Federal Times wants to hear from employees and managers under the National Security Personnel System about how the program should be improved. Do you think it’s working or not? Where are its weaknesses? What can be done to fix those problems, now that the Pentagon and Office of Personnel Management are putting NSPS under the microscope? Or do you think the system is too flawed to repair, and that it’s time to return to the General Schedule?
E-mail me at slosey@federaltimes.com if you’d like to talk. If you’d prefer that your name not be published, that would be fine.
26 Comments
I was a supervisor under NSPS for a year prior to my retirement in February. In my 35 years of federal service, I have never encountered such a nightmare. Recruiting new personnel was almost impossible due to the confusion regarding the broad pay bands. Since the new YA -2 series pay band covered what had previously been GS-6 through GS-13, the vast majority of the applicants on the certifications already made higher salaries than the job we were attempting to fill. We would still have to call every applicant on the cert to verify that they weren’t interested in applying for a position that paid thousands (in some cases tens of thousands) of dollars less than the applicant currently made.
I have also seen numerous instances where employees were determined to be ineligible for positions that required that they service at the next lower grade level for a year. Even though we had converted to NSPS, our Human Resources Department was still evaluating applications based on an employee’s GS grade level. On the other side of the coin, unqualified employees also slipped through Human Resources. This lead to mass confusion on the part of the employees if they were really under NSPS or if they should list their previous GS grades on their applications.
Writing the employees NSPS performance standards and self evaluations was extremely time consuming and took valuable time away from the performance of their duties. Their final assessments were due on September 30 which just happened to be the end of the fiscal year. As a Department of Defense budget officer, this was the busiest time of the year for my personnel. Adding their final NSPS self assessment was just added misery to their already overwhelming fiscal year close.
I felt that distribution of NSPS shares was also unfair in some instances. My unofficial guidance was to give my formerly high graded GS employees their bonuses as one time lump sum payments and to give the new employees their share pay outs as salary increases. Obviously, this was a huge morale problem for my senior employees who worked just as hard as the junior employees and were looking to increase their base salaries for retirement purposes.
The only positive thing that I can say regarding NSPS is that it was an added incentive for me to retire earlier than I had previously planned.
As a DOD civilian, I support the repeal of the National Security Personnel System (NSPS). NSPS increases corruption within the organization by giving management the power to manipulate the new personnel system and its employees for reward in the name of merit. This has changed and complicated most employees’ behavior in that they often focus more on NSPS than the mission. There’s more whispering in the cubicles and less sharing of information. That is, in part, because there is a lack of transparency in NSPS. When there is an absence of information, gossip and cliques fill the vacuum.
I have been under the NSPS since spiral 1. Prior to that, I was a GS-11/6. Prior to that, I was in the private sector as management. I have seen all sides.
As an employee and as a rater. I can tell you all, that the NSPS is without a shed of doubt: The WORSE system that it has ever been my misfortune to work under or in. I am counting the days until I can leave government service to get away from it.
The sheer volume of reviews, changes, adjustments, Mock pay pools, constant “What we learned from last year and must be changed for this year”, are so time consuming and come at the worst possible times in September and October. All year long, this NSPS is a time waster and a constant irritation both for me and for the folks I review.
So far this year alone, since 1 October 2008, I have changed the MyBiz objectives, titles, rewritten, self-assessments, etc FOURTEEN TIMES! Just this year so far!
When the freeze was put on additional conversions to NSPS, you could almost hear a sigh of gratitude from the entire country that is still GS. I talked with an HR person and asked if an NSPS person could request conversion back to GS and was told, no. But if it became possible, she had been getting calls all day from folks wanting to do just that.
The entire NSPS should be scrapped and an immediate return to the GS system, that was working.
One last comment,
Just lately it was put out that the ratings need to be drastically inflated as ‘our folks’ were falling behind because other areas were highly inflating their reviews.
And so it starts…..
NSPS has been one of the biggest headaches ever in my career. During the pay pool process my boss had to walk around for three days with all his personnel evals with him if the pay pool people called and had any questions. Well just so happened they called and wanted him to change his evaluations! What is this about how can someone call and tell a supervisor to change his evaluation? This is not the way it’s suppose to be, it’s suppose to be fair but changing an evaluation for a pay pool is not fair. Not to mention another issue with the NSPS system is supervisors and managers can end up making less money then there employees because they will continue to get step increases and basic rate increases when the NSPS employees might not have enough money in the pay pool to get an increase in salary, which affect their retirement. How can you get good supervisors to stay if they aren’t getting the same increases. I hope it goes away and we go back to the GS wages.
