Loading...
Item 84-153 MAMA Worth StudyDATE: November 21, 1984 TO: All Managers, Administrators, Elected Officials FROM: William Joynes Chairman, MAMA General Labor Relations Committee RE: MAMA Joint Comparable Worth Study As many of you are aware, three months ago the Metropolitan Area Management Association undertook a project to determine whether or not suburban cities could jointly produce a study that would comply with comparable worth legisla- tion enacted in the 1984 session. At that time, we asked cities to indicate whether or not they would be willing to fund on an equal basis, our investiga- tion into that possibility. Some 57 communities agreed to do so at a cost of approximately $200 per city. We estimated that amount would be required to develop our request for proposals and to screen various consulting organizations who might wish to bid on such a joint venture. Our desire to approach the study jointly was based on two reasons: First, the historical effort that MAMA has made in comparing wages and fringe benefits, and the success we have had in keeping their levels consistent in the metro area. Secondly, we felt that it was preferable for all MAMA cities to have used a com- mon approach in the event that future litigation occurs. We are now at a point where a committee of managers made up of myself, Bob Thistle from Coon Rapids, Jim Miller from Minnetonka, Jim Brimeyer from St. Louis Park, and Jim Lacina from Woodbury, with support from Labor Relations Associates, is recommending to the 57 cities the selection of Control Data Corporation Business Advisors as the vendor to accomplish the job evaluation study mandated by State law. A summary of the proposal is attached for your information. At a December 4, 1984 meeting of MAMA managers and administrators each of the 57 cities will be asked to indicate if they prefer to continue jointly or proceed on their own with a separate study. To help cities make that decision, I have attempted to provide more detailed background information on the screening pro- cess, the rationale for the selection of CDC and the anticipated costs for the joint approach. SCREENING PROCESS We began in August of this year by sending out a generally worded RFP to 18 firms locally and nationally who had done job evaluation work in the private and public sector. We received ten responses from the initial request. After a considerable amount of evaluation, six firms were selected to be interviewed further. They included Haye Associates, Towers - Perrin - Forster and Crosby, Control Data Corporation, Arthur Young and Associates, Hewitt and Associates, Hallcrest- Craver Associates. Those interviews were conducted in October at the League offices by the RFP com- mittee and members of the staff of the League of Minnesota Cities. At the conclusion of that process, three firms were felt to merit further scrutiny. They were Haye Associates, Towers - Perrin - Forster and Crosby, and Control Data Corporation. It was felt that Arthur Young and Associates and Hewitt and -2- Associates, while providing a viable approach to job evaluation, did not present a system that would fully satisfy the requirements of Minnesota law. Hallcrest- Craver was eliminated because we felt that with their staffing and current com- mitments, a timely product might be a problem. After that interview, the RFP committee developed a more detailed and specific RFP, copies of which were sent to all interested cities. The three consulting firms were asked to make a second presentation which took place on November 6, 1984: Invited to that meeting were all the representatives of organized labor represented in the MAMA communities, representatives from private employee asso- ciations and any managers or administrators who wished to attend. At the conclusion of the interview, the selection committee was unanimously in favor of recommending the CDC system. The CDC proposal at $345,000 was, admittedly, the most expensive proposal we received; however, the unanimous feeling of the com- mittee was that it was the one proposal that we felt would provide the best and most legitimate results and would be the most easily maintained system over a period of years. RATIONALE FOR DECISION I would like to briefly discuss some of the thoughts of the committee regarding the selection of CDC which I hope will explain why that choice was made. First and foremost, the Control Data Corporation proposal offers to do job evaluations on all of a given city's positions. We originally thought the cost of doing such a study to be prohibitive, and had suggested in the RFP that an evaluation study that included 25 benchmark jobs would be more appropriate. CDC bid that benchmark study but added that for a nominal additional charge, it would be a simple task to do all of the positions in all cities. CDC Business Advisors' computer capability makes the extension of the study to all individual positions in each city, a relatively simple matter. The other consulting proposals did not offer that capability. A very strong argument for the selection of CDC was the extent of the data offered as an end product. First and foremost, after the study was completed, CDC would provide each city with an evaluation report ranking their specific employees based