[Bldg-sim] [Ibpsausa] DOE Job Task Analysis for Energy Modelers: Open for public comment until Nov. 28th

[Jeff Haberl]

Daniel.



I'm afraid I can't agree that you conducted "extensive outreach" to prepare this document. For example, there was no discussion of this, before it happened, on any of the list servers before it came out. In addition, there was no "call for experts" that I was aware of. Normally, for a document like this that is sponsored by DOE, one would expect a call of some sort through the usual list servers.



In addition, I noticed from your list, that there is nobody who directly represents IBPSA-USA, nor even ASHRAE TC 4.7, which is the responsible ASHRAE TC for energy modeling. Although there are several individuals on the list who attend IBPSA and ASHRAE meetings and are well-known. It seems like little was done to notify others in IBPSA-USA or ASHRAE.



You should know that IBPSA-USA has also worked for some time on such an effort, which now exists as a wiki, under Joe Deringer's guidance. It also held a workshop in Boulder, and developed the BEM exam with ASHRAE. Yet, I see no reference to this or any of the previous efforts, nor efforts made to contact those of us who worked on this.



Finally, there are also at least a dozen or more educators within IBPSA-USA who teach Energy Modeling at the University level, yet not one of these individuals is mentioned in your list of contributors, only one academic appears on your list.



Hence, I suggest that if DOE is serious about making this a consensus document, then it needs to do a better job contacting the relevant organizations to obtain input and not rely on an email response after the fact.



Clearly, this is not the case with this document.



Jeff



8=!  8=)  :=)  8=)  ;=)  8=)  8=(  8=)  8=()  8=)  8=|  8=)  :=')  8=)8=?

Jeff S. Haberl, Ph.D.,P.E., FASHRAE..............jhaberl at tamu.edu

Professor............................................................Office Ph: 979-845-6507

Department of Architecture.............................Lab Ph:979-845-6065

Energy Systems Laboratory.............................FAX: 979-862-2457

Texas A&M University.....................................77843-3581

College Station, Texas, USA, 77843..................URL:www.esl.tamu.edu

8=/  8=)  :=)  8=)  ;=)  8=)  8=()  8=)  :=)  8=)  8=!  8=)  8=? 8=)8=0
________________________________
From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] on behalf of Studer, Daniel [Daniel.Studer at nrel.gov]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 3:56 PM
To: Doug Hittle; Roth, Amir (HQ)
Cc: Building Simulation; ibpsausa at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] [Ibpsausa] DOE Job Task Analysis for Energy Modelers: Open for public comment until Nov. 28th

Mr. Hittle,

My name is Daniel Studer and I am an engineer at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. I also happen to be the project lead for DOE’s commercial job/task analysis development work.

I can assure you that we have conducted extensive outreach to ensure that persons who operate in the spaces targeted by these JTAs are fully aware of the work being performed, including ASHRAE.

The energy modeler JTA itself was created over the course of three days by eleven practicing energy modelers who were guided through the process by a professional psychometrician. The names and associated organizations of each of these folks are listed at the back of the JTA, in case you are curious. DOE and NREL had zero input into the content of this document. And to ensure that the document is truly reflective of the industry, DOE has decided to make the documents available for public comment. That way, individuals such as yourself can provide DOE with constructive feedback to ensure that the document content is both appropriate and valid.

The intent of the project, as stated on the project website, is to:
Provide a basis for developing and comparing new and existing training programs in the commercial building sector. This will help individuals identify opportunities to enhance their professional skills, enable industry to identify an appropriately skilled workforce, and allow training providers to ensure that they are providing the highest quality product possible.

In short, we are trying to document the job as it currently exists so that training/certification providers can ensure that they are providing high quality products in line with industry’s identified needs. Additionally, gathering this information using the objective approach that we have also has the side benefit of creating a sort of baseline document that can be used to help a training/certification end user better understand how their current skill set and existing training/certification options fit together.