I was flabbergasted when converted to NSPS and told I would take ownership in developing my performance objectives and measures to be tied to mission goals, attended 2-days of training to do so, spent time developing objectives and measures and submitted to my supervisor, then was handed a pre-determined set of objectives and measures that really do not relate to my job (as were others in my department) and was told that is what my performance will be judged upon. Asked how this came into being I was told it was handed down from our command headquarters – far removed from my daily and varied taskings. Additionally, impressive payout numbers published for this past year at my command, when only the management tier was in NSPS. Appears the pay pool is funded at about 2.5 times the historical GS raises. Yea, right! In years I got a GA COLA and a step increase I didn’t attain the percentage increases being published for NSPS. But, I’m sure those high payouts will continue (???). With the working level gruts now enrolled I expect we won’t see even half those payout percentages next year. But, if you break it down by workers vs managers, managers will surely still do very, very well.
Transparency? Are you kidding me? Transparency? The system hides who the person or people are that are responsible for your rating and how that rating is really determined behind the closed doors of secretive meetings with people who have no clue what your job is but can tell your supervisor you’re not doing it well, or maybe tell your supervisor you are doing it even better than your supervisor rated you (because of your social interactions at and away from the workplace). Transparency?
Huge, extreme waste of time and money and all the promotional manipulators of NSPS should be fired.
NSPS is a flawed and needlessly complicated system that is not fairly and uniformly administered within the Army, let alone within the Department of Defense and the benefits to the DoD are not “Pay for Performance” but a systemic reduction in the civilian payroll for promotions and reassignments. It can’t be gone soon enough.
My take on the NSPS fiasco is very simple. 1) What was wrong with the GS setup and why was it necessary to change something that wasn’t broke? 2) Was it necessary to spend more money of the tax payers to set the system up??? 3) The total confusion with NSPS and the training it required for each individual person to become familiar with the new system was a waste of time. The training and having to keep track of everyday collateral duties, writing a self assessment, setting up and having to change the MyBiz objectives, titles, rewritten, self-assessments, etc. took away from my job focus. 4) The NSPS system should be dropped and the GS system be brought back since there was absolutely nothing wrong with it. 5) Finally, the money that was spent to start up the system could have been used to give a nice bonus to ALL GS personnel who work very hard for each penny they get……Keep it simple and don’t try to fix something that’s not broke………
I was converted to NSPS two years ago. After two years of being a GS supervisor! I was converted to a YA-02 non-supervisor with title only. None of my duties have changed a bit not even my pay. While those around me converted and moved up basicly a whole grade and were classified as a YC but the powers that be felt I did not qualify for the YC PB. I have filed an appeal and am waiting for it to be processed. Do we need to go back to the old GS ways yes but then again i get screwed not one person that got a pay increase and profited from the conversion will loose a thing. They will be just be classified as a GS-13 instead of a GS-12 or a step 9 instead of a step 2 meanwhile I will go back to the same old grade at the same rate of pay as my payouts have keep me in line with my normal step raises. I know I am not the only one in this position I am going to tell every one I know to log on and speak out!
NSPS discourages open discussion of pay and personnel practices making it prone to EEO violations and nepotism. It circumvents protections put in place to finally move us past these types of abuses and is a step backwards in a vision of racial and group transparency.
Suspected EEO violations should be aggressively documented as they will without doubt escalate.
My response to this so-called NSPS stinks!!! I had to fight all the way up the chain just to get 2 shares. It still comes down to buddy system & how hard your boss wants to fight for you. My loaf of bread costs the same as everyone else’s loaf of bread. 1 share is average, & I’m not average & I’ve proved that over & over many times. I have over 35 yrs of dedicated service with over 1900 hrs sick leave. I didn’t get there by just being average. We all should get 3 shares & have to justify if more is warranted. I wasn’t planning on retiring next year, but I am now because I’m not going to fight again to get more than one share at the end of this year. At least when I was a GS-11 I got cost of living wage plus step increase. NSPS you get nada!!! Unfortunately, my co-workers are the ones to suffer because I’m not going to be around to continue training them on what I do so they’ll just have to make do. It’s a shame that the government don’t use NSPS to retain employees besides just giving a rating. If a private complany offered me 1 share, I would of thrown it back in their face & quit right then. I would have certainly had a job the next day for more pay than what the govnt would’ve paid me that’s for sure.
