1. Welcome, introductions and thanks.
Working towards implementation date of August this year. Much development and preparatory work ongoing for some time and will continue until implementation and beyond.
Aim to provide some background and context.

2. Why Modernisation ? National Policy Transparency Simplification
Equality
Contribution and Reward
Over the last few years, modernising of pay and reward has been a key part of Government policy in the public sector as they promote equal pay for work of equal value.
This issue has been the subject of wide and informed debate at national level resulting in the Framework Agreement, which incorporates the modernisation of pay structures. I’ll cover the detail of the Framework Agreement in a future slide.
We are not alone in our endeavors – as every HE institution in the UK is undergoing modernisation at present. Each individual Institution however, requires to adopt a pay and reward strategy that is transparent, and best fits it’s own needs.
It will result in a simple reward structure
* single salary spine
* salary progression through incremental points for all
* financial reward for cont./perf. through inc./cont. points at top
* harmonised terms and conditions
* improved communications between managers and their staff
* simplified but clear promotion and development opportunities.
Purpose today highlight in some detail implementation and delivery of Modernisation Agenda.

3. Our Aims • Aligned with our business strategy
• Planned and effective implementation
• Local determination
• Maximize benefits
• Involvement of Managers and Staff
• Partnership with the Trade Unions
From the outset of the modernisation process, we established a number of aims to ensure that the Modernisation Agenda could be effectively delivered.
List as apt.
i.e. agenda linked to Uni. strategy – PDR enables individuals to understand the nature of their role and it’s impact at dept., faculty/divisional and Uni. level.

4. The Framework Agreement Single Pay Spine Simplified Grading Structures
Clear job descriptions and role profiles
Job Evaluation & Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value
Service and Contribution
Improved links between career development and pay progression
Management of Performance and development
Harmonisation
Equality of Opportunities
Once these aims were established, we then had to consider the finer detail, and how our objectives could be delivered here at Glasgow.
At national level, the Trade Unions and UCEA, the University and Colleges Employers Association, agreed a broad framework – known as the Framework Agreement for the Modernisation of Pay Structures - around which, modernisation could be implemented.
I’ll highlight at this point, that the Framework Agreement and the national 51-point pay spine cover all staff apart from Clinical Academics, Senior Management and Professorial staff.
The Framework Agreement ensures there will be common features at each institution such as a Single National Pay Spine, a simplified Grading Structure underpinned by Job Evaluation, Service and Contribution Related Incremental Pay Points, Harmonisation, and improved links between Career Development and Pay Progression and Performance.
The precise means of implementation however, is for local determination and negotiation. We are therefore able to take local circumstances into account and the fact that we are able to negotiate its implementation locally, in line with the University’s business strategy, means we can ensure modernisation delivers maximum benefit to both the University and its employees.
Oh, and this has all to be implemented by 1 August, – Easy!!! However, will not compromise process.

5. The Framework Agreement breaks modernisation down into three broad areas; Job Evaluation / Pay & Reward, Harmonisation and Performance Management.
We will look at each of these areas in turn throughout the remainder of the presentation.
Job evaluation is a method of systematically assessing the relative value of jobs within an organisation, determining/ measuring job size, and providing a basis for the allocation of an appropriate remuneration package.
It is a process that seeks to objectively measure the different elements of a job, resulting in a total score for each job. The jobs are placed in a rank order according to their size, therefore providing a basis for a transparent, consistent and fair grading structure. The use of job evaluation means that decisions about the grading of roles can be made consistently and transparently enabling Uni. to ensureit complies with equal pay legislation in terms of work of equal value.
Talk through HERA/Hay process and subsequent decision as per other Russell group institutions.
Consequently, posts requiring little or no knowledge and/or previous experience to be measured as the lowest and the most senior management posts at the University to be measured as the highest.
“A systematic process for measuring or assessing the relative size of a job”

6. HAY HAY Know How Know How Problem Solving Problem Solving
Accountability
HAY
Know How
Problem Solving
Accountability
Approximately 250 jobs reflecting a representative cross section of posts within the Uni. and the broad range of staff categories and grades within the University have been fully evaluated utilising the Hay job evaluation methodology. Since the benchmarking exercise began in June 2004, Job Evaluation panel meetings have taken place on a regular basis and these are ongoing. We have around 40 trained job evaluation panellists, and from this group, a core panel consists of six members: 2 HR Representatives, 2 Trade Union Representatives and 2 Line Managers with some experience of Job Evaluation and/or expertise in the posts being evaluated.
Hay JE involves three significant factors Know-How (inputs), Problem Solving (challenges) and Accountability (impcat) of a job based on the info. in the job description written in the required format.
This slide shows an example of a HAY job evaluation score with the total points from the Know-How, Problem Solving and Accountability adding up to give an overall points total and profile.
Quality checks are carried out to ensure the accuracy of the exercise. These include individual “sorethumbing exercises” where all evaluated posts are reviewed to ensure apt. evaluation and flag up anomalies score.
NOTE:- Post/role that is evaluated and not person/postholder and assumes acceptable performance.