on a comparable worth scale. In addition, the MAMA cities would receive a composite benchmark study which would provide evaluations throughout the metro area for those jobs which were similar. An example would be that a city would be given a relative point value for the position of patrol officer within its own organization, and would also have the data to compare that point value to a metropolitan average and to specific patrol positions in neighboring cities. This was felt to be a tremendous labor relation - personnel tool for all cities and something beyond what we thought we would receive from the comparable worth study. Another very attractive feature of the CDC proposal was its ability to be updated. Once the initial study was completed and in place, the system would be able to provide, at a very nominal cost, adjustments over the years. For example, if a city created a new position or added responsibilities to an existing job, a new questionnaire could be filled out and submitted to CDC outlining the tasks that position would perform. CDC Business Advisors would recompute the job evaluation rankings for that city and provide a new point value for the position. -3- Their estimate of what it would cost to re- evaluate a specific position or incorporate a new one into the city, was $5 to $7 per occurrence. The other two proposals did not offer such a capability. Finally, a word about the conceptual framework of the CDC proposal. Their job evaluation study is one that is referred to as a task evaluation approach as opposed to a whole job evaluation approach which was proposed by the other two firms. In a task evaluation, jobs are broken down into many small functional tasks and those tasks are rated and a point total derived. A specific job and its relative worth compared to other jobs in an organization is determined by the total of its task values. In the whole job evaluation approach, the job, not individual tasks, is rated on its relative worth in various categories. With this method, certain jobs may have an inherent bias due to preconceived ideas about their complexity or difficulty. An example might be an evaluation of a bomb disposal officer. Most people's initial reaction is that the job is worth a great deal because of the element of danger involved. When you evaluate the job on a "whole job" basis, that danger factor tends to expand into all the areas that you may be using to rank the worth of the job. In fact, the danger in bomb disposal work may be present only once in a great while, and the majority of the job may be very routine and non - dangerous. The task approach eliminates this type of halo effect because each separate function is evaluated. In our example, the bomb disposal officer would be given fairly high points for certain tasks like the diffusion of a bomb, but may receive routine marks for other tasks associated with the work he or she would perform. The net result is to provide a more accurate point total for all jobs surveyed. For the reasons listed above, the committee felt unanimously that the CDC propo- sal offered COST OF THE PROPOSAL Many cities have called requesting to know the estimated cost per city of the CDC system prior to the December 4 meeting. At this time, it is not possible to give exact dollar amounts. Obviously the total cost to each city will be depen- dent to a large extent to how many cities select to cotinue with this joint approach. Additionally, there are some other factors that will influence the cost. There is a possibility that quite a large number of out -state cities will wish to use the comparable worth study that MAMA has developed. We estimate that 30 additional cities may participate. If they do choose to join us, then the cost per city could be reduced significantly due to the economies of scale achieved by a larger group. We have also been contacted by the Metropolitan Airport Commission, the Minnesota Utility Association, and the city of Thief River Falls, Wisconsin. They have all expressed some degree of interest in participating. While a firm dollar amount is not possible to determine at this time, I can give you a range of the dollars we are talking about if we make some simple assump- tions. If the 57 MAMA cities all agree to participate and the charges are based on a formula which takes into account both a minimum value charged to each city, and some factor for the number of employees, then the cost would likely range from approximately $4,000 to cities the size of Osseo and Minnetrista, to an -4- amount somewhere around $15,000 for a city the size of Bloomington. If 25 to 30 outstate cities join in the study, the cost range would be lowered to $3,500 for small cities up to about $12,500 for a city of size of Bloomington. CONCLUSION We have asked that representatives of the 57 MAMA cities attend a meeting on December 4 at 10:00 AM at the Brooklyn Center City Hall to provide us with a decision as to their intent to participate or not with the MAMA study. We realize that some cities will not be able to make firm committments due to the fact that their councils may not meet before that date. It is my hope that with the information provided you will be able to give us a good indication of what your city intends to do. A similar meeting