, conducted focus groups and interviews and benchmarked MIT departments and external organizations which were known for their human resource practices or were similar to MIT.

As part of the internal benchmarking, the team surveyed both the Administrative and Support Staff, asking for their opinions and comments on their recent appraisal experience.  The surveys also solicited their ideas for improvement and change. Through two surveys, one for each group, the team solicited input from 1,503 support staff and 1,333 administrative staff employees.  Responses were received for 11.57 percent of the support staff and 3.4 percent of the administrative staff.

Focus groups were held to solicit further discussion on performance appraisal experiences and suggestions for improvements to the current process. Seven focus groups were conducted with support staff and ten with administrative staff.  Although many of the groups were held within specific departments or areas, some were held as open forums and interested employees were invited to attend.

To gather information on coaching at MIT, 49 former students of the MIT Training and Development Office Leading through Coaching class were surveyed.  Approximately one-third of them responded.    In order to determine what behavioral competencies are necessary for good coaching, members of the team also conducted seven one-on-one interviews with faculty and administrators who were identified as good coaches at MIT based on the recommendations of the Vice-Presidents and Faculty Chair. The interviewees were asked to relate stories that demonstrated when they coached successfully and when coaching did not produce the desired results.

Internal benchmarking interviews were done with Resource Development, the Lab for Nuclear Science, Facilities, Administrative Services Organization (ASO) and the Libraries.  Information was collected on the system used for performance appraisal, with specific emphasis on its design and process and the role of management accountability.

External benchmarking interviews were done on-site and by telephone with four universities, Stanford, California Technical Institute, Duke University and the Harvard Business School and three businesses, Intel, Allied Signal and Lotus. As part of its benchmarking, the team also researched the role of office facilitator at the Harvard Business School to determine if it would be appropriate for MIT.  The external benchmarking explored the role of performance management in the businesses and universities contacted and questions were asked on the design of their process, its highlights, how managers was held accountable and the level of involvement by senior management.

As they did their research, the team met regularly to review and discuss their findings.  A two-day retreat was held in June to discuss the information that had been collected from the survey and focus groups.  Analysis of the data gathered informed the future direction of the team’s efforts as well as preliminary recommendations.

The team also scheduled meeting at various stages during their work to solicit input and ideas about their recommendations.  The team met with members of the Compensation Office, the Personnel Officers as well as Performance Consulting and Training Team.

Conclusions and Findings

The performance appraisal process at MIT is not used consistently throughout the Institute.  In spite of a performance appraisal policy, surveys and focus groups with employees revealed the not all receive an appraisal each year. Managers are not held accountable for failing to review the employees who report to them.

When MIT employees receive appraisals, they are done as a “year-end” review of performance, the Institute form is used and in some cases involve the employee’s self assessment, planning and goal setting, and feedback from others.

Internal surveys and focus groups also revealed that the performance appraisal process could be a frustrating one.  Both MIT employees and managers feel there is a lack of performance information and data, a lack of shared understanding of standards and expectations as well as too little time to prepare adequately for the process.  The retrospective nature of the appraisal creates a defensive environment in which managers feel uncomfortable with the role of  “judging.” Employees do not believe the process motivates them toward improved performance.

Performance appraisal is very important to MIT employees.  They want to know that what they do each day makes a difference, how they are doing, and how they can improve.
MIT employees clearly indicated that they want feedback on their performance from sources other than just their managers.

External research revealed the following workplace trends that were also reinforced by internal surveys of MIT employees:

  • Employees want job satisfaction and growth.  Because they want to do work that impacts the success of the organization and assignments that are challenging and contribute to skill development, they are willing to take on additional or temporary responsibilities.
  • Technology offers opportunities to simplify processes, but it also demands that employees develop new skills and become creative problem solvers.
  • Employees have to meet increasing customer demand for service in order to maintain a competitive edge in today’s environment.
  • Teamwork across departments provides a way to solve complex problems, but it requires employees who are able to work together if it is to be effective.
Research of Performance Management indicates that the implementation of a consistent, expanded performance appraisal process will provide MIT with the following benefits:
  • Performance Management links performance and rewards and provides employees with a clear understanding of performance objectives and goals and rewards them for results.
  • Employees will develop competencies when development is tied directly to achieving performance results since competency assessments used for development purposes are more effective than those used for merit review considerations.
  • Employees will be more likely to meet action plans when they have a role in developing those plans.
  • Coaching as the lynchpin of the performance management process will replace the manager’s role as an end-of–the-year judge and provide the employee with the support and guidance necessary for them to realize their goals.
  • Multi source assessment will provides employees with input necessary to realize goals.
  • Ensuring the performance management occurs Institute-wide by holding manager’s accountable and providing necessary support in academic departments will provide equitable treatment for all MIT employees.

