11-multicriteria job evaluation for large organizations

Multicriteria job evaluation for large organizations

A. Spyridakos a,*, Y. Siskos b, D. Yannacopoulos c, A. Skouris c

a Business Administration Department, Technological Educational Institute of Piraeus, P. Ralli and Thivon 250, 12244 Aigaleo, Greeceb DSS Laboratory, Technical University of Crete, 73100 Chania, Greece

c Greek Telecom SA, Marousi, Athens, Greece

Received 3 December 1998; accepted 22 June 1999

Abstract

The job evaluation problem presents particular characteristics, the most important of which are: (1) the existence of

multiple factors that in¯uence the evaluation; (2) the decision is often the duty of a committee; and (3) the available data

include fussiness while the description, responsibilities and requirements of the jobs are usually not precisely deter-

mined. Nevertheless, job evaluation for large organisations is a crucial activity that enables the rationalisation of the

links between the importance of a job and the corresponding rewards.

In this paper a multicriteria disaggregation±aggregation approach is proposed to deal with the problem. Speci®cally,

the UTA-II method was used in order to assess a consistent additive value model that allows the ranking of the jobs

according to its relative importance. An application of this approach into a large Greek organisation is also described in

order to present the adjustment of the multicriteria disaggregation±aggregation philosophy to this kind of evaluation

problems. The implementation of this research project was supported by the MIIDAS system, which applies the above-

mentioned approach. Ó 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Multi-criteria decision support; Job evaluation

1. Introduction

One of the recent trends in the management oflarge private or public enterprises is mainly basedon two processes: (a) the competence related hu-man resources management; and (b) the perfor-mance management. The ®rst is oriented towards

the improvement of the production or the serviceso�ered by exploiting the capacity that exists in aperson so as to satisfy the job demands. The sec-ond concerns the management and development ofhuman resources and is based on the principles ofmanagement by contracts or agreements. Thesetwo processes are linked together since: (a) com-petence involves personal trait, characteristics andskills, which are related to e�ective or outstandingjob performance (Murphy, 1993); and (b) perfor-mance management emphasises the developmentand initiation of self-management plans as well as

European Journal of Operational Research 130 (2001) 375±387www.elsevier.com/locate/dsw

* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Spyridakos).

0377-2217/01/$ - see front matter Ó 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 3 7 7 - 2 2 1 7 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 3 9 - 4

the integration of individual and corporate objec-tives.

The job evaluation is a systematic process thatenables the design and establishment of humanresources improvement procedures and fair rewardsystems. Actually, job evaluation concerns the as-sessment of a value system that encapsulates theimportance of the parameters that re¯ect theglobal responsibility and duties of a job. It is re-markable that job evaluation does not concern theholders of the job but how responsible the job isand its share in the production of the desired re-sults.

The upshot of the job evaluation has a positivein¯uence on the above-mentioned two processes(competence and performance management) sinceit:

(a) aids the establishment of a reward systemthat links the importance of the jobs to the pay-ment o�ered, and(b) supports the designation of human re-sources development requirements in order toimprove the e�ectiveness of the jobsÕ opera-tion.

This paper deals with the design and the imple-mentation of a job evaluation system, which isbased on the multicriteria disaggregation±aggre-gation UTA II method (Siskos, 1980). The re-search work that is presented in this paper aims atdealing with the particular characteristics of thejob evaluation problem by utilising the features ofthe disaggregation±aggregation approach (Siskoset al., 1993; Jacquet-Lagr�eze and Shakun, 1984;Despotis et al., 1990; Hammond et al., 1977). Thisapproach was used for the evaluation of themanagerial jobs of a large Greek enterprise.The outcome of this study was utilised to designthe payroll system.

The paper consists of an Introduction and fourother sections. An analysis of the job evaluationproblem and its associations with the payrollstrategy are presented in Section 2. In Section 3,the methodological frame of the proposed multi-criteria approach is analytically described. Then,the above-mentioned case study is presented. Fi-nally, the paper concludes by reviewing the out-come of the proposed methodology on this kind ofevaluation problems.