Many NSPS supervisors are now looking for small infractions they can use against NSPS workers. Each infraction can then be used by the supervisor to improve their own chance to get a larger share of the bonus money than other supervisors. Now, many NSPS supervisors have become “tattletales” to benefit themsselves. Many Federal Government’s NSPS supervisors will no longer deal smoothly/easily with non NSPS workers, because they are looking for things to put in their personnel folder to impress their boss and to improve their own bonus. I think that the government made a bad mistake going to NSPS, primarily because it undermines the relationship between a worker and his boss. I recommend that NSPS be abolished.
There are agencies in the Federal Government that have done away with NSPS. The logical conclusion is obvious, If the system is a good system, then all of the Government should be under it. If it is a bad system, then no Government agency should be under it.
We also need to include NSPS “like” systems such as DCIPS for Army intelligencies in the conversation.
Agree with all of the above. Go back to the GS system NOW. I just finished my first year as an NSPS employee. I saw a member get 3 shares because he is buddy with the Director, while another person in the same department, who should be the directorbecause of her knowledge and experience AND performance, got only 1 share. In fact, she has been working in the department for 7 years, and got the same shares and rating as I did, a beginner, who just joined the department. The NSPS system was DOA and will only get worse. Scrap it NOW.
It is time to totally scrap NSPS and revert to the GS personnel system. I rather have set-within grade increases than the unpredictable NSPS system.
First, it is not right to shift a portion of the Cost of Living (across the board base pay) increase into the pay pool. Rules are 60% goes to all NSPS employees that receive a 2 or higher rating. The remaining 40% goes to the pay pool for them to decide the payout and who gets it. GS employees get nearly the entire Cost of Living increase (depends on Locality for exact payout).
I was a GS-12 and got hired into a YA-2 position. NSPS calls this a reassignment so max pay raise is 5% for reassignment. The YA-2 position was converted from a GS-13 position. I did receive a 5% raise but my gross pay is still $6,000 under what a GS-13, step 1 makes. Government saves money, and I’m doing the same duties as what a GS-13 had done and being paid less.
Around the same time I got hired into the YA-2 position, another person was hired into a YA-2 position (previously a GS-13 position) in my office. She was an external candidate and previously a contractor. She was offered the GS-13, step 1 pay amount. She negotiated a higher salary. Rules are external candidates can negotiate pay but internal employees like myself can only receive a max 5% salary increase for the reassignment action. She makes about $10,000 more than me.
Because of this hiring I did find out that the organization can consider internal and external candidates at the same time for a NSPS position. Normally under GS, internal candidates were looked at first before the organization could request the external list.
In addition, my peers in the GS system are making more money. My friend who was also a GS-12 along with me a few years back got hired into an organization that did not convert positions to NSPS. He got promoted into a GS-13 position. Three years later, he is at Step 3 making $85,700 and I’m making $7,000 less as a YA-2. When I read articles that says employees are making more money under NSPS, I can only say that has not happened to me yet and don’t believe the authors are making the right comparisons. Since DOD has stopped any more NSPS conversions, I expect the pay disparity to become larger and in the GS favor.
Pay pool rules are unfair. All of the NSPS employees are grouped together and compared. For example, a YA-2 performance is compared with a YC-3 performance, YC-2s with YC-3s, etc. I (YA-2) should be only compared against other YA-2s because each pay band has different level of tasks and responsibilities. The responsibilities of YC-3s should be much broader and strategic than my duties, and they have daily access to senior leaders than I do. Also, I believe there is a conflict of interest in the pay pool because all of the employees are grouped together in one pay pool. The YC-3s are members of the pay pool in my organization. They get to determine their final rating and pay out shares in addition to determining mine and other employees’ ratings and payout shares. My perception is that the YC-3s are probably taking care of themselves first.
