Have any other departments changed Manager Titles to Team Leaders in the last 12 months? As it has happened here I just wondered if it is coincidence or an instructed policy.

Adrian
Only when there has been a restructuring of the department.

The only change here was that my title changed from "Head of Department" to "Manager" - and they tried to move me onto Senior Manager scales without consultation ! That was withdrawn and I'm still on Estates Officer scales.

Richard. I've never "upgraded" anyone just because their face fitted or they threatened to leave. Upgrades have only happened because the job description has changed and been re-evaluated. Remember I'm only talking about the additional points within the grade, not a change to a different grade. That's been impossible until you were filling dead mans shoes ! ! Re-evaluation was stopped about two years ago because of the AfC initiative - everyone was told they had to wait and it would all be sorted out.


Anybody seen the Health Service Journal dated Thursday 9th Sept ? Page 6 carries the headline "AfC delay will allow time to cost final bill" and it says the implementation date has been put back from March to September 2005. So it looks like we'll have to wait even longer to discover our grades !

Actually Roy I didn't mention upgrading I only discussed enhancements (star-points, brownie points, whatever you call them in your neck of the woods). I suppose you would have been able to use Managers discretion to award enhancements to a particular individual who requested, insisted or 'put pressure on'? That's what you suggesteed in your previous posts.

I've not suggested you would do this as a favour, for anyone, but it would have to be 'justified' based on the 'new requirements' of the service i.e. need for someone to take on a speciality for example? The point I'm getting at is that under the MTO system the Manager is able to do this - it could be done (or even used and abused)? How would you select that individual - wouldn't they be self-selecting if they 'put pressure on' more than others who might want to take on responsibility?

By put 'pressure on', to me, that usually means 'working to rule', being less than cooperative when you don't have to be, refusing to take on duties you've not been trained specifically for, not giving of 'free' information to less experienced and less qualified individuals, doing the bare minimum RE: workload, threatening and actually taking steps to leave (and leaving then coming back to work when the upgrade or enhancement is made available of course), etc, etc. Until they get what they want.

This is the behaviour that Whitley has promoted and that has worked for some but not others in the same departments - you hear about this sort of thing on occasion - some Managers and employees have played up to it because they can get away with it because they know that when applied at the right time the 'demand for Technicians' and 'the service will definitely collapse without them' arguments work.

From what I hear and read I have no doubt that there are national initiatives - such that the ability to award enhancements, upgrades and change job descriptions without restructure has been curbed and that changing of managers, or team leaders roles as Lee mentions above, is taking place in EBMEs all over the country to align individuals up for AfC Bands. Irrespective of whether it is being coordinated nationally or not.

At the moment I am an MTO-3 for five years

What time span would can you call experience, or other people's definition of experience. What counts as a short course.

The question I am stuck on is Q2:

Job title: Medical Engineering Technician

Band 4
2. Knowledge, Training & Experience:
Range of work procedures, intermediate level theory professional electronic knowledge acquired BTEC/ONC + short course, & regular updating

Band 5
2. Knowledge, Training & Experience:
Expertise within specialism, underpinned by theory, professional electronic knowledge acquired HND/BEng in electronics or equivalent + short course, & regular updating / experience.

Thank you for your help

A.M.
Your present grade, with regard to A4C is not important; apart from, obviously earnings.
You may well be working above and beyond an MTO3, but no financial reward has been forthcoming.
You will be evaluated on what you know, what you do and what you are responsible for.

I hope you are a member of a trades union(Amicus is the most common one) your Rep will be able to give you advice.

As Doogie says your current grade is not relevant at all.

The important thing is your JD. I have been writing my JD for 5 months so far but will only show it to my management when I am ready and will not agree to a woolly few changes to our old JD.(Old JD had 10 bullet points only.) Current 52 points.

While doing the job I am thinking about each and every job I do and whether it is currently covered in my JD. I am also trying to put information in the JD so a layman who is on a matching panel will be able to pick out the information and score each of the 16 factors on A4C.
I have seen the JD from Guy's for the MTO4 and it appears to be vague and does not point a matcher to the correct scoring. eg they only deal with complex and specialist NOT HIGHLY COMPLEX AND HIGHLY SPECIALIST equipment.
Look at the definitions in A4C and use some of the terminology.

Another important item that should be in the person spec is Qualifications. I have seen a lot of people put that they only need an ONC in this forum. We advertise for staff requiring a degree/ HND/HNC with relevant experience. Obviously some of the staff have been here a long time and all have not got a degree, but that is the current requirement. (THIS WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE A LEVEL 6 IN KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS).

If you have technicians that do some specialist work and those individuals are pitching for band6, post AfC, then the job requirement has to be pitched at Degree level in my opinion. The benchmark for Specialist Technician clearly demonstrates that the level of qualifications required makes a big difference in JE scoring. There is no easy way to ensure Technicians currently in-post are banded appropriately for carrying out the specialised, complex, technical roles. The points associated with 'specialist tasks or roles' are fewer and less objectively assessed in comparison to those JE points obtained by the qualification requirments being pitched at degree level for example.

If the qualification requirement is pitched at HNC (whether it is needed in practice or not) then there is a risk that HNC plus experience may not be considered equivalent to HND/BEng. I have this view since HNC is not listed at all in any of the benchmark Job profiles for Technicians and I assume these will be used as benchmarks, possibly by non-technical individuals and those who may not appreciate the distinction between non-vocational qualifications i.e. ONC/HNC/HND used to profile Technicians for AfC.

There does not appear to be flexibility in awarding points for qualifications - only the subjective assessment of equivalence to meet the requirements for purposes of JE. What makes the requirement for HNC equivalent to BEng the benchmark requirement for the purposes of scoring for a Specialist Technican role? Especially when there's no flexibility in points then it's a go or no-go situation by the look of it. Has anybody seen the guidelines for Job evaluation? What does equivalent experience actually mean? When there is no range in scores I can only assume you are or aren't eligible for that particular level or score. Pitching the requirements at HNC is risky although more convenient for an employer having problems recruiting at Degree-level I suppose.

The difference in points between specialist and non-specialist, for JE, is 68 points or over 50% of that obtainable for Medical Engineering Technician, Higher Level on Band5. What I'm getting at is if any of the requirements of a job profile fail to meet a benchmark level that has no flexibility i.e. no scoring range (5-11 for example) then my concern is that the next lower benchmark may then be applied. In my view; at the very least this could drastically affect the 'scoring potential' of individuals despite their current responsibilities. Even worse it might mean the job specification being compared against a lower-level job profile as the benchmark. This means the next band (or two) down from the benchmark they might wish to have their job specification matched to.

Doogie,

I think it will be more like:

"You will be evaluated on the minimum you will be required to know, the minimum you will be required to do and the minimum you will be required to be responsible for, in your new AfC job role and anything else required by your employer".

Richard

The JD is:
You will be evaluated on what you know, what you do and what you are responsible for.

If what you do etc. is not on your new job description, DO NOT SIGN IT !!

Be proactive write your own JD, and then ask the question, if this is then brought, into question, "Which of these points are incorrect?"