Discussion: View Thread

It seems to me that having a strict rule of thumb that calls for typing only the "official" job titles (into either a TSA software program or a report) yields a reassuring but deceptive sense of clarity or legitimacy.

These days, it seems to me perfectly fine to sometimes consider as a part of a search for job title matches the skills demonstrated in (a) volunteer jobs, or (b) jobs from 25yrs ago, or (c) jobs the evaluee was planning to work in had the injury not occurred (i.e., if she was pre-med), or (d) jobs the evaluee would be able to perform if she gets the re-training I am recommending, or (e) jobs the evaluee might be able to perform if he gets the surgery recommended, and so on.  It depends on the purpose of the search.

And the single most important aspect of my argument here is that it depends not just on the purpose of the search, but also, absolutely on the steps I plan to take after typing the job titles (official job titles or not).  In my practice, I often run multiple computerized searches for job title matches, (i.e., "Hmmm, I wonder what would happen if I reduce the Fingering to occasional," or "if I raise the Math cutoff?").  I often just take a few job title match ideas from each search.  The reason I view this as an acceptable practice is that once I have a give or take manageable list of job titles, I view that only as a starting point.  From there I often take hours whittling the list down by doing a range of kinds of research on each job title, and in each of the scenarios I am constructing. 

When I first started running computerized searches for potential vocational options (circa 1988), I remember expecting that the more careful I was at inputting official job titles only, the more perfect and defensible would be the outcome.  All these years later, though, I am now a full blown cynic.  I now have a much more fully developed sense of just how imprecise automated computerized searches are, for oh, so many reasons.  I no longer ask the software to do my thinking for me.  When I run a transferable skills analysis, I no longer ask the computer to do the "analyzing" part.

-Steve Bast, MHS, CVE, CDMS, FVE, CCM, IPEC, ABVE/F, EA

Westwind Consulting, Inc.

Steve: I too am a skeptic of any computerized runs for a TSA, but do and have used a variety of the decades.  I am pleased to hear your response. TSA systems are a good start. But does it make common sense in the real world of work, if you plan to explain the methodology to a jury? Will the eyes become glazed? Will you convince the jury or judge.

Without so many words today to elaborate, the bottom line is: "does the individual really possess skills, abilities, aptitudes, including issues that erode ability to work or impact those established skills from past work, education and "hobbies" or "volunteering"  i.e., chronic pain, depression, side effects of medications, et. To OBTAIN work in the "competitive labor market".

Without some type of collateral documentation, which we can and should get from actual regional labor market postings (Real Jobs in the individual's labor market) and match carefully what the employers are requiring, the computerized approach can fail to meet the courts baseline of reliable, valid evidence and...... believability.  In past decades, many employers would speak with us on the PHONE. It's hard now, so many are addicted to third party outfits like Indeed.com, ZipRecruiters, Monster.com etc.

Failing to address realistic work skills that are available post subject event, allows the referral sources to hire us.  I am happy to be the benefactor of good or bad work, excellent analysis or incompetence.

JOHN F. BERG, M.Ed., CRC, ABVE/D, IPEC

Vocational Consulting Inc.

3515 SW Alaska Street

Top Floor

Seattle, WA.  98126

It seems to me that having a strict rule of thumb that calls for typing only the "official" job titles (into either a TSA software program or a report) yields a reassuring but deceptive sense of clarity or legitimacy.

These days, it seems to me perfectly fine to sometimes consider as a part of a search for job title matches the skills demonstrated in (a) volunteer jobs, or (b) jobs from 25yrs ago, or (c) jobs the evaluee was planning to work in had the injury not occurred (i.e., if she was pre-med), or (d) jobs the evaluee would be able to perform if she gets the re-training I am recommending, or (e) jobs the evaluee might be able to perform if he gets the surgery recommended, and so on.  It depends on the purpose of the search.

And the single most important aspect of my argument here is that it depends not just on the purpose of the search, but also, absolutely on the steps I plan to take after typing the job titles (official job titles or not).  In my practice, I often run multiple computerized searches for job title matches, (i.e., "Hmmm, I wonder what would happen if I reduce the Fingering to occasional," or "if I raise the Math cutoff?").  I often just take a few job title match ideas from each search.  The reason I view this as an acceptable practice is that once I have a give or take manageable list of job titles, I view that only as a starting point.  From there I often take hours whittling the list down by doing a range of kinds of research on each job title, and in each of the scenarios I am constructing. 

When I first started running computerized searches for potential vocational options (circa 1988), I remember expecting that the more careful I was at inputting official job titles only, the more perfect and defensible would be the outcome.  All these years later, though, I am now a full blown cynic.  I now have a much more fully developed sense of just how imprecise automated computerized searches are, for oh, so many reasons.  I no longer ask the software to do my thinking for me.  When I run a transferable skills analysis, I no longer ask the computer to do the "analyzing" part.

