|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 214
9 Conclusions
and
Recommendations
The charge to the Committee on Occupational Classification and Analysis
is to review the need for continuing the occupational analysis program of
the U.S. Employment Service and its principal product, the Dictionary of
Occupational Titles. The committee was asked to consider in executing this
charge both the requirements of Employment Service operations and those
of other users, public and private, for the kind of information provided.
The preceding chapters have presented the evidence on which we base our
conclusions and recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS
In terms of the charge, our conclusions are the following:
1. There is a strong and continuing need both within and outside the U.S.
Employment Service for the kind of information provided by the
Dictionary of Occupational Titles and certain other products based on
it.
2. Substantial improvements in the procedures and products of the
occupational analysis program are required in order to meet the national
need for occupational information.
214
OCR for page 215
Conclusions and Recommendations
215
Conclusion 1, the continuing need for a document that provides
occupational information, takes into account three functions of the DOT: as
a dictionary, as a classification system, and as a source of material on
occupational characteristics.
DICTIONARY
The DOT is first and foremost a dictionary, which defines more than 12,000
occupations through descriptions of their work content and cross-refer-
ences an additional 16,000 occupational titles to these 12,000 defined
occupations. As such it provides a common understanding as to what is
meant when a particular occupational title is used; it is by far the most
comprehensive source of occupational definitions available in the United
States.
This aspect of the DOT is of very great importance to a wide variety of
users, as chapter 4 details. We believe that there would be almost
unanimous agreement that such a document, providing a standardized
terminology and standardized definitions of that terminology, is essential.
Is it, however, specifically essential to the Employment Service's goals- its
placement and counseling operation?
We believe that it is. Some proponents of the matching of jobs and
applicants by computer have suggested that keywording obviates the
necessity for defined titles, since descriptions of a particular job and of a
particular worker's attributes can be entered directly into the computer
matching system without the intervening mechanism of a title. Such a
conclusion seems to us unrealistic because it fails to recognize the role that
the occupational title plays in everyday language and in the labor market.
The occupational title is shorthand (or, perhaps better, "short talky. An
employer placing a job order for a Computer Programmer does not expect
to describe what a programmer does but only the particular requirements,
within the general category of programmer, for a particular job. An
applicant with experience as a Lumber Scaler is certainly better served if
the placement interviewer knows or can find in the dictionary what a
lumber scaler does, because local terminology may vary and because the
interviewer may then be able to suggest other occupations that make use of
similar skills.
For this reason, then, a document that defines terms is essential to the
Employment Service's operation; some mechanism for constantly revising
such a document must be maintained as new terminology comes into use
and new activities arise.
OCR for page 216
216
CLASSIFICATION
WORK, JOBS, AND OCCUPATIONS
The basic purpose of the classification structure of the DOT iS to organize
occupational titles and definitions in an order that facilitates the matching
of job applicants and jobs, by grouping together jobs and occupations that
are relatively interchangeable in terms of the requirements they make of a
worker. In the terminology of the occupational analysis program an
individual worker holds a position; the set of positions in which workers
perform essentially the same activities within a particular establishment is
called a job; and the set of jobs in which similar activities are performed
across a number of establishments is called an occupation. Jobs are known
by many names, and hence a procedure is needed to group together similar
jobs with different titles. The 12,099 occupations defined in the fourth
edition DOT constitute a classification of a much larger number of jobs
those held by some 100 million workers in the American labor force.
If all job applicants knew exactly what jobs they were qualified and
willing to perform, the classification structure of the DOT could be
restricted to grouping job titles into occupational categories. However,
many workers are in fact able to do different kinds of work. To optimize
their employment opportunities, a classification structure is needed that
links together all the occupations in which a worker with particular skills
and qualifications might reasonably be employed. To serve as an effective
job placement tool then, the DOT must be organized in such a way. In
addition, the DOT classification should also be compatible with other
widely used classifications to facilitate the reporting and comparison of
occupational statistics.
OCCUPATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Closely related to the classification system are the attributes of occupations
and of workers that the Employment Service calls worker functions and
worker traits. These attributes provide information on such items as
training time, working conditions, physical effort, etc. As chapters 3 and 4
detail, this information is used for many purposes, including vocational
guidance, job placement, rehabilitation counseling, and the determination
of program eligibility for training funds. Moreover, it is clear that the
worker functions and worker traits would be even more widely used if
these data were more readily available and if additional characteristics
were measured.
In sum, the DOT serves as the major source of occupational data
currently available and would be sorely missed if it were discontinued. The
need for the kind of information that is contained in the DOT iS confirmed
OCR for page 217
Conclusions and Recommendations
217
by the extent of its distribution. Over its 13-year life (1965-1977), 148,145
copies of the third edition DOT were sold by the U.S. Government Printing
Office, and in the first 21 months of availability (through September 1979),
1 15,1 15 copies of the fourth edition DOT have been sold.
