THE LOGO

The Beamans logo is made of symbol and two line

logo name (figure 1).

The symbol and logo name should always appear

together in their given relationship. However, when
space is restricted the one line logo can be used alone
(figure2) at a minimum size 21mm (see page 6 for the
minimum size specification).

Logo name
The logo name is set in Helvetica Neue Extended.
Figure 1 two line logo and symbol
To ensure quality and consistency, please do not
redraw, stretch, squeeze or distort the logo. It must
always appear in its original proportions. Please
make sure that the logo is clear and legible on all
applications at all times.

Colour logo
The Beamans logo must always be reproduced in the
Beamans primary colours, (see page 7 for the colour
specification).

Figure 2 one line logo and symbol

Fluent Thinking

Intelligent Ideas

Practial Solutions

M od e r n Job Eval uati on - A Beam ans Per s pectiv e

 Research Councils

E x e c u t i v e N D P B s

W h i t e h a l l

M u s e u m s
beamans
UNDERSTANDING AND EVALUATING ROLES
About Beamans
For the past 13 years Beamans have been providing
JEGS & JESP job evaluation services to Government
Departments, Agencies and Executive Non-
Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs). During that time
we have evaluated over 3,000 roles in over 200 different
organisations.
Those evaluations have ranged across traditional
Whitehall roles, operational roles in agencies, specialist
roles in museums and research councils and industrial
roles in the MOD. It has also included roles at different
levels from Cooks to Chief Executives.
But perhaps the most striking thing about all these
evaluations is the different contexts and backdrops
against which they have taken place. In this perspective
weve aimed to outline some of these contexts and
share with you some of the issues weve identified
along the way. We also look to the future and how
the practice of understanding and evaluating roles is
changing and developing in the current environment.
If you would like any further information on how we
addressed some of the issues outlined or would like to
find out the best way we can help you to understand
and evaluate roles please contact:
Beamans Ltd
Tel: 01622-741560
E-mail: admin@beamans.co.uk
Access our website: www.beamans.co.uk
valuing roles

job analysis

competence
p a y m a n a g e m e n t
The Grading Review
For most organisations across the civil service arena
the requirement to use JEGS or JESP to formally
evaluate roles is small. However, when the situation
does demand a formal JEGS or JESP evaluation it often
makes sense to seek an independent, objective view
on the appropriate grade or band level of the role.
Approximately 50% of the evaluations we are asked to
undertake relate to roles where there is some doubt or
concern about the grade or band level of the role. In
such circumstances our aim is not simply to produce a
JEGS or JESP score for the role, important though this
is, but to explain the scoring rationale.
This means drawing comparisons between the job
demands of the role and those typically characteristic
of roles at relevant grade or band levels.
Over the years we have found that clients value this
explanation of scoring rationales, more so than a simple
JEGS or JESP score which can be difficult for role
holders and managers to understand or contextualise.
Our approach is to compile a report for all roles we
evaluate to explain our scoring rationales and highlight
relevant job size comparisons. By grounding our
evaluations and analysis of job size in the context of the
organisation as well as the wider civil service arena we
are able to help role holders and managers understand
better the rationale behind the job evaluation process.
 status

analytical
matching

career fam i l i es

h i e r a r c h y
The Pay & Grading Review
For some organisations circumstances may arise
which require the evaluation of a large number of roles.
This may be as a result of a machinery of government
change, for example, the merger of departments or the
creation of a new public body. The management and
co-ordination of these larger job evaluation exercises
requires a different approach.
Over the years we have managed or supported a large
number of these exercises some of which individually
have involved the evaluation of hundreds of roles.
Our Evaluation Services team is well versed in project
managing such exercises and can advise on all aspects
of the process from selecting benchmark roles to co-
ordinating and quality assuring scores.
However, while a well managed job evaluation exercise
is an important foundation of pay management
a wide range of issues beyond job size need to be
taken into account in developing pay systems.
We also look at the issues involved in aligning pay
systems and pay management arrangements and
suggest integrated solutions.
We also provide the technical skills to develop the right
pay management approaches (such as broad-bands,
career or job families, competency based systems
etc) as well as the process skills to ensure successful
implementation.
Put simply: our approach to reviews of this type mean
the job evaluation process is never divorced from
pay systems alignment and implementation because
to set the right job evaluation agenda you need to
understand the wider pay management agenda.
 internal relativities e x t e r n a l r e l a t i v i t i e s

