# The simplest approach

# Quick and inexpensive to administer

# Uses job-to-job comparison

# Little guidance provided to evaluators

# Basis for comparing jobs not spelled out

# Difficult to justify results to employees

# Assigns value differences to jobs, but does not provide how much value difference is valid

# Relatively simple and inexpensive

# Predetermined scale of values is provided

# Measures of skill attainment can become easily identifiable criteria for determining job worth

# Difficult to define levels of overall job worth

# Different class definitions must be developed for each type of work involved

# Grade assignments may be made on factors that are not relevant to the true compensable worth

# Job-to-job comparison

# Limited number of factors

# Avoids internal inconsistencies arising from different evaluators using different criteria

# Complexity

# Time consuming

# "Halo" effect may cause individual judgements on factors to parallel on overall ranking judgment

# Factor definition provides consistency among different evaluators

# Shows which job is worth more and by how much

# Extremely complex

# Difficult to maintain

# Appears overly scientific and may discourage managerial input

# Details are difficult to explain

# Development and maintenance time is minimal

# Easy to understand and communicate

# Market data is more effective than subjective evaluation decisions

# Survey data is normally available for at least 30% of the jobs

# Survey data may not be valid

# Benchmark jobs may reflect unusual or temporary market conditions

# Market data may not coincide with perceived internal values

# Combines the advantages of market pricing and ranking with the concepts of job families and career paths.

# Relies heavily on management judgement

# Is perhaps the easiest for employees to understand and accept