PASS: Scientific and TechnicalPromotions process | Competency profile | Guidelines for the scientific and technical officers committee
View the S&TO promotions process flow.
How the recommendation was developed
A task team of Scientific and Technical Officers (S&TO's) was set up in 2005 to:
- develop criteria for promotion for S&TO's;
- make recommendations for the promotions process for S&TO's.
The task team consisted of S&TO's across different payclasses and HR representatives from the relevant faculties. The process was facilitated by the UCT Skills Development Facilitator.
Given the role that S&TO's play in supporting the academic endeavour, performance management, career development and retention strategies need to be made explicit and transparent. The elements below serve to paint the broader context within which the promotion process for S&TO's resides. This proposal, however, deals specifically with a proposal for promotions for S&TO's.
|the candidate and line manager wish to evaluate performance and determine development plans||apply performance management process|
|the candidate meets criteria for promotion by demonstrating competence and delivering outputs||follow promotion process|
|operational requirements of the job change / grow||apply for job evaluation|
|the candidate wishes to apply for an academic post (see Performance management - academic staff)||consider whether an academic post is available for the candidate to fill|
Terms of Reference for S&TO Promotion Committee
General rules and guidelines
These terms of reference should be understood in conjunction with the general rules for procedures for committees, as amended from time to time and published in the Principal's Circular.
These general rules and procedures can be found on the governance intranet.
- To evaluate applications / nominations for the promotion of S&TO staff
- To make recommendations for promotion to the Dean of each Faculty
Formulation and composition of committee
Each year the centralised Scientific and Technical Officers Committee (S&TOC) for promotions will meet.
The composition of the Committee will be contingent upon the fields of expertise necessary to make reasonable assessments of the candidates. Membership will be constituted as follows:
|Members on the Committee||Capacity|
|3 members of relevant faculties* nominated by each Dean of the faculty (1 x HOD, 2 x S&TO not up for promotion from own/other faculty)||Full Voting Rights|
|3 members nominated by the S&TO constituency (not up for promotion)||Full Voting Rights|
|1 HR representative||Advisory role and Servicing Officer|
|1 Deputy Vice-Chancellor nominated by the Vice-Chancellor||Chair with full voting rights (Deputy Chair: The Committee shall nominate its own Deputy Chair)|
* "relevant faculties" refers to those faculties which have applications for ad hominem promotions in the current year
- The Committee will vote by secret ballot to finalise their recommendations.
- A two-thirds majority is required in order to obtain a recommendation for promotion.
- The structure, function and powers of this Committee, and any sub-committee, must be approved by the DVC with the portfolio for academic leadership and development. No applications may be suppressed by sub-committees (i.e. the final Committee must consider all applications).
- To utilise accepted criteria for the evaluation of S&TO candidates for promotion
- To apply principles of fair assessment to all candidates being evaluated
- To make informed recommendations for promotion to the relevant Dean
- To establish a confidential feedback process to candidates
- To maintain confidentiality of all recommendations until the candidate has been informed of the outcome by the Dean
- To adhere to agreed timelines of promotion process.
All members or substitutes must be present.
Terms of office
Members will serve on the committee for at least 3 consecutive years (for continuity).
Eligibility for UCT staff
Permanent and T3 UCT staff members who have worked in their current positions for at least two years are eligible.
The application / nomination must be based on achievements in services and support provided at UCT, obtained after the appointment of the person concerned.
This proposal should be read in conjunction with the proposed business process below:
|1.||The HoD and HR Practitioner evaluate whether the post needs to be re-evaluated based on operational requirements or the candidate should be put forward for promotion.||May - June|
|2.||The Dean calls for applications and nominations for S&TO promotions.||July|
|3.||The central S&TO Committee (S&TOC) for promotions is finalised.||July|
|4.||The relevant documentation required for promotion shall be submitted to the S&TOC at least two weeks prior to the meeting of the Committee.||August/September|
|5.||The S&TOC evaluates all S&T applications for promotion and makes a recommendation to the relevant Deans.||September/October|
|6.||The Dean approves the recommendation for promotion.||September/October|
|7.||The S&TOC provides feedback to the candidates.||October|
|8.||Any appeal decision is signed off by the Chair of the S&TOC.||October|
|9.||New appointment letters are distributed with new COE's.||December|
|10.||A review of the completed ad hominem exercise is undertaken.||December/January|
The following documentation will be reviewed by the Committee for each candidate prior to evaluation:
- Terms of Reference for the S&TO Committee
- Relevant S&TO competency profile
- Nomination for promotion from senior staff member / HoD / self
- Candidate motivation with examples of competencies in the competency profile for the next level that the candidate is being considered
- Names and email addresses of up to three job-related referees, one of whom must be the candidate's HoD
- A current CV to focus on the last few years or since the last ad hominem promotion
- Up-to-date record of the candidate's performance evaluations
- Current job description as part of the operational requirements of the section, signed off by both the HoD and the incumbent
View the competency profiles of the respective levels for Scientific and Technical Officer positions.
In 2006 the first meeting of the newly constituted Scientific & Technical Officers Committee (S&TOC) took place to determine the ad hominem promotions for this category of staff.
The process and documentation was reviewed in February 2007 and 2008 and a few minor enhancements were made to the documentation. One such enhancement was to prepare a guidelines document for the S&TOC to support the committee process. The basis of this document is the feedback from the 2006 S&TOC ad hominem exercise.
- The foundation for an individual's ad hominem promotion is on the strength of how the individual's application is assessed against the defined competency profiles. Comparing jobs across departments must be avoided.
- It is suggested that the Committee use a scoring scale of one to five to assess competence against the competency profiles.
- It is perceived that a nominated application (by a senior staff member or HoD) carries more weight than a self-nominated application. The applications need to be assessed on their merits and the supporting referee reports.
- Committee members need to judge the applications on their merit and how they align to the agreed remuneration structure. The Committee must avoid making comparisons of remuneration structures and salary ranges across types of contracts (i.e. PASS and academic ranges).
- Members of the Committee are nominated and hence expected and trusted to be impartial. Members, who feel that there is a conflict of interest, should recuse themselves from serving.
Page last updated: 10 October 2013