Evidence for conclusion 2 that substantial improvements are needed in
the occupational analysis program is found throughout the report:
chapter 4 identifies the kind of occupational information that is needed but
not currently available; chapter 5 identifies various organizational
difficulties in the program; chapters 6 and 7 evaluate the procedures used
to collect the occupational information contained in the DOT as well as its
quality; and chapter 8 assesses the classification structure of the DOT from
the standpoint of its usefulness in matching workers and jobs. The material
presented in these chapters leads the committee to conclude that data
collection procedures are deficient in important respects, particularly in
the way in which occupations are selected for observation and analysis and
in the way in which worker trait and worker function ratings are
measured. Furthermore, the current classification structure of the DOT
does not appear to be optimal for the purpose of matching jobs and
workers, nor does the proposed keyword system appear to be an adequate
substitute.
Our conclusions that there is a strong need both to continue and to
improve the DOT lead us to 3 general recommendations intended to
strengthen the occupational analysis program and to 19 specific recom-
mendations intended to improve the quality of the DOT and, more
generally, to facilitate the development of occupational information of
high quality.
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The occupational analysis program should concentrate its efforts on the
fundamental activity of job analysis and on research and development
strategies for improving procedures, monitoring changes in job content,
and identifying new occupations that are associated with the production
and continuous updating of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. The
program should discontinue the publication of career guides.
In the judgment of the committee, too much of the energy and resources of
occupational analysis staff, both in the national office and the field centers,
has been diverted from the central mission of the occupational analysis
program: the production of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (see
chapter 5~. Primary attention should be devoted to research designed to
improve the quality of occupational data, the management and execution
OCR for page 218
218
WORK, JOBS, AND OCCUPATIONS
of the very complex data collection effort, and the preparation of
supplements to and new editions of the DOT. Other appropriate tasks-
insofar as they do not distract from the main task include the
preparation of special reports for other agencies based on DOT data and
training and technical assistance on the use of the DOT.
The production of career guides and brochures should not be continued
as a function of the occupational analysis program. Such activities should
be the responsibility of other agencies currently engaged in this type of
information dissemination. At the national level the products of the
occupational outlook program of the Bureau of Labor Statistics are widely
used; at the state and local level the recently organized career information
services program, with its links to vocational education and other relevant
state systems, provides information to state residents on employment
opportunities available in their own localities. Both organizations are
dependent on data gathered by the occupational analysis program, and
strong communication channels among these agencies are essential. The
division of labor between data gatherers and those charged with
disseminating information to the public is a rational one, however, which
will lead to better use of the quite different specialized skills called for in
each of these responsibilities.
Similarly, the Job Search Branch of the Division of Occupational
Analysis should be relocated. The Job Search Branch is an effective unit,
but it relies on information furnished by local Employment Service offices
and has no particular connection to the major activities of the occupation-
al analysis program. Moreover, its presence in the Division of Occupation-
al Analysis may distract resources from the occupational analysis activities
that should be the primary concern of the division.
2. A permanent, professional research unit of high quality should be
established to conduct technical studies designed to improve the quality
of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles as well as basic research
designed to improve understanding of the organization of work in the
United States.
A number of the recommendations below relate to research needed in
specific areas in order to strengthen the occupational analysis program. In
our judgment, however, the gravest difficulty lies not in specific areas but
in the general lack of a research orientation. The early editions of the
Dictionary of Occupational Titles were at the forefront of the occupational
analysis of their time. For later editions this is no longer true: the program
has been allowed to stagnate. It will not become a vital force again unless
the importance of quality research, well integrated into the academic
OCR for page 219
Conclusions and Recommendations
219
disciplines providing the basic foundations for occupational analysis, is
recognized.)
While the committee is not prepared to make detailed recommendations
regarding the location of a research units or the exact size of its staff, we
have firm opinions regarding the considerations that should be kept in
mind in developing such a unit. First, we envision a unit with a relatively
large, high-level stab, of the order of 10 Ph.D.-level scientists (sociologists,
economists, psychologists, and statisticians), perhaps an equal number of
B.A.- or M.A.-level research assistants, and a sufficient number of support
staff. We thus envision a research unit that is larger than the current
Occupational Analysis Branch in the national office of the Division of
Occupational Analysis. We recognize that this is a period of budgetary
restraint, but we would be derelict in our responsibiity if we did not
express our strong conviction regarding what is needed for a viable federal
occupational analysis program simply because of current (and perhaps
short-run) budgetary limitations.
3. An outside advisory committee to the occupational analysis program
should be established. Its members should be appointed by the Assistant
Secretary ofLaborfor Employment and Training.
This outside advisory committee should include representatives of employ-
ers and of unions familiar with the problems of occupational classification
and placement, persons from relevant academic disciplines, and members
of the public. It should meet periodically, perhaps twice a year, to receive
and review reports on the work of the occupational analysis program and
to make recommendations on future activities.3
Four considerations underlie this recommendation:
iA good example of a successful research capability within an operating agency is to be found
in the Bureau of the Census. High-quality technical studies are produced by the Census
Bureau on a continuing basis; staff regard themselves as professional social scientists and
statisticians, have close ties with their academic disciplines, regularly attend professional
meetings, and are frequently drawn from or move to academic positions.
