# PaCE : Performance Appraisal and Competency system



## kratz (11 Jun 2019)

Reference: The old PER discussions are archived here


Attached is a summary of the PaCE briefing for the updated evaluation system.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Jun 2019)

I've seen the PAR (or at least a working draft of one) and, if the system works as advertised, I think it'll be a huge improvement on the current system.  Having sat on selection boards, I can tell you that so much of what is written on a PER isn't used for promotion selection, because boards simply don't have the time to read through multiple PERs to a significant level.  The new PAR seems tailored to reduce workloads on units, expedite movement of the document in its review stages, and provide boards with the right information in easily "digestible" chunks to make honest assessments of a person's suitability for promotion.


----------



## kratz (11 Jun 2019)

I like the staged implementation to reduce PHOENIX style issues.


----------



## Navy_Pete (11 Jun 2019)

Thanks for sharing the presentation!  On PGT, so unplugged from the machine.

Question; if the feedback notes are all online, and the supervisor and member are both going to have to acknowledge it, will those be Pro A or B?  Had a sudden vision of every single person in the CAF needing a PKI card, and felt a pang of sympathy for the IT guys. They are enough work when only a small crowd use them regularly and would randomly stop working at sea sometimes if the server wasn't available to verify the credentials.  Think the notes are pro A, but normally the digital signature needs a PKI to verify.


----------



## SupersonicMax (11 Jun 2019)

Meh.  Is it such a stretch thinking that everyone in the organization needs a digital signature/encryption card?  We're almost in 2020 after all.  I really liked the US system where your ID cards also served as IT credentials.


----------



## Sub_Guy (11 Jun 2019)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> We're almost in 2020 after all.  I really liked the US system where your ID cards also served as IT credentials.



This makes so much sense.  I’ve been saying this since I was issued my first PKI card back in 2002/03. 

Every person in the CF should have a PKI card so why not adopt the system that the US uses?

This new evaluation system seems more efficient, however I think we will still make things more complicated for ourselves. I feel like Norm from Cheers in the episode when Cliff was killing it on Jeopardy, I have a feeling we are going to screw this up.  I hope I’m wrong.

https://youtu.be/botdmsQilnU


----------



## brihard (11 Jun 2019)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> This makes so much sense.  I’ve been saying this since I was issued my first PKI card back in 2002/03.
> 
> Every person in the CF should have a PKI card so why not adopt the system that the US uses?
> 
> ...



Same in my organization. I have a card that functions both as building access and PKI, as well as having name, photo, and an employee number but nothing identifying the organization or workplace. It works well. Every one of us deals with protected systems regularly, and it hasn’t been a real hassle. As long as the card is backed with a second authentication factor, you’re good to go. We can all log in to our version of Peoplesoft/HRMS for things like submitting career planning requests, getting our version of an MPRR, updating personal info, updating our security clearance forms, so on and so forth. Our leave requests, overtime, travel/expense claims, and individual issue clothing/equipment requisitions are all done and approved digitally through a linked system. The CAF is living in the past.


----------



## dimsum (12 Jun 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Same in my organization. I have a card that functions both as building access and PKI, as well as having name, photo, and an employee number but nothing identifying the organization or workplace. It works well. Every one of us deals with protected systems regularly, and it hasn’t been a real hassle. As long as the card is backed with a second authentication factor, you’re good to go. We can all log in to our version of Peoplesoft/HRMS for things like submitting career planning requests, getting our version of an MPRR, updating personal info, updating our security clearance forms, so on and so forth. Our leave requests, overtime, travel/expense claims, and individual issue clothing/equipment requisitions are all done and approved digitally through a linked system. The CAF is living in the past.



Not sure about you guys but in the unit I'm at, all leave passes are electronic, emailed and digitally signed.  The US-style Common Access Card would be awesome, as well as a Restricted Area pass that is valid for all bases.


----------



## ballz (12 Jun 2019)

I dream of a day I could use my theoretical all-access pass to every damn thing in the DND instead of using a different username and password for everything? Bldg access, DLN, DRMIS, ILP, DWAN, EMAA, HRG, ClaimsX, I'm sure I'm missing some...


----------



## Navy_Pete (12 Jun 2019)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Meh.  Is it such a stretch thinking that everyone in the organization needs a digital signature/encryption card?  We're almost in 2020 after all.  I really liked the US system where your ID cards also served as IT credentials.



No, I think it makes sense that we should be able to; I guess what I was doubting was whether the PKI system is capable of supporting that.  Maybe someone already thought ahead and is implementing something?
  :dunno:
It's especially fun when you get posted and they change your email, so your PKI encryption no longer works, and you can't access any previously archived protected files unless you had thought ahead and encrypted them by password (vice your ID, which is the default).


----------



## MJP (12 Jun 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> No, I think it makes sense that we should be able to; I guess what I was doubting was whether the PKI system is capable of supporting that.  Maybe someone already thought ahead and is implementing something?
> :dunno:
> It's especially fun when you get posted and they change your email, so your PKI encryption no longer works, and you can't access any previously archived protected files unless you had thought ahead and encrypted them by password (vice your ID, which is the default).



Like many people I remember joining as being told in the late 90s that was coming "soon".  Just a shade under 25 years later and we are still stuck in early IT hell


----------



## Lumber (12 Jun 2019)

Yea I visited Westpoint Military Academy in 2008 and even THEY had those dual ID/IT cards...


----------



## BDTyre (12 Jun 2019)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Meh.  Is it such a stretch thinking that everyone in the organization needs a digital signature/encryption card?  We're almost in 2020 after all.  I really liked the US system where your ID cards also served as IT credentials.



But then we'd have to not only figure out how to get everyone a permanent ID, but also how to get them an ID (of any kind) in a timely fashion.


----------



## Navy_Pete (12 Jun 2019)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> But then we'd have to not only figure out how to get everyone a permanent ID, but also how to get them an ID (of any kind) in a timely fashion.



