[2] See, for example, Kochan and Osterman, 1994; Appelbaum and Batt, 1994; and Bailey, 1993.
[3] Forty years ago, sociologists argued that industrialization implied a general professionalization (Nelson & Barley, 1994). In an argument that seemed to foreshadow the discussion in the 1990s, Foote (1953) predicted that work would no longer be segmented into discrete tasks, but would become more collaborative, based on shared skills and knowledge (p. 371). Later, though, in a well-known article "The Professionalization of Everyone?" Wilensky (1964) attacked this view, arguing that the division of labor would remain such that professional occupations would continue to be distinct. This perspective seemed to dominate thinking for the next three decades.
Perhaps the current discussion is simply a repeat of optimistic speculations of a half a century ago. But Nelson and Barley (1994) suggest that as a result of the "shift towards horizontalism or the establishment of increasingly collaborative work relations" (p. 23), it may be that Foote (1953) and his colleagues were right after all. To some extent, this hinges on the strength of the shift from traditional to high-performance work (or horizontalism as Nelson and Barley put it). Research suggests that a significant minority of firms have introduced some important workplace innovations (Kochan & Osterman, 1994). Moreover, the current economic conditions do seem to provide a stronger basis for organizational innovation than conditions in previous decades (Bailey, 1993).
[4] On the other hand, there is a more pessimistic view of the underlying social function of skill standards. The well-publicized downsizing of many corporations suggests that more or less long-term employment with one employer is likely to be less common in the future. If workers are expected to change employers more frequently, then it is more important that they have an identifiable and portable credential. The job mobility that this provides is more important in a more fluid and less structured labor market with less job security.
[5] See Berryman and Bailey (1992) for a discussion of these dualities and the role that they play in current education reform.
[6] One significant exception is a report on the training of architects by John Wirt (1995). Wirt uses the experience with certification of architects to analyze certification systems being developed as part of the skill standards movement. Hoachlander (1995) also draws lessons for skill standards efforts from the experience with training and certification of pilots.
[7] This is a common problem in team-based production in which the interests of the team may at times clash with individual interests of team members.
[8] For a more detailed discussion of the interests of workers in a high-performance work organization, see Bailey, 1993.
[9] Standards were provided to us by only twenty-one projects.
[10] Another example of the first level of contextualization is a format where academic skills are matrixed with the appropriate technical skill. Clearly, an attempt is being made to connect the two types of skills (which differentiates this format from the compartmentalized format) although the application is somewhat weak and of little benefit in creating an overall context for skills in the workplace.
[11] Fifteen of the projects indicated using a straight or modified DACUM process. Four of the projects used some combination of DACUM and V-TECS, which we (and the project directors) categorized as a "modified" DACUM process.
[12] Educational programs that coordinate high school and community college curricula and programs.
[13] Another job analysis technique discussed in this paper.
[14] Extended Search, although often considered a stand-alone job analysis technique, originated as an aspect of the Job-Task Inventory Method or the CODAP (Comprehensive Occupational Data Analysis Program) developed by the U.S. Air Force.
[15] Capelli (1992) cites the findings of Myles and Eno that indicate substantial differences in workers' self-reports of skill requirements in their jobs and those provided by expert raters.
[16] We are not endorsing the use of one specific occupational analysis method. Indeed, various authors have listed countless difficulties and pitfalls in using many of the traditional job analysis methods that currently exist (e.g., see Hanser, 1995, and Rayner & Hermann, 1988). Nor do we argue that the DACUM process cannot be used effectively, especially if it is used in conjunction with other approaches. We present some suggestions for approaches to job analysis in the conclusions to this report.