LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES JOB EVALUATION SCHEME:

TECHNICAL NOTE NO. 6: RESOLVING QUERIES OF INTERPRETATION ON THE PAPER-BASED AND GAUGE VERSIONS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT NJC JOB EVALUATION SCHEME.

1. Introduction

1.1 It is inevitable that many queries of interpretation will arise when implementing any job evaluation scheme and the Local Government NJC JES is no different. Further queries may arise where there are both paper-based and computerised versions of a job evaluation scheme, over, for example, how to compare outcomes from the two versions, or why they appear to be giving different outcomes.

1.2 This Technical Note suggests some ways of approaching such queries. It relates specifically to the NJC JES, but the principles are equally applicable to other similar job evaluation schemes.

2. Queries of Interpretation in Relation to the Paper-Based Version of the NJC JES

2.1 The Local Government NJC JES provides a job evaluation framework or tool. It was never intended that all possible issues of interpretation would be covered by the scheme documentation or resolved centrally.

2.2 Issues of interpretation are for local joint determination by whichever body is allocated this task, for example, steering committee, core evaluation panel. Once determined they should be recorded, become part of the local conventions for the exercise and be applied consistently thereafter [See Technical Note No. 1, on Local Conventions]..

2.3 The only qualifications to this are that all local conventions should be:

3. The Principles of the Gauge Computerised Version of the

NJC JES

3.1 The Gauge version of the local government NJC JES was designed to be capable of delivering the same outcomes as the paper-based version.

3.2 A common query and complaint is that Gauge and paper-based version outcomes differ. There are only 3 possible reasons why this might appear to be the case:

3.3 Each apparent variation, from the benchmark exercise, for example, should be investigated to find out where the difference arises and to jointly agree what is the preferred interpretation. This could lead to:

3.4 Experience indicates that it is generally worth pursuing all variations between paper-based and Gauge outcomes at the benchmark stage to avoid them becoming major problems at a later stage.

4. Tools for Dealing with Queries of Interpretation on the Gauge System

4.1 Some queries arise because the Gauge questions are inevitably read in isolation from the relevant factor level context. The Gauge System has a number of in-built tools to assist users in resolving queries of interpretation:

4.2 If none of these provides the means for resolving the query, then recourse should be had to the paper-based version of the scheme.

Example Query: How should Q425 be Answered for a Data Input Job?

Step 1: Check the question and national help-text. These refer only to computer programming and computerised management systems. There is no national help-text. There is no local help-text at the point at which this query is raised.

Step 2: Check the Question Library. In this example case it is clear, working backwards from Q425, that the jobholder must previously have answered Q423 (on whether keyboard skills required are `substantially greater than those needed for e-mails, memos, short letters or the equivalent' and before that Q403 (on whether the job requires keyboard skills). It is also apparent that a Yes answer will deliver up to level 5, but a No will restrict the job to level 2.

Step 3: Check the question pathway on the elimination chart to confirm the possible outcomes.

Step 4: If the query is still not resolved, check the paper-based version of the scheme. It is clear from this that data input jobs should come out at level 4. From the previous investigations it is obvious that the answer to Q425 must be Yes.

Step 5: Amend or add new local help-text for Q425, to the effect that those using keyboard skills for their main job duties e.g. data input, word processing should answer Yes to this question.

5. Resolving Queries of Apparent Inconsistencies of Outcome Between the Gauge and Paper-Based Versions of the Scheme

5.1 Where paper-based and Gauge versions of the scheme appear to be giving different outcomes, these should be investigated and resolved.

Example Query: We are getting different outcomes on our paper-based and Gauge outcomes under the Mental Demands factor with jobs generally scoring higher on the paper-based evaluations than on Gauge. Why is this?

Step 1: Check the Gauge questions and help-screens, noting that the questions ask `Typically, for how long at any one time does this level of attention have to be applied? Compare this with paper-based rationales and questionnaires to see whether periods of attention have been cumulated to give longer periods of time.

Step 2: If Yes, agree whether periods of time should be cumulated or not and then apply this consistently by adding paper-based local conventions or Gauge local help-texts as appropriate.

Step 3: If No, check all other aspects of the criteria, for example, are the different levels of attention being applied in the same way? If not, which is the agreed preferred intepretation, then apply to both paper-based and Gauge evaluations.

6. Resolving Apparent Problems with the Gauge System

6.1 There should be no apparent problems with the Gauge System that cannot be resolved by appropriate local help-screens.

Example Query: The Knowledge Factor Levels 6, 7 and 8 were used for a number of jobs in our paper-based benchmark pilot exercise, but our Gauge pilot has no jobs higher than level 6 and only a few at this level. How can we resolve this?

Step 1: Check the paper-based evaluations. Are the evaluators satisfied that these are correct? If No, re-visit these evaluations. If Yes, review the relevant Gauge question traces

Step 2: Work through the Gauge question trace for the jobs under consideration to identify where the issue arises. This is likely to be at Q118, Is this level of theoretical knowledge required across a whole specialist area? The national help-screen then gives examples of `whole specialist areas' e.g. social work, local government finance, law; and specific specialist areas e.g. child protection within social work, conveyancing within law.

The national help-text then goes on to explain that where a job covers a specific specialist area but requires advanced theoretical knowledge across the whole area as background for decision making, this may justify a Yes answer.

Step 3: If the jobs under consideration have No answers to this question, then it could be appropriate to introduce a local help-screen to the effect that those working in the specific area but requiring to be professionally qualified across the whole specialist area should answer Yes to this question, so that for example a conveyancing job requiring only conveyancing training and knowledge would then answer No, but a job leading the conveyancing team and requiring full legal training and qualifications should answer Yes.

7. Summary

7.1 As with all JE schemes, it is the consistent application of the rules and conventions of the scheme within the organisation that is paramount.  There will be minor differences between Authorities in the ways in which each authority interprets and applies the NJC JES scheme (using either the paper-based or the Gauge version).  This does not matter as long as each authority is consistent within itself and maintains the criteria set out in paragraph 2.3 above.

8. Further Information

8.1 If the above strategies do not resolve queries of interpretation, then there are further sources of advice:

8.2 All experience is that serious queries of interpretation are best resolved at an early stage of the exercise, if they are not to lead to major problems, delays and need for re-working of evaluations at a later date.

TECH NOTE 6 APRIL 2005

Page 5 of 5