RAVENSBOURNE COLLEGE OF DESIGN & COMMUNICATION

JOB EVALUATION PROCESS

INTRODUCTION

Job Evaluation is a systematic process for ranking jobs logically and fairly by
comparing job against job or against a pre-determined scale, to determine the
relative complexity of jobs and the relative importance of what they contribute. It is a
practical technique, designed to enable trained and experienced evaluators to judge
the size of one job relative to others. The job evaluation method provides a
disciplined framework that enables a team of evaluators to make as near an objective
judgement as is practical, for the recruitment of a new post (once authorised by the
Management Committee) or following the agreement of the job description by the
current role holder. As the process of job evaluation is based to some degree on
subjective judgement, checks are built into the process to ensure a measure of
consistency.

Job Evaluation is totally about the role. It is not the person in the role who is
evaluated. To ensure consistency of the process all evaluations are based upon an
assumption of standard, competent performance.

Evaluation profiles are defined as the relationship between three elements which are
KNOW-HOW, PROBLEM SOLVING AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

KNOW-HOW - Depth and Range of Know-How

- Planning and Organising
- Communicating and Influencing

PROBLEM SOLVING - The Thinking Environment

- The Thinking Challenge

ACCOUNTABILITY - Freedom to Act

- Nature of Impact
- Area of Impact

These factors are discussed by a panel and when any disagreements are reached by
the members, viewpoints are discussed which then leads to the opportunity to re-
assess the judgements. The three elements must be acceptable to all concerned in
order to agree on a fair evaluation.

Data will be kept in order to explain evaluators’ judgements to roleholders and to

resolve any disputes

1 For All Staff

EQUALITY

A clear and consistent approach must be taken to all job evaluations. Each role
evaluated must be considered for the job detail and requirements and not the person
carrying out or intended to carry out the work. This is why an analytical approach
such as job evaluation is so important. The main message is ‘equal pay for work of
equal value’.

The job evaluation process has been used to draw up the new grading structure by
drawing grade boundaries around sensible groupings of jobs in line with Framework
Agreement (UCEA) principles. Roles are then ascribed to grades and salaries
determined accordingly. In cases where the current salary falls above the new range
they are effectively red circled and their salaries protected. They will no longer be
eligible for pay increases until such time as their salary is in line with a job of the
same size, up to a maximum of 4 years. Another option in these cases is to increase
the responsibility of the job such that the grading of the post is increased or by
agreement to move the individual concerned to a higher post if one is available and
supporting the individual through the change with appropriate training and
development. Where the employee falls below the bottom of the range for the job
they are doing, their salaries should be increased over a period of time to ensure that
they are fairly rewarded against their peers.

There are however, some material factors which can lead to a pay difference:

• Market differences in pay (where there is clear evidence in an unbiased

market)
• Performance differences (where they are clear, documented and not due to
considerations which would constitute unlawful discrimination)
• Temporary differences (where the comparator job is ‘red circled’ and known to
be overpaid compared to comparable roles)

For the first job evaluation programme during 2006, our jobs were analysed by an
external independent organisation (The Hay Group). They worked from copies of job
descriptions; staff were not personally or professionally known to the evaluators. We
can therefore assure everyone there has been no unlawful discrimination. Their
results were discussed with a group of trained Ravensbourne staff, in order to assess
whether they felt any moderation was necessary due to judgements on any internal
relativities, which the Hay staff challenged or agreed as appropriate. In a few cases
the Hay staff re-evaluated a few jobs and then gave a view as to whether they
thought any changes to the results were necessary. The staff trained at
Ravensbourne were Genevieve Cowcher, Rosy Creehan, Barbara Howell, Janthia
Taylor, Rachel Green and Steve Bowman and from HR - Doreen de Bellotte, Dianne
Hasler and Kathy Steele.

Full details of the Hay Group evaluation process are contained in their report which is
available on the College website.

2 For All Staff

Ravensbourne will continue to work in this way to ensure all new or changing roles
are evaluated with a fair process. This includes:

An analytical approach Sound information and training

Factors and levels A fair and representative panel

which are fair and relevant – a range of people of different
backgrounds, sexes and points
of view
Any weighting* applied With conclusions and results
does not cause any concern properly documented

*Weighting in this case will refer to any factors in the job evaluation process where
the analysis indicates constituent parts of the job description fall short of or exceed
the norm. As a result a score may be slightly increased or decreased accordingly.

3 For All Staff

FUTURE JOB EVALUATION

In future, new job descriptions developed and any significant changes to existing job
descriptions will be assessed for salary banding during job evaluation meetings to be
held during each Spring term, where a panel will determine the job size and
subsequent grading. This will replace the annual re-grading process as previously
carried out by the College.

Proposed new and revised job descriptions should be forwarded to HR for review
(see “Creation of New Job Descriptions Policy”). Following HR review, changes to
existing job descriptions will then be discussed and agreed with the role holder. New
job descriptions and those with significant changes will be forwarded to the
Management Committee for approval before they are discussed with the role holder
or the commencement of recruitment. There may be a necessity for re-evaluation of
existing roles, and if so this will be considered when the JE panel next meet.
Following job evaluation and communication to the role holder, should there be an
appeal, this will be covered by the “Job Evaluation Appeals Procedure” and if the
roleholder is still dissatisfied, they may pursue the matter through the staff grievance
procedure. Line managers will be notified when the Job Evaluation Panels will be
meeting, and the timescale for new and revised job descriptions to be submitted for
evaluation.

Key Notes of Importance:

• The Job Evaluation method used in the 2005/06 JE exercise was Hay. Other
methods may be used in future, at the College’s discretion.
• New roles must be evaluated and those which have significant changes made
will be re-evaluated during the job evaluation process as outlined above
• The evaluating panel will normally consist of four members, including a Hay
consultant
• All panel members will be trained evaluators
• Further discussions relating to specific roles will be held with line managers
when it is felt by the JE panel, that further information or background is
required (no second-guessing)
• A facilitator will be appointed and will be involved throughout the JE process
(the facilitator could be any one of the trained staff at Ravensbourne or a Hay
consultant)
• Evaluation discussions will remain confidential and outcomes communicated
to role holders and their line manager
• Rationales for decisions will be agreed and recorded for each role, taking into
account equality and equal pay for equal value

This document is for information only and is not incorporated into any contract of
employment between the College and members of staff

4 For All Staff