6109.15,30 Page of 21 FOREST SERVICE HANDBOOK WASHINGTON FSH 6109.15 - POSITION CLASSIFICATION HANDBOOK Amendment No. 6109.15-95-2 Effective November 22, 1995 POSTING NOTICE. Amendments are numbered consecutively by Handbook number and calendar year. Post by document name. Remove entire document and replace with this amendment. Retain this transmittal as the first page of this document. The last amendment to this Handbook was Amendment 6109.15- 95-1 to 6109.15,30 Contents. This amendment supersedes Amendment No. 6 to FSH 6109.15,30. Superseded New Document Name (Number of Pages) 30 thru 34--9 20 - 6109.15,30 - 21 Digest: Clarifies requirements, processes, and procedures for scientist evalua- tions throughout chapter 30. Also makes minor editorial and coding changes in this chapter. 31.1 - Revises the intervals between mandatory cyclic reviews for research scientists. 31.4 and 32.12 - Establishes direction for Deputy Chief Panels for scientists at GS-14 and above. These panels are conducted under the auspices of the Deputy Chief, usually held at a field location, and eliminate the dual panels for GS-14 scientists evaluated at GS-15 by Station panels under current practice. 31.52 - Changes caption to Group 2 - Equipment Development Positions (formerly Development Positions) and clarifies distinction between research, development, and equipment development positions. 31.54 - Clarifies direction in paragraph 1 on professional, scientific positions excluded from the Scientist Career Plan. 32.1 - Emphasizes that to the maximum extent practical, panel members should be working scientists at or above the grade of the scientist being evaluated; clarifies direction on panel composition. Digest--Continued: 32.2 - 32.26 - Clarifies roles and responsibilities of panel chair (sec. 32.21), rating members (sec. 32.22), and Personnel Management Specialists (sec. 32.23); adds roles and responsibilities of supervisors (sec. 32.24) and scientist (sec. 32.25); and recodes direction on expert witness to section 32.26 (formerly coded to sec. 32.25). 32.31 - Revises direction on panel action, resulting in agreement on the evaluation (consensus) (para. 1), determination that the Research Grade- Evaluation Guide is not applicable (para. 2), or no decision (para. 3). 32.4 - Adds direction that minor changes, such as a detail assignment, do not trigger a panel evaluation. 32.5 - Provides scientist classification appeal procedures. 39 - Revises and updates the exhibits at the end of the chapter, codes the exhibits to section 39, and revises cross-references to the exhibits throughout chapter 30. JACK WARD THOMAS Chief FSH 6109.15 - POSITION CLASSIFICATION HANDBOOK WO AMENDMENT 6109.15-95-2 EFFECTIVE 11/22/95 CHAPTER 30 - CLASSIFICATION OF POSITIONS UNDER THE SCIENTIST CAREER PLAN 31 - SCIENTIST CAREER PLAN. The degree of scientific capability and creativity greatly influences scientific accomplishments and hence the overall evaluation of positions engaged in scientific research and development. Therefore, classification of these positions must consider the impact of the person in the job, in terms of individual scientific accomplishments and competence, along with other typical classification factors, such as the nature and complexity of the assignment and the degree of responsibility. Because of this unique interplay between the research assignment and individual scientific capabilities and accomplishments, the work may be performed at any one of several grade levels depending on the incumbent's impact on the assignment. 31.1 - Cyclic Review. Conduct periodic panel reviews of all positions covered by the Scientist Career Plan to maintain classification accuracy. Cyclic review of all such positions is mandatory (FSM 6151.31): 1. Within 36 months of the scientists' being hired. 2. Within 48 months of the most recent previous panel for scientists at grades GS-11, GS-12, and GS-13. 3. Every 60 months for scientists at grade GS-14 or higher. 31.2 - Grade Stacking. Recognizing the impact of qualifications, accomplishments, and stature of the individual on the scope, breadth, and complexity of the assignment may result in a scientist being placed in the same grade or a higher grade than the work supervisor. 31.3 - Relationship to Merit Promotion Plan. (See FSH 6109.12, sec. 23, for the current merit promotion plan.) Promotions for scientists from the entry level to GS-11 are noncompetitive if the position was established as a career ladder position. If there is no career ladder established to GS- 11, such positions must be filled competitively since the impact of the scientist's qualifications and contributions is not significant at these grade levels. Reassignments and promotions above GS-11, including changes from scientist to Project Leader positions, may be noncompetitive when the grade level and/or potential for promotion are clearly based on the increased impact of the scientist's qualifications and contributions on the position. Such cases must meet the following criteria: 1. The predominant activity of the position is to perform or lead all elements of research or development. 2. There is a clear requirement for exercise of creativity and critical judgment, which may materially affect the nature of the end product. 3. The qualifications, stature, and contributions of the incumbent have a direct and major impact on the level of difficulty and responsibility of the work performed. 