pertinent work processes were included and to identify possibly more efficient design alternatives. In most cases I consolidated the comments of the committee and formulated the final office comment memo.
I have been involved in periodic reports on national TS/incubation workloads since 1978. These reports were researched and written by a team of analysis. The final product was usually consolidated from other area reports and consolidated report issued to the Secretary.
I also wrote position papers detailing the Regional Office position on administrative, workload processing, or work measurement issues. An example of this type of product is a memo prepared for Central Office in July 1989 stating the RO's position on the issue of productivity measurement in the field stations. This memo presents our views on the Secretary's Productivity Analysis Project and pointed out what was considered flaws in their basis assumptions. It then listed the major problems with areas, which should be addressed in order to provide valid productivity measures for all the field stations. The RO's concerns and ideas concerning the elements necessary for an acceptable productivity measure were presented.
In addition, I have also completed 6 semester hours of writing courses in college. I am presently the corresponding Secretary for Tri Sigma National Sorority.
Which response is better?
The writer of the first response has "borrowed" some of the language from the duties described in the vacancy announcement in order to tell the SME/promotion panel what he/she does in the job. Unfortunately, this does not give the panel any more specific information about his/her experience than they would get by reading the announcement. The examples given by the writer sound like they could be relevant to the KSA, but the writer does not provide any specific information to explain how these activities relate to the KSA. The writer also uses a lot of acronyms. These are sure to confuse a SME/promotion panel and should not be used without explanation. Finally, the writer does not tell us what his/her specific role is in any of these activities (i.e., what is the meaning of "I am involved in...", what is the writer's role when he says "We set up a team..."?).
The second response gives more relevant and specific information. The writer gave a general introductory statement, which acts as a background to the examples that follow. The first and last examples are very specific and give enough information so the SME/promotion panel will understand what the writer does and how it relates to the crediting plan. The second example of this response falls short of the other two examples. The writer uses some jargon (TS incubation workload) which may mean little or nothing to the SME/promotion panel. It is also not clear what the writer's involvement was in the activity described in the second example (i.e., what is the meaning of "I have been
Effective KSA Writing
Revised June 5, 2006