CONTINUATION OF THE CASE: The compensation committee appreciates the example job evaluation for the front desk receptionist that you provided them. They agree with the general approach you plan to take. Specifically, they are happy with the 3 compensable factors you have identified (skill, responsibility, and effort), as well as the six more specific sub-factors that are listed in the EXAMPLE TABLE. However, after looking over this example job evaluation, they have a few questions. To ensure that the job evaluation process is done consistently and perceived by all parties to be fair and accurate, they have asked that you provide the following: 1. First, they agree that 4 degrees for each of the sub-factors should be enough to differentiate between jobs, but it isn’t clear to them what each “degree” for the sub-factors actually represents. For example, what does it mean to rate the front desk receptionist as a “1” on the “degree of technical skill” sub-factor? Thus, you and your team FIRST needs to create a “KEY” for each of the sub-factors that clearly explains/defines each degree for each sub-factor. This means you need to describe, in detail, what a “1”, “2”, “3”, and “4” represent for: (the best example is exhibit 5.14) a. EXAMPLE: Education Level 1. High school / GED 2. Associates 3. Bachelors 4. Masters / Graduate b. Degree of Technical Skills 1. 2. 3. 4. c. Score of Control 1. 2. 3. 4. d. Impact of Job 1. 2. 3. 4. e. Degree of Problem solving 1. 2. 3. 4. f. Task Complexity 1. 2. 3. 4. HINT: Suggestions for scaling factors: (again, see example exhibit 5.14) · Use understandableterminology · Anchor degree definitions with benchmark-job titles and/or work behaviors · Make it apparent how degree applies to job 2. Next, the committee noted in the example job evaluation that you weighed the factors as follows: · 50% Skill · 25% Education Level · 25% Tech skill · 30% Responsibility · 10% Scope of Control · 20% Impact of Job · 20% Effort · 10% Degree of Problem Solving · 10% Task Complexity They are willing to accept that weight distribution (and the more specific weights for the sub-factors), but they want to understand the thought process that resulted in these weights. Thus, as a team, develop some arguments as to WHY you have determined the weights for the compensable factors (and sub-factors). **If you prefer to adjust the weights in order to better align with your own thought process that is acceptable as well. ** FINAL WEIGHTS: · _____% Skill · _____% Education Level · _____% Tech skill · _____% Responsibility · _____% Scope of Control · _____% Impact of Job · _____% Effort · _____% Degree of Problem Solving · _____% Task Complexity Explanation for this distribution of weights: Deliverables – PART 1 (Job Evaluation steps) 3. Assuming the committee is satisfied with the above information, the next deliverable is a job evaluation for EACH of the 5 benchmark jobs. For the following positions.

1. CONTINUATION OF THE CASE:
The compensation committee appreciates the example job
evaluation for the front desk receptionist that you provided
them. They agree with the general approach you plan to take.
Specifically, they are happy with the 3 compensable factors you
have identified (skill, responsibility, and effort), as well as the
six more specific sub-factors that are listed in the EXAMPLE
TABLE.
However, after looking over this example job evaluation, they
have a few questions.
To ensure that the job evaluation process is done consistently
and perceived by all parties to be fair and accurate, they have
asked that you provide the following:
1. First, they agree that 4 degrees for each of the sub-factors
should be enough to differentiate between jobs, but it isn’t clear
to them what each “degree” for the sub-factors actually
represents. For example, what does it mean to rate the front
desk receptionist as a “1” on the “degree of technical skill” sub-
factor?
Thus, you and your team FIRST needs to create a “KEY” for
each of the sub-factors that clearly explains/defines each degree
for each sub-factor. This means you need to describe, in detail,
what a “1”, “2”, “3”, and “4” represent for: (the best example is
exhibit 5.14)
a. EXAMPLE: Education Level
1. High school / GED
2. Associates
3. Bachelors

2. 4. Masters / Graduate
b. Degree of Technical Skills
1.
2.
3.
4.
c. Score of Control
1.
2.
3.
4.
d. Impact of Job
1.
2.
3.
4.
e. Degree of Problem solving
1.
2.
3.
4.
f. Task Complexity
1.
2.
3.
4.
HINT: Suggestions for scaling factors: (again, see example
exhibit 5.14)
· Use understandableterminology
· Anchor degree definitions with benchmark-job titles and/or
work behaviors
· Make it apparent how degree applies to job
2. Next, the committee noted in the example job evaluation that

3. you weighed the factors as follows:
· 50% Skill
· 25% Education Level
· 25% Tech skill
· 30% Responsibility
· 10% Scope of Control
· 20% Impact of Job
· 20% Effort
· 10% Degree of Problem Solving
· 10% Task Complexity
They are willing to accept that weight distribution (and the
more specific weights for the sub-factors), but they want to
understand the thought process that resulted in these weights.
Thus, as a team, develop some arguments as to WHY you have
determined the weights for the compensable factors (and sub-
factors). **If you prefer to adjust the weights in order to better
align with your own thought process that is acceptable as well.
**
FINAL WEIGHTS:
· _____% Skill
· _____% Education Level
· _____% Tech skill
· _____% Responsibility
· _____% Scope of Control
· _____% Impact of Job
· _____% Effort
· _____% Degree of Problem Solving
· _____% Task Complexity
Explanation for this distribution of weights:

4. Deliverables – PART 1 (Job Evaluation steps)
3. Assuming the committee is satisfied with the above
information, the next deliverable is a job evaluation for EACH
of the 5 benchmark jobs. For the following positions, assign
“degrees” for each compensable factor and calculate the total
number of job evaluation points for each job.
**Your decisions for assigning “degrees” to various jobs should
be primarily based on the job descriptions in APPENDIX A of
the CASE**
WEIGHT
Front Desk
Admin Assistant
Payroll Asst
Operations Analyst
Benefits Manager
From #2 above
DEGREE
POINTS
DEGREE
POINTS
DEGREE
POINTS
DEGREE
POINTS
DEGREE
POINTS

5. A
B
A*B*100
C
A*C*100
D
A*D*100
E
A*E*100
F
A*F*100
Skills
-Education Level

6. -Technical Skills

7. Responsibility
-Scope of Control

8. -Impact of Job
Effort

9. - Problem Solving
-Task Complexity

10. Total Points

11. 4. Does the trend of total points make sense across jobs?
Intuitively, which position SHOULD have the most points?
Does it? Which position SHOULD have the least points? Does
it? If not, do you need to go back and adjust your “key”, your
distribution of weights, or the actual degree you’ve assigned to
a position in order to make the final job structure that appears
here make more sense?