I say it is a perception because the pay pool discussions are so secretive. Yes I do get briefed from my supervisor on how I made out in the pay pool. I had one supervisor say he rated me a 4 going into the pay pool but the pay pool result was a 3. I would like to see full disclosure of what was discussed in the pay pool with the final rating and share payout of each NSPS employee. I have received intel through the informal network that the only 2 employees that received the highest rating of 5 got the ratings to make up for a flaw in NSPS. These 2 people were GS-14s and when their positions got converted into NSPS, they became YC-2s because there was a cap on the number of YC-3 and YA-3 positions the organization could have. It seems the pay pool sometimes award folks for nonperformance factors.
Another problem with the ratings and pay pool is that my supervisor or anyone in the organization cannot provide a roadmap so an individual can earn the highest rating of 5. It would be great if my supervisor provides me a list of tasks I need to complete and if I do complete them I would receive a 5 rating. I do have a set of objectives to work on. I can complete them on time with measurable results with significant impact on the organization’s goals, but there is no guarantee that the pay pool would recognize what I had accomplish by giving me a 5 rating. That is because my organization has expectations (quotas) on the number of people that can receive a 4 and 5 rating. Only 5% of the pay pool candidates can get a rating of 5, about 25% for a rating of 4.
I still remember the discussion I had with the senior personnelist in the unit, right after he gave a NSPS briefing. He said he likes NSPS better than GS because he has an opportunity to make more money. He was a GS-15, step 10 when his position was converted to a YC-3. He was already at the max pay for his grade and pay band. If he earns a 4 or 5 rating, he most likely would get about a 8-10% pay increase. And since he is already at the top of his pay band, he would get the money in a bonus, which can equate to about $14,000. And he’s a member of the pay pool so he does have influence on his rating and shares.
Lastly, I have little faith that the DOD review of NSPS will produce a recommendation of scrapping NSPS. The DOD would have to admit they made a mistake with NSPS, and that would be highly unlikely. As I mentioned, the senior civilians like NSPS because they have influence, both in the policy and in the pay pool areas, and they have an opportunity to make more money under NSPS. I expect the recommendations to be tweaks to NSPS. It would have been better if an external organization conducted the review so we would have impartial recommendations and results.
I too as a former GS employee do not find that this system erased any of the difficulties it was supposedly designed to erase,i.e., subjective evaluation from supervisors, etc, it is timeconsuming and in my experience the employee input is more discounted than it had been under the previous system. It is another example of a DOD costly and wasteful program.
Obfuscation to the point the mission is lost! This NSPS is GARBAGE!
Lost productivity due to over complicated nonsense!
Clinicians spend more time with this junk system than treating patients! To persist with this fiasco guarantees some poor soul will lose his/her life while their provider is pondering endless data that amounts to nothing!
Also, there is disincentive to enter a system where reward is a matter of a ‘good-old-boys’ system that has ‘bean counters’ evaluating the performance of medical professionals! What do they know about medicine? Also, the contradictions built into the system defy logic allowing for salient questions to be given the double-talk nonsense.
To conclude: to persist with this program will spell the end of services and the beginnings of ultimate turmoil! DUMP IT NOW!
Years ago, the GS system had a “1 through 5†rating scale. If supervisors did their job and gave their employees legitimate ratings instead of taking the easy way out and giving everyone a “5†rating, we would have a true
“pay for performance†rating system. For some reason beyond my understanding, some areas of the government were changed to a “Pass/Fail†system of rating several years ago.
Under the “Pass/Fail†system, whether you were an outstanding employee who did way above and beyond what was required or just did barely enough to meet the minimum standards, you were rated “Pass†No incentive to excel since there was no difference in the rating received.
As inequitable as the “Pass/Fail†system was, NSPS is worse. Go back to the “1 through 5†rating system, make supervisors actually rate their employees according to job performance and you will have a functional, “pay for performance†system.
NSPS is inequitable, it has strength the good old boy/girl system. Good for those who have maxed out their step increases, by their old grade and positions. EXE. got great bonuses. Over all AIG has nothing on the government. It is even worse overseas.
Has anyone considered the amount of money spent on the pay pool manager and members to sift through this. MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars spent, while these manager could have been doing their real job!!!!!
NSPS performance standards and self evaluations was extremely time consuming and takes valuable time away from the performance of duties. As a Department of Defense Human Resource Spec, at Aberdeen Proving Ground this is very busy time due to the Brac situation with people coming in from Ft Monmouth NJ. Adding their final NSPS self assessment was just added misery to their already overwhelming, personnel duties.
