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

[Doug Hittle]

My apologies Daniel, I suddenly realized that I am so old as to be before
your time. I was project manager on the BLAST energy analysis program and
my colleague and thesis adviser, Curt Pedersen was head of the BLAST
support office and one of the project managers of EnergyPlus. We both have
been very active in ASHRAE Technical Committee 4.7, Energy Calculations and
4.1 Load  Calculation.  I recently retired from Colorado State University
where I taught HVAC design including energy modeling (BLAST, EnergyPlus via
DesignBuilder, TRACE, TRANSIS, etc.). I feel fortunate that a number of our
former students are now your colleagues at NREL.

As you no doubt know, the words "certification" and "licensure exam" (see
your clarifying email) are loaded phrases in the consulting engineering
community. While most practitioners support professional engineering exams
and licensing, requirements for additional, new certification are not
likely to be widely embraced, at least not until they can be shown to have
some economic or other value. Furthermore, it may not be enough for
cognizant organizations to be aware of your JTA work. Groups like NCEES and
ASHRAE have to be early proponents of any certification or licensing
program that might result from your project. Otherwise Republicans and Tea
Partiers will claim that you are proposing more intrusive, job-killing
government regulations (be clear, *I* am NOT expressing this opinion).

Aside from the (probably) uncontroversial goals of guiding training and
education, and helping with job descriptions, what are the project goals
and expected outcomes. Are the results to be used to create an industry
standard (like standard 90)? Are parts of the work to be incorporated into
building codes? Do you hope to create a Professional Engineering Exam for
Energy Modeling? Perhaps the answer is "all of the above." The JTA report
is vague about this, perhaps intentionally.

Just exactly why are you and your team doing this work? Who are its
proponents? What are the hoped-for impacts? Who will be affected in the
long run? I am not trying to be critical by asking these questions but
without the answers it is hard to review the report.

Lastly, many energy modelers have a personal mantra that is not listed in
your report: "It helps to know what you are doing!" If I were hiring that
would be the main qualification.

Regards,

Doug Hittle

PS Can we all assume that these email exchanges will be considered as
qualifying comments on the report as requested by Dr. Roth?






On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Nick Caton <ncaton at smithboucher.com> wrote:

> 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****
>
> ** **
>
> [image: cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB]**
>
> * *
>
> *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> 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****
>
>  ****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ibpsausa mailing list
> 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/20111117/57e58dc5/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1459 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20111117/57e58dc5/attachment-0002.jpeg>