Not to worry, I've picked up the license to become the Canadian distributor for the PKI cards, and am stockpiling 50k of them!  

(not really, but think that selling obsolete tech to the CAF is a pretty reasonable retirement strategy if you can find you niche).


----------



## CountDC (13 Jun 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> No, I think it makes sense that we should be able to; I guess what I was doubting was whether the PKI system is capable of supporting that.  Maybe someone already thought ahead and is implementing something?
> :dunno:
> It's especially fun when you get posted and they change your email, so your PKI encryption no longer works, and you can't access any previously archived protected files unless you had thought ahead and encrypted them by password (vice your ID, which is the default).



your pki should still work without an issue.  I have been posted several times to different locations across the country and still have the original card sent out when the system was started.  Works fine still.  It's linked to your ID in the form of your email (me.bloggins@forces.gc.ca) via certificates which get updated but the old ones are still on there so you can open your old stuff. I believe when you do open the old one the system will update that email to the new certificates but could be wrong.  I still have emails from 3 jobs and 7 years ago that open no problem.


----------



## Furniture (13 Jun 2019)

CountDC said:
			
		

> your pki should still work without an issue.  I have been posted several times to different locations across the country and still have the original card sent out when the system was started.  Works fine still.  It's linked to your ID in the form of your email (me.bloggins@forces.gc.ca) via certificates which get updated but the old ones are still on there so you can open your old stuff. I believe when you do open the old one the system will update that email to the new certificates but could be wrong.  I still have emails from 3 jobs and 7 years ago that open no problem.



ShipLAN email accounts don't transfer(or didn't when I was sailing), and you often ended up with a john.doe2@forces.gc.ca on one whip then john.doe1@forces.gc.ca or another. I'm the only person in the CAF with my name, and I think I was up to 2 at one point on ship.


----------



## brihard (13 Jun 2019)

Furniture said:
			
		

> ShipLAN email accounts don't transfer(or didn't when I was sailing), and you often ended up with a john.doe2@forces.gc.ca on one whip then john.doe1@forces.gc.ca or another. I'm the only person in the CAF with my name, and I think I was up to 2 at one point on ship.



That's bizarre. Why can't they have one profile that will still work on ship?


----------



## Navy_Pete (13 Jun 2019)

I've had the opposite unfortunately (probably the same reason as Furniture); each time I've had an email change (ie add a number) and because my email (and login) are different, can't access the old PKI certificates (that were tied to an old email address).  Wasn't game ending, but did lose access to some old files that were related to open projects, so made post turnover questions kind of a pain to sort out.  Was also attached to another govt dept for a while, and their software key PKI system was a bit more seamless, and pretty easy to use on different workstations once the initial setup was done.

In any case, that's more of a random complaint from me about the PKI infrastructure that's off topic from the PaCE system.


----------



## Underway (14 Sep 2021)

A little bit of thread necromancy here.  

Finished the PaCE training online.  I'm quite happy with how it looks.  Some of my highlights:

 Potential is not scored solely by the supervisor.  All of the relevant dept heads get a say on the individual at a board.  This is important as so many "leaders" communicate differently to their boss than they do to others on the same ship.  It will reduce some of the brown-nosing points that can accrue from a supervisor who doesn't realize that their subordinate is actually a jerk to other sections.  I've been advocating for more 360 review type evaluations for years.  Leadership is not just your section, it's the whole team and other interactions you have.
Performance is bell-curved, and the average expectation is listed.  This should hopefully reduce score inflation on performance.  It will also allow correlating what units and what individuals inflate scores.  A step to a more even evaluation process.
Feedback is baked into the system.  Assuming this is enforced this is an excellent step in TALKING TO YOUR TROOPS! Which is an excellent way to understand and fix issues at an earlier timeframe and allow for members to correct performance issues early.  Feedback if enforced properly (Mid June, Mid Oct, Mid Dec, Mid March) will allow for better tracking and development of subordinates. 
Allowing members to Opt-Out of Potential evaluations.  This is excellent, sometimes the MCpl just never wants to be a Sgt.  That's ok.  Might reduce the number of fids that make it to senior leadership positions.
How it works in the application will remain to be seen, however, it aligns very closely with the RCN Divisional System construct.  Instead of Div Notes, there will be Feedback entries.  The fact I can put my brag sheet into the Feedback section (as a running commentary in real-time on my work and actions) is excellent.  No longer will Div Notes be a pile of entries at the end of Feb forgetting half the stuff you did for the whole year.

Does anyone else have thoughts?  I do have concerns but I'm gonna go with a half-full feeling on this as CFPAS was getting pretty dated.


----------



## SupersonicMax (14 Sep 2021)

How long will this system resist the CAF’s urge to mess things up?


----------



## rmc_wannabe (14 Sep 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> How long will this system resist the CAF’s urge to mess things up?


Just wait until the first round of PARs, and watch the trade/regimental mafia's rear their ugly heads...


----------



## Navy_Pete (14 Sep 2021)

Underway said:


> A little bit of thread necromancy here.
> 
> Finished the PaCE training online.  I'm quite happy with how it looks.  Some of my highlights:
> 
> ...



Starting to use it now; really like the built in feedback bits, and the ability to provide your own 'brag sheet' notes on an ongoing basis, but generally still a bit of rollout issues with some of the permissions/assignments bits so we're still working through it. The 'buttonology' on MM is generally pretty bad, but once you get it figured out it seems okay.

We're part of the pilot program for the trades using it for the PER this year, so will see how the bun toss goes. With all of us still working from home in the NCR will be really strange, so expect the supervisors recommendation for the potential score to be pretty critical this year, as the amount of cross department interactions are really cut down a lot. Good for some people, but potentially a killer for those that do a lot of really good work but don't have a lot of interaction with supervisors (ie people above their rank) outside the section due to nature of the job. Last year that was a challenge on some people's PERs where the supervisor wasn't in the bun toss and they didn't necessarily provide feedback to the rep going to the board, but at least with the supervisors score on the PER you had a starting point. Do like the ranking function being built into PaCe though; that's easier than the current setup, and means that we don't have to circulate some paper afterwards to sign off (you can sign it in PaCE).

