Career Progression Management Framework for Federal Researchers

Transcription

1 Career Progression Management Framework for Federal Researchers Application for the SE-RES Community Developed by the Research Community Advisory Committee Approved by Deputy Ministers Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Communications Research Centre of Canada (part of Industry Canada), Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Health Canada, Natural Resources Canada, and Public Health Agency of Canada Signed in February, 2006

2 CAREER PROGRESSION MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR FEDERAL RESEARCHERS Application for the SE-RES Community INTRODUCTION The purpose of this document is to provide you with an understanding of the new Career Progression Management Framework for Federal Researchers (Framework). The Framework provides a template for the improved management of Researchers (RE) careers within the Federal Public Service and addresses new legislative and policy requirements. It provides a structure that brings together related elements of the federal research directions which focus on research activities for public good, results based accountability management, and new human resources management legislative and policy requirements affecting the research community. It will bring about a common and consistent understanding and application of the SE-RES classification standard in science-based departments and agencies, while retaining a focus on excellence in research. Annex A of this document, Stages of Career Progression for the Federal SE- RES Community (Stages) is this common understanding. By addressing new legislative and policy requirements, this Framework calls for some culture changes, including a new focus on the career progression of federal researchers and the introduction of management practices that accompany these culture changes. The key change is the introduction of the concept of career progression"; also referred to as promotability. Currently, attention is given to whether or not a researcher has met the requirements for promotion, with relatively little attention given to active support of the researchers growth to the next level. The Framework supports a focus on RE promotability thus focusing on RE career progression towards the next stage of development. This means encouraging the continuous development of competencies of researchers in order for them to assume more responsibilities. This will enable them to deliver the expected valued outcomes, which in turn will qualify them for career advancements (promotions). The clear articulation of the different stages of career progression will provide research managers with an effective tool to evaluate RE progress in a more objective way. The new Framework and the Stages will provide SE-RES and their managers with a focus on career development and timely promotions through an annual discussion and evaluation of promotability. In addition to responding to government requirements, the Framework and Stages also respond to researchers requests for clearer statements of what is expected of them for promotion purposes. By providing clear expectations, in conjunction with supportive management practices, researchers will be better able to plan their career progression, and access promotion committees in a timely fashion. With a common understanding of promotion criteria shared by major federal science-based departments, the federal government will ensure fairness of treatment among its researchers. October

3 WHY A NEW FRAMEWORK IS NEEDED Government s expectations of its research activities have evolved and are now focused more and more on the obligations of the government related to the public good. In addition, the management of human resources within the public service has also evolved and now demands a greater accountability to fairness, transparency, access and flexibility - principles which are the essence of the new Public Service Modernization Act and related legislation. The Career Progression Management Framework for Federal Researchers takes into account these evolutions and describes their interactions and practices to support them. As clearly articulated in documents such as Results for Canadians, the new direction of government programs is on results-based management principles. Simply put, this means that government research must be directed towards supporting the departmental mandate and program activities, i.e., towards the public good. The purpose of government research is to provide a high quality of life through science and technology, ensuring the security and health and well-being of Canadian citizens and the environment. The government recognizes the need for excellence in research to support decision-making, policy development and regulations, and the development and management of standards, for example in the stewardship and sustainable development of natural resources; the needs of public health, safety, environment and defence; and economic and social development. The objective of government research is to provide the infrastructure and the long-term expertise needed to understand, interpret and support the policies and directions required domestically and at the international level. Government research must demonstrate innovation if the results are to meet the needs of its various clients, which include the government itself, external partners and the Canadian public. In partnership with academia, government research also targets the advancement of the scientific body of knowledge in general. In response to the evolution of federal government needs, and in accordance with new government accountability policies, many departments have been updating, in isolation, their interpretations of the guidelines for promotion decisions. The impact of these independent, department-based updates has been a slow loss of equivalencies among science-based departments employing SE-RES, and even within departments with several sectors. The need to address these inconsistent approaches across departments, the outof-date criteria and the lack of clarity on expectations of departmental researchers led to the development of this common Framework. In March 1999, as part of a new public service occupational group structure, the RE (Research) Group was created. The group is made up of positions in the former Scientific Research (SE-RES and SE-REM), Defence Scientific Service (DS), Historical Research (HR), and Mathematics (MA) occupational groups. What they have in common is a focus October