4. Research capability, as demonstrated by graduate education and/or research experience, is the primary basis for selecting a candidate. Cases must be processed competitively when the predominant activity of the position is not research or when research competence and scientific accomplishment of the individual are not the primary basis for the higher grade. (See ex. 01, sec. 39, for criteria to distinguish between research and nonresearch positions.) 31.4 - Vacant Positions. 1. Vacant positions do not necessarily retain the grade of the previous incumbent. A vacant position at GS-11 and above, including Research Project Leader, may be advertised at the tentative grade to which it evaluates on the basis of the minimum qualifications. It may also be advertised in a grade range with the final classification to be based on panel evaluation of the incumbent's qualifications in relation to the position. 2. Prior to announcement of a vacancy, Factors I, II, III.A, and III.B of the vacant position description should be evaluated by a panel to determine if the factors support the grade or grade range proposed for the advertisement. 3. If grade 15 is proposed as the grade or part of the grade range, the position description must be sent to the Washington Office, Personnel Management Staff, Classification and Pay Branch, for an expedited Deputy Chief panel (sec. 32.12). 4. To confirm the final grade of the position, vacant positions must be re-evaluated by a panel as soon as possible after selection and prior to the scientist's reporting for duty. Use the selectee's Factor III.C, Demonstrated Originality, and Factor IV, Qualifications and Scientific Contributions, in this re-evaluation. 31.5 - Coverage. All positions that meet the criteria for one of the following groups are covered by the Scientist Career Plan. Exhibit 01 at the end of this chapter provides criteria for distinguishing between research and nonresearch positions. 31.51 - Group 1 - Research Positions. This group includes all positions performing assignments under the Research Grade-Evaluation Guide coverage. Research assignments involve intensive investigation directed toward development of new or fuller scientific knowledge. 31.52 - Group 2 - Equipment Development Positions. This group includes positions in the physical sciences and engineering disciplines that fall within the coverage of the Equipment Development Grade-Evaluation Guide, Part III. The Personnel Management Specialist decides whether a position is properly in group 1 or group 2 based on the characteristics of the assignment (Factors I and III of the position description). The position description must accurately reflect management's decision to assign research and development or equipment development activities to the position. Exhibit 02 at the end of this chapter (sec. 39) provides additional characteristics for distinguishing between research, development, and equipment development. For mixed positions which contain both research and equipment development, the position shall be placed in group 1 if the equipment development activity is a short-term continuation of the research cycle. If equipment development activities are dominant, the position will be in group 2. Many positions emphasizing development activities other than equipment development meet research criteria and are in Group 1. Those development positions which do not meet research or equipment development criteria are classified using other standards 31.53 - Group 3 - Social Scientist Positions. This group includes positions that involve research in the social sciences and where the nature of the assignment is such that consideration of the person-in-job relationship is appropriate as part of the total evaluation of the position. Positions in this group: 1. Are characterized by performance of intensive, critical, analytical research and investigation, but may not involve a precisely controlled experiment. 2. Are specifically excluded from coverage of the Research Grade- Evaluation Guide and the Equipment Development Grade-Evaluation Guide. 3. Must be evaluated and classified by comparison with published classification standards, such as those for the Economist, GS-110, or Geographer, GS-150. The classification evaluation process for positions in group 3 may use a review panel (sec. 32). 31.54 - Positions Excluded. Positions that do not meet the criteria for inclusion in one of the preceding groups described in sections 31.51 - 31.53 are excluded from the Scientist Career Plan. Exclusions include: 1. Professional, scientific positions engaged in: a. Resource management planning, implementation, or monitoring aimed at attaining a desired outcome, situation, or condition; b. Providing advice on resource management; c. Performing analyses of resource information using established guides, precedents, methods, or practices; or d. Managing and administering research and development programs. 2. Positions that involve: a. Limited elements of research work, such as studies confined to description and interpretation of data; b. Primarily literature and data search; c. Primarily field surveys to collect or report scientific data; or d. Use of existing procedures for data manipulation. 3. Mathematical statisticians, Project Leaders, or Program Managers who perform consulting and other professional and management functions, but do not have a significant personal research assignment. 4. Resource evaluation positions that do not include a research assignment. 