Got a big laugh at the bell curve bit though; someone missed the context of that in stats. Being average amongst a bunch of high performers and being average amongst a bunch of poor performers shouldn't result in the same evaluation, but that's potentially how the PaCE explanation could be interpreted. Small units (ie inadequate sample size), high tempo units getting high performers preferentially posted in and other scenarios throw that out the window, so should be taken with a grain of salt.

Probably will be some growing pains, but honestly don't find the current PERs too bad, so guess we'll see how it rolls out. Really like some of the features, and guess we'll see how it goes when we provide feedback in the pilot. If it's anything like other CAF pilot projects, suspect the results will go in the trash if they don't correspond with full project endorsement (like the group potential assessment doesn't work in a WFH/hybrid work environment), but maybe I'll be surprised. Does make the actual assessment issuing process a lot easier though, especially compared to using the old paper/floppy disc method from not long ago.


----------



## Quirky (14 Sep 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> How long will this system resist the CAF’s urge to mess things up?


Wait for the “submit a memo” with your decision to opt-out. I’ll get right on that…..


----------



## TCM621 (15 Sep 2021)

Infanteer said:


> I've seen the PAR (or at least a working draft of one) and, if the system works as advertised, I think it'll be a huge improvement on the current system.  Having sat on selection boards, I can tell you that so much of what is written on a PER isn't used for promotion selection, because boards simply don't have the time to read through multiple PERs to a significant level.  The new PAR seems tailored to reduce workloads on units, expedite movement of the document in its review stages, and provide boards with the right information in easily "digestible" chunks to make honest assessments of a person's suitability for promotion.


It seems to look like it was designed to make boards easier. The question I can't get an answer to is how does it help the members?


----------



## dangerboy (15 Sep 2021)

I think it will be a pain for people that don't have easy access to the DWAN


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (15 Sep 2021)

dangerboy said:


> I think it will be a pain for people that don't have easy access to the DWAN


They're developing an App to use PaCE.


----------



## kev994 (15 Sep 2021)

dangerboy said:


> I think it will be a pain for people that don't have easy access to the DWAN


Good point, when I was OUTCAN in a one-of position the closest DWAN station was 100 miles away and I didn’t have an account. And my direct supervisor was in Winnipeg.


----------



## Underway (15 Sep 2021)

TCM621 said:


> It seems to look like it was designed to make boards easier. The question I can't get an answer to is how does it help the members?


Feedback section.  But also provides better accountability for your scoring system.  Also opting out is better for members.  Those who don't want potential evaluated won't and those who do will have less competition.


----------



## Navy_Pete (15 Sep 2021)

TCM621 said:


> It seems to look like it was designed to make boards easier. The question I can't get an answer to is how does it help the members?


Makes the div notes/feedback easier (and trackable/transferable as people are posted). Also lets people easily put in their own div notes whenever, which I think is really useful.

On the flip side, MM is getting pretty bloated, and there are some basic interface issues. At least CFPAS was totally stand alone and not dependent on an external server, so 'one stop shopping' can really quickly become 'single point of failure'. Not sure how well that will work for deployed units with limited connectivity (ie a ship that is out of satellite coverage) so pros and cons I guess.

I still find it extremely hard to properly edit documents of any real substance on a screen as well, but that's a general issue that isn't going away, so looking forward to a tablet with the look/feel of paper. With the WFH find myself frequently taking screen breaks due to eye fatigue now, even with blue light glasses and other methods to try and alleviate the strain.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Sep 2021)

Underway said:


> Feedback is baked into the system. Assuming this is enforced this is an excellent step in TALKING TO YOUR TROOPS! Which is an excellent way to understand and fix issues at an earlier timeframe and allow for members to correct performance issues early. Feedback if enforced properly (Mid June, Mid Oct, Mid Dec, Mid March) will allow for better tracking and development of subordinates.



CFPAS mandated Initial PDRs, with at least 2 feedback sessions (the PER debrief counting as 1 of those).  How'd THAT go for the CAF?  

A CANFORGEN claimed "PER score control via unit boards was eliminated" or words to that effect.  Anyone want to put their hand on their heart and say "that is a 100% true statement"?

Like CFPAS, PaCE will be subj to the same agendas, people and interests that _made_ CFPAS less effective than it should have been.

The problem isn't the platform.  The problem has been and likely will continue to be the "assessment culture" in the CAF.

Oh, my trade was part of the trial last year where "all members will receive a PER and a PAR".  I didn't.  I complete the 2 courses, participated in the focus group project,  entered my MAP, Feedback, etc....nothing.  My CofC simply didn't do their part.

Off to a great start...


----------



## kev994 (15 Sep 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> A CANFORGEN claimed "PER score control via unit boards was eliminated" or words to that effect.  Anyone want to put their hand on their heart and say "that is a 100% true statement"?


I haven’t seen score control in quite some time. I’ve seen board members point out that the bullet doesn’t match the word picture and the narrative though.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Sep 2021)

kev994 said:


> I haven’t seen score control in quite some time. I’ve seen board members point out that the bullet doesn’t match the word picture and the narrative though.



You're right and I shouldn't have been so lazy in my post. 

From CANFORGEN 045/20, para 5(d)...

"score controls and the practice of using unit/formation/group ranking boards to directly influence PER scoring in any form has ceased"

The highlighted portion above is the part I should have used in my earlier post;  that definitely happened in the recent past in more than 1 case I witnessed.  This will continue despite PaCE, IMO, because the same people will employ PaCE that employed CFPAS.

I do like the features and improvements PaCE offers, don't get me wrong;  the weak link is the users as I see it and for years we've proven we'll ignore our own policy and processes when it comes to evaluating our sub's.