4 on the development of new knowledge for the public good. The Framework covers all four of the former occupational groups of researchers while each maintains its respective classification standard. In 2002, the Government announced a new direction in modernizing the classification system. The Classification Reform initiative is a balanced incremental approach to updating the classification system. It builds on the work done through the Universal Classification Standard (UCS) and it will proceed on an occupational group-by-group basis. The Career Progression Management Framework for Federal Researchers was developed for researchers by the research community. It ensures that requirements specified in human resources management legislation are addressed. Under the UCS initiative, skills, responsibilities, effort and working conditions formed the foundation of a classification system designed to reflect the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) requirements with respect to the assessment of the value of work. In December 2004, an independent, expert analysis of the new Framework was undertaken to verify that it met the CHRA requirements. The analysis demonstrated that the Framework respects the Act in relation to the criteria identified to assess the value of work. It also showed that the Framework respects both the incumbent and position-based systems, and identified areas for improvement, which have since been incorporated. An important dynamic of the RE group is that some of its members (SE, DS, HR and MA) are governed by an incumbent-based approach (e.g., SE-RES) while others are governed by a position-based approach (e.g., SE-REM). Within the Framework, both systems were respected, and the SE-RES group retains its incumbent-based system. In addition to the changes to the classification system, the federal government was also developing new global policies and legislation regarding the management of public service employees. Among its major changes, the new Public Service Modernization Act and related legislation established a new definition of merit 1 for the purpose of appointments, as well as new processes to address conflicts. For the RE group, the incumbent-based approach is now defined through a regulation (Public Service Employment Regulations) which associates it with a career progression framework and a new, independent recourse process for questioning denied promotions 2. Internal policies are also being changed to bring renewed focus on continuous learning. The Clerk of the Privy Council requires a learning plan for every employee. The creation of the new Canada School of Public Service will facilitate the implementation of this concept of continuous learning practice. 1 See PSEA 30(1), 30(2(a)(b)) and 30(4). 2 PSER defines incumbent-based process as follow: For the purposes of subsection 34(1) of the Act, the internal appointment process within the Research and University Teaching Groups, if there is a career progression framework established by the deputy head in consultation with the authorized bargaining agents that includes an independent recourse mechanism, is an incumbent-based process. October

5 Classification reform, modernization of human resources and the requirement to have learning plans are all elements of current government initiatives taken into account in the development of the new Framework. Fairness, transparency, access and flexibility are the principles at the core of the Framework. HOW THE NEW FRAMEWORK WAS DEVELOPED The Framework was developed for the Research community by the Research community. The Research Community Advisory Committee (RCAC) led the development of the Framework to address the many changes impacting the RE community in a coherent, managed process. This Committee was established on codevelopment principles and includes: a representative group of senior research managers - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Communications Research Centre of Canada (part of Industry Canada), Defence Research and Development Canada, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Health Canada, Library and Archives Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada and Statistics Canada; a representative group of Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) researchers, and the PIPSC RE negotiator; and a representative group from the main human resources central agencies: Public Service Commission and Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada. Work has been progressing for the past five years as the legislation and new government direction evolved, establishing an overall Framework to bring focus to the management of the career progression of researchers (appointment and promotability). In progressive steps, the RCAC is working with communities to update the understanding and application of each of the four classification standards (DS, SE, HR and MA). Once this is completed, RCAC will undertake an analysis across the four classifications (DS, SE, HR and MA) to identify commonalities and differences. This will serve as the basis for a decision on the potential merger of the existing four standards into a reduced set. RCAC would then be in the position to develop common elements for the Framework which would inform classification reform for the RE Group as it proceeds. While the Framework is new, the SE-RES classification standard remains the same (same number of levels, same requirements at each level). The Framework, and specifically the Stages portion, provides a common and consistent understanding and application of the SE-RES classification standard in a manner that reflects the current realities of research work across departments. In , presentations on the Framework were given to senior management and promotion committee members throughout departments employing SE-RES and to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. A presentation was also given at the 2005 PIPSC RE Annual General Meeting. The Framework was well received. In May 2005, RCAC SE October

