Ô





  
 Factor Evaluation  Hay Method
System
Developed in 1977 by the Dates back to the early
Office of Personnel 50's and is one of the most
Management for non- popular methods in use
supervisory general today. It is particularly
schedule employees. It popular for evaluating
incorporates many of executive, managerial, and
the characteristics of professional positions as
the Lott, Benge, and well as nonexempt clerical,
NEMA methods. blue collar, and technical
jobs. |
  
 D
 
   
BASS NMTA
Skill Skill
(4/0)* (3/15)
Working Condition Effort
(3/0) (2/10)
Responsibility Responsibility
(1/0) (4/20)
Job Conditions
(2/10)
* (SUBFACTORS/DEGREES OR LEVELS)

|
  
 D
 
   
Hay and Purves Factor Evaluation System
Know How Knowledge Personal Contact
(3/15) (2/9) Purpose of Contact
Problem Solving Supv Control Physical Demands
(2/13) (3/5) Work Environment
Accountability Guidelines
(3/15) (2/5)
Complexity
(3/6)
Scope & Effect
(2/6) |
  
 å 





 

 
å  
 

A critical check of the

results of a POINT-
FACTOR 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
R



 
  


 

  
 
 



 


 


 




  



 








   
















relates directly
to the quality of
decisions made
by those doing
the ratings, and....
|
  
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
members (at least one from the comp
department) and rotating members
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 Members

|
  
  



The FES differs from the other point-

factor 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 POINTS % TOTAL
LEVELS
Knowledge 50-1850 41.3 9
Supv Control 25-650 14.5 5
Guidelines 25-650 14.5 5
Complexity 25-450 10.0 6
Scope/effect 25-450 10.0 6
Pers Contact 10-110 2.5 4
Purp Of Contact 20-220 4.9 4
Phys Demand 5-50 1.1 3
Work Environment 5-50 1.1 3
Total Points 4480
|
  
  
 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 Know-How
chart-profile  Practical procedures,
method uses three specialized knowledge, And
universal factors, scientific discipline.
eight subfactors, (8 levels)
and forty-three  Managerial (4 levels)
degrees and levels  Human relations (3 levels)
to evaluate jobs.
 Plus 3 degree choices per
They are as
grid.
follows:
|
  
 £" å   
£" å
 
Problem-Solving Accountability

 Freedom to act
 Thinking
(7 levels)
environment
 Job impact on end
(8 levels)
results (4 levels)
 Thinking challenge
 Magnitude
(5 levels) (4 levels)
 Plus 2 degree  Plus 3 degrees per
choices per grid 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.

|
  
 £ 
ACCOUNTABILITY

 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 282-
294 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
administrative 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
administrative/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:

KH-PS-AC
General Mgr 41-23-36
Plant Mgr 44-22-34
Operations Mgr 56-19-25
Office Mgr 60-17-23
|