European Journal of Operational Research 130 (2001) 375±387

www.elsevier.com/locate/dsw

Multicriteria job evaluation for large organizations

a,*
A. Spyridakos , Y. Siskos b, D. Yannacopoulos c, A. Skouris c

a
Business Administration Department, Technological Educational Institute of Piraeus, P. Ralli and Thivon 250, 12244 Aigaleo, Greece
b
DSS Laboratory, Technical University of Crete, 73100 Chania, Greece
c
Greek Telecom SA, Marousi, Athens, Greece
Received 3 December 1998; accepted 22 June 1999

Abstract

The job evaluation problem presents particular characteristics, the most important of which are: (1) the existence of
multiple factors that in¯uence the evaluation; (2) the decision is often the duty of a committee; and (3) the available data
include fussiness while the description, responsibilities and requirements of the jobs are usually not precisely deter-
mined. Nevertheless, job evaluation for large organisations is a crucial activity that enables the rationalisation of the
links between the importance of a job and the corresponding rewards.
In this paper a multicriteria disaggregation±aggregation approach is proposed to deal with the problem. Speci®cally,
the UTA-II method was used in order to assess a consistent additive value model that allows the ranking of the jobs
according to its relative importance. An application of this approach into a large Greek organisation is also described in
order to present the adjustment of the multicriteria disaggregation±aggregation philosophy to this kind of evaluation
problems. The implementation of this research project was supported by the MIIDAS system, which applies the above-
mentioned approach. Ó 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Multi-criteria decision support; Job evaluation

1. Introduction the improvement of the production or the services

One of the recent trends in the management of
large private or public enterprises is mainly based
on two processes: (a) the competence related hu-
man resources management; and (b) the perfor-
mance management. The ®rst is oriented towards
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tspyr@01p.gr (A. Spyridakos).
o€ered by exploiting the capacity that exists in a
person so as to satisfy the job demands. The sec-
ond concerns the management and development of
human resources and is based on the principles of
management by contracts or agreements. These
two processes are linked together since: (a) com-
petence involves personal trait, characteristics and
skills, which are related to e€ective or outstanding
job performance (Murphy, 1993); and (b) perfor-
mance management emphasises the development
and initiation of self-management plans as well as

