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

[Studer, Daniel]

Nick,

Your concerns are entirely understandable, but perhaps a little overstated. The intention with this project was to produce documents that could be used by the corresponding sectors to improve existing, or if necessary, create new, training/certification materials, thus leading to a more qualified and effective workforce. If you take a look at the job categories we targeted, I think you will see that we focused on jobs that have a direct impact on commercial building energy use.

The development of specific training/certification materials however, is being left up to the training/certification providers in each industry. Our goal was to eliminate the heavy lift for such organizations by facilitating the identification (by industry, not by DOE or NREL) of what tasks were required in each job category, and what knowledge, skills, and abilities were required to perform each of those tasks. The idea is that organizations who have existing training/certification programs can self-compare their program to the developed JTA to determine if they are adequately meeting industry's needs. Or, for industries where few training/certification programs exist, organizations could use the developed JTAs to immediately start developing curricula (the DACUM method is often used to create curricula at the community college level). Through these mechanisms, the idea was to improve the quality and amount of training available to the end-user (in this case, the modeler), with the ultimate goal being a reduction in real energy use at the building level.

Additionally, the JTAs can be used as a standardized metric of sorts to evaluate existing training/certification programs. We are currently working on a tool that will allow an end-user in each of the six fields to examine what content different training/certification programs cover, using the JTAs as a baseline (so that folks are comparing apples to apples, instead of apples to oranges). That way, they can make a more informed decision about where to invest their time and money when pursuing professional development activities.

I do know that GSA is planning to utilize the JTAs to support efforts related to the Federal Buildings Personnel Training Act of 2010. What other items (new licensure/certification/PDH requirements for government/military contracted work, etc.) will come out of this work I cannot speak to, as those decisions are likely to be out of my control and should they arise, will likely be made within each corresponding organization, far from my purview.

I know this is another long response, and that I did not directly address several of your questions. However, I felt that clarifying the project purpose would actually eliminate the need for such answers. If you feel differently let me know and I'll try to go through and provide more specifics.

Thanks,
Danny

From: Nick Caton [mailto:ncaton at smithboucher.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 4:46 PM
To: Studer, Daniel; Doug Hittle; Roth, Amir (HQ)
Cc: Building Simulation; ibpsausa at lists.onebuilding.org; Kendra Tupper
Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] [Ibpsausa] DOE Job Task Analysis for Energy Modelers: Open for public comment until Nov. 28th

Daniel,

Thank you so much for this clarification!  I have to sympathize with Mr. Hittle in that, despite the apparent efforts to "spread the word," I too feel somewhat unsure of what the real implications will be for myself and my colleagues in the energy modeling world.

My current impression is that the results of this study will ultimately manifest as some sort of new licensure/certification/PDH requirements for modeling services in future LEED and/or military/government contracted work (i.e. DoD/GSA contracts)...  does that sound right?

Maybe an illustration would be helpful... This is from the comment document:

"JTA is traditionally used by secondary and postsecondary educators, test developers, and business, industry, government, and military trainers to help identify core knowledge areas, critical work functions, and skills that are common across a representative sampling of current practitioners."

Can you provide an example of what JTA's have accomplished for those working in the above industries?

For better or for worse, my concern is this study is going to add additional layers of beauracracy to the job description... Great news (enforced business) for those in the licensing/training industries I suppose, but will there be a net benefit for the actual practitioners?  Are my concerns unrealistic or missing the point?

Thanks again for your time and efforts!

~Nick

[cid:image001.jpg at 01CCA551.E8BBD660]

NICK CATON, P.E.
SENIOR ENGINEER

Smith & Boucher Engineers
25501 west valley parkway, suite 200
olathe, ks 66061
direct 913.344.0036
fax 913.345.0617
www.smithboucher.com

From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Studer, Daniel
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/20111117/28a0c11c/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1459 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20111117/28a0c11c/attachment-0002.jpg>