2. The role of job evaluation in organisations

Job evaluation includes comparative processesdue to the fact that the relations and dependenciesamong the jobs have to be explained. This consistsof an essential determinant that allows the man-agement (through the analysis of the targets,achievements and factors that in¯uence the re-quirements of the jobs) to assign the correspond-ing proportions of every job. For this reason jobevaluation usually includes an extensive analysis ofthe roles, the objectives and the correspondingactions and achievements of the jobs (Elliott,1991). The outcome of this analysis is the estab-lishment of structures that aid the comparisonamong the jobs and support the evaluator(s) tomake consistent and reasonable judgements. Thisis the reason why analytical processes have to beimplemented so as to make the collection andhandling of the required data be e�cientlyachieved.

In most of the cases, especially in large organ-isations, job evaluation is the duty of a committeecomposed of medium and high level managers.Usually members of the workers' union also par-ticipate in the Evaluation Committee. Conse-quently, it is expected that there will be lessobjectivity and con¯icting standpoints are likely toarise. Nonetheless, it is obvious that a global ac-ceptance of the job evaluation model constitute acritical factor that e�ects the e�cient utilisation ofthe planned reward system.

Furthermore, di�culties and crucial factors ap-pear in the design and enforcement of a job evalu-ation system and it is not incongruous to considerthat it is a semistructure or unstructured decisionproblem (Roy, 1985). Some of these particularcharacteristics are described in the following:· There is a rather large number of linked or con-

¯icting factors, which in¯uence the evaluation.· There is no step by step procedure or a structure

that enables the direct evaluation of the jobs. Inaddition, every enterprise has its own strategicand market plans that entail an individualnature for the job evaluation procedure.

· There is a wide di�erentiation among jobs in re-lation to their contribution to the results (quan-titative and qualitative) of the enterprises. Some

376 A. Spyridakos et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 130 (2001) 375±387

jobs have mainly supportive orientation (e.g. In-formation Centre, Human Resources Manage-ment) and others have a direct bearing to thecreation of the results (e.g. Marketing Depart-ment, Branches, Sales Department, etc.). Forthe ®rst group of jobs is often di�cult to esti-mate their contribution to the results of the or-ganisation and to establish a fair measurementsystem.

· The enterprises (public or private) operate in adynamic environment. Consequently, the jobevaluation data as well as the strategy and thepolicy of the organisations are continuously un-der modi®cation or adaptation.Job evaluation within organisations aims at the

establishment of a relative value system that rein-forces payroll decisions. The main attitudes of thejob evaluation system can be categorised as fol-lows:· provides a rational framework for planning and

establishing a fair payroll structure;· allows job relation management within organi-

sation;· aids the de®nition of the payroll analogies that

are correlated to the corresponding work (equalpayment for equal work).

The above described lead the analysts to take intoconsideration three factors during the design of thepayroll system:· The trends of the labour market since equilibri-

um is commonly established between the labourneeds and the salaries o�ered.

· The job importance from the organisationÕsmanagement point of view, which is the objectof the job evaluation system.

· The jobholderÕs performance (performancemeasurement system).For the job evaluation a considerable number

of approaches have been developed and used. Themost simple of them treat the problem providing aranking or a classi®cation of the jobs based on asimple comparative process or on a simple pointsfactor rating system (Armstrong and Murlis, 1994;Neathley, 1994).

One common approach consist in providing aranking of the jobs according to the perception oftheir relative size. This approach is characterisedby low degree of rationality since the judgement of

the relative sizes of the jobs is not based on a kindof standards or measures. Another approach uti-lises a scale for the classi®cation of the jobs. Dif-ferent levels of grades are assigned into a numberof characteristics such as ``decision making'',``knowledge required'' and ``equipment used''.Every job is posed on a position on the total scaleby its evaluation on the characteristics. This ap-proach can be easily applied in cases where: (a)there is a small number of jobs to be evaluated; (b)the jobs are not too complex and they can be de-scribed by the characteristics used; and (c) it isquite easy to determine the borderlines betweentwo neighbouring positions on the scales for everycharacteristic. Another commonly used approachis based on the comparison of the jobs with aninternal benchmark one. This approach cannot beapplied in cases where there is a small number ofjobs and a high degree of di�erentiation among thejobs does not exist. Otherwise it is di�cult to de-®ne a job which can be used as a benchmark.

