|
The Job Evaluation Process
People of both sexes who are knowledgeable
about the job population should be chosen. There is no limitation
to the number of members, but an ideal number is between six and
eight.
Evaluator+ has a capacity for 99
benchmark jobs; we suggest that a number somewhere between 25 and 90
is selected. They should be representative of the various levels
within the organisation, including gender, and should be selected by
the panel; The software's capacity for storing non-benchmark jobs
and evaluations is limited only by your computer's disk space.
The panel should be trained in the job
evaluation process before evaluating jobs "for real". This should
include awareness training relating to the Equal Opportunities
Commission guidelines, including the avoidance of sex bias.
The panel selects the factor headings which
are to be used and develops their definitions as precisely and
unambiguously as possible. There is flexibility as to the factors
chosen. The main criteria are that, they need to suit the jobs
which are being evaluated and to be careful to ensure that the
factors chosen are free from sex bias. The levels within each factor
also require description. Evaluator+ comes with a library of
potential factor headings from which up to 14 can be selected..
Within each factor there are variable numbers of levels to help in
distinguishing between jobs in the evaluation part of the process.
Job descriptions are required for each job.
We would suggest that the jobholders themselves be invited to write
their own job descriptions. This is by far the most economic way of
securing accurate and meaningful descriptions. Once written they
should be signed off by the appropriate managers and returned to
Personnel or the in-house Project Manager. We can provide a
pro-forma with notes for guidance to help in their completion if
they don’t already exist. When completed they can be stored within
the Evaluator+ software, but this is not essential to the
process.
Evaluator+ uses a process of
Paired Comparisons whereby the benchmark jobs are set out in
pairs on an evaluation decision form with each job paired with every
other job against each of the chosen factors. Decision forms are
selected automatically by Evaluator+ so that each judge
receives an approximately equal proportion. An additional grouping
of decisions can be selected to test for bias in judges' decisions.
Decision forms can be provided on floppy
disks for judges to record their decisions electronically.
Alternatively judges can work together to record their decisions on
printed forms provided by Evaluator+ by comparing each pair
of jobs under each factor. After individual factor comparisons have
been completed each pair of jobs is compared on a Global Dimensions
basis. Judges' decisions can be imported electronically via floppy
disks or entered manually to the system.
Either way, the judges' decisions are entered
into the software and Evaluator+ calculates the Multiple
Regression Analysis (MRA) coefficients; the factor weightings are
calculated and the rank order of jobs as decided by the judges is
generated. Inconsistent decisions by any judge are automatically
identified by Evaluator+ and are reported for discussion with
the judges concerned. (Four other routines for calculating the MRA
coefficients are available via the System Setup).
Various reports are produced by Evaluator+
to assist in discussions. These include any inconsistent decisions
which have been identified by Evaluator+. As far as possible
these inconsistencies should be discussed by the judges with the
objective of eliminating them, thus raising the level of consensus
and ownership of the results. This part of the process typically
produces consensus levels in the region of 85 - 90 percent.
The judges collectively review the results
for consistency and fairness, and if any of their decisions are
changed by agreement, the factor weightings are recalculated by
Evaluator+
The Job evaluation panel is invited to
consider alternative (consensus) weightings to those calculated by
Evaluator+ - finally agreeing the set of weightings which are
used in designing a Job Evaluation Factor Plan which is unique to
the Company. NB Evaluator+ is both adaptable and flexible in
that either the calculated weightings can be used in
designing the Factor Plan or the consensus weightings can be
used, or indeed some other set of weightings.
Powerful Modelling facilities are also
provided in the software to answer questions such as "What
if...?"
The judges are encouraged to participate in
the design of the job evaluation Factor Plan, developing the word
definitions of each of the levels in the Factor plan so that they
reflect the language and culture of the Company. These definitions
are stored in the Evaluator+ software.
Evaluator+ sets-up the Factor Plan
incorporating the (user-defined) number of levels, word definitions
of each level, and generates a Factor Points Table
Whilst evaluation points can be made
available to all the judges we strongly recommend that only
those who absolutely need to know the points have access to this
information. Many Job Evaluation schemes have become corrupted by
people knowing the points and turning the subject into one of
manipulation rather than evaluation.
Factor Plan Input forms are printed, on which
the Judges evaluations can be recorded using your very own
Factor Plan. Judges do NOT need to have the Points Table to help
them evaluate jobs. It is entirely your choice. The results are
stored in the software.
The Judges evaluate all the benchmark jobs
using the job descriptions which have been written by the staff
concerned and the factor plan which they themselves have helped to
design. This is usually a speedy process with approximately 20
evaluations a day being easily achieved.
Evaluation results are entered into
Evaluator+ and can be displayed on screen in descending order of
Rank. Reports, with or without points, can be printed to facilitate
discussion and comparisons can be made with the pre-evaluation rank
order generated by the factor weighting process.
All non-benchmark jobs also have to be
evaluated and this is a process which can be shared amongst the
judges or delegated to Personnel with their results being endorsed
by the panel.
Evaluator+ incorporates a
user-configurable Personnel Database with a capacity of half a
million records. Details of jobholders with their current salaries
are entered, manually or electronically using ‘csv’, ‘dbf’ or ‘sdf’
formats. Sorting, filtering, and printing facilities are of course
available.
An ideal or
natural Grade Structure using current evaluations and salaries is
designed VISUALLY in Evaluator+ enabling you to choose
the most beneficial and/or cost-effective structure for your
Company, comparing it with any existing structure.
Since we use
current salaries in designing the Grade Structure this
inevitably inspires interest from Clients as to how they can
administer individuals' salaries and how they can reward them for
performance.
Evaluator+ contains a module called
PrISM - the Performance-related Increase
Salary Modeller. This allows the user to experiment with
a variety of scenarios - providing bottom-line costs at the
push of a button. This can help the busy Salary Administrator not
only to stay abreast of performance increases for staff but also
maintain control of salary budgets. The module also enables
the production of a report outlining any Equal Pay issues.
A competency is any knowledge, skill,
behaviour or thought pattern that can be reliably shown to
distinguish between more effective and less effective job
performance. In other words. a competency is what superior
performers do more often, in more situations, and with
better results than average performers. When we use the term
"competency" we mean only those things that actually differentiate
the superior from the average. See Competencies. |