 Recommendations

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS (See more detail here)

1. The current single-event performance appraisal evolves into an on-going performance management process that:

  • is characterized by a focus on results
  • includes performance planning to set employee goals consistent with the department goals define action plans to attain goals; and establish measurements of progress and results
  • includes coaching throughout the process
  • ties the development and evaluation of employee behavioral and technical competencies to results
  • employs a multi-source assessment of employee behavioral competencies to provide feedback and as an input to the employee’s performance plan
  • requires a year-end feedback summary meeting during which performance against expected results is evaluated and made clear
  • adopts a single a web-based performance management format that is used consistently throughout the Institute
2. Effective performance management requires all employees with supervisory responsibilities to develop new coaching skills.  To emphasize and reinforce the critical importance of coaching, the team recommends:
  • use of the coaching competency model as a development tool for all staff with supervisory responsibilities (See model in the Coaching Section of the Performance Management Toolkit, Volume II)
  • participation of managers in coaching courses offered by the Institute
  • assessment of all managers on coaching competencies and identification of development goals
  • evaluation of the development results at the year-end feedback summary meeting
3. The team recommends that both employees and managers actively participate and are held accountable for performance management:
  • the employee’s direct supervisor is accountable for providing performance planning, coaching and the year-end feedback summary
  • because it may be impractical for faculty members to execute this accountability for performance management, the team recommends that academic departments adopt a new role of performance development manager
  • employees are accountable for providing inputs into each phase, i.e., planning, check-ins and year-end summary, of the performance management process and committing to achieving planned performance results
4. To support the active partnership of managers and employees necessary for effective performance management, the team recommends required just-in-time training on the following topics:
  • an overview of the performance management process
  • setting goals and establishing measurements
  • understanding the multi-source assessment process
  • giving and receiving feedback
  • coaching
5. To ensure that all employees participate in performance management, the team recommends active enforcement through the following:
  • Senior Management is responsible for compliance with performance management policies as well as the content and quality of performance planning and year-end feedback summary documents within their areas
  • Human Resources is the steward of the process, with responsibility for monitoring its operation, collecting feedback, working on its continuous improvement and reporting findings annually to Senior Management
6. The team recommends that Personnel Policies relating to performance management be clarified and strengthened.

7. The team recommends that MIT strengthen its pay for performance by tying merit review percentage increases to actual performance review results.

8. The team recommends the following implementation of the performance management process:

  • rollout of the process by senior officer area
  • a secure, user-friendly, web-based system or application that will automate each phase of the performance management process

Principles for Performance Management at MIT

  • Performance management requires a partnership in which both manager and employee participate and are held mutually accountable.
  • Effective performance management of the knowledge-based employees requires coaching, a more consultative and participative management style.
  • Performance is defined not only by job duties and responsibilities (what needs to be performed) but also by competencies (how one performs).
  • The performance management process is at the core of an integrated competency-based human resource system.  It informs and guides the proper use of human resource practices in areas such as compensation, recognition and rewards, and training and development.
  • The performance management process is the cornerstone for creating a culture of accountability and development necessary for MIT to reach its goals.
  • Senior Management engages in strategic planning to set organizational goals which can be translated into department and individual goals required for effective performance management.
  • MIT supports the performance management process by recognizing and rewarding those who do it well.
  • Performance management enables the vision of the future embodied in the Human Resource Principles and the HR Design team recommendations.
  • The performance management process supports the visions and descriptions articulated in the Presidents’ State of the Institute letter, October 1998 and the Report of the Task Force on Student Life and Learning, September 1998.