0377-2217/01/$ - see front matter Ó 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 7 7 - 2 2 1 7 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 3 9 - 4
376 A. Spyridakos et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 130 (2001) 375±387
the integration of individual and corporate objec-
tives.
The job evaluation is a systematic process that
enables the design and establishment of human
resources improvement procedures and fair reward
systems. Actually, job evaluation concerns the as-
sessment of a value system that encapsulates the
importance of the parameters that re¯ect the
global responsibility and duties of a job. It is re-
markable that job evaluation does not concern the
holders of the job but how responsible the job is
and its share in the production of the desired re-
sults.
The upshot of the job evaluation has a positive
in¯uence on the above-mentioned two processes
(competence and performance management) since
it:
(a) aids the establishment of a reward system
that links the importance of the jobs to the pay-
ment o€ered, and
(b) supports the designation of human re-
sources development requirements in order to
improve the e€ectiveness of the jobsÕ opera-
tion.
This paper deals with the design and the imple-
mentation of a job evaluation system, which is
based on the multicriteria disaggregation±aggre-
gation UTA II method (Siskos, 1980). The re-
search work that is presented in this paper aims at
dealing with the particular characteristics of the
job evaluation problem by utilising the features of
the disaggregation±aggregation approach (Siskos
et al., 1993; Jacquet-Lagreze and Shakun, 1984;
Despotis et al., 1990; Hammond et al., 1977). This
approach was used for the evaluation of the
managerial jobs of a large Greek enterprise.
The outcome of this study was utilised to design
the payroll system.
The paper consists of an Introduction and four
other sections. An analysis of the job evaluation
problem and its associations with the payroll
strategy are presented in Section 2. In Section 3,
the methodological frame of the proposed multi-
criteria approach is analytically described. Then,
the above-mentioned case study is presented. Fi-
nally, the paper concludes by reviewing the out-
come of the proposed methodology on this kind of
evaluation problems.
2. The role of job evaluation in organisations
Job evaluation includes comparative processes
due to the fact that the relations and dependencies
among the jobs have to be explained. This consists
of an essential determinant that allows the man-
agement (through the analysis of the targets,
achievements and factors that in¯uence the re-
quirements of the jobs) to assign the correspond-
ing proportions of every job. For this reason job
evaluation usually includes an extensive analysis of
the roles, the objectives and the corresponding
actions and achievements of the jobs (Elliott,
1991). The outcome of this analysis is the estab-
lishment of structures that aid the comparison
among the jobs and support the evaluator(s) to
make consistent and reasonable judgements. This
is the reason why analytical processes have to be
implemented so as to make the collection and
handling of the required data be eciently
achieved.
In most of the cases, especially in large organ-
isations, job evaluation is the duty of a committee
composed of medium and high level managers.
Usually members of the workers' union also par-
ticipate in the Evaluation Committee. Conse-
quently, it is expected that there will be less
objectivity and con¯icting standpoints are likely to
arise. Nonetheless, it is obvious that a global ac-
ceptance of the job evaluation model constitute a
critical factor that e€ects the ecient utilisation of
the planned reward system.
Furthermore, diculties and crucial factors ap-
pear in the design and enforcement of a job evalu-
ation system and it is not incongruous to consider
that it is a semistructure or unstructured decision
problem (Roy, 1985). Some of these particular
characteristics are described in the following:
· There is a rather large number of linked or con-
¯icting factors, which in¯uence the evaluation.
· There is no step by step procedure or a structure
that enables the direct evaluation of the jobs. In
addition, every enterprise has its own strategic
and market plans that entail an individual
nature for the job evaluation procedure.
· There is a wide di€erentiation among jobs in re-
lation to their contribution to the results (quan-
titative and qualitative) of the enterprises. Some
 A. Spyridakos et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 130 (2001) 375±387
jobs have mainly supportive orientation (e.g. In-
formation Centre, Human Resources Manage-
ment) and others have a direct bearing to the
creation of the results (e.g. Marketing Depart-
ment, Branches, Sales Department, etc.). For
the ®rst group of jobs is often dicult to esti-
mate their contribution to the results of the or-
ganisation and to establish a fair measurement
system.
· The enterprises (public or private) operate in a
dynamic environment. Consequently, the job
evaluation data as well as the strategy and the
policy of the organisations are continuously un-
der modi®cation or adaptation.
Job evaluation within organisations aims at the
establishment of a relative value system that rein-
forces payroll decisions. The main attitudes of the
job evaluation system can be categorised as fol-
lows:
· provides a rational framework for planning and
establishing a fair payroll structure;
· allows job relation management within organi-
sation;
· aids the de®nition of the payroll analogies that
are correlated to the corresponding work (equal
payment for equal work).
The above described lead the analysts to take into
consideration three factors during the design of the
payroll system:
· The trends of the labour market since equilibri-
um is commonly established between the labour
needs and the salaries o€ered.
· The job importance from the organisationÕs
management point of view, which is the object
of the job evaluation system.
· The jobholderÕs performance (performance
measurement system).
For the job evaluation a considerable number
of approaches have been developed and used. The
most simple of them treat the problem providing a
ranking or a classi®cation of the jobs based on a
simple comparative process or on a simple points
factor rating system (Armstrong and Murlis, 1994;
Neathley, 1994).
One common approach consist in providing a
ranking of the jobs according to the perception of
their relative size. This approach is characterised
by low degree of rationality since the judgement of
377
the relative sizes of the jobs is not based on a kind
of standards or measures. Another approach uti-
lises a scale for the classi®cation of the jobs. Dif-
ferent levels of grades are assigned into a number
of characteristics such as ``decision making'',
``knowledge required'' and ``equipment used''.
Every job is posed on a position on the total scale
by its evaluation on the characteristics. This ap-
proach can be easily applied in cases where: (a)
there is a small number of jobs to be evaluated; (b)
the jobs are not too complex and they can be de-
scribed by the characteristics used; and (c) it is
quite easy to determine the borderlines between
two neighbouring positions on the scales for every
characteristic. Another commonly used approach
is based on the comparison of the jobs with an
internal benchmark one. This approach cannot be
applied in cases where there is a small number of
jobs and a high degree of di€erentiation among the
jobs does not exist. Otherwise it is dicult to de-
®ne a job which can be used as a benchmark.
The most common approach is the ``point fac-
tor rating'' (Candlili and Armagast, 1987; Plachy,
1987). According to this method the evaluation of
the jobs derives from a multiattribute value sys-
tem. The principles of this value system are based
on the essential of the Multiattribute Utility The-
ory (Keeney and Raifa, 1976; Keeney, 1992). This
approach is widely used by management consul-
tants and usually provides reasonable results but
lacks on the estimation of the weights of the at-
tributes and on the evaluation of the jobs on the
criteria. Actually, the factorsÕ weights are esti-
mated through a survey analysis or are directly
expressed by an expert or a management consul-
tant. It is obvious that in this case the determina-
tion of the components of the value system
operates like a ``black box'' for the organisation.
Also, the individual circumstances of the enter-
prise or organisation are not taken into account to
the extent that is required.
In spite of the job evaluation assessment pro-
cedures the payroll strategies can be eciently
determined based on a rational evaluation system.
Most of the cases the payroll is a combination of:
· A standard bonus aligned to the ranking of the
job positions in the organisationÕs job evaluation
system.
378 A. Spyridakos et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 130 (2001) 375±387

