Job evaluation tools just starting to tap technology
Everyone and everything has a dirty little secret. When it comes to how human resource management systems (HRMS) handle compensation, job evaluation seems to be the skeleton locked away in the organizational closet.
Why is job evaluation a company’s dirty little secret? Often it’s because of the way the system is designed, administered and the results matched to the pay system. Job evaluation is, by its nature, a time consuming and bureaucratic process and it’s even worse using job evaluation committees.
Many organizations continue to use job evolution systems devised in the ’60s to manage their organizations more than 40 years later. (Does anyone remember the premium placed on the ability to operate a word processing machine in the early ’80s?) Surely, with advances made during the past 20 years, technology can play a role in reducing the effort and agony in managing job evaluation. But until recently it hasn’t. Because of this, organizations without good recordkeeping find it nearly impossible to justify the value of a job because the original evaluations can no longer be found.
Job evaluation is the Achilles heel of HRMS software. Systems barely acknowledge it and often record just the barest of information such as total point scores. At best the procedure in many companies today is to use a manual paper-based process combined with multiple spreadsheets to massage the information and ultimately deposit only the total point value into the system. With such limited functionality, and little in the way of quality control tools, it’s no wonder few job evaluation people use the HRMS in any more than a reporting capacity.
Data management presents specific problems when applied to the area of job evaluation. Once the move is made beyond the simplest data, the need for a special purpose “best of breed” solution becomes apparent.
A special purpose job evaluation system stores all of the data from job evaluation in one place, including things like job descriptions, factor levels and definitions, weightings, individual factor evaluations, notes on why decisions were taken (and by whom) and total point scores.
Linked to an HRMS system it provides a seamless way of ensuring the data integrity is maintained and communicated across systems. By linking the HRMS position control to the job evaluation system, a job under review can be considered and the impact on both the structure and affected individual salaries estimated. A special purpose system is better positioned to handle this type of key job information.
Decisions about individual job factor levels, and the rationale used by the job evaluation committee in arriving at that decision, are often not recorded or are stored in paper minutes. New job evaluation systems handle the documentation of committee decisions. Historical records are maintained online and are crucial not just for reporting but as legal records in the event of a pay complaint or other legal issue.
When using an HRMS system and a “best of breed” system, how can organizations ensure the two systems remain synchronized and the integrity of the both systems maintained? One approach is to establish each system as the key repository for certain pieces of information, or a “system of record” for those pieces of data. This is a formalized process ensuring only one system is maintaining that data and the other system is the passive recipient of that data. (An example is provided in the table on page G10.)
The employee and job title information is passed to the best of breed system to ensure it stays in synchronization with the processes maintained on the HRMS. The HRMS system receives the output of the job evaluation process (the total point score) by an interface and this number can’t be changed on the HRMS system. By ensuring each system can only be changed by an interface from the “system of record” and not by the actions of a clerk, the integrity of both systems is maintained and data is changed where it should be changed — in the system of record.
Using these new job evaluation tools, many companies are adopting the following practices:
•Internet based job description development and online questionnaires for employees from their desktops through self service.
•Web-based job evaluation on a global basis.
•Workflow for supervisory approvals and routing information to the job analyst and the committee.
•Online consistency comparisons with other evaluations. Inconsistent evaluation results can be highlighted using business rules built into the software design.
•Maintaining online evaluation notes and other supporting materials
•Transferring job evaluation results to the manager and employee via e-mail and updating the HRMS with the new point total to ensure data integrity.
•Supporting all types of evaluations in the organization, including proprietary and commercially available systems such as the Hay or Decision Band evaluation systems.
The benefits of using a best of breed system to support job evaluation are numerous. They can dramatically reduce the administrative burden of job evaluation for the organization while simultaneously increasing flexibility, responsiveness and consistency of the job evaluation process. Best of all it reduces the heat generated by job evaluation and brings compensation’s dirty little secret out into the open.
John Johnston is a principal in Human Resource Management Solutions, a consulting firm specializing in HRMS strategy, systems selection and change management. He can be reached at (905) 825-4127. His column appears regularly in Canadian HR Reporter’s Guide series. Look for the Guide to a Healthy Workplace in the April 7 issue.
