Conference 7.286::digital

    I know what a 52AE is, but I have no idea what a 240D is.
    
    My personal opinion is that the CDP is a big waste of time.
    
    Bob

    I think you are confused with 50AE and 52AE.  50AE is a software
    engineer job code.  52AE is an IM&T job code.  50AE requires the
    involvement of review board, 52AE doesn't.  I personnally know
    several senior/principal software engineers were changed to
    52AE job code when they transfered to IM&T group.
    
    Wendy
    

    Actually 52XX are the EIS/Software Services Job codes.  IM&T job codes
    usually start with 16.
    
    It's my understanding that the 24xx promotion process is much stricter
    than 52xx.  I also have heard that there are efforts underway to put
    some better definition around the 52xx job codes.  
    

A T5 is an old Field Service term and has been converted to a 24 code. It is
equivalent in salary range to a 52AB, a Software Specialist 2. I don't
know about a 24OD. There are 52 codes in Field Service (or Customer Services or 
Digital Services or whatever you want to call it). I am one. I am told that I
have to go through CDP to get a promotion. I agree with .1 about that.
I know of several T5's whose job code was changed to 52AD without a board or
CDP. That's a 2 level salary jump. So I wouldn't be surprised to hear about the
case in .0.

	52AE is not just limited to IM&T ... I am a sales support consultant I
	and my job code is 52AE.  As far as I know, now test, CDP, or other
	pre-req is required to take a job offer for this type of position
	or to be promoted to SS consultant I.

	-- gerry

    
    
    VTX JIS gives answers to most questions.  One reply was correct, 16*
    are IM&T codes, so I assume that 52* is the old SWAS codes.
    
    From what I know, all groups except Engineering ( 50* and probably
    H'ware) do NOT have a review board to get to Consultant 1, but do have
    a review board for all levels after 1.

    The requirement for CDPs at various levels in SWS-EIS-DS-PSSI comes
    and goes. When Principal Software Specialist (Spec. IV, 52AD) was
    invented, GIA required a CDP, US did not. There was a lame attempt a
    couple of years ago to force CDP's for SWS-EIS-DS-PSSI Consultant I's,
    (52AE) at least in this part of the US; there were even mutterings of
    making it retroactive to existing Cons. I's. Never happened, though
    (to me, at least).

    IMHO, the purpose served by CDPs is twofold: 

    	o Generates more meetings to fill the (admittedly brief) gaps between
    	  bird-cage re-orgs and re-name re-changes in SWS-EIS-DS-PSSI
    
    	o Helps control costs by delaying promotions and their usual
    	  consequent pay raises.

    I wonder what the CDP program office thinks about this?

    re .6
    
    I am a Software Consultant I, 52AE, in Digital Services (soon to be 
    US Professional Services/SI).  In order for me to obtain this position
    this past July, I had to go before a review board.
    
    My promotion was contingent upon passing the board.
    
    Brent
    
    BTW.  It looks as though 52xx code will be JECing to 54xx codes.
          In the VTX JIS system, the 54xx codes are a little different than
    the 52xx codes.

    I must have gotten left out in the cold...
    
    What is a CDP?
    
    Larry (a 52AE)
    

Maybe I can help out a little here.  I was one of the EIS members of the 
working group to modify the CDP process to apply to EIS.  We were a group of 
14-15 Software Specialist 4 - Consultant 2 and Unit Manager's that met to 
review the existing CDP (for field/customer service) and see what needed to be 
changed/added to have it apply to EIS.

.0>    Just a question about promotion within Digital.  Should it be feasible
.0>    for someone to jump directly from a T5 (240D) job code to a software
.0>    consultant (52AE), with no CDP or review board involvement?
    
Not in my opinion.  Digital is already top heavy with 52AE job codes.  This 
fits well with the trend we seem to be taking toward high level engagements, 
while subbing the low level work, but the differentiation between individuals 
seems to be blurring.

.1>    I know what a 52AE is, but I have no idea what a 240D is.

The 24 codes are for customer service.  0D would indicate a fourth level.

.1>    My personal opinion is that the CDP is a big waste of time.
    
I think it will help level the playing field, eliminate questions about when 
individuals are ready for _CERTIFICATION_, not promotion, and provide a more 
consistent and better prepared workforce to compete with Andersen, EDS, CSC,
etc. 

I emphasized certification because that is all CDP is designed to do.  
Promotion is based upon a business need with the technical (CDP) 
prerequisites.

.2>    I think you are confused with 50AE and 52AE.  50AE is a software
.2>    engineer job code.  52AE is an IM&T job code.  50AE requires the
.2>    involvement of review board, 52AE doesn't.  I personnally know
    
.3>    Actually 52XX are the EIS/Software Services Job codes.  IM&T job codes
.3>    usually start with 16.