· Additional performance pay in accordance with gi are the least and most preferable levels of the
employeeÕs achievements regarding the preset criterion gi , respectively, and ui (gi ), pi are the val-
action plan targets. ues of the performance gi and the relative weight
of the ith criterion.
This value system can be obtained utilising the
3. The methodological frame MIIDAS System (Siskos et al., 1999) the spine of
which is the disaggregation±aggregation UTA II
The main target of the proposed methodologi- method. In Fig. 1 are presented the major steps of
cal frame is the assessment of a value system that is the methodological frame which are described in
described by the following formulae: detail in the following.
(i) Criteria modelling. The criteria in a job
X
n
U …g† ˆ pi ui …gi †; evaluation tasks can be divided into three catego-
iˆ1 ries: (a) Input criteria that include the knowledge,
u…gi † ˆ 0; u…gi † ˆ 1; for i ˆ 1; 2; . . . ; n; skills and personal characteristics which are re-
quired for the ecient accomplishment of the job;
Xn
pi ˆ 1; (b) Process criteria which encapsulate demands of
iˆ1 the job by its holder such as problem solving,
pi P 0; for i ˆ 1; 2; . . . ; n; complexity, originality, judgement, etc.; and (c)
Output criteria that represent the contribution of
where g ˆ …g1 ; g2 ; . . . ; gn † is the performance vec- the job to the quantitative and qualitative results
tor of a working position on the n criteria; gi and such as sales, quality of products, pro®t, etc.

Fig. 1. A multicriteria methodological frame for job evaluation.

 A. Spyridakos et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 130 (2001) 375±387 379

(ii) Selection of the reference set. From the total consecutive actions …am ; am‡1 † holds, either
number of the jobs a small number is selected am Pam‡1 (preference) either am Iam‡1 (indi€erence).
(reference set). The jobs of the reference set have to UTA II solves the linear program below which,
be: (a) known to the evaluators so as to express because of the transitivity of the (P, I) preference
their preference from a known situation; and (b) system has k constraints only. Special post-opti-
representative of the whole set of the jobs in order mality analysis techniques are also applied to test
to take into account the di€erent levels of the de- the stability of the estimated weights (see Jacquet-
cision space. Lagreze and Siskos, 1982; Siskos, 1980).
(iii) Evaluation of the jobs on the criteria. Since
the evaluation of the jobs on the criteria is the duty X
k
‰minŠ F ; F ˆ …r‡ …ai † ‡ rÿ …ai ††
of a committee of managers or executives, this iˆ1
procedure includes a high degree of judgmental
s:t:
and negotiation activities. Time consuming meet-
ings, communication and data handling proce- for m ˆ 1; 2; . . . ; k ÿ 1;
dures take place in order to: (a) determine the Xn

relative situation of every job; and (b) assign ac- pi ui ‰gi …am †Š ÿ r‡ …am † ‡ rÿ …am †
iˆ1
curate values on the criteria. In addition, this ac- " #
tivity provides the opportunity knowledge X
n

concerning the enterprise or the organisation to be ÿ pi ui ‰gi …am‡1 †Š ÿ r‡ …am‡1 † ‡ rÿ …am‡1 †

iˆ1
distributed among the members of the committee.
(iv) Assessment of the value system. The main Pd if am Pam‡1
stages for the assessment of the above-presented or
additive value model are: Xn
· The assessment of the marginal value functions pi ui ‰gi …am †Š ÿ r‡ …am † ‡ rÿ …am †
that re¯ect the variation of the criteria impor- iˆ1
" #
tance on their scale. X
n
· The estimation of the criteria weights that repre- ÿ pi ui ‰gi …am‡1 †Š ÿ r‡ …am‡1 † ‡ rÿ …am‡1 †
sent their relative importance. iˆ1

