Download original attachment
(Word document)
This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request
'Job Evaluation Exercise'.
(Word document)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES JOB EVALUATION SCHEME:
TECHNICAL NOTE NO. 3: THE ROLE OF BENCHMARK JOBS IN IMPLEMENTING JOB EVALUATION
1. What are Benchmark Jobs in Job Evaluation?
The terms `benchmarks', `benchmarking' and `benchmark jobs' have different meanings in different contexts. In some contexts, for example, `benchmarking' involves making comparisons with other organisations.
However, in the context of modern job evaluation, the term `benchmark jobs' simply refers to a representative sample of jobs. This sample can be used:
As the basis round which to design and develop a job evaluation system, and/or
As the framework for implementing an already developed job evaluation scheme.
A national benchmark sample of around 150 jobs from a number of local authorities was used in developing and testing the local government NJC JES. However, from the perspective of local authorities implementing this, or any other, previously developed scheme, it is the second of the above uses that is relevant. This Technical Note, therefore, concentrates on selecting benchmark jobs to be used as a framework for implementation of the NJC JES.
2. The Role of Benchmark Jobs in Implementing Job Evaluation
In the context of implementing the local government NJC JES, the function of the benchmark sample is to provide a set of jobs for which there has been:
Full analysis of the jobs - through completion of Job Description Questionnaires (JDQs); job analysis interviews; line manager checks - as agreed locally.
Evaluation of the jobs under the individual JES factor headings, with detailed records of outcomes and reasons
Thorough consistency checking, both during and after the benchmark evaluations
The benchmark sample can then be used to:
Develop local conventions (see Technical Note 1).
Test, and, if necessary modify in the light of experience, the procedures used for collecting and analysing job information, evaluating jobs and consistency checking
Provide a framework against which all subsequent evaluations can be checked for consistency (see Quality Assurance Circular).
Provide a framework for undertaking factor comparisons or matching for non-benchmark jobs [see Technical Note 4, Options for Dealing with Non-Benchmark jobs]
Allow for initial work on developing grading and pay structures.
3. Benchmarks and the Computerised Gauge Version of the
NJC JES
The foregoing applies equally whether a local authority is using the paper-based version of the NJC JES or the computerised Gauge version. With the Gauge version, the benchmark sample allows for the development of the computer version of local conventions, which are known as local help screens (to distinguish them from national help screens, which are based on the national guidance notes).
An option is for half or all of the benchmark sample of jobs to be evaluated using the paper-based scheme, even when it is intended to use the Gauge system, as this facilitates the development of local help screens and provides a group of experienced evaluators, who are then well placed to act as moderation or quality assurance panel members in order to validate the Gauge outcomes.
4. What is a Job?
A useful precursor to selecting a benchmark sample is to identify all discrete jobs within the population to which the job evaluation system is to be applied. This may not be an easy task, as job titles may prove misleading, if, for example, different jobs have the same title (eg. secretary in different departments) and/or essentially the same job is found with different job titles (eg. senior cashier, cashier team leader).
Features of a discrete job include:
A single set of job duties and responsibilities
The same or similar (eg. if written at different times) job description(s)
Acknowledgement by jobholders and line manager(s) that it is a discrete job
Only limited variations which evaluate the same or very similarly
The last is obviously a `chicken and egg' situation, but is sometimes a helpful guide when considering apparently differing sets of job duties.
5. How Many Benchmark Jobs?
Commonly asked questions are how many benchmark jobs should be selected; should the figure be a percentage of the number of jobs; and should it be a percentage of the number of employees?
There are no right answers to these questions and no fixed rules. An acceptable number of benchmark jobs is not usually related to the number of employees - the proportion is generally much higher for a small organisation than for a large one. Nor is it directly related to the number of jobs. More useful indicators are:
What number will provide a genuinely representative sample (see below)?
What number is realistically feasible within an acceptable timescale (eg. 6 months) and resources?
The figure might be as low 50 for a small district council with a limited number of employees, but is more usually between 50 and 150 and possibly up to 200 for larger local authorities, depending on the range of services provided. A sample of more than 200 benchmarks is likely to prove unmanageable. Unitary and metropolitan authorities may find that they need a benchmark sample towards the top of this range, because they provide a full range of services, even though the number of employees may be small by comparison with a large county council.
6. Who Should Select the Benchmark Sample?
The joint steering group at a relatively early stage in its existence usually makes the selection formally. The decision may be based on the advice of a smaller joint secretarial or ad hoc group. The technical work on numbers of jobs is usually carried out within the HR function.
7. Selecting the Sample
Indicators of a genuinely representative sample are that it includes:
Most commonly occurring jobs (eg. refuse collector; social worker; accountant; home carer)
Stable jobs, that is jobs which are not subject to current or proposed re-organisation and not undergoing radical change for other reasons
Jobs from each service/department, including small services/departments, or equivalent organisational units
Jobs from different occupational groups/families
Jobs from each level of the organisational hierarchy and from most, if not all, pre-job evaluation grades (including probably from each of the ex-manual worker grades, where applicable)
Jobs reflecting the range of factors and factor levels from the job evaluation scheme
Examples of male-dominated jobs, female-dominated jobs and `mixed' in gender jobs
Examples of exclusively part-time jobs (eg. school crossing patrol; cleaner) and/or of jobs with non-standard working patterns.
Jobs with a specific ethnic domination, if relevant.
If space within the sample allows, then it is useful to include some `unusual' jobs to test the extremes of the scheme (one authority included a Miller, another a Conservator of Roman remains, each reflecting local features).
8. Making the Selection
Again, there is no right answer, but the process is easier with a comprehensive list of jobs and information on the gender dominance and typical working patterns (to pick up part-time employees) of each, as this allows the selectors to check that their criteria have been met.
A department/ grade matrix of jobs is also a useful tool to check that the sample includes jobs from across the organisation (and also allows examples of jobs which occur in more than one department to be selected from departments which would otherwise be under-represented in the sample).
Experience shows that lists drawn up separately by employer and staff sides generally contain many of the same suggested benchmark jobs and can usually be combined up to an agreed number, as long as checks are made that agreed criteria have been met.
The exercise of selecting benchmark jobs provides a good early indicator of how well joint working and partnership are working.
TECH NOTE 3 APRIL 2004
Page 4 of 4