• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

PaCE : Performance Appraisal and Competency system

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
426
Points
1,010
A little bit of thread necromancy here.

Finished the PaCE training online. I'm quite happy with how it looks. Some of my highlights:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

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.
 

TCM621

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
147
Points
430
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?
 

kev994

Full Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
97
Points
360
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

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
573
Points
1,010
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

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
426
Points
1,010
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

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
172
Points
710
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

Full Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
97
Points
360
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

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
172
Points
710
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

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
573
Points
1,010
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.

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

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
426
Points
1,010
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.

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.
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.
 
Top