6 management representatives consulted their senior management on various elements related to the SE-RES and these received support. In September 2005, a national consultation strategy was implemented to explain the new Framework to the SE Community, and get feedback on both the criteria outlined in the draft Stages and management practices supporting the application of the Framework. This national consultation included face-to-face discussion groups as well as web-based consultation documents. Focus group sessions were conducted in ten cities accessible by the SE community: Halifax, Québec, Saint-Hyacinthe, Ottawa, Toronto, Burlington, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Vancouver and Sidney (BC). Approximately 220 research scientists and science managers participated in these sessions. The web-based consultation generated about 30 responses from researchers ( s, faxes, phone calls). Changes to the former Defence Scientific Service (DS) occupational group have already been implemented through the promotion and salary advancement guidelines within their own Salary Administration System. Library and Archives Canada and Statistics Canada, the major employers of the Historical Research (HR) and Mathematics (MA) groups respectively, support the Framework in principle and are exploring its application. KEY ELEMENTS OF THE NEW FRAMEWORK The Framework is the community response to the changes outlined earlier. The impact on researchers will be tools and information described in the Stages of Career Progression for the Federal SE-RES Community. The new elements include: the identification of stages of career progression based on progressively more complex research performance requirements during a career; the description of these requirements in terms of demonstrated competencies, effort, responsibilities and valued outcomes to outline expected outputs of researchers at each stage; the use of different contexts to recognize the various additional duties performed by researchers; and the use of management practices to ensure that the Framework is consistently applied and that researchers promotability are managed effectively. The following paragraphs provide an overview of these elements. Detailed information is described in the companion Stages document in Annex A. The identification of stages of professional development serves to define the employers expectations of the RE community in terms of competencies and responsibilities that a researcher must acquire to achieve the expected valued outcomes. The Framework assumes that effort increases throughout the career progression of a researcher and is captured in competencies, while working conditions are to be valued and compensated for separately. October

7 The identification of specific stages of career progression plays a key role in outlining and clarifying the requirements for progression to the next stage. Each stage is described in terms of developed competencies, assumed responsibilities and achieved valued outcomes in the three contexts of work assigned to the RE. The description of these stages will provide guidance for acquiring and evaluating professional development, thus allowing both researcher and manager to know what requirements are expected to move to the next stage. While these stage descriptions will drive career progression, only valued outcomes will be treated as anchors for the purposes of assessing career advancement (promotion). In the Framework, the government s research expectations are defined in terms of four types of valued outcomes of research work. The valued outcomes describe the expectations in terms of innovation, productivity, impact and recognition, which are the driving forces in a researcher s career progression. These valued outcomes cover the spectrum of work assigned to a researcher and describe work expectations that help achieve the department s business goals and its mandate. For each of these valued outcomes, the Framework recognizes three contexts of research work: (1) research, development & analysis (RDA): (2) managing of research; and (3) representation & client services. Researchers primary area of work remains RDA. Even though four types of valued outcomes have been identified as distinct, they remain very much linked. For example, the evidence of a scientific researcher s innovation, impact and recognition is in her/his productivity; the recognition may result from the impact and/or the innovation. The number of publications, often perceived as the main focus in the current promotion process, is now to be viewed as only part of the evidence that demonstrates innovation, impact and recognition. For progression within a research career, the development of competencies, the assumption of responsibilities and the delivery of valued outcomes are all required. A career progression assessment focuses on the delivery of valued outcomes. For a promotion, the evidence of the valued outcomes demonstrates the existence of a certain level of competencies and responsibilities. This assessment does consider all three contexts of work but emphasis is placed on valued outcomes within the RDA. This complete work assessment, with emphasis on RDA, is therefore referred to as a balanced evaluation guide. The culture change in the career progression assessment centres on focus. In the past, the basis for research scientists promotions could often be summarized as the number of publications. The focus now will be more on innovation and the impact of research. It is also recognized that promotion takes into consideration all the research scientist s accomplishments, i.e., individual ones as well as those achieved through team and integration work. For further specification of this focus, departments will each be developing guidance documents. October

