See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/330288860

Job Analysis and the DACUM Process: Documenting What People Do in the
Workplace for Human Resource Development

Chapter · January 2019

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-94448-7_5

CITATION READS

1 394

1 author:

Ronald L. Jacobs
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
96 PUBLICATIONS 2,137 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ronald L. Jacobs on 21 June 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Metadata of the chapter that will be visualized online

Chapter Title Job Analysis and the DACUM Process

Copyright Year 2019
Copyright Holder The Author(s)
Corresponding Author Family Name Jacobs
Particle
Given Name Ronald L.
Suffix
Division
Organization/University University of Illinois at Urbana
Champaign
Address Champaign, IL, USA
Email rljacobs@[Link]
Abstract This chapter describes one of the most commonly requested work analysis
techniques, job analysis. Job analysis is defined in this chapter and describes
the Developing a Curriculum (DACUM) technique in particular. DACUM has
proven to be a relatively effective approach for conducting a job analysis as
it relies upon a panel of subject-matter experts to come together to generate
the duties and tasks of a job. The DACUM process also generates additional
information about a job. The chapter provides a process for conducting a
DACUM, and suggests that the role of the DACUM facilitator is critical for
ensuring the effectiveness of the job analysis project. Many human resource
development (HRD) professionals have heard of job analysis, and perhaps
they have heard of the DACUM process as well. Unfortunately, many HRD
professionals do not have experience in serving as a facilitator of the process.
 5 1

Job Analysis and the DACUM Process 2

Of all work analysis techniques, HRD professionals are most likely familiar 3
with job analysis. The term job analysis is commonly used in organizations, 4
though its precise meaning may differ across individuals. For some, the term 5
job analysis encompasses all work analysis activities. On more than one occa- 6
sion, I’ve heard a manager say something like “We should do a job analysis so 7
that people will know how to operate the new equipment”. In actuality, con- 8
ducting a job analysis would result in much more information than what is 9
required to achieve this particular goal. And job analysis may not provide all 10
the details to help the operators perform the new work. Task analysis would 11
be the technique that would more accurately address this request. 12
For others, the term job analysis represents a way of determining what 13
information is required to help recruit and select new employees. In fact, the 14
use of job analysis in this way is more closely associated with the responsibili- 15
ties of a human resource professional, not an HRD professional. When HRD 16
professionals hear the term job analysis referred to in so many ways, they are 17
often uncertain of what it means in terms of their own areas of practice. This 18
chapter seeks to provide a clear understanding of job analysis, with a focus on 19
the well-known job analysis technique called Developing a Curriculum 20
(DACUM). DACUM has been used on a global basis across many different 21
situations. 22

© The Author(s) 2019 63

R. L. Jacobs, Work Analysis in the Knowledge Economy,
[Link]
 64 R. L. Jacobs

23 Job Analysis
24 As defined in Chap. 1, job analysis is one of the major techniques that are part
25 of work analysis. In general, job analysis is the technique to use when there is
26 a need to provide information about a defined job as it exists in a specific
27 workplace context. A job analysis can result in all or part of the information
28 listed below, depending on the goals and scope of the project:

29 • Job title and job description, which provides a high-level overview of the
30 position, the day-to-activities of people in the job, and the workplace envi-
31 ronment in which the job is performed
32 • Broad areas of responsibility or duties within the job
33 • Units of work or tasks within each of the duties
34 • Prerequisite areas of knowledge, skills, and attitudes required to do the
35 work
36 • General quality requirements related to the work
37 • General safety requirements related to the work
38 • Various resources that are used as part of the job
39 • Additional information that would enable an individual to be successful in
40 the job

