8: Preparing the City’s Workforce Management Systems for the Future

For the City to better prepare its workforce for the future, we have provided recommendations on innovation, workforce development, and recruitment. However, for these recommendations to be implemented successfully, the City will also need to change the systems it uses to manage its workforce. Many of the challenges with these systems are already well known to the City’s staff and leaders. These challenges will only grow in coming years as technology and innovation disrupt the way the City operates. All City departments use NeoGov, a third-party platform, to manage hiring processes. Employees are then integrated into EV5, the City’s Human Resources Information System (HRIS) software. Using the same software across the City provides a basis for aligning data and management across the City. This is further supported by centralized expertise in SDHR and SDIT. However, throughout our research we learned about the challenges that these systems are presenting –challenges that will only grow in coming years. This section of the report outlines a way forward for the City as it considers how to meet these challenges. In general, the City should ensure its systems: •

Provide rich and accurate data for workforce analysis

Provide improved flexibility to adapt to changing needs

Reduce complexity and scope for biases and special treatment While improving these systems will come at a cost, investing in these changes now is an essential step for the City to ensure it is operating on a

Hiring and staff management software

foundation that is fit-for-purpose.

The City continues to use outdated versions of software, creating risks.

Using outdated versions of EV5 and other systems limits functionality and creates risks around security and maintenance. 110 A fault in staff management or hiring software could present a major problem for the City’s human resources operations. Several departments were also concerned that the NeoGov interface is difficult for applicants to navigate, presenting a barrier to employment, particularly for underrepresented groups. Our experience navigating NeoGov supports this concern.

A lack of functionality is also limiting workforce analysis and planning.

In interviews with departments, we heard that NeoGov provides limited data on applicant pools or the progress of applicants through the stages of the hiring process. It also fails to track individuals who apply for multiple positions or identify past applicants who may be suitable for new postings. NeoGov and EV5 are also fundamentally separate systems, preventing easy matching of existing staff to new opportunities with the City.

The Future of Work will only exacerbate these challenges.

Any barriers to entry –even a complicated job portal –could hamper the City as it competes for talent. Continuing to use legacy software in any critical function creates risks to the City’s capacity to deliver services. In addition, for the City to be a model in the adoption of technology and innovation, it must begin by modelling We understand that alternatives to NeoGov are currently being explored— a process that could be expanded to include EV5. Any new software should provide a simplified user experience for applicants and staff, and rich data on In addition, as the skills needs of the City change rapidly, the City will need rich data on the skills of its existing workforce, and the depth and diversity of the talent pool. As technology and innovation change the City’s workforce needs over time, it will also be vital for the City to have effective systems for matching affected staff to other roles and vacancies. Indeed, without improvements in these important pieces of software, it may be impossible to implement some of the recommendations in this report, such as Recommendation 7.3: Track the stages of the hiring process.

Recommendation 8.1: Review and software programs

update all critical City

this approach in the fundamentals of its own management. We recommend the City immediately review all critical software programs to

Recommendation 8.2: Investigate and adopt alternatives to NeoGov and EV5

ensure they are up-to-date. skills and diversity for leaders to usefor workforce planning and management. We recommend the City identify new software that can provide this functionality and ensure a new system has been adopted within three years.

Classifications

The City uses a system of highly prescriptive classifications (job titles) to categorize staff. These classifications convey information including the main job type (such as ‘Police Officer’ or ‘Accountant’), specifics about a particular role, seniority and pay levels, and department or team location. 111

Classifications are intended to serve an equity purpose by ensuring that, if an employee’s position is abolished, they can be ‘bumped’ to another position with the City that matches their classification. 112

However, over time the classification system may have created equity problems of its own.

Classifications have not been updated since 1991, preventing workforce analysis and planning.

Since then, the tasks done by the City’s workforce have changed dramatically, as have the skills employees need. At the same time, as departments have added new classifications for different roles, rankings, and pay levels, the number of classifications has proliferated to more than 1,000. Many distinct classifications may exist for a reason –but the complexity of the system presents a further barrier to workforce planning. The proliferation of classifications may also reflect incentives to create new roles for specific staff (see Box 8.1).

Box 8.1: The proliferation of strategic advisor classifications

Over time, pay rules have led departments to hire specialized policy and technical staff under the broad term ‘strategic advisor’. Staffing data provided by the City reveals there are now 793 permanent and 108 temporary staff employed using this title–6% of the City’s workforce. However, there are 56 different variations of the ‘strategic advisor’ classification in use. Some of these are duplicative, such as ‘Strategic Advisor –General Government’. Others identify expertise, such as ‘Finance, Budget and Accounting’. Others still are extremely narrow, specifying level, expertise and department, and account for only a handful of employees. In these cases, it is possible that new classifications have been created for a specific role or even a specific employee. There are benefits to having some flexibility to create specialized roles to match specific needs. However, there are risks if this creates opportunities for discrimination or favoritism. At the same time, it is unlikely that the broad term ‘strategicadvisor’ accurately captures the main functions performed by 900 different staff across the City, making these classifications of little use for workforce planning. Importantly, this is just one example of a problem that is evident across many different classifications used across the City.

