TEST AND VALIDATION OF THE PROPOSED, SUPERGRADE FACTOR EVALUATION SYSTEM BY SENIOR REPRESENTATIVES OF DDA

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 44
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 12, 2001
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: March 8, 1979
• Content Type: REGULATION

4 t I I
CONFIDENTIAL
~MII
5a. PERMANENT TRANSFER 1
copy to
Agency ARCHIVES upon publication
IIZ' a ,9Z~
V n
6-8 March-1979
Test and Validation of if te Proposed,,,
Supergrade Factor Evaluation System
By Senior Represen ves of DDA
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
I I L I I I. l L I L I l l 1 L I I I
SUPERGRADE FACTOR EVALUATION SYSTEM
CONTENTS
Page
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................
1
Design of Supergrade Position Evaluation Guide ..................................................................................
2
Use of Supergrade Position Evaluation Guide ........................................................................................
2
Evaluation of Deputy Positions ..............................................................................................................
3
Titling Practices ........................................................................................................................................
3
Supergrade Position Evaluation Guide (Master Tab) ............................................................................
5
Appendages to Guide
Distinguishing Characteristics of GS-14 or GS-15 Non-
Manager Positions (Tab A) ..............................................................................................................
15
Definition of Terms (Tab B) ................................................................................................................
17
Hierarchy of Occupational Disciplines (Tab C) ................................................................................
21
Grade Conversion Table (Tab D) ........................................................................................................
29
Position Description Writing Guide (Tab E)
31
Sample Position Description (Tab F) ......................................................................................................
35
Construction of Grade Conversion Table and Rating Scale (Tab G) ..................................................
39
iii
Approved For Release 2001/q?WdgEei kDP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
p l l I I I [. I I I I I I i
SUPERGRADE FACTOR EVALUATION SYSTEM
1. Introduction
The Position Management and Compensation Division of the Office of Personnel has developed,.
tested and refined criteria and methodology for determining whether Agency managerial, first-line
supervisory and nonmanagerial positions justify allocation at supergrade levels. This was a two year effort
which has culminated in a draft product known as the Supergrade Factor Evaluation System.
The objectives of the Supergrade Factor Evaluation System are to lessen the subjectivity in the
evaluation of current and proposed supergrade positions, and to achieve a greater degree of consistency in
its application than has been the case with previous job evaluation methods and techniques used in the
Agency for supergrade positions. A further objective of this system is to promote a better understanding
among senior Agency managers of the criteria and methodology used in classifying Agency supergrade
positions.
This system reflects adaptations of the criteria and methodologies used in the Government-wide
Factor Evaluation System for grading nonsupervisory positions GS-01 through GS-15. It also reflects
adaptations of the job evaluation system for executive positions which was developed on an experimental
basis in the late sixties by the U.S. Civil Service Commission but was never implemented for Government
use.
This system utilizes five factors whose presence is measurable in all Agency supergrade positions.
These five factors are: (1) Knowledges and Abilities, (2) Difficulty of Work, (3) Responsibility, (4)
Personal Relationships and (5) Supervision and Guidance Received.
The system also provides for the application of the concepts and criteria embodied in the Government-
wide Supervisory Grade Evaluation Guide, Part II, in determining whether basic managerial and first-line
supervisory positions should be evaluated at GS-16 rather than GS-15.
i
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
The principal element of this system is the Supergrade Position Evaluation Guide against which
individual position descriptions are compared for grade determining purposes. In addition, the system
contains a guide for writing position descriptions in the supergrade factor format, a sample position
description, and a statement of methodology for constructing a grade conversion table and rating scale.
2. Design of Supergrade Position Evaluation Guide
The Supergrade Position Evaluation Guide consists of three principal elements: (a) description of the
concepts underlying each factor, (b) descriptions of three levels for each factor which indicate the extent to
which the factor concepts are present in various work situations and (c) a rating scale that reflects the
point value range and midpoint assigned to each factor level. In addition, the Supergrade Position
Evaluation Guide contains the following appendages which also comprise essential elements in the total
evaluation process: (a) distinguishing characteristics of GS-14 or GS-15 nonmanager positions, (b)
definition of terms, (c) hierarchy of occupational disciplines that relates to the Agency's mission and
functions and (d) a table for converting assigned points to GS supergrade levels. Factor level descriptions
are expressed in broad terms and reflect the approximate midrange of the level. The grade conversion table
is actually a modified extension of the CSC/FES conversion table, which is applicable to nonsupervisory
positions at grades GS-01 through GS-15.
The hierarchy of occupational disciplines is arranged by group, field and specialty and represents
branches of knowledge which collectively comprise the primary academic qualifications required for
Agency professional occupations. These occupations in turn are identified with the intelligence process
either in a direct or supportive manner.
3. Use of Supergrade Position Evaluation Guide
Positions are evaluated on a factor-by-factor basis. This involves comparing the factor data in the
position descriptions with the factor level descriptions in the Guide. Thus, it is essential that a current and
complete position description be prepared in the supergrade factor format. The Guide is not intended to be
an inflexible instrument that, when applied, will determine the grade of a position beyond question.
Therefore, considerable judgment must be exercised in interpreting the Guide as it applies to a specific
position. Consideration must be given to other factors or conditions that conceivably could impact on the
2
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
I 1 1 1 I 9 9 t a 6
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
evaluation of a position. Furthermore, organizational and position relationships and program priorities
should be considered in the evaluation process. Since the descriptive material contained in the Guide is
representative and not all inclusive of the kinds of work found in Agency supergrade positions, considerable
judgment must be exercised in determining whether position factor data are fully equivalent to the overall
intent of the selected factor level description. Points are assianec~ at either end of the point range, or at
midpoint for a given factor level depending upon the evaluator's judgment as to whether the position factor
data exceed, are less than, or are substantially equal to, the factor level description. In evaluating
nonmanagerial positions, the position description should be initially compared with the statement of
distinguishing characteristics of GS- 14 or GS- 15 nonmanager positions contained in Tab A or with an
appropriate Agency approved classification standard prepared in FES format. This procedure is necessary
to determine whether the position requirements exceed the GS-15 level. Similarly, in evaluating basic
managerial and first-line supervisory positions the full performance level of work supervised must be
determined before additional criteria as set forth in the CSC Supervisory Grade Evaluation Guide and the
Supergrade Position Evaluation Guide are applied. If upon initial review, the factor data in a position
description do not meet the minimum points of level 1 of any factor. no points should he 'acsignad t that
factor level. Since the factors are assigned different weights and are interrelated, the position must be
evaluated by'
y comparison with the remaining factors in the Guide before a final judgment is made that the
position fails to meet the minimum points for level 1 of a given factor.
4. Evaluation of Deputy Positions
Deputy positions will be established one grade below that of the Chief position in all cases where the
incumbents of such positions are required to spend a preponderance of their time sharing responsibility
with the Chief for the day-to-day management of the components.
5. Titling Practices
Supergrade positions will be titled and coded in accordance with instructions contained in the Agency
Handbook of Position Titles and Occupational Codes. In this regard, the Position Management and
Compensation Division determines whether a supergrade position should be coded in the Policy Direction
Group, or in an appropriate subject matter series.