The determination of the model parameters (value ˆ 0 if am Iam‡1 ;

functions and the weights of the criteria) can be
done utilising the UTA II disaggregation±aggre-
gation approach (Siskos, 1980).
The assessment of the additive value model is
carried out through a two step procedure.
In the ®rst step, the DM expresses his/her
preferences. First, the construction of the marginal
value functions takes place, by assigning the vari-
ation of importance on the scale of each criterion.
This construction can be done using one of the
techniques that are embedded into the MIIDAS
system (Siskos et al., 1999).
In the second one, the UTA II method esti-
mates the weighting factors pi of the criteria using
special linear programming techniques. Suppose a
ranking (weak order) is given on a set of reference
actions Ar ˆ …a1 ; a2 ; . . . ; ak †, where the actions are
rearranged in such a way that a1 is the head and ak
is the tail of the ranking and for every pair of
X
n
pi ˆ 1; pi P 0; for i ˆ 1; 2; . . . ; n;
iˆ1
r‡ …aj † P 0; rÿ …aj † P 0; for j ˆ 1; 2; . . . ; k;
where d is a small positive number; gi (am ) the
evaluation of the am action on the ith criterion and
ui [gi (am )] the corresponding marginal value; and
r‡ (aj ), rÿ (aj ) is the under(over)estimation errors
concerning the jth action.
(v) Feedbacks: The ®nal accepted evaluation
model is assessed through iterative procedures,
where from the knowledge acquired from the ex-
ploitation of the instantly assessed preference
models in one of the iterations, prompts the eval-
uators to express better portraits of their knowl-
edge, experience and preferences. Criteria
modelling, selection of the reference set, evaluation
of the jobs on the criteria, ranking of the jobs of
380 A. Spyridakos et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 130 (2001) 375±387
the reference set are the most common used feed-
backs as they form the element for the encapsu-
lation of the evaluators knowledge and experience.
The information and knowledge acquired from the
assessment of the evaluation model in an iteration
leads to partial reconsideration of the problem
standpoints. In cases where a committee is re-
sponsible for the construction of the evaluation
system, a systematic co-operation with the Deci-
sion Analysts is required in order to approximate,
step by step, the evaluation model. These learning
procedures aid evaluators to realise the real nature
of the evaluation problem, which forms another
important aspect of this approach.
(vi) Extrapolation: The extrapolation is part of
the ®nal procedure where the assessed preference
model, which has been accepted by the evaluator
or the Evaluation Committee, is used in order to
rank order the whole set of the jobs.
(vii) Design of the reward system: The payroll
strategy group bears the responsibility for group-
ing jobs into clearly delineated payroll zones in
accordance with job evaluation. These zones are
de®ned in such a way as to meet the following
prerequisites:
· To have clearly de®ned limits leaving no space
for ambiguity or reaction to the system.
· To be few in number rendering the system ¯ex-
ible and avoiding di€erent pay for each job that
leads to a multiplex payroll system.
· To lead to a payroll climax for the jobholders
analogous to each jobÕs contribution to the re-
sults of the enterprise.
4. The job evaluation of a large Greek organisation
The above described disaggregation±aggrega-
tion approach was used for the job evaluation of a
large Greek organisation. The main target in this
case was to evaluate 102 managerial jobs, that is to
say the managers of the departments and branch-
es. These jobs can be categorised into two groups:
(a) operational (managers of the Head Oce de-
partments); and (b) executive (managers of the
branches all over Greece). In this paper a case
concerning the 26 operational jobs will be pre-
sented in order to illustrate the methodological
frame. The eciency of a methodological frame
and the way that it is used in a case is in¯uenced by
the speci®c circumstances under which the project
takes place. Consequently, it is required to de-
scribe these conditions in order to provide a better
picture of the project and how the job evaluation
e€ects and is e€ected by the operation of the or-
ganisation.
4.1. The speci®c circumstances
The main facts that in¯uence the process of the
job evaluation are brie¯y presented in the follow-
ing:
· The re-engineering process was oriented to con-
vert the management from a structure that had
been used for more than 20 years to a new one
commonly used by modern private enterprises.
New structures and orientations had been in-
serted led by two principles: (a) the enforcement
of the Performance Management; and (b) activ-
ities and products oriented towards the satisfac-
tion of the customers. These resulted in new
dynamic-raising diculties since the job evalua-
tion was implemented in a new and untried op-
erational environment.
· The organisation used to monopolise the prod-
ucts and services o€ered in Greece for many
years. In the next few years the market will
move to a new unregulated and high-compe-
tence situation due to the European Union
guidelines.
· At the same time two other signi®cant activities
were taking place: (a) the organisation had just
entered the Greek stock market; and (b) the ex-
pansion of the organisation into foreign neigh-
bouring markets through a considerable large
investment programme.
· The job evaluation project was the duty of a spe-
cial committee that was established by the top
management. This committee was supported by
a group of experts in decision sciences and eval-
uation systems. The Evaluation Committee con-
sisted of seven executives (managers or deputy
managers) of the main operational departments.
· Taking into account that it was the ®rst time
that an evaluation system was going to be estab-
 A. Spyridakos et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 130 (2001) 375±387
lished and used on an integrating basis it is ob-
vious that special handling had to be used in or-
der not to disturb the fragile equilibrium
between management and unions. This was
strongly recommended because new managerial
activities at this level ought to be accepted by
the personnel so as the changes would be sup-
ported and aided by all the parts.
4.2. The job evaluation model
As previously mentioned an example set of 26
managerial positions will be used for the illustra-
tion of the methodology. The jobs are referred
with the code names p1 ; p2 ; . . . ; p26 . Input and data
required were handled and provided by the Ad-
ministration Department. The available informa-
tion for this evaluation was the job descriptions
which had been recently implemented in the
framework of the re-engineering process, the an-
nual reports, the budget programmed to be han-
dled by every position and the documents
concerning the strategic plans of the organisation.
The criteria used had been divided into three
categories (input, process, and output). Fig. 2
Fig. 2. The criteria modelling.
381
presents the family of criteria used in this case in a
hierarchical structure. Also, in Appendix A an
analytical description of every criterion modelling
is presented as well as the rules for the evaluation of
the jobs on the criteria. The construction of this
family of criteria was a joint work of the Evalua-
tion Committee and the Decision Analysts. All the
criteria used are qualitative ones. For all the crite-
ria except the criterion ``Required Quali®cations by
the job holder'' a scale of ®ve discrete degrees was
used. For the criterion ``Required Quali®cations by
the jobholder'' the scale includes 16 degrees.
The evaluation of the jobs was a laborious
work since the required data had to be handled
and structured in order to be in a form that would
be comprehensible by the Evaluation Committee.
After that, a questionnaire was distributed to the
members of the Evaluation Committee including a
table asking them to evaluate the jobs on the cri-
teria. Following the con¯icting opinions had to be
drowning near. This was succeeded by the appo-
sition of facts and information that were veri®ed
or disputed opinions and arguments of the Eval-
uation Committee. In Fig. 3 the evaluation of the
jobs on the criteria is presented, derived from the
above-mentioned judgmental process.
382 A. Spyridakos et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 130 (2001) 375±387