41 A scan of this list suggests the potential usefulness of job analysis. In prac-
42 tice, some job analysis projects might not document all of this information.
43 The intended use of the information will determine which aspects will be
44 included in the job analysis.
45 For instance, a regional bank in the Midwest shifted its strategic focus so
46 that it can begin to offer extended customer services within each branch office,
47 through the job called personal banker. As a result, the bank undertook a
48 comprehensive job analysis of the major responsibilities and specific units of
49 work within this newly identified constituted job. The job analysis also
50 included information about the educational prerequisites of the job. The
51 results of the job analysis were used in a number of different ways, including
52 the design of a training program, a coaching program to be delivered by
53 branch office managers, and the content of the performance review document
54 to be used by the managers at each branch.
55 It should be noted that the job analysis was conducted on a job that essen-
56 tially did not formally exist in the bank, though managers were already per-
57 forming some aspects of it. The job was being established for the first time. As
58 a result, the job analysis focused on what management envisioned the job
59 should entail in the future, not what it currently looked like. Most job analysis
 Job Analysis and the DACUM Process 65

projects more often focus on documenting the components of existing jobs, 60

but that does not need to be the case in all instances. Obviously, the context 61
of the project will determine the nature of the data gathering. 62
In addition, the results of the job analysis helped identify that there was a 63
need for developing a proprietary customer service process, that the personal 64
bankers would follow when they meet with customers. This was considered a 65
critical part of the job. The following job duty was pinpointed: Identifying the 66
financial needs of customers. And with that duty came the realization that the 67
personal bankers should have a formal process to follow when they actually 68
work with a customer. 69

Conducting a Job Analysis—DACUM 70

The literature discusses several different approaches on conducting a job anal- 71

ysis. The focus of this chapter will be on the job analysis technique called 72
Developing a Curriculum (DACUM). DACUM was first developed in the 73
late 1960s to analyze the content of occupations as the basis for designing 74
technical courses in community college settings. Since that time, DACUM 75
has been used across a wide range of jobs, both professional and nonprofes- 76
sional, and work settings, including community colleges and technical schools, 77
national policy centers, nonprofit nongovernmental organizations, and busi- 78
ness and industries. 79
Today, a relatively large number of universities, community colleges, and 80
private-sector consultants provide services related to DACUM, including 81
programs that train individuals on how to use the technique and certify indi- 82
viduals on how to become facilitators in using the technique in practice. Most 83
prominent among these various training providers is the DACUM services 84
provided through the Center on Education and Training for Employment, at 85
The Ohio State University, directed for many years by Robert Norton (Norton 86
& Moser, 2008). Perhaps information about an HRD-related area of practice 87
has been disseminated more widely than about DACUM, much to focused 88 AU1
effort of one individual. 89
As will be discussed in Chap. 7, DACUM has also become one of most 90
frequently mentioned techniques to conduct an occupational analysis and to 91
establish national occupational standards as well. No other single job analysis 92
technique has attracted more adherents than DACUM. 93
DACUM is essentially a group process, in which a panel of several subject- 94
matter experts (SMEs) of varying numbers of people, depending on the 95
situation, are brought together for one to two days, and are guided through 96
 66 R. L. Jacobs