reward

Job Size
The Legal Review
Equal pay challenges are now part of the landscape.
Across the civil service arena JEGS and JESP is often
relied upon to provide a defence against such claims.
Over the past two years we have dealt with a number
of cases where the roles subject to evaluation have
formed part of an individual or class action equal pay
claim.
However, to have an equal pay claim dismissed by
relying on JEGS or JESP as an analytical job evaluation
defence you have to meet particular requirements.
In practice this has involved the compilation of detailed
reports outlining scoring rationales across the whole
JEGS or JESP question set in order to show that the
relative values placed on the work performed have
been objectively assessed.
We have also dealt with cases of work of equal value
where JEGS or JESP cannot be relied upon as a
defence and an objective assessment has to be made
as to whether the claimants and comparator roles are
of equal value.
Our Evaluation Services team is well versed in
undertaking the job analysis and evaluation of roles
which are the subject of Equal Pay claims including
supporting Counsel on all issues relating to the analysis
and evaluation of roles.
Our expertise in this area is also acknowledged.
Members of our team have acted, and are increasingly
called upon to act, as job evaluation experts in
defending such claims and have provided support to
organisations through all stages of the claim process.
market pricing

a ccur acy

classification
e q u a l i t y
The Indicative Review
We havent yet defined the roles so how can we evaluate
them? In recent times machinery of government and
other changes have created new organisations which
for all intents and purposes are start-ups. Depending
on the organisation there may be no inherited grade
structures or job evaluation processes; there may be
no organisational framework.
Yet, individuals joining or seconded to the organisation
still have to be paid.
Over the past three years we have worked with a
number of new government bodies to help establish
a framework to evaluate roles which will support the
organisation in its initial start-up phase whilst more
fundamental judgements are made about the type of
organisational structure and linked pay management
arrangements that may be appropriate for the longer
term.
Of course, work in this area owes more to being able
to define core levels of contribution and articulate
them than it does to the application of JEGS or JESP.
Yet, our evaluation expertise is not limited to the use
and application of JEGS or JESP.
We can, and have, developed classification frameworks
and other evaluation tools to facilitate the evaluation of
roles. We have also helped organisations already using
job evaluation systems to develop linked classification
frameworks which enable them to quickly and easily
classify roles to a particular grade or band level.
Our knowledge and understanding of roles and how
organisations operate mean that the absence of
specific role data or a defined grade or band structure
need not be a hindrance to the job evaluation process.
By defining a framework which sets out core levels
of contribution and competency at each level we
can quickly and easily evaluate existing roles, new
roles and most importantly, roles which evolve as the
organisation grows.
 hierarchy

reward valuing roles

r o l e p r o f i l e s

job analysis
The Pay Review
This may seem like a contradiction in terms because
job evaluation and pay are perceived as two separate
issues. Yet, whilst the primary purpose of job
evaluation will always be the assessment of internal
relativities for some roles establishing external or
pay market relativities can be equally important. In
recent years a much greater emphasis has been
placed on the use of specific market rate pay data
(not just data from general published surveys) for
different roles.
The key to obtaining market rate data is the
matching of roles: inadequate job matching has
been shown to be a major cause of inaccuracies
in pay data collected for market pricing purposes.
Comparisons based on job capsules have proven
to be far more accurate than comparisons based
on job title matching. Given the job matching
process will typically involve wider public sector
and private sector organisations, these job capsules
need to accurately define main responsibilities and
the job challenge of the role in a way that external
organisations can understand and relate to.
Over the past three years we have developed and
compiled a number of job capsules to support the
process of market pricing roles. As well as providing
an accurate base for pricing comparisons (external
relativities) the capsules can also be used to provide
a measure of job size (internal relativities).
Our approach ensures that the dimensions and job
challenge of the role are articulated in a way that
will be easily understood internally and externally.
And most importantly, contain the right information
to be evaluated in a market related as well as a job
evaluation context.
 accuracy

p a y m a n a g e m e n t

analytical matching

classification
The Quality Assurance
(QA) Review
Over the years our QA role has varied from reviewing
and quality assuring individual job descriptions and
scores, to reviewing a JEGS database containing
scores for over 200 roles. However, our QA role also
extends beyond the boundaries of reviewing the
outcomes of individual reviews or exercises (important
though this is), to the proactive QA or audit of grade or
band levels across the organisation.
Our research shows that few organisations have
proactive QA processes aimed at maintaining grading
standards. The fact is that most evaluation work tends
to be reactive - that is, responding to requests for posts
to be upgraded. In only responding to requests for
re-grading, organisations run the risk of grade drift as
well as other grading anomalies. They also increase
their risk of gender related grading inequities arising.
Rolling pro-active QA of grading standards can go
a long way in maintaining standards and improving
consistency especially if it is performed in conjunction
with a review of organisational effectiveness.
However, the QA picture is a broad one: we have
undertaken a variety of QA reviews in a number of
different guises including equal pay reviews; reviews
of grading standards through the evaluation of roles at
a particular grade or band level; reviews of particular
management (grading) hierarchies in specific work
areas; and reviews of work processes which has led to
the realignment of roles both in relation to the process
itself and to appropriate grade levels.
Our approach to QA is based on establishing the right
process for the organisation recognising that no two
QA processes have the same emphasis. As a result
we aim to ensure that the QA process is bespoke
and most importantly, focused on the maintenance of
organisational & not generic standards.
job families competence

