EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues Agenda For Change AFC job offer

posted 08 October, 2004 08:31 PM
________________________________________

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.
________________________________________

numquam

Qualifications is one area which is causing a big problem. There is no need to hold a degree or post grad diploma but you must have equivalent knowledge that can be acquired through on the job training, short courses and practical experience.The national job profile for band 6 states you require a degree and additional specialist knowledge to post grad level or equivalent. If you are carrying out the role of a specialist technician and undertaking all the tasks and providing a full service then your equivalent knowledge, gained through manufacturers training courses, practical experience and on the job training must be equal to what it says on the national profile.
If your manager is saying that you do not have the equivalent level of knowledge then ask him which part of the job you are not able to do.
If you are doing the full range of the job you therefore must have the equivalent qualification of what is asked for in the national profile or else you would not be able to do the job.
I believe that when the national profile was written, they looked at the content of the job and the knowledge required and it was concluded that this knowledge was equivalent to the qualification they have attached to the job.
It is the national profile that is essentially saying that if you are doing the job described then by definition you have knowledge equivalent to degree and post grad diploma.

The point I was trying to make is just that - it doesn't matter to the incumbent whether they have a degree or not. However for the purposes of job-matching the "must have degree or equivalent" has to be there in the AfC job description, I think, if individuals are to stand the best chance of attaining the specialist role post AfC. Otherwise your job can be talked-up as much as you like but it's still going to be compared to profiles that have already been established with B.Eng/HND for specialist roles.

Incidentally I am not on a matching panel.

I totally agree with your point that the JD must have the correct statement ie degree/post grad qualification or equivalent. I believe the biggest problem is that the managers writing the job description can not accept that the equivalent experience is equal to a degree or post grad qualification.
My way of looking at this is I think different to most. I am taking the view as stated in my previous posting that if you are doing the job in a professional compitent and efficient manner then by default you must have the equivalent level of knowledge.
Many comments have been said as to how can you prove that our training, experience and on the job training is equivalent to a degree or post grad qualification. My answer to that is that a 'panel of experts' have looked at this nationally, and come to agreement that it is equivalent, and that this 'panel of experts' are the ones who have written the national job profile.
I don't believe the job profiles where deliberately written to exclude qualified and knowledgeable technicians from achieve band 5 or 6. I honestly believe they have looked at our jobs nationally and concluded our knowledge is equivalent to a degree or post grad qualification.
These are my own views and I am not on a matching panel.
One further point to bear in mind, a degree qualification only relates to band 5 under factor 2 whereas a degree plus post grad diploma relates to band 6. I make this point because people talk about having a degree and band 6 in the same statement but as I have said a degree only relates to band 5.

In our trust we have 2 sites with their own sections who are being assessed seperately. Our colleages in the other site have had their notifications and have been placed on band 5.

This despite the fact our job description for an MTO3 is closely based on the 'national profile' with all the stated requirements to acheive this band covered by tasks we actually carry out. This included "Degree/HNC/HND in a relevant engineering or science based subject. Able to satisfy the requirements for membership of a relevant professional body as an incorporated member."

We are now waiting for our result as this was done by a different panel. We have yet to see the scoring for our colleagues, which we have been advised will come with their payscale notifications in about 6 weeks.

Adey,
If both sites had the same job descriptions why were you not assessed as a group? Or did they differ between sites? Then it becomes difficult to compare as the small differences can count.
Robert

Ken,

I think that a big problem is that it's only human nature that managers will want to protect the differential between themselves and the "specialists" - thus if they pitch the specialist JDs high then the differential is lost. It is unlikely that a large proportion of those in small EBME departments, writing JDs for a few staff, will end up on Band 9 in my opinion. More like Band 7 or possibly 8 based upon where they fit into the Estates or M.P. structure. Only in the largest M.P. departments would I expect there to be the level of responsibilities and structures that support the highest banding under AfC. With a requirement for M.Sc or PhD qualifications and particularly honed skills of course.