97 the process by a trained facilitator, who is likely content-free. DACUM makes

98 three assumptions about the work being analyzed. For one thing, DACUM
99 assumes that SMEs, or the most knowledgeable individuals about the job, will
100 be available to participate in the process and because of their designation as
101 SMEs, will be able to describe what they do better than anyone else. The reli-
102 ance on SMEs is a fundamental part of the DACUM process.
103 Second, DACUM also assumes that the technique can be used to analyze
104 any job, given that the job can be separated into its component parts.
105 Admittedly, while this is a core assumption about work analysis in general, it
106 also has some limitations at least from a job-level perspective. The responsi-
107 bilities of some contemporary jobs, such as entrepreneurs in start-up compa-
108 nies, are often more fluid in nature, given their inherent unpredictability and
109 the need for flexibility. In addition, the assumption may be difficult to accept
110 for emerging jobs that involve new technologies that tend to change rapidly
111 over short periods of time or that have ill-defined and emerging sets of respon-
112 sibilities, simply because no one has ever performed them before.
113 Finally, DACUM assumes that, in the end, individuals who possess the
114 prerequisites that have been identified during the process will be able to learn
115 how to perform the job from the information generated from the technique.
116 This assumption is based on the perspective of mastery-learning, as used in
117 technical education and training. Mastery learning, a notion that is also
118 referred to as competency-based or criterion-referenced instruction, proposes
119 the alignment of the learning objectives, the instructional content, and the
120 means for measuring learning outcomes, such that learners will know in
121 advance what they should learn and be able to perform as expected at the end.
122 Table 5.1 presents the steps of the process for conducting a job analysis using
123 the DACUM technique. The process can be separated into three major phases:
124 (1) Prepare to conduct the DACUM, (2) Conduct the DACUM, and (3)
125 Verify the results of the DACUM. The DACUM process is presented from the
126 perspective of the facilitator. That is, what the facilitator should do to effectively
127 use the DACUM technique.
128 The first phase involves the facilitator getting ready before bringing together
129 the panel of SMEs, as a means to become more familiar with the job. This
130 could involve the use of different sources of information—oftentimes the use
131 of O*NET occurs here—and methods of gathering the information. Indeed,
132 the facilitator might even conduct some one-on-one interviews to find out
133 more about the job. The facilitator should not conduct the DACUM without
134 becoming fully aware of the job.
135 Clearly, the second phase is the most critical phase for the facilitator as it
136 represents the actual meeting with the panel of SMEs. The most important
137 resource at this point for the facilitator, believe it or not, is the sticky posts and
 Job Analysis and the DACUM Process 67

Table 5.1 DACUM process t1.1

I. Prepare to conduct the DACUM t1.2

a. Identify the job title. t1.3
b. Become familiar with the job using a range of sources and methods. t1.4
c. Prepare a summary of the job information for reference during the DACUM. t1.5
II. Conduct the DACUM t1.6
a. Bring together the subject-matter experts (SMEs). t1.7
b. Provide an orientation to the SMEs: Purpose, Process, Definitions, Outputs, t1.8
Rules. t1.9
c. Present the first prompt question: What are the major activities (duties) of this t1.10
job? t1.11
d. Post responses for group discussion and consensus. t1.12
e. Present the second prompt question: What are the tasks within each duty? t1.13
f. Post responses for discussion and consensus. t1.14
g. Present draft DACUM chart for panel review. t1.15
h. Manage group process of panel. t1.16
i. Present the third prompt question: What are the prerequisite competencies, t1.17
prerequisite knowledge and skills, resources, key terms? t1.18
III. Verify the results of the DACUM t1.19
a. Prepare final DACUM chart and additional information for review. t1.20
b. Conduct final review of DACUM chart from panel. t1.21
c. Obtain final management and expert approvals. t1.22

flipchart sheets. Anyone who has had experience with DACUM, or has 138
conducted a search on the Internet on the topic, will almost immediately be 139
able to find photographs of a DACUM panel and facilitator, with the walls of 140
the meeting space filled with ideas about the duties and tasks for each duty. 141
Using sticky posts and flipchart sheets have almost become synonymous with 142
the DACUM technique. 143
Figure 5.1 presents the pages of an abbreviated example of a DACUM 144
chart, and presents the names of the SMEs, the analysts, the duties of the job, 145
the associated tasks for each duty, the perquisites necessary for performing the 146
job, the resources used when performing the job, and some of the future 147
trends. The example provides an overall view of how a job analysis report 148
would appear at the end of the process. Some job analysis charts present the 149
required characteristics of the individuals performing the job, but this infor- 150
mation can be considered as individual competencies, and represents a 151
separate set of data gathering. The information on a typical DACUM chart 152
includes the following: 153

• Names of the subject-matter experts 154

• Names of the analysts 155
• Display of the duties 156
• Tasks for each duty 157
 68 R. L. Jacobs

this figure will be printed in b/w

Fig. 5.1 (a–c) Example job analysis chart

 Job Analysis and the DACUM Process 69

Fig. 5.1 (continued)

70 R. L. Jacobs

Fig. 5.1 (continued)

