Job Evaluation System: A Comparison 58331q

Ô



Factor Evaluation System

Developed in 1977 by the Office of Personnel Management for nonsupervisory general schedule employees. It incorporates many of the characteristics of the Lott, Benge, and NEMA methods.



Hay Method

Dates back to the early 50's and is one of the most popular methods in use today. It is particularly popular for evaluating executive, managerial, and professional positions as well as nonexempt clerical, blue collar, and technical jobs. |

D BASS

NMTA

Skill (4/0)* Working Condition (3/0) Responsibility (1/0)

Skill (3/15) Effort (2/10) Responsibility (4/20) Job Conditions (2/10)

* (SUBFACTORS/DEGREES OR LEVELS) |

D Hay and Purves Know How (3/15) Problem Solving (2/13) ability (3/15)

Factor Evaluation System Knowledge Personal (2/9) Purpose of Supv Control Physical Demands (3/5) Work Environment Guidelines (2/5) Complexity (3/6) Scope & Effect (2/6) |

å å A critical check of the results of a POINTFACTOR job evaluation involves the use of FACTOR COMPARISON. It is used to be sure that the factor points assigned to each job makes sense relative to a factor comparison process. |

Ô å Essential to the success of all job evaluation processes is the presence of expert judgment. |

Ô å Expert judgment is typically shaped by the level of knowledge shared by the evaluators of the work environment....Their understanding of the nature of the work being performed, and....Their capacity to process information and data and make sound judgments. |

Ô å The quality of the output of any job evaluation process using point scored compensation factors relates directly to the quality of decisions made by those doing the ratings, and....

R

|

Ô å

It is reasonable to assume that given the complex nature of work environments, accuracy in job evaluation requires the knowledge and skill of more than one individual, and....



The logical consequence is the job evaluation committee. |

Ô å

A job evaluation committee may consist of one to three permanent (at least one from the comp department) and rotating representing the unit(s) whose jobs are being evaluated.

|

å



Rank And Rate Jobs



Select A Job Evaluation Methodology



Choose Benchmark Jobs

|

å



Provide Committee Representation



Provide Committee With Staff Specialists



Identify Benchmark Jobs



Provide Training For Committee |

The FES differs from the other pointfactor methods in that it contains three stages of descriptive data not simply a defined set of universal compensable factors, subfactors, and degrees. The three stages are: |



Primary Standards (9)



Factor-level Descriptions For The Series (60+)



Benchmark Jobs That Cover The Full Range Of Pay For The Jobs In Each Occupation Or Series.

|

FACTOR LEVELS Knowledge Supv Control Guidelines Complexity Scope/effect Pers Purp Of Phys Demand Work Environment Total Points

POINTS 50-1850 25-650 25-650 25-450 25-450 10-110 20-220 5-50 5-50 4480

% TOTAL 41.3 14.5 14.5 10.0 10.0 2.5 4.9 1.1 1.1

9 5 5 6 6 4 4 3 3 |



The FES process is described in detail in the text on pages 257 through 277.



Additionally, a job description for a lead programmer taken from chapter 7 has been evaluated on pages 271 through 274 using the FES process and the results have been summarized on a "factor evaluation system position evaluation statement" appearing on page 276. |

å!

There is a direct relationship between the selected level of the knowledge factor and levels selected of all other factors.



The knowledge or skill requirements of a job drive the evaluation rating, while other compensable factors provide additional information to "fine tune" the final rating.



Review figure 9-5 "FES knowledge level conventions" for further explanation or description of this point. |

Reviewing ratings using some kind of spreadsheet layout assists in identifying factor ratings that don't make sense. This analysis is often called "sore thumbing" because an inappropriate rating stands out like a sore thumb. |

£" å £" å The Hay Guide chart-profile method uses three universal factors, eight subfactors, and forty-three degrees and levels to evaluate jobs. They are as follows:

Know-How

Practical procedures, specialized knowledge, And scientific discipline. (8 levels)



Managerial (4 levels)



Human relations (3 levels)



Plus 3 degree choices per grid. |

£" å £" å Problem-Solving





Thinking environment (8 levels) Thinking challenge (5 levels) Plus 2 degree choices per grid

ability







Freedom to act (7 levels) Job impact on end results (4 levels) Magnitude (4 levels) Plus 3 degrees per grid. |

£

The descriptions that form the rows and the columns of the guide charts provide a measure of the level of difficulty, or importance, of each factor.



