Original Date: 01/26/1998
Revision Date: 01/18/2003
Information : Group Award Plan
In 1994, Corpus Christi Army Depot (CCAD) designed a bonus plan to replace the various existing performance awards. This was called the Group Award Plan (GAP), and was intended to supplement the new teaming initiatives with Installation-wide monetary awards commensurate with Installation-wide performance.
Prior to 1994, CCAD used the traditional Government award system to recognize people who demonstrated extra effort or received outstanding performance ratings. Approximately 25% of the workforce received some type of award on a yearly basis. These included performance based monetary awards, quality step increases, special acts, and on-the-spot awards. As CCAD migrated to the team approach in all levels of management and functional performance, there was a concern that many people were not being recognized for their efforts. It was also recognized that in a team effort, the average performer contributed a great deal to the team and Installation performance, and therefore deserved recognition as well as the outstanding performers. In support of the teaming concepts, the GAP was developed and instituted as a replacement to the traditional award system.
The first year of implementation of group awards was 1994. Both the group award concept and the pay out parameters were negotiated and agreed on by the local union. The plan itself was also concurred with by the Headquarters Industrial Operations Command (IOC). In the first year, the awards were based on attaining cost and revenue goals with $450 being awarded for attaining each parameter. The pay out was $900 for every employee based on the overall Installation’s performance. In 1995, the same parameters were agreed to by CCAD and the union; however, the revenue goal was not met and, as a result, the total award was $450 per employee. The parameters since then have been based on CCAD installation net operating results (NOR) which took into account both cost and revenue. Meeting this goal has been a requirement for any level award. In 1997, schedule conformance was added as a goal for additional money if the NOR goal was met; and in 1998, cost, schedule, and quality were each considered for increased award amounts. This is consistent with the Executive Level Team strategic goal of making CCAD a High Performance installation.
No award money was distributed in 1996 or 1997due to not meeting the NOR threshold, even though other goals such as schedule were met. Efforts have been underway to consider all parameters equally in getting some level of award pay out instead of having NOR as the first screen out. Success in changing this in the evolution of the GAP is considered critical to the future success of this program, since the possibility of three consecutive years without any awards would affect support for continuing the program. Results for 1998 and the treatment of NOR are considered pivotal for the future effectiveness of the GAP as an alternative to traditional award systems.
For more information see the
Point of Contact for this survey.