 Job Analysis and the DACUM Process 71

• Prerequisite knowledge, skills, experiences 158

• Resources: tools, equipment, software, documents 159
• Future trends and issues 160
• Additional information about the job 161

Often, the DACUM chart is presented in landscape orientation to show 162

this information more clearly. The format of the chart is often the most recog- 163
nizable aspect of using the DACUM technique. 164
The final phase requires that the information from the DACUM be verified 165
by other stakeholders in the job analysis. That is, individuals who have an 166
interest in ensuring the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the information. 167
The verification might be done by different stakeholders, including other 168
SMEs who were not part of the DACUM, such as job incumbents, quality 169
and safety staff, and senior managers. In many instances, the verification is 170
done simply by having the facilitator send the completed DACUM chart to 171
them and asking them to make comments. Or the facilitator can present the 172
results to various stakeholder individuals and small groups. 173
As shown in the abbreviated example in Fig. 5.2, the verification may also 174
use a survey instrument, which calls for gathering information about the tasks 175
of the job. Such an instrument is used when there may be a sizeable number 176
of stakeholders who are involved in the verification process, and the instru- 177
ment calls for collecting some additional information as well. Today, most of 178
these instruments are delivered through a web-based platform. DACUM veri- 179
fication instruments typically list each of the tasks, and respondents are asked 180
to rate the task in terms of three categories: the importance of the task within 181
the job, the relative difficulty in performing the task, and the relative fre- 182
quency of performing the task. 183
The results of the survey can provide some additional insights into the 184
composition of the job. The results can show the perceptions of respective sets 185
of stakeholders about each task and across the categories, the discrepancies 186
among the three categories for each task, and perhaps most interestingly how, 187
through a cross tabulation, different groups of respondents, such as managers, 188
supervisors, and other job incumbents, may differ in their responses. In the 189
end, the additional information from the survey can be used for setting priori- 190
ties for instructional planning. 191
To a large extent, the success of using DACUM depends on the ability of 192
the facilitator to obtain the required information from the various SMEs par- 193
ticipating in the process. Most participants in a DACUM have never had this 194
experience before, and certainly do not know what the result of the process 195
should look like. The following list provides further information about the 196
requirements of an effective DACUM facilitator: 197
72 R. L. Jacobs

Fig. 5.2 (a–d) Example job analysis verification instrument

 Job Analysis and the DACUM Process 73

Fig. 5.2 (continued)

 74 R. L. Jacobs

198 • Should be content-free in terms of the job

199 • Should be an expert in the DACUM technique
200 • Should be able to listen actively to all contributions
201 • Should encourage contributions from all SMEs
202 • Should control participants who try to dominate
203 • Should probe responses with questions—open ended
204 • Should manage conflicts—allow some disagreements if appropriate
205 • Should maintain an open climate
206 • Should understand the meaning of verbs

207 A review of this list suggests that most of the requirements for being an
208 effective DACUM facilitator are similar to those of being a group facilitator
209 in general. The one exception is the last point on the list, an understanding of
210 the meaning of the verbs used for the duty and task statements. The selection
211 of the verbs may seem relatively unimportant within the context of the entire
212 process. But, in fact, the selection of the verbs is a critical part of the facilita-
213 tor’s contribution to the DACUM process. While the facilitator is usually
214 content-free, the facilitator should have a clear sense of the meaning of the
215 verbs that will be used for the duty and task statements.
216 In this sense, Table 5.2 presents a list of commonly used verbs and their
217 definitions. As stated, the facilitator should help guide the SMEs in identify-
218 ing the verbs that best match the intent of the duty and task statements. The
219 importance of doing this often reveals itself during the process when the facil-
220 itator is seeking to help the panel reconcile the duty statement with the vari-
221 ous tasks, and perhaps more importantly when the task statements are being
222 used for a specific purpose later on. For instance,
223 In my experience, I have found visualization skills to be helpful to ensure
224 the accuracy between the observed work behavior and the language used to
225 describe the work behavior. For many analysts in training, the ability to match
226 observations and language is a crucial ability for DACUM facilitators, and for
227 all analysts for that matter. In practice, the SMEs would seek guidance from
228 the facilitator to use the best language possible. As for facilitators, they should
229 be an expert in this ability.
230 The final aspect of conducting the job analysis is constructing a job descrip-
231 tion. In practice, there are several different approaches for writing job descrip-
232 tions, as evidenced by the wide differences that one might find in organizations.
233 HRD professionals seldom make use of job descriptions per se, since this
234 information is more likely used for purposes of recruitment, selection, and
235 compensation, which are usually not part of HRD practice.
 Job Analysis and the DACUM Process 75