I believe .3 is more accurate.  52 job codes also apply to sales support 
people who used to be in PSS.  As far as the difference between 50 and 52, 
I believe engineering is looking at a similar process. 
    
.3>    It's my understanding that the 24xx promotion process is much stricter
.3>    than 52xx.  I also have heard that there are efforts underway to put
.3>    some better definition around the 52xx job codes.  
    
I have always felt that the promotion process within EIS/PSS/whatever was 
highly subjective.

.4>equivalent in salary range to a 52AB, a Software Specialist 2. I don't

But 24 job codes are not salaried.  Their base pay may be equivalent, but that 
doesn't take into effect overtime, standby, etc.  The intent seems to be to 
achieve parity between the non-salaried 24 code and a salaried 52 code (i.e., 
240D with average overtime/standby, would equate to the range for a 52AE).

I think someone oversimplified somewhere.  I think the merge of field service 
and EIS also introduced some interesting perturbations.  I'll start a separate 
topic since I have now been stirred by this discussion.

.4>know about a 24OD. There are 52 codes in Field Service (or Customer
.4>Services or Digital Services or whatever you want to call it). I am one. I
.4>am told that I have to go through CDP to get a promotion. I agree with .1

Right, the old EIS/PSS org has always been 52 codes, and when we merged with 
customer service, that did not change.

.4>I know of several T5's whose job code was changed to 52AD without a board or
.4>CDP. That's a 2 level salary jump. So I wouldn't be surprised to hear about

I don't agree with this.  In terms of total compensation, this may have worked 
out about the same, but I think some of the skills are vastly different.  The 
similarity would lie in the diagnostic skills.  What about high level system
design, low level system design, tuning (from a system perspective), coding
abilities, product knowledge...?  A 52AE should have all this _experience_:
software projects, in depth product knowledge, broad system solution
knowledge, project management and customer management experience, sales 
exposure (account management and strategy, customer management, etc.)...  The
JEC description includes financial influence numbers which I believe are
pretty accurate.  JEC differentiates between 52AE, F, and G based on scope of
responsiblity in the areas of contract value, geographic coverage, supervisory
requirements, and internal positioning (program, geography, corporate). 

.5>	and my job code is 52AE.  As far as I know, now test, CDP, or other
.5>	pre-req is required to take a job offer for this type of position
.5>	or to be promoted to SS consultant I.

I think this varies according to local management.  Prior to the merge with 
customer service, we (GSG) had a set of requirements which included:

	o 2 years in grade at the 52AD level
	o 2 or better on last two PA's
	o Interviews by two other consultants, at least one of which had to
	  be from a different district
	o Approval and endorsement by your manager
	o " your district manager
	o " area VP
	o Proposal, which included description of the position, business
	  need justification, cost impact, and revenue impact.

.6>    From what I know, all groups except Engineering ( 50* and probably
.6>    H'ware) do NOT have a review board to get to Consultant 1, but do have
.6>    a review board for all levels after 1.

We didn't have a review _board_ per se, but as you can see, you had to jump 
through several hoops.

.7>    The requirement for CDPs at various levels in SWS-EIS-DS-PSSI comes
.7>    and goes. When Principal Software Specialist (Spec. IV, 52AD) was
.7>    invented, GIA required a CDP, US did not. There was a lame attempt a
.7>    couple of years ago to force CDP's for SWS-EIS-DS-PSSI Consultant I's,
.7>    (52AE) at least in this part of the US; there were even mutterings of
.7>    making it retroactive to existing Cons. I's. Never happened, though
.7>    (to me, at least).

CDP can't come and go.  It was only implemented a couple of years ago in field 
service to replace the tech review boards, in an attempt to improve the 
process and reduce the amount of overhead expense, such as having the board 
and candidates go to the Springs, etc.  It has not yet been implemented for 
EIS.  We finished most of the definition work for solution integration and 
project management, and reviewed a proposed revision to the professional 
skills subject area.  These changes will be presented to the Skills Review and 
Assessment Committee shortly, and if approved, should be implemented around 
January.  Maybe you had something locally which seemed similar, or perhaps was 
even called CDP.  By the way, CDP stands for Career Development Process.

.7>    IMHO, the purpose served by CDPs is twofold: 
.7>    	o Generates more meetings to fill the (admittedly brief) gaps between
.7>    	  bird-cage re-orgs and re-name re-changes in SWS-EIS-DS-PSSI
.7>    	o Helps control costs by delaying promotions and their usual
.7>    	  consequent pay raises.