8 To support this focus on promotability and other elements of the Framework, management guides are being prepared, incorporating best practices drawn from departments. For some departments or managers, such practices may already be common; for others, they will be new. Starting in 2006, a new performance appraisal form will be used. This form will continue to assess researchers performance in terms of delivering stated objectives of the year, but in addition, the form will require written input on researchers promotability. This promotability assessment will be based on the Stages of Career Progression for SE-RES document. In the summer of 2006, departments will be releasing a new guide regarding how to prepare a promotion case which will be in line with the Stages document. Guidance documents (e.g., the balanced evaluation guide) for departmental RE career progression committees will be communicated to the SE-RES and science managers within each department. Starting in 2007, decisions of the RE career progression committees will be communicated in writing, with explanations for the decision (most promotion committees already adhere to this practice). In cases of denied promotions, the letter will state the areas in which the researchers need to strengthen his/her case. A part of the Framework is a new, independent recourse mechanism for situations where a researcher questions her/his denied promotion (see Annex B). This recourse mechanism embraces the following principles: independence (new eyes, impartiality), fairness, transparency (including disclosure), knowledge and representation. The recourse mechanism will be implemented in 2006 since it is part of the new Public Service Employment Act which comes into effect on December 31, The Framework will be rolled-out in early 2006 for application in the 2007 promotion process. A key to the success of the application of the new Career Progression Management Framework for RE is to have the SE-RES and research managers well informed of the process and its impact. October

9 Annex A Stages of Career Progression for the SE-RES Community Federal research scientists work ensures that departments have the sound scientific base for strategic and effective policies, regulations and programs to anticipate and meet the future needs and challenges of the department. Research scientists perform their work in pursuance of departmental mandates in order to attain the specified outcomes or to conceptualize, identify, formulate and set in motion new outcomes in delivering programs. SE-RES classification and levels are determined through an incumbent-based approach: the researcher s achievements will determine his/her level. The following pages of this Annex provide detailed expectations, in terms of competencies, effort, responsibilities and valued outcomes, which are expected of research scientists to enter each level: to be appointed to the level, research scientists must demonstrate that they have met those expectations. Those detailed expectations are use to assess the researcher s career progression (promotability) and career advancement (promotions). For the latter, only valued outcomes are used to assess the researcher s level. This is a new, common and consistent understanding and application of the classification standard (SE- RES) in a manner that reflects the current realities of research work across departments. Depending on the stage of development and progression within the career, a research scientist is placed in one of the following five levels, generally described as: SE-RES-1: A research scientist who has made some expert-reviewed contributions and has sufficient experience to contribute to departmental goals. SE-RES-2: A research scientist who is recognized by peers as knowledgeable in an area of specialty 3, either has worked in and led a small project team of scientific/technical personnel or carried out individual in-depth inquiries to support the delivery of the sectoral or departmental mandate. SE-RES-3: A research scientist who is recognized by peers as a national expert in an area of specialty, and has led a team of scientific and technical personnel or carried out in-depth inquiries to successfully deliver on the immediate, or contribute to intermediate and long-term, outcomes of the sector/department. SE-RES-4: A research scientist who is recognized as an authority in broad areas of specialty and who has strategically conceptualized the course of research activity within the sector/department leading to the achievement of the intermediate, and contributing to the long-term, outcomes of the sector/department. SE-RES-5: A research scientist who is recognized as an authority and visionary in broad areas of specialty who has strategically integrated leading edge scientific and technical objectives into programs within the sector/department as required, having the desired long-term impact on organizational priorities and the future directions of research within and outside the department. VALUED OUTCOMES EXPECTED FROM RESEARCH SCIENTISTS Based on a five level career progression management structure, the valued outcomes are identified as being expected at the respective level, for entry into that level. Expected valued outcomes are described under 3 In this document, the word specialty is used in a general way to refer to specialization, discipline, field, etc. It should be read in the context of growth in a career progression. October