Table 5.2 Work analysis verbs and their definitions t2.1

Adjust—to change something for the purpose of improving the product or process t2.2
of interest. The outcome often appears as a set of physical actions or verbal t2.3
behaviors. t2.4
Analyze—to study a situation or a problem, to separate take something apart and t2.5
look at the relationships. The outcome often appears as a report or a presentation. t2.6
Assemble—to collect or gather things in a predetermined order, to put something t2.7
together. The outcome often appears as a tangible object. t2.8
Assign—to give specific responsibilities to someone else to perform. The outcome t2.9
often appears as a memo or a set of verbal instructions. t2.10
Attach—to bind, fasten, or connect things together. The outcome often appears as t2.11
an object or thing. t2.12
Attend—to participate in some event. The outcome often appears as verbal t2.13
comments such as during a meeting. Merely being present at a meeting is not t2.14
sufficient. t2.15
Audit—to examine or review a situation, condition, or set of practices. The outcome t2.16
often appears as a report or a presentation. t2.17
Build—to put something together, often of a large or complex nature. See t2.18
Assemble. The outcome often appears as a physical object (product) or the actions t2.19
to perform the task (process). t2.20
Calculate—to use mathematical formulas to derive a result from a set of numbers. t2.21
The outcome often appears as a report or representation. t2.22
Check—to examine or inspect a product or a process. The outcome often appears as t2.23
an inspection report that includes the inspection points, steps, criteria for each t2.24
inspection point, and the overall rating. t2.25
Collect—to gather facts or data. The outcome often appears as information t2.26
presented in a document. t2.27
Compose—to make up something that seems original or novel. The outcome often t2.28
appears as a plan or some other entity that required some original thought. t2.29
Conduct—to carry out something, to lead others in doing something. The outcome t2.30
often appears as an observable set of actions or documents. t2.31
Consult—to seek the advice of others. The outcome often appears as a meeting t2.32
with a document as a result. t2.33
Control—to exert power over something, to guide something toward a set of t2.34
behaviors. The outcome usually appears as a set of actions or documents. t2.35
Coordinate—to bring two or more actions or conditions into alignment, to take into t2.36
consideration a set of conditions and bring them to a conclusion. The outcome t2.37
often appears as a set of behaviors or documents. t2.38
Decide—to decide among options, based on a set of decision conditions, each of t2.39
which varies in some way. The outcome often appears as a set of verbal t2.40
statements or documents. t2.41
Delegate—to assign a set of responsibilities to someone else to achieve an objective. t2.42
The outcome often appears as a set of verbal behaviors or a document. t2.43
Design—to consider a set of specifications and constraints, in combination with a set t2.44
of ideas for the purpose of achieving a goal. The outcome often appears as a plan, t2.45
presentation, or report. t2.46
Determine—to make a decision, see Decide. t2.47
Develop—to facilitate the progress of some activity or event that changes over a t2.48
period of time, similar to Design but with a changed emphasis. The outcome often t2.49
appears as a plan, presentation, or report. t2.50

