.webp)
What Is a Job Evaluation Framework?
A job evaluation framework is a structured methodology for assessing the relative value of jobs within an organization based on job content rather than the person currently performing the role. Point-factor frameworks are the most common type used by mid-market and enterprise organizations; they score each role across a defined set of compensable factors, producing a numeric total that maps to a grade. The three leading point-factor frameworks are Hay Group (3 factors), Mercer IPE (8 factors), and JESAP (15 factors). Each produces grades, but they differ in legal coverage, audit defensibility, degree granularity, and implementation cost.
Why Framework Choice Determines Whether a Grade Is Defensible
A grade placement is defensible when it can be explained in specific, documented terms during an equal pay audit, a regulatory inquiry, or an employment tribunal claim. The explanation must cover not just what grade a role received but why it received that grade based on independently measured dimensions of job content.
What defensible means under equal pay law
Equal pay legislation across the major jurisdictions where US-based organizations operate establishes a consistent standard. The US Equal Pay Act, the UK Equality Act 2010, OFCCP Executive Order 11246, and the EU Pay Transparency Directive (enforceable June 2026) all require that when an employer justifies a pay difference between comparable roles based on job content, the evaluation method used must independently assess skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. These are not suggested dimensions. They are legally defined categories. A framework that does not independently score each of these dimensions cannot produce a grade that fully satisfies an equal value comparison challenge under these statutes.
This legal standard is what separates the frameworks on defensibility. Hay Group and Mercer IPE are both legitimate and widely used. But their factor architectures create specific gaps in equal pay law coverage that JESAP was designed to address.
The three criteria that separate defensible from indefensible grades
Any job evaluation framework produces defensible grades if it meets three criteria. First, the framework must independently score each legally required dimension: skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. If two of these dimensions are combined into a single factor, or if one is omitted, the evaluation record cannot fully answer the question an equal value claimant, or regulator, will ask. Second, the framework must use degree definitions that are specific enough to distinguish between roles that differ meaningfully on a given dimension. A broad degree band that places a Senior Engineer and a Principal Engineer in the same tier because the band is too wide produces grades that cannot explain the difference between the two roles. Third, the scoring record must be permanently stored and retrievable. A grade with no documented factor scores behind it is not a grade; it is an assertion. An assertion is not defensible.
Hay Group (Korn Ferry): Three Factors, Organizational Focus
How the Hay method works
The Hay method, now administered by Korn Ferry following the 2015 merger, evaluates roles on three factors: Know-How, Problem Solving, and Accountability. Know-How measures the technical knowledge, managerial breadth, and human relations skills the role requires. Problem Solving measures the analytical and creative demands of the role relative to the constraints within which it operates. Accountability measures the freedom to act, the scope of impact, and the magnitude of the role's contribution to organizational outcomes.
Each factor is scored using Hay's proprietary guide charts, which produce a numeric result. The three factor scores are combined using a weighted formula to produce the total Hay points that determine the grade. Evaluations are typically conducted by trained Hay consultants or by HR teams that have completed Hay certification, using guide charts licensed from Korn Ferry.
Where the Hay method is strong
The Hay method excels at comparing managerial and professional roles within organizational hierarchies, particularly in complex, multi-layered organizations where understanding the relative scope and authority of different levels of management is the primary evaluation objective. Because Know-How, Problem Solving, and Accountability map naturally to the cognitive and organizational dimensions of professional and executive roles, the method produces intuitive and broadly accepted grade outcomes for those populations.
Hay carries substantial institutional credibility. Major multinational corporations, public sector organizations, and large regulated industries have used Hay for decades. When the CHRO presents a grade structure to a board compensation committee, a Hay-certified structure requires no explanation of the methodology. The name carries the legitimacy.
The alignment between Korn Ferry's evaluation methodology and its salary survey data is also a practical advantage. Organizations using Korn Ferry surveys for benchmarking can match survey positions to their Hay-graded roles with relatively direct mapping.
Where the Hay method creates equal pay exposure
The Hay method's three-factor structure does not independently score physical demands, working conditions, or safety accountability. When an equal value claim compares an office-based role (a marketing analyst, for example) with an operational or warehouse role at the same Hay grade, the claim will question whether physical demands, environmental hazards, and safety responsibilities were independently assessed and weighted. The answer under the Hay framework is that they were not measured as independent factors. Know-How and Accountability capture some aspects of these dimensions, but not as separately scored components that can be individually examined.
For organizations with workforces primarily composed of managerial, professional, and executive roles where cross-functional equal value comparisons are unlikely to invoke physical demands or working conditions as contested dimensions, this limitation is less material. For organizations with mixed workforces including operational, clinical, manufacturing, or field-based roles, the gap is a structural vulnerability in any equal pay defense.
The implementation model is also a constraint. Hay evaluations require licensed guide charts and typically involve Korn Ferry consultants in the evaluation process, particularly for initial implementation and recalibration after organizational changes. This creates ongoing consulting dependency and cost that is proportional to the rate of organizational change.