3
Approved For Release 2001//?lffdgEeW- DP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08: CIA-RDP83-01004FNM100260002-4
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
EVALUATION FACTOR I
Knowledges & Weighted Point Range Midpoint
Abilities Value 20% Level 1 915-1010 965
This factor measures the ex-
tent and degree of knowl-
edges required to perform the
duties of a position. In apply-
ing this factor, consideration
should be given to both the
breadth and depth of knowl-
edges required, and to the
abilities needed to apply the
required knowledges in work
situations.
Work situations at this level typically
require one of the following knowledges
identified with concepts, principles and
practices of an occupational specialty,
occupational field or occupational group:
Manager: An in-depth knowledge of an
occupational specialty and a broad
knowledge of the occupational field in
which such a specialty is included, or a
broad knowledge of one or more occupa-
tional fields, or a broad knowledge of an
occupational group.
All basic managers must possess a broad
knowledge of management principles and
practices, and demonstrated ability to
apply such knowledge in planning, orga-
nizing and directing activities as typified
in Factor II.
Nonmanager: An in-depth knowledge
of an occupational specialty, or an in-
depth knowledge of an occupational field
or a broad knowledge of several occupa-
tional fields associated with an occupa-
tional group.
Point Range Midpoint
Level 2 1015-1120 1070
Work situations at this level typically
require one of the following knowledges
identified with the concepts, principles
and practices of an occupational special-
ty, occupational field or occupational
group.
Manager: An in-depth knowledge of
two or more occupational specialties and
a broad .knowledge of the occupational
field in which such specialties are includ-
ed, or a broad knowledge of one or more
occupational fields, or a broad knowledge
of one or more occupational groups.
All middle managers must possess a
broad knowledge of management princi-
ples and practices and demonstrated
ability to apply such knowledge in plan-
ning, organizing and directing activities
as typified in Factor II.
Nonmanager: An in-depth knowledge
of one or more occupational fields, or a
broad knowledge of one or more occupa-
tional groups.
Point Range Midpoint
Level 3 1125-1230 1180
Work situations at this level typically
require one of the following knowledges
identified with the concepts, principles
and practices of an occupational special-
ty, occupational field or occupational
group.
Manager: An in-depth knowledge of
two or more occupational specialties and
a broad knowledge of the occupational
field in which the specialties are includ-
ed, or an in-depth knowledge of an occu-
pational field as such knowledge is ap-
plied to programs and activities asso-
ciated with two or more occupational
groups, or a broad knowledge of an occu-
pational group, or a broad knowledge of
several occupational fields associated
with two or more occupational groups.
All senior managers must possess a broad
knowledge of management principles and
practices and demonstrated ability to ap-
ply such knowledge in planning, organiz-
ing and directing activities as typified in
Factor II.
Nonmanager: An in-depth knowledge
of one or more occupational fields, or a
broad knowledge of several occupational
fields identified with two or more occu-
pational groups.
5
Approved For Release 2001 f1` %6i~E6fl - DP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
EVALUATION FACTOR II
Difficulty Weighted Point Range Midpoint
of Work Value 30% Level 1 1365-1515 1440
This factor measures the
complexity and difficulty of
assigned activities. In apply-
ing this factor, consideration
should be given to the variety
and scope of activities, types
and frequency of problems
encountered, and extent of
program planning and policy
formulation.
Manager: Illustrative of programs
managed at this level are:
a. Small in terms of resources re-
quired but the scope of the activity is
Agency-wide and identified with one or
more occupational specialties.
b. Supportive to large programs
administered at Office or equivalent lev-
el, and which in itself, requires large
financial resources and is identified with
an occupational group.
c. Encompasses all of the major
functions of a large program adminis-
tered at Office or equivalent level, but
limited to the management of a major
geographical area of the parent organiza-
tion, and the program requires small to
intermediate resources and is identified
with two or more occupational fields.
d. Small to intermediate resources
required, Agency-wide in scope, and is
identified with an occupational field, but
represents a major segment of a large
program identified with an occupational
group administered at Office or equiv-
alent level.
Manager positions at this level involve
formulating and recommending new poli-
Point Range Midpoint
Level 2 1520-1680 1600
Manager: Illustrative of programs
managed at this level are:
a. Large in terms of resources re-
quired; identified with numerous occupa-
tional fields and two occupational
groups; products involve the application
of technology at the state of the art; high
technical and operational risks are in-
volved since no precedents or criteria
exist for predicting the success or failure
of end products; wide diversity of occupa-
tions and skill levels represented in the
workforce; indirect managerial control
over large amounts of nonUSG resources
dedicated to the program; frequent re-
programming required; segmented into
major fields of endeavor for which no
precedents exist for measuring results;
and administered within an Office or
equivalent level but supportive to direc-
torate-wide programs that are global in
scope.
b. Provides common support to,
and staff cognizance over, a directorate-
wide program that is global in scope. The
support is identified with several occupa-
tional fields that, in the aggregate, span
two occupational groups. Small amounts
of resources are required.
Point Range Midpoint
Level 3 1685-1845 1765
Manager: Illustrative of programs
managed at this level are:
a. Large in terms of resources re-
quired; identified with an occupational
field; administered at Office or equiv-
alent level; and supportive to all Agency
programs on a world-wide basis.
b. Small in terms of resources re-
quired; administered within the staff
structure of top management (Director
level); identified with two or more occu-
pational specialties within an occupation-
al field; and such specialties are applied
in an investigative and control relation-
ship to all Agency programs on a world-
wide basis.
c. Large in terms of resources re-
quired; identified with several occupa-
tional fields within an occupational
group; administered at Office or equiv-
alent level; covers a broad geographical
area or world-wide in scope; workforce
dispersed throughout many field offices;
some activities may require approval at
the highest levels of government; and the
program is identified with a major seg-
ment of the intelligence process.
d. Large in terms of resources re-
quired; identified with several occupa-
tional fields associated with two or more
occupational groups; administered at Of-
6
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
EVALUATION FACTOR II (continued)
Point Range Midpoint
Level 1 1365-1515 1440
cies and procedures, and planning and
scheduling work activities. Normally,
frequent reprogramming and reschedul-
ing of work is required due to such
external factors as fluctuations in con-
sumer demands, unforeseen priority re-
quests from higher management, rapidly
emerging technologies or constraints im-
posed on available resources. A prepon-
derance of the problems encountered are
related to substantive activities and in-
volve formulating new approaches to
problem solution as well as evaluating
the results of such approaches.
Nonmanager: Illustrative of work situa-
tions at this level are:
a. Principal staff adviser to a Dep-
uty Director in connection with such
directorate-wide activities as resources
management, assessment of current and
proposed programs identified with two or
more occupational fields, forecasting fu-
ture problems and issues and formulating
approaches for meeting such challenges.
Externally imposed legal and policy re-
strictions may inhibit the range of alter-
natives for solving problems related to
directorate-wide programs. The pro-
grams are subjected to frequent changes
in emphasis, which in turn, produce in-
Point Range Midpoint
Level 2 1520-1680 1600
c. Large in terms of resources re-
quired; global in scope; identified with
two or more occupational fields; and
represents the principal segment of a
larger program administered at Office or
equivalent level.