The most common approach is the ``point fac-tor rating'' (Candlili and Armagast, 1987; Plachy,1987). According to this method the evaluation ofthe jobs derives from a multiattribute value sys-tem. The principles of this value system are basedon the essential of the Multiattribute Utility The-ory (Keeney and Raifa, 1976; Keeney, 1992). Thisapproach is widely used by management consul-tants and usually provides reasonable results butlacks on the estimation of the weights of the at-tributes and on the evaluation of the jobs on thecriteria. Actually, the factorsÕ weights are esti-mated through a survey analysis or are directlyexpressed by an expert or a management consul-tant. It is obvious that in this case the determina-tion of the components of the value systemoperates like a ``black box'' for the organisation.Also, the individual circumstances of the enter-prise or organisation are not taken into account tothe extent that is required.

In spite of the job evaluation assessment pro-cedures the payroll strategies can be e�cientlydetermined based on a rational evaluation system.Most of the cases the payroll is a combination of:· A standard bonus aligned to the ranking of the

job positions in the organisationÕs job evaluationsystem.

A. Spyridakos et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 130 (2001) 375±387 377

· Additional performance pay in accordance withemployeeÕs achievements regarding the presetaction plan targets.

3. The methodological frame

The main target of the proposed methodologi-cal frame is the assessment of a value system that isdescribed by the following formulae:

U�g� �Xn

i�1

piui�gi�;

u�gi�� 0; u�g�i � � 1; for i � 1; 2; . . . ; n;Xn

i�1

pi � 1;

pi P 0; for i � 1; 2; . . . ; n;

where g � �g1; g2; . . . ; gn� is the performance vec-tor of a working position on the n criteria; gi� and

g�i are the least and most preferable levels of thecriterion gi, respectively, and ui(gi), pi are the val-ues of the performance gi and the relative weightof the ith criterion.

This value system can be obtained utilising theMIIDAS System (Siskos et al., 1999) the spine ofwhich is the disaggregation±aggregation UTA IImethod. In Fig. 1 are presented the major steps ofthe methodological frame which are described indetail in the following.

(i) Criteria modelling. The criteria in a jobevaluation tasks can be divided into three catego-ries: (a) Input criteria that include the knowledge,skills and personal characteristics which are re-quired for the e�cient accomplishment of the job;(b) Process criteria which encapsulate demands ofthe job by its holder such as problem solving,complexity, originality, judgement, etc.; and (c)Output criteria that represent the contribution ofthe job to the quantitative and qualitative resultssuch as sales, quality of products, pro®t, etc.

Fig. 1. A multicriteria methodological frame for job evaluation.


(ii) Selection of the reference set. From the totalnumber of the jobs a small number is selected(reference set). The jobs of the reference set have tobe: (a) known to the evaluators so as to expresstheir preference from a known situation; and (b)representative of the whole set of the jobs in orderto take into account the di�erent levels of the de-cision space.

(iii) Evaluation of the jobs on the criteria. Sincethe evaluation of the jobs on the criteria is the dutyof a committee of managers or executives, thisprocedure includes a high degree of judgmentaland negotiation activities. Time consuming meet-ings, communication and data handling proce-dures take place in order to: (a) determine therelative situation of every job; and (b) assign ac-curate values on the criteria. In addition, this ac-tivity provides the opportunity knowledgeconcerning the enterprise or the organisation to bedistributed among the members of the committee.

(iv) Assessment of the value system. The mainstages for the assessment of the above-presentedadditive value model are:· The assessment of the marginal value functions

that re¯ect the variation of the criteria impor-tance on their scale.

· The estimation of the criteria weights that repre-sent their relative importance.

The determination of the model parameters (valuefunctions and the weights of the criteria) can bedone utilising the UTA II disaggregation±aggre-gation approach (Siskos, 1980).

The assessment of the additive value model iscarried out through a two step procedure.

In the ®rst step, the DM expresses his/herpreferences. First, the construction of the marginalvalue functions takes place, by assigning the vari-ation of importance on the scale of each criterion.This construction can be done using one of thetechniques that are embedded into the MIIDASsystem (Siskos et al., 1999).

In the second one, the UTA II method esti-mates the weighting factors pi of the criteria usingspecial linear programming techniques. Suppose aranking (weak order) is given on a set of referenceactions Ar � �a1; a2; . . . ; ak�, where the actions arerearranged in such a way that a1 is the head and ak

is the tail of the ranking and for every pair of

consecutive actions �am; am�1� holds, eitheramPam�1 (preference) either amIam�1 (indi�erence).