Let's clear this up.  CDP is a process which involves the definition of 
requirements for certification to be promoted to the next level.  You and your 
manager identify a mentor.  You and the mentor work to prepare you for the 
certification.  Once the two of you are satisfied that you are ready, an 
interview with someone else at or above the level you aspire to is arranged.  
If you pass the interview, the mentor and the interviewer endorse your 
certification to your manager.  Your manager may then recommend you for
certification. At that point, the local process for promotion, whether based
on certification or business justification, will take over.  It does not 
generate meetings, in fact it reduces meetings.  The mentoring and 
interviewing may occur electronically.  It can't have any impact on costs or 
promotions.  It is a technical certification process, not a promotion process. 
Think of this as Digital's Certificate of Data Processing, or a CPA.  Yes, you 
are certified, but that is independent of promotion, job position, etc.

.8>    I wonder what the CDP program office thinks about this?

I'll forward this to Marty Levine in CXN.

.9>    BTW.  It looks as though 52xx code will be JECing to 54xx codes.
.9>          In the VTX JIS system, the 54xx codes are a little different than
.9>    the 52xx codes.

I'm not sure of the intent of the 54 codes.  The changes seem to be primarily 
wordsmithing.  It is my understanding that the 54 codes will be for SI.  One 
would assume that perhaps the 52's will be for traditional product support, or 
straight Digital projects.  But since they are _SO_ similar, I don't 
understand why they are differentiating.

.10>    What is a CDP?
    
Does this help clear it up?  Sorry you asked?

    I have to take back my .1.  I thought that CDP was that silly piece of
    paper (Certificate in Data Processing) that some pseudo-union group
    promotes.
    
    I didn't realize we had something internally called a CDP.
    
    Bob

    <<< Note 2177.12 by SCAACT::AINSLEY "Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow!" >>>

I guess that's what happens when everywhere we go in Digital, everything has 
to be expressed in TLA's.  We are now beginning to run out.  Should we TFSO 
the TLA's in favor of FLA's?  You can tell who's who on the who's who list by 
whether they have a TLA next to their name :-}

I'd like to know the process for promotion to Consultant III (52AG). There is 
nothing recently published regarding how to achieve this promotion. My boss 
and I are interested in putting some criteria in my Goal Sheet/PPP aiming 
toward the Consultant III level. Requests to the appropriate Personnel people 
have either returned silence or "we're working on it".

Regards,

Jim Mickol
Sales Support Consultant II

    re: .11
    
    As .12 so eloquently put it, "oops."
    
    I thought CDP was acronym-de-jour for career development boards, noted
    for their high-bandwidth connections to the old-boy-network. It
    seems this is something new and different.
    
    The CDP process does seem a little bit, well, process-oriented. But at
    least it's *defined*. That's a refreshing change.

    re .13:
    
�the TLA's in favor of FLA's?  You can tell who's who on the who's who list by 
    
    But FLA is ambigous - do you mean FOLAs or FILAs (which in fact should
    be FIVLAs)?
    
    :-)

    .11 has some good info, but not complete, and some misleading.

    Re the following;

>>             <<< Note 2177.11 by NEWVAX::SGRIFFIN "DTN 339-5391" >>>
>>                             -< Replies to .0-.10 >-
>>
>>Not in my opinion.  Digital is already top heavy with 52AE job codes.  This 
>>fits well with the trend we seem to be taking toward high level engagements, 
>>while subbing the low level work, but the differentiation between individuals 
>>seems to be blurring.

    I tend to agree with the above, but there is more going on here.  We
    are tending to become more software oriented, therefore, the emphisis
    is on changing the career path to software...

>>
>>But 24 job codes are not salaried.  Their base pay may be equivalent, but that 
>>doesn't take into effect overtime, standby, etc.  The intent seems to be to 
>>achieve parity between the non-salaried 24 code and a salaried 52 code (i.e., 
>>240D with average overtime/standby, would equate to the range for a 52AE).
>>
    Partly true.  24XX codes up to 240D are hourly.  Support level hardware
    codes 24CC on up are Salaried.


    Now my opinion, for what its worth.  In our desire to become software
    oriented, we are taking people who have little software experience and
    giving them the codes and titles to which they are not entitled.  This
    is a serious problem.

    I am a 24CC, board certified (T7), and am migrating to software 24EC. 
    This is supposed to be a lateral change.  I am using CDP, but I feel
    very unqualified at this point.  I would be disappointed if I was just
    waved into position.

    Concerning 54XX codes soon to be made.  I am under the understanding
    that this is to be be bonding of both Hardware and Software as a true
    systems support person.  At least this is what I am getting from some
    Mgrs in the Colorado CSC.