2The committee spent some time discussing alternative organizational arrangements, ranging
from the establishment of a new unit within the Division of Occupational Analysis to the
creation of an entirely independent occupational research institute within the federal
government but outside the Department of Labor. In the end, however, we decided that we
did not have the necessary organizational knowledge to advise on the optimal mechanism for
creating an occupational research capability, although we are firm in our judgment as to its
necessity.
3Again, the Census Bureau provides a good example. The Advisory Committee on
Population Statistics, which meets twice a year, plays an active role in recommending and
reviewing procedures. Its members are drawn from representatives from the Population
Association of America and other interested groups.
OCR for page 220
220
WORK, JOBS, AND OCCUPATIONS
We believe that the periodic reporting to an informed outside advisory
committee would have a salutary effect on the planning and organizational
efficiency of the national office of the Division of Occupational Analysis or
any successor unit.
Such an advisory committee would help to prevent the research that is
essential to the program from becoming swamped by the exigencies of
operational considerations in an agency (the U.S. Employment Service)
whose primary focus is operational. It is our impression that the needs of
the occupational analysis program for adequate staff, in particular in the
national office, have not received sufficient attention in the past. An
outside advisory committee would strengthen the position of the program
by providing it with a constituency.
In our view, the occupational analysis program has not been successful
in communicating its goals or its problems to those groups standing to
benefit most from its activities. A public advisor committee would
provide some liaison to these groups and help to enlist their cooperation.
Finally, all organizations, inside or outside the government, tend
inevitably to develop procedures that acquire a sacrosanct status unless
they are moderated by outside influences. An outside advisory group could
raise questions that force the staff to consider the usefulness of established
procedures.
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
The remainder of this chapter presents a set of recommendations
suggesting ways to improve the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and,
more generally, to facilitate the development of high-quality occupational
information. Recommendations 4-8 concern data collection procedures;
recommendations 9 and 10 concern the worker function and worker trait
scales; recommendations 11-13 concern the classification structure of the
DOT and the keyword system; recommendations 14 and 15 propose needed
areas of research; and recommendations 1~22 deal with various organiza-
tional and administrative issues.
DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES
4. On-site observation of job performance by trained occupational analysts,
including interviews with workers and supervisors, should continue as a
major mode of data collection; experimentation with other data
collection procedures, however, should also be undertaken.
OCR for page 221
Conclusions and Recommendations
221
In the judgment of the committee a major strength of the DOT iS that the
descriptions it contains are based on the analysis of specific jobs rather
than on abstract descriptions of occupational categories. We encourage the
continuation of this mode of data collection.
A number of considerations have led us to this recommendation. Chief
among them is the need for standardization in the identification of
significant tasks, the use of terminology, and the writing of descriptions.
Standardization of procedures requires the services of analysts trained to
observe in a larger context than an individual firm. As an increasing
proportion of jobs are found in the service sector, where variations in
activities are less constrained by the requirements of the machinery and
equipment that dominate the production sector, the need for standardiza-
tion will probably become even greater.
We find additional support for our position in the requests of private
firms and governmental units (cited in chapter 5) for assistance from field
centers and national office analysts in developing classification systems for
their employees.
It may in some cases be possible, however, to collect equally useful data
via a written instrument a questionnaire, checklist, or task inventory.
Attention should be devoted to developing a repertoire of data collection
techniques by exploring the conditions under which each is most effective
and using the optimal technique for each situation.
5. Staffing schedules for establishments in which job analyses are performed
should continue to be collected and should be used for research purposes.
The recently discontinued tabulation by sex of the number of workers in
each occupation should be reinstated.
Staffing schedules, which outline the distribution of jobs within establish-
ments, are currently used only to identify activities unique to an industry
or establishment. In our judgment, however, they have value for at least
three other purposes that would substantially improve the occupational
analysis program. First, staffing schedules could be used as a check on the
representativeness of establishments selected for job analysis by comparing
staffing schedule data with the occupational structure of industries
revealed through other sources (for example, the decennial census and the
occupational employment survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics).
Second, they provide a tool that if properly used could alert occupational
analysts to significant changes in occupational structure that may indicate
concomitant changes in work content. Third, staffing schedule data are a
potentially rich source of information on the differences in occupational
opportunities for men and women. Recently, however (in November
OCR for page 222
222
WORK, JOBS, AND OCCUPATIONS
1978), the occupational distribution of workers on the staffing schedule
ceased to be tabulated separately by sex. In our judgment this change is
unfortunate, since it destroys the usefulness of staffing schedule data for an
extremely important research purpose. We urge that separate tabulations
by sex be reinstated.
