Submission to the APS Hierarchy and Classification Review Discussion Paper, 7 May 2021

I wish to make an individual submission to the Discussion Paper. My background is as a civilian engineer (naval architect) within the Department of Defence for the past 35 years specialising in submarines.

My primary wish is for the review to consider not only the optimal workforce management structure but also the optimal professional workforce structure to best inform decision making and to best support agency accountability and responsibility to the Australian Public both now and into the future.

This cannot be achieved with a common APS-wide classification system and any new approach needs to allow for differentiation depending, on not only agency size and role, but also the special roles, responsibilities and accountabilities within the various job families and occupations.

The ability to attract and retain specialist knowledge within my particular occupation and specialisation within the APS has been greatly hampered by the application of universal management aligned classifications instead of occupational skill aligned classifications. The general failure to support the APS workforce over the past 20 to 30 years has resulted in an extreme level of outsourcing of critical agency advice support, governance and assurance related functions from the APS specialist workforce to the corporate sector.

There is strong need to manage, sustain and build on the remaining breadth and depth of critical knowledge that is held within the APS workforce. Any workforce structure must support staff growth and development and the support knowledge retention within their job family. Maintaining contextualised knowledge is core to maintaining an effective APS.

Whilst some reviews of the 2010s may have cautioned against separate streams for specialist roles, in my experience the resulting specialist knowledge loss over the past 10 years has far outweighed any possible benefit gained in workforce flexibility.

My specific comments against the listed questions are as follows:

Do you agree with the 2019 Independent Review of the APS assessment that APS classification structures are too hierarchical, impede innovation and agile decision making. If so why? If not, why?

In my experience, it is not the classification structures that are too hierarchical, it is the continued misplaced desire for a traditional hierarchical structure that is the problem. The incomprehensible desire for classification level and management levels to be always fully aligned has continually resulted in poor organisational design. The Navy Engineering APS workforce has been subjected to ongoing deskilling and specialist knowledge loss through the misapplication of management span-of-control guidance to engineering skill levels. It is therefore my view that it is not the classification structures that impede innovation and agile decision making, it is their application.

How can APS classification structures help the APS to operate more effectively as one enterprise?

The Public Service enterprise effectiveness can be improved by supporting, through classification structures, not only the broad generalist streams but also the deep specialist streams.

Flat non-hierarchical structures tend to stifle career progression in the specialist streams. Navy Engineering recently created a draft organisational model with EL1 and EL2 as managers and directors and with engineering work being conducted at the levels APS6 and below. This would have resulted in specialist engineers only being able to progress to Engineer Level 2 (APS6). Mature specialist engineering knowledge at Levels 3, 4 and 5 will no longer have been be available within the APS Navy Engineering workforce under this model.

Additionally, the effectiveness of the APS cannot be assessed through the lens of the APS workforce and APS classification structure alone. Any public service enterprise needs a mix of specialists and generalists across all job families and also across the APS and non-APS workforce within that enterprise.

Our current classification structure allows for differentiation depending on agency size and role, along with work type and geographic location. Can the APS continue to accommodate a common APS-wide classification system?

Whilst a common APS-wide classification system may support at-level transfers, it does nothing to grow and maintain skills within any job family or any agency. The main outcome I see from a common APS-wide classification system is continued deskilling of the APS and the minimisation of deep knowledge building and its retention.

To what extent do you think of your role in terms of your classification, and how does that affect your work?

I do not think of my role in terms of my classification. I am classified as an EL2 engineering professional which reflects the level of my specialist skill, not my management level within the organisation. This enables me to devote my skill to engineering rather than day to day management, however I am now unique within my organisation with the other EL2s being moved to engineering management positions.

Do you or does your agency identify people more closely with job titles or classification level?

Within Defence, job titles inform the APS job roles more so than classification level. APS Classification level is therefore not an important factor apart from setting level of responsibility and authority, however Defence is traditionally hierarchical and classification level do tends to be more important within the ADF.

In assembling teams do you think managers ask first “what level of person do we need?” or “what skills do we need”? How could we change things so skills and knowledge come first?

In my experience, managers always consider the skill and knowledge required for an engineering or technical role and always considers whether an applicant or team member meets the baseline needs for that role or position. The level of a person only provides a guide to the potential skill and knowledge of that person as it relates to their broad job family.

The APS response to COVID-19 and ongoing efforts to support economic recovery accelerated change across the APS and many reported a flattening of structures and increased delegations as part of the response. Was this your experience, and are there any lessons we should bear in mind when thinking about APS structures?

I witnessed no change in delegations or structure flatting due to COVID. We did undergo Organisational Change that was initially designed using strictly hierarchical spans of control during lockdown. The biggest lesson learnt is the need to engage properly with those impacted by change, and be ready for the business consequences if the change is not designed and managed well.

How can the APS classification structure best support the attraction and development of technical and specialist skills, for example data, digital and cyber expertise?

Those areas needing technical and specialist skills usually need to grow these internally to gain maximum value. Workers are not suitably qualified and experienced (SQEP) without direct experience with the product and/or technology they have been employed to support. Previous experience only helps to shorten the time needed to become SQEP and it must be relevant experience.

There are currently significant shortages of deep specialists and there has been no ability to grow those deep specialists that are approaching retirement, or that may be poached by industry, due to government mandated APS workforce limits.

There is a need to treat management span-of-control classifications differently from specialist skill classifications.

How can we better empower more junior employees and ensure that decision-making and responsibility is delegated to the lowest possible level in the hierarchy?

Baseline education only delivers entry level skill to our junior APS employees. It is important that classification structures are not used to arbitrarily force decision-making and responsibility to junior levels. Management accountability cannot be delegated and forcing decision making so that it is outside an employee’s competence is not ‘empowerment’.

How can we streamline decision-making to improve efficiency and timeliness?

Efficiency and timely decision-making is underpinned by access to contextualised expert knowledge and advice. An APS classification structure that hampers and restricts the delivery of timely accurate advice, along with the inability to create and fill positions with SQEP can also have a significant impact.

If you were responsible for updating the classification framework (or other elements of APS hierarchy), what would you change? And how?

The APS workforce job families are extremely diverse covering many deep specialisations and the workforce across the board requires to be SQEP. Education and training only provides the ‘qualified’ component not the ‘experienced’ component.

The Classification framework needs to support the development of deep specialist skills within the job families, not just the general occupational skills.

APS classifications should be clearly aligned with a recognised job coding system, such as ANZSCO job codes, and job family classification needs to be consistent with the applicable professional grading system for that job family. An accurate taxonomy of skills within job families is needed to actually identify if skills gaps are occurring.

Since succession planning within the APS is near impossible, there is no active career management outside of graduate programs. There is therefore no defined APS knowledge transfer process, which increases the probability of insufficient knowledge transfer and unmanaged gaps. The new classification structure needs to support the development and retention of workers with special knowledge and skill.

Deeply specialised knowledge and skills take significant time to build and competition from industry for newly SQEP APS employees, particularly from that part of industry duplicating the APS functions as contractors, needs to be considered. Within engineering, the lack of specialist skills and/or experience is a common reason for unfilled APS vacancies.

The ability of the APS to provide effective service can only further diminish if the current de-skilling pressures are not addressed. Classification framework changes could either hide this de-skilling or help reverse it.

Garry Duck

7 June 2021