The Personnel Demonstration Project (PDP) provision of the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978 was intended to promote innovative human resource management (HRM) practices and policies. The early experience in this regard was not encouraging. However, during the second 15 years of its existence, the Personnel Demonstration Project authority has been critical to the diffusion of two important human resource management policy innovations, paybanding and category rating. This analysis explores the policymaking dynamic through which this diffusion has occurred.
Ban, C. (1988). QED: The research and demonstration provisions of the Civil Service Reform Act. Policy Studies Journal, 17, 420-434.
2.
Ban, C. (1992). Research and demonstration projects under CSRA: Is innovation possible? In P. W. Ingraham & D. H. Rosenbloom (Eds.), The promise and paradox of civil service reform (pp. 217-235). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
3.
Ban, C. (2002). Statement before the International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services Subcommittee, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs . Retrieved March 18, 2008, from http://hsgac.senate.gov/031902ban.htm
4.
Cohen, M.D., March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1-25.
5.
Devroy, A. (1993, September 8). Clinton offers plan to fix a "broken" government. The Washington Post, p. A1.
6.
Gore, A. (1993). From red tape to results: Creating a government that works better and costs less: The report of the National Performance Review . Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
7.
Holley, L. (1991). NAPA's classification model. The Bureaucrat, 20, 39.
8.
Ingraham, P.W. (1993). Of pigs in pokes and policy diffusion: Another look at pay-for-performance. Public Administration Review , 53, 348-356.
9.
Ingraham, P.W. (1995). The foundation of merit: Public service in American democracy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
10.
Institute for Policy Research and Evaluation. ( 1995). U.S. Department of Agriculture personnel management demonstration project. College Station: Pennsylvania State University.
11.
Kingdon, J.W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: Longman.
12.
Klingner, D.E., & Nalbandian, J. (2003). Public personnel management: Context and strategies (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
13.
March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. (1983). Organizing political life: What administrative reorganization tells us about government. American Political Science Review, 77, 281-296.
14.
National Academy of Public Administration. ( 1991). Modernizing federal classification: An opportunity for excellence. Washington, DC: Author .
15.
National Academy of Public Administration. ( 1995). Modernizing federal classification: Operational broad-banding systems alternatives. Washington, DC: Author.
16.
National Academy of Public Administration. ( 2004). Recommending performance-based federal pay. Washington, DC: Author.
17.
National Performance Review. (1993). Reinventing human resource management: An accompanying report of the National Performance Review. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
18.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector from schoolhouse to statehouse, city hall to the Pentagon. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
19.
Pearce, J.L., Stevenson, W.B., & Perry, J.L. (1985). Managerial compensation based on organizational performance: A time series analysis of the effects of merit pay. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 261-278.
20.
Perry, J.L. (1986). Merit pay in the public sector: The case for a failure of theory. Review of Public Personnel Administration , 7, 57-69.
21.
RAND Corporation. (1993). Pacer share productivity and personnel management demonstration. Santa Monica, CA: Author.
22.
Schay, B.W. (1993). Broad-banding in the federal government. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
23.
Thompson, J.R. (2001). The civil service under Clinton: The institutional consequences of disaggregation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 21, 87-113.
24.
Thompson, J.R. (2006). The federal civil service: The demise of an institution . Public Administration Review, 66, 496-503.
25.
Thompson, J.R. (2007). Designing and implementing performance-oriented payband systems. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government. Retrieved April 6, 2008 from http://www.businessofgovernment.org/pdfs/ThompsonPaybandReport.pdf
26.
Thompson, P.R., Redd, G.W., & Bodian, L. (1993). Retrospective on the demonstration project authority . Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
27.
U.S. Civil Service Commission. (1977). Report of the President's Personnel Management Project. Washington, DC: Author.
28.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (1987 ). Federal personnel: Status of federal research and demonstration projects. Washington, DC: Author .
29.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (1988 ). Federal personnel: Observations on the Navy's personnel management demonstration project. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
30.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1992 ). Federal personnel research programs and demonstration projects: Catalysts for change. Washington, DC: Author.
31.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget. (2002 ). The president's management agenda. Washington, DC: Author.
32.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (1986 ). A summary assessment of the Navy demonstration project. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
33.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2002 ). A fresh start for federal pay: The case for modernization . Washington, DC: Author.
34.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2007 ). Performance-based alternative pay systems in the federal government. Retrieved April 6, 2008, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/results/agenda/alternativepay-syst-20051114.pdf
35.
U.S. Senate. (2000). Report to the president: The crisis in human capital. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