UTA II solves the linear program below which,because of the transitivity of the (P, I) preferencesystem has k constraints only. Special post-opti-mality analysis techniques are also applied to testthe stability of the estimated weights (see Jacquet-Lagr�eze and Siskos, 1982; Siskos, 1980).

�min�F ; F �Xk

i�1

�r��ai� � rÿ�ai��

s:t:

for m � 1; 2; . . . ; k ÿ 1;Xn

i�1

piui�gi�am�� ÿ r��am� � rÿ�am�

ÿXn

i�1

piui�gi�am�1��"

ÿ r��am�1� � rÿ�am�1�#

P d if amPam�1

orXn

i�1

piui�gi�am�� ÿ r��am� � rÿ�am�

ÿXn

i�1

piui�gi�am�1��"

ÿ r��am�1� � rÿ�am�1�#

� 0 if amIam�1;Xn

i�1

pi � 1; pi P 0; for i � 1; 2; . . . ; n;

r��aj�P 0; rÿ�aj�P 0; for j � 1; 2; . . . ; k;

where d is a small positive number; gi(am) theevaluation of the am action on the ith criterion andui[gi(am)] the corresponding marginal value; andr�(aj), rÿ(aj) is the under(over)estimation errorsconcerning the jth action.

(v) Feedbacks: The ®nal accepted evaluationmodel is assessed through iterative procedures,where from the knowledge acquired from the ex-ploitation of the instantly assessed preferencemodels in one of the iterations, prompts the eval-uators to express better portraits of their knowl-edge, experience and preferences. Criteriamodelling, selection of the reference set, evaluationof the jobs on the criteria, ranking of the jobs of


the reference set are the most common used feed-backs as they form the element for the encapsu-lation of the evaluators knowledge and experience.The information and knowledge acquired from theassessment of the evaluation model in an iterationleads to partial reconsideration of the problemstandpoints. In cases where a committee is re-sponsible for the construction of the evaluationsystem, a systematic co-operation with the Deci-sion Analysts is required in order to approximate,step by step, the evaluation model. These learningprocedures aid evaluators to realise the real natureof the evaluation problem, which forms anotherimportant aspect of this approach.

(vi) Extrapolation: The extrapolation is part ofthe ®nal procedure where the assessed preferencemodel, which has been accepted by the evaluatoror the Evaluation Committee, is used in order torank order the whole set of the jobs.

(vii) Design of the reward system: The payrollstrategy group bears the responsibility for group-ing jobs into clearly delineated payroll zones inaccordance with job evaluation. These zones arede®ned in such a way as to meet the followingprerequisites:· To have clearly de®ned limits leaving no space

for ambiguity or reaction to the system.· To be few in number rendering the system ¯ex-

ible and avoiding di�erent pay for each job thatleads to a multiplex payroll system.

· To lead to a payroll climax for the jobholdersanalogous to each jobÕs contribution to the re-sults of the enterprise.

4. The job evaluation of a large Greek organisation

The above described disaggregation±aggrega-tion approach was used for the job evaluation of alarge Greek organisation. The main target in thiscase was to evaluate 102 managerial jobs, that is tosay the managers of the departments and branch-es. These jobs can be categorised into two groups:(a) operational (managers of the Head O�ce de-partments); and (b) executive (managers of thebranches all over Greece). In this paper a caseconcerning the 26 operational jobs will be pre-sented in order to illustrate the methodological

frame. The e�ciency of a methodological frameand the way that it is used in a case is in¯uenced bythe speci®c circumstances under which the projecttakes place. Consequently, it is required to de-scribe these conditions in order to provide a betterpicture of the project and how the job evaluatione�ects and is e�ected by the operation of the or-ganisation.

4.1. The speci®c circumstances

The main facts that in¯uence the process of thejob evaluation are brie¯y presented in the follow-ing:· The re-engineering process was oriented to con-

vert the management from a structure that hadbeen used for more than 20 years to a new onecommonly used by modern private enterprises.New structures and orientations had been in-serted led by two principles: (a) the enforcementof the Performance Management; and (b) activ-ities and products oriented towards the satisfac-tion of the customers. These resulted in newdynamic-raising di�culties since the job evalua-tion was implemented in a new and untried op-erational environment.