Manager positions at this level typically
cover such activities as formulating plans
and programs, developing projections
covering resource requirements, present-
ing and justifying new or revised pro-
grams and assessing accomplishments in
terms of meeting program goals and ob-
jectives. Problems encountered are nu-
merous and frequently require develop-
ment of new methods or innovative
approaches. Programs require constant
modification to meet changing needs,
and short deadlines for accomplishing
changes are frequently imposed.
Nonmanager: Illustrative of work situa-
tions at this level is the consultant and
adviser to top management on a broad
spectrum of Agency-wide programs and
activities that, in the aggregate, are mul-
tidisciplinary in nature, cover two or
more occupational groups and involve
large amounts of resources. Work in-
cludes assessment of such programs and
Point Range Midpoint
Level 3 1685-1845 1765
flee or equivalent level; supportive to
major programs conducted on a world-
wide basis. Individual projects require
several years to complete; involve major
advances in technology; and workforce is
dispersed throughout many field offices.
e. Large in terms of resources re-
quired; identified with several occupa-
tional fields associated with two or more
occupational groups; administered in the
field as a major segment of a larger
program; product or services rendered
are critical to the fulfillment of U.S.
foreign policy objectives and essential to
U.S. national security; numerous and
complex cover arrangements; subordi-
nate field installations; and oversight of
two or more ancillary programs adminis-
tered on a regional basis and for which
extensive coordination is required with
departmental components at Office or
equivalent level having primary jurisdic-
tion over such regional programs.
Programs managed at this level typically
require extensive planning, reprogram-
ming, policy formulation and coordina-
tion within CIA and externally. Changes
in program emphasis are frequent and
unforeseen. Problems encountered are
numerous and the solutions usually in-
volve considerable adjustments to pro-
grams and the reallocation of resources.
7
Approved For Release 2001/ttifi8IDGIAA:RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
EVALUATION FACTOR II (continued)
Point Range Midpoint
of resources. Work includes assessment
of such programs and activities to deter-
mine effective utilization of resources,
responsiveness to near-term and out-year
consumer requirements, and impact on
the public image of CIA.
A large portion of the work at this level
frequently involves the in-depth study of
problems for which no precedents exist,
and the drawing of conclusions, projec-
tions and recommendations on which
policy related to the intelligence process
is based. Work may involve chairing ad
hoc task forces or study groups to ana-
lyze and recommend alternative solutions
to problems having interdirectorate
implications.
Nonmanager: Illustrative of work situa-
tions at this level are:
a. Focal point at top management
level for the (1) final review and coordi-
nation of interagency national intelli-
gence identified with an occupational
field on a functional basis or with an
occupational group on a geographic ba-
sis, (2) establishment of Community-
wide intelligence collection and produc-
tion priorities, (3) preparation of sub-
stantive input to long-range intelligence
documents and (4) serving as the prima-
ry interface between intelligence con-
sumers and producers.
b. Focal point at Community level
for the assessment of those segments of
the Community-wide intelligence collec-
tion or production programs that are
identified with two or more occupational
fields to determine effective utilization of
resources and responsiveness to near-
term and long-range requirements.
Work at this level involves the in-depth
analysis of multitiered functional pro-
cesses that cover the spectrum of the
U.S. intelligence mission. Problems en-
countered are highly complex, frequently
without precedents, contain broad policy
and jurisdictional implications and their
resolution is frequently crucial to the
success of such mission.
8
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
Point Range Midpoint
Level 1 1365-1515 1440 Level 2 1520-1680 1600 Level 3 1685-1845 1765
stability in the planning, programming
and budgeting process.
b. Conducts briefings within se-
vere time constraints on a broad spec-
trum of intelligence matters to officials
at the highest levels of government and
under conditions that require oral re-
sponses to questions without assistance.
c. Focal point at Office or equiv-
alent level for the final substantive re-
view and assessment of all source intelli-
gence materials that are identified with
an occupational field prior to release of
such materials by senior managers.
d. Focal point within a directorate
for monitoring and evaluating activities
identified with an occupational specialty
when such activities represent a major
segment of a large Agency-wide pro-
gram.
A large portion of work undertaken by
nonmanagers at this level requires an in-
depth investigation of complex problems
and the formulation of viable solutions.
The solutions usually involve the applica-
tion of numerous approaches and tech-
niques and the problems require resolu-
tion in short periods of time with limited
resources and assistance.
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
EVALUATION FACTOR III
Responsibility Weighted
Value 30% Level 1
This factor measures the im-
pact of decisions and actions
on the management of re-
sources, the shaping of policy
and the direction of programs
and projects. The factor also
measures the extent of deci-
sion-making authority in
these areas. In applying this
factor, consideration is given
to the magnitude and type of
impact-direct or indirect-
on such resources, policies
and programs at Agency or
Community levels, and to the
degree of latitude for inde-
pendent action.
Point Range Midpoint
1365-1515 1440
Manager: Positions at this level have
limited direct impact on the initial allo-
cation of resources, notwithstanding that
the resources required to manage some
programs at this level could represent a
significant portion of the total resource
allocation for the parent organization.
Although the positions include responsi-
bility for developing budget estimates
and projecting manpower and material
requirements, such decisions are subject
to a number of higher reviews and appro-
vals. The most significant responsibilities
in this area are the control of resources
for programs under the incumbents' ju-
risdiction, and the assurance that the
services and work products furnished are
timely, accurate and responsive to the
needs of consumers. These involve con-
tinuous monitoring to ensure that re-
sources are expended for approved pro-
grams, and that such programs are
administered in the most efficient and
economical manner. Independent deci-
sions must be made within budgetary
constraints and be consistent with Agen-
cy policy. In general, decisions affecting
levels of funding and other resource re-
quirements are in the form of recommen-
dations. Intelligence material collected or
Point Range Midpoint
Level 2 1520-1680 1600
Manager: Positions at this level have
a direct impact on the utilization of
intermediate or large amounts of
USG resources, and, in some in-
stances, an indirect impact on the
utilization of intermediate or large
amounts of contractor resources.