-Steve Bast, MHS, CVE, CDMS, FVE, CCM, IPEC, ABVE/F, EA

Westwind Consulting, Inc.

Steve: I too am a skeptic of any computerized runs for a TSA, but do and have used a variety of the decades.  I am pleased to hear your response. TSA systems are a good start. But does it make common sense in the real world of work, if you plan to explain the methodology to a jury? Will the eyes become glazed? Will you convince the jury or judge.

Without so many words today to elaborate, the bottom line is: "does the individual really possess skills, abilities, aptitudes, including issues that erode ability to work or impact those established skills from past work, education and "hobbies" or "volunteering"  i.e., chronic pain, depression, side effects of medications, et. To OBTAIN work in the "competitive labor market".

Without some type of collateral documentation, which we can and should get from actual regional labor market postings (Real Jobs in the individual's labor market) and match carefully what the employers are requiring, the computerized approach can fail to meet the courts baseline of reliable, valid evidence and...... believability.  In past decades, many employers would speak with us on the PHONE. It's hard now, so many are addicted to third party outfits like Indeed.com, ZipRecruiters, Monster.com etc.

Failing to address realistic work skills that are available post subject event, allows the referral sources to hire us.  I am happy to be the benefactor of good or bad work, excellent analysis or incompetence.

JOHN F. BERG, M.Ed., CRC, ABVE/D, IPEC

Vocational Consulting Inc.

3515 SW Alaska Street

Top Floor

Seattle, WA.  98126

It seems to me that having a strict rule of thumb that calls for typing only the "official" job titles (into either a TSA software program or a report) yields a reassuring but deceptive sense of clarity or legitimacy.

These days, it seems to me perfectly fine to sometimes consider as a part of a search for job title matches the skills demonstrated in (a) volunteer jobs, or (b) jobs from 25yrs ago, or (c) jobs the evaluee was planning to work in had the injury not occurred (i.e., if she was pre-med), or (d) jobs the evaluee would be able to perform if she gets the re-training I am recommending, or (e) jobs the evaluee might be able to perform if he gets the surgery recommended, and so on.  It depends on the purpose of the search.

And the single most important aspect of my argument here is that it depends not just on the purpose of the search, but also, absolutely on the steps I plan to take after typing the job titles (official job titles or not).  In my practice, I often run multiple computerized searches for job title matches, (i.e., "Hmmm, I wonder what would happen if I reduce the Fingering to occasional," or "if I raise the Math cutoff?").  I often just take a few job title match ideas from each search.  The reason I view this as an acceptable practice is that once I have a give or take manageable list of job titles, I view that only as a starting point.  From there I often take hours whittling the list down by doing a range of kinds of research on each job title, and in each of the scenarios I am constructing. 

When I first started running computerized searches for potential vocational options (circa 1988), I remember expecting that the more careful I was at inputting official job titles only, the more perfect and defensible would be the outcome.  All these years later, though, I am now a full blown cynic.  I now have a much more fully developed sense of just how imprecise automated computerized searches are, for oh, so many reasons.  I no longer ask the software to do my thinking for me.  When I run a transferable skills analysis, I no longer ask the computer to do the "analyzing" part.

-Steve Bast, MHS, CVE, CDMS, FVE, CCM, IPEC, ABVE/F, EA

Westwind Consulting, Inc.

Steve: I too am a skeptic of any computerized runs for a TSA, but do and have used a variety of the decades.  I am pleased to hear your response. TSA systems are a good start. But does it make common sense in the real world of work, if you plan to explain the methodology to a jury? Will the eyes become glazed? Will you convince the jury or judge.

Without so many words today to elaborate, the bottom line is: "does the individual really possess skills, abilities, aptitudes, including issues that erode ability to work or impact those established skills from past work, education and "hobbies" or "volunteering"  i.e., chronic pain, depression, side effects of medications, et. To OBTAIN work in the "competitive labor market".

Without some type of collateral documentation, which we can and should get from actual regional labor market postings (Real Jobs in the individual's labor market) and match carefully what the employers are requiring, the computerized approach can fail to meet the courts baseline of reliable, valid evidence and...... believability.  In past decades, many employers would speak with us on the PHONE. It's hard now, so many are addicted to third party outfits like Indeed.com, ZipRecruiters, Monster.com etc.

Failing to address realistic work skills that are available post subject event, allows the referral sources to hire us.  I am happy to be the benefactor of good or bad work, excellent analysis or incompetence.

JOHN F. BERG, M.Ed., CRC, ABVE/D, IPEC

Vocational Consulting Inc.

3515 SW Alaska Street

Top Floor

Seattle, WA.  98126

It seems to me that having a strict rule of thumb that calls for typing only the "official" job titles (into either a TSA software program or a report) yields a reassuring but deceptive sense of clarity or legitimacy.