----------



## Underway (16 Sep 2021)

Like all managerial or evaluation systems once people get involved there are going to be issues.  However, that isn't the fault of the "system" per se it is the fault of the operators/policies.



Eye In The Sky said:


> CFPAS mandated Initial PDRs, with at least 2 feedback sessions (the PER debrief counting as 1 of those).  How'd THAT go for the CAF?


With the new process, you can literally point to the data and say "I didn't receive proper feedback".  It's only going to take one or two-unit CO's having to deal with a PAR complaint from some fid who wants to be promoted before they crack down on things.

Trust but verify.  The new tracking allows for illumination to be shone on suboptimal processes.  Again it requires people to shine that light, but me as an individual can take more control of my evaluations.  I'm going with glass half full on this one.  The system looks better.  The laziness of the supervisors I can't comment on.


----------



## Navy_Pete (16 Sep 2021)

Underway said:


> Like all managerial or evaluation systems once people get involved there are going to be issues.  However, that isn't the fault of the "system" per se it is the fault of the operators/policies.
> 
> 
> With the new process, you can literally point to the data and say "I didn't receive proper feedback".  It's only going to take one or two-unit CO's having to deal with a PAR complaint from some fid who wants to be promoted before they crack down on things.
> ...


That's not really a change though, if you file a grievance and the CoC can't produce a signed and dated PDR they are hooped. The big difference will be that people can now externally monitor this in year, so definitely the potential for the feedback gestapo report to be implemented. That kind of tracking/reporting is in place for the civilian feedback already, and there are no real promotion implications there, and for most people no performance incentives or anything that it's tied to. Blind obedience to the process, regardless of actual outcome, is real.


----------



## CountDC (1 Oct 2021)

if you file a grievance and the CoC can't produce a signed and dated PDR they are hooped.

According to the grievances on the MGERC site not having a PDR is not a basis for changing a PER.  You better have more to support your case than that if you try to get it through the CDS.   Common term I see is:

"The Board added that the absence of a PDR, in itself, did not justify a modification to the ratings in the PER."

Interestingly enough while looking through a PER redress from Dec 2015 I found this:

"The CDS also reminded the branch in question that any attempt at quality control must not result in scores dictated to supervisors. The CDS observed that this situation is not unique with the branch: there is plenty of evidence from the analysis of PER grievances at the FA level that the maladministration of the CFPAS policy occurs across the CAF. That is one of the reasons why the CAF are working hard to field a new CFPAS."


----------



## coolintheshade (6 Oct 2021)

How to mitigate the 'if deployed' constraint................with no access to MM

For units deployed to the field or operating in environments where DWAN access is not available, Smart Forms will be made available to all users. The PaCE Smart Forms allow users to conduct distributed PaCE evaluations via email only.


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Oct 2021)

How does "DWAN access is not available" and "via email only" work exactly?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Oct 2021)

CountDC said:


> "The CDS also reminded the branch in question that any attempt at quality control must not result in scores dictated to supervisors. The CDS observed that this situation is not unique with the branch: there is plenty of evidence from the analysis of PER grievances at the FA level that the maladministration of the CFPAS policy occurs across the CAF. That is one of the reasons why the CAF are working hard to field a new CFPAS."



SO....CAF  mbrs ignored CFPAS policy....and the same mbr's are going to somehow observe PaCE policy.  FML, how stupid are people...


----------



## Halifax Tar (7 Oct 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> SO....CAF  mbrs ignored CFPAS policy....and the same mbr's are going to somehow observe PaCE policy.  FML, how stupid are people...



Blatant disregarding and the "We don't do it that way" are the biggest attitude culprits I've seen.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (7 Oct 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> SO....CAF  mbrs ignored CFPAS policy....and the same mbr's are going to somehow observe PaCE policy.  FML, how stupid are people...


CFPAS policy, PaCE policy... hell lets look at how we apply our policies IRT Sexual Misconduct, Section 32, 33, 34 of the FAA, Canadian Forces Leave Policy Manual, Canadian Forces Dress Instructions....

All of these aren't worth the paper they're written on, if you're only going to get hit with the "well this is how we do it here..." response gurgled out by someone with more time in than common sense...


----------



## Navy_Pete (7 Oct 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> How does "DWAN access is not available" and "via email only" work exactly?








(I'm really liking this GIF, almost a standard COA now).

I think policy wise you just have to show you are doing regular div notes, so probably should be some kind of common sense allowances for operations and postings. Not sure how you email something in without PKI anyway though as the form with div notes would be PRO B, so for some people the old paper binder version is still probably the best solution.


----------



## Zoomie (9 Oct 2021)

I attended multiple Teams briefs this past week on Manager roles and the mechanics of PaCE.   I didn’t like the comments that we needed to transfer people in and out of their position numbers on MM to reflect their employment during the year.   Deploy on Op Neon for 2 months, send Mbr to dispatch section of MM and get added into reception for Op Neon, then reverse that when he/she comes back.   Every time you change your location on MM, you generate a new log in and default password -I suspect this will get tiresome.


----------



## SupersonicMax (9 Oct 2021)

Zoomie said:


> I attended multiple Teams briefs this past week on Manager roles and the mechanics of PaCE.   I didn’t like the comments that we needed to transfer people in and out of their position numbers on MM to reflect their employment during the year.   Deploy on Op Neon for 2 months, send Mbr to dispatch section of MM and get added into reception for Op Neon, then reverse that when he/she comes back.   Every time you change your location on MM, you generate a new log in and default password -I suspect this will get tiresome.


Ya, I always thought the credentials tied to a position vs an individual was weird and cumbersome….


----------



## dapaterson (9 Oct 2021)

Monitor MASS is a hack made with little business process owner input, and not designed from the ground up with security in mind.


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Oct 2021)

That MM’s bastardized roots are growing into other processes is an example of why the CAF can’t have nice things. Lord knows how crazy it would be to define, specify and develop software IAW ISO/IEC/IEEE Std.12207


----------



## dapaterson (9 Oct 2021)

I recall in the early 2000s, with little to no user access control in place, someone renamed a unit in Shilo "Princess Patricia's Canadian Mechanized Infantry" for fun.