6. The selection of establishments and work activities for which job analyses
are performed should be made according to a general sampling plan
designedfor the particular requirements of occupational analysis.
The committee recognizes that the variation in the number of job analyses
per defined occupation documented in chapter 7 is not prima facie
evidence of maldistribution of effort. Some occupations are clearly
homogeneous in work content regardless of their geographical or
industrial setting, whereas the homogeneity or heterogeneity of other
occupations can be determined only by comparative job analyses.
We can find no evidence, however, of the use of systematic procedures in
the selection of sites, in the selection of jobs to be analyzed, or even in the
designation of industries to be included. The task of the national office is to
assign industries to field centers according to geographic concentration or,
for those industries that are widely dispersed, to obtain geographic
representation. The task of the field center, once an industry has been
assigned, is to select establishments that represent different size units (in
terms of aggregate employment levels) and/or known technological
variations. As chapter 7 shows, both goals are very generally stated, and
no clear procedures are established for attaining them.
An example of this lack of clarity in the procedures followed is the
assignment of industries to field centers by the national office. Industry
assignments vary widely in scope: an assignment may be as wide as "retail
trade," a category covering establishments engaged in diverse activities, or
as narrow as "button," covering establishments engaged in "manufactur-
ing buttons, parts of buttons, button blanks, etc." Neither the basis for the
national office's decision to make an assignment broad or narrow nor the
procedure by which a field center decides among the possibilities in an
industry of broad scope is clear.
The procedures involved in the selection of jobs for analysis are also
unclear. The identification of the types of organizations that have unique
types of jobs should be an important goal, but current practice appears to
be founded on the premise that an establishment's product is a major
distinguishing characteristic of its jobs, a premise that reflects the long-
standing emphasis of the DOT on manufacturing jobs and their close
association with specialized equipment. One consequence of this emphasis
i
OCR for page 223
Conclusions and Recommendations
223
is that jobs outside the production sector are generally assumed to require
fewer job analyses than those concerned with fabrication. Job analysis is
therefore often not undertaken throughout an establishment but is
confined to those jobs assumed to be unique to it. Although this limitation
is not unreasonable, it may result in the self-perpetuation of an assumption
that is no longer accurate. The fine line between unnecessary duplication of
job analyses and unsupported assumptions of homogeneity is not easy to
draw, but the resolution of this problem must receive attention as the
economy shifts increasingly from production to service activities.
In our judgment the set of procedures involved in the selection of jobs
for analysis should be thoroughly overhauled so that data can be collected
that are truly representative of work content. The Employment Service
should seek technical assistance in designing procedures that are both
consistent with its needs and statistically sound. (This is a logical function
for an occupational research unit, perhaps with the participation of outside
consultants.)
7. Procedures should be designed to monitor changes ire the job content of
the economy. Both new occupations and changes in existing occupations
should be identified.
As we have noted in chapters 6 and 7, the fourth edition DOT appears to
provide better coverage of occupations in traditional sectors of the labor
market than in rapidly expanding sectors. We suspect that this is due to
the way jobs are selected for analysis. To correct this tendency, we believe
that procedures should be developed to monitor explicitly changes in job
content in the economy.
We consider first the problem of identifying new occupations. There are
several ways this might be done. A range of sources could be continuously
or periodically monitored to identify occupational titles not already
included in the DOT. Potential sources include the occupational employ-
ment surveys of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, job orders received by local
Employment Service offices (indeed, such job orders are already a major
source in the form of occupational code requests), classified ads in major
newspapers, and the Current Population Survey (cPs) conducted monthly
for the Bureau of Labor Statistics by the Bureau of the Census. Because of
its rich potential we urge exploration of ways to use the cPs to monitor the
emergence of new occupations. It should be noted that three past cPs
samples have been assigned DOT codes by occupational analysts at the field
centers (those from April 1967, April 1971, and March 1978 the last still
in preparation). Preliminary experimentation could be undertaken using
these surveys.
OCR for page 224
224
WORK, JOBS, AND OCCUPATIONS
Second is the problem of how to identify changes in the content of
existing occupations. This is more difficult, since there is no good way to
know in advance of analysis whether the content of an occupation has
substantially changed. It may be possible, however, to develop an
information network using industrial, trade, and professional associations,
labor unions, etc. to keep abreast of rapidly changing occupations.
Moreover, it is likely that in those sectors of the occupational structure in
which many new occupational titles are emerging there is also rapid
change in the content of existing occupations. The national office should
develop a monitoring system for identifying sectors of the occupational
structure in which there is rapid change, in order to target the occupations
in such sectors for intensive analysis.
8. The Dictionary of Occupational Titles should be expanded to include
definitions of all occupations in the economy, whether or not they are
serviced by the Employment Service.
As chapter 4 documents, the DOT iS widely used outside the Employment
Service because it is the most comprehensive source of occupational
information available anywhere. As such it should attempt to be complete
in its coverage of the occupations practiced in the United States today. The
fact is, however, that it is very uneven, covering some occupations in great
detail and others not at all.