Fig. 3. Criteria±Jobs±Evaluation (MIIDAS scene layout).

The assessment of the additive value model was weights of the criteria were estimated for the
done using the MIIDAS system through iterative ranking coming from the Cook and Seiford model
procedures. In the ®rst session an additive value as well as the rankings of every member of the
model was constructed, that is to say that a ®rst committee. The weights of the criteria were esti-
approach of the value functions and the weights of mated solving the linear programming problem
the criteria was assessed. The construction of the described in Section 3. The exploitation of the ®rst
value functions was done using special dialogues assessed evaluation model resulted in a circle of
based on the frame of the midvalue split point feedbacks.
technique (Keeney and Raifa, 1976). Then a ref- A number of meetings took place in order to
erence set of 13 jobs was selected. The selection of determine the feedbacks coming as a response of
the reference jobs was done under the previously
mentioned two considerations: (a) the selected jobs
were familiar to the members of the Evaluation
Committee; and (b) they were representative of the
whole set of jobs. The ®rst was assured by the fact
that the members of the Evaluation Committee
had some connection with the jobs (e.g. holders or
associate managers or executives) and the second
was assessed by a cluster analysis that determines
the similarities among the jobs and is included into
the MIIDAS system. The ranking of the jobs of
the reference set was done using the social choice
function of Cook and Seiford (1978) model.
Every member of the committee ranked the
jobs of the reference set. A ranking of the jobs was
estimated by the minimisation of the summation
of the absolute di€erences of the Evaluation
CommitteeÕs rankings from the assessed one. For a
better exploitation of the evaluation model, the Fig. 4. Value function of the criterion ``Quali®cations''.
 A. Spyridakos et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 130 (2001) 375±387 383

Fig. 7. Value function of the criterion ``Multiplicity''.