has been scheduled for members of the Coalition of Outstate Cities on December 19 at 1:30 PM at the Golden Valley City Hall. Those of us on the committee have spent many hours involved in this selection process. We believe that CDC proposal represents the best option for us to meet the requirements of State law and will provide us with a personnel and labor relations tool which far exceeds what we expected to obtain through this pro- cess. We strongly recommend that member cities join in the study. Metropolitan Area Management Association Compensation Study Process Summary The plan for development and implementation of a FOCAS (Flexible Occupational Analysis System) job analysis and evaluation system for 25 benchmark jobs defined by the MAMA Committee and for subsequent evaluation of MAMA member cities' non - benchmark jobs is summarized below. FO is a questionnaire -based job analysis and evaluation system. FOCAS has been developed to provide accurate and comprehensive information about jobs to support effective human resource management. The first step in the process is to develop questionnaires to be used to gather information about what employees do. We will use one questionnaire for each occupational group. The MAMA Committee will identify one subject matter expert and an advisory group from each occupational group to work with Business Advisors. These individuals will provide their job content expertise throughout questionnaire development and job evaluation, and should be very knowledgeable about jobs in their occupational area. Business Advisors, together with a team of MAMA member cities' Personnel Directors, will develop preliminary questionnaires based upon existing job descriptions and the Business Advisors data bank of task items. The Personnel Director team will identify and schedule employee workshops to be conducted jointly with Business Advisors, to modify preliminary questionnaires. Questionnaires will be finalized with the advisory group for that occupational area. Second, Personnel Directors will schedule and conduct meetings with employees for them to complete the questionnaire for their occupational group. In filling out questionnaires, employees will indicate for each task that they do or do not perform it and how much time they spend on tasks performed relative to other tasks. Third, Business Advisors will provide data entry from the questionnaires and provide computer - generated position descriptions for each employee who filled out a questionnaire. This is a listing of tasks performed with time spent percentages. The supervisor and employee will review and verify or modify the position description. The Personnel Director team will collect and return all modified position descriptions to Business Advisors. Business Advisors will provide data entry and return revised position descriptions to the Personnel Director team for distribution to supervisors /employees. These will serve as final position descriptions. • Fourth, Business Advisors will provide average, or benchmark, job descriptions for the 25 benchmark jobs identified by the MAMA committee. Personnel Directors will identify employees making up the benchmark. Subject matter experts and advisory groups will work with Business Advisors to finalize descriptions. The fifth step in the process, task valuing, begins at the same time as the second. Business Advisors will work with the Personnel Director team, subject matter experts and advisory groups to set up the task valuing process. The Personnel Director team will identify and schedule managers for valuing meetings. Business Advisors will conduct valuing meetings. In valuing tasks, managers will rate all tasks about which they are knowledgeable, according to one factor, complexity, importance or unfavorability. Business Advisors will review average task values with the subject matter expert and the advisory group to finalize values. Factor weights will be statistically computed by Business Advisors and finalized with the subject matter expert and advisory group. The sixth step is to combine results of the completed questionnaires with task values to determine job value. Business Advisors' computer analysis will compute job value by multiplying time spent on tasks times task value and sum the products to produce a point total. Business Advisors will provide job values for the twenty -five benchmark jobs to the MAMA committee. Step seven is to collect and analyze wage and benefit data from public and private sector labor markets. The MAMA committee will identify available surveys and work with Business Advisors to define appropriate markets and to determine if a specialized salary survey is desirable. If so, Business Advisors will conduct a specialized salary survey. Final job hierarchies will be constructed based upon job values and market data. The eighth step is to analyze relationships among job values, current pay rates and market data. Business Advisors will provide an analysis and alternative strategies for addressing pay discrepancies. Ninth, Business Advisors will provide individual job evaluation points to the member cities. Finally, Business Advisors will provide a report of methodology and results and meet with the MAMA committee to present the report. k1a112141