Pro tip: reliable systems have strong access and edit controls.


----------



## Zoomie (9 Oct 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Monitor MASS is a hack made with little business process owner input, and not designed from the ground up with security in mind.


Concur - yet we’ve decided to go ”all-in” using this software?   Readiness, CFTPO, leave and now career.  EMAA is apparently dying soon - to be replaced by MM?


----------



## CountDC (14 Oct 2021)

according to certain members of the monitor mass team it is more secure than PKI.   I would have to disagree with them as while an admin for PKI I could not change security settings, I could only setup and issue the card.   As LACO for MM I could grant any member listed with the unit full access to everyone in the unit.

As for the renamed unit - I would suspect that was a member of the unit or it's higher HQ that was given maximum access rights and probably shouldn't have been.   The issue wasn't necessarily the security of the system, it was the lack of training and understanding of the LACOs.  Many of them would just give anyone full access without realizing what that involved.    Give people only what they need to have.  Sect Comds only need access to their section not the entire area/bde/unit.    

Of course there is also the factor that the person responsible for the name change obviously did something they were not authorized to do and shouldn't have  (but we do like to have fun with new systems).   Reminds me of the new pay system a ways back and a Cpl that became I think General overnight - oops.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Oct 2021)

PaCE sounded good for the first 45 seconds until I read units were still meriting soldiers.  I look forward to having my evaluations of subordinates overruled IAW where the regiment wants to see them.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (14 Oct 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> PaCE sounded good for the first 45 seconds until I read units were still meriting soldiers. I look forward to having my evaluations of subordinates overruled IAW where the regiment wants to see them.


Even if it was removed formally from the process, it still would happen. At least this way, there is an actual regulatory failsafe in place to ensure the unit meriting has a left and right of arc.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Oct 2021)

dapaterson said:


> I recall in the early 2000s, with little to no user access control in place, someone renamed a unit in Shilo "Princess Patricia's Canadian Mechanized Infantry" for fun.
> 
> Pro tip: reliable systems have strong access and edit controls.


Same thing happened by accident in our database, a officer changed every proponents name (15,000 files) to the one he was trying to input. thankfully there was a backup so we only lost a few days work. After that only admin staff were allowed to start a file.


----------



## Underway (27 Jun 2022)

Had a PER and PaCE review at this point.  The Naval Technical Trades are doing both this year as the trial run.  Long post to follow...



So first few comments.  On the Legend you'll see the Performance and Scoring.  It's important to read these.  Basically if you are doing your job properly you should get an Effective (E).  If there are no unusual circumstances, no need to guide others in unusual circumstances, and there are no challenging situations you should be getting an Effective.  HE and EE are reserved for those situations where it has gone severely sideways somehow.  As you can see this also means that a Cpl would get an HE for something that the WO might have seen five times and would get an E for.

This is very important as unless you have an excellent example/justification of how something was out of normal or extremely challenging for a ranking board E is the default for a normally competent member.  The vast majority of rankings should be an E.  All the ranks above E are relatively hard to justify with the new system.

As an example I had a good PER this year, Mastered/Superior for most things.  I had a solidly Effective PAR with a few things that were HE, EE and SE.  My PAR score overall was a 62 (out of 100) but my PER was very high.  My highest section was a 75.   62 is just past the merit listing cutoff of 60.  *It was a shock in comparing the PER vs the PAR*, the PAR forces you to go to the middle scoring.

Next are the different categories. In particular Military Ethos, Credibility and Influence, and Teamwork.  If you look at the subcategories you can see how deep they drill down.  A large number of these are going to be death for some jackasses who pretend to be leaders (Accepts responsibility, Art of Influence, Courage).  Also for something like Courage it won't be demonstratable in many positions or even work environments.

The member posted to Ottawa doing their normal job with no subordinates and pushing paper from one side to another will have an E-based PAR.


Few interesting things here. Recognition which is a category about rewarding subordinates, Initiative is evaluated twice, once about encouraging subordinates to take initiative and the second time to take individual initiative.   The focus on subordinates is very prevalent all through the PAR.  Reward the behaviour you want to see, and it appears the CAF wants to reward helping subordinates be their best.


Ethical Reasoning is a category that is great as is Interpersonal Relations.  Trust is a subcategory within Interpersonal Relations.  I'd love to see how a supervisor is going to evaluate that properly.  Should prove a challenge unless they speak to that individuals subordinates themselves.

Environmental Stress Reduction is an interesting one, buffering the stress from your subordinates is something that used to be called "No Leadership by default" which was telling your subordinates that the CO wants it done so do it, vs telling them to do it using your own leadership instead (so you don't look like the bad guy).  Also the sharing of stress resources is an interesting addition with Stress Education.  Again the focus on subordinates and the team.
Developing Self is a nice change.  No more random "I took a course on basket weaving" for a few points.  Now whatever you do to improve yourself professionally has an impact properly, as well as your ability to deal with feedback and improve.


Final cut and pastes are here.  Dealing with change in particular "Recognizes when change is not required and where possible ceases unnecessary change initiatives" is quite frankly opposite of the PER.  Sometimes change isn't required.  This is balanced by the other categories here where dealing with change and implementing change is important.

So there is the PAR section on Performance. I'll post later on Potential but that should be enough to get the convo going.

Overall I think this is good.  There is quite a bit of "reward the behaviour you want to see" in here.  Its far less self-focused and very much organization, team, and subordinate-focused.  If you help your subordinates succeed in achieving the mission you will have a good PAR. There will also be quite a few Not Observed in PAR's going forward.  Not everyone will have the opportunity to display everything on these lists.  It will heavily reward positions that have subordinates, or are on operations.