10 the broad categories of Innovation, Productivity, Impact and Recognition. Each category is looked at more specifically from one to three contexts under which a research scientist carries out the research activities in pursuance of the sectoral/departmental outcomes, priorities and results. Although the four valued outcomes can be distinct, they are very much interrelated. The evidence of a scientific researcher s innovation, impact and recognition is in her/his productivity; recognition may result from impact and/or innovation. 1. Innovation Innovation is the development of modified or novel approaches, theories, concepts, ideas or solutions, in line with departmental mandate. 2. Productivity Productivity is the generation of departmental relevant outputs (also called contributions) being produced by the researcher, in accordance with the rate consistent with the specialty or type of work. In this context, outputs may include: peer-reviewed publications, scientific products, science advice, research proposals, internal scientific reports, datasets, patents, technology transfers, reviews, books and chapters, expert panels; involvement in advisory committees, policy development, collaborative research and development projects, public outreach, peer-reviewed journals. These outputs may be individual or team contributions. 3. Recognition Recognition is a measure of credibility and stature of the researcher within the scientific community, the department and the government, and with its clients and stakeholders, in accordance with the specialty or type of work. 4. Impact Impact is the consequence of the research and new knowledge on departmental 4 target results and on the advancement of the specialty. Science-based policies, regulations, services and technology transfers are some examples of ways target results can be achieved and impact demonstrated. Context of work All work carried out by a research scientist in pursuing a departmental mandate should be recognized, acknowledged and rewarded. It is recognized that research scientists are required to undertake research, development and analysis (RDA) as their primary area of work. However, it is also recognized that research scientists are being requested to undertake work in two other different but complementary contexts, namely managing of research, and representation and client services. By describing departmental expectations of the valued outcomes within these two specific contexts, departments recognize that these activities are part of the research scientist s job, are important, and do take time and effort thus reducing the research scientist s ability to focus only on RDA activities 5. Departments also recognize the need to develop different types of competencies and responsibilities to meet the exigencies of an efficient and productive research scientist. 1. Research, Development and Analysis 4 Departmental results include results achieved for internal and external clients and those accomplished in partnerships; departmental results are linked to public good. 5 Valued outcomes described under managing of research and representation and client services contexts were most often captured, in the SE-RES standard, under leadership and scope of decisionmaking. October

11 Research is the systematic investigative process of inquiry, including development, testing and analysis, carried out in pursuance of the departmental mandate, in order to discover, interpret or analyze facts, events, or behaviours, to develop and revise theories, or to make practical applications with the help of such facts, laws or theories designed to develop or contribute to knowledge. 2. Managing of Research Managing of research includes the processes related to the planning, organizing, setting objectives, controlling and evaluating of RDA activities and their associated human and financial resources. It includes the provision of leadership to, and assessment of, other scientists, engineers, technologists, and/or other staff. 3. Representation and Client Services Representation is the process of representing and speaking on behalf of the departmental mandate at local and national fora or on behalf of the Canadian government at international fora. Client service is the process of interaction for facilitation of the knowledge/information transfer between the department/the researcher and clients in pursuance of the departmental mandate. Areas where this context is quite significant are: technology transfer and industrial liaison; scientific liaison with other government organizations, academia, clients and stakeholders; scientific staff and advisory positions; contracting out. Within this context, collaboration, partnering and RDA support to business development activities also have significance. BALANCED EVALUATION GUIDE 6 For career progression, developing competencies, assuming responsibilities and delivering valued outcomes are all required elements. A career progression assessment focuses on the delivery of valued outcomes. For a promotion, the evidence of the valued outcomes demonstrates the existence of a certain level of competencies and responsibilities. To assess a researcher s career progression, all three contexts of work are considered but emphasis is placed on valued outcomes within the RDA. This complete work assessment with emphasis on RDA is therefore referred to as a balanced evaluation, and this information will be transparent to researchers and science managers. The culture change in the career progression assessment is in its focus. In the past, the basis for research scientists promotions was often summarized as the number of publications. The focus now will be more on innovation and the impact of research; publications provide one form of evidence of these. As the four valued outcomes are interrelated, it is necessary to clarify their relative importance. For further explanations, departments will each be developing a guidance document (balanced evaluation guide). It is also recognized that promotion takes into consideration all the research scientist s accomplishments, i.e., individual ones as well as those resulting from team and integration work. Research work takes time and sustained resources. As departmental or sectoral research priorities change, they affect the continuity given to particular research work. These changes may also give opportunities to researchers to work on research work with greater impact on the department or the sector results. RE career progression committees will need to take into account the various effects of changing research priorities on the ability of researchers to delivery on the valued outcomes. NOTES: 1. For external recruitment, the context of the various experiences of candidates will be assessed as equivalent to the context of the federal government: departmental goals or mandate would be viewed as industry or institution goals or mandate in which candidates had experience. 6 The following paragraphs, under Balanced evaluation guide, will be updated once departments have finalized their guidance documents. October

12 2. For some scientific specialties, the national and international levels may be the same; similarly, a local issue may not have a national or international counterpart. The document should be interpreted as appropriate (and not assume that a level is skipped over or that a level cannot be attained). 3. Depending on scientific specialty or environment, the valued outcomes should be interpreted to recognize individual and team contributions. In the document, valued outcomes statements often refer to team or team leadership: for researchers who do not work in teams, there is an equivalent valued outcome statement which is not specific to team work or team leadership. 4. As research work includes various aspects, and these vary considerably from one researcher to another, valued outcomes were written to cover a wide range of achievements. In many places in the tables below, more than one statement is specified for a valued outcome within a context. In these cases, not all statements are expected to be met by each researcher. 5. At each level, the competencies, responsibilities and valued outcomes of the previous level are assumed to be included. Evidence at each level may be similar but is expected to be more extensive at higher levels. October