.webp)
Mercer IPE: Eight Factors, Global Standardization
How Mercer IPE works
Mercer International Position Evaluation (IPE) assesses roles on eight factors organized into two dimensions. The Impact dimension covers Organization, Scope, and Communication. The Excellence dimension covers Innovation, Knowledge, Risk, and Leadership. Working Environment is the eighth factor, designed to capture physical and hazard conditions, though it combines dimensions that other frameworks score independently.
Each IPE factor is scored on a scale from 0 to 5, producing an IPE total that maps to a Mercer Career Band. Evaluations are conducted using Mercer's scoring guide and are typically supported by Mercer consultants, particularly for initial framework design and calibration. Once calibrated, organizations can run ongoing evaluations in-house with the scoring guide.
Where Mercer IPE is strong
Mercer IPE excels for global multinational organizations that need a single consistent framework across geographies and business units where roles are benchmarked using Mercer salary survey data. The framework's alignment with Mercer's survey methodology means that a role evaluated through IPE maps directly to the Mercer survey position structure, simplifying the survey matching process significantly.
IPE's eight factors provide broader coverage than Hay's three factors, which gives it more granularity in distinguishing roles with different profiles of innovation, communication, and leadership demands. For professional services firms, technology companies, and organizations where knowledge work dominates, the IPE structure reflects the dimensions that differentiate roles meaningfully.
IPE also carries strong global credibility. In regions where Mercer is the dominant survey provider, IPE is effectively the standard methodology, and Mercer-benchmarked organizations benefit from the alignment between their evaluation structure and their market data.
Where Mercer IPE creates equal pay exposure
Mercer IPE's eight factors include Working Environment as a single factor that addresses physical demands and environmental hazards together. Under an equal value claim, the question is whether physical demands and working conditions were independently assessed and weighted as separate dimensions. A single compressed factor that combines both makes this question harder to answer definitively. The IPE design reflects a practical trade-off: global consistency and manageability at the cost of the granularity that equal pay law ideally requires for the working conditions dimension.
For organizations where equal value comparisons are unlikely to contest the working conditions dimension specifically, this is a manageable limitation. For organizations in healthcare, manufacturing, utilities, logistics, or other sectors where roles differ significantly on physical demands and environmental hazards, the compression creates a gap that a skilled employment law claimant will identify.
Like Hay, Mercer IPE requires ongoing relationship with Mercer for guide access, calibration support, and framework updates. Organizations that use Mercer IPE independently of Mercer's consulting and survey relationships find the calibration and degree definition support more limited.
JESAP: Fifteen Factors, Legal Architecture by Design
How JESAP works
JESAP is CompBldr's proprietary point-factor job evaluation framework. It evaluates roles across 15 independently defined compensable factors organized into four categories: Knowledge and Skills (8 factors), Contacts and Human Relations (2 factors), Responsibilities (5 factors), and Working Conditions and Efforts (3 factors). Each factor is scored on a numeric degree scale, with up to 14 degree levels per factor, producing a JESA Ptotal that maps to a job grade.
The 15 factors cover: general experience, management experience, education, supervision received, planning, decision-making, mental demand, complexity of duties, internal contacts, external contacts, budget responsibility, confidential data, equipment and property, safety of others, physical demands, and working conditions and hazards. Each factor is scored independently. No factor is a composite of another.
Why 15 independent factors matter for legal compliance
JESAP's 15-factor structure is legal architecture, not methodological complexity. The four categories directly map to the four dimensions that equal pay law requires: skill (Knowledge and Skills), effort (Mental Demand, Physical Demands), responsibility (Responsibilities), and working conditions (Working Conditions and Efforts). Each dimension contains multiple independent factors rather than a single composite score, which means every dimension can be defended individually.
When an equal value claim asks whether physical demands were assessed, the answer is: yes, factor 13 (Physical Demands) was independently scored, degree 3 was assigned based on this documented degree definition, and the score is stored in the audit trail. That is a precise, documented answer. The same claim under Hay Group or Mercer IPE produces a different answer: physical demands were considered as part of Know-How or Working Environment, but not independently scored as a separate factor. The legal exposure in that answer is material.
JESAP's 14-degree scales per factor also provide the granularity needed to distinguish roles that differ meaningfully on a given dimension. A framework with three or four degree levels per factor compresses differences that a 14-level scale captures precisely, reducing grade compression over time.
What the JESA Ptotal produces and why it is auditable
The JESA Ptotal is the sum of the degree scores across all 15 factors for a given role. This total maps to a grade band on a documented point scale. The connection between the individual factor scores, the total, and the grade is transparent: if the JESA Ptotal is 294, it maps to Grade 5 because the Grade 5 band covers 261 to 330 points. If the total is 331, it maps to Grade 6. The boundary is documented and consistent.
