Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Us Cons Job Architecture 041315
Us Cons Job Architecture 041315
2
Getting started: How far, how fast? Supporting a job architecture review: Organization
Organizations are often prevented from addressing job resources required
architecture due to a lack of resources, compressed time In Deloitte’s experience, job architecture projects
frames, and the often overwhelming size and complexity require participation and support from multiple levels
of such projects, which can vary in scope and duration. and functions across an organization, including senior
Organizations can choose to work within their current job executives, HR, and job subject matter experts. A
structure, optimize that structure, or completely transform knowledgeable working group helps ensure that the wide-
it. Project scope is influenced by a number of factors, ranging implications of job architecture are fully considered
including degree of desired change, resources, budget, and aids in the subsequent adoption of program changes.
timing needs, and the current state of human capital The following diagram outlines the key roles.
programs associated with job architecture.
In general, a job architecture project can typically take four
months to a year to complete, depending on the scope of
change required and the appetite for change. The culture
of the organization will also set project pace, regardless of
project scope, by defining the level of consultation required
with key stakeholders. In some cases, it may be appropriate
to work with a small group of key stakeholders; other
projects may require extensive consultations to achieve
stakeholder buy-in.
Key roles in a job architecture project
• Reviews/Updates job
descriptions
Legal
Talent & Recruiting Employee Relations
• In the United States,
• Provides input to an • Where union jobs exist,
may advise on FLSA
appropriate framework determines if union
reclassification issues
and links to career representatives will
paths need to be consulted • Outside of the US,
before the updated may advise on impacts
• Provides input to
job architecture is to employment
HRIS about potential
implemented contracts and need for
impacts on the
consultation and/or
recruiting system
notifications
4
Getting it done: A phased approach
Deloitte’s Job Architecture Maturity model helps organizations prioritize and phase projects by working along a
continuum that drives increasing levels of organizational maturity at each step. Not every job architecture project will
require all the options shown.
Harmonization
Integration with Talent Compensation
Programs Harmonization Solutions
of Job • Job leveling and global
Documentation grading fully integrated
Harmonization of Job • Global pay structures
• Approach to job
Titles and Competency developed
Based Mapping Tools documentation
Harmonization • HRIS, recruiting,
developed
and performance
of Job Levels and • Jobs reviewed • Job documentation
management systems
Global Grades for consolidation created
integrated and loaded
opportunities • Strategy for job content
with consistent titles,
• Jobs organized by • Job title nomenclature storage developed
leveling, and grading
function and family and consistent • Compliance assessment
information
• Number of levels classification approach conducted
• Centralized job content
identified developed through • Governance process
repository implemented
Typical Inputs • Leveling criteria competency matrix updated
developed • Jobs organized into • Optional Functional/
• Jobs mapped to levels career progressions/ Technical competencies
path developed
• Governance process
identified
Leveling Awareness Job and Leveling Identity Consistent Language Competency
of Work Management
Convene task force Kick off job analysis Collaborate with Begin full model Communicate
Establish governance workshops interdependent areas and assimilation change to employees
communicate change to
employees
Organizations can choose the phases of the maturity
model most important for their situation by taking stock
Case in point: Accommodating growth of what currently supports or impedes business goals. This
What? will help determine the components of job architecture
A technology company with approximately 6,000 employees in 29 countries was that should be reviewed, including:
projected to double in size in the next 3 to 5 years through acquisition and organic
• Job Levels. A critical input to job architecture is
growth. To prepare for the implementation of a new technology platform, the company
identifying the optimal number of job levels that
wanted to develop a global job architecture and compensation structure.
support business and career progression. These criteria
Why? should be customized to the organization’s business
With no consistent approach to job architecture and no framework for managing needs, culture, and structure, with an eye to the future.
acquisitions, job titles and compensation processes were “bolted on” as acquisitions • Job Titles. Designing market-based job titles is
occurred, causing internal equity concerns, a proliferation of job titles (approximately a big step in developing a standard language of
1,000), and a mixed approach to compensation. Furthermore, HR was using a single work. A “less is more” approach resonates well with
compensation survey source as the basis for job coding, titling, and structure design; many organizations that seek to streamline job title
when the survey methodology changed, it became clear that this was not a sustainable nomenclature so titles for administrative to executive
method for managing jobs. Finally, lack of clearly defined career paths was limiting positions become clear indicators of a job’s level, role,
employees’ desire to take international assignments. and responsibility.