· The organisation used to monopolise the prod-ucts and services o�ered in Greece for manyyears. In the next few years the market willmove to a new unregulated and high-compe-tence situation due to the European Unionguidelines.

· At the same time two other signi®cant activitieswere taking place: (a) the organisation had justentered the Greek stock market; and (b) the ex-pansion of the organisation into foreign neigh-bouring markets through a considerable largeinvestment programme.

· The job evaluation project was the duty of a spe-cial committee that was established by the topmanagement. This committee was supported bya group of experts in decision sciences and eval-uation systems. The Evaluation Committee con-sisted of seven executives (managers or deputymanagers) of the main operational departments.

· Taking into account that it was the ®rst timethat an evaluation system was going to be estab-


lished and used on an integrating basis it is ob-vious that special handling had to be used in or-der not to disturb the fragile equilibriumbetween management and unions. This wasstrongly recommended because new managerialactivities at this level ought to be accepted bythe personnel so as the changes would be sup-ported and aided by all the parts.

4.2. The job evaluation model

As previously mentioned an example set of 26managerial positions will be used for the illustra-tion of the methodology. The jobs are referredwith the code names p1; p2; . . . ; p26. Input and datarequired were handled and provided by the Ad-ministration Department. The available informa-tion for this evaluation was the job descriptionswhich had been recently implemented in theframework of the re-engineering process, the an-nual reports, the budget programmed to be han-dled by every position and the documentsconcerning the strategic plans of the organisation.

The criteria used had been divided into threecategories (input, process, and output). Fig. 2

presents the family of criteria used in this case in ahierarchical structure. Also, in Appendix A ananalytical description of every criterion modellingis presented as well as the rules for the evaluation ofthe jobs on the criteria. The construction of thisfamily of criteria was a joint work of the Evalua-tion Committee and the Decision Analysts. All thecriteria used are qualitative ones. For all the crite-ria except the criterion ``Required Quali®cations bythe job holder'' a scale of ®ve discrete degrees wasused. For the criterion ``Required Quali®cations bythe jobholder'' the scale includes 16 degrees.

The evaluation of the jobs was a laboriouswork since the required data had to be handledand structured in order to be in a form that wouldbe comprehensible by the Evaluation Committee.After that, a questionnaire was distributed to themembers of the Evaluation Committee including atable asking them to evaluate the jobs on the cri-teria. Following the con¯icting opinions had to bedrowning near. This was succeeded by the appo-sition of facts and information that were veri®edor disputed opinions and arguments of the Eval-uation Committee. In Fig. 3 the evaluation of thejobs on the criteria is presented, derived from theabove-mentioned judgmental process.

Fig. 2. The criteria modelling.


The assessment of the additive value model wasdone using the MIIDAS system through iterativeprocedures. In the ®rst session an additive valuemodel was constructed, that is to say that a ®rstapproach of the value functions and the weights ofthe criteria was assessed. The construction of thevalue functions was done using special dialoguesbased on the frame of the midvalue split pointtechnique (Keeney and Raifa, 1976). Then a ref-erence set of 13 jobs was selected. The selection ofthe reference jobs was done under the previouslymentioned two considerations: (a) the selected jobswere familiar to the members of the EvaluationCommittee; and (b) they were representative of thewhole set of jobs. The ®rst was assured by the factthat the members of the Evaluation Committeehad some connection with the jobs (e.g. holders orassociate managers or executives) and the secondwas assessed by a cluster analysis that determinesthe similarities among the jobs and is included intothe MIIDAS system. The ranking of the jobs ofthe reference set was done using the social choicefunction of Cook and Seiford (1978) model.

Every member of the committee ranked thejobs of the reference set. A ranking of the jobs wasestimated by the minimisation of the summationof the absolute di�erences of the EvaluationCommitteeÕs rankings from the assessed one. For abetter exploitation of the evaluation model, the

weights of the criteria were estimated for theranking coming from the Cook and Seiford modelas well as the rankings of every member of thecommittee. The weights of the criteria were esti-mated solving the linear programming problemdescribed in Section 3. The exploitation of the ®rstassessed evaluation model resulted in a circle offeedbacks.