31.55 - Mixed Positions. Some positions include responsibilities which are excluded from this plan, but also include a substantial personal research assignment. Such positions may be covered by this plan provided that: 1. The position description clearly spells out the research assignment, including use and/or development of new theory and methods, and clearly reflects use or development of methods and theory in the accomplishments. 2. The research portion of the position is evaluated using the Research Grade-Evaluation Guide and the panel review system in this plan. 32 - PANEL REVIEW PROCESS. The Personnel Management Specialist shall use review panels as part of the evaluation process for positions classified by application of part I of the Research Grade-Evaluation Guide or part III of the Equipment Development Grade-Evaluation Guide. Final classification determinations and allocations are made in accordance with FSM 6151.04. The Personnel Management Specialist may use a panel to augment the classification process and assist in developing or interpreting the nature of the assignment, the level of responsibility, the significance of results, and the stature of social scientist positions at GS-11 or above. The factors and rating criteria of the Research Grade-Evaluation Guide or Equipment Development Grade-Evaluation Guide, along with information provided by the personnel specialist, will serve as a basis for panel review of such positions. A classifier shall determine final classification by comparison with applicable classification standards. Exhibits 03 and 04 at the end of this chapter (sec. 39) provide guidance to panel members for evaluating technology transfer efforts and special assignments. Personnel Management Specialists shall classify positions that fall below the grade levels covered by the Research Grade-Evaluation Guide, part I, or the Equipment Development Grade-Evaluation Guide, part III, by comparing them with the proper classification standard or guide. 32.1 - Panel Composition. Each panel shall include six members, including four rating members and two nonrating members, as follows: 1. Each panel shall have four rating members who have been selected from a list of qualified and trained scientists. To the maximum extent practical, panel members should be active research scientists at or above the grade of the researcher whose position is being evaluated. Others who have remained current in their scientific field but who are currently in management or staff position may serve on panels as well. a. Panelists should be selected so that two are from the same or related fields of research as the position being evaluated. b. The other two panelists should be selected from a different field of research to ensure that evaluations are representative of the broad research structure. c. One panelist from the same or related fields of research is named the Subject Matter Reviewer and assigned responsibility to: (1) Clarify for other panelists written information in the position description, such as jargon; and (2) Contact users and peers in their field to assure full understanding of the impact and significance of a scientist's accomplishments. 2. Each panel shall have two non-rating members, a panel Chair and a Personnel Management Specialist. Panel Chairs shall be experienced panelists and need not be from the same or related discipline of the scientist whose position is being evaluated. A Personnel Management Specialist who is knowledgeable in the use of the criteria in the guides and standards being applied, the policies of this plan, and Forest Service panel procedures, and who has delegated classification authority shall attend each panel session. 3. The immediate supervisor may not serve as a panel member. The supervisor may supply specific information to the panel members at their request. 4. A scientist may not serve as a panel member to evaluate another scientist from the same Research Work Unit. 5. Panels using the Equipment Development Grade-Evaluation Guide shall include rating members who are familiar with this guide. 32.11 - Station Panels. Assistant Directors for Research, Assistant Directors for Planning and Application, Program Managers, or senior level scientists at GS-14 and above shall chair Station panels. An Assistant Director may not chair a panel for a position within his or her area of responsibility. 1. Panels for GS-11 and GS-12. Potential panel members are scientists at grade GS-13 and above, and those GS-12's who have particular insight into the research assignment. 2. Panels for GS-13. Potential panel members are scientists at the GS-13 or higher level or research administrators who attained GS-13 or higher through the panel process and who have remained up-to-date in their scientific field. Panel members are normally selected from within the Station, but panel members from other Forest Service units or other federal research agencies may be selected to provide input on the assignment and the scientist's accomplishments. 32.12 - Deputy Chief Panels. The Deputy Chiefs for Research and Administration shall schedule panel evaluations for scientists at grades 14 and higher on an annual basis, with four to eight positions reviewed by each panel, and appoint Panel Chairs and Personnel Management Specialists from Stations or the Washington Office to convene and conduct the panels on behalf of the Deputy Chiefs. 