JESAP Framework

JESAP: A 15-Factor Point-Based Job Evaluation Framework Built for Audit Defensibility.

JESAP is a point-factor job evaluation methodology that scores every role across 15 independently defined compensable factors, organized into four categories. The result is a numeric grade that is fully traceable to documented factor scores, capable of withstanding equal pay audits, regulatory inquiries, and internal compensation challenges.

Explore Job EvaluationDownload Reports

The Standard Every Job Evaluation Framework Is Judged Against.

Not all job evaluation frameworks produce defensible grades. The difference between a grade that holds up under an equal pay audit and one that does not comes down to three things: how many legally distinct dimensions the framework independently scores, how granular its degree definitions are, and whether it produces a documented scoring record that can be reconstructed years later.

Independent Factor Coverage

Equal pay legislation, including the EU Pay Transparency Directive, the UK Equality Act, and US Executive Order 11246, requires that job evaluation cover skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions as independent dimensions. A framework that collapses these into composite factors, or omits working conditions entirely, fails to meet the legal standard for a defensible equal pay audit.

Degree Granularity

A framework with broad degree bands compresses distinctions between roles that are meaningfully different. When two roles with different scope and complexity fall into the same degree band because the band is too wide, the resulting grades are indistinguishable and indefensible. JESAP uses up to 14 degree levels per factor, providing the granularity needed to differentiate senior roles without arbitrary subjectivity.

Scoring Record and Audit Trail

A grade is only defensible if the scoring record behind it is preserved. If an evaluator can only say, "We assessed this role as a Grade 4," the grade cannot be challenged or defended on its merits. JESAP's point-factor design means every grade is traceable to a set of degree selections across 15 factors, each of which maps to a documented degree definition. In CompBldr, that record is stored permanently and is retrievable at any time.

Four Categories. Fifteen Factors. No Dimension Left Unscored.

JESAP organizes its 15 compensable factors into four categories, each covering a distinct legal and organizational dimension of job value. The categories are not cosmetic groupings, each maps to a specific dimension that equal pay law requires to be evaluated independently.

Knowledge and Skills

Covers the experience, education, planning, decision-making, and supervisory knowledge required to perform the role. This represents the skill dimension under equal pay law.
8 Factors

Contacts and Human Relations

2 Factors
Covers the nature and consequence of internal and external contacts required. This reflects communication complexity and relationship management as a component of role effort.

Responsibilities

Covers budget authority, confidential data, equipment and property, safety of others, and mental demands. This represents the full responsibility dimension under equal pay law.
5 Factors

Working Conditions and Efforts

Covers machine and computer operations, physical demands, and working condition hazards. This represents the working conditions dimension that many frameworks omit or compress.
3 Factors

The 15 JESAP Compensable Factors: Full Reference.

Each of the 15 JESAP factors is independently scored. No factoris a composite of another. The evaluator assigns a numeric degree to eachfactor based on documented degree definitions — the same definitions visible inJESAP Studio during evaluation. The sum of all degree scores produces the JESAPtotal that maps to a grade assignment.

Three-Factor Frameworks Miss the Legal Compliance Dimension

The Hay method evaluates on Know-How, Problem Solving, and Accountability. Those three factors work well for comparing managerial and professional roles in organizational hierarchy and cognitive complexity. They do not independently score physical demands, working conditions, or safety accountability. For equal pay claims comparing office-based and operational roles, that absence is a structural weakness.

Eight-Factor Frameworks Compress Legally Distinct Dimensions

Mercer IPE includes Environment as a single factor intended to capture working conditions and physical demands together. In an equal pay claim, the question is often whether a specific dimension of job demands was independently assessed and weighted. A compressed factor that combines multiple legally distinct dimensions makes the answer harder to produce.

JESAP's Seven Responsibility Factors Are Legal Architecture

JESAP scores Mental Demands, Physical Demands, Working Conditions, Safety of Others, Budget Responsibility, Confidential Data, and Equipment as independent factors because each represents a distinct dimension of organizational investment. For equal pay compliance, the independence of these factors is not a complex choice. It is the design feature that makes equal value comparison legally defensible across roles that differ on these dimensions.