Several sources can be used to identify occupations not currently
included in the DOT: the Current Population Survey described above, the
Census Bureau's Alphabetical Index of Occupations and Industries,
classifications of military occupational specialties, the federal government's
occupational coding schemes, and various specialized occupational glos-
saries. These lists should be compared with the list of occupational titles in
the DOT. Any title found in another list but not in the DOT would then
become a candidate for an intensive job analysis. Procedures should be
designed to locate suitable jobs for analysis once they are identified.
MEASUREMENT OF OCCUPATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
9. The worker trait and worker function scales should be reviewed and,
where it is appropriate, replaced with carefully developed multiple-item
scales that measure conceptually central aspects of occupational content.
The committee has found substantial reason to question the adequacy of
the worker trait and worker function scales. First, they do not appear in
OCR for page 225
Conclusions and Recommendations
225
the aggregate to adequately reflect conceptually central aspects of
occupational content. They omit, for example, measures of such important
features as the organizational setting in which jobs occur and the degree of
responsibility entailed in jobs for decisions, materials, or supervision.4 At
the same time they include measures of interests, aptitudes, and tempera-
ments, which are better thought of as worker characteristics than as
attributes of jobs.
Second, the existing scales have not been developed or validated in
accordance with current psychometric standards for scale construction,
and some of them have been shown (see chapter 7 and Appendix E) to
have rather low reliability. Moreover, they are very redundant. In chapter
7 we show that most of the variation among occupations can be described
by three factors, and almost all the remaining variation by an additional
three factors.
Third, many of the scales have limited use, as chapters 3 and 4
document. In part, this is the result of the way they are published.
Although scores on the worker function scales (DATA, PEOPLE, and
THINGS) are available for each DOT occupation because they are included
as part of the occupational classification code scores on worker trait
scales~for each occupation in the third edition DOT are available only in
supplements. Ranges of scale scores are also published for groups of
occupations in volume 2 of the third edition DOT. Scores on the worker
traits scales for the fourth edition had not been published as of January
1980, although they are available on computer tape.5
The development of a new set of scales of occupational characteristics is
a research activity that should be undertaken prior to the publication of
the next edition of the DOT and then continued as an ongoing activity of
the research unit. The first step is to determine what occupational
information is needed by major users of the DOT, including the
Employment Service. Suitable scales to elicit this information should then
be developed and validated using standard psychometric procedures.
Responsibility and supervision are highly relevant for job placement and for other purposes
as well, including the analysis of career ladders (identified by many respondents to the user
survey as highly desirable information to add to the DOT) and equal employment opportunity
1SSUeS.
5A tape containing all of the worker traits for the fourth edition (known as the DOT master
tape) may be obtained from the National Technical Information Service (Document No. PB
298 315/AS).
OCR for page 226
226
WORK, JOBS, AND OCCUPATIONS
10. A research activity of first priority should be review of the training time
(GED and SIPS, physical demand, and working condition scales.
Our review of DOT uses indicates that the training time, physical demand,
and working condition scales are used widely for making key determina-
tions in a variety of employment-related programs by government and
other agencies. In some instances the worker function (DATA, PEOPLE, and
THINGS) scales are inappropriately used as substitutes for training time
scales. This may occur because of lack of knowledge of the worker trait
scales, since worker functions are included in the basic occupational code,
while worker traits are treated as separate dimensions and, in the third
edition DOT, were published in supplementary volumes.
We believe the need for and interest in these occupational characteristics
are sufficient to warrant continuous effort and special publication by the
occupational analysis program.
CLASSIFICATION ISSUES
11. A major activity of the occupational analysis program should be
investigation' of cross-occupational linkages that indicate possible
transferability of skills or experience.
Hitherto, the occupational analysis program has done comparative job
analysis only to the extent necessary to fit jobs into occupational units
within the established classification. The implicit assumption with respect
to matching workers and jobs has been that the classification structure
itself will reveal the range of possible matches.
In our judgment this is too narrow a use of the occupational analyst's
skills and too rigid a conception of what constitutes "similar" work. An
informed glance through the detailed occupational classification of the
DOT reveals a number of instances in which similar work performed in
different work settings results in two codes that differ at the most
aggregated, one-digit level. This experience can probably be repeated with
any classification system yet devised.
A number of procedures to aid in identifying occupations for which the
required tasks are sufficiently alike to permit transfer of skills could be
proposed. Two that appear to have special promise are (1) the comparative
analysis of skill requirements via task analysis or other structured job
analysis procedures and (2) the empirical identification of"interchange-
able" occupations via the analysis of rates of naturally occurring
occupational mobility. The basic idea in the latter proposal is that if people
OCR for page 227
Conclusions and Recommendations
227
who leave a particular occupation are especially likely to take up certain
other occupations, then those occupations are probably similar in their
requirements, and hence job applicants with experience at one occupation
could work at the others.