valuing roles
job analysis

p a y m a n a g e m e n t
The JESP Review
On paper at least the differences between JEGS and
JESP appear marginal: both are examples of points-
factor job evaluation; both were designed to evaluate
roles across the civil service arena albeit at different
hierarchical levels; and both processes in terms of
analysis and evaluation are similar.
In job evaluation terms the differences lie not in the
methodologies but in the scale and scope of the roles
they were designed to evaluate. In our view, evaluating
Senior Civil Servant (SCS) level or equivalent roles
using JESP demands a greater degree of expertise
and more importantly, experience of how SCS level
roles operate. That is why our JESP evaluations are
carried out by those who have operated at senior
levels: because they understand the context of such
roles; they are more familiar with the nuances of such
roles; and most importantly, they can identify and
articulate what the key issues are in evaluation terms.
Our work on JESP also extends to sitting as
independent members of JESP panels and, in some
cases, considering the appropriate salary level for
particular roles. In recent times much of our work on
JESP has centred on senior staff in non-departmental
public bodies and non-ministerial government
departments where establishing an appropriate spot-
rate salary level in relation to SCS pay-bands is as
important as determining the appropriate JESP score.
In this latter respect, providing support to remuneration
or pay committees in establishing appropriate salary
levels for senior staff has been an ever increasing
feature of our work.
We are proud of the fact that our JESP expertise
is acknowledged. We believe this is because our
approach to JESP is founded in our understanding of
the nuances and context of SCS level roles and also
in being able to align internal job size relativities with
external pay market relativities.
 h i e r a r c h y

analytical matching

status

career families
The Competence Review
The format in which job information is expressed for
job evaluation purposes can also be used to support
the process of competence analysis and competence
development. Yet, this simple fact is often overlooked.
A lot of time and effort can be spent interviewing
role holders and compiling job descriptions for job
evaluation purposes when this information could be
used to support work in other areas - particularly
competence development.
Of course, the process of competence development
requires a lot more than simply obtaining information
through a structured interview. However, the
process of job analysis whether for job evaluation or
competence purposes is essentially complementary.
Some of our job analysis projects have focused more
on functional analysis (for example, to determine work-
based competences) as much as they have focused
on establishing the job size of the role. And some
have focused on both! This has been particularly
evident in our work in relation to job or career family
frameworks where changes in the thresholds between
family levels owe as much to the development of
competence as they do to step changes in job size.
The other feature of our work in this area has been in
the process of job analysis. Traditionally, job analysis
is often interpreted as being a structured one-to-one
interview; but where the job analysis process also has
a focus on competence a workshop approach is likely
to produce better results.
Yet, whether the emphasis in job analysis is on
competence or job size, or a combination of both,
our Evaluation Services team is skilled in all the
techniques and approaches to job analysis and can
provide advice and guidance on selecting and using
the most appropriate approach.
 internal relativities

e x t e r n a l r e l a t i v i t i e s

Job Size
reward
The Organisational Review
A primary source of organisational analysis and
understanding is through the job analysis process.
This is not surprising: jobs are part of an organisation,
so job analysis must form part of an organisational
analysis. Yet, the value of job evaluation as a tool of
organisational analysis is often overlooked. This is
particularly so when considering the major processes,
formal and informal, by which organisations function
and the way in which they are resourced.
Used appropriately job evaluation can give important
perspectives on role relationships (vertically and
horizontally); areas of overlap at an individual and
organisational level; and organisational processes.
Of course, insights from a job evaluation exercise
will not provide a comprehensive approach to
organisational analysis but used in collaboration with
other approaches, for example, process mapping, it
can provide an important and useful perspective.
Many of our reviews look at roles holistically not simply
their job size. This means integrating the process of
job analysis with other organisational techniques such
as process mapping to establish how roles integrate
with processes and how those processes should be
resourced. This is important because organisational
and job design issues must be integrally managed
because improperly designed roles may cause the
organisation or business process to fail.
Approximately 30% of our work is focused on
organisational design and improvement. Very often
these reviews start off as traditional job evaluation
exercises but end up addressing wider issues of
organisation and process design. This is because
our expertise stretches beyond the job evaluation of
roles and encompasses process mapping and other
organisational review techniques. This is what enables
us look at roles and the organisation holistically and
most importantly, make the right connections between
roles, processes and structures.
 e q u a l i t y
accuracy