13 SE-RES 01 The SE-RES-01 is usually a recent Ph.D. graduate with little or no experience, and is usually recruited through an external appointment process. The expected valued outcomes are therefore limited and should be assessed outside the context of the federal government. Only achievements in RDA are considered. Demonstrated Competencies and Effort: Innovated or modified a concept, theory, and approach and/or found a new or modified solution. Demonstrated understanding of research methodologies, tools, techniques, practices, and processes. Demonstrated understanding of theories, systems, facts, practices pertinent to an area of specialty. Demonstrated understanding of context in which research was undertaken. With guidance, planned for, organized, conducted and controlled a research project and/or fieldwork. With guidance, conceived, performed, completed and reported on research and development projects and/or fieldwork in an effective way. Provided input in research discussions. Provide leadership in specialty. Communicated research results in appropriate fashion to colleagues and peers. Worked positively within a team. Listened to counter-arguments or other opinions and was willing to change own mind in light of new, convincing evidence. Used own judgment in making decisions when conducting research. Managed research within constraints, and met commitments. Demonstrated Responsibilities: Responsible for providing input in decision on topic of own research. Responsible for carrying out research, decisions affecting own research, and the integrity of data and their analysis. Represented own research in meetings/events discussing research outcomes. Attended workshops and/or conferences and presented paper(s) on own research. Demonstrated Valued Outcomes: At the SE-RES-01 level, there are no expectations (valued outcomes) for the managing of research or the representation and client services contexts. SE-RES - 01 INNOVATION Research, Development & Analysis Has contributed to improvements in theories and/or techniques in a novel way and that have helped produce results. Has contributed to novel research, development or analysis proposals/initiatives that have been accepted and implemented within a project. IMPACT RECOGNITION Contributed to the area of specialty. Recognized by colleagues in area of specialty. Evidence may include being consulted by team members. PRODUCTIVITY Evidence of produced expert-reviewed research contributions. October

14 SE-RES 02 Demonstrated Competencies and Effort: Demonstrated understanding of theories, systems, facts, practices pertinent to an area of specialty relevant to organization target results. Monitored trends and used this knowledge to anticipate new and promising areas for research and development. Working knowledge of organization s mandate and policies and of clients environment and requirements as related to specialty. Understood the impact of research efforts and took action to ensure research and its outcomes are relevant to organization s targeted results and clients needs. Independent in conducting research, with minimal guidance, from design to documented results. Planned for, organized, conducted and controlled a research project and/or fieldwork independently. Conceived and wrote proposal to obtain financial support for research project. Performed, supervised, completed and reported on research and development projects in an effective and independent way. Chose and adapted available techniques and tools to meet research requirements. Research undertaken demonstrated some complexity. Synthesized complex issues related to field of specialty. Acquired confidence of colleagues. Participation sought in discussions on the directions of organizational research and research priorities. Influenced unit plans. Participated in solving other employees research issues. Participated in discussions with clients. Assessed, mobilized and focused energies and talent of students and technicians. Communicated complex issues and research results in appropriate fashion to colleagues and superiors and experts in the specialty. Accurately represented ideas, concerns and views. Interacted with clients and sponsors. Demonstrated growth in undertaking work and interacting with others in suitable ways. Acquired colleagues trust in making decisions, identifying achievable deadlines, evaluating issues and potential outcomes. Handled difficult relationships well. Altered normal procedures to fit a specific situation or changes in plans/schedules to accomplish the required research and/or meet the organization s goals. Maintained sound judgment and decision making in the face of demanding or stressful situations. Judgment valued by team. Gave credit for the contribution of others. Effectively balanced time and priorities within research and corporate commitments. Demonstrated Responsibilities: Responsible for setting work priorities: discretion provided and minimal guidance given. Involved in more than one research project: responsible for multiple work demands. Responsible for adapting research design, development and analysis, etc., to respond to organizational mandate. Responsible for providing input to other research teams/projects related to own research. Responsible for participating in the exploitation of research outcomes. Contributed to managing of research by planning, organizing and leading a research team and its activities: supervised and assessed students and technicians; provided input on the research budget and related infrastructure; defined, monitored, reviewed and provided recommendations for external contracts; and managed operations of local contracts. Responsible to contribute to the establishment of research partnerships. Responsible for representing the organization in local events related to area of specialty. Responsible for making decisions to benefit organization and client. Spoke on behalf of sector and clients in meetings where research directions are being discussed and decisions are being made on technical issues. October

