Trunky,

Perhaps this could be due to the fact that on different bands certain factors have different weightings hence scoring potential? For lower bands the maximum weighting, therefore level that can be attained for some of the factors, appears to be "capped" as far as I've looked into it.

So what on the face of it, in a job description, appears to be the same terminology for a factor will obtain a lower level and score for an MTO1 than an MTO4 when two hypohetical individuals are initially matched onto these profiles (initial matching is based on the knowledge/experience and freedom to act factors in the job specification/job description/organisation chart, primarily, I believe).

Factor levels and hence points are the same whichever band is being matched to. They relate to the criteria set out in the Job Evaluation Handbook.If the points are 42 for a particular factor on band 3 they are still 42 on band 8.

Actually I meant when I said:

I.e. the maximum level associated with some factors, for example "Analytical Skills" that is applied at MTO1 (matched initially to Band 2) for a particular factor may be 2, for example and for the same factor applied to an MTO5 (matched to Band 7) may be 4. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the term "weighting".

In response to Trunky's comment:

I'm assuming that the same statement in the MTO1/MTO5 job description/person specification would result in the associated factor being given a lower level on a lower band, than that on a higher band, due to this "capping" or "weighting" as I called it. The maximum level, therefore score, is limited at lower bands compared to higher bands for some factors.

Thus for the same statements in the JD/JS the maximum points attained for an MTO1 who is likely to be matched to a lower band initially are less, for some factors, than that attained by the MTO5, who's initially matched to a higher band I assume. Banding is based on some key factor for initial matching, such as required knowledge/skills/freedom factors, I assume.

Richard

I see what you are getting at. I shall have to think carefully to the reply to this, so it'll probably be Monday before I get back. Weekend tasks and all that (Goats with a flooded shelter with all our lovely liquid weather).

David

actually, the case is that, in some instances, people matched to a higher payband have scored lower on a given factor than those matched to a lower band, which is not what you are suggesting.

It works both ways depending upon the factors you're considering - we must remember that the JD/JS is being matched to existing profiles wherever possible and that for each factor the appropriate levels have been defined for matching panels already - for instance on the job profiles for a Medical Engineering team manager (in charge of an EBME site or group of technicians) at Band 7 may have a lower level in the factors associated with physical effort than a Band 2 medical Engineer (perhaps standing and sitting for long periods but not handling/moving/carrying equipment like the medical Engineer, for example).

The band 2 Engineer has the potential to score higher for the factor "Physical Effort" than the Band 7 Medical Engineering Team manager. I suspect that even given a similar statement in the JD/JS the maximum level that can be applied to each band is "capped" and what you attain relative to the maximum level attainable depends on what's been written in the JMQ for the post. If you look at the Medical Engineering profiles and the levels that are pitched for different factors, for the same factors on each band, then you'll probaby see what I'm getting at. I'm just trying to think of possible reasons for the differences you raised, not give a definitive answer.

Richard,
If your JD does not match and you have to go the JAQ route then the outcome is based on a simple points total of all the factors. As you are not being matched to a national profile, it would be impossible to 'cap' the scores as it would not be known what level of 'capping' to apply. The band for the job would not be known until all the factor points were totalled up therefore 'capping' the points would not be possible

Reading the AfC evaluation handbook and looking into the process a few weeks ago I had the impression that if the majority of factors outlined in the JD/JS match to the job profile then the panel would try to match to an appropriate profile using the JMQ to assist in this.

Only then if a match could not be made then the JEQ route would be considered if local matching were unsuccessful. This is not what I'm discussing - I was talking about the local matching process, based on established profiles, not Job Evaluation that applies in your case, I believe, Ken.

The Job Matching Questionnaire (JMQ) is used to assess the levels once you've been matched to an initial band, hence the matchers should be aware what the factor levels are likely to be for the initial profile considered (based on tangiables, i.e. knowledge/skills, etc). This is a "benchmark" I suppose.

If you exceed the factor "levels" for the band you're initially matched to then the panel considers awarding more points, i.e. increasing a level, or possibly moving you up a band, if the majority of the factors in the JMQ indicate this, or vice-versa if your JMQ factors are very poor relative to the initial profile chosen.

That's the way I remember reading the local job evaluation process and I believe this is the process that has been applied to our matching. Only when this process fails to give a match is the JEQ route considered, I believe. Could be totally wrong and nowhere near the mark since I've only discussed the process breifly (and locally) with individuals who're involved in the process.

Points do have to be capped for each factor, for a job profile in a particular band , otherwise a really good score in one factor only could lift you into a higher band if the potential score were not limited - this would make a mockery of having other factors and establishing "benchmark" levels for particular job profiles - hence I do not believe this is how "profiling" works.

Richard
I can't find any reference to the Job Matching Questionnaire on the AfC website. Is this something being used by your trust or is it a national proceedure. The situation I am in is that the JD did not match the national profile, and therefore a JAQ was required which has now been assessed and I am awaiting the outcome. I still don't see how they can 'cap' the factors in my case if the panel do not know the outcome until all the factors have been scored.

Section 8 - NHS Job Evaluation Handbook (2nd Ed) Oct 2004. The name of the questionnaire is not mentioned explicitly. I call it JMQ but it's probably a JAQ.

Section 10 "National Protocol for Local Evaluation" Job Analysis Questionnaire (JAQ) is mentioned, extensively (for matching jobs where no Profile/Match exists) but we used different terminology for the questionnaire used to provide supplementary information (JD/JS/Org Chart/Questionnaire) in the matching pocess outlined in Section 8 "Matching Procedure". Locally, this questionnaire gave us the opportunity to expand on 6 factors in the profiles.

I suspect we may have gone through the " Hybrid matching/evaluation procedure" that uses the JAQ but I'm not sure and have lost interest in it all to be honest. For JMQ read as JAQ in my previous postings.