Such positions are normally responsi-
ble for reviewing and approving bud-
gets submitted by subordinate ele-
ments at the basic management level,
approving proposed changes in pro-
grams and operations, and defending
and justifying budget projections and
operating programs extended over
several years. Although decisions in
these areas are subject to review,
considerable weight is given by senior
officials at Office or directorate level
to the rationale that supports such
decisions. Normally managers at this
level have authority to approve ac-
tions recommended by subordinate
managers regarding utilization of ap-
proved resources and modifications
of programs and operations to meet
new requirements. Through active
participation with senior manage-
ment, considerable impact is made on
the decision-making process as it re-
Point Range Midpoint
Level 3 1685-1845 1765
Manager: Positions at this level have
a direct impact on the utilization of
large amounts of resources which re-
present a substantial portion of the
Agency's total budget. They include
authority within established policy to
determine programs and activities, to
project budget, material and man-
power requirements and to adminis-
ter all aspects of a large program in
such a manner as to ensure the ut-
most effectiveness and economy of
operations. Also included in such po-
sitions is the responsibility for pre-
senting and defending budget esti-
mates, evaluating the effectiveness of
operations and taking action to cor-
rect deficiencies. Positions also in-
clude authority to take independent
action on operational and manage-
ment matters such as developing or
revising organizational structures, re-
programming the utilization of funds
and establishing priorities for pro-
grams and activities. Programs man-
aged at this level may have a major
indirect impact on the effectiveness
of other Agency programs adminis-
tered on a world-wide basis. Manage-
rial decisions may directly impact on
9N L
Approved For Release 2001/~?M8"~'6'k RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
EVALUATION FACTOR III (continued)
Point Range Midpoint
Point Range Midpoint
Level 1 1365-1515 1440 Level 2 1520-1680 1600 Level 3 1685-1845 1765
produced under the direction of manag-
ers at this level may be responsive to
critical national requirements, and have
an indirect impact on U.S. foreign policy.
Such material normally encompasses one
or more subject matter fields identified
with a broad geographical area. Pro-
grammatic decisions made on a day-to-
day basis may indirectly impact on the
resources management of other Agency
programs. These decisions could pertain
to position management, job classifica-
tion and the legality or propriety of
Agency programs, operations and activi-
ties. Normally, managers at this level
have authority to make final decisions on
day-to-day operational management
matters within the framework of Agency
policy.
Nonmanager: Recommendations made
at this level indirectly impact on the
allocation of large resources since
they pertain to the feasibility of un-
dertaking, terminating, expanding or
modifying substantive programs nor-
mally at directorate level, as well as
assessing the cost-benefit factors of
such programs that are identified
with an entire segment of the intelli-
gence process. Authority is usually
lates to the formulation of new poli-
cies, development of new programs
and revision of ongoing programs.
Programmatic decisions directly af-
fect the substantive quality of pro-
gram output that is of high interest to
policymakers and which represents,
in terms of resources, a major seg-
ment of the Agency budget. Manage-
rial decisions made at this level may
indirectly impact on the quality and
timeliness of all-source intelligence
reporting on numerous subject mat-
ter fields identified with a major
geographical area, or upon the sub-
stantive quality of intelligence infor-
mation processed from large scale
and sophisticated technical collection
systems that are either global or re-
gional in scope.
Nonmanager: Recommendations made
at this level indirectly impact on a
major segment of the Agency's total
resources since they pertain to the
feasibility of undertaking, terminat-
ing, expanding or modifying large
programs, as well as assessing the
cost-benefit factors of programs that
are identified with all segments of the
intelligence process administered
the substantive quality of finished
intelligence pertaining to a subject
matter field for which the raw data
are acquired on an all-source, world-
wide basis, and disseminated as a
finished product at Office or equiv-
alent level. Decisions at this level
may also directly impact on the effec-
tiveness of a HUMINT collection
effort at Office or equivalent level
covering all subject matter fields for
a major geographical area.
Nonmanager: Recommendations made
at this level indirectly impact on a
major segment of the Community's
total resources for administering the
foreign intelligence program of the
U.S. Government. Normally incum-
bents of such positions are regarded
as experts within the Intelligence
Community. Recommendations at
this level may also indirectly impact
on the substantive aspects of Com-
munity-wide intelligence collection or
production programs that either en-
compass all subject matter fields
identified with a geographical area,
or are global in scope but limited to a
major field of endeavor. Consequent-
ly, the incumbents exercise consider-
10
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
1 4 1I 11 a
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
EVALUATION FACTOR III (continued)
Point Range Midpoint
limited to recommendations which in
turn are subject to higher reviews
and approvals. However, the conclu-
sions and recommendations made at
this level on the substantive aspects
of large programs are normally ac-
cepted as authoritative and directly
influence the programmatic decisions
of senior officials at the directorate
and Agency levels, and indirectly im-
pact on the quality of services and
products furnished.
Point Range Midpoint
Level 2 1520-1680 1600
within the Agency. The decision-
making authority is normally in the
form of recommendations. However,
because of the recognized expertise
of the incumbents, recommendations
dealing with the substantive aspects
of programs are normally accepted
by top management of the Agency
and, therefore, indirectly impact on
the effectiveness of ongoing
programs.
Point Range Midpoint
Level 3 1685-1845 1765
able influence on final decisions
made by top level policymakers con-
cerning the scope and nature of pro-
grams and activities to be undertak-
en, and on the quality of finished
intelligence made available to such
policymakers. Substantive recom-
mendations, especially during periods
of crisis, may, if adopted, indirectly
impact on the course of U.S. diplo-
matic relations with foreign powers
and upon U.S. national security. May
represent the DCI's position on sub-
stantive issues with authority to com-
mit the Director to a course of action
during discussions with other senior
officials in the Intelligence
Community.
Approved For Release 2001 1R i RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
EVALUATION FACTOR IV
Personal Weighted
Relationships Value 10% Point Range Midpoint
Level 1 455-505 Point Range Midpoint
480 Level 2 510-560 Point Range Midpoint
Factor Definition: 535 Level 3 565-615
Positions at this level involve 590
This factor measures the ex
personl contacts within own office, at the middle contacts swithin sown office involve, the seniorcontactsPositions at with this lseniorevel involve at level personal tent, level and purpose of per- and senior management levels and Depu- management personal
sonal contacts. In applying ty Director levels, other Agency director- levels. and with other or Agency and managers, Deputy
DCI director- Directors, DDCI, DCI and with Bureau
this factor, consideration ates and with officials in the Intelligence ates, Comptroller, Inspector General chiefs and do at eer l agencies. alcomparable levels
should be given to the scope, Community, foreign intelligence services General Counsel, Legislative Counsel, in
also be other
with mmultinational Contacts
purpose and frequency of or private industry. Contacts Q:Y also be officials of other Federal agencies at the internationally renowned auth in a
corpora x
tions,
contacts, level of persons con- with nationally reties known authorities in the Department level, heads of corporations,
o
tacted, the degree of contro- academic community to keep abreast of White House staff members, meers o ` ry highly scientific or technical field, Heads
versy involved in such trends and develrn,.r,P?+5
tacts and the extent to which
the nature of the contacts is
unstructured. The purposes of
contacts are the paramount
consideration in this factor,
and must be determined be-
fore assigning a given factor
level.