market pricing

classification
The Future Review
Looking to the future we are already starting to see job
evaluation - (and JEGS in particular) used in support of
a number of different initiatives including:
Job and Career Families the Professional Skills
for Government (PSG) agenda has increased the
focus on defining the different levels of competence
or capacity within a particular group. This in turn has
shifted the emphasis in evaluation terms to defining
levels within each family group either within a common
grade or pay structure a career family approach;
or defining levels within each family group each of
which will be graded (and paid) according to their
relevant family a job family approach. However,
as the essential characteristic of job or career family
structures is about defining career progression routes,
the process of job analysis is as much about defining
levels of competence as it is about defining job size.
Increasingly, our work in this area has focused not so
much on defining the job size of roles but on defining
levels of contribution and the competence steps which
underpin them.
Competence & Skills Frameworks increasingly
skills framework such as SFIA Skills Framework
for the Information Age (SFIA) and the Government
Core IT Skills Framework, are being used to design
roles and support recruitment and development
needs. Understanding how these frameworks, and in
particular how the levels of organisational contribution
described in the frameworks link to grade or band
levels, can be difficult as they often link to more
than one level. In recent times we have worked with
individual departments, agencies and NDPBs as well
as the owners of such frameworks to help define and
clarify the link between job size and framework levels
both at an individual job level and at a more generic
band or grade level.
Job Flexibility - flatter, more flexible organisations
with less hierachical control and more emphasis on
project and programme management, require roles to
be more flexible and responsive to varying demands,
not constrained by hierachy or structure. In reality,
many working relationships are now becoming
horizontal or diagonal across the organisation rather
than vertical. These changes also carry major
implications for how roles are defined and treated. For
job evaluation approaches to cope in this environment
it is important to adapt the way roles are defined and
more importantly, ensure that factors which are used
to size roles properly interpret and take account of
these new ways of working. Much of our evaluation
work is now focussed on helping organisations tease
out what assumptions and interpretations are actually
being used to evaluate roles rules of thumb and test
their validity against new organisational arrangements
and discard or modify them.
Whilst predicting future initiatives and trends may be
providing hostages to fortune, one thing is certain:
the issue of internal relativities between roles in an
organisation will continue to be an essential component
in considering pay.
 h i e r a r c h y

reward

valuing roles

job analysis
The Big Picture Does Job Size
really matter?
What the preceding examples demonstrate is that job
size does really matter! But job size as established
through JEGS, JESP or some other job evaluation
application can only ever be a means to an end rather
than an end in itself!
As weve hinted at throughout this commentary there
is more to job evaluation than simply arriving at a
score that will enable you to position a role in a grade
or band important though that may be.
Understanding how job evaluation fits into and links
to the wider picture from a technical perspective
relationships to pay; a structural perspective
relationships to the organisational structure; and
a cultural perspective relationships to the way
the organisation operates, is as important as
understanding the technicalities of producing a score
for a role.
At Beamans we evaluate a lot of roles because we
understand the different contexts in which roles are
evaluated and why it is important to understand the
difference in job size between one role and another.
So, whether your evaluation context is linked to
issues of organisational integration, business
process, pay management, legal challenge, wider
HR developments or is simply a matter of individual
grading, you know you can rely on us.
 Isle of Man Government

MOD Industrials

National assembly for wales

Ombudsme n
G a l l e r i e s

Scottish Executive
HE LOGO

Beamans logo is made of symbol and two line

name (figure 1).

symbol and logo name should always appear

ther in their given relationship. However, when
ce is restricted the one line logo can be used alone
re2) at a minimum size 21mm (see page 6 for the
mum size specification).

o name
logo name is set in Helvetica Neue Extended.
Figure 1 two line logo and symbol
nsure quality and consistency, please do not
B e a m a ns L t d PO Box 869 Mai d st one K ent ME15 9Y Q Tel: 01622 741560 www. beamans. co. uk
aw, stretch, squeeze or distort the logo. It must
ys appear in its original proportions. Please
e sure that the logo is clear and legible on all
ications at all times.

our logo