Job history data are currently collected routinely from job applicants by
local Employment Service offices. These data could be used to estimate
rates of movement between occupational categories that are specific to
local labor markets, and the validity of the suggested interchangeability
could be reviewed by trained analysts. If valid linkages emerged, those
occupations with high interchangeability rates could be listed together in
job banks, could be matched in the keyword or other automated systems,
and could be listed for the use of job placement interviewers. It is
important to note that classifications for placement purposes need not list
each occupation only once. For example, a job opening could be included
at several different places within a job bank to facilitate the job search
process, in much the same way that books are cross-referenced in a library
catalogue. We urge full exploration of these possibilities.
12. The development of an automated procedure for matching job
applicants with job openings should continue, but the current keyword
system should not be accepted as optimal.
Appendix G presents an evaluation of the keyword system, the most
widely used method of computerized job matching attempted by the
Employment Service. The conclusions in Appendix G support the findings
of critics who have called the system inadequate and inadequately tested
prior to its implementation.
We wish to emphasize, however, the need for continued research and
experimentation in the use of automated data processing in both the job
analysis and placement operation of the Employment Service. The
exploratory work done by our staff (presented in Appendixes G and H) is
suggestive of the potential inherent in this tool for assessing and
developing classifications. Time and resources have limited the extent to
which this exploration could be undertaken, but we are convinced of its
long-term value.
Experimental work in computerized job matching should continue in
tandem with the development of an improved classification. In this the
experience gained from the keywording operation should be carefully
evaluated. For example, the "complementary terms" concept used in
keywording may present an alternative to the very detailed and probably
overly inflexible coding system now used in the DOT. A simplified set of
OCR for page 228
228
WORK, JOBS, AND OCCUPATIONS
occupations associated with a range of complementary terms may serve
the purposes of placement better than either the nine-digit DOT code or the
occupational unit framework of the keyword system. In urging additional
experimental work, we wish to caution against the precipitous, large-scale
implementation of poorly or incompletely tested schemes. The optimal
strategy would be to conduct a series of small-scale studies before adopting
any particular scheme.
The classification system developed for the next edition of the DOT
should be compatible with the standard system implemented by the
Office of Federal Statistical Policy and Standards or its successor
coordinating federal agency. That is, explicit procedures should be
developed to enable the translation of occupational codes so that
information can be organized and reported using a standardized
classification.
The relationship between the classification system used by the Employ-
ment Service, embodied in the DOT, and that used by other governmental
agencies is a crucial issue. The committee believes that arguments for a
standardized classification for reporting occupational data are so compel-
ling as to leave no doubt of the importance of this goal. Within the context
of this report, the need for the Employment Service's operating statistics to
be part of a standardized system is clear. Therefore an essential task is to
ensure that occupational information generated by the Employment
Service can be translated to allow reporting in terms of a standardized
occupational classification.
Congress has established a National Occupational Information Coordi-
nating Committee (Public Law 94-482; October 12, 1976), which has as
one of its responsibilities the development and implementation of an
occupational information system " . . . which system shall include data
on occupational demand and supply based on uniform definitions,
standardized estimating procedures, and standardized occupational clas-
sifications.... " Beyond this legislative requirement the committee
believes that an understanding of the Employment Service's role in the
labor market is essential to its proper functioning and that for such an
understanding, Employment Service operating statistics must be related to
aggregate data for the labor force. Without a standardized classification
system this connection is impossible to make.
We believe that the occupational analysis program should take a lead
role in providing the material and expertise required to keep the Standard
Occupational Classification (soc) up to date-a role that is compatible
with its activity in developing the soc.
OCR for page 229
Conclusions and Recommendations
OTHER NEEDED RESEARCH
229
14. Research priority should be given to developing criteria for defining
"occupations"-the aggregation problem.
What is an occupation? It is a set of jobs that are similar in some way, in
terms of tasks, duties, responsibilities, organizational or industrial setting,
status, etc. Occupational classifications group occupations in terms of their
similarity according to one or several of these criteria or still others.
Classifications differ in two ways: first, in terms of the criteria of similarity,
the grouping principle; and second, in terms of the level of aggregation, the
number of distinctions that are made between elements, or occupations, in
the classification. The 1970 Census classification, for example, contains
441 occupations, while the fourth edition DOT contains 12,099 occupa-
tions. Obviously, the census occupations on the whole encompass a more
heterogeneous set of jobs than do the DOT occupations. Despite the greater
specificity of DOT occupations, however, there appears to be great
variation from one occupation to another in their degree of heterogeneity.
For example, there are 70 kinds of Sewing Machine Operator, Garment,
with the same 6-digit code (786.682), while there are 6 kinds of Secretary
with the same 6-digit code (201.362~. Moreover, inspection of the
occupational definitions suggests more variability among the 6 secretarial
occupations than among the 70 kinds of sewing occupations. There
appears to be no conceptual basis for delineating boundary lines between
occupations.