Lastly I would recommend that as an individual use the Notes function heavily in PaCE.  Keeep a journal of your day to day activities and add Notes into PaCE weekly, tie them into the subcategories so that it makes things easy for your supervisior. There was a lot of stuff that I did day to day to help out people in the office, co-workers of different ranks to deal with stress, coaching (how to do technical writing for CPO's for example), and personal development they my supervisor had no idea I did because... well why would I?  It didn't matter much under the PER but it really matters under PAR.


----------



## Navy_Pete (27 Jun 2022)

I noticed the same thing with the PAR; going to be difficult/impossible for a lot of jobs to observe some of these points, and is actually a lot more work for the supervisor to fill out than the old PERs.

The actual pilot for it is a bit of a mess though; the review process was really unclear and all the notes throughout the year didn't transfer over to the PAR module. May be a button problem, but if I can't easily figure it out after doing the training modules and having 20 + years of computing experience (including some basic programming/GUI design) then I would submit it's a MM issue for being counter-intuitive (with crappy small button icons).

I did like that it starts with everything scored E, but there are a lot of individual items to address with very little room to put comments on. Suspect the bun tosses will be a bit more of a challenge to figure out how to rank people that all have basically the same score.

One observation is that this will really drive the type of job impacting the scoring, so will in someways disadvantage people working in support roles compared to peers doing direct operational jobs. Usually folks were getting streamed into those jobs anyway by the trade mafia, but now going to be potentially a significant disadvantage.

Don't really personnaly care about that, but if they thought they had trouble getting people to Ottawa before, that is an extra impediment for the careerist types. Found that knowing who is who in ADM(Mat) was great when I went back to the ships and needed LCMM support, and also understood the processes so I could feed them what they need to get things done (HPRs, UCRs etc).


----------



## Underway (27 Jun 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I did like that it starts with everything scored E, but there are a lot of individual items to address with very little room to put comments on. Suspect the bun tosses will be a bit more of a challenge to figure out how to rank people that all have basically the same score.


There is zero need or requirement for a bun toss. I'm not sure what you would even fight over as there is no ranking against your peers from the same unit thus there isn't any need to worry about interdepartmental "best MS from the unit" or such. The points are the points as far as I can tell.  You fill out the points and if they meet the cutoff of 60 they go for Potential review.  If they all have the same score then they all have the same score, it doesn't matter.  The PAR's are supposed to almost all have the same score, that's why the cutoff for further review is 60.

My Potential was ranked using a group of three who are two ranks above (min).  For me it was two Cdrs and a civilian equivalent (Adm (Mat) so it makes sense).  Because it's a committee that includes someone in your CoC and two from outside.  On a ship that would probably be two CO's and someone (honest broker) from ashore.  So the "bun toss" would happen there.  I'm not sure what information that the board has, but if your PaCE notes are filled out that can't hurt.


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Jun 2022)

Just came across this and thought it relevant, if probably slightly unhelpful 


More Harm Than Good: The Truth About Performance Reviews​
If performance feedback only occurs a few times a year, it's unlikely to be meaningful.

In contrast, when formal progress reviews are accompanied by frequent, honest feedback -- and the review is consistent with what you've heard all year -- they can be affirming, motivating and, at the very least, much less awkward.

Gallup has found that when managers provide weekly (vs. annual) feedback, team members are:


5.2x more likely to strongly agree that _they receive_ _meaningful feedback_
3.2x more likely to strongly agree _they are_ _motivated to do outstanding work_
2.7x more likely to be _engaged at work_
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/238064/re-engineering-performance-management.aspx
Needless to say, the best performance management systems encourage frequent, meaningful manager-employee conversations.

And there's also a cultural aspect as well -- performance management systems work best within a culture of honest feedback, where teams have a shared definition of excellence, and with leaders who model what makes a great manager.

Frequent, honest conversations also open the possibility for what Kim Scott calls "radical candor," the ability to address uncomfortable truths.

When managers are unable to have frank conversations with their team members, the result is unhappy employees (who aren't a good fit for their role) don't move on. They continue to receive false praise and encouragement, when the best thing -- for them and for the team -- would be to make a change or find a better role.
*What role should your managers and the performance management system really play?*​The best managers in the world are architects of effective coaching conversations. They create moments where genuine dialogue can occur, where employees feel their opinions matter and like they are cared about in a unique way. In addition, great managers:

Create a continual learning environment that encourages employees to openly collaborate.
Aren't held captive by their performance management system, tools and metrics.
Listen and focus on a level of individualized development that can only be achieved by deep familiarity with employees' strengths and aspirations.
_No evaluation system can create great managers and engage employees on its own_.

Performance evaluations are an imperfect tool that only captures snippets of information. They communicate what is and is not important for employees to do -- for better or worse.

But performance evaluations can also paint a well-rounded picture of contributions, opportunities for improvement and plans for what's next.

In other words, they lay the foundation for a great conversation.









						More Harm Than Good: The Truth About Performance Reviews
					

Discover the four essential truths about performance reviews based on Robert Sutton's and Gallup's research.




					www.gallup.com


----------



## TacticalTea (27 Jun 2022)

Underway said:


> Had a PER and PaCE review at this point.  The Naval Technical Trades are doing both this year as the trial run.  Long post to follow...
> 
> View attachment 71654
> 
> ...


Whoever wrote that deserves a BZ.

This is leaps and bounds ahead of the PER. It also gives clear instructions to the assessed member as to what sort of leadership the CAF wants to see, which can help guide their behaviour. 

Whereas the PER seemed more like some sort of gimmick, this PAR reads like the people in charge actually care about the results.

It definitely better aligns with how I personally view leadership and my job as an officer, so perhaps there is some self-interested bias in my perception of this new system.  

Concur with your comments on the difficulty to assess; 2-down interviews by the assessor, and diligent notetaking by the assessed will be crucial.


----------



## Underway (27 Jun 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> Whoever wrote that deserves a BZ.
> 
> This is leaps and bounds ahead of the PER. It also gives clear instructions to the assessed member as to what sort of leadership the CAF wants to see, which can help guide their behaviour.
> 
> ...


