IO Intern,

This is update #2 on my summer project to explore commonalities among specialties. 

I am proud to report that the spreadsheets and databases which I designed and built functioned perfectly.  In fact, I was able to quickly develop a table of commonalities, identify similarities, and regroup subspecialties.  The nice part about them is that as new specialties submit their lists of KSAOs we can quickly add them and see where they fit within our organization. 

I identified 20 KSAOs which were common among all specialties (considered the core specialties).  This was determined by examining those KSAOs which were submitted by at least 25 of the 31 subspecialties (83%).  This value was chosen because there was a natural break at this level in that there were no KSAOs which were in common with 24, 23, or 22 of the specialties.  Additionally, the Core evaluation team did not desire to go beyond 80% commonality.  Also identified during this examination is that most subspecialties submitted tasks as “Other Characteristics.”  It is believed that this is a result of the core team’s attempt to maximize data capture and instructing the SMEs to submit anything else as an “other characteristic.” 

The mean number of KSAOs submitted was 47.53 with the minimum of 31 and a maximum of 78.  The median was 47, the mode was 37.

I then explored the relationships of the subspecialties through their submitted KSAO lists.  I looked at percentiles in common and found the current specialty grouping system (based on work functions) was largely correct.  Based on the KSAOs there were a couple which fit better in a different specialties.  For example: Marine Safety Engineering could be located in an Engineering Specialty instead of its current specialty.  Additionally, another of the sub-specialties, which has recently changed its description to better encompass the full scope of its work, fits better in a new specialty grouping.  The KSAO comparison yielded a couple of other modifications for consideration, but that gives you an example of some of our success.

My current efforts are examining the supportability of each specialty. We recognize that our structure is limited to a strictly internal recruitment schema and that each subspecialty/specialty must be sustainable.  In this portion of the analysis, I will determine which specialties have an adequate number of positions (and rank structure) to be self sustaining.  I have broken down each of the subspecialties by rank and position count but, unlike the KSAO lists, there is no clear break point for sustainability.  If anyone has a suggestion of candidate pools (ratios?) needed for internal recruitment, I am open to the information.  Each time I think we are getting close drawing the line in the sand, the waves erase it as arbitrary. To date, my research in this area has not been fruitful.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your questions and comments.

Tom O.