The problem is, however, that these experts will not be assessing the JDs of individuals in EBME/M.P. In fact matching panels are not supposed to contain individuals with job roles, skills or technical knowledge similar to those they're assessing - I assume it's to prevent positive bias (though I've been informed the opposite applies in practice if assessors are from the same job-roles they're assessing). Thus it's essential that the JD puts across the duties and responsibilities that obtain the highest number points for matching purposes to layperson if you like - but laypersons who're versed in looking for definitive statements that obtain marks for matching purposes.

Essential qualifications (including equivalents) required to do the job, laid down explicitly in the JD, do this since they accrue the largest proportion of points available towards matching. In my opinion putting HNC/ONC on a JD will not allow enough points to be accrued to get onto band6 unless an individual scores maximum points in all other aspects of the JD which is unlikely in the majority of cases I think. The JD probably needs to include the sort of training, experience and types os specialist courses required of an individual who is suitable to hold the post described in the JD as well since it's about equivalence, qualifications, expeience and required skills/training. I guess assessors are looking for these sort of statements in the JD as well.

From the job profiles it obvious that Bands 5 and 6 were written to ensure that only technical and knowledgeable individuals are employed in these roles - equivalence to degree/postgrad level is actually a subjective matter that may vary nationally. The knowledge and skills of the individual in post are probably irrelevent if the JD has a definite requirment for degree/postgrad qualification or equivalent. It doesn't necessarily mean that the incumbant without a degree has equivalent qualifications or skills. It's about the post not the postholder remember although you'd expect the JD to reflect the duties/responsibilities being carried out by the postholder and these duties to be at the level associated with degree/postgrad qualifications or equivalent.

As I said, it doen't matter what the incumbent has, qualification-wise, prior to AfC, since it's the post not the postholder that is being matched. It's the new-starter that comes along afterwards that has to meet the requirements. Band 6 would probably attract someone with such qualifications and experience since it gives reasonable potential earnings for a degree-qualified individual with postgrad and some experience I think.

However I reckon the thinking of most employers is that they'd like to keep the wage-bill down plus the requirements for BEng/PgC with experience or equivalent might make it difficult to employ a replacement. Thus Band 5 is more likely with R&R applied to keep the current postholder around for a while irrespective of current qualifications. Short term thinking for longer term savings but this is unlikely to promote a quality service with the skilled staff required unless regulation forces degree-standard education and formal training with a career path.

RoJo, that remains a mystery, the JD's are identical, it will be interesting if we get a different result. Either way an appeal will be going in!

I`m the manager of a small EBME department, and reading Richard Lings` comments on his last post inferring managers may downgrade their staffs` job descriptions to protect differentials.
My staff were encouraged to write their own job descriptions, and even before AFC came into being I`d battled long and hard in an attempt to upgade the job they do (with little success). My attitude is if I can progress my staff then I will also progress.
As stated before, the main job matching criteria are factors 2 & 12, these have to match a particular job profile, you may score highly in other factors, but if 2 & 12 don`t match then the job description will be independently assessed.
The problem comes when assessing factor 2 there will be differing opinions on what would constitute the "equivalent" in "BENG or equivalent" which is why there are a number of bodies who will be assessing the efforts of the job matchers.
It would be interesting to know how many of these bodies had assessed our friend MEDJCUHs` job description and if the information on his pay band was simply based on information from his trust.

Rick,

I don't think I inferred anything about managers downgrading their staffs grades - just that it's human nature that managers would be reluctant to enhance others job-roles at their own expense i.e. there is actually a cap on how far the manager can progress staff, despite the notion: In the real world I cannot see any manager accepting specialists with AfC job roles, hence responsibilities, at the same level as their own. We can't all be doing the same job. At some point differentials and departmental structure have to be maintained otherwise we would all be on the same grade post AfC.