Using the Point Factor Method for job evaluation

If you haven't done already, read the first part of this blog post here.

A factor-based job evaluation model breaks a role into the elements that matter across any organisation. Our framework uses fourteen factors, grouped under Knowledge & Experience, Effort & Environment, Responsibilities and Cognitive Demands, to produce a single points total that is easy to compare from one job to the next. Because every factor is treated with the same importance, the method avoids arguments about which dimension should dominate and keeps the exercise straightforward and defensible.

Scoring starts with clear level statements for each factor. Evaluators read the definition, decide which level best matches the role’s usual requirement and record that choice in a standard template. Three ground rules keep results consistent. First, rate the job, not the person occupying it. Second, concentrate on duties that consume most of the role’s time or carry the greatest organisational impact, rather than occasional extras. Third, write a brief note that explains why a particular level was chosen, this note becomes the audit trail that managers, auditors or employee representatives may need later.

Because the same fourteen factors apply to every role, internal relativities stay visible. If two roles land on similar scores but feel mis-aligned in practice, the evaluators can review the factor break-down and spot where perceptions differ. Over time this comparison effect creates a shared language for discussing changes in scope, staffing or risk. For example, when a department restructures, updated job descriptions can be re-run through the model and the grade implications assessed before people move.

The framework is also portable. Organisations with lean HR teams can apply it to a handful of key roles each year, while larger employers can embed it into their normal job design process. Where extra capacity or independent assurance is useful, we provide as much support as required—from answering technical questions to managing an entire evaluation cycle. All guidance follows the same published factor definitions, so results stay comparable whether work is done in-house or with our help.

Linking the scores to pay bands, career paths or workforce analytics is a separate step, but the data generated here makes that step easier. Because each factor is assessed in a structured way, you can see where critical knowledge sits, which roles carry the highest risk and how responsibilities spread across the organisation. That visibility underpins fair pay decisions, strengthens succession planning and helps leaders allocate resources with confidence without needing a complex system or colourful jargon.