The Hay method of job evaluation designed for local government has a
number of key features:
• Four evaluation factors (Know-how, Problem-solving, Accountability
and Additional Work Elements) common to all jobs which allow
comparison between jobs
• The step difference principle which is the method of comparison
• The numerical scale for relating different levels of jobs
• The profile

Evaluation Factors
The Local Government HAY scheme contains 10 factors within four core
elements of every job:
• All jobs need "KNOW-HOW"
• To be used in "PROBLEM SOLVING"
• In order to carry out "ACCOUNTABILITIES"
• Some jobs may encounter “ADDITIONAL WORK ELEMENTS”

These 4 core elements are defined within HAY as follows:

1. "Know-How"
The sum of every kind of knowledge, skill and experience required for
standard acceptable performance in the job. Know-how has both breadth and
depth, i.e. the job may require some knowledge about a lot of things or a lot of
knowledge about a few things.
The score for know-how is made up of three factors:

Factor 1
Depth and range of technical know-how: The requirement for
technical/practical skills, expertise and experience however this may have
been acquired.
This factor is judged against a scale of A – H

Factor 2
Planning, Organising and Controlling is made up of:
• Complexity - how complex is the planning, organising and control
function?
• Scale - what is the nature and scale of the relevant organisational unit
(directorate, business unit, section, etc.)
• Organisation Functions – Does the job operate in one function or more
within the organisation and what is the size of this in relation to the
operation of the organisation as a whole?
• Time span - are the operations controlled by the job short, medium or long
term?
• Horizon/influence - how far in advance does planning take place and
what impact does it have?
This factor is judged against a scale of 0 - IV

Factor 3
Communication and Influencing Skills: the level of interpersonal skills
required to properly undertake the full range of duties required by the job.
This factor is judged against a scale of 1 - 3

2. "Problem Solving"
Problem Solving is the "self starting" thinking that is required by the job for
analysing, evaluating, creating, reasoning, arriving at and drawing
conclusions.

The score for problem solving is made up of two factors:

Factor 4
The Thinking Environment: the extent to which the thinking is limited or
determined by standards, precedents, instructions etc
This factor is judged against a scale of A - H

Factor 5
The Thinking Challenge: the range of situations encountered by the jobholder,
i.e. how similar or different are these? This sub-element also takes
account of the thinking involved in determining solutions.
Problem Solving measures the intensity of the mental process which employs
"Know-How" to (1) identify, (2) define, and (3) solve a problem
Everyone thinks with what they know - the raw material
This factor is judged against a scale of 1 - 5

3. "Accountability"
Accountability is the answerability for action and for the consequences of that
action - it is the measured effect of the job on the end results.

The score for accountability is made up of three factors:

Factor 6
Freedom to Act - measured by the existence or absence of personal or
procedural control and guidance
This factor is judged against a scale of A - H

Factor 7
Area of Impact – gauges how much the organisation is impacted by the job
This factor is judged against a five level scale

Factor 8
Nature of Impact (Magnitude)- looks at how directly the job affects end
results
This factor is judged against a four level scale
Area & Nature of Impact
These two dimensions are considered together and cover the impact on
resources and the degree to which the influence over end results, and the
answerability for results, is direct or indirect.

4. “Additional Work Elements”
This factor is likely to apply to a limited number of posts within the current
range of posts being evaluated. It is concerned with additional physical effort
and/or strain beyond normal working requirements or working conditions. The
factor is evaluated through consideration of two elements:

Factor 9
Physical Effort
This element is concerned with any physical effort/strain above what would
normally be incurred in the day-to-day office environment that is required to
perform the job to the required standard. This could include activities such as
lifting, bending, stretching, repeated execution of movements and working in
awkward or uncomfortable positions. The frequency of such requirements in
the achievement of the required performance of the job should be identified
and it is assumed that all health and safety requirements have been met.
This factor is judged against a scale of A - C

Factor 10
Working Conditions
This element is concerned with unfavourable environmental conditions to
which you are exposed in order to perform the job to the required standard.
This could include dust, dirt, heat, cold, fumes, steam, moisture, noise and
direct physical contact with unpleasant substances. The frequency with which
such a requirement occurs should be identified.
This factor is judged against a scale of 1 - 3

The Numerical Scale
Each of the evaluation factors is set out on a grid, with defined levels within
the factors and points scores indicating job size alongside them. The
relationship between these points scores is another distinctive feature of the
Hay Method. The numbers themselves are directly proportional to each other
in a geometric progression, e.g. 100, 115, 132, 152. This avoids the difficulty
that in an ordinary progression, e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, the numbers are in a constantly
diminishing relationship to each other. The Hay scale of progression is 15%
and means that each judgment is given this constant relativity wherever it falls
on the scale.

This approach to the numerical scale helps evaluators to compare the size of
different jobs within a structure. Along with other features of the Hay Method,
it also ensures that total job scores tend to cluster, which is important for
creating grades linked to pay ranges.

The evaluators add the scores for the four factors to produce a total job score.
The overall evaluation lines produced by this process make little sense at first
glance as they are a form of language which trained and experienced
assessors become very familiar.

Once the total job score has been produced, there are also consistency
checks that need to be done to ensure the evaluation line describes the type
or shape of the role in a coherent way, and relativity checks, to ensure that the
conclusion makes sense in comparison to evaluations of other roles. Either of
these sets of checks can lead to adjustments in the evaluation.

The Step Difference Check
The HAY evaluation methodology is hierarchical and uses step differences
between the evaluation of different posts. The following information is
intended to provide a general overview and as such, is for guidance only.
One Step difference - this would suggest that the lower role is likely to be the
obvious successor to the higher role as the know-how requirement for the
roles are very similar, therefore the more junior of the two should be able to
make the step up with comparative ease.

Two Steps difference - this would be recognised as a good promotion. The
roles are clearly different in terms of their requirements but it should be
possible for the individual in the lower role to make the step up with some
support.

Three Steps difference - It would be highly unlikely that an individual would
have the expertise to perform the higher role.

The Profile Check
The Hay scheme has a facility for checking the soundness of an evaluation by
considering the shape or profile of the job. This is done by testing the
distribution of the three elements of Know-How, Problem Solving and
Accountability in the evaluation of each job to see if it makes sense, and
relates to the nature of the role (accountable line manager, adviser,
researcher etc).