 Detailed Recommendations

1. The current single-event performance appraisal evolves into an on-going performance management process that:
  • is characterized by a focus on results
  • includes performance planning to set goals consistent with the department goals, define action plans to attain goals, and establish measurements of progress and results
  • includes coaching throughout the process
  • ties the development and evaluation of employee behavioral and technical competencies to results
  • employs a multi-source assessment of employee behavioral competencies to provide feedback and as an input to the employee’s performance plan
  • requires a year-end feedback summary meeting during which performance against expected results is evaluated and made clear
  • adopts a single web-based performance management format that is used consistently throughout the Institute
Performance Management verses Performance Appraisal
The shift from performance appraisal to performance management requires a shift in focus from a single event to a continuous process.  The process provides employees with direction and support via a detailed performance plan composed of goals, action steps, measurements, and coaching throughout the yearlong cycle.

Performance management is different from the single appraisal because it:

  • begins with planning at the beginning of the year to clarify job expectations and accountabilities between employee and manager
  • eliminates current employee concerns that expectations are vague or not articulated
  • turns the appraisal document and appraisal meeting into the year-end feedback summary, the last of many meetings on performance.
    • Inputs to Performance Planning
    The planning meeting with which the proposed performance management cycle begins, requires three important inputs by both manager and employee:
    • a review of key position responsibilities
    • a multi-source competency assessment
    • organizational/departmental goals and their relationship to employee responsibilities
    Key Responsibilities
    At the beginning of a new performance cycle, the employee and manager compile a list of the employee’s key position responsibilities, noting any changes.  The manager also highlights any employee responsibilities that may be affected by the department goals for the upcoming year.

    Multi-Source Competency Assessment
    A multi-source competency assessment responds to MIT employees’ interest in receiving performance feedback from others beyond their manager. Our research found that the most effective competency assessments are those that are used for developmental purposes rather than for merit review considerations.  For this reason, we recommend that the assessment take place in the planning phase.  In this way, employees receive feedback and still have an opportunity to address any resulting developmental needs during the year.  Evaluation for purposes of salary review will occur only after employees have had a chance to improve.

    Goal Setting
    Both the manager and employee prepare drafts of the employee’s goals. The manager translates the department or organizational goals into a draft form of the employee’s performance goals for the upcoming year. At the same time, the employee is preparing his/her own draft of performance goals based on aligning his/her own career interest with the department’s goals.

    All inputs, the list of key responsibilities, the competency assessment results and the draft goals are shared and discussed at the performance planning meeting(s).

    Performance Planning Meeting
    During the performance planning meeting(s), the manager coaches the employee through a goal setting session.  For each of the two to three agreed-upon performance goals, action steps are also listed.

    Using the multi-source assessment data to define the competency development opportunities for the year, the manager coaches the employee to choose those competencies that will lead to the successful attainment of performance

    The manager and employee then define measurements for each action step and any resources the employee needs to reach each identified goal.  The measurements can be thought of as check-ins that will provide the performance data both the employee and manager need to ascertain progress during the year.

    This process yields a performance plan that is a mutually agreed-upon document between the manager and employee. The performance plan is a shared document that both manager and employee can access from their desktop.   Once the performance plan year begins, the document can be updated to capture results.

    Coaching
    Coaching is an on-going element in an effective performance management process.  The coaching that begins during the planning phase must continue throughout the performance plan year.  Although coaching opportunities are built into the performance plan at agreed-upon points, they should take place whenever either party sees a need.  Coaching can occur during formal meetings or through brief contacts.

    Whatever the form, it provides a forum for clarifying issues, adjusting goals and addressing problems before they become an obstacle to good performance.  By providing employees with immediate feedback, coaching helps them adopt or modify behaviors.

    Year-end Feedback Summary Report and Meeting
    The performance management cycle culminates in the year-end feedback summary report and meeting.  Unlike the traditional appraisal meeting, there are no “surprises” for the employee or the manager in the summary meeting because of the check-ins throughout the year. During the meeting, unrealized results are discussed to evaluate lessons learned and opportunities for improvement.  In some instances, unrealized goals may be considered as input to next year’s plan.  In addition to evaluating the results, the manager comments on the employee’s fulfillment of key job responsibilities during the past year.  Both results and fulfillment of responsibilities are rated.  The ratings equally contribute to the overall rating the employee receives during the meeting.