Fig. 5. Value function of the criterion ``Management''.

Fig. 8. Value function of the criterion ``Responsibility''.

Fig. 6. Value function of the criterion ``Decisions''.

the Evaluation Committee. In every session an

evaluation model closer to the ®nal one adopted
was assessed. This process was ®nished when a
satisfactory model for Evaluation Committee was
assessed. The value functions of this model are
presented in Figs. 4±9 and the weights of the cri-
teria in Fig. 10. Also, in Fig. 11 the ordinal re-
gression curve of the assessed evaluation model is
presented in a form that is produced by the MII-
DAS system.
The ®nal stage of this process was the use of
this model for the ranking of the total set of the Fig. 9. Value function of the criterion ``Budget''.
384 A. Spyridakos et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 130 (2001) 375±387

Fig. 10. The estimated weights of the criteria.

Fig. 11. Ordinal regression curve.

jobs (see Fig. 12 where the ®nal ranking of the lowing four groups according to their Global
working positions are presented in a layout of Utility:
MIIDAS system).
Finally the ranking of the whole set of jobs Group JobÕs global utility No. of ranked jobs
was used for the design of the payroll strategy. A
1st Above 0.65 1±7
scale with strictly ®ve or six levels was created in a
2nd From 0.50 to 0.65 8±12
way that jobs that converge to a degree are placed
3rd From 0.40 to 0.50 13±20
into the same payroll scale level. For example, in
4th From 0.30 to 0.40 21
Fig. 12 the jobs can be categorised in the fol-
 A. Spyridakos et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 130 (2001) 375±387 385

Fig. 12. Extrapolation to the whole set of jobs.

5. Conclusions cerning the concept and the use of the

multicriteria approaches. This will be useful for
The job evaluation includes characteristics that the future providing new perspectives to evalua-
can be categorised in this kind of semistructure tion processes. Also, this research work com-
multicriteria problems. The proposed approach prises one of the ®rst stages of a project
provides satisfactory results the most important of concerning the business process re-engineering of
which are as follows: the organisation.
· The evaluation process is an ``open'' procedure
where the evaluator has the control of the eval-
uation model components estimation.
· Provides the ¯exibility to combine the di€erent Appendix A. Criteria modelling
opinions and considerations through interactive
iterative procedures. A.1. Criterion 1: Required Quali®cations and Skills
· Operates in a group decision-making environ-
ment where the decisions are crucial and in¯u- Three characteristics have been combined for
ence the equilibrium states since the job the construction of the criterion Required Quali-
evaluation is related to the wages and human re- ®cations and Skills.
sources improvement.
Job evaluation and payroll strategies ought to
be reviewed regularly since degrees of importance 1. Knowledge ± Formal studies
for jobs within an organisation may diversify as a
consequence of the jobÕs role modi®cation. This is Levels Points (Grade 1)
required in order for the organisation to adapt to
Higher 1
the dynamics caused by the new open market and
(Secondary or technical school)
the planned general operational strategy for the
Technological degree 3
coming years.
University degree 4
Another signi®cant outcome for the organi-
Post-graduate studies 5
sation was that know-how was acquired con-
386 A. Spyridakos et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 130 (2001) 375±387

2. Skills ± Expertise Structure of Participation to committees

decisions Seldom Regular Continuous
Levels Points (Grade 2)
and strongly
Limited 1 required
Sucient 2
Structured 1 2 3
Signi®cant 3
Semistructured 2 3 4
Unstructured 3 4 5
3. Required experience

Levels Points (Grade 3)

Scale of 5 yr 1 A.4. Criterion 4: Multiplicity of the projects
Scale of 10 yr 2
Scale of 15 yr 3 The evaluation of the jobs on this criterion is
based on a cross margin of the characteristics
The evaluation of a job pi is done using the ``Quantity of duties and projects'' and ``di€erenti-
following formulae: ation of the projects''. A scale consisted of ®ve
gi …pi † ˆ 2  Grade 1 ‡ Grade 2 ‡ 2  Grade 3: degrees is used. The evaluation rules are presented
in the following table:

A.2. Criterion 2: Human resources management Quantity of Di€erentiation of projects

projects Limited to small Signi®cant
This criterion combines ``the number of sub-
ordinates'', ``Knowledge level of the subordinates'' Small 1 ±
and ``Degree of communication between the di- Medium 2 4
rector and the subordinates''. Large 3 5
1. Limited: 0±35 subordinates and frequent com-
munication or 1±100 subordinates and limited
communication. A.5. Criterion 5: Responsibility
2. Rather limited: 35±70 subordinates and fre-
quent communication or 100±200 subordinates 1. Limited: No strategic planning, no crucial ac-
and low communication. tions, narrow geographical area, limited ®nan-
3. Medium: 71±150 subordinates and frequent cial results.
communication or 200±400 subordinates and 2. Medium: Intermediate grade to be chosen by
least communication. the evaluator.
4. Signi®cant: 150±400 subordinates and frequent 3. Rather high: Intermediate grade to be chosen by
communication or 400±700 subordinates and the evaluator.
low communication. 4. High: Intermediate grade to be chosen by the
5. Extremely signi®cant: 400 subordinates with evaluator.
frequent communication and high quali®cation 5. Very high: Strategic role, crucial actions, wide
or 700 subordinates with least communica- area, wide support of other departments, quite
tion. high ®nancial results.

A.3. Criterion 3: Contribution to decision making

A.6. Criterion 6: Budget handling
A scale with ®ve degrees is used in this criterion
(1: Limited, 2: Medium, 3: Rather high, 4: High, 5: A qualitative scale with ®ve degrees was also
Very high). used in this criterion because of the plurality of the
 A. Spyridakos et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 130 (2001) 375±387
di€erent economical accounts that were used by
the jobs (Expenses, Income, Budget, etc.). The
Evaluation Committee supported by the Decision
Analysts did the evaluation of the jobs.
References
Armstrong, M., Murlis, H., 1994. Reward Management: A
Handbook of Renumeration Strategy and Practice. Kogan
Page, London.
Candlili, A.J., Armagast, R.D., 1987. The case for e€ective
point-factor job evaluation. Compensation and Bene®ts,
49±54.
Cook, W.D., Seiford, L.M., 1978. Priority ranking and
consensus formation. Management Science 24 (1), 59±73.
Despotis, D.K., Yannacopoulos, D., Zopounidis, C., 1990. A
review of the UTA multicriteria method and some improve-
ments. Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences 15
(2), 63±76.
Elliott, R.F., 1991. Labour Economics. McGraw-Hill, London.
Hammond, K.R., Cook, R.L., Adelman, L., 1977. POLICY:
An aid for decision making and international communica-
tion. Columbia Journal of World Business, 79±93.
Jacquet-Lagreze, E., Siskos, Y., 1982. Assessing a set of
additive utility functions for multicriteria decision making.
387
European Journal of Operational Research 10 (2), 151±
164.
Jacquet-Lagreze, E., Shakun, M.F., 1984. Decision support
system for semistructured buying decisions. European
Journal of Operational Research 16 (1), 48±56.
Keeney, R.L., Raifa, H., 1976. Decision with Multiple Objec-
tives: Preferences and Value Tradeo€s. Wiley, New York.
Keeney, R., 1992. Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative
Decision Making. Harvard University Press, London.
Neathley, F., 1994. Job Evaluation in the 1990s. Industrial
Relations Services, London.
Plachy, R.J., 1987. The case of e€ective point-factor job
evaluation, viewpoint 1. Compensation and Bene®ts,
pp. 12±27.
Roy, B., 1985. Methodologie multicritere d'Aide E la Decision.
Economica, Paris.
Siskos, Y., 1980. Comment modeliser les preferences au moyen
de fonctions dÕutilite additives. RAIRO Recherche Opera-
tionnelle 14, 53±82.
Siskos, Y., Spyridakos, A., Yannacopoulos, D., 1993. MINO-
RA: A multicriteria decision aiding system for discrete
alternatives. In: Siskos, Y., Zopounidis, C. (Eds.), Special
Issue on Multicriteria Decision Support Systems. Journal of
Information Science and Technology 2 (2), 136±149.
Siskos, Y., Spyridakos, D., Yannacopoulos, D., 1999. Using
arti®cial intelligence and visual techniques into preferences
disaggregation analysis: The MIIDAS system. European
Journal of Operational Research 113, 281±299.