%-ungress and fellow technical fields. Incumbents members of inter v u i111lucrs or ess, Cabinet
mber
l
d
s an
a
-
so agency committees and s to t brief White House officials, members so Contacts ~ also and wrk g heads groups.
for such to the s asiden
Contacts are for such
Congress and Cabinet officers on a broad foreign intelligence services, leaders of
cents, developing be ith of purposes as pre
senting and defending budget operations, s re, ex-
spectrum of intelligence matters. Other major opposition parties in foreign coup- changing
purposes of contacts are to exchange tries, and with senior officials at the joint oppera-
cal advancements v conn major
nformation, influence and motivate per- technological sr in one or
infs contacted who p policy-making level in foreign govern- more scientific or technical fields,
ske or hostile attitudes on psubjects under U.S t fo reign policymakers. critical
Contacts interest
are operating and justifying coordinating activities of mu- for such g new or revised
programs, eliciting cooperation
r Purses negotiating aree-
tual interest or providing advice or guid- cents, coordinating sinterlocking agtivi rest su
pr t from host governments in
ance in resolving problems. Matters be- ties, yising on the resolution of contro- gn interest of furthering intand
ing discussed are occasionally con- verb issues and
troversial and require persuasiveness onall con-
dersial resolving e objectives, and matters aissues coordinating and
presenting and rolpolicy and isre-
reconciling divergent viewpoints. The tars and resource recguirementsoC ntact- major significance
. Contacts a--~n+,. .. ontacts are frs
contacts are normally structured in that are ccasionall unstructured in terms of unstructured and the issues d!
the issues to be resolved are predates- format and in the fact that no foreknowl- quire cure are oaf n controversial and re-
mined and prior knowledge usually exists edge of the opinions and attitudes of the p considerable tact, forebearance
and
of the position taken by the person con- persuasiveness.
tacted on such issues. persons contacted concerning specific is-
sures is available.
12
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
0 f f I" 1 1, 11 4 1 a E
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
EVALUATION FACTOR V
Supervision and Weighted
Guidance Re- Value 10% Point Range Midpoint
ceived Level 1 455-505 480
This factor measures the de-
gree of assistance provided to,
and control exercised over,
the incumbent in the perfor-
mance of duties. In applying
this factor, consideration
should be given to the nature
and extent of instructions
provided the employee when
assignments are made; the
extent to which the employee
is permitted to plan and
schedule work, modify
instructions, participate in es-
tablishing policies and define
objectives; and to the type of
review made of completed
work.
Assignments are by project, program or
activity and are accompanied with
instructions regarding scope, priority and
policy to be followed, end product or
results desired and extent of delegated
authority. Guidance is provided in the
interpretation of policies for solution of
problems. Normal day-to-day activities
are accomplished without further guid-
ance. As necessary, broad instructions on
executing assignments are modified by
the incumbent without prior approval of
superior. The formulation and implemen-
tation of approaches to problem solution
are accomplished without guidance. Per-
formance is evaluated in terms of the
effect of actions taken, and decisions and
recommendations made, on the fulfill-
ment of program objectives, and on the
utilization of available resources. Com-
pleted work performed by nonmanagers
is accepted as authoritative and reviewed
only for adherence to policy and program
objectives.
I t t
Point Range Midpoint Point Range Midpoint
Level 2 510-560 535 Level 3 565-615 590
Assignments are general and expressed
in terms of broadly defined objectives.
Advice and guidance are requested on
major problems not covered by policy or
precedent. Action is initiated on other
matters without further guidance or as-
sistance. Overall performance is evaluat-
ed in terms of accomplishment, confor-
mance with policy and program
objectives and efficiency of operations.
Completed work by nonmanagers is ac-
cepted as authoritative and therefore is
indirectly assessed in terms of consumer
reaction and policy repercussions.
Assignments are in the form of mission
directives, definition of goals and objec-
tives, delegation of authority and policy
pronouncements. Keeps superior in-
formed of major problems encountered of
a policy nature, and consults with superi-
or on new policies needed and appropri-
ate courses of action to be taken pending
the development of new policies. Perfor-
mance is evaluated in terms of meeting
goals and objectives and achieving results
of optimal value.
Approved For Release 2001/'CU68lk)CiA'RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved Fo Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-010Q4 000100260002-4
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
t Il. t. L 1. N l i
DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS OF GS-14 OR GS-15 NONMANAGER POSITIONS
To aid in determining whether senior nonmanager positions meet the minimum criteria for supergrade
allocation as set forth in the Supergrade Position Evaluation Guide, nonmanager positions that are
correctly allocated at GS- 14 or GS- 15 are normally characterized by one of the following work situations:
a. located in first-line supervisory or basic management levels; the work involves the application of
knowledges identified with an occupational specialty which is relatively narrow in scope
notwithstanding that the incumbent may be recognized as an Agency-wide or Community-wide
expert in such a specialty; the impact of decisions and recommendations on the resources, total
production and overall program responsibilities of the Office or equivalent level organization is
relatively minor; the end product frequently represents an integral segment of a larger
substantive effort; occasional contacts with Office Heads, Deputy Directors and Community
officials on matters in their areas of specialization are usually made as part of a broader
program presentation in which the problems addressed clearly transcend the scope of the
incumbent's work assignment; and the end product is subject to higher technical reviews.
b. located in staff components at top management level; the work involves the application of an in-
depth knowledge of an occupational specialty or field, and/or a broad knowledge of Agency
programs and activities necessary to discharge investigative, oversight or evaluative responsibil-
ities; the interpretations of Agency policy and of prevailing statutes supporting such policy may
not be accepted as binding and enforceable, and are frequently challenged and rebutted by
Agency managers whose programs are affected by such interpretations; the end product as
reflected in staff studies, position papers, survey reports, etc., is subject to higher levels of
substantive review; and personal contacts normally do not extend above the working group level
outside the Agency.
15
Approved For Release 2001qVT/6 E1CIAERDP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved FQ&Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-010'W000100260002-4
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
DEFINITION OF TERMS
I. Position Categories
NONMANAGER: One who engages in staff or technical activities that involve such responsibilities as
developing solutions to major problems, formulating and proposing new policy and
operational guidance, evaluating adequacy and effectiveness of operations and serving as
adviser to senior managers and directors. Normally nonmanagers have little or no
responsibility for program management nor for supervising others.
SUPERVISOR: One who assigns tasks to be performed, prescribes methods and procedures to be followed,
provides advice and guidance on problems encountered during accomplishment of work and
reviews completed work for conformance with instructions and for quality. Normally the
span of control exercised by the supervisor does not require a deputy.
BASIC MANAGER: One who is responsible for determining organizational structure and staffing requirements
of assigned component, formulating and recommending policies and procedures, projecting
resources required to accomplish mission objectives and evaluating efficiency and effective-
ness of operations. The span of control requires the component managed to be segmented
into two or more subordinate elements at the first level of supervision. The full performance
level of professional, administrative or technical work supervised in the subordinate
elements normally evaluates at GS-13. The first-line supervisory positions normally
evaluate at GS-15 for one or more of the following reasons: (a) responsibility for
participating in the management process, (b) the presence of additional elements that
increase the complexity of problems associated with supervision such as changing work
situations, physical dispersion of workforce and special technical demands imposed upon
the incumbent. Basic managers may also direct the activities of a structured organization
through first-line supervisors whose positions evaluate at GS-14, provided that the size of
the component managed justifies a full-time deputy position that evaluates one grade
higher than the first-line supervisory position because of the variety, scope and complexity
of the program responsibilities shared with the basic manager. NOTE: The full perfor-
mance level of work supervised denotes the highest actual grade of at least 25% of the
nonsupervisory positions in first-line organizational elements.