    CDP =  "Career Development Program"
    	Right from my CDP book

    Jim Morton

.14>I'd like to know the process for promotion to Consultant III (52AG). There

No one in attendance was a CIII, so we did not feel qualified to rate the 
requirements at that level.  I believe the requirements do involve a board, 
corporate approval, etc.  Obviously, I'm not close enough to CIII to worry 
about those details  :-( or should it be :-)  ?

.15>    seems this is something new and different.
    
We hope so.

.15>    The CDP process does seem a little bit, well, process-oriented. But at
.15>    least it's *defined*. That's a refreshing change.

Yes, it is YAP (yet another process), but you are right, it is definition 
also.

.17>    Partly true.  24XX codes up to 240D are hourly.  Support level hardware
.17>    codes 24CC on up are Salaried.

And I have learned from this exchange, so I thank you.

.17>    oriented, we are taking people who have little software experience and
.17>    giving them the codes and titles to which they are not entitled.  This
.17>    is a serious problem.

I would agree, probably violently!

.17>    very unqualified at this point.  I would be disappointed if I was just

At least you recognize that it may be a problem.  Now, seek a mentor within 
the old EIS/PSS group and go for it.  Nothing to lose except that old O/T.

.17>    Concerning 54XX codes soon to be made.  I am under the understanding
.17>    that this is to be be bonding of both Hardware and Software as a true

I come from this type of background.  I was a computer science grad, but I 
quickly got into hardware (at least to the chip swap level) and it served me 
very well.  We need lots more of this in this company in order to succeed in 
SI, which I believe is the latest stated direction, or may be the latest lame 
duck to be sold off.(?)

From Marty Levine, @CXO:

 I really appreciate you sending me this memo. I need this stuff to keep
 informed of opinions, thoughts and ideas that are floating around out there.
 
 I also appreciate you setting the record straight on what CDP is and it's
 intent. Seems to be a lot of confusion and the constant turmoil in the
 Corporation has not helped.
 
 Your comments were right on target, I wish I could get a sense for how many
 people read it, understood it and believed it.
 
 Please enter this into the notes file and encourage anyone who has questions 
 regarding CDP to send me mail at BSS::LEVINE or Marty Levine@CXO
 or call at DTN 592-5450
 
 CDP has gotten a lot of bad press by mis-informed Managers who felt they 
 could use CDP as an excuse/reason for not promoting someone. All Managers have
 been told that promotions are based on the "BUSINESS NEED". The business that
 the local office is doing must warrant having an employee at a specific level
 because the work to be done requires it. CDP is just the developmental tool/
 process to bring employees to a consistent level of technical and professional
 proficiency for the work they do at a specified Job Code level. 
 
 In those places where CDP has been implemented CDP Certification is ONE of the
 requirements for promotion. The Manager makes the decision for promotion based
 on:
 
 		1. Business Need
 		2. Individuals Performance
 		3. If their is a promotion ratio for the year
 		4. CDP Certification - This only says they have the required
 		   skills, it does not say they choose to use these skills,
 		   that's performance and is addressed in the Performance
 		   appraisal.
 
 I hope this clarifies some of the issues that were brought up in the notesfile
 
 If anyone has further questions or wants to discuss this matter further,
 please call or send mail.
 
 
 Thanks
 
 Marty Levine
 U.S. CDP Program Manager

Is there a definition of what a Software Spec III and a Consult I  are!

Where can I find it?

- Mike

    All job descriptions are contained in VTX JIS.

RE:          <<< Note 2177.21 by CSOA1::DWYER "RICK DWYER @CYO" >>>

>    All job descriptions are contained in VTX JIS.

     Not quite, but most of them are.

                                    Greg

Re: last couple

Definition of the position with respect to job responsibility is contained 
within JEC, or VTX JIS.

Definition of technical competence that must be demostrated prior to promotion 
to that position is CDP.

    
    RE: .1
    
    I thought a 240D was a Mercedes :').
    
    
    Ken
    

    re .14
    
    Any process for promotion to Cons. III is local.  In our geography
    there is no 'process' for sales support.  Prior to sales support moving
    to sales there was a board (also local) for promotion to Cons. II and
    Cons. III.  One of the most notable aspects of this board was that
    there was no sales participation at all.  When sales support moved to
    sales all processes vanished unless enforced by local management.
    
    I would suggest you speak with the Cons. IIIs in your geography to
    determine what process (if any) is currently in place.
    
    Peter Dillard

                     <<< Note 2177.25 by SUBWAY::DILLARD >>>
    
=>    I would suggest you speak with the Cons. IIIs in your geography to
=>    determine what process (if any) is currently in place.

	To my knowledge, there aren't any Consultant IIIs in our District.

Regards,

Jim