Research is needed both on the conceptual basis for defining occupa-
tions and on the consistency with which occupational boundaries are
drawn in the fourth edition DOT, to provide a basis for revisions in the fifth
edition. In undertaking a review of the existing occupational categories in
the fourth edition DOT, attention should be paid to the possibiity that
certain categories of occupations (e.g., clerical or service occupations) are
insufficiently differentiated, or that certain categories (e.g., benchwork
occupations) are overly differentiated. We urge exploration of strategies for
reviewing the consistency of specificity of DOT occupations.
15. Basic research should be undertaken on the operation of labor markets
to improve understanding of the processes by which workers acquire
jobs.
The Employment Service could do a great deal to improve its ability to
place workers in jobs through research on the processes by which workers
acquire jobs. In chapter 8 we proposed an empirical procedure for defining
OCR for page 230
230
WORK, JOBS, AND OCCUPATIONS
interchangeable clusters of jobs on the basis of occupational mobility rates.
The usefulness of such a procedure would be even greater with a better
understanding of occupational mobility processes in general. What kinds
of jobs tend to be open to workers with particular sorts of experience?
Which jobs are filled by those who have previously worked elsewhere,
which are filled by those just entering the labor force, and which are filled
only by promotion from within an establishment? To what extent do sex,
age, or race continue to be barriers to occupational opportunities, and are
such barriers concentrated in particular sectors of the labor force? This
research is likely to be most fruitful if it builds on institutional and
segmented market approaches to labor market analysis, since these
approaches focus on the very job and market structures that are at issue
here.
The Employment Service, in particular the occupational analysis
program, is in a unique position to conduct research on such questions.
Job history data currently collected routinely in the course of job
placement interviews and establishment studies currently conducted on a
regular basis for the purpose of job analysis are valuable sources of data
that should be exploited in the interest of improving the ability to match
workers and jobs.
These data sources should also be exploited to improve understanding of
career progressions, typical patterns of movement from job to job. When
respondents to the survey of DOT users were asked how future editions
could be improved to meet their needs better, the inclusion of career
ladders was most often mentioned; the majority indicated that they would
find such information helpful. While there undoubtedly is substantial
variability in career progressions, some indication of typical sequences of
jobs would be very useful for counseling purposes. Two existing data
sources could be used to produce such information. First, the job analysis
schedules used by occupational analysts include information on the
relation of the job being analyzed to other jobs specifically, promotion
lines, transfer lines, and lines of supervision. This information could be
used to describe typical career ladders within enterprises. Second, the work
history data collected routinely from job applicants in local employment
service offices could be used to describe typical career ladders involving
mobility among enterprises, in the manner discussed in chapter 8. We urge
that these possibilities be explored.
OCR for page 231
Conclusions and Recommendations
ORGANIZATIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES
231
16. The leadership of the national office in the occupational analysis
program should be strengthened; greater attention should be given to
coordination of field center activities; and the lines of federal authority
should be clearly established.
In view of the intensive management study (Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc.,
1979) commissioned by the Department of Labor in tandem with its
request to the National Academy of Sciences for a study of long-range
needs, the committee has concerned itself only with those aspects of
organization that are directly related to the substantive content of the
occupational analysis program.
In this context we strongly endorse the Booz, Allen & Hamilton
conclusion that strong leadership and increased coordination by the
national office are essential. Throughout our report (notably in chapters 5
and 6) are specific instances of the costs that lack of leadership by the
national office have produced in terms of quality. We particularly support
the follow-up recommendation of the Office of Technical Support (U.S.
Department of Labor, 1979b) that a written agreement between the
Employment and Training Administration and the host state of each
occupational analysis field center lay out clearly the rights and preroga-
tives of the federal government in the control of field center activities.
The committee is not persuaded, however, that the Booz, Allen &
Hamilton recommendation that the number of field centers be halved is, in
the long run, a wise one. Although in the short run such a reduction may
be a useful way to eliminate those field centers whose contribution to the
program has, for a variety of reasons, been below the desirable level, in the
long run, geographical dispersion seems to us to be a strength, particularly
in view of the new trends in population dispersion currently taking place in
the United States. The problems of coordination by the national office may
be reduced by a reduction in the number of field centers, but the problems
of communication between the occupational analysis program and local
office operating staff will certainly be increased.
17. The collection and dissemination of occupational information by the
occupational analysis program should be a continuous process; activity
should notfluctuate with the timing of new editions of the DOT.
This recommendation follows from recommendation 1-that the program
should concentrate its effort on job analysis. Chapters 6 and 7 present
evidence of the costs, in terms of thoroughness and quality, of gearing the
OCR for page 232
232
WORK, JOBS, AND OCCUPATIONS
program so closely to the publication of the new edition. Beyond this,
however, we believe that to be most useful to the Employment Service's
operating offices and to other users, occupational information should be
kept current by closely monitoring the introduction of new jobs and
changes in the content of existing jobs.