17
Approved For Release 2001A~Wg' E'e ~DP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
MIDDLE MANAGER: One who is responsible for developing and recommending programs and objectives,
providing policy guidance, approving organization and staffing of subordinate elements at
the basic management level, determining the allocation of resources, and evaluating
effectiveness of operations. Examples of middle manager positions are: (a) Chief,
Communications Engineering Services, OC; (b) Chief, C; (c) Deputy Director of
Personnel for PAans and Control, OP; (d) Chief of Station, SO; (e) Chief,
Systems Analysis Group, ODE; and (f) Chief, Operations Group, Counter Intelligence
Staff, DDO.
SENIOR MANAGER: One who participates with Deputy Directors in establishing objectives and goals, defending
and justifying programs and budget estimates to Agency Director, OMB, and congression-
al committees, allocating personnel ceilings among subordinate components and providing
policy guidance to officials at the middle and basic management levels. Examples of senior
managers are: Office Heads in the DDA, DDS&T and NFAC directorates, and Area
Division Chiefs and Senior Staff Chiefs in the DDO directorate.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR: One who determines goals and objectives for a major segment of the Agency, establishes
policies and priorities and defends and justifies programs and operations to OMB,
congressional committees, members of NFIB, et al.
DIRECTOR: One who determines overall programs, goals and objectives of the Agency, defends and
justifies programs and budgets to Congress, the President and the National Security
Council, provides leadership and guidance throughout the Agency, adjudicates disagree-
ments between major elements of the Agency and represents the Agency on national policy
matters.
II. Program Size
SMALL PROGRAM OR PROJECT: An activity normally requiring the manager to direct less than 100 employees and to
administer a program budget of less than one million dollars. Examples of such programs
are: Position Management and Compensation Program, CA operations
intelligence production on Soviet strategic forces.
INTERMEDIATE PROGRAM: An activity normally requiring the manager to direct from 100 to less than 300 employees
and to administer a program budget of from one to ten million dollars. Examples of such
programs are: communications operations in Europe and clandestine operations -
18
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
25X1A
25X1A
25X1 C
25X1 C
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
1. L 1 _
STATSPEC
An activity normally requiring the manager to direct 300 or more employees and to
administer a program budget of over ten million dollars. Examples of such programs are:
Agency Logistics Program, clandestine operations in the Near East and the Scientific
Intelligence Production Program.
III. Hierarchy of Occupational Disciplines
OCCUPATIONAL FIELD:
OCCUPATIONAL SPECIALTY:
IV. Miscellaneous
An occupational group consists of a number of occupational fields involving activities which
require similar basic knowledges and abilities but are sufficiently diverse that extensive
retraining is required if rotation is made among fields.
An occupational field consists of a number of occupational specialties within a professional
discipline that require similar or closely related basic knowledges and abilities. Normally
the similarity is so great that a person trained in one specialty can be rotated to another
specialty within the same occupational field without extensive retraining.
An occupational specialty consists of duties identified with a professional discipline
sufficiently related in terms of subject matter that a discrete set of knowledges and abilities
is required.
A program that consists of functions that are either performed in all major operating
components under the policy direction and guidance of an office, or administered at
headquarters level on a centralized basis. Such functions are in an investigative, oversight,
supportive or evaluative relationship to all other major operating components of the Agency
and their respective programs. Examples: Position classification, medical services, finan-
cial and program auditing, logistical support, inspection and legal services.
COMMUNITY-WIDE PROGRAM: A program administered by an Agency operating component at Office or Directorate level
on behalf of the Intelligence Community either as a service of common concern, or to
provide a substantive product or guidance that is disseminated to all members of the
Community for informational, evaluative, policy setting or coordination purposes. Exam-
ples:_RMS, ORPA.
19
Approved For Release 2001ATMF R 2DP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
INTELLIGENCE PROCESS: An integrated system for the requirements formulation, collection, processing, production
and dissemination of foreign intelligence. Each segment of the intelligence process
comprises three essential elements which vary in scope and complexity depending upon the
program or organizational level in which the segment is administered. These elements are
(a) geographic coverage, (b) subject matter fields, (c) functional processes (i.e., tasking,
analysis, evaluation, customer feedback, etc.).
IN-DEPTH KNOWLEDGE: A mastery of the concepts, principles and functional processes identified with an
occupational specialty or field sufficient to apply this knowledge in any work situation,
including the resolution of highly complex problems, with a level of competence that
requires little technical supervision and guidance.
BROAD KNOWLEDGE: A sufficient understanding of the concepts, principles and functional processes identified
with an occupational specialty, field or group sufficient to contribute to the decision-
making process as it relates to the quality and timeliness of products and services, program
planning and evaluation, resources management and the resolution of issues that involve
policy implications.
20
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approver Release 2001/11/08: CIA-RDP83-QAW4R000100260002-4
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
I t
& 1.
III 1
OCCUPATIONAL HIERARCHY
Personnel
Administration
Logistics
Management
Security
Administration
Education
& Training
Rec
Admini
ords
stration
Position
Supply Ma
nagement
Pers
onnel ,-Accou
nting
Instru
ction
Classification Traffic Management
W.-Physical Auditing
(Appropriate
Staffing Technical Supply
Technical .-Budgeting
Field)
Employee Benefits Transportation
Industrial ,Financial Manage-
Curriculum
Employee Manage- Contract Pro-
Safety ment
Development
ment Relations curement
Commercial
Guidance Coun-
Production
Banking
seling
Realty
Instructional
Media
21
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
CONFIDENTIAL
OCCUPATIONAL HIERARCHY
SOCIAL SCIENCES
Political
Science
Labor International Cultural Reporting Industrial Clinical
Industrial Relations Physical Writing Relations Personnel
Area Comparative Editing Real Estate Industrial
Agricultural Government Social
Econometrics Political Philosophy Engineering
Financial (Human
International Factors)
Counseling
22
C QNHUEN I A.
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
1 t. l MI. l t t l
OCCUPATIONAL HIERARCHY
Astronomy &
Space Science
III. SPECIALTY Organic Health Extractive Petrology Astrophysics
Inorganic Nuclear Physical Mineralogy Radio Astronomy
Physical Electro-optics Paleontology Astronomy
Marine Space Science
Nautical
Photogrammetry
23
Approved For Release 2001/'1170> p:EIA4RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
CONFIDENTIAL
OCCUPATIONAL HIERARCHY
Internal
Medicine
General
Practice
Maternal &
Child Health
Physical
Medicine
Preventive
Medicine
General
Allergy
Cardiovascular
Gastroenterology
Hematology
Pulmonary Disease
Obstetrics
Gynecology
Pediatrics
Physical Aviation Anatomical
Therapy Occupational Clinical
Occupational Public Health Neuropathology
Therapy
24
CONFIDEN IIAL
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
Materials
Civil
Chemical
Nuclear
Mechanical
Electrical
Electronic
Industrial
Aerospace
Marine
Safety
Engineering
Engineering
Engineering
Engineering
Engineering
Engineering
Engineering
Engineering
Engineering
Engineering
Engineering
Opti
cal
High
way
Indus
trial &
Fluid a
nd
Occup
ational
Protective
Hydraulic
Const. Equip.