I really like it, it's a massive breath of fresh air.  @Navy_Pete is not wrong in that it's more work for supervisors.  I'm planning to be entering notes myself and riding my PO's/MS to take good Div notes as well and enter them.  For two reasons.  First is that it helps the member well ahead of time to correct deficiencies and see how their CoC views them, second is that it reflects well on the PO's and MS PAR who are taking an interest in developing their subordinates and doing the proper admin for them. 

We'll see if that plan survives contact with the enemy, but its a worthwhile goal I think  (Something for the Personal and Resources Management Section   )


----------



## Navy_Pete (27 Jun 2022)

Underway said:


> There is zero need or requirement for a bun toss. I'm not sure what you would even fight over as there is no ranking against your peers from the same unit thus there isn't any need to worry about interdepartmental "best MS from the unit" or such. The points are the points as far as I can tell.  You fill out the points and if they meet the cutoff of 60 they go for Potential review.  If they all have the same score then they all have the same score, it doesn't matter.  The PAR's are supposed to almost all have the same score, that's why the cutoff for further review is 60.
> 
> My Potential was ranked using a group of three who are two ranks above (min).  For me it was two Cdrs and a civilian equivalent (Adm (Mat) so it makes sense).  Because it's a committee that includes someone in your CoC and two from outside.  On a ship that would probably be two CO's and someone (honest broker) from ashore.  So the "bun toss" would happen there.  I'm not sure what information that the board has, but if your PaCE notes are filled out that can't hurt.


At some point the PARs will feed into a promotion board, which is where the comments are going to be critical. If you have 3 people with and average score between 65-66 (or whatever) that's probably within the normal margin of variation where it's effectively the same, so how do you decide who is further up on the promotion ranking?

I think the PAR skeleton and intentions are great; I think we far too often don't give supervisors sufficient time and bandwidth to do it properly. If someone is supposed to be doing it for 3 people, but is actually doing it for 10 while acting in the job above them, at least the PER system allowed you to 'cram' at mid year and end of year to do the PDR/PER. WIth the reliance on PAR notes it's really more effective to do continuously, as long as MM is working. At least this way people can put in their own notes for supervisors and vice versa.

And because we're awesome, the CAF is more likely to kick someone in the sweets for not doing the ongoing divisional work, vice recognizing that they are massively overwhelmed and can't keep up to the workload, and addressing that.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Jun 2022)

Underway said:


> Lastly I would recommend that as an individual use the Notes function heavily in PaCE.  Keeep a journal of your day to day activities and add Notes into PaCE weekly, tie them into the subcategories so that it makes things easy for your supervisior. There was a lot of stuff that I did day to day to help out people in the office, co-workers of different ranks to deal with stress, coaching (how to do technical writing for CPO's for example), and personal development they my supervisor had no idea I did because... well why would I?  It didn't matter much under the PER but it really matters under PAR.



I know the Navy loves Div Notes (to the point they are beyond over-used) but weekly FN might be too much.   I’ve done monthly FNs so far and keep a notes/etc on things I do outside of my expected tasks (my JD and TOAs).  

In bigger sub-unit, the boss will be overwhelmed with FNs if everyone is submitting weekly ones.  I can see the navy going that way because “Div Notes”…thankfully the Trent where I am at is Monthly or Quarterly.


----------



## Underway (27 Jun 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I know the Navy loves Div Notes (to the point they are beyond over-used) but weekly FN might be too much.   I’ve done monthly FNs so far and keep a notes/etc on things I do outside of my expected tasks (my JD and TOAs).
> 
> In bigger sub-unit, the boss will be overwhelmed with FNs if everyone is submitting weekly ones.  I can see the navy going that way because “Div Notes”…thankfully the Trent where I am at is Monthly or Quarterly.


Navy talks a good talk about Div notes, but really doesn't actually do them very well.  I've never ever been presented with a good set of div notes by my superior without the CO having to do div note inspections beforehand.

I see what you're saying though.  PaCE process itself recommends minimum quarterly note entry.  I put a reminder in my calendar but monthly seems more bite-sized and less likely to cause issues.
For myself, I would probably keep track on a notepad and do a single data entry once a month with the highlights.


----------



## Weinie (27 Jun 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I know the Navy loves Div Notes (to the point they are beyond over-used) but weekly FN might be too much.   I’ve done monthly FNs so far and keep a notes/etc on things I do outside of my expected tasks (my JD and TOAs).
> 
> In bigger sub-unit, the boss will be overwhelmed with FNs if everyone is submitting weekly ones.  I can see the navy going that way because “Div Notes”…thankfully the Trent where I am at is Monthly or Quarterly.





Underway said:


> Navy talks a good talk about Div notes, but really doesn't actually do them very well.  I've never ever been presented with a good set of div notes by my superior without the CO having to do div note inspections beforehand.
> 
> I see what you're saying though.  PaCE process itself recommends minimum quarterly note entry.  I put a reminder in my calendar but monthly seems more bite-sized and less likely to cause issues.
> *For myself, I would probably keep track on a notepad and do a single data entry once a month with the highlights.*


@Underway,

Noble ambition, and certainly in keeping with CAF "being better." I tried to keep a reasonable feedback loop with my subordinates, It got hi-jacked/subjugated to the churn that is a HQ/reality. Something about Ops/personnel balance that will never resolve. Good luck.


----------



## Underway (27 Jun 2022)

Weinie said:


> @Underway,
> 
> Noble ambition, and certainly in keeping with CAF "being better." I tried to keep a reasonable feedback loop with my subordinates, It got hi-jacked/subjugated to the churn that is a HQ/reality. Something about Ops/personnel balance that will never resolve. Good luck.


Got to set goals, even if you fail to achieve them.  It says so right on the PAR.... lol  But it's an open discussion like you say with your subordinates.