1. Qualifications for Panel Chairs. Assistant Station Directors for Continuing Research, Program Managers, Deputy Station Directors, Station Directors, Washington Office Staff Directors, or Associate Deputy Chiefs for Research shall chair Deputy Chief panels. All Chairs should have experience as Chair of at least two panels for scientists at GS-13 and lower and have served as panelists on at least three panels for scientists grade 14 and higher. None of the positions evaluated should come from within the Chair's area of responsibility. 2. Qualifications for Panelists. The panel's four rating members must have attained GS-14 through the panel process and have served on at least three Station panels. At least two of the panelists must currently be in positions classified using panels. No more than two panelists may be GS- 14; the rest should be GS-15 or higher. To the maximum extent practical, the subject matter reviewer should be the same or higher grade level than the position being evaluated. In addition to these criteria, having a national perspective on science issues is also important. A national perspective can be developed in a number of ways, including permanent assignments or long-term details (6 months or more) to Washington Office staffs or assignments to teams conducting research on critical national issues. One or two of the panelists selected should bring to the panel a national perspective on science issues. Panel Chairs identify panelists and appoint them on behalf of the Deputy Chiefs. 32.2 - Roles and Responsibilities. 32.21 - Panel Chair. The panel Chair: 1. Reviews arrangements for conducting the panel with the Personnel Management Specialist. For Deputy Chief panels, appoints panelists on behalf of the Deputy Chief. 2. Leads the discussion and ensures that the facts concerning the position and the qualifications and accomplishments of the scientist are fully developed and understood by rating panel members. The Chair does not participate as a rating member and is expected to remain neutral in the evaluation of individual scientists. 3. Emphasizes the confidential nature of panel discussions, findings, and recommendations. Reminds panelists that many different kinds of accomplishments deserve credit and that information and technology transfer is an important part of the research cycle. 4. Reminds panelists that team participation must be recognized and credit must be based primarily on the scientist's individual contribution to solving the problems assigned to the team, and secondarily on the relative importance and complexity of the problem and the impact and significance of the team accomplishments. 5. Completes and signs the summary rating form (ex. 05 at the end of this chapter, sec. 39). 6. Shares responsibility with the Personnel Management Specialist for the factual accuracy of the written report of results of the panel meeting. 32.22 - Rating Members. The rating members objectively evaluate the scientist's position and the qualifications of the incumbent as described in the position description. Each rating member: 1. Independently reviews, evaluates, and scores each position in advance of the panel meeting based on the criteria of the Research Grade- Evaluation Guide or the Equipment Development Grade-Evaluation Guide. 2. Conducts an indepth review of a case, if serving as subject matter reviewer, to develop information in addition to written case material, if this is necessary. Contacts at least five individuals familiar with the scientist's work to ensure full understanding of the impact and significance of the scientist's work to users and peers. 3. Documents ratings and reasons for ratings on individual worksheets. 4. Discusses individual ratings during the panel process, and after discussion of individual ratings, attempts to arrive at a consensus on each factor rating. 5. Maintains confidentiality of panel discussions after the panel is completed.32.23 - Personnel Management Representative. A Personnel Management Specialist shall attend each meeting, but not serve as a rating member. The Personnel Management Specialist: 1. Provides guidance and assistance in preparing position descriptions to ensure they meet standards of adequacy. 2. Trains panel Chairs and panelists in the panel evaluation system, including the Scientist Career Plan, Research Grade-Evaluation Guide, Equipment Development Grade-Evaluation Guide, and operating procedures. 3. Advises how to interpret evaluation criteria in the classification guides and standards. 4. Ensures general consistency in application of the criteria by panels. 5. Ensures panel members provide sufficient information for written documentation of factor ratings and recommendations, and that all facts necessary to support classification determinations have been discussed. Writes an evaluation report considering panel recommendations, scoring, and evaluation criteria and communicates results to the Station Director or Deputy Chief. 6. Periodically assesses the operations of the panel review system. 32.24 - Supervisors. The rating (immediate) supervisor and the second- level supervisor play important roles in the the position evaluation process. 1. Rating Supervisor. Coaches scientists in gathering and presenting information needed for position descriptions. Ensures that the position description contains all the relevant facts the panel needs to make an accurate grade determination; the research assignment is properly stated; the actual level of supervision received is presented; the guidelines available and originality required by the position are correctly explained; and the impact and significance of the scientist's accomplishments, qualifications, and contributions are accurately described. Certifies the accuracy of the position description to the second-level supervisor. Nominates three potential subject matter reviewers. Discusses panel results with the scientist. 