Flight Mechanics
Public
Coatings
Structural
Ordnance
Propulsion
Product
Lubricants
A/C Heating
& Power
Traffic
Papers
Refrigeration
Materials &
Flight
Structural
Systems
Structures
Radiation
Powerplants &
Accessories
Automotive &
Railroad
Vehicles
Applied Me-
chanics
25
Approved For Release 2001 M~ 6DFd1 1RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
CONFIDENTIAL
OCCUPATIONAL HIERARCHY
Photo
Science
Actuary
Science
Operations
Research
Numerous
Subject
Matter Spe-
cializations
26
CONFIDENTIA4
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
Computer
Science
Applications Pro-
gramming
Systems Program-
ming
Systems Analysis
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
I I Ill I I l t I t [ i iti
Soil
Plant
Science
Physiology
~~~00000~
NOTE: All of the occupational fields identified with this group are interdisciplinary and, therefore, contain subject matter and functional specializations too
numerous to record on this chart. Such specializations can be found in the appropriate CSC standard.
27
Approved For Release 2001j`1~'liAvRDP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approve',r Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-I;J.WR000100260002-4
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
I I [ I. l L. I U I. I. I I t I I t I I
GRADE CONVERSION TABLE
GS-16 4555 - 5070
GS-17 5075 - 5620
GS-18 5625 - 6150
G9
Approved For Release 2001 /tV081L IA DP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved fwr.uR (ease 2001/11/08: CIA-RDP83-0118000100260002-4
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
t 1 t t i. l _ 1 t l I I. t. t t. l
CONFIDENTIAL
GUIDE FOR WRITING POSITION DESCRIPTIONS UNDER
THE SUPERGRADE FACTOR EVALUATION SYSTEM
This guide is designed to assist you in writing a description of your position duties and responsibilities
in the format required by the Supergrade Factor Evaluation System. In preparing your position description
be sure to address all of the measurable points that are identified for each factor. Under the Supergrade
Factor Evaluation System each factor present in your position is assigned a point value based upon a
comparison of the factor data in your position description with the factor level descriptions contained in the
Supergrade Position Evaluation Guide. Failure to cover a factor properly could result in an incorrect
evaluation.
A. POSITION IDENTITY
Briefly identify your position as to title, organizational location and position number. Indicate the size,
occupational make-up and level of your immediate staff.
B. MAJOR DUTIES
Describe concisely each major duty you are required to perform. Tell what you do, how you do it and
why. You may organize your duty statements either in order of importance or sequence of performance.
Be specific in the use of words. Avoid ambiguous words such as assists, coordinates, handles or
prepares, unless further qualified. Use action verbs such as compiles, searches, establishes, evaluates or
analyzes.
C. EVALUATION FACTORS
Factor I..... Knowledges and Abilities
Specify the nature and extent of knowledge required of a subject matter field(s) to perform the duties
of your position. Identify those subject matter fields for which your position requires a mastery of the
31
Approved For Release 2001W EPt4kiRRDP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
underlying concepts, principles and functional processes, and identify those fields for which a broad
understanding is required sufficient to contribute to the decision-making process as it relates to the quality
and timeliness of products and services, program planning and evaluation, resources management or the
resolution of, issues that involve policy implications. Identify the nature and the extent to which certain
abilities are needed to apply the required knowledges in work situations (e.g., analytics, leadership,
judgment, creativity, etc.).
Factor II..... Difficulty of Work
Indicate the variety and scope of activities which you either perform or manage. Identify the types and
frequency of problems you encounter, and the extent to which you develop new techniques or approaches
for resolving problems where established policy or procedure does not exist. Indicate the extent to which
you must vary work processes, revise priorities and reallocate resources. Indicate the extent to which you
are required to formulate policy, and plan programs and activities consistent with such policy. State the
number of employees under your direction and the dollar value of the budget that you administer.
Factor III..... Responsibility
Indicate the extent to which your decisions and actions impact directly or indirectly on the
management of resources, the shaping of policy and the direction of programs and projects either within
your own office or beyond at directorate, Agency or community levels. Specify the areas of your work in
which you are delegated authority to act independently or within prescribed limitations including the
authority to commit the Agency to a course of action relative to specific programs and activities.
Factor IV..... Personal Relationships
Identify by title and organization those officials with whom you are in contact within your immediate
office and the Agency, and from other government agencies and departments, private industry and
institutions, and state the frequency of such contacts. Specify the purpose of your contacts, e.g., to
exchange information, coordinate matters of mutual interest, negotiate agreements, present and defend
32
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
I I I 1 t I 1 I I l l t 1: l
program and budget submissions, develop joint operations, etc. Indicate the degree of controversy involved
in the issues under consideration. Indicate the extent to which the personal contacts are unstructured in
terms of the absence of foreknowledge as to the format of the meetings, and the identities, opinions and
attitudes of the participants as they relate to specific issues.
Factor V..... Supervision and Guidance Received
Indicate the nature and extent of instructions given you upon receiving an assignment. Indicate the
extent to which you receive technical or policy guidance in planning and accomplishing assignments.
Identify those aspects of your program and technical responsibilities for which you are authorized to plan
and schedule work, establish deadlines and priorities and resolve problems without direction or guidance.
Indicate whether your work is reviewed in process or upon completion, and whether such review is close or
general in determining the technical accuracy of your findings and adherence to policy and program
objectives. Indicate the extent to which your products or services are indirectly assessed on the basis of
customer reaction.
33
Approved For Release 2001/1i6: BR' !8FA WbP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved E r elease 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01QQp4 A00100260002-4
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
t t k t t. t t MI t t t. t
SAMPLE POSITION DESCRIPTION
A. Position Identity
Chief, Advanced Systems Development Engineering Division, Office of Applied Research and
Development Engineering, Position #XYZ. The Advanced Systems Development Engineering Division has
a total multidisciplinary workforce of 63 employees comprised of physical scientists, engineers, physicists,
mathematicians, operations research analysts, and clericals. The Division consists of three branches in
Headquarters and two field offices in proximity to contractor plants. It is structured along functional and
project management lines commensurate with the major segments of its mission; namely, the design,
development, fabrication, testing and delivery of ground technical intelligence collection systems.
B. Major Duties
1. Plans, directs and coordinates a development engineering program which culminates in the
certification and delivery of advanced systems for the ground collection of technical intelligence. In this
connection, evaluates, presents and defends proposals to senior and top management for development of
new advanced systems with consideration given to cost and time constraints, user requirements, contractor
capabilities, technological challenges, etc. Upon receiving project approval, allocates and manages the
resources including funding, facilities and the mix of in-house and contractor personnel necessary to
achieve project objectives.
2. Reviews Requests for Proposals (RFPs) received from contractors and recommends source selection
based on contractors' technical capabilities, previous performance, financial stability and reasonableness of
cost estimates.
3. Provides guidance and technical assistance to subordinate program managers and project engineers
in such areas as formulating technical approaches, participating in contract negotiations and monitoring
contractor performance in terms of meeting critical milestones within programmed funding levels and time
periods.
35
Approved For Release 2001 /f-,PM'Dk 1A RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
4. Approves amendments to contracts where proposed changes in engineering design or in materials
are within the original scope of work and funding authorizations. Recommends approval or rejection of
proposed out-of-scope contract amendments resulting from overruns or unforeseen changes in user
requirements that impact on the capabilities and operational utility of the systems under development.