I felt that distribution of NSPS shares are also unfair in some instances. NSPS is a flawed and needlessly complicated system. This is not fairly and uniformly administered within the Army. The Department of Defense and the benefits to the DoD are not “Pay for Performance†but a systemic reduction in the civilian payroll for promotions and reassignments.
The only thing that I can say regarding NSPS is Be Gone!
NSPS is a travesty to say the least and that is being kind!
In all of my 34 years of combined military/federal civilian service, I have never observed such a waste of government resources(time, money and paper).
It is an absolute shame that NSPS was even considered, not to mention, implemented illegally.
Let me start this post by saying I spent 20 years as a Soldier and did supervise GS Employees in that capacity, I was never a GS Civilian. I came into the Federal Service just when this organization was spiraling into NSPS and was actually put in charge of ensuring everyone was trained.
In the first year, there was much confusion and honestly I do not know how we ever achieved getting everyone’s ratings into the system, but we did. I did an analysis after the initial pay pool of our employees and found that they fared better under NSPS than they would have under the GS System. This past cycle, I would say that we were minimally better than our GS counterparts. That said, there are good points to NSPS and there are points that are lacking.
It appears to me, by reading through the comments that have been written in respect to the question have been very negative toward the NSPS system. I must wonder how many of the authors are biased toward NSPS, have never served in an NSPS position, or are simply resistant to change? Everyone is entitled to an opinion and it is great that we have the opportunity to share our thoughts and opinions with others. As I said to our Civilian Personnel here, one must keep an open mind when integrating into a new system and like anything that is new, there are going to be issues and concerns.
Additionally, for the person who suggests that the system is prone to EEO issues. I don’t see it that way, but IF a person feels that they are being discriminated against they should promptly report such. I personally have no tolerance for discriminatory behavior.
The new version 3.0 PAA has addressed many of the issues that we were having at the user level with NSPS, but there are still more issues that are yet to be resolved. Now, with the freeze and review, I fear that we will not see any significant changes to make the system more ‘user friendly’ for some time.
I would like to give you my ‘Pro’ and ‘Con’ opinions as an NSPS Employee and Supervisor of NSPS Employees (present) and GS Employees (past):
PRO
– The Pay Banding gives opportunity for growth which did not/does not exist in the GS system. For instance, if you were a GS-301-04 stepped out, you had nowhere in which to grow within the current position without the position being audited and possibly upgraded. In the NSPS system, that same employee would convert to the YB-0301-01 Pay band which would give them potential through grade equivalent to GS-0301-06. I am not sure anyone will argue this in not a good thing.
– Salary increase/Bonus TIED TO PERFORMANCE. While many do not like this, I for one do. It gives me inspiration and causes me to look for ways to improve my area and organization in hopes that my performance will be rewarded at the end of the year. In my opinion, the old ‘automatic’ step increase was ridiculous. Basically, you show up for work and do your minimums and are rewarded. If, for some reason the NSPS System were to be done away with, I believe this key point to the GS System should be relooked and management should have a say in whether or not the step increase is awarded.
– Employees have an opportunity to put on paper what their objectives are for a rating cycle as well as to write what they achieved during the cycle. This is called taking ownership and if time is put into this, it can be something worthwhile. I will agree that it is time intensive, but I believe that it is an integral part of the system. This is coming from someone who is not good at keeping records of significant activities throughout the cycle in terms of a journal or notepad. I have found that keeping emails between my supervisor and myself as well as others broke down by objective does the trick for me.
CON
– Raters inability to write effectively. This seems to be an issue with some. I would suggest that the Pay Pool be able to recognize this and weigh the Employee’s self assessment along with the Rater’s assessment. Most Pay Pools have two weeks set aside in which to review and approve the appraisals and this time should be used to the maximum extent.
– No standardized objectives for like series and pay bands. No one knows what a ‘quality’ objective looks like as there is nothing to judge it against. While not all jobs will be similar, there are many that are and standard objectives should be placed on the NSPS portal.
– Reassignments in NSPS. This really needs to be addressed. While pay banding gives potential for growth within the same position, if an employee wanted to move to another position, often times they will not do so for 5% as the responsibility level or GS equivalent may be much greater than the pay offered. Same holds true with going from a Specialist to a Supervisory position in NSPS. We have many in Supervisory positions who have more responsibility and more expected of them being paid less than those they supervise.