    Impacts of Performance Management
    The proposed performance management cycle will have its greatest impact when used consistently throughout the Institute.  Consistency will:

    • contribute to the creation of an environment that stresses results, continuous improvement and development
    • eliminate the inequities that occur when employees are not uniformly held to and rewarded for achieving results
    The process puts structure around current best management practice.  Performance management redefines what it means to be a manager and employee at the Institute.  The partnership that coaching creates provides the support employees need to maximize the use of their skills and abilities as they work toward achieving department goals.

    2. Effective performance management requires all employees with supervisory responsibilities to develop new coaching skills.

    The team recommends that the Institute adopt both the profile and competency model, developed by the Performance Management Team, as a standard for developing managers. The model and profile are consistent with the recently developed, research-based administrative core competency model for supervisors.

    The model’s five core competencies for effective coaching are:

    • Ability to Influence
    • Active Listening
    • Conceptual Thinking,
    • Holding People Accountable
    • Interpersonal Understanding
    The Performance Management Team recommends that all employees with supervisory responsibilities:
    • use the multi-source competency assessment tool to receive feedback on coaching competencies
    • develop, using inputs from the assessment, a performance plan that includes opportunities to further develop those competencies that are not at the expected level
    • prioritize needed competency development based on performance goals  (the team recommends that not all competencies be worked on at once)
    • use the proposed Competency Development Advisor  and require participation in the Institute’s coaching course, as well as other Institute resources to assist the employee in meeting performance plan goals
    The manager’s year-end feedback summary meeting includes an evaluation of the manager’s coaching competencies.

    3. The team recommends that both employees and managers actively participate and are held accountable for performance management.

    Management Accountabilities:
    To underscore the importance of performance management at MIT, and recognize that management leads successful execution, the team recommends that the employee’s direct manager is held accountable for providing performance planning, coaching and the year-end summary.  This accountability includes complying with the performance management process and ensuring the quality of its execution and content.

    Performance Development Manager Accountabilities:
    The team recommends a new role, Performance Development Manager, in academic departments where it may be impractical for faculty to assume responsibility for the performance management process. The team envisioned this role as functioning in two different ways, depending on the desires and needs of the department:

    • incumbents in this role may act on behalf of faculty by managing the performance management cycle, i.e., planning, coaching and appraisal for employees reporting to faculty
    • incumbents in this role may facilitate performance management discussions between faculty and their direct reports throughout the year, as well as assist with the development of the performance plan and year-end feedback summary document
    Depending on the number of employees in a department and the resources available, the Performance Development Manager role may be a function of an existing position or a full-time exempt addition to staff.

    Employee Accountabilities:
    Employees are accountable for participation in the performance management process by providing inputs into each phase and committing to achieving planned performance results.

    4. To support the partnership of managers and employees necessary for effective performance management, the team recommends requiring just-in-time training on the following topics:

    • an overview of the performance management process
    • setting goals and establishing measurements
    • understanding the multi-source assessment process
    • giving and receiving feedback
    • coaching
    In recommending a performance management training program, the team considered the following important aspects of the process:
    • managers and employees must be introduced to both the process and potentially new concepts such as multi-source competency assessment, goal setting and performance planning
    • while the process retains some of the features of MIT’s current performance appraisal system, both employees and the managers must develop new skills if it is to be fully effective
    • performance management is a year-long, on-going process and not a single event
    In light of the above points, just-in time training provides the best approach because it capitalizes on the theory that learning is facilitated when trainees can immediately put theory into practice.  In addition, it allows for training at the specific point in the cycle year when the manager and employee need it. It also reduces information overload, another detriment to learning.

    The recommended training topics are found in portions of current Institute programs but may need modification in order to strengthen their tie to the Performance Management Process.  In addition, new programs will need to be developed.  The team also supports the Performance Consulting and Training team’s proposal to develop a competency-based curriculum.

    The team is fully aware that the transition to performance management will range from an enhancement of a current practice in some areas of the Institute to a dramatic change in others.  Consequently, the team recommends the development of a local expert in the role of a performance trainer, in each department, to support the transition.  This performance trainer will participate in presenting the initial training program as part of her/his training.  Thereafter, the performance trainer will act as a resource for process questions and assume responsibility for the just–in-time training of all new employees.