(continued)
 76 R. L. Jacobs

Table 5.2 (continued)

t2.51 Disassemble—to take something apart. The outcome often appears as an object or
t2.52 thing in its separate parts.
t2.53 Discuss—to exchange ideas that lead to a conclusion or result of some kind. Discuss
t2.54 would not be appropriate without the result. The outcome often appears as a
t2.55 decision made or some set of information.
t2.56 Ensure—to make certain that something is in place, or an occurrence of some kind
t2.57 takes place. See Check, Inspect. The outcome often appears as a physical action or
t2.58 set of observable behaviors judged against a standard.
t2.59 Enter—to place information or data from one location to another location. The
t2.60 outcome often appears as a set of physical actions.
t2.61 Evaluate—to examine something carefully based on a referent or set of standards.
t2.62 The outcome often appears as a report, memo, or presentation.
t2.63 Identify—to find a set of possible choices that meet a set of criteria. The outcome
t2.64 often appears as a set of verbal behaviors, a plan, or a report.
t2.65 Implement—to put a plan, project, or design into action following phases of a
t2.66 process. The outcome often appears as a document or set of verbal behaviors.
t2.67 Inspect—See Check.
t2.68 Install—to put something into place, to put a component onto a larger object. The
t2.69 outcome often appears as a completed physical action and possible verbal
t2.70 behaviors.
t2.71 Manage—to exert control over a set of events or the efforts of others to achieve a
t2.72 result. The outcome often appears as a set of verbal behaviors or a document.
t2.73 Negotiate—to use a process involving others to reach agreement on an issue or area
t2.74 of concern, based on an understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of
t2.75 the positions. The outcome often appears as the use of verbal behaviors in using a
t2.76 specific process.
t2.77 Perform—to carry out something, to act, to accomplish something. The outcome
t2.78 often appears as a set of physical or verbal behaviors.
t2.79 Plan—to undertake a process or set of events that will lead to an outcome of some
t2.80 kind. The outcome often appears as a document or presentation.
t2.81 Prepare—to put together elements as a means to get ready to do something else.
t2.82 The outcome often appears as a set of physical actions, verbal behaviors, or a
t2.83 document.
t2.84 Provide—to give something to another person or group, for the purpose of them
t2.85 acting on what is given. The outcome often appears as a document, verbal
t2.86 behaviors, or physical actions.
t2.87 Recognize—to single out a person or group for performance that is beyond the
t2.88 average or commonplace. The outcome often appears as a set of observable
t2.89 behaviors.
t2.90 Review—to examine something, usually with the intent to approve or dissent, to
t2.91 analyze the components of something. The outcome often appears as a document
t2.92 or presentation.
t2.93 Revise—See Adjust.
t2.94 Schedule—to consider more than one variable from which a time line or set of
t2.95 arrangements can be made. The outcome often appears as written document, a
t2.96 plan, or a report.
(continued)
 Job Analysis and the DACUM Process 77

Table 5.2 (continued)

Shut down—to make a piece of equipment stop operating. The outcome often t2.97
appears as a set of physical behaviors. t2.98
Select—to pick out which option or possibility among the identified ones best meets t2.99
the established criteria. The outcome often appears as a physical action, verbal t2.100
behavior, or written document. t2.101
Solve—to address a problem and derive a solution, see Troubleshoot. The outcome t2.102
often appears as a set of cognitive behaviors followed by observable actions. t2.103
Start up—to make a piece of equipment begin to operate. The outcome often t2.104
appears as a set of physical behaviors. t2.105
Supervise—to oversee an activity done by others, to lead others in doing something, t2.106
all of which focuses on achieving a result. The outcome often appears as verbal t2.107
behaviors or physical actions. t2.108
Train—to deliver a set of training materials using a planned process. The outcome t2.109
often appears as a set of observable behaviors. t2.110
Troubleshoot—to identify the problem situations, the likely causes, and the actions t2.111
to take to address the problem situations. The outcome often appears as a set of t2.112
physical actions, verbal behaviors, or documents. t2.113
Verify—to prove something to be accurate, to test something, to check the accuracy t2.114
of something. The outcome often appears as a set of physical actions, verbal t2.115
behaviors, or documents. t2.116

The following example shows the relationship between a description and 236
the duties of a job. 237