Classifications intersect with an equally complex pay structure, which may limit mobility.

Each classification relates to a pay ‘grade’ with a series of stepped increases (or a more flexible payrange for some classifications). 113

There are 130 starting grades, ranging from $10 per hour to $120 per hour, and each contains five upwards steps, overlapping with subsequent grades. Pay differences reflect the result of negotiations between management, staff, and unions. However, the complexity and narrow definition of roles and pay grades limits the scope The City should review and update job classifications to reflect the current ‘categories’ of work done by staff. Categories should be consistent across departments where possible, such as ‘policy adviser’ and ‘program manager’. In addition, the City should implement a systematic approach to updating job categories going forward, for instance The connection between pay grade and classification underpins the complexity and rigidity of the current system. With updated job categories in place (Recommendation 8.3), the City should explore options to simplify the pay structure for each category. for junior staff to progress in pay and seniority without changing classification.

The City will need greater flexibility as work continues to change.

New technologies and changes to service delivery models will mean that existing roles will change in coming years, and new roles will need to be created that currently do not exist. This means that the City not only needs a classification system that satisfies current demands, but one that will continue to adjust in line with workforce

Recommendation 8.3: Develop a new set of job ‘categories’ that can be updated over time

needs. by drawing updated information on tasks and skills from job ads or performance evaluations. Development of these categories should be led by a working group of human resources staff from across departments, in conjunction with union representatives, department leaders, and staff.

Recommendation 8.4: Explore options to structure within categories

simplify the pay

For example, each of the new job categories could overlay a number of pay grades, reflecting possible promotion steps for these employees. It may also be valuable to simplify the number of pay grades and eliminate existing overlaps.

Figure 8.1 presents an illustrative example of how this kind of system could function. Where the current system specifies a unique classification for each intersection of role and pay grade, a simplified system could allow staff to be promoted to a higher grade while remaining in the same job category, providing more upward mobility as well as flexibility for management. Implementing these kinds of changes will be complex and time-intensive, and impacts on staff will need to be considered carefully. Relevant stakeholders including the Seattle Budget Office, SDHR, and

Positions and staffing budgets

The City’s classification and pay grade system is directly linked to departments’ budgets through the position system. 114 Each department is allocated positions (‘pockets’) for staff in a specific classification, with associated funding.

The position system can distort the workforce and limit opportunity.

We heard from multiple departments that the position system limits their ability to create entry level jobs. For example, departments cannot hire new apprentices unless there is a vacant position that could be filled by an apprentice upon completion of training. Some departments may also try to retain more senior positions to avoid losing the associated funding, even if these positions are no longer needed. unions, should work together to explore whether these kinds of changes could be advantageous for the City and its workforce.

Figure 8.1: Illustration of proposed separated job categories and pay grades

Job Cat 1 Job Cat 2

Grade 4

Grade 3

Grade 2

Grade 1

Limits on permanent positions may also push departments to rely more on temporary and contract staff, with negative consequences for both job security and retention rates.

Fostering a culture of innovation will require more flexibility.

Recommendation 5.1 of this report suggests the City embrace a ‘laboratory’ approach to innovation. Making this a reality will require department leaders to have the flexibility to experiment with new programs and initiatives –and scope to adjust staffing accordingly. More broadly, as technology reshapes the way services are delivered, leaders will need to be able to shape their workforce to meet future needs.

Recommendation 8.5: Test the allocation of total FTE rather than specific positions

Allocating each department a total number of full-time equivalent staff (FTE), rather than specific positions, would be one way to provide leaders with more flexibility to structure their workforce according to need. Staffing budgets could be funded based on the average cost-per-employee across the City, allowing departments

Within 12 months:

software (8.1) investigation of alternatives to

NeoGov and EV5 (8.2) classifications (categories) (8.3)

Within 3 years:

HRIS system with improved functionality (8.2) exploring options to simplify pay structure, in conjunction with unions (8.4) trial of total FTE allocation with a small department (8.5) to hire entry-level staff without impacting their overall budget allocation. Given the scale of this kind of change, the City should test this approach with one or more small departments to determine its effects on staffing, budget

Implementation timeline

SDIT to review and update critical

SDHR and SDIT to begin

Working group formed to update

Implement an integrated hiring and

SDHR and Budget Office to begin

SDHR and Budget Office to begin systems, and accountability.

Within 5 years:

Implement updated classifications (categories) (8.3)

Finalize and agree a path forward on pay structure with unions (8.4)

Review FTE allocation trial and determine process for City-wide rollout if successful (8.5)