These days, it seems to me perfectly fine to sometimes consider as a part of a search for job title matches the skills demonstrated in (a) volunteer jobs, or (b) jobs from 25yrs ago, or (c) jobs the evaluee was planning to work in had the injury not occurred (i.e., if she was pre-med), or (d) jobs the evaluee would be able to perform if she gets the re-training I am recommending, or (e) jobs the evaluee might be able to perform if he gets the surgery recommended, and so on.  It depends on the purpose of the search.

And the single most important aspect of my argument here is that it depends not just on the purpose of the search, but also, absolutely on the steps I plan to take after typing the job titles (official job titles or not).  In my practice, I often run multiple computerized searches for job title matches, (i.e., "Hmmm, I wonder what would happen if I reduce the Fingering to occasional," or "if I raise the Math cutoff?").  I often just take a few job title match ideas from each search.  The reason I view this as an acceptable practice is that once I have a give or take manageable list of job titles, I view that only as a starting point.  From there I often take hours whittling the list down by doing a range of kinds of research on each job title, and in each of the scenarios I am constructing. 

When I first started running computerized searches for potential vocational options (circa 1988), I remember expecting that the more careful I was at inputting official job titles only, the more perfect and defensible would be the outcome.  All these years later, though, I am now a full blown cynic.  I now have a much more fully developed sense of just how imprecise automated computerized searches are, for oh, so many reasons.  I no longer ask the software to do my thinking for me.  When I run a transferable skills analysis, I no longer ask the computer to do the "analyzing" part.

-Steve Bast, MHS, CVE, CDMS, FVE, CCM, IPEC, ABVE/F, EA

Westwind Consulting, Inc.

Steve: I too am a skeptic of any computerized runs for a TSA, but do and have used a variety of the decades.  I am pleased to hear your response. TSA systems are a good start. But does it make common sense in the real world of work, if you plan to explain the methodology to a jury? Will the eyes become glazed? Will you convince the jury or judge.

Without so many words today to elaborate, the bottom line is: "does the individual really possess skills, abilities, aptitudes, including issues that erode ability to work or impact those established skills from past work, education and "hobbies" or "volunteering"  i.e., chronic pain, depression, side effects of medications, et. To OBTAIN work in the "competitive labor market".

Without some type of collateral documentation, which we can and should get from actual regional labor market postings (Real Jobs in the individual's labor market) and match carefully what the employers are requiring, the computerized approach can fail to meet the courts baseline of reliable, valid evidence and...... believability.  In past decades, many employers would speak with us on the PHONE. It's hard now, so many are addicted to third party outfits like Indeed.com, ZipRecruiters, Monster.com etc.

Failing to address realistic work skills that are available post subject event, allows the referral sources to hire us.  I am happy to be the benefactor of good or bad work, excellent analysis or incompetence.

JOHN F. BERG, M.Ed., CRC, ABVE/D, IPEC

Vocational Consulting Inc.

3515 SW Alaska Street

Top Floor

Seattle, WA.  98126

It seems to me that having a strict rule of thumb that calls for typing only the "official" job titles (into either a TSA software program or a report) yields a reassuring but deceptive sense of clarity or legitimacy.

These days, it seems to me perfectly fine to sometimes consider as a part of a search for job title matches the skills demonstrated in (a) volunteer jobs, or (b) jobs from 25yrs ago, or (c) jobs the evaluee was planning to work in had the injury not occurred (i.e., if she was pre-med), or (d) jobs the evaluee would be able to perform if she gets the re-training I am recommending, or (e) jobs the evaluee might be able to perform if he gets the surgery recommended, and so on.  It depends on the purpose of the search.

And the single most important aspect of my argument here is that it depends not just on the purpose of the search, but also, absolutely on the steps I plan to take after typing the job titles (official job titles or not).  In my practice, I often run multiple computerized searches for job title matches, (i.e., "Hmmm, I wonder what would happen if I reduce the Fingering to occasional," or "if I raise the Math cutoff?").  I often just take a few job title match ideas from each search.  The reason I view this as an acceptable practice is that once I have a give or take manageable list of job titles, I view that only as a starting point.  From there I often take hours whittling the list down by doing a range of kinds of research on each job title, and in each of the scenarios I am constructing. 

When I first started running computerized searches for potential vocational options (circa 1988), I remember expecting that the more careful I was at inputting official job titles only, the more perfect and defensible would be the outcome.  All these years later, though, I am now a full blown cynic.  I now have a much more fully developed sense of just how imprecise automated computerized searches are, for oh, so many reasons.  I no longer ask the software to do my thinking for me.  When I run a transferable skills analysis, I no longer ask the computer to do the "analyzing" part.

-Steve Bast, MHS, CVE, CDMS, FVE, CCM, IPEC, ABVE/F, EA

Westwind Consulting, Inc.