Narrow Frameworks Produce Grade Compression Over Time

When a framework uses three factors, roles that differ significantly in supervision exercised, physical demands, or external contact frequency receive identical scores because those dimensions are not measured. Over time, that scoring compression produces a grade structure where genuinely different roles sit at the same grade level. The grade structure then cannot explain, to a regulator or a claimant, why those roles were treated as equivalent.
Knowledge and Skills
Contacts and Human Relations
Responsibilities and Working Conditions

Covers what an employee needs to know and be able to do before they can
perform the role at full competency. This group constitutes the primary skill dimension.

#
Factor
What It Measures
Degrees
1
Experience, General
The minimum duration and type of general work experience required to become familiar with the organization's services, operations, policies, procedures, and practices as they relate to the role.
0 – 14
2
Experience, Management
The supervisory, managerial, or leadership experience required to direct the work of others, manage resources, or carry functional accountability beyond individual contribution.
0 – 14
3
Education
The minimum level of formal education, vocational training, or equivalent academic preparation required to perform the role. Not a proxy for general intelligence, a measure of the structured knowledge base the role requires.
0 – 8
4a
Supervision Received
The degree of oversight, review, and direction the role receives from above. A role performed under close daily supervision scores lower than a role that sets its own priorities and receives only periodic review.
0 – 6
4b
Planning
The extent to which the role requires forward-looking planning, scheduling, and coordination of work beyond the immediate task—including planning for others, for projects, or for operational continuity.
0 –6
4c
Decision-Making
The independence, consequence, and authority of decisions made in the role. Covers both the scope of decisions (tactical vs. strategic) and the impact of those decisions on the organization or its clients.
0 – 8
5
Mental Demand
The cognitive complexity, sustained concentration, analytical depth, and problem-solving intensity required by the role on a regular basis. Distinct from education, measures the mental effort required in execution.
0 – 6
6
Complexity of Duties
The variety, interdependency, and non-routine nature of the role's primary duties. A role with highly standardized tasks scores lower than one that regularly encounters novel situations requiring independent judgment.
0 – 8
#1
Degrees: 0 — 14
Experience General
The minimum duration and type of general work experience required to become familiar with the organization's services, operations, policies, procedures, and practices as they relate to the role.
#2
Degrees: 0 — 14
Experience Management
The supervisory, managerial, or leadership experience required to direct the work of others, manage resources, or carry functional accountability beyond individual contribution.
#3
Degrees: 0 – 8
Education
The minimum level of formal education, vocational training, or equivalent academic preparation required to perform the role. Not a proxy for general intelligence  a measure of the structured knowledge base the role requires.
#4a
Degrees: 0 — 6
Supervision Received
The degree of oversight, review, and direction the role receives from above. A role performed under close daily supervision scores lower than a role that sets its own priorities and receives only periodic review.
#4b
Degrees: 0 –6
Planning
The extent to which the role requires forward-looking planning, scheduling, and coordination of work beyond the immediate task  including planning for others, for projects, or for operational continuity.
#4c
Degrees: 0 – 8
Experience General
The independence, consequence, and authority of decisions made in the role. Covers both the scope of decisions (tactical vs. strategic) and the impact of those decisions on the organization or its clients.
#5
Degrees: 0 – 6
Mental Demand
The cognitive complexity, sustained concentration, analytical depth, and problem-solving intensity required by the role on a regular basis. Distinct from education  measures the mental effort required in execution.
#6
Degrees: 0 — 8
Complexity of Duties
The variety, interdependency, and non-routine nature of the role's primary duties. A role with highly standardized tasks scores lower than one that regularly encounters novel situations requiring independent judgment.

The Contacts and Human Relations group coversthe communication and relationship dimension of the role.
Two factors evaluatethe frequency, purpose, and consequence of interactions with people inside andoutside the organization.

#
Factor
What It Measures
Degrees
7
Internal Contacts
The frequency, seniority level, and purpose of interactions with colleagues, managers, and other organizational stakeholders. Covers both routine coordination and interactions that require negotiation, influence, or senior stakeholder management.
0 – 8
8
External Contacts
The nature, frequency, and consequence of interactions with parties outside the organization. including clients, regulators, vendors, government bodies, and the public. A role with no external contact scores 0. A role whose primary output is external relationship management scores at the high end.
0 – 8
#7
Degrees: 0 — 8
Internal Contacts
The frequency, seniority level, and purpose of interactions with colleagues, managers, and other organizational stakeholders. Covers both routine coordination and interactions that require negotiation, influence, or senior stakeholder management.
#2
Degrees: 0 — 8
External Contacts
The nature, frequency, and consequence of interactions with parties outside the organization  including clients, regulators, vendors, government bodies, and the public. A role with no external contact scores 0. A role whose primary output is external relationship management scores at the high end.

The Responsibilities and Working Conditions group defines what the role is accountable for and the conditions under which it operates.
Five factors evaluate financial authority, data stewardship, responsibility for equipment and property, safety obligations, and physical and environmental demands.

#
Factor
What It Measures
Degrees
9
Budget and Financial Responsibility
The dollar authority, budget ownership, or financial consequence of decisions made in the role. Covers both direct budget control and the financial impact of errors, approvals, or recommendations.
0 – 8
10
Confidential Data
The sensitivity of information the role routinely accesses and the consequence of unauthorized disclosure. A role with access to general company information scores lower than one managing executive compensation data, M&A information, or personal health records.
0 – 6
11
Equipment and Property
The value, criticality, and consequence of damage or loss for the equipment, systems, or property the role is responsible for operating, maintaining, or overseeing.
0 – 6
12
Safety of Others
The degree to which the role is responsible for the physical safety of other employees, clients, or the public. A role with no safety obligation scores 0. A role whose primary function is safety management or whose decisions directly affect physical safety of others scores at the high end.
0 – 6
13
Machine and Computer Operations
The complexity, specialization, and consequence of the equipment, machinery, or computer systems the role is required to operate. Distinct from Equipment Responsibility  this factor measures operational skill, not ownership accountability.
0 – 12
14
Working Conditions Hazards
The exposure to physical hazards, environmental risks, or health-affecting conditions under which the role must be performed on a regular basis. Covers chemical exposure, extreme temperatures, heights, noise, and other regulated conditions.
0 – 8
15
Mental Physical Demands
The physical effort, postural requirements, repetitive motion, and ergonomic load required by the role as a routine part of its duties. A sedentary office role scores 0. A role requiring sustained physical activity, lifting, or repetitive physical operations scores proportionally.
0 – 7
#9
Degrees: 0 – 8
Budget and Financial Responsibility
The dollar authority, budget ownership, or financial consequence of decisions made in the role. Covers both direct budget control and the financial impact of errors, approvals, or recommendations.
#10
Degrees: 0 – 6
Confidential Data
The sensitivity of information the role routinely accesses and the consequence of unauthorized disclosure. A role with access to general company information scores lower than one managing executive compensation data, M&A information, or personal health records.
#11
Degrees: 0 – 6
Equipment and Property
The value, criticality, and consequence of damage or loss for the equipment, systems, or property the role is responsible for operating, maintaining, or overseeing
#12
Degrees: 0 — 6
Safety of Others
The degree to which the role is responsible for the physical safety of other employees, clients, or the public. A role with no safety obligation scores 0. A role whose primary function is safety management or whose decisions directly affect physical safety of others scores at the high end.
#13
Degrees: 0 – 12
Machine and Computer Operations
The complexity, specialization, and consequence of the equipment, machinery, or computer systems the role is required to operate. Distinct from Equipment Responsibility  this factor measures operational skill, not ownership accountability.
#14
Degrees: 0 – 8
Working Conditions Hazards
The exposure to physical hazards, environmental risks, or health-affecting conditions under which the role must be performed on a regular basis. Covers chemical exposure, extreme temperatures, heights, noise, and other regulated conditions.
#15
Degrees: 0 – 7
Mental Physical Demands
The physical effort, postural requirements, repetitive motion, and ergonomic load required by the role as a routine part of its duties. A sedentary office role scores 0. A role requiring sustained physical activity, lifting, or repetitive physical operations scores proportionally.

How Degree Definitions Work: Factor 1 as a Reference Example.

Every JESAP factor has a degree scale with documented thresholddefinitions for each degree level. The evaluator reads the definition, assessesthe role against it, and selects the degree that most accurately describes therole's requirements. The selection is recorded. The definition is preserved.Below is the complete degree scale for Factor 1: Experience, General.

Degrees
Threshold Label
Degree Definition - Experience (General)
0
Not Required
The role does not require any formal experience period. Can be performed by a new hire with general orientation.
1
Up to 6 months
Requires a short familiarization period of up to six months to understand the organization's services, operations, and procedures.
2
6 months to 1 year
Requires up to one year to develop working knowledge of departmental operations, standard procedures, and organizational context.
3
1 to 2 years
Requires one to two years of progressive experience to operate with reasonable independence across the role's primary responsibilities.
4
2 to 3 years
Requires two to three years to develop a thorough understanding of the functional area, its interdependencies, and organizational expectations.
5
3 to 4 years
Requires three to four years of direct experience in this or a closely related function to perform at full competency.
6
4 to 5 years
Requires four to five years of relevant experience, typically including exposure to more than one area within the function.
7
5 to 6 years
Requires five to six years, including progressively complex assignments that build broad functional knowledge.
8
6 to 7 years
Requires six to seven years, typically with demonstrated specialization in a core area of the function.
9
7 to 8 years
Requires seven to eight years, including experience managing ambiguous situations and contributing to functional strategy.
10
8 to 9 years
Requires eight to nine years, with evidence of cross-functional influence and contribution beyond the immediate role scope.
11
9 to 10 years
Requires nine to ten years of cumulative experience, typically spanning multiple functional areas or disciplines.
12
10 to 12 years
Requires ten to twelve years, typically including leadership experience and demonstrated ability to develop others.
13
12 to 15 years
Requires twelve to fifteen years, including sustained contribution at senior levels across multiple cycles or projects.
14
15+ years
Requires fifteen or more years of progressive, senior-level experience. Typically associated with principal, director-equivalent, or C-suite adjacent roles.
0
Not Required
Degree Definition
Job grades are defined by score ranges derived from the JESAP evaluation framework. Grade assignment follows the evaluation score, not the hiring manager's preference.
01
Up to 6 months
Degree Definition
Requires a short familiarization period of up to six months to understand the organization's services, operations, and procedures.
02
6 months to 1 year
Degree Definition
Requires up to one year to develop working knowledge of departmental operations, standard procedures, and organizational context.6 months to 1 year
03
1 to 2 years
Degree Definition
Requires one to two years of progressive experience to operate with reasonable independence across the role's primary responsibilities.
04
2 to 3 years
Degree Definition
Requires two to three years to develop a thorough understanding of the functional area, its interdependencies, and organizational expectations.
05
3 to 4 years
Degree Definition
Requires three to four years of direct experience in this or a closely related function to perform at full competency.
06
4 to 5 years
Degree Definition
Requires four to five years of relevant experience, typically including exposure to more than one area within the function.
07
5 to 6 years
Degree Definition
Requires five to six years, including progressively complex assignments that build broad functional knowledge.
08
6 to 7 years
Degree Definition
Requires six to seven years, typically with demonstrated specialization in a core area of the function.
09
7 to 8 years
Degree Definition
Requires seven to eight years, including experience managing ambiguous situations and contributing to functional strategy.
10
8 to 9 years
Degree Definition
Requires eight to nine years, with evidence of cross-functional influence and contribution beyond the immediate role scope.
11
9 to 10 years
Degree Definition
Requires nine to ten years of cumulative experience, typically spanning multiple functional areas or disciplines.
12
10 to 12 years
Degree Definition
Requires ten to twelve years, typically including leadership experience and demonstrated ability to develop others.
13
12 to 15 years
Degree Definition
Requires twelve to fifteen years, including sustained contribution at senior levels across multiple cycles or projects.
14
15+ years
Degree Definition
Requires fifteen or more years of progressive, senior-level experience. Typically associated with principal, director-equivalent, or C-suite adjacent roles.

From 15 Factor Scores to a Grade - How the Points System Works.

A JESAP evaluation produces a numeric total the sum of all degree selections across all 15 factors. That total is then measured against the organization's Job Grade structure, which defines score bands for each grade level. The band the total falls into determines the proposed grade.

Score Each Factor

The evaluator selects a degree for each of the 15 factors based on the role's documented requirements. Each degree carries a point value. The running total accumulates as degrees are selected. A senior engineering role might score Degree 13 on Experience  Management, Degree 5 on Education, Degree 6 on Decision-Making, Degree 3 on Physical Demands  producing a total that reflects the full complexity profile of the role across every dimension.

Sum the Degree Points

The JESAP total is the simple sum of all degree point values across all 15 factors. No factor is given implicit priority over another through the scoring process  factor weighting is applied at the grade band configuration stage, not through the scoring interface. This means evaluators score each factor on its own terms, without the distortion that comes from knowing one factor carries more weight than another.

Map the Total to a Grade Band

The organization's Job Grade structure defines score bands for each grade level. The JESAP total is compared against these bands and the proposed grade is assigned automatically. In the CompBldr example, five grades span a score range of 1 to 3574: Grade 1 covers 1–2681, Grade 2 covers 2682–3128, Grade 3 covers 3129–3351, Grade 4 covers 3352–3463, and Grade 5 covers 3464–3574. The narrowing of bands at higher grades reflects the precision required to differentiate the most senior roles.

Version and Store the Record

The full evaluation  every factor, every degree selection, the evaluator's name, and the date  is stored as a numbered version in JESAP Studio. It is not overwritten when a re-evaluation is conducted. Any version can be set as the active grade assignment at any time. The grade structure itself is also versioned: when grade bands are restructured, the prior structure is preserved in the History view and restorable.

JESAP vs. Hay, Mercer IPE, Gradar, and Whole-Job Ranking.

Job evaluation frameworks are not interchangeable. The choice of methodology determines whether a grade can be defended under equal pay law, whether it can be applied without consultant dependency, and whether it produces grades that remain stable as the organization evolves. The table below compares JESAP against the most widely used alternative frameworks across the dimensions that matter for governance, compliance, and operational independence.

Evaluation Criterion
Hay / Korn Ferry
Mercer IPE
JESAP Framework
Number of scored factors
3
8
15: broadest coverage of any standard methodology
Physical demands scored independently
No
Partial (combined with environment)
Yes: dedicated factor, required for equal pay analysis
Working conditions scored independently
No
Partial
Yes: standalone factor
Safety of others scored independently
No
No
Yes: standalone factor
Who controls the methodology
Korn Ferry (licensed)
Mercer (consultant-controlled)
Your organization owned inside CompBldr
Internal team can run evaluations
Requires paid certification ($2,500/person)
Requires Mercer training + consultant support
Yes: GradeBldr step-by-step workflow, no certification
AI-assisted evaluation support
Not available
Not available
TrAI detects grade drift and guides factor scoring
Integrated with comp planning platform
Korn Ferry surveys only
Mercer surveys preferred
All CompBldr modules: benchmarking, planning, TRS
Separate methodology license cost
Yes: annual license fee
Yes: project-based consultant fees
No: included in CompBldr
Number of scored factors
Hay / Korn Ferry
3
Mercer IPE
8
JESAP Framework
15: broadest coverage of any standard methodology
Physical demands scored independently
Hay / Korn Ferry
No
Mercer IPE
Partial
JESAP Framework
Yes: dedicated factor, required for equal pay analysis
Working conditions scored independently
Hay / Korn Ferry
No
Mercer IPE
Partial
JESAP Framework
Yes: standalone factor
Safety of others scored independently
Hay / Korn Ferry
No
Mercer IPE
No
JESAP Framework
Yes: standalone factor
Who controls the methodology
Hay / Korn Ferry
Korn Ferry (licensed)
Mercer IPE
Mercer
JESAP Framework
Your organization owned inside CompBldr
Internal team can run evaluations
Hay / Korn Ferry
Requires paid certification ($2,500/person)
Mercer IPE
Requires Mercer training + consultant support
JESAP Framework
Yes: GradeBldr step-by-step workflow, no certification
AI-assisted evaluation support
Hay / Korn Ferry
Not available
Mercer IPE
Not available
JESAP Framework
TrAI detects grade drift and guides factor scoring
Integrated with comp planning platform
Hay / Korn Ferry
Korn Ferry surveys only
Mercer IPE
Mercer surveys preferred
JESAP Framework
All CompBldr modules: benchmarking, planning, TRS
Separate methodology license cost
Hay / Korn Ferry
Yes: annual license fee
Mercer IPE
Yes: project-based consultant fees
JESAP Framework
No: included in CompBldr

When Organizations Choose JESAP

JESAP is not the right framework for every organization. It is the right framework for organizations that have outgrown whole-job ranking, need to defend grade decisions to regulators or employees, and want to operate job evaluation independently without annual consultant engagements.

Three-Factor Frameworks Miss the Legal Compliance Dimension

The Hay method evaluates on Know-How, Problem Solving, and Accountability. Those three factors work well for comparing managerial and professional roles in organizational hierarchy and cognitive complexity. They do not independently score physical demands, working conditions, or safety accountability. For equal pay claims comparing office-based and operational roles, that absence is a structural weakness.

Eight-Factor Frameworks Compress Legally Distinct Dimensions

Mercer IPE includes Environment as a single factor intended to capture working conditions and physical demands together. In an equal pay claim, the question is often whether a specific dimension of job demands was independently assessed and weighted. A compressed factor that combines multiple legally distinct dimensions makes the answer harder to produce.

JESAP's Seven Responsibility Factors Are Legal Architecture

JESAP scores Mental Demands, Physical Demands, Working Conditions, Safety of Others, Budget Responsibility, Confidential Data, and Equipment as independent factors because each represents a distinct dimension of organizational investment. For equal pay compliance, the independence of these factors is not a complex choice. It is the design feature that makes equal value comparison legally defensible across roles that differ on these dimensions.

Narrow Frameworks Produce Grade Compression Over Time

When a framework uses three factors, roles that differ significantly in supervision exercised, physical demands, or external contact frequency receive identical scores because those dimensions are not measured. Over time, that scoring compression produces a grade structure where genuinely different roles sit at the same grade level. The grade structure then cannot explain, to a regulator or a claimant, why those roles were treated as equivalent.

Organizations Preparing for an Equal Pay Audit

Equal pay audits require that grade assignments be traceable to documented, objective criteria. A grade assigned by committee opinion or whole-job ranking cannot survive a challenge that asks why a role was graded at level X rather than level Y. JESAP's point-factor design means every grade is supported by a set of degree selections across 15 documented factors. The scoring record is stored in JESAP Studio and is retrievable in full at any time.

Organizations Replacing a Consultant-Dependent Methodology

Many organizations run Hay or Mercer IPE evaluations through annual consultant engagements at significant cost. JESAP is designed to be operated independently by HR and compensation teams. The factor descriptions and degree definitions are documented and accessible. JESAP Studio in CompBldr guides the evaluator through each factor, with descriptions and degree context visible in the interface. No certified evaluator is required.

Organizations Building a Compensation