2. Second-level Supervisor. Coaches rating supervisors in preparing position descriptions. Verifies the scientist is not currently under a Performance Improvement Plan arising from an annual performance evaluation or other situation which would preclude reclassification of the position. Reviews panel results with rating supervisor. 32.25 - Scientist. Prepares a draft position description in consultation with the rating supervisor that accurately and concisely describes the research assignment, supervision received, guidelines and originality used, and the impact and significance of the qualifications, accomplishments, and contributions on the job. 32.26 - Expert Witness. When the panel feels the need of an expert to answer questions on an individual case, they may request one. The expert witness is expected to provide technical judgments on the scientific aspects of the assignment and significance of the accomplishments, as requested by the panel. The expert witness shall not serve as a rating member. 32.3 - Panel Evaluation Process. At the request of the supervisor, the scientist shall prepare a position description and an updated record of qualifications and research contributions, following the format in the "Guide for Preparing Research Scientist Position Descriptions." 32.31 - Panel Action. Panel members shall evaluate the four factors in the position description using degree definitions in the appropriate guide. Panels shall use only even numbered values for the four factors when evaluating position descriptions: Factors I, II, III Factor IV Degree A = 2 points Degree A = 4 points A+ = 6 points Degree B = 4 points Degree B = 8 points B+ = 10 points Degree C = 6 points Degree C = 12 points C+ = 14 points Degree D = 8 points Degree D = 16 points D+ = 18 points Degree 10 Degree 20 E = points E = points After discussion of individual ratings and any questions raised about the evaluation, panel members shall attempt to reach a consensus on the rating of each factor. Consensus means that three of the four panel members agree on the rating of a factor, and the fourth panel member has a rating within one degree of the other panel members (2 points for Factors I, II, and III, and 4 points for Factor IV). Based on the rating of the factors and the panel's overall appraisal of the job-incumbent situation, the panel can: 1. Reach Agreement on Evaluation. On the basis of its review, the panel may reach a consensus to recommend classification at the next higher grade level (Promote), the current grade (Remain in Grade), or the next lower grade (Scored Below Grade). The panel must give reasons for its recommendation. 2. Determine That Guide Is Not Applicable. The panel determines that the scientist is not performing the full range of professionally responsible research and therefore the Research Grade Evaluation Guide does not apply. Either the assignment must be changed to permit performance of an actual research assignment or the position must be reclassified. Normally, one of these options should be accomplished within 60 days. 3. Reach No Decision. a. The panel does not have sufficient factual information upon which to render a fair evaluation applying the guide criteria or there are sufficient discrepancies between the position description and information gathered from users and peers by the subject matter reviewer to preclude a fair evaluation. The panel shall determine if information gaps or discrepancies exist and recommend that the position description be rewritten and resubmitted for evaluation by the next available panel. b. In rare cases, a panel cannot reach consensus on evaluating one or more factors, which in turn makes it impossible to reach a consensus on overall grade level. In this event, majority and minority reports are prepared for the factor in dispute, signed by the respective panelists, and submitted jointly by the panel Chair and Personnel Management Specialist to the responsible line officer and Personnel Management Specialist. In such cases, the Station Director or the Deputy Chief shall review the panel results, and provide the Personnel Management Specialist with a recommendation as to the proper evaluation or request another panel. This recommendation shall become part of the documentation supporting the evaluation of the position. The classifier shall consider this additional information in determining the proper grade level. Results of the panel evaluation are confidential. Only the Panel Chair and Personnel Management Specialist shall communicate them jointly to the Station Director or Deputy Chief. Panel members must not communicate panel results to the Station Director or Deputy Chief, or anyone else. 32.32 - Documentation. The personnel office establishes individual files for each scientist covered by this plan. 32.33 - Positions Operating Below Grade Level. When final classification of the position results in a grade level lower than the current grade of the incumbent, the following procedure applies: 1. If the lower grade is due to changes in the research assignment, action must be initiated under Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 351, which applies to reduction in force. 2. If the lower grade is due to substandard performance, action must be initiated under Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 430, and must be taken in accordance with the procedures in the "Forest Service Guide for Resolving Scientist's Performance Problems." 