In CompBldr, every JESAP evaluation is stored permanently with the evaluator identity, the date, each factor score, the degree definition selected for each factor, and the resulting total and grade assignment. This record can be retrieved at any time, years after the evaluation was conducted, for an audit, a regulatory inquiry, or a pay equity litigation discovery request.
Framework Comparison: JESAP vs Hay Group vs Mercer IPE
.webp)
How to Choose the Right Job Evaluation Framework for Your Organization
The three frameworks are not competing for the same buyer. They serve different organizational contexts and governance requirements. The decision is straightforward when the context is clearly defined.
Choose Hay Group if
- Your organization is a large, complex enterprise with 5,000 or more employees across multiple business units where organizational hierarchy comparison is the primary evaluation objective.
- You already have a Korn Ferry relationship for executive compensation, succession planning, or leadership assessment, and extending that relationship to job evaluation is cost-efficient.
- Your board compensation committee or senior leadership requires a globally recognized methodology name for grade structure credibility, and institutional brand carries decisive weight in that stakeholder environment.
- Your workforce is predominantly professional, managerial, and executive, and cross-functional equal value comparisons involving physical demands or working conditions are unlikely.
Choose Mercer IPE if
- Your organization is a global multinational that participates in Mercer salary surveys and needs direct alignment between evaluation methodology and benchmarking data source for simplified survey matching.
- You need a single consistent grade framework across 10 or more countries, and Mercer's global calibration infrastructure is already in use for other HR programs.
- Your workforce is primarily knowledge-work professionals where the IPE's Innovation, Knowledge, and Communication factors differentiate roles meaningfully.
Choose JESAP if
- Your organization needs grade placements that are fully documented and independently auditable under the EU Pay Transparency Directive, OFCCP equal pay analysis requirements, or the UK Equality Act's equal value provisions.
- Your workforce includes both professional and operational roles where equal value comparisons across job families are a realistic legal scenario.
- You want to eliminate consulting dependency from the job evaluation process and run evaluations directly in your compensation platform with your own HR team.
- You need the evaluation methodology embedded in the same platform that manages salary bands, merit cycles, and pay equity monitoring, so that the grade structure and the compensation governance process are connected rather than separate systems.
- Your organization is a mid-market company (150 to 2,000 employees) that needs the defensibility of a formal point-factor evaluation without the enterprise pricing and consulting overhead of Korn Ferry or Mercer's implementation models.
How CompBldr Implements JESAP Without a Consulting Dependency
JESAP is embedded in CompBldr's job evaluation module, which HR teams access directly without a consulting relationship or licensed guide chart requirement. The evaluation process runs in JESAP Studio, CompBldr's evaluation interface, where each of the 15 factors displays its degree definitions alongside the degree selector. The evaluator reads the documented definition for each degree level, selects the appropriate degree for the role being evaluated, and moves to the next factor. The JESA Ptotal updates in real time. When the evaluation is complete, the grade is automatically generated from the documented point-to-grade mapping.
The evaluation record is stored permanently in CompBldr with the evaluator's identity, the evaluation date, each factor's selected degree, the text of the degree definition that was applied, and the resulting JESA Ptotal and grade. This record cannot be edited retroactively. If the role is re-evaluated later due to a scope change, a new evaluation record is created with a new date, preserving the complete evaluation history for audit purposes.
Because JESAP is embedded in the same platform that manages salary bands, compensation benchmarking, and merit cycles, the grade assignment from the evaluation connects automatically to the salary band for that grade. When a new role is evaluated and assigned to Grade 5, the Grade 5 salary band built from Radford, Mercer, or WTW survey data is automatically the salary framework for that role. There is no manual transfer from an evaluation system to a compensation system. The two are the same system.
Hay Group, Mercer IPE, and JESAP are all legitimate point-factor job evaluation frameworks. The distinction that matters most for modern compensation governance is legal architecture: how many independent factors the framework scores, how granular its degree definitions are, and how permanent the scoring record is.
Hay Group's three-factor structure produces institutionally credible grades for managerial and professional populations but does not independently score physical demands or working conditions. Mercer IPE's eight factors extend coverage across knowledge and communication dimensions but compress the working conditions dimension into a single composite factor. JESAP's 15 independent factors map directly to the four dimensions that equal pay law requires: skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions, and produce a fully documented scoring record stored permanently in CompBldr.
For organizations evaluating which framework to adopt or replace, the decision should be made on four questions:
- Does your workforce include roles where physical demands or working conditions are likely subjects of equal value comparison?
- Do you need the grade structure to be self-contained in a platform that your HR team operates without consulting dependency?
- Does your legal and regulatory context (EU Pay Transparency Directive, OFCCP, UK Equality Act) require independently documented compensable factor scores?
- Does your evaluation methodology need to connect directly to your salary band structure and compensation governance platform?
For organizations where the answer to any of these questions is yes, JESAP is designed to meet that standard.
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
