EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues Agenda For Change Job Descriptions

Having read all the bumf on AfC, then having received the national Job Profiles for the MTO grades, I stupidly thought that there were going to be national generic job descriptions that we could base our local ones on.

Since our jobs are going to be assessed and awarded points by a scoring panel made up of people who aren't technical, how the hell do you write a job description so that someone who knows next to nothing about what we do can assess ;-
what level of physical skill and dexterity we require,
what analytical and judgemental skills we use,
what our level of knowledge, training and experience is,
or how much mental effort the job can demand ? ? ?

I've been told I've got to write a general job description for each grade - not a specific job description for each person. In my department we all have different jobs - it's part of working as a team - so how do I reflect the various skills and specific points that will score points in the assessment ?

What do points make ?

Well this is where the fun really starts isn't it ? It is the job that is evaluated not the person. The lady that gave us our latest briefing (her favourite saying: I don't have an answer for that)told us that they evaluate your job against the minimum requirements so that when you bang in the extra bits you do they can just say, Ah that's not actually part of your job. So band 5 it is then.

The way I have approached this undertaking is to make the evaluation easy for the those who have to judge.

Job Summary includes the all the points covered on the Job Statement part of profile (If they apply).

Then I have listed all the Relavant Job Information from the Profile under the heading of Key Skills ( providing they apply to the the post of course ).

This makes the task of those matching the profile to the job description very easy.

Keep it simple and honest is my advice.

Roy

Our Foundation Trust has set up panels and training sessions to assist in this matter. It is open to all those involved or to be involved in the A4C process within the Foundation Trust.

Also, for those in a union, in our case for EBME, this means Amicus (MSF section), the union has been and is providing training sessions in the Manchester branch area for its members.

My deputy and I are attending the next session on the 21st May 2004. I of course write job descriptions for posts in EBME and consider up-to-date aspects of them at Individual Performance Reviews (IPR) for my staff on an annual basis.

So hopefully a smooth transition process to get them to tie up with the requirements of the A4C.

As Bob says as in the Whitley Council, it is the post that is graded, not the individual.

Perhaps if you get an opportunity to speak to one of the Early Implementors, you may get more information. We had a presentation from one at our EBME Managers meeting in Aintree last year and they were near to finalising their Job Descriptions, person specification, job profile matching, KSF, blah, blah, blah.

Good luck.

Jim

Jim
Having spoken to what few reps I can find, read the magazines and checked the website, I am amazed to learn that Amicus have actualy heard of AfC.(One rep told me they dont deal with football clubs).
J Kimberley
I would have thought the way to approach job descriptions would be to make them as obscure and technical as possible so that those making the final assessments are forced to seek advice from someone who knows what they're talking about.

OK E.I. report time again,
To answer a few points.
As I have tried to make clear on my other postings on the A4C situation. It is the POST that is being considered not the individual.

To consider the questions Roy asks.
all of these points are covered in the criteria of each and every profile, what any panel has to do is evalauate all the information provided to see if what is being said is eiether in excess, below or corresponding to the profile data. If corresponding then at one point within the factor points range does the equality happen.
Information provided to the panel is normally in 4 parts the job description, personal specification for the post, supplementry information submitted for the post which is the opertunity to explain in detail how each factor is involved in the post and clarifing questions and answers in the actual post interview. The ammount of supplementry information submitted depends on if the post interview is intended to be a matching interview or an evaluation interview. I hope that what I am saying here is understandable.
I am supprised Roy that you have been asked to write a general job description for each post and would like to know why. Each post already has a JD - true that JD may not reflect all that the post holder is doing within the scope of the job but this comes down to Jim's point about regular JD review as part of an IPR process ( a process that will also change under the KSF but more on that some other time).
Writing JDs to reflect the picture of the profile is unsound and should not happen as amongst other things it is possible to miss tasks that the staff are doing. It is not impossible that a current MTO3 post when matched actually because of the job content comes out with a higher profile than might be expected, i.e. the MTO3 is actually doing the work of a current MTO4 but has never been able to get regraded under previous arangements. Doubtful I agree but never the less not impossable.
What should be done is that the current JD should be "checked" to verify current relevance and all work done should be inclueded. This will create two sets of data the "essential tasks" of the posts and the tasks of the post where the present incombant has a specific personal ability that the organisation is taking advantage of, say a perticular computer skill, that if that person as an individual was not currently employed; would not be in the JD of the post - I hope thats clear as well There is a rider to that, it is possible to specify certain skills within the person spec for the post, must be computer literate etc but this should not be seen as a back door way to bouncing things into a post. Which to a point covers Bills' comment, that non essentail - note I did not say non core - points will be evaluated out of the post and if the process is to be true and accurate (again I did not say fair) is not unreasonable.

There are other points in relation to JD/PS etc that I would like to explain but I am not sure I can find written words that would make things clear and as such are most likely best discussed in person or in detailed direct e-mail where things can be explained and clarified. If any one reading this feels that this would help them then please feel free to get in contact.

I hope this helps.

Paul,

If this process is open and above board i.e. transparent (to coin a phrase) then where is the human resources guidance that is to be followed when matching or evaluation for AfC is carried out? If you can point me to it then I will try to understand what it means for myself without you having to explain your interpretation of it to me.

The advice from the unions is that the Job Descriptions should be prepared in house style and not borrow the lanquage of the JE scheme or the Knowledge & Skills Framework!.
How then does a person who knows nothing about our work compare the JE text with the JD text and know if it means the same. ie can they know what is the difference between complex and highly complex if we are not allowd to use that description. Also some of the JE scoring depends upon the frequency in which a particular factor is carried out. How many JD's actually specifies the frequency of activities.

I'm not sure I'm any clearer to be honest ! I know I have to write a Job Description and not a Person Description - but the major stumbling block is the fact that the panel will be made up of non-technical people. Any MTOs involved formally in AfC will be examining nursing or anciliary staff jobs etc - or at least that's what we've been told.

This is the first I've heard of the three documents to go to the panel. We've been told to write job descriptions and job specifications, divided into "essential" and "desirable" as usual - and that's all. We believe that IF an interview is required, we will have to give verbal answers to any questions "off the cuff".

The job descriptions have all had to be completely re-written because they're "in the wrong format" and unless everyones is written on the same form, the panels job will be even more difficult.

Job descriptions are not reviewed at IPR interviews - either quarterly or annually. My JD was last reviewed four years ago - when I did it and asked for it to be re-evaluated - which it wasn't.

Now they've all got to be written and agreed by next Friday. Oh well - I wasn't doing anything important.