Process Explained ...
factor can vary significantly from job to job, depending on its range of duties and its level within the organisation. The scores for each of the factors are added together to produce a job score – known as ‘job weight’. Then a Whole Trade Score (WTS) – which is a weighted average score - for the rank/trade is produced based on the Statistics of Coverage. Thus if one job is representative of 30% of the trade and rank, the
resultant job score will make a 30% contribution to theWTS. The greater the percentage covered by a representative job or jobs, the greater the impact on theWTS. The process itself sounds rather dry but it includes considerable
interaction with members of the trade undergoing the JE. This includes JE analyst interviews with personnel serving in representative posts, and‘benchmark visits’where the judges visit a unit or units where there is an opportunity for the trade to ‘showcase’ itself by demonstrating and explaining the requirements of their jobs. These visits are invaluable to understanding the nuances contained in the written job descriptions and the judges get a‘real feel’for the trade and the requirements of individual jobs. Service personnel are generally good at selling themselves and what they do and are keen to have a role in a process that affects their pay. The whole JE process is open, honest and transparent to the
trade managers/sponsors and those involved in the process, which is a particular strength. Full judging sessions are formal affairs held in MoD London in front of trade managers and specialist advisors. The judges have to achieve consensus in their scores for
each factor of each job; this can lead to rigorous debate on any contentious issues, demonstrating the very careful consideration that underpins JE scores. JE outcomes are also used to informthe AFPRB’s consideration of
pay comparability, which is further informed by periodic scrutiny by external auditors such as PriceWaterhouse Cooper (PwC.) The most recent assessment was conducted in 2013. n
JE&JE Light When Pay 2000 was introduced there was a full re-evaluation of all trades, which took nearly 6 years to complete. A rolling programme was introduced to update JE data for each trade was introduced, and subsequently amended to focus specifically to re-evaluate trades where there had been significant changes to structure and/ or role. With the arrival of NEM, the primary focus for work became updating JE data in preparation for the newPay Model. Since then the JE team has completed all the full evaluations that had already been started and introduced a newprocess entitled JE Light to update the scores of those trades not evaluated in the previous 5 years or so on a case by case basis. All this activity has been undertaken to ensure good quality JE
evidence, with the work programmes agreed with the single Service Pay Colonels, and it will be completed by 28 Feb 15 to enable subsequent decisions by the three Service’s Principle Personnel Officers (Air member for Personnel and Capability for the RAF) on where different trades will be placed within the newpay model. The JE Light process focuses on what has changed since the last
full evaluation. The judges are briefed thoroughly on each trade in terms of numbers, structure, training and role. A one day benchmark visit is undertaken, with the opportunity to
speak to trade personnel in depth about their jobs. This information is compared with any historical JE data for that trade. Representative jobs are selected for each rank and the judges make evidence based judgments on variations to the scores for each factor. This is completed in front of trade managers and specialists.
The revised scores for each trade by rank are then passed to the NEM Team. Under the NEM Pay Model, JE data continues to provide the
bedrock of the relative placement of trades within the pay model. Importantly, however, placement will be made on a through-career (TC) basis within trade, rather than by each rank in trade. The TCWTS is calculated in such a way that scores are not distorted by the number of ranks in a particular trade, or the volumes within each rank. This new(through career) approach will address certain areas of
Service personnel dissatisfaction with the current model, including removal of ‘flip flop’in Pay 2000 that sees many personnel change several times between High and LowPay Bands as they promote within their trade. NEM’s through-career approach will provide personnel with greater transparency and predictability of through career earnings. Looking ahead, once this very significant piece of work has been
completed, a thorough reviewof the JE process will be undertaken to determine whether any longer-termchanges are required for the process once in the NEM environment. n
The RAF and JE The RAF has been proactive in respect of JE with many of the major trades evaluated within the last 5 years or so. This compares very favourably with some trades across Defence.
As a consequence, the number of RAF trades who will be re- evaluated using the JE Light process has been kept to a minimum. Those trades which have or will be re-evaluated using the JE light
process include: Air Cartographer, General Engineer, Musician, ATC, Fighter Control Trades, Intelligence Analysts, Firefighters, Catering Trades, Logs Driver, and Photographer. n
JE andMe It is important that you are aware of JE and the manner in which it is used within the pay model as part of your employment in the Service. Where you can make a real difference is if your post is selected as part of your trade evaluation. Please take the process seriously, fill in your questionnaire
accurately and diligently, make time to engage with theWO Analyst who will interview you at length. The content and quality of the final job description gives the evidence for the judges to consider and score accordingly. If you are unsure on how JE works or seek further information please contact your trade sponsor in the first instance. n
Produced by Air Media Centre, HQ Air Command. 1543_14SJD © UK MOD Crown Copyright, 2015
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64