I totally agree with you that items identified such as “time management skills” are not very measurable, and in fact seem both excessive and irrelevant, in the context of developing a training program or certification around this material. However, such information is very valuable in other contexts, which is why it is included in any JTA which utilizes the “developing a curriculum” (DACUM) method. The idea is that all aspects of the job should be documented so that the resultant analysis can be used for multiple purposes. For example, an individual wishing to develop a job posting may look at the JTA and include items such as “time management skills” or “spatial skills” in the job posting. They could then structure interview questions to better understand that person’s abilities in those areas to make a more informed decision about a candidate.

In other JTAs that were developed under this project, SMEs also identified physical attributes necessary to perform the job (e.g., lift X lbs over head, see X feet). While these may also seem silly, they become very important when developing high risk assessments, such as licensure exams, in these spaces.

The real meat of each document is the DACUM chart located at the back of each. These charts identify the specific domain areas, tasks, and steps that the SMEs identified were necessary to perform the specified job. It is this content specifically that is of most use to training/certification providers, which is why DOE asked for comments on this specific chart in the Federal Register notice.

The proposed content blueprint tables (located near the front of each document), contain the SME’s proposed weights for how often, and how important, each of the identified tasks is to the job. Such weights provide valuable context to training/certification providers by serving as guidelines for how much time should be devoted to each topic.

As part of this project, NREL will be facilitating a “survey validation” which will provide industry with the opportunity to adjust these weighting factors. However, to avoid the confusion that would occur with two “comment periods” occurring at once, this will not happen until DOE’s public comment closes at the end of November.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions.

Thanks,
Danny


From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Doug Hittle
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 1:17 PM
To: Roth, Amir (HQ)
Cc: Building Simulation; ibpsausa at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] [Ibpsausa] DOE Job Task Analysis for Energy Modelers: Open for public comment until Nov. 28th

I would like to be grandfathered in please. Who is scrutinizing this document (proposed regulation?) at ASHRAE headquarters? Have you had any input from ASHRAE?

If you were to do a jta for President of the United States it might not be so lengthy as the one for building energy modelers. (And, a lot of folks in the current primary would be automatically excluded). Is it possible that we have the cart before the horse? Perhaps we need a jta for building architects and building design engineers of which energy modelers could be a subset.  I am sure that if DOE proposed a regulatory test procedure for architects and engineers there would be plenty of comment.

I've looked at the document. What caught my attentions was the list of "skills and abilities." These included such thing as "time management skills," "critical thinking," and  "spatial skills."  Assuming that the goal is to define measurable skills, we might want to give energy modeler want-a-be s the SAT again.

Then I saw "common sense" and "patience" as skills and abilities. Now, not withstanding the jta, I consider myself a competent modeler of buildings and their energy systems. We don't need to vote on that but I also am reasonably sure that "patience" has only recently kicked in as a personal skill (maybe I am being optimistic). How are we going to measure the "common sense" of someone who wants to apply to be an energy modeler?

Dr. Roth, it is not clear that very many in the building sciences field are aware of your project, its history, and potential impact. Perhaps you could get on the agenda at an upcoming ASHRAE meeting and explain the process and your intent for the project outcomes.

Respectfully,
Doug Hittle




On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Roth, Amir <Amir.Roth at ee.doe.gov<mailto:Amir.Roth at ee.doe.gov>> wrote:
Apologies for cross-posting,


The DOE has put together a job task analysis (JTA)--job description plus required knowledge and skills--for building energy modelers.  The draft document, created by a group of 15 energy modeling professionals, can be found here:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/commercial_initiative/pdfs/energy_modeler_jta_comment.pdf



DOE is accepting comments on this draft until November 28, 2011 at this URL: http://www.nrel.gov/ap/buildings_workforce_feedback/. Very few comments have been received so far. I urge you to review and comment on this draft as the final document will provide the foundation for future education, training and certification programs and will likely have to be complied with going forward by existing programs, e.g., ASHRAE BEMP. In addition to constructive critique, positive comments, e.g., "perfect, don't change a thing", are also welcome.


Thanks,

-Amir

============
Amir Roth, PhD
Building Performance Simulation Tools, US DOE/EERE
Ph: 202.287.1694<tel:202.287.1694>


_______________________________________________
Ibpsausa mailing list
Ibpsausa at lists.onebuilding.org<mailto:Ibpsausa at lists.onebuilding.org>
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/ibpsausa-onebuilding.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20111118/6bfde229/attachment-0002.htm>