32.34 - Communication of Results. The Station Director shall notify the responsible Assistant Director of each employee or position evaluated under the plan of the results of each evaluation. The responsible supervisor must discuss the results of the evaluation and any proposed actions resulting from it with the employee, within 30 days of receipt of the panel evaluation. 32.4 - Reevaluations. The Station Director or Deputy Chief for Research may request a panel evaluation after 90 days have elapsed following the last evaluation and before the normal cycle review, whenever significant changes in qualifications and accomplishments are demonstrated, or a major change in the scientist's assignment occurs. Major changes include reassignment to a different line of research, to a different Research Work Unit, or from a scientist to a Project Leader or Program Management position. Minor changes, such as a detail assignment or a new informal team assignment, do not trigger a panel reevaluation. 32.5 - Employee Appeals. Any employee may appeal the classification of the position to which the employee is assigned at any time. The employee may appeal directly to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), or to the Forest Service, or to the Department of Agriculture before appealing to OPM. The process for scientist appeals, when the employee appeal is to the Forest Service and follows a recent scientist panel evaluation, is for a new panel evaluation to review the position during the next regularly scheduled panels held by the unit. A new panel Chair and new panel members must be used. For additional information on employee classification appeals, refer to section 18, Classification Appeals. 33 - EFFECT OF PRIVACY ACT. The evaluation of scientists under this plan necessarily requires some information which pertains only to the individual being evaluated; that is, personal information which comes under coverage of the Privacy Act. This information is contained in Factor IV of the scientist's position description. Section 3(e)(3) of the Privacy Act requires agencies which collect personal information from individuals to inform each individual of the following: 1. The authority (whether granted by statute or by Executive Order) for solicitation of the information and whether disclosure of such information is mandatory or voluntary. 2. The principal purpose for which the information will be used. 3. The published routine uses which may be made of the information. 4. The effects on the individual, if any, of not providing all or part of the requested information. Exhibit 06 at the end of this chapter (sec. 39) is a notice form which provides this information and which must be given to each scientist with the request to provide Factor IV information for inclusion in the position description. To ensure that the scientist has received a copy of this notice, the following statement must be included at the end of any newly prepared Factor IV: I have received a copy of the Privacy Act Notice for Preparation of Factor IV, Qualifications and Scientific Contributions, Research Scientist Position Description. (Scientist's Signature) Under the Privacy Act, Factor IV cannot be released for any other purpose without the written consent of the incumbent. Since Factors I, II, and III document the research assignment, and do not contain personal information about the incumbent, they can be used for other purposes without the consent of the incumbent. Under the Privacy Act, the Forest Service will provide to a scientist upon written request any records it maintains regarding a scientist's panel evaluation. This includes the names of the panel Chair and panel members, the panel's consensus scoring, and any related correspondence. 39 - EXHIBITS. 39 - Exhibit 01 CRITERIA FOR DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN RESEARCH AND NON-RESEARCH POSITIONS Research Non-Research 1. Predominately characterized by 1. Primary focus of work is systematic, critical, intensive planning, implementing, or investigation directed toward monitoring resource management development of new or fuller or activities to attain a desired scientific knowledge, with or future condition, outcome, without reference to a specific situation. application. 2. Includes theoretical and 2. Includes (1) investigating experimental investigations (1) to recent scientific literature to stay determine the nature, magnitude, and abreast of new findings about the interrelationships of physical nature, magnitude, and inter- and biological phenomena and relationships of physical and processes; (2) to create or develop biological phenomena and improve means of investigating such phenomena one's capability to apply the latest and processes; and (3) to develop findings to natural resource principles, criteria, methods, and a management; and (2) providing body of data for applying the new or feedback on successes and problems fuller knowledge discovered for the experienced in applying new use and benefit of others. principles, criteria, and methods to the scientists who developed them. 3. Characterized by application of 3. Characterized by application of scientific method, including problem established guides, precedents, exploration and definition, planning methods, or practices for describing of approach and sequence of steps, and interpreting data or for execution of experiments or studies, performing analyses. interpretation of findings, and documentation and dissemination of findings. 