I got an article from the web( Fox Lawson and Associates site), maybe its of any use.
We have never worked on Paterson so my knowledge on this is very limited
Also you may want to check these sites for Paterson's Plan
http://foxlawson.com <link updated to site home>
http://hrinz.org.nz <link updated to site home>
clients use a job evaluation method that combines the best features of the non-quantitative methods with the best features of the quantitative methods. The method is commercially known as the Decision Band™ Method (DBM) or the Paterson Plan.
The Decision Band™ Method (DBM) of job evaluation is a highly effective method of objectively evaluating the worth of a job to an organization. A sound theoretical framework serves as the basis of the method which provides a consistent and valid approach to comparing and contrasting jobs.
Initially developed over thirty years ago by Professor Emeritus Thomas T. Paterson, and further refined by Fox Lawson's compensation consultants, through hands on experience in government settings, the Decision Band™ Method has been tested in organizations throughout the world as a means of identifying rational distinctions in pay for all jobs. DBM has been used successfully in both public and private sector organizations. Organizations converting their current job evaluation plans to the DBM framework can be assured that their pay hierarchy will be reliable, valid and justifiable.
The basic premise of DBM is that the value of a job to an organization is based on its level of responsibility. Responsibility is reflected, and therefore measured, by the decision-making requirements of the job. Because all jobs require incumbents to make decisions in order to perform their jobs, decision-making is a logical and equitable basis on which to compare jobs within an organization.
DBM job evaluation involves three basic steps. First, jobs are classified into one of six different "Decision Bands" based on the characteristics of the decisions that a job requires. This classification process reflects the level of responsibility of the job within the organization. The second step involves classifying the jobs within each "Decision Band" into one of two "Grades" based on the differential supervisory difficulty and effort required of the job. Each of the six bands is subdivided into two grades, (coordinating and non coordinating) or subclasses, depending on the requirements to monitor or supervise subordinate jobs. Exhibit 1 is an overview of the DBM Decision Structure.
At this point in the process, jobs will have been classified into a hierarchy of twelve different classes of jobs, based on the job's level of responsibility and supervisory difficulty and effort.
The third and final step involves further subdivision of jobs within each grade into subgrades by reference to the complexity, difficulty, and skills required of the job in relation to other jobs that have been classified into the same Band and Grade. Frequently, this Subgrading is done within each occupational group in order to facilitate the making of relative judgments in comparing the complexity, difficulty, and skills required of jobs across different occupations. The Subgrading process shares many characteristics with point-factor methods of job evaluation.
Finally, the jobs are priced within the relevant labor market.
DBM is easy to use, highly reliable, administratively fast and efficient, can be tailored to the government's needs, and has been proven effective in reducing the number of classifications, reducing grade creep highly difficult to manipulate the value of the job by changing a few words or tasks in a job description. It has been used throughout the country to replace ineffective point factor and classification methods and bring simplicity and rationality back into the process.
Approximately one year ago it was critically examined by the State of North Carolina as a possible tool to be used throughout the State to classify over 119,000 job titles. The State subsequently adopted the method because it allowed them to move toward broad banding and simplification of their classification and compensation structure. Other government organizations have experienced a reduction in the number of classifications using DBM. Finally, because of the way in which it processes jobs for evaluation purposes, we have found that a minor change in the wording of the job or the tasks typically does not result in an increased grade.
We recommend the Decision Band™ Method to any organization that is interested in simplifying its classification and compensation system either in terms of broader bands of classification or because it can be used to rationalize the logic behind pay.
8th March 2006 From India, Delhi
9th March 2006 From Namibia, Windhoek
We have conducted 10 years of research to develop the iPERFORM system and some of our findings were:
â€¢ Most job evaluation systems were difficult to understand in terms of terminology.
â€¢ Most gave skewed grade outcomes and this impacted on pay and de-motivated employees.
â€¢ Most systems were outdated (some from the 60â€™s) and have never been enhanced to meet the challenges of the modern world of employment.
Most systems are very costly. Also, there is an over-reliance on the consulting companies to provide costly ongoing consulting.
â€¢ In South Africa, it has taken one sector over 12 years to implement a job evaluation system.
The iPERFORM Job Evaluation System is a modern and computerized system that can be used in any industry/ organization/ local government and public sector institutions. The method is simple and easy to understand and implement, and is cost effective. The advantages of using this system are:
â€¢ It does not take a fragmented approach to organizational development. It has seven sub-systems that are all inter-linked. This means that a job evaluation can only be undertaken if the Job Descriptions are of a high quality and that they are aligned to the Organizational Structure.
â€¢ It is competency based and has 5 broad bands.
â€¢ It has fewer job grades as compared (20) to other systems and it flattens Organizational Structures and reduces skill gaps on the organizational structure.
â€¢ It attempts to create skills flexibility and career paths.
â€¢ It achieves greater workforce mobility.
â€¢ It is inter-linked to Performance Management and Performance Based Pay which forms part of the iPERFORM Package.
â€¢ It is cheap (60% - 80% cheaper than the price of current systems).
â€¢ Takes a maximum of 15 minutes to evaluate a job. We took newly qualified HR Graduates and asked them to evaluate our job descriptions using our JE System. The accuracy rate for each outcomes was above 95%.
â€¢ Has a computerized formula to calculate salary scales for each job grade.
The iPERFORM Job Evaluation System uses competency based job factors which are considered to be common to all jobs and are clearly defined. There are five Competency levels with the following common factors:
â€¢ Qualifications and Experience
â€¢ Physical/ Mental Effort
â€¢ Decision Making
â€¢ Key Performance Areas/ Competencies
The system provides a higher level of objectivity and validity and ensures that job descriptions are written of the highest quality to ensure that all the factors are adequately covered.
The system does not rely on comprehensive salary surveys. The system is linked to its own unique formulae in developing in-house salary scales and performance based pay.
view our website www.iperform.org.za or contact us email@example.com for more information
27th January 2016 From South%20Africa, Durban