A number of meetings took place in order todetermine the feedbacks coming as a response of

Fig. 3. Criteria±Jobs±Evaluation (MIIDAS scene layout).

Fig. 4. Value function of the criterion ``Quali®cations''.


the Evaluation Committee. In every session anevaluation model closer to the ®nal one adoptedwas assessed. This process was ®nished when asatisfactory model for Evaluation Committee wasassessed. The value functions of this model arepresented in Figs. 4±9 and the weights of the cri-teria in Fig. 10. Also, in Fig. 11 the ordinal re-gression curve of the assessed evaluation model ispresented in a form that is produced by the MII-DAS system.

The ®nal stage of this process was the use ofthis model for the ranking of the total set of the

Fig. 5. Value function of the criterion ``Management''.

Fig. 8. Value function of the criterion ``Responsibility''.

Fig. 6. Value function of the criterion ``Decisions''.

Fig. 7. Value function of the criterion ``Multiplicity''.

Fig. 9. Value function of the criterion ``Budget''.


jobs (see Fig. 12 where the ®nal ranking of theworking positions are presented in a layout ofMIIDAS system).

Finally the ranking of the whole set of jobswas used for the design of the payroll strategy. Ascale with strictly ®ve or six levels was created in away that jobs that converge to a degree are placedinto the same payroll scale level. For example, inFig. 12 the jobs can be categorised in the fol-

lowing four groups according to their GlobalUtility:

Group JobÕs global utility No. of ranked jobs

1st Above 0.65 1±7

2nd From 0.50 to 0.65 8±12

3rd From 0.40 to 0.50 13±20

4th From 0.30 to 0.40 21

Fig. 11. Ordinal regression curve.

Fig. 10. The estimated weights of the criteria.


5. Conclusions

The job evaluation includes characteristics thatcan be categorised in this kind of semistructuremulticriteria problems. The proposed approachprovides satisfactory results the most important ofwhich are as follows:· The evaluation process is an ``open'' procedure

where the evaluator has the control of the eval-uation model components estimation.

· Provides the ¯exibility to combine the di�erentopinions and considerations through interactiveiterative procedures.

· Operates in a group decision-making environ-ment where the decisions are crucial and in¯u-ence the equilibrium states since the jobevaluation is related to the wages and human re-sources improvement.Job evaluation and payroll strategies ought to

be reviewed regularly since degrees of importancefor jobs within an organisation may diversify as aconsequence of the jobÕs role modi®cation. This isrequired in order for the organisation to adapt tothe dynamics caused by the new open market andthe planned general operational strategy for thecoming years.

Another signi®cant outcome for the organi-sation was that know-how was acquired con-

cerning the concept and the use of themulticriteria approaches. This will be useful forthe future providing new perspectives to evalua-tion processes. Also, this research work com-prises one of the ®rst stages of a projectconcerning the business process re-engineering ofthe organisation.

Appendix A. Criteria modelling

A.1. Criterion 1: Required Quali®cations and Skills

Three characteristics have been combined forthe construction of the criterion Required Quali-®cations and Skills.

1. Knowledge ± Formal studies

Levels Points (Grade 1)

Higher

(Secondary or technical school)

1

Technological degree 3

University degree 4

Post-graduate studies 5

Fig. 12. Extrapolation to the whole set of jobs.


2. Skills ± Expertise

3. Required experience

The evaluation of a job pi is done using thefollowing formulae:

gi�pi� � 2�Grade 1�Grade 2� 2�Grade 3:

A.2. Criterion 2: Human resources management

This criterion combines ``the number of sub-ordinates'', ``Knowledge level of the subordinates''and ``Degree of communication between the di-rector and the subordinates''.1. Limited: 0±35 subordinates and frequent com-

munication or 1±100 subordinates and limitedcommunication.

2. Rather limited: 35±70 subordinates and fre-quent communication or 100±200 subordinatesand low communication.

3. Medium: 71±150 subordinates and frequentcommunication or 200±400 subordinates andleast communication.

4. Signi®cant: 150±400 subordinates and frequentcommunication or 400±700 subordinates andlow communication.

5. Extremely signi®cant: �400 subordinates withfrequent communication and high quali®cationor �700 subordinates with least communica-tion.

