The ‘Reward Manager’ Job Evaluation and Salary Modelling Tool has been designed for both simplicity and ease of use. 

When installed, the Scheme contains up to 2,000 plus graded job elements either created by the Institute of Administrative Management (the originator of Reward Manager) or developed by users of the Scheme. These can be added to or deleted as required. 

Additional job elements are either downloaded from other users systems or developed in-house, using the algorithms and factor chart provided. In this way, the System is tailored exactly to meet the user’s purpose. 

The System is also very user friendly, incorporating switchable on/off “help” that is available at every stage and for every field – this means that every move is prompted should you need it. It is fully menu driven, making every use of ‘Windows’ drop-down menus with push-button controls. It also integrates a full word-processing function for the generation of correspondence and reports, as well as one of the best quick-reporting functions available today. 

The system is full 32 bit windows and is multi user. It can be easily customised to meet your specific needs and, if required, organisational and personnel data can be loaded from existing sources so the system is ready for use from day one.

How does the system work? 

• Benchmark jobs are selected for evaluation, and Questionnaires are generated containing appropriate job elements
• The Job Evaluation Questionnaires are then run-off and distributed to the job holders, who enters the time spent (expressed as a percentage of the total time on the job) against job elements that are applicable to the post. Additional industry specific job elements along with the corresponding percentage of time can be entered free hand by the job holder onto the questionnaire.
• Managers/supervisors then agree this input with the employee. Referring any disputed to the Scheme Administrator or other person(s) acting as ‘referee’.
• The ‘industry specific’ job elements identified are added to the job element library and sized using the job-sizing wizard.
• The data is inputted to the computer and an in-built algorithm calculates the points scored and grade (if established) for each of the benchmark jobs. The results can be ‘accepted’ or ‘rejected‘ by the Scheme Supervisor or Administrator. If is rejected, then it can be changed. However, to do so it is necessary to have appropriate authorisation together with an explanatory comment.
• Once all jobs have been evaluated, existing salaries /pay rates are put against each job (usually by ‘downloading’ from the existing Personnel or Payroll system), so that current pay ranges can be established for each new grade.
• This data is then transferred automatically to the salary-modelling tool so that it can be used to identify wage/salary drift. From experience wage drift typically averages around 10% (of which at least 3% can often be saved). This data is then used to develop new grading structures using external as well as internal indicators.
• Finally, new wage/salary structures are generated and printed, as are up-to-date Job Descriptions and letters to the employees concerned.

Job Evaluation Panels are usually not needed and it is recommended that the whole exercise be carried out by only two to three staff, with data entry actioned through data entry clerks without allowing them access to any of the salaries or grades.

Experience has shown that for an organisation of 500 employees the complete exercise can be carried out in two to three months from installation of the System to the issuing of details of new /revised salary scales.

Translating Outcomes into Job Grades/Pay Scales

Once all the jobs have been graded within the system and any desirable manual adjustments made, actual wages and salaries are downloaded from payroll to give ‘ranges’ for each grade.

These appear on the screen as Max, Min, Upper Quartile, Lower Quartile, Median, and so forth, for each grade. This process reveals anomalies in the existing structure and the extent of wage or salary drift that exists.

The range may then be compared with salary data, interactively on the screen or from hard copy, and broad bands are established. From this the maxina, mid-points and minima for each grade or band are determined. Employees are then ‘slotted-in’, depending upon the budget available.

Once this has been done, ‘what if’ exercises and costings can be carried out until a new and revised structure has been established, savings made, and employees informed.

Using MCI Competences

So far as managers and supervisors are concerned their positions can be evaluated using the mentioned method or they can be evaluated against the competency requirements of the job – or a combination of both. 

Where competences are used, the relevant competences are selected from the current MCI list and a senior manager, or team of senior managers, are asked to rank the importance of each one to the job against a computer-generated list. These rankings are then converted by the System into a point’s score, which can sit alongside the original System or be incorporated with it. It again produces a computer-generated grade which can be further fine tuned by rating and allocating ‘hard factors’ to the job - related to ‘turnover’, ‘sales’, ‘staff managed’, ‘budget administered’ etc. 

There are also Managerial Job Elements built into the main System, covering key management behaviours and functions that can be ‘time element’ rated in the same way as for other staff.

The Reward Manager programmers can meet the majority of clients’ evaluation and remuneration system requirements, whatever they are, and indeed most systems end up “bespoke” to some degree.