4. Clear requirement for the 4. The exercise of creativity and exercise of creativity and critical critical judgment focuses on judgment, variation in which may determining if, when, and under what materially affect the nature of the conditions existing guides, end product. precedents, methods, or practices apply to a given situation. 5. Qualifications, stature, and 5. Qualifications, stature, and contributions of the incumbent have contributions of the incumbent have a direct and major impact on the an impact on the level of difficulty level of difficulty and responsi- and responsibility of the work bility of the work performed. assigned. 6. Research capability as 6. Research capability is not a demonstrated by graduate education significant requirement in selection and/or research experience is a of candidates. significant requirement in selection of candidates. 39 - Exhibit 02 CONTRASTING CHARACTERISTICS OF RESEARCH AND EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT Motivation for To solve problems by To extend results of research Assignments: creating new or fuller to provide new or substan- scientific knowledge of tially improved products in the subject studied. the form of equipment, Results may foster components, subsystems, additional research or materials, processes, development. Results procedures, techniques, and add to the body of associated support hardware scientific knowledge. and software. Nature of A problem is typically The result is typically Assignments: specified. The result is specified. The worker uses a consequence of the ingenuity, coupled with worker's use of the acquired skills and scientific method and knowledges, to achieve the normally cannot be results. predicted very well. Example: "Develop a yarder Example: There is no that will reach 350 meters, environmentally or carry loads up to 2000 kg, economically acceptable and cost no more than harvesting system for steep $150,000." The equipment terrain." The research development task is to convert task is to define the the specifications into an parameters of an acceptable operational product. system and develop and test criteria for components of the system. Character of New theories and hypotheses, An item of equipment, a Output: with experimental data used process, or a set of operating to test them. In some parameters that meet applied or developmental predetermined specifications. research, prototypes are Early production models are an an output, typically the output of the equipment devel- beginning point for future opment process. These are equipment development used to validate operational activities. Prototypes concepts, establish production are generally used to test rates, determine manufacturing operational concepts. feasibility, and confirm economic profitability. 39 - Exhibit 02--Continued RESEARCH EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT Methodology: Generally, the methods of Generally, exploitation of creating knowledge. knowledge or application of Research usually, but not existing technology. Equip- always, involves use of ment development does not experimental design and embrace experimental design analysis. There is always and analysis. Major methods a stated or implied are technical and economic hypothesis to be tested. analyses based on handbooks, periodicals, reports, patent disclosures, and discussions with peers. No hypothesis testing is evident. Judicious use of trial and error are common. 39 - Exhibit 03 EVALUATION OF RESEARCH SCIENTISTS' INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER EFFORTS The Research Grade-Evaluation Guide recognizes the accomplishment of the entire research cycle from initiating a study through making the findings available to users to receiving feedback from users on the findings' usefulness. The methods of disseminating findings vary according to the nature of the findings, the size or type of users or audience, the confidentiality of the information, and the availability of a dissemina- tion outlet. Publication of results in peer-reviewed journals and issuance of patents are essential components of information and technology transfer to confer credibility and assure the quality of research. This should by no means be the only method of disseminating findings. Other approaches, including creating data-bases, computer models, or audio/visual products; writing articles, pamphlets, and brochures; creating electronic documents retrievable by INTERNET or operating on-line bulletin boards; participating in demonstrations, training sessions, and short-courses; making oral or poster presentations at conferences; hosting scientific exchanges; and consulting are all legitimate information and technology transfer efforts. They and other transfer approaches should be recognized and given appropriate credit by panels. Information and technology transfer ensures that the research findings of the scientist reach the intended audience in a form in which they can be used. Often, it takes as much or more originality and creativity to design, develop, and implement effective information and technology transfer activities as it does to actually conduct the research study. Both types of activities should receive credit in Factor III. When the scientist is involved in getting research findings into application and obtaining feedback from users on their success in applying the findings, these tasks complete the research cycle. Evaluate information and technology transfer efforts by the Research Grade- Evaluation Guide and the panel process only when these efforts are part of the complete research cycle of the scientist. When information and technology transfer is the primary assignment of an individual, and/or where it involves transferring the information or technology results of others, then the assignment is no longer a research assignment and it must be classified using other standards and methods. An exception is when the individual is part of a team. Individuals presenting an integrated package of team results, which include their own contributions, are engaging in the complete research cycle. 