A.3. Criterion 3: Contribution to decision making

A scale with ®ve degrees is used in this criterion(1: Limited, 2: Medium, 3: Rather high, 4: High, 5:Very high).

A.4. Criterion 4: Multiplicity of the projects

The evaluation of the jobs on this criterion isbased on a cross margin of the characteristics``Quantity of duties and projects'' and ``di�erenti-ation of the projects''. A scale consisted of ®vedegrees is used. The evaluation rules are presentedin the following table:

A.5. Criterion 5: Responsibility

1. Limited: No strategic planning, no crucial ac-tions, narrow geographical area, limited ®nan-cial results.

2. Medium: Intermediate grade to be chosen bythe evaluator.

3. Rather high: Intermediate grade to be chosen bythe evaluator.

4. High: Intermediate grade to be chosen by theevaluator.

5. Very high: Strategic role, crucial actions, widearea, wide support of other departments, quitehigh ®nancial results.

A.6. Criterion 6: Budget handling

A qualitative scale with ®ve degrees was alsoused in this criterion because of the plurality of the


Limited 1

Su�cient 2

Signi®cant 3


Scale of 5 yr 1

Scale of 10 yr 2

Scale of 15 yr 3

Structure of

decisions

Participation to committees

Seldom Regular Continuous

and strongly

required

Structured 1 2 3

Semistructured 2 3 4

Unstructured 3 4 5

Quantity of

projects

Di�erentiation of projects

Limited to small Signi®cant

Small 1 ±

Medium 2 4

Large 3 5


di�erent economical accounts that were used bythe jobs (Expenses, Income, Budget, etc.). TheEvaluation Committee supported by the DecisionAnalysts did the evaluation of the jobs.

References

Armstrong, M., Murlis, H., 1994. Reward Management: A

Handbook of Renumeration Strategy and Practice. Kogan

Page, London.

Candlili, A.J., Armagast, R.D., 1987. The case for e�ective

point-factor job evaluation. Compensation and Bene®ts,

49±54.

Cook, W.D., Seiford, L.M., 1978. Priority ranking and

consensus formation. Management Science 24 (1), 59±73.

Despotis, D.K., Yannacopoulos, D., Zopounidis, C., 1990. A

review of the UTA multicriteria method and some improve-

ments. Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences 15

(2), 63±76.

Elliott, R.F., 1991. Labour Economics. McGraw-Hill, London.

Hammond, K.R., Cook, R.L., Adelman, L., 1977. POLICY:

An aid for decision making and international communica-

tion. Columbia Journal of World Business, 79±93.

Jacquet-Lagr�eze, E., Siskos, Y., 1982. Assessing a set of

additive utility functions for multicriteria decision making.

European Journal of Operational Research 10 (2), 151±

164.

Jacquet-Lagr�eze, E., Shakun, M.F., 1984. Decision support

system for semistructured buying decisions. European

Journal of Operational Research 16 (1), 48±56.

Keeney, R.L., Raifa, H., 1976. Decision with Multiple Objec-

tives: Preferences and Value Tradeo�s. Wiley, New York.

Keeney, R., 1992. Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative

Decision Making. Harvard University Press, London.

Neathley, F., 1994. Job Evaluation in the 1990s. Industrial

Relations Services, London.

Plachy, R.J., 1987. The case of e�ective point-factor job

evaluation, viewpoint 1. Compensation and Bene®ts,

pp. 12±27.

Roy, B., 1985. M�ethodologie multicrit�ere d'Aide �E la D�ecision.

Economica, Paris.

Siskos, Y., 1980. Comment mod�eliser les pr�ef�erences au moyen

de fonctions dÕutilit�e additives. RAIRO Recherche Op�era-

tionnelle 14, 53±82.

Siskos, Y., Spyridakos, A., Yannacopoulos, D., 1993. MINO-

RA: A multicriteria decision aiding system for discrete

alternatives. In: Siskos, Y., Zopounidis, C. (Eds.), Special

Issue on Multicriteria Decision Support Systems. Journal of

Information Science and Technology 2 (2), 136±149.

Siskos, Y., Spyridakos, D., Yannacopoulos, D., 1999. Using

arti®cial intelligence and visual techniques into preferences

disaggregation analysis: The MIIDAS system. European

Journal of Operational Research 113, 281±299.


11-multicriteria job evaluation for large organizations

Documents