18. Procedures followed in collecting data and developing the DOT should
be carefully documented and publicly described.
The committee found that many procedural decisions appear to be made
on an ad hoc basis and to be poorly documented. The lack of
documentation, experimentation, and research on the efficacy of the
procedures used seems to the committee to be one of the most serious
deficiencies in the occupational analysis program. Although we recognize
that the Employment Service is an operating agency whose purpose is to
deliver service, such a service cannot be delivered for the highly complex
and continuously changing world with which the Employment Service
deals on the basis of ad hoc decisions that are never documented or
systematically communicated to persons in operational roles. The lack of
documentation makes the review and evaluation of Employment Service
occupational information difficult for users, who should be supplied with
this essential information.
19. The data produced for the DOT should be made publicly available.
As well as being underdocumented, the DOT iS underpublished, in the
sense that a great deal of material of great value to researchers is not made
easily available. Public-use computer tapes and attendant documentation
should be created for each of the data sets used in the preparation of new
editions of the DOT and deposited in data archives such as the National
Technical Information Service and the Inter-University Consortium for
Political and Social Research at the University of Michigan. For example,
the third-to-fourth edition map, and the 1966 and 1971 cPs tapes coded
with DOT codes (and the March 1978 cPs tape when it becomes available)
should all be made publicly available.6 Public access to data used in
preparing the DOT can do nothing but improve the quality of the DOT.
6The DOT master tape containing all of the worker trait codes for the fourth edition is already
available (see note 5). In addition, the committee deposited two magnetic tapes with the
National Technical Information Service and the Inter-University Consortium for Political
and Social Research: (1) the April 1971 Current Population Survey (N = 60,441), which
includes third and fourth edition DOT codes, and (2) a summary tape of DOT occupational
characteristics, which was created from the 1971 cPs and provides average DOT scores and
factor-based scale scores for the expanded (N = 574) 1970 Census occupational classification
(for details, see Appendix F).
OCR for page 233
Conclusions and Recommendations
233
Second, for the benefit of users without ready access to computers, data on
the characteristics of each occupation (currently the worker traits and
worker functions) should be published, with exact scores for each DOT
occupation.
20. A tabulation program should be instituted immediately to aggregate
monthly data from Employment Service operations to the revised
Standard Occupational Classification unit groups used in the 1980
Census of Population and subsequent current population surveys.
The current version of the Standard Occupational Classification has
attempted to provide an interim solution to the problem of compatibility
by allocating each of the 12,099 nine-digit codes of the fourth edition DOT
to one of the approximately 600 four-digit unit groups of the soc. A
similar crossover listing between the classifications, to be used in the 1980
Census of Population and the sac unit groups, has been developed by the
Bureau of the Census. It therefore becomes possible, if computerized
operating statistics are available at a nine-digit level, to rearrange these
data into the census classification (or any other classification system
providing such a crossover listing).
Both recommendation 20 and recommendation 13 are closely related to
the congressional instruction to the secretary of labor to institute a
uniform reporting program, under the Comprehensive Employment and
Training Act, using a detailed occupational or training code, a term
defined as "any occupational or training code equivalent in detail to the
Standard Occupational Classification at the four-digit level" (Public Law
95-524; October 27, 1978; Section 313 (g)~31~.
21. A systematic program should be instituted to communicate additions
and revisions of occupational definitions and their classification
promptly to all operating staff in the Employment Service as well as to
other interested persons.
It is crucial to the successful operation of the Employment Service and to
other major users of the DOT as well that the occupational information
provided by the DOT be up to date. It is in those sectors of the occupational
structure that are most rapidly changing that the need for information is
greatest. For this reason it is insufficient to rely on the periodic publication
of new editions of the DOT. A mechanism should be established to transmit
information continuously on new and changing occupations and on newly
established linkages between occupations to all concerned persons. What
we have in mind is a monthly news bulletin, issued by the occupational
analysis program and circulated to all Employment Service personnel and
OCR for page 234
234
WORK, JOBS, AND OCCUPATIONS
to other interested parties, and an annual supplement to the DOT
incorporating all such information produced in the preceding year.
22. The next edition of the DOT should not be issued until substantial
improvements in the occupational analysis program have been made,
following the recommendations made here.
There is no need to rush to a fifth edition of the DOT, especially if a
program of continuous updating and dissemination of occupational
information is developed as proposed above. Such a program would serve
the needs of users for up-to-date occupational information by keeping the
fourth edition current. This would permit time for a fifth edition to be
fundamentally redesigned on the basis of the research proposed here-on
the classification structure, the measurement of occupational characteris-
tics, the definition of occupations, data collection procedures, and so on.
We would expect such research to continue indefinitely and to serve as the
basis for further modifications of subsequent editions of the DOT. Hence we
are not proposing delay until completion of a single massive research
effort, but rather delay until a permanent, ongoing research effort has been
well begun and has borne fruit.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
analysis program