Job Title: Senior Software Project Manager 238

Job DescriptionThe Senior Software Project Manager oversees a diverse 239
team of professionals to achieve software development project goals. The 240
Manager ensures timely execution of project plans, essential for maintaining 241
high levels of productivity and the competitiveness of our organization in the 242
marketplace. The Manager must perform the job in accordance with internal 243
and industry-wide software development standards. 244
Job Duties 245

A. Planning the development of software projects 246

B. Coordinating assignments across software development team members 247
C. Coordinating all development steps with regional software managers 248
D. Ensuring that all applicable processes contribute to improvements 249
E. Coordinating the resolution of technical issues across platforms 250
F. Ensuring compliance of the development process within regulations 251
G. Allocating resources to achieve financials goals 252
H. Managing new software development project budgets 253

As shown in the example, job descriptions should not simply summarize 254
the duties, as many job descriptions seem to do. In their most basic form, job 255
descriptions might have the following three-sentence format. The first sen- 256
 78 R. L. Jacobs

257 tence often provides a general statement of responsibility of what individuals

258 holding the job actually do, sometimes on a daily basis. The second sentence
259 states the importance of the job in regard to achieving the organizational or
260 departmental mission. The third sentence states the expectations of the job in
261 terms of meeting safety, quality, and customer service requirements, consis-
262 tent with the mission of the organization. In this three-sentence format, the
263 job description should be no longer than about 75 words in length.

264 In many instances, job descriptions are mistakenly written upfront, before
265 engaging in the job analysis process. In practice, this approach seems difficult,
266 unless there are previous documents that can be reliably referred to that pro-
267 vide information about the job. More logically, job descriptions should be
268 prepared after the job analysis is conducted, once there is a more comprehen-
269 sive understanding of the job. The duties often provide critical information
270 for formulating the job description.

271 Comment
272 This chapter introduced how to conduct a job analysis, with a specific focus
273 on using the DACUM technique. The DACUM technique has been used in
274 a wide range of situations to document the components of a job in a particu-
275 lar workplace context. At least one issue should be emphasized about job
276 analysis. That is, while most job analyses provide much important informa-
277 tion, it should be noted what in fact they don’t provide. Most importantly, job
278 analysis, especially when DACUM is used as the method, does not in itself
279 provide information about the behavioral components of tasks, which repre-
280 sent an important set of information in many organizations. That is, the spe-
281 cific work behaviors that comprise the task statements.
282 Identifying the component behaviors of tasks requires the use of another work
283 analysis technique, called task analysis, which will be addressed in Chap. 6. The
284 realization that most job analyses do not provide this additional information
285 often comes as a surprise to many HRD practitioners and managers. They mis-
286 takenly believe that job analysis provides all the information required to design a
287 training program or some other HRD program. As will be noted in the following
288 chapter, task analysis requires a unique set of analyst skills different than those of
289 job analysis.
 Job Analysis and the DACUM Process 79

Refection Questions 290

1. In what capacity might you undertake a job analysis project? Could you 291
envision yourself being a facilitator of the process? 292
2. Have you ever performed in the role of a facilitator, in which there would 293
likely be six to ten SMEs involved? 294
3. Does the DACUM chart make sense, as a means to communicate the vari- 295
ous duties and tasks of a job? 296
4. From a review of the list of verbs, can you visualize what the meaning of 297
each word is, and help explain them to others? 298
5. The DACUM process assumes that the facilitator will provide feedback to 299
the group about the appropriateness of the statements. Do you feel com- 300
fortable in providing feedback about the duty and task statements gener- 301
ated by the SMEs? 302

Reference 303

Norton, R. E., & Moser, J. (2008). DACUM handbook (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: 304
Center on Education and Training for Employment, The Ohio State University. 305
 Author Queries
Chapter No.: 5 0004240780

Queries Details Required Author’s Response

AU1 In the sentence starting “Perhaps information about...” the
meaning of the last phrase “much to focused ... individual” is not
clear. Please modify as appropriate.

View publication stats