The KH and AC guide charts provide actual scores. The PS guide chart provides a percentage that identifies the amount of KH used in solving problems. |

£ The Guide Charts Have Both Standardized And Customized Features:

The geometric scales use the same values with each step, reflecting the 15% perceptible difference in values theory discussed in chapter six.



The number of rows and columns of each guide chart can be altered to fit the character and size of the client. |

£ The evaluation process generally begins with the highest valued compensable factor and proceeds in order to the lowest weighted factor. |

£ KNOW-HOW

Rows describe depth and breadth of job knowledge required to perform job assignments.



Columns describe management breadth relative to such requirements as planning, organizing, reviewing, and control.



Within each column there is a third element that measures human relations skill. |

£ PROBLEM-SOLVING

Rows identify levels of thinking. Columns identify thinking challenge. When the most appropriate grid and corresponding percentage has been identified, a point value is determined by multiplying the selected PS% (x) the previously determined KH points. |

£ ABILITY

Rows measure freedom to act



Columns measure the magnitude of the impact of the job on end results



Inside each column is a third element that measures the job impact on end results (4 per column) |

£

The same lead-programmer analyst job evaluated earlier in this chapter using the FES method is re-evaluated in pages 282294 using the hay method.



Figure 9-10 (pg 284) is a ´Hay Position Evaluation Statement" that contains the evaluation scores for the lead-programmer analyst in accordance with the hay guide chart-profile method. |

£ å!# PROFILING

KH and PS are closely linked in the guide charts and they tend to parallel each other with respect to their alpha numeric locator codes. As KH requirements increase for a job PS enjoys a concomitant growth.

|

£ å!# PROFILING

PS and AC also have a relationship that provides information about the general nature of jobs that when examined either validates the evaluation or challenges the results.

|

£ å!# PROFILING

Jobs higher in PS points than AC points are typically staff and istrative in nature, and....



Jobs higher in AC points than PS points are typically action or line jobs, and.... |

£ å!# PROFILING

Jobs with essentially the same AC and PS points tend to have an istrative/action orientation.



The profile is determined by identifying the step difference between PS and AC.... |

£ å!# The step difference is determined By locating the PS points on the Step value guide and counting up Or down until you have located the AC points. The number of Steps taken in this procedure establishes the step difference. The Direction (up +, down -) defines The nature of the difference. |

£ å!# PROFILING

To convert all of this data into a profile turn to page 287 in your text and find the PS percentage, identified in the sample problem, in the left hand column (33%) and move across that row until you find the KH points in the first row that correspond with those determined in your sample problem (230).... The number found at this intersection (87) becomes profiling CONTINUED... |

£ å!# PROFILING

The number you locate in the left hand column of the profile table (figure 9-11b) and match up with the appropriate step level (1 down) located on the horizontal axis.



The resulting set of numbers is the job profile (38 33 29). This profile defines the percentage of points assigned to each of the three universal factors. |

£ å!# PROFILING

All to the job profiles lined up in order of point totals will provide the organization with a profile pattern that further validates the evaluation effort.

|

£ å!# PROFILING

As a rule, KH points as a percentage of the total tends to decrease as job value increases.



PS and AC points as a percentage of the total tend to be lowest at the lower valued jobs.

|

£ å!#

PROFILING Profile patterns are also indicators of job rank within an organization:

General Mgr Plant Mgr Operations Mgr Office Mgr

KH-PS-AC 41-23-36 44-22-34 56-19-25 60-17-23 |