CC PACKET 12041984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-3- Their estimate of what. it would cost to re-evaluate a specific position or incorporate a new one i nto 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 i firms. In a task evaluation, jobs are broken down into many small functional f 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 f. in bomb disposal work may be present only once in a great while, and the E 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 fobs 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