15 Demonstrated Valued Outcomes: SE-RES 02 Research, Development &Analysis INNOVATION Has made improvements of theories and/or techniques that have been successfully adopted and applied to resolve issues related to project results. Managing of Research Not applicable Representation & Client Services Not applicable IMPACT RECOGNITION PRODUCTIVITY Has prepared novel research development or analysis proposals/initiatives that have been accepted and implemented within a program. Influenced research project results in the area of specialty. Recognized locally or regionally in area of specialty and for contributions to results at project level. Evidence may include: - consulted by team members and by local or regional stakeholders in a restricted specialty (research findings) - internal reviewer of publications - membership in scientific societies - requested to review internal research proposals Evidence of contributions to a departmental R&D project within the area of specialty. Influenced the delivery of projects. Recognized for contributions to project leadership; for example, contributions to supervising research activities, providing input for budget allocation, managing local contracts, establishing research partnerships. Recognized for achieving project results within allocated resources. Evidence of contributions to leading a team project. Influenced the delivery of clients research project in area of specialty. Recognized by stakeholders for knowledge in area of specialty. Evidence of contributions to respond to clients requesting technical input or information on research project in area of specialty. October

16 SE-RES-03 Demonstrated Competencies and Effort: Expert in breadth and/or depth in area of specialty: demonstrated in-depth understanding of theories, systems, facts, practices pertinent to specialty relevant to organizational target results. In-depth knowledge of clients or organization s mandate: anticipated their needs and influenced research specialty. Guided and coordinated a research team in conducting a research project, including negotiations for securing funding. Questioned/challenged current approaches in order to make the most effective use of the outcomes. Recognized when it is necessary to modify the research approach to meet the needs of the clients/organization, and directed individuals/teams to implement new approaches. Guided others with their research projects and research proposals. Influenced research projects of clients and/or organization. Proactively shaped and selected research project directions and highly respected in doing so; always at the leading edge of specialty. Recognized emerging areas for learning and development in specialties. Recognized and cultivated creativity in individuals and teams. Acknowledged by research community for contributions to specialty. Attracted, assessed, mobilized and focused energies and talents of multidisciplinary team(s). Focuses research toward reaching organization and client goals. Performed effectively in mentorship role. Established influential connections inside and outside of the organization. Communicated complex research development and results to diverse audience, including general public: this was achieved in situations where there was very little preparation time. Negotiated, facilitated and convinced others to follow new research directions. Built teams with complementary strengths or required capabilities. Enhanced team profile and encourages cross-team effectiveness. Took initiatives (risk management) and supported others to do so. Maintained operational effectiveness in an environment that contains ambiguity and uncertainty. Judgment valued by other research teams. Handled multiple tasks, processed information and addressed numerous research needs or conflicting demands without losing track of priorities and long term goals of organization, clients or stakeholders. Demonstrated Responsibilities: Responsible for recommending actions on research with complex issues. Responsible for participating in the definition of organizational research program. Responsible for shifting, when appropriate, operational priorities to meet new challenges in a changing environment. Responsible for synthesizing outcomes from several research projects. Responsible for providing guidance in conceptualization of research affecting areas of specialty. Responsible for staffing, career development and assessment of employees/ teams. Established performance criteria for the research team s members. Responsible for making recommendations for human resources, budget and infrastructure for research in areas of specialty. Responsible for acquiring research funds and accountable for these funds. Responsible for the negotiations and establishment of new research partnerships. Spoke on behalf of organization where research programs and policies in areas of specialty are being discussed and recommendations for research directions are being developed. Spoke on behalf of organization at national events. October