I am sure that I could go on. In the end, NSPS has a lot of promise and given a chance and some key changes it will prove to be an effective system. It is my opinion that many of those who are against this are so for the wrong reasons. If you are performing your job, taking the initiative (where possible) and communicating with your supervisors you should do well under this system. If you are of the mindset that you will do only the bare minimum of what is required of you in a job, or hold the belief ‘that is not in my job description’ then you will be rewarded (or not) accordingly.
In closing I will add that in the end DoD needs to pick one system and do away with the two systems currently in place (NSPS and GS). Until this happens, there will continue to be comparisons between the two and gnashing of teeth from Government Employees. If you are in the NSPS system do some research and become educated on the system rather than speculating.
My sentiments have already been expressed by others here, repeatedly. But I will add a few words. There was a concern under the GS system that identifying and penalizing underperformers was so difficult that managers couldn’t afford the time and energy to collect enough documentation to support a ‘less than successful’ rating. The figure of 2% of thr workforce being underperformers was often cited. It doesn’t make sense, point number one, to entirely revamp a system which is effective for 98% of the workforce. Point number 2, the burden of documenting underperformance under NSPS is just as difficult as under GS- NONE of the folks in my paypool rated less than a level ‘3’- though some rated as low as a 2.51. We were under a ‘quota’ for level 4s, also- no one except managers in my group received a level ‘4.’ So the difference between a barely functioning employee and one who had made DoD-wide impact under his objectives turned out to be …..one share. And gee, you can’t grieve the number of shares you received. Also of interest is that for the past two cycles, nearly all- more than 90%- of our regular award budget went unused and was returned to the main budget at the end of the year. Managers told us it was because they were afraid to give awards during the year that might jeopardize our chance at getting a level ‘4’- see point number 2. Under GS, you knew who was rating you at the second level and could frame an appeal to that person or their superiorm of a perceived unfair rating. Now it is a secretive, no notes left to FOIA, ‘panel’ – nearly impossible to appeal.
And then, there are the changes that allow managers to hire anyone they wish without any shred of competition. Sure, its supposed to be so that they can attract the best and brightest without having to slog thorugh all the Joe Average applications out there, but it really boils down to accomodating- nah, encouraging!- cronyism.
Go back to the GS system, make it easier to identify and penalize that pesky 2% of the workforce that is underperforming- by the way, step increases are NOT automatic, its just the documentation to stop one is too hard- and let the rest of us work for real awards and quality salary increases as we deserve.
Just reading April 6 issue of federal times Page 4 MS. perkinson is quoted as saying Many employees who performed well under NSPS are now earning much more than they would have if they stay under GS. Ms. Perkinson there are far more loser then winners under NSPS stop the lies. Repeal NSPS now the system is a nightmare that just don’t work. as you can read from above 99.9% of the comments above These employees should not have their pay negatively impacted because they were forced to endure a system they did not ask to be a part of. (your words) end NSPS NOW. return me as well of my many coworkers to GS.
It is not working and needs to be completely repealed ASAP.
NSPS is a nightmare for a HR Spec. Negotiating pay is the last in-borarding step (afer drug test, security clearance, PCS started, etc.) and it is the first this that a prospective employee wants to know. After weeks/months of getting to negotiating pay, the prospective employee declines because the agency cannot give the pay desired/required. Also, you would be hiring personnel on the same position description, sometimes in the same area and give one person much more money than the other person (which is so unfair) when they would be doing the same duties. Under the GS System, HR is able to determine pay, up front so the prospective employee knows up front and if not interested, can decline before so much time and money been wasted.
I am a retired civil service annuitant who has worked under both the GS and NSPS and the GS is a much fairer system. Under NSPS only the higher grade employees received good payouts. It did not matter if your immediate supervisor rated you 4’s and 5′ and the reviewer agreed; when it reached the pay pool it was changed to 3’s except on the “fair-haired” employees.
As stated in earlier comments, there is confusion on qualifications. Even though time-in-grade did not apply, each qualifications standard required “quality” of experience. Another problem, the specialist hiring, was not necessary the specialist responsible for doing the qualification determination.
I could say a lot more, but you get the point, NSPS is not working!