Evaluating Jobs Clause Samples

The 'Evaluating Jobs' clause defines the process and criteria by which completed work or deliverables are assessed for quality and compliance with agreed-upon standards. Typically, this clause outlines who is responsible for the evaluation, the timeframe in which evaluations must occur, and the specific benchmarks or metrics used to judge the work. Its core practical function is to ensure that both parties have a clear, objective method for determining whether the work meets contractual expectations, thereby reducing disputes and facilitating timely acceptance or revision of deliverables.
Evaluating Jobs. 7.1 Consistency and objectivity are essential attributes in evaluation. The following list represents the most common do’s and don’ts for evaluators. They should: • not make assumptions about the nature or scope of others’ jobs. This can lead to underestimation or overestimation of the value of different jobs. • ensure that any important job demands are not omitted. • ensure that there is no double counting of job demands. • be wary of the “halo effect”, that is an unconscious assumption that a job holder should score highly on all factors, because the job holder has scored well on the first factor(s). • be wary of the “reverse halo effect”, that is an unconscious assumption that a job holder should not score well on all factors, because the job holder has not scored well on the first factor(s). • be aware that jobs that are known to have high status will not necessarily score highly on all factors. Similarly jobs which have low status will not necessarily score poorly on all factors. • not allow prior knowledge about present pay or the status of job holders to influence rating decisions. 7.2 The following points represent good practice which may be helpful to evaluation panels: everyone on the panel should have an opportunity to read the job information before any formal discussion takes place [see Technical Note 11]. • The outcomes of the panels should be monitored by a moderation/consistency panel for the purposes of ensuring consistency and to avoid gender bias • evaluation on the basis of job content, rather than job title or historic grading or pay. • apply local conventions for interpreting key words and parameters in the factor plan or questions in Gauge™ to ensure standard interpretation and to reflect local circumstances [see Technical Note 1] panels should aim to operate on a basis of consensus and to record their decisions and the reasons for them 7.3 Where a reasonable adjustment is made to a job under the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, evaluation should generally follow the principle of evaluating the job, not the job holder. For example, where a reasonable adjustment involves the disabled job holder using technology that the post would not otherwise require or the re-allocation of minor or subsidiary duties to another employee, these modifications should not affect the evaluation of the post. Where, however, major adjustments are made to the duties of a post, beyond what might be deemed “reasonable”, in order to enable a disabled perso...
View SourceView Similar (30)

Related to Evaluating Jobs

  • Experience A minimum of 1 year of IT work experience in computer systems or support with demonstrated working knowledge of basic hardware and software products and problem solving/troubleshooting skills.

  • ECONOMIC RISK; SOPHISTICATION 19 Section 13. NONDISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

  • Evaluator Any person designated by a superintendent who has primary or supervisory responsibility for observation and evaluation. The superintendent is responsible for ensuring that all Evaluators have training in the principles of supervision and evaluation. Each Educator will have one primary Evaluator at any one time responsible for determining performance ratings. i) Primary Evaluator shall be the person who determines the Educator’s performance ratings and evaluation. ii) Supervising Evaluator shall be the person responsible for developing the Educator Plan, supervising the Educator’s progress through formative assessments, evaluating the Educator’s progress toward attaining the Educator Plan goals, and making recommendations about the evaluation ratings to the primary Evaluator at the end of the Educator Plan. The Supervising Evaluator may be the primary Evaluator or his/her designee.

  • Sophisticated Investor (i) Subscriber is sophisticated in financial matters and is able to evaluate the risks and benefits of the investment in the Securities. (ii) Subscriber is aware that an investment in the Securities is highly speculative and subject to substantial risks because, among other things, the Securities are subject to transfer restrictions and have not been registered under the Securities Act and therefore cannot be sold unless subsequently registered under the Securities Act or an exemption from such registration is available. Subscriber is able to bear the economic risk of its investment in the Securities for an indefinite period of time.

  • Sophistication The Stockholder acknowledges that he is an informed and sophisticated investor and, together with his advisors, has undertaken such investigation as they have deemed necessary, including the review of the Merger Agreement and this Agreement, to enable the Stockholder to make an informed and intelligent decision with respect to the Merger Agreement and this Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby and hereby.