How? • Job Documentation. The market is trending to broad
To correct these issues, Deloitte worked with the company’s HR team to organize jobs job documentation versus detailed job descriptions.
into job functions and families, identify job consolidation opportunities, develop career Job documentation should support talent initiatives for
paths, and create a job hierarchy. The team: compensation benchmarking, recruiting, and talent
• Created a full job architecture framework, including leveling guides, titling approach, management, and set expectations around broad job
and governance guidelines. responsibilities, accountability expectations, and entry
requirements for education and experience.
• Developed market-based global pay structures and slotted jobs into the structures • Compensation Solutions. Once the job “structure” is
based on job-leveling criteria, market value, and internal equity. defined, pay programs can be designed to reflect the
• Analyzed jobs for FLSA compliance. external and internal value of the organization’s jobs.
Discrepancies among an organization’s pay practices, job
Outcome
design, and market values for those jobs often surface
Having clearly defined career paths and a consistent approach to classifying jobs
in job architecture projects, creating an opportunity
facilitates employee mobility and a more equitable, consistent approach to managing
to recalibrate pay practices to better reflect market
base pay. The company also uncovered and addressed inequities in pay administration
practices, the organization’s ability to pay, and its total
and incentive plan design. Newly enacted compliance processes also reduce the risk of
rewards philosophy. The outcome is often the redesign
US-based compliance issues.
of pay grades and assigning jobs to these grades to
reflect the organization’s updated job structure and
career progressions. This helps to ensure that pay is
administered based on a job’s level and responsibility,
and that pay grade assignment reflects job value.
6
Linking to organization design and rewards A few other lessons we’ve learned:
A job architecture framework provides a common language • Involve line leaders in developing the solution. In
for organizational levels, spans of control, and career our experience, a project that does not get input from
paths. This information is often outlined in a job-leveling line leaders has a greater potential to fail. Instead,
guide that specifies job complexity, scope of impact and involve line leaders in reviewing draft deliverables
responsibility, and other criteria used to define the level of developed by the project team and incorporate their
a job. An organization may use separate leveling guides input, as appropriate, into the final product. Giving
for different job categories, such as support, professional, line leaders the opportunity to provide input into the
and management jobs. For example, a management solution will likely also improve acceptance throughout
leveling guide will define the scope of supervision required the organization.
for a “manager” versus a “director.” Similarly, the guide • Keep global considerations front of mind. In
will define the progression of these jobs, for example, developing and rolling out a new job architecture,
supervisor to manager to senior manager to director. organizations should be cognizant of cultural
differences in their employees’ understanding of
An organization’s compensation programs are often
job titles and leveling criteria, as well as considering
reviewed when job architecture is redesigned. At a
local and regional requirements. For example, job
minimum, most organizations will review base salaries.
leveling in Germany would be subject to works council
Some organizations will also revisit the fundamental
consultation. Considerations also need to be made
aspects of their compensation philosophy and structure,
for employees governed by industry-wide collective
such as examining the links between compensation and
bargaining agreements. The organization will need to
business strategy or determining the employee populations
determine if these jobs can be included in an enterprise-
a grade structure should cover.
wide job architecture, or if they need to be excluded.
