[Ibpsausa] [Bldg-sim] DOE Job Task Analysis for Energy Modelers: Open for public comment until Nov. 28th

Fri Nov 18 15:48:14 PST 2011

Hi Doug,  

I think the “Skills, Abilities and Attributes” section and columns in the DACUM may be better coined “personality traits” in layman’s terms, from the preceding section.  I’m guessing they’re intended for something like an aptitude test for high school kids?  

I’m not sure anyone is asking whether this report/effort is to be scrapped entirely – for context I vaguely recall reading about legislation being passed mandating this sort of study be performed…  Here’s a link I found in my previous emails (thanks Danny!): Federal Buildings Personnel Training Act of 2010 <http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111s3250enr/pdf/BILLS-111s3250enr.pdf> .  

All:

That said, Doug’s concerns below resonate further with an uncertainty I think many of us share over how this report may be used, or more specifically mis-used.  The document leads off with discussing what a JTA is and what it’s for, in relatively vague/generic terms (not specific to energy modeling).  You can pretty well tell from our community’s responses that this section needs to be fleshed out with more specific examples of who is asking for this study and why, and to better define the intent/purpose/projected end uses of the study.  This added context will better present the collected data and encourage more constructive feedback.

Some additional constructive thoughts along the lines of improving what’s there, based on my current understanding:

·         I see a lot of potential mis-use/misunderstanding of the “weighting” presented for various job tasks, from an educational/training perspective.  Does this represent the time-distribution of an experienced modeler?  A new modeler?  For what sort of project (LEED, retrofit consulting, schematic analyses)?  I can confidently say this weighting distribution can and does vary widely between projects depending on the circumstances and who is involved, and for any given modeler.  Some discussion of what these percentages specifically represent is in order lest they be misused by the wide variety of sorts in the target audience (educators developing curricula for college students vs. professionals, or government contract writers thinking of experienced modelers, etc).

·         There are a number of items tabulated under “Skills, Abilities and Attributes” which are more appropriately situated under “Specialized knowledge,” such as “Ability to interpret weather file structure.”  Likewise, I don’t believe “Geometry” or “Safety” constitute “specialized knowledge” as the report currently describes it.  

·         While I am able to understand what is being referenced for the various attributes/knowledge… someone outside or periphery to our industry would most definitely not.  More than a few of these terms are either too broad/vague or too technical/specific to assume most would fully understand what’s being referenced by the panelists.  Such entries warrant further definition.

·         Section 8 reads: “The panelists concluded that a practitioner must master the knowledge in both tables to be competent as a commercial building energy modeler.”

o   Reading and applying this literally, it would appear the panelists have concluded anyone who has not mastered “Computational Fluid Dynamics” (among other things) is an incompetent modeler.

o   Based on my understanding of some of the panelists’ backgrounds, I would be very surprised to find this is a true consensus, or that this specific wording has the full endorsement of everyone involved.  

o   Words like “competent” and “mastered” are dangerous if used too liberally in this sort of study, considering the possible usage of this report as we currently understand it.  If you intend to use such terminology, carefully consider whether you are setting up a doomsday scenario for the industry, where the newest generation of modelers will be unable to practice/learn energy modeling because they are not “masters” of such a broad range of knowledge.  

I suppose this helps bring up another concern.  Where those participating and conducting this study may be totally rational and intelligent in the industry and subject matter at hand, this study is in part intended for use by those outside of our industry (HR staffing, politicians) who may not use its contents in a rational fashion.  Context (again) that we probably take for granted would seem a necessity to prevent such mis-use.

Hope this helps everyone involved!

~Nick

NICK CATON, P.E.

SENIOR ENGINEER

Smith & Boucher Engineers

25501 west valley parkway, suite 200

olathe, ks 66061

direct 913.344.0036

fax 913.345.0617

www.smithboucher.com 

From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Doug Hittle
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 3:08 PM
To: Roth, Amir
Cc: Building Simulation; ibpsausa at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] [Ibpsausa] DOE Job Task Analysis for Energy Modelers: Open for public comment until Nov. 28th

Ok. One last comment and then I have to get back to paying work. 

Listed below are pretty much all of the skills and abilities listed in the DACUM in the DoE report:

· Computer skills · Critical thinking skills · Logical thinking · Time management· Engineering skills · Math skills·Analytical skills· Research skills· Organizational skills · Physics· Creative· Logical thinking· Observation skills· Safety conscious· Project management skills· Analytical skills· Patience · Persistence· Ability to interpret drawings. 

In most Universities, ours included, we strive to inculcate all of the items in the list into every student who graduates in any scientific discipline. Our best engineering students graduate with these skills. Ergo, they have the skills they need to be energy modelers. How is repeatedly listing these abilities going to help anyone? 

In the "Specialized Knowledge" column there is some unevenness. Knowledge of the "Building design and construction" is all encompassing while knowledge of "Vertical transportation" is limited and it is not clear what knowledge is required for energy analysis.

Have we now ALL agreed the the DoE document will not be used for certification, standards, licensing, etc.? YES or NO!!!

Regards
Doug Hittle

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Roth, Amir <Amir.Roth at ee.doe.gov>
Date: Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:45 AM
Subject: [Ibpsausa] DOE Job Task Analysis for Energy Modelers: Open for public comment until Nov. 28th
To: Building Simulation <bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>, "ibpsausa at lists.onebuilding.org" <ibpsausa at lists.onebuilding.org>

Apologies for cross-posting,

The DOE has put together a job task analysis (JTA)--job description plus required knowledge and skills--for building energy modelers.  The draft document, created by a group of 15 energy modeling professionals, can be found here: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/commercial_initiative/pdfs/energy_modeler_jta_comment.pdf 

DOE is accepting comments on this draft until November 28, 2011 at this URL: http://www.nrel.gov/ap/buildings_workforce_feedback/. Very few comments have been received so far. I urge you to review and comment on this draft as the final document will provide the foundation for future education, training and certification programs and will likely have to be complied with going forward by existing programs, e.g., ASHRAE BEMP. In addition to constructive critique, positive comments, e.g., "perfect, don't change a thing", are also welcome.

Thanks,

-Amir

============
Amir Roth, PhD 
Building Performance Simulation Tools, US DOE/EERE 
Ph: 202.287.1694

_______________________________________________
Ibpsausa mailing list
Ibpsausa at lists.onebuilding.org
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/ibpsausa-onebuilding.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/ibpsausa-onebuilding.org/attachments/20111118/bdc306e5/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1459 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/ibpsausa-onebuilding.org/attachments/20111118/bdc306e5/attachment-0002.jpeg>