39 - Exhibit 04 EVALUATION OF SPECIAL ASSIGNMENTS Recognition should be given during panel evaluations to research scientists who have participated in special assignments, such as the Resources Program and Assessment or Adaptive Management Areas. Part of the work that researchers have been asked to do, especially the RPA Assessment work, will lead to research publications. Much of the work, however, will consist of planning activities, background analyses, working staff papers, and multiple-author or anonymous Forest Service reports which are not appropriate for evaluation as scientific contribu- tions under the Research Grade-Evaluation Guide. Because scientists are generally selected for special assignments as a result of their recognized expertise and professional standing, such assignments provide research panels with additional evidence of their scientific recognition, professional stature, and overall productivity. Accomplishments and contributions arising from the assignment should be included in Factor IV.B, Professional Activities and Recognition, Factor IV.C, Scientific Accomplishments and Contributions, and Factor IV.D, Disseminating Research Results. If the special assignments have had a major negative impact on the scientist's personal research accomplishments, this should be explained in Factor IV.E, Other Significant Information. If the special assignment becomes a regular, continuing part of the scientist's assignment, this should be documented in Factor I.A, Team Assignments or Factor I.C, Research-Related Assignments. Normally, special assignments are not a regular, continuing part of the job and the supervisor and scientist may have some difficulty in predicting the frequency and duration of such activities over the interval before the next panel evaluation. Scientists may even be nominated to and complete special assignments or team assignments during the interval between panels. Panels should be aware of this, and evaluate and credit such activities as part of Factor IV, regardless of whether or not it is in Factor I as a continuing responsibility. 39 - Exhibit 05 SUMMARY OF PANEL EVALUATION Person Evaluated Present Title, Series and Grade CONSENSUS SCORING: Panel Chair Factor I Panel Member Factor II Factor III Panel Member Factor IV Panel Member TOTAL POINTS Panel Member Personnel Specialist PANEL RECOMMENDATION: [ ] PROMOTE to Recommended Title, Series, and Grade [ ] REMAIN IN PRESENT GRADE [ ] SCORED BELOW PRESENT GRADE [ ] GUIDE NOT APPLICABLE [ ] NO DECISION because CERTIFICATION: We certify that this position was evaluated under the: [ ] Research Grade-Evaluation Guide [ ] Equipment Development Grade-Evaluation Guide The Research Position Evaluation Worksheet with consensus comments of the panel members is attached. ___________________________________ __________________________________ Panel Chair Date Personnel Specialist Date 39 - Exhibit 06 PRIVACY ACT NOTICE Preparation of Factor IV, Qualifications and Scientific Contributions, Research and Equipment Development Scientist Position Descriptions General This information is provided pursuant to Public Law 93-5 (Privacy Act of 1974), December 31, 1974, for individuals supplying information for inclusion in a system of records. Authority Section 5107 of Title 5 of the United States Code requires agencies to place positions in the appropriate grade and series by reference to standards published by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The Research Grade-Evaluation Guide and Equipment Development Grade- Evaluation Guide are issued by OPM and provide guidance and criteria for evaluating research and equipment development positions. The duties and responsibilities of such positions are dependent upon the interplay between the assignment and the scientific qualifications and contributions. Providing information prescribed for Factor IV of scientist position descriptions is voluntary, but is essential to the classification process. Purpose and Uses Factor IV information is collected to provide a research evaluation panel with essential facts on the novelty and complexity of the research assignment and the contributions and professional stature of the incumbent so that the panel may adequately evaluate the position. This information is also used to document the classification of the position. The information may be disclosed to appropriate officials of the Forest Service, the Department of Agriculture, and the Office of Personnel Management involved in the research scientist evaluation process. Effects and Nondisclosure Since Factor IV contains information on which a research panel evaluates a position, you should provide specific and complete information in Factor IV. Omitting an item may result in a lower evaluation score than is appropriate.