Why is job evaluation a company’s dirty little secret? Often it’s because of the way the system is designed, administered and the results matched to the pay system. Job evaluation is, by its nature, a time consuming and bureaucratic process and it’s even worse using job evaluation committees.
Many organizations continue to use job evolution systems devised in the ’60s to manage their organizations more than 40 years later. (Does anyone remember the premium placed on the ability to operate a word processing machine in the early ’80s?) Surely, with advances made during the past 20 years, technology can play a role in reducing the effort and agony in managing job evaluation. But until recently it hasn’t. Because of this, organizations without good recordkeeping find it nearly impossible to justify the value of a job because the original evaluations can no longer be found.
Job evaluation is the Achilles heel of HRMS software. Systems barely acknowledge it and often record just the barest of information such as total point scores. At best the procedure in many companies today is to use a manual paper-based process combined with multiple spreadsheets to massage the information and ultimately deposit only the total point value into the system. With such limited functionality, and little in the way of quality control tools, it’s no wonder few job evaluation people use the HRMS in any more than a reporting capacity.
Data management presents specific problems when applied to the area of job evaluation. Once the move is made beyond the simplest data, the need for a special purpose “best of breed” solution becomes apparent.
A special purpose job evaluation system stores all of the data from job evaluation in one place, including things like job descriptions, factor levels and definitions, weightings, individual factor evaluations, notes on why decisions were taken (and by whom) and total point scores.
Linked to an HRMS system it provides a seamless way of ensuring the data integrity is maintained and communicated across systems. By linking the HRMS position control to the job evaluation system, a job under review can be considered and the impact on both the structure and affected individual salaries estimated. A special purpose system is better positioned to handle this type of key job information.
Decisions about individual job factor levels, and the rationale used by the job evaluation committee in arriving at that decision, are often not recorded or are stored in paper minutes. New job evaluation systems handle the documentation of committee decisions. Historical records are maintained online and are crucial not just for reporting but as legal records in the event of a pay complaint or other legal issue.
When using an HRMS system and a “best of breed” system, how can organizations ensure the two systems remain synchronized and the integrity of the both systems maintained? One approach is to establish each system as the key repository for certain pieces of information, or a “system of record” for those pieces of data. This is a formalized process ensuring only one system is maintaining that data and the other system is the passive recipient of that data. (An example is provided in the table on page G10.)
The employee and job title information is passed to the best of breed system to ensure it stays in synchronization with the processes maintained on the HRMS. The HRMS system receives the output of the job evaluation process (the total point score) by an interface and this number can’t be changed on the HRMS system. By ensuring each system can only be changed by an interface from the “system of record” and not by the actions of a clerk, the integrity of both systems is maintained and data is changed where it should be changed — in the system of record.
Using these new job evaluation tools, many companies are adopting the following practices:
•Internet based job description development and online questionnaires for employees from their desktops through self service.
•Web-based job evaluation on a global basis.
•Workflow for supervisory approvals and routing information to the job analyst and the committee.
•Online consistency comparisons with other evaluations. Inconsistent evaluation results can be highlighted using business rules built into the software design.
•Maintaining online evaluation notes and other supporting materials
•Transferring job evaluation results to the manager and employee via e-mail and updating the HRMS with the new point total to ensure data integrity.
•Supporting all types of evaluations in the organization, including proprietary and commercially available systems such as the Hay or Decision Band evaluation systems.
The benefits of using a best of breed system to support job evaluation are numerous. They can dramatically reduce the administrative burden of job evaluation for the organization while simultaneously increasing flexibility, responsiveness and consistency of the job evaluation process. Best of all it reduces the heat generated by job evaluation and brings compensation’s dirty little secret out into the open.
John Johnston is a principal in Human Resource Management Solutions, a consulting firm specializing in HRMS strategy, systems selection and change management. He can be reached at (905) 825-4127. His column appears regularly in Canadian HR Reporter’s Guide series. Look for the Guide to a Healthy Workplace in the April 7 issue.