    5. To ensure that all employees participate in performance management, the team recommends active enforcement.

    Recognizing that the success of this performance management process depends on the Institute’s leadership and their participation, the team recommends that Senior Management provide the foundation for performance management at MIT by:

    • complying with performance management policies
    • visibly communicating  their commitment to the performance management process
    • visibly communicating their standards and values
    • participating in the process
    • holding their managers accountable for the quality and execution of the performance management process
    The team envisions that the role of Human Resources is to:
    • steward the process
    • maintain responsibility for monitoring the operation
    • collect feedback on the process
    • report collected feedback findings annually to Senior Management
    • work on continuous improvement of the process
    6. The team recommends that Personnel Policies relating to performance management are clarified and strengthened.

    To reflect the evolution from a single performance appraisal to the performance management process, the team recommends that current policies related to performance review and the role of the supervisor (Sections 3.2, Responsibility of Supervisors; 3.3, Performance Review Guidelines; Section 7.2 Annual Performance Review in the Personnel Policy Manual; and Section 7.3, Responsibilities of Supervisors in the Polices and Procedures – A Guide for Faculty and Staff Members) be revised to include:

    • more explicit language requiring full participation by employees and managers in the proposed performance management process.  For example:
      • managers have the responsibility to coach their employees throughout the year; the frequency and duration will be determined by the employee’s performance progress against goals
      • every employee and manager must participate in at least two formal discussions throughout the performance management cycle: a performance-planning meeting and a year-end feedback summary meeting
      • every employee must participate with their manager in the development of a performance plan and a year-end feedback summary
      • every employee must have access to both a documented performance plan and year-end summary report
    • language that describes consequences for failing to meet these responsibilities
    • language that accounts for the role of the performance development manager
    7. The team recommends that MIT strengthen its pay for performance by tying merit review percentage increases to actual to performance review results.

    Although MIT has traditionally been a “pay for performance” employer, team research, through surveys and focus groups, revealed that there does not seem to be a direct link between performance and the merit amount received.  Employee perception is that the merit increase may be used to adjust for internal equity and/or market conditions.

    The team recommends that employees who are better performers receive greater merit increases.  Internal equity and market conditions need to be handled in a different manner.  The team endorses the HRPD Classification and Compensation recommendations which propose that local management be given the discretion to award “hot skills” adjustments to those individual employees who have knowledge, skills or abilities in areas that are in high demand in the market and are critical to MIT.

    The team also recommends a system be adopted to identify external market shortfalls through special market adjustment allocation for the disciplines affected.

    8. The team recommends the following implementation strategy for  the performance management process:

    Institute Implementation
    Rollout occurs according to senior management areas rather than as a single Institute-wide initiative for the following reasons:

    • rollout by area will ensure the attention necessary to transition to the new process during each phase of the cycle. This is a critical point given that some areas are completely unfamiliar with the components of the new cycle
    • if rollout is staggered, one area can benefit from the lessons learned by previous areas
    Rollout can occur in areas where competencies have not been introduced; the performance management process can be used without the multi-source assessment.  The timing of the rollout will depend on the Institute s’ commitment of necessary financial resources to training for the performance management process

    Department Implementation

    Rollout in an area will occur in the following steps:

    • contract with outside training resources
    • train all trainers- Performance Consultants, Personnel Officers, Performance Trainers, with Senior Management participating in providing the area with an overview of the process
    • using outside resources, make just-in-time training available for each stage of the process
    Technology:

    A secure web-based system or application will be used to automate each phase of the performance management process.

    The performance plan is meant to be an evolving document.  With the availability of technology for sharing documents, the entire documentation process can be fully automated.   The system should be developed so that it does the following:

    • generates multi-source competency assessment data for distribution and analysis
    • creates a planning document that is shared, accessible and easily updated
    • converts the planning document into a year-end feedback summary form
     Important system features include:
    • a secure user-friendly interface
    • a start/stop/save capability
    • easy document storage
    • campus-wide access with adequate security
    • a download capacity
    • ease of workflow.
    • an online training component
    Return to the HRPD Homepage

    These pages last updated April 4, 1999 by ssadoway@mit.edu