7. Illustrative Rank Order Illustrative Rank Order
Each job included in the benchmarking exercise was evaluated utilising the factors mentioned previously which were then further broken down into particular elements of the job. Utilising a consensus decision making process, a number of judgements were then taken about these jobs which ultimately resulted in a job evaluation score.
Whilst the examples shown here are purely for illustration purposes - i.e. a post with limited responsibility, and requiring a job holder with little or no qualifications and experience, to have a lower score, and be ranked at or near the bottom. A post with significant responsibility requiring a professional qualification and a number of years experience, would have a higher score and therefore be ranked further up the hierarchy.
The scores from the jobs that we have evaluated as part of the benchmark exercise have been ranked in this way. This contributed to the shaping of our pay and grading structure with grade breaks being drawn where there are natural breaks in the job evaluation scores.

8. “To ensure equal pay for work of equal value and to recognise and reward the contribution that individuals make to the University”
If we go back to the illustrative JE scores – imagine single salary spine superimposed onto this rank order – this enables us to begin to understand the concept of grades and levels and the development of an apt. pay and grading structure for application here at Glasgow.

9. Pay & Grading Structure
A single grading Structure
Structure underpinned by Job Evaluation
Job family structure/Role profiles
Majority of jobs matched to the new structure
The existing pay and grading structure consists of separate salary scales e.g. Academic, Academic Related, Secretarial & Clerical, Technical, Manual & Ancillary to name but a few.
The Framework Agreement introduces the concept of a single grading structure for all staff, excluding those mentioned earlier, however it is up to us locally to determine and agree the actual detail of this structure.
The process of discussing and agreeing this, both with the Trade Unions and Senior Management is ongoing. Account will have to made of existing pay levels, current progression opportunities and potential costs.
The national 51-point single pay spine increases in 3% increments from point 1 up to point 51. To accommodate current progression arrangements for staff in certain categories.
The grading structure as indicated earlier is underpinned by job evaluation. Strategy decided some time ago by the Uni. was not to evaluate every single post as you will appreciate 6000 posts. Hence,in common with many other Universities, we have opted to develop a Job Family structure, which has been informed by the work carried out during the benchmark exercise. It is anticipated that majority of jobs will match into new structure utilising job family approach. If cannot be matched, job in question will be evaluated.

10. Example Job Family Levels
Four job families involving broadly distinctive groups of staff in which the main features of the roles share similar characteristics. They are: Research & Teaching; Management, Professional & Administrative; Technical & Related; and Operational. The important point is that posts that fit within each level, regardless of family, are broadly of a similar job size.
The advantage of using a Job Family approach is that a clear career pathway is highlighted therefore allowing staff to develop to their full potential. Linked to Performance & Development Review, it ensures that the University can develop staff in line with its needs. There is also read across which means that regardless of what family a job is in, jobs at any one grade in that family are the same size as jobs at the same grade in another family.
Each level within each job family has a description detailing the level of knowledge, qualifications, skills and experience as well as reflecting the responsibilities and outputs required.
Role profiles/ model descriptors have been developed over recent years by a number of Russell Group Universities working with the Hay Group. We have been in the fortunate position of being able to use these descriptions as a staring point, however a considerable amount of work has taken place locally to develop apt. role profiles for application here at UoG, working closely with the recognised trade unions to tailor them to the University of Glasgow.
These descriptions are now referred to as our Job Family Level Profiles.
Job descriptions, evaluated as part of the benchmark exercise have been and continue to be matched to the job families as a means of testing the soundness of the draft job family levels. This process is ongoing. We are also near completion of piloting job families/ job matching exercise which has resulted in various amendments/additions to the profiles to make them user friendly and simple to operate. (Adapt examples to make relevant for audience)

11. Developing Grading Structure
This slide illustrates the grading structure. You will see that each grade has a number of incremental points.
A new start would likely commence at the first increment on the appropriate grade, and on an annual basis would rise one incremental point until reaching the incremental point below the one highlighted in green (or olive green?).
Contribution points, which are highlighted in grey (or olive green?) , are similar to what we currently refer to as Discretionary points. Discussions are taking pl;ace as we speak to determine the process to enable staff to access these points, however staff will not automatically access these Contribution Points. Access will be based on exceptional contribution.
Annual cost of living increases, negotiated nationally, will apply to the 51-point spine. A significant benefit of the new pay and grading structure is that it gives access to service related incremental progression and contribution pay to all staff, particularly support staff at levels who have not previously had access to either.
Once a job has been matched onto the appropriate level and grade, assuming that this is equivalent to their current grade, they will be assimilated to the point equal to or immediately above their current salary.