17 Demonstrated Valued Outcomes: SE-RES 03 Research, Development & Analysis INNOVATION Has conceptualized improvements of theories and/or techniques, and developed their application. These enabled contributions to the achievement of departmental or sectoral results. Managing of Research Not applicable Representation & Clients Services Not applicable IMPACT RECOGNITION PRODUCTIVITY Has prepared in-depth novel research, development or analysis proposals/initiatives that have been accepted and implemented across programs or by stakeholders. Influenced the achievements or results in the area of specialty relevant to sectoral or departmental program 7, and within the science community. Recognized nationally as expert in area of specialty and for contributions to sectoral or departmental results at program level. Evidence may include: - consulted nationally on implications of research findings in area of specialty - collaboration across departmental or interdepartmental programs - consulted on policy development in area of specialty - invited to give academic lectures or courses, or supervise graduate students - invited to present papers at national level event - held office in scientific societies - external reviewer of journal publications - requested to review external research proposals Evidence of multi-year contributions of breadth and/or depth in the area of specialty that are relevant to Influenced program planning and resources allocation affecting delivery of projects. Recognized as leading project teams in area of specialty; for example, staffing, career development, assessment of employees, securing resources. Recognized for contributions to program planning, and/or implementation of human or financial resources policies and operations. Evidence of contributions relevant to supporting the management of a program. Influenced the directions of clients research projects in area of specialty. Influenced the directions of local, regional, national or interdepartmental bodies related to area of specialty. Recognized as departmental or stakeholder spoke-person at local, regional and/or national events on issues related to areas of specialty. Recognized for contributing to the organization of conferences. Evidence of contributions to respond to clients who sought their support to solve problems in area of 7 Program includes policies, regulations, services, technology transfers or partnerships. October

18 sectoral or departmental results at program level. Evidence of contributions to the development of results which feed the discussions at national bodies leading to the establishment of standards, regulations, agreements, policies, services, etc. Evidence/contributions may include: - managing/leading teams - increased number or scope of projects led - increased resources - partnerships or collaborative work specialty. Evidence of contributions to regional or national standard, advisory or research bodies related to area of specialty included in department s mandate. October

19 SE-RES-04 Demonstrated Competencies and Effort: Authority in broad area or increased depth within an area of specialty: demonstrated in-depth understanding of multi-disciplinary theories, systems, facts, practices pertinent to specialty relevant to organizational target results. In-depth understanding of organization s and clients mandates and policies, and understanding of relevant factors, including political ones: foresaw impact of research on them and influenced their directions. Took appropriate actions or leveraged opportunities for the organization and/or clients to convey the implications of research findings. Guided and coordinated multi-disciplinary research teams in conducting several research projects or a research program. Anticipated long-term financial and collaborative needs of teams and took actions to secure these. Influenced research projects or programs in related specialties. Provided leadership to align organizational and/or clients research priorities with emerging national or international research priorities. Motivated individuals and teams toward decisions, actions and commitments in areas of specialties. Fostered professional development of individuals and teams to meet mandate of clients or organization. Influenced organizational and clients processes and/or priorities. Effectively conveyed to different audiences complex research information concerning difficult, for example politicized or controversial, issues. Encouraged and empowered others, making them feel valued and recognized. Adapted approach to fit the situation or the person involved. Demonstrated understanding of preferred working style of others and adapted own work approach to complement them. Identified ways to break down barriers in introducing new methods. Managed multiple demands: synthesized the continuous flow of information from multiple sources to address, anticipate and capitalize on opportunities for the organization, clients and stakeholders. Demonstrated Responsibilities: Responsible for coordinating responses to demands for advice on a wide range of issues. Provided authoritative, broad-based advice in fields of expertise. Responsible for coordinating and leading organizational, national and/or international research. Responsible for decisions affecting organizational, national and/or international research programs/specialties. Initiated plans and policies for new, multi-disciplinary, organizational, governmental, national and/or international research. Fostered the long-term and continuous learning and development of others (for example, staff, colleagues, peers, clients) in the field of specialization by encouraging, recognizing and supporting their developmental interests and needs, and providing opportunities for learning. Represented departmental or governmental positions (directions) in national and/or international meetings/events where research directions are being discussed and decisions being made. Demonstrated Valued Outcomes: SE-RES 04 Research, Development & Analysis INNOVATION Has developed novel theories and/or techniques which represent an advance in a specific area of research, development or analysis, or has applied existing theories and/or techniques to new areas where such application had not been obvious before. These enabled contributions to achieving departmental or sectoral results. Has proposed novel research, development or analysis projects Managing of Research Not applicable Representation & Clients Services Not applicable October