----------



## Navy_Pete (27 Jun 2022)

I think this would be a lot easier with an offline version of MM; usually logging in and connecting to the server is the biggest time suck part of that.

No idea how that will work at sea, in the field, or in a 5 star hotel.

Suspect a lot of people will just keep a PKI doc as per before and occasionally do an occasional upload, and others will just write the PARs off the top of their head.

I've got to say the last time I actually got a PDR was probably a decade ago, but generally was getting continuous feedback so wasn't really an issue. Similar to @Underway, have good intentions of doing regular div notes, and try and schedule 15-30 minutes every two weeks to do a few quick entries, but reality is I'm more likely to just do it on occasion when I'm in to approve a leave pass or something anyway.

If I only have 15 minutes, would prefer to just provide direct feedback to my subordinates, but not great for traceability or rankings if someone is expecting to be able to dig into the PAR and see more than the score at a board.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Jun 2022)

My current Sqn, the intent seems to be a good JD will result in less need for highly detailed FNs; if I am doing my job and well and those duties are covered in my JD, I believe I can forego stating “did expected duties” for everything.  It’s the above and beyond the JD that gets the details.  Writing the FN, I am trying to do “action/result” brevity similar to a PER Part 4.  

Time and inputs from user will make it all better and develop the SOPs/best practices (I hope).

Negative note - my trade has been part of the trial since the get go; I am going to receive my first JD this month, and I’ve only received one FN for time spent in an Acting role.  It’s not all going as intended.  🧐


----------



## rmc_wannabe (27 Jun 2022)

Our JDs still haven't been fleshed out, so it's been hell trying to ensure things being added are applicable for a PAR. 

It's also great being asked by gaining units for Posting PDRs, having to tell a Unit Adjt to just look at their PaCE module for the FN, and still being told to do up a Posting PDR because "we don't know how this works yet so...status quo."

It's a good system, until people get involved.


----------



## TacticalTea (27 Jun 2022)

Underway said:


> I really like it, it's a massive breath of fresh air.  @Navy_Pete is not wrong in that it's more work for supervisors.  I'm planning to be entering notes myself and riding my PO's/MS to take good Div notes as well and enter them.  For two reasons.  First is that it helps the member well ahead of time to correct deficiencies and see how their CoC views them, second is that it reflects well on the PO's and MS PAR who are taking an interest in developing their subordinates and doing the proper admin for them.
> 
> We'll see if that plan survives contact with the enemy, but its a worthwhile goal I think  (Something for the Personal and Resources Management Section   )


Supervisors don't take enough div notes in the first place.

It's for the best if there's more pressure to do so.

My experience wrt to this has certainly been closer to yours than @Eye In The Sky 's


Navy_Pete said:


> I think this would be a lot easier with an offline version of MM; usually logging in and connecting to the server is the biggest time suck part of that.


That does indeed seem like a massive chokepoint. Hand it to the CAF to make something great into yet another boring, tedious and terribly inefficient undertaking...


----------



## rmc_wannabe (28 Jun 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> Navy_Pete said:
> 
> 
> > I think this would be a lot easier with an offline version of MM; usually logging in and connecting to the server is the biggest time suck part of that.
> ...



This is both the risk and reward of using an online, SQL database software. You lose a lot of the "offline" flexibility in favour of centralized availability.

I agree MM is a bit of a bandwidth hog, but I praise the hell out of it every time someone reminds me of stripping out shadow files, UERs, and having to print out a new version of an MPRR off EMAA.

The FNs have a great feature in which you can attach files to them. If Bloggins does great on exercise and you can't connect, throw it into a Word document and attach it once you're online. I have done this with LoAs, BZ Emails, hell even a PDF certificate for a non-DLN course.

Soldiers, sailors, and hotel dwellers hate 2 things: change and the status quo. There will be growing pains, but this system is a lot more user and supervisor friendly than CFPAS ever was.


----------



## Underway (28 Jun 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> but I praise the hell out of it every time someone reminds me of stripping out shadow files, UERs, and having to print out a new version of an MPRR off EMAA.


Completely agree.  Don't need to have the member fill out yet another random irritant document (silver cross or whatever) because it's all in their MM, just tell them to ensure it's up to date. Among other things.


----------



## Navy_Pete (28 Jun 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> This is both the risk and reward of using an online, SQL database software. You lose a lot of the "offline" flexibility in favour of centralized availability.
> 
> I agree MM is a bit of a bandwidth hog, but I praise the hell out of it every time someone reminds me of stripping out shadow files, UERs, and having to print out a new version of an MPRR off EMAA.
> 
> ...


I found CFPAS pretty user friendly for what it was, and the recent change to doing all the PERs via email was pretty easy. If they let us sign it electronically would save a whole lot more time as well and would be less LOE than what we experienced with the PARs.

With MM I find it's becoming the default tool for a lot of things that it does okay, but really not great. The workflows are counterintuitive, the buttons don't look great and the layouts are a pain in the ass on a 15" screen.

Some of the issues are also with the system; our PERMON board wanted us to provide MPRRS from EMMA, PDRs part 3/4s and personal learning plans (PLPs). Find the MM MPRR much more useable and easier to read so that was annoying, and the other parts have nothing to do with the PER/PAR itself. Going forward not sure what they are going to want next year, but the pilot on PARs hasn't been great in terms of having any real understanding of the unit requirements and figuring out the permissions. 

Sure a lot of that is growing pains, but aside from getting told to take the DLN course wasn't really any further direction provided, so was a lot of clicking things to see if the instructions actually worked (sometimes they didn't).

Lot easier to not resist change when you have time to do things properly; when already doing a few jobs and don't have time for routine tasks getting a new IT system and process dumped on you isn't great. Sure that will figure it out, but personally found it took 2-3 hours plus some trial and error to get the PAR drafted, where the PER took about 45 minutes then some edits. Imagine will eventually be able to process the PARs faster, but that kind of time demand isn't insignificant once it scales up outside the pilot, and not typically given extra time etc to get it done.


----------