12. Performance Management ensures staff are working to clear objectives that are aligned with those of the University.This process is currently being rolled out across the University where its has not yet been introduced.
Performance & Development Review has proven to bring significant benefits to staff where the process has been implemented with improvements reported in communication as staff can constructively discuss their job, performance and possible development opportunities with their line manager. Performance management assists individuals to enhance their job performance, through the setting of objectives, which enables individual staff to appreciate their role and it’s contribution at dept.,faculty/divisional and Uni. levels.
Performance & development review ensures that staff wherever they are working in this diverse organisation are working to clear objectives, providing clarity and direction in our jobs and ensures that we all have the opportunity to develop which is a big motivating factor for many staff.
An increase focus on career development and improve understanding of the context of current work priorities
Presents an opportunity to discuss career aspirations and any guidance or support required to fulfil these aspirations
Creates and maintains a culture of continuous improvement and success.
“Ensures staff are working to clear objectives that are aligned with those of the University”

13. Performance & Development Review
• Communication
• Objective Setting
• Review
• Recognition
• Contribution Pay
• Career Development
The difference between now and the past, where schemes have come and gone, is that there is a University wide approach to performance management and performance & development review. A bespoke training resource is available to ensure that staff and managers alike are trained in performance & development review processes.
Performance & Development review is established in many parts of the University and will be fully embedded by latter part of this session in remaining departments.
A performance & development review framework is in place. It is dependent upon each department to develop an appropriate scheme that will suit the needs of its particular circumstances and operational requirements – there is a library of schemes available on the MAwebsite.
Having a scheme that suits the needs of each department ensures maximum benefit as it gives the opportunity for staff to sit down with their managers and have a two-way discussion about their performance and development needs.

14. •“Harmonise the length of the standard working week for all staff with a defined working week and work towards harmonisation of other terms and conditions”
The harmonisation aspect of the modernisation agenda minimally provides for a harmonisation of working hours although debate is ongoing with respect to what these hours might be.

15. Harmonisation • Hours of work • Terms and conditions
• Other staff groups
Can be amended depending on outcome of discussions with T&GWU)
The statutory requirement for equal pay for work of equal value assumes that we have comparable working hours for staff with a defined working week which, at the University, is all staff apart from academic staff.
At present, we have admin and secretarial staff on 35 hours, technical staff on 37 hours and operational staff on 38 hours plus a few other variations.
We are currently looking at how we can go about harmonising the length of the working week so that we are all working the same standard hours. However, it is a major task as there are significant cost issues and practical issues that have to be overcome if it is decided to harmonise down to 35 hours.
There are, of course, a number of benefits of harmonising working hours and other terms & conditions – not least the equality and fairness issues but the opportunity for some to benefit from a reduced working week and the opportunity to review and, where appropriate, amend outdated working practices.
In some cases, to support a reduction in the working week, a complete review of service provision might be necessary and we are currently in the process of discussing such issues, particularly those working 24 hours per day, 7 days per week and 365 days per year.

16. What's in it for you? Where are we now? The future and beyond?
What is in it for you, where are we now with the implementation of modernisation and what about the future and beyond?
Move onto next slide and list

17. Delivers: simplified reward structure salary progression
financial reward for contribution
harmonised terms & conditions
improved communications between managers and their staff
development opportunities
simplified promotion procedures
equality across job family levels
Read from slide

18. Timetable Communicate process to staff
Job Descriptions written and agreed
Job Matching
Performance and development review
Harmonisation
Notification
1st August 2006 implementation
Ever since it became clear, a couple of years ago, that modernisation was a reality, we have set up a modernisation website, written regular newsletter articles and written to all employees to update them. Highlight role of Project team and HRMs.
However, with the implementation date for Modernisation rapidly approaching, we are now using forums such as this one to ensure that everyone is fully aware of what Modernisation is and how it will impact them.
The next stage is to communicate to staff the requirement that all jobs in the University must have an up to date job description in the apt. format that can be used for job matching.
Some staff may have already completed a job description for other exercises such as Performance & Development Review. On the face of it, it appears to be a huge task but in reality there will be generic job descriptions that can be used for most academic roles. Where there are 10 staff in the same job, it is appropriate to have one job description approved by all 10 staff.
There are also many examples of job descriptions from the benchmark exercise that can be used help staff see what a similar job description looks like. Full training and support is available. However, to have credibility and therefore to work, staff do need input to it and to agree their job descriptions with their Line Managers/Heads of Department. Once the job matching exercise is completed, staff will be informed what grade they are on. This will probably take place sometime during the spring. If harmonisation results in any changes to terms and conditions of employment then staff will also be informed at the same time following consultation and agreement with the trade unions.