5. Serves as member of the Office level Project Review Board, and in this capacity, participates in the
review and assessment of current and proposed advanced developmental projects.
6. As a recognized authority in ground technical intelligence collection systems, serves as Agency
representative on interdepartmental and NFIB committees engaged in planning, programming and
coordinating R&D programs for such systems, and in assessing technological gaps between user
requirements and current technical collection capabilities.
C. Evaluation Factors
1. Knowledges and Abilities
A broad knowledge of theories, concepts, principles and practices of more than two specialties each in
the physical and engineering sciences. A broad knowledge of the potential uses, capabilities and limitations
of ground technical intelligence collection systems.
A broad knowledge of project management principles and practices, and demonstrated ability to apply
such knowledge in planning, directing and coordinating the activities of subordinates and contractors and
in developing and achieving program goals.
Ability to visualize future technical intelligence collection needs of the Agency and to conceive
innovative developmental projects that will serve to meet such needs.
A broad knowledge of research methods and techniques as they relate to the planning, direction and
administration of advanced developmental projects.
II. Difficulty of Work
The projects managed by the incumbent are multidisciplinary and involve the development and
application of new concepts and technologies that advance the state of the art. The number of ongoing
36
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
t a a i a 11 1 . t 1 a t
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
projects during a fiscal year average seven and are characterized by requiring the expenditure of funds
ranging from $3,000,000 to $5,000,000. The average duration of such projects is one to three years from
initial design to hardware delivery for operational use. The projects are of such scope as to require a
systems approach rather than the sequential independent development of specific components. The
incumbent of this position is, therefore, frequently required to monitor the efforts of integrating
contractors. Technical problems occur frequently and are usually without precedent, hence new approaches
to problem solution are frequently conceived and tried. Such problems are not readily foreseen, thus their
effect on the technical and financial aspects of the projects cannot be predetermined. Project management
requires that a mix of related factors including contractor performance, time and budgeting constraints,
cost-sensitive technical decisions and changing goals be maintained in proper balance and perspective.
III. Responsibility
Incumbent's responsibility for determining internal staffing, budgetary and material requirements are
subject to review and approval at Office, Directorate and Agency levels. Similarly, responsibility for
determining program goals and objectives, selecting and establishing priorities for projects and redirecting
ongoing projects, often with funding and technological implications, is also subject to higher reviews and
approvals. Incumbent is authorized to make and implement decisions on day-to-day technical and project
management matters that are within the scope of the basic contract. Incumbent is responsible for tracking
and assessing contractors' performance, and for alerting senior and top management officials to potential
problem areas such as overruns and dim prospects of meeting critical milestones. As a member of the
Office level Project Review Board, incumbent exercises considerable influence on final decisions relative to
the undertaking, expansion and termination of advanced developmental projects that involve the
expenditure of large amounts of funds. Incumbent is authorized to commit and allocate personnel and
funds to approved developmental projects. Although some latitude exists for experimental errors arising
from technically high risk projects, failure to make sound technical and managerial decisions and
recommendations could result in the excessive waste of Government funds and man-hours, and the loss of
valuable intelligence because of malfunctioning technical collection systems or the nonavailability of such
systems to meet current and future requirements.
37
Approved For Release 2001q WAD.' TT ''RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
IV. Personal Relationships
Position involves personal contacts with Agency officials at Office and Directorate levels, Office of the
Comptroller, other Federal agencies and the scientific communities for such purposes as presenting and
defending project proposals, exchanging information on projects of mutual interest, remainin apprised the state of the art, providing guidance to contractors in the resolution of technical problems, coordinating
interlocking developmental projects and assessing technological gaps between user requirements and
current technical collection activities. Contacts in industry range from the nonsupervisory scientist and
engineer levels through the project manager and corporate levels of management. Personal contacts are
also with the Agency contracting officers to provide counsel on the technical aspects of contract negotiation
and administration. Matters being discussed occasionally are controversial, such as suspected duplication
of effort on developmental engineering projects both within the Agency and the Intelligence Community.
Matters of this kind necessarily require the exercise of tact and persuasiveness.
V. Supervision and Guidance Received
Receives broad direction and policy guidance from Director, Office of Applied Research and
Development Engineering. Assignments are general in nature and include information on program goals
and priorities, scope of projects, suggested developmental approaches, funding constraints and interpreta-
tions of new or revised policies to be followed.
Receives minimal guidance in planning, organizing and directing work to be accomplished both by
subordinate professional staff and contractor workforce. Performance is evaluated for technical cost-
effectiveness, conformance with instructions and governing policies and quality and timeliness of end
product. Superior has general oversight responsibility over incumbent's participation on interdepartmental
and NFIB committees to insure that the Agency's position on R&D programs of Community-wide scope or
interest is properly reflected, and that incumbent's recommendations and opinions expressed in such
meetings are consistent with Agency policy.
38
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved E lease 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01Q, ?00100260002-4
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4
t t t t I t t l t I L t t I I l i t I
CONSTRUCTION OF GRADE CONVERSION TABLE AND RATING SCALE
1. A weighted value is assigned to each selected factor based on the relative importance of each factor
to the grade determining process. The weighted values total 100% in the aggregate for all factors.
2. As the system is an extension of the CSC/FES method of assigning point ranges for grades GS-01
through GS- 15, it was necessary to assign an arbitrary maximum point value for GS- 15 rather than leaving
it open ended as reflected in the CSC/FES Grade Conversion Table.
3. An original grade conversion table is constructed by assigning a point range to the GS-16 grade
and to each succeeding supergrade as a continuation of the maximum point value assigned to the GS-15
grade, and in a manner that provides a broader point range for each successively higher supergrade, and a
five-point gap between the maximum points for one grade and the minimum points assigned to the next
higher grade.
4. Since factor levels 1, 2 and 3 correspond with GS-16, 17 and 18 respectively, the point range for
these levels is determined by multiplying the minimum and maximum points assigned to each supergrade
as shown on the grade conversion table by the weighted values assigned to each factor in a manner that
rounds off the last digit to 0 or 5, whichever is closer to the actual digit, and that also reflects a five-point
gap between the maximum points for one level and the minimum points assigned to the next higher level.
5. As a result of the rating scale for each factor having a five-point gap between the maximum points
assigned to one factor level, and the minimum points assigned to the next higher level, the sum of the
minimum points assigned to levels 2 and 3 of each factor exceeds the minimum points assigned to GS-17
and GS-18 in the original grade conversion table. Thus, the grade conversion table was adjusted to reflect
an increase of 20 points at the higher end of the point range for GS-16, both ends of the point range for
GS-17, and the lower end of the point range for GS-18, thereby maintaining the correlation between the
point range for each supergrade with the sum of the point values assigned to each level of all factors.
39
pN
Approved For Release 2001/11/08,: LIA-F1DP83-01004R000100260002-4
 Approved FowaoWpase 2001/11/08: CIA-RDP83-0100 100260002-4
Approved For Release 2001/11/08 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000100260002-4