Learning from experience • Recognize the talent and technology implications of
We find that a factor often limiting job architecture the project. Many organizations focus primarily on the
projects is a reluctance to disturb the status quo. Because technology aspect of the project (what is needed for
of the high value employees place on job titles and the HRIS to “go live,” what is needed for more efficient
compensation, decision makers can be reluctant to “rock reporting, etc.) and often overlook the tremendous
the boat” and have difficulty envisioning and championing impact a job architecture project has on talent programs
the long-term advantages of a job architecture project like career ladders/paths, salary ranges and grades,
to the organization’s financial health and employee and job titles. Paying attention to the talent impacts,
engagement. Therefore, early executive support is carefully planning employee change management
especially critical to a project’s effectiveness. Results are communication, and monitoring the impact of change
often limited when the project is labeled an “HR” project are critical project elements.
and led solely by the HR team. • Allow sufficient time. The job architecture project
can often be eclipsed by the larger scope of an overall
HRIS effort. Setting realistic time frames for the job
architecture project and using an appropriately sized
team are essential to meeting project deadlines.
Conclusion: A job worth doing right Effective job architecture reflects future talent needs,
Job architecture has traditionally been viewed as the motivates behaviors that support the organization’s
baseline for a robust compensation redesign project. It has business strategies, and communicates a consistent
evolved over the past couple of years to become a strategic language of work for employees. Some of the most
component of effective HR technology implementations. visible outcomes of well-established job architecture are
Job architecture is also essential to accomplishing critical improved workforce planning, and compensating jobs
organizational redesign initiatives where job structure, in a consistent manner that reflects internal equity and
workforce leverage, and spans of control have become competitive market practices. All of these help enhance an
outdated and no longer support organization goals. organization’s investment in talent, and in turn, employees’
understanding of their roles and opportunities for growth
and advancement.
Contacts
Greg Stoskopf Sheila Sever Lynda Phenix Tara Tays
Director Senior Manager Specialist Master Senior Manager
Deloitte Consulting LLP Deloitte Consulting LLP Deloitte Consulting LLP Deloitte Consulting LLP
United States United States United States United States
gstoskopf@deloitte.com ssever@deloitte.com lphenix@deloitte.com ttays@deloitte.com
+1 212 618 4627 +1 713 982 2627 +1 213 996 4322 +1 213 688 5244
8
Global Human Capital Leadership
9
Finland Middle East
Kirsi Kemi Ghassan Turqieh
Deloitte Oy Deloitte & Touche (M.E.)
kirsi.kemi@deloitte.fi gturqieh@deloitte.com
France Nordics
Guy Aguera Eva Tuominen
Deloitte Conseil Deloitte Oy
gaguera@deloitte.fr eva.tuominen@deloitte.fi
Philippe Burger Norway
Deloitte Conseil Eva Gjovikli
phburger@deloitte.fr Deloitte AS
egjovikli@deloitte.no
Germany
Udo Bohdal-Spiegelhoff Poland
Deloitte Germany Magdalenda Jonczak
ubohdal@deloitte.de Deloitte Business Consulting S.A.
mjonczak@deloittece.com
Ireland
Cormac Hughes Portugal
Deloitte & Touche Joao Vaz
cohughes@deloitte.ie Deloitte Consultores, S.A.
jvaz@deloitte.pt
Israel
Aaron Gutnick Spain
Deloitte Israel Enrique de la Villa
agutnick@deloitte.co.il Deloitte Advisory, S.L.
edelavilla@deloitte.es
Italy
Lorenzo Manganini Switzerland
Deloitte Consulting SRL Sarah Kane
lmanganini@deloitte.it Deloitte Consulting Switzerland
sakane@deloitte.ch
Kenya
Kimani Njoroge Turkey
Deloitte Consulting Ltd Tolga Yaveroglu
knjoroge@deloitte.co.ke Deloitte Turkey
tyaveroglu@deloitte.com
Luxembourg
Basil Sommerfeld
Deloitte Tax & Consulting
bsommerfeld@deloitte.lu
This publication contains general information only and Deloitte is not, by means of this publication, rendering accounting, business,
financial, investment, legal, tax, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such professional advice
or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking
any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified professional advisor. Deloitte shall not be responsible for any loss
sustained by any person who relies on this publication.
As used in this document, "Deloitte" means Deloitte Consulting LLP, a subsidiary of Deloitte LLP. Please see www.deloitte.com/us/about for
a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte LLP and its subsidiaries. Certain services may not be available to attest clients under
the rules and regulations of public accounting.
©2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All Rights Reserved