Jon Carr, Ph.D.
Cyndi Gaudet, Ph.D.,
Heather Annulis, M.S.
The University of Southern Mississippi
School of Engineering Technology
Geospatial Technology Competency Model -- A Curriculum Framework for Higher Education.
Abstract: See how the Geospatial Technology Competency Model (GTCM) can be used to design and develop degree programs that integrate geospatial technology competencies. The Geospatial Workforce Development Center (GeoWDC) at The University of Southern Mississippi is a NASA-sponsored center designed to be a first source of information for geospatial workforce training and development. The GeoWDC developed the GTCM, which identifies the roles, competencies, and outputs required for this industry. Institutions can use the GTCM as a curriculum framework to develop and design professional development workshops or degree programs for geospatial professionals.
INTRODUCTION
With the end of the Cold War and the expansion of the information technology arena, a world of possibilities opened in the field of geospatial technology. Currently estimated at $9.5 billion in annual revenues, the geospatial technology industry is projected to exceed annual revenues of $21 billion by 2005. The growth of this industry is credited in large part to the emergence of an aggressive applications sector, from which new means of using geospatial data and technology are creatively addressing daily challenges in transportation, agriculture, forestry, environmental protection, and other areas (NASA, 2002).
NASA’s John C. Stennis, Office of Education, National Workforce Development Education and Training Initiative (NWDETI) is working to ensure that a trained workforce is available for the growing commercial geospatial technology industry. The Geospatial Workforce Development Center (GeoWDC) at The University of Southern Mississippi is part of NASA’s NWDETI effort to develop a well-trained geospatial workforce. The initiative is a customer-focused effort to meet workforce demands for the emerging multi-billion dollar geospatial industry and to help the U. S. maintain its global leadership in geospatial technologies.
The vision of the GeoWDC is to provide leadership to national organizations to achieve work-related competence in geospatial technology applications. To make this vision a reality, results are targeted for five areas: (1) Leadership, (2) Applied Research, (3) Information, (4) Networks, Coalitions, and Partnerships, and (5) Development.
The applied research function for the GeoWDC is to find, create, and disseminate the most successful practices for achieving better performance at work. Knowing and understanding what geospatial technologists need to know and be able to do is the basis for helping them achieve better performance at work. This understanding of workforce requirements must also be the basis for developing education and training curricula that incorporates performance requirements for the workforce. The key to success for future geospatial technologists will be the ability of training and educational institutions to develop curricula that links to the industry’s performance requirements. The GeoWDC research discussed in this paper provides a framework for translating workforce requirements into geospatial technology curricula.
FROM RESEARCH TO CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
According to Mathis & Jackson (2000), regardless of the industry, employers realize people are their greatest asset. Creating a workforce development plan requires an analysis of the work companies require to be successful. With the changing nature of jobs and work, the concept of a job becomes obsolete. Common to many high technology industries are cross-functional project teams and employees who shift from project to project throughout the year. Even the job of manager changes in such situations, for managers must serve project teams as facilitators, gatherers of resources, and removers of roadblocks (Mathis & Jackson, 2000). Given the cross-functional nature of work and the speed with which technology changes work tasks and responsibilities, a need for a more flexible technique for approaching workforce development emerges.
Training and development is currently undergoing tremendous changes. The training and development function is shifting its focus to performance improvement, where a variety of training and non-training solutions are implemented to improve performance in the organization (Ruona & Roth, 2000). The emerging field of “workforce development” encompasses more than employment training in the narrow sense. Outcomes focus not only on organizational effectiveness as in traditional training and development or the field of HRD; rather they include emphases on wages, productivity, and other key measures of national prosperity (Jacobs, 2000).
Those not familiar with the systematic process to develop a workforce typically want to analyze workforce requirements by examining existing jobs and tasks. However, the best approach to develop a workforce is to focus less on specific tasks and duties and to focus more on identifying work-related competencies. Groups of competencies typically include knowledge, skills, abilities or characteristics associated with high performance on a job, such as problem solving, analytical thinking, or leadership. The basis for recruiting, selecting, and compensating an individual is their competence and skill level, rather than the task they perform.
The definition of a competency can also include motives, beliefs, and values (Mirabile, 1997). Competencies have further been described as “behaviors that distinguish effective performers from ineffective ones (Dalton, 1997, p. 48).” Often, a job’s tasks and activities are considered competencies even if they are not labeled so. Many job descriptions and approaches are task-oriented which in effect could be defined as a competency (McLagan, 1996). “A competency model is a set of success factors, often called competencies that include the key behaviors required for excellent performance in a particular role. Excellent performers on-the-job demonstrate these behaviors much more consistently than average or poor performers. These characteristics include key behaviors that drive excellent performance. These characteristics are generally presented with a definition and key behavioral indicators (Sanchez, 2000, p. 510).”
Competency modeling is a research methodology designed to describe work and jobs in a broader, more comprehensive way (Zemke & Zemke, 2000). Competency-based performance models yield a common language across positions within an industry. It is the best approach when creating a performance management system, and it enables workforce development professionals to identify core capabilities required of any employee in any position across an entire organization or industry (Gilley & Maycunich, 2000). Robinson and Robinson (1996) encourage the use of a performance model when describing “should” performance for a specific position or job cluster. In addition to performance management benefits, results from competency models can be easily translated into training curricula. While training programs based on work-oriented task analysis can become dated as work undergoes dynamic change, training programs based on competency assessment are more flexible and perhaps have more durability (Bohlander, Scott, & Sherman, 2001).
“The construction of a competency model calls for the correct identification of the critical competencies required for effective performance (Ingalls, 1979, p. 32).” In order to achieve “correct identification” the designer of the model must conduct extensive research into the company or industry concerned with workforce development. Role experts --individuals who function in specific areas of expertise -- must be interviewed. A common mistake during the design process is that management, without input from role experts -- makes decisions about the skills necessary to perform a certain job. “Building a so-called competency model based solely on the beliefs and opinions of a group of people, albeit powerful people, makes it a useless exercise (Dalton, 1997, p. 48).” The “useless exercise” yields an “ideal”—and often impractical model— rather than a model displaying the expected outcomes. The expected model lends itself to flexibility. An effective competency model is not job specific, and it looks to the future rather than just the present. The nonspecific model can grow and develop with the changing needs of the company or industry.
According to Klemp (1982), “Job competence assessment is a powerful new solution to the problem of how to hire and train people for maximum effectiveness. By pinpointing the key knowledge, abilities, and other personal characteristics needed to do a job well, job competence assessment departs dramatically from classical job analysis. It starts with a simple premise: the best way to find out what it takes to do a job is to analyze the job’s outstanding performers and then to study what they do that makes them so effective. Job competence assessment is therefore not so much assessment of the job as assessment of the person who does the job (p. 55).”
Geospatial Technology Competency Model. A competency model was needed to describe the kinds of geospatial workers (roles) required, the products and services they provide (outputs), and the required knowledge, skills and abilities (competencies) that the industry needs. The knowledge, skills and abilities that are identified, along with the level of expertise required for each competency, provide a framework for geospatial technology curricula– academic courses and programs, as well as training programs.
In addition to being used as a research framework for training providers and academic institutions to use for creating the most effective and efficient training and education opportunities for the geospatial industry, the Geospatial Technology Competency Model developed at The University of Southern Mississippi is a useful human resource tool. The GTCM provides research-based competencies for hiring organizations to use to make better recruitment and selection decisions and to help better manage their existing workforce by using the model as a competency-based performance management system.
Methodology. Industry stakeholders from the private and public sector were involved from the beginning of the GTCM development to help guide research validity. Members of the geospatial community reviewed the scope of the study, revised role definitions and outputs, and revised preliminary competency menus. Focus groups helped to further identify competencies, outputs, and quality requirements for the geospatial industry. Role experts working in the geospatial industry validated the geospatial roles, competencies, outputs, and quality requirements. Organizations across the nation were represented in this study.
Results. Twelve distinct work roles were identified for the geospatial technology industry: (1) Applications Development; (2) Data Acquisition; (3) Data Analysis and Interpretation; (4) Data Management; (5) Management; (6) Marketing; (7) Project Management; (8) Systems Analysis; (9) Systems Management; (10) Training; (11) Visualization; and (12) Coordination. Four categories of geospatial technology competencies were identified as the required knowledge, skills, and abilities to function in each of the twelve roles: (1) technical; (2) business; (3) analytical; and (4) interpersonal. In addition to identifying twelve roles, the key products or services (outputs) resulting from the work in each role were identified. Results of the study included the development of 12 role profiles that provide the: role definition, outputs unique to the role, quality requirements for each output, competencies required to function in a specific role, the level of expertise required for each competency, and the ethical challenges for the work role. For a full report of the Geospatial Technology Competency Model results, visit http://www.geowdc.usm.edu.
Geospatial Technology Curriculum Development. As a first step to workforce development, the GTCM is a viable tool to design and develop degree programs that integrate geospatial technology competencies. The instructional systems design process follows some variation of the ADDIE model – Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation. The competency model provides the workforce and content analysis specific to the geospatial industry, and curriculum developers will analyze their target audience to determine which of these competencies are needed for success (Ford, 1999). The roles, outputs, quality requirements and competencies are the basis for “what do students/participants need to know and be able to do” to function in the geospatial workplace.
When designing curricula, developers use standards to determine behavior-based results. Curricula design should incorporate specific new skills, knowledge, and attitudes that participants need to acquire in order to perform successfully. The design phase relies on the analysis phase as an input. The heart of the design phase is creation of training objectives. Objectives form the goals of the training design and shape course content. Objectives are not mere academic exercises but reflect competencies needed for participant success. They ensure that the curriculum has clear focus and purpose and that the outcomes are measurable (Ford, 1999). In addition to reviewing the analysis and identifying objectives, requirements must be prioritized for successful curriculum design.
Once the design of the curricula has been approved, the development of the curricula proceeds. The processes of design and development may not be linear and can overlap. During the design phase, the design of the plan is converted to a form that can be delivered or implemented (Stolovitch & Keeps, 1999). At this point, choices are made about delivery methods of the content. Delivery methods must be tailored to match audience expectations and expertise. In addition to traditional classroom instruction, common products of the development phase might include manuals, job aids, assessment instruments and educational software. In the high-tech geospatial industry, creating opportunities for students to practice hands-on applications of new skills is appropriate.
The role of evaluation in performance improvement is not different than the traditional role of evaluation in education. Each implemented solution should have its own evaluation plan. It is important to determine whether the implemented curriculum is having the desired impact. Competency transference is paramount throughout the entire curriculum. Evaluation should not be the last box that is checked at the end of curriculum design. It is a means of determining if the output of the system meets the intended objectives at each phase of analysis, design, development and implementation (Stolovitch & Keeps, 1999). The key to effective evaluation is not to focus on activity alone but rather on results.
CONCLUSION
The GeoSpatial Technology Competency Model is a comprehensive study that describes the kinds of workers needed by the geospatial industry and the skills they require. It is not an academic model created in an ivory tower; rather it is a grass roots model developed using proven research methodologies, derived from participation by industry, government and education representatives. Partnerships that bring together all stakeholders are consistent with NASA’s commitment to create a customer/industry driven model and to utilize existing resources to create systemic change in the way students and the incumbent workforce are trained and retrained.
Efforts are currently underway at the GeoWDC to map the GTCM competencies to (1) national K-12 standards in math, science, technology and geography and (2) post-secondary accreditation standards. This cross-referencing process will determine any gaps and refer those gaps to the agencies that develop standards. Identifying gaps in standards is important as we seek to continually improve the educational systems that provide up-to-date technology education. Individuals who have the responsibility to develop geospatial programs, courses, and training modules can use the GTCM as the foundation to build geospatial technology curriculum.
REFERENCES
Bohlander, G., Scott, S. and A. Sherman, 2001. “Training and Development,” in Managing Human Resources. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing, 12th Edition.
Dalton, M., 1997. Are competency models a waste? Training & Development, 51, 46-49.
Ford, D., 1999. Bottom-line Training. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.
Gilley, J. and A. Maycunich, 2000. “Performance Consulting,” in Organizational Learning, Performance and Change. Cambridge, MS: Perseus Publishing.
Ingalls, J., 1979. Throw away your job descriptions and write competency models. Training, 16(4), 32-34.
Jacobs, R., 2000. “Human Resource Development and the Emergence of Workforce Development,” in Philosophical Foundations of Human Resource Development Practice. Vol. 7 of Advances in Developing Human Resources, Wendy E. A. Ruona and Gene Roth, eds., pp. 65-69. Berrett-Koehler Communications, Inc. The Academy of Human Resource Development.
Klemp, G., 1982. “Job competence assessment: Defining the attributes of the top performer,” in The pig in the python and other tales (ASTD Research Series, 8, 55-67). Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.
Mathis, R. and J. Jackson, 2000. “Job Analysis and the Changing Nature of Jobs” in Human Resource Management. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing, 9th Edition.
McLagan, P., 1996. Great ideas revisited. Training and Development, 50(1), 60-65.
Mirabile, R., 1997. Everything you wanted to know about competency modeling. Training and Development, 51.
Monograph, NASA, 2002. NWDETI Business Implementation Plan; Imaging Tomorrow. John C. Stennis Space Center, Office of Education.
Robinson, D. & Robinson, J., 1996. Performance Consulting: Moving Beyond Training. New York, NY: Berrett-Koehler.
Ruona, W. and G. Roth., 2000. Philosophical Foundations of Human Resource Development Practice. Berrett-Koehler Communications, Inc. The Academy of Human Resource Development.
Sanchez, J., 2000. The art and science of competency models. Personnel Psychology, 53, 509-511.
Stolovitch, H. & Keeps, E., 1999. Handbook of Human Performance Technology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer.
Zemke, R. and S. Zemke, 2000. “Putting Competencies to Work,” in Training and Development Yearbook. Paramus, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
The Geospatial Technology Competency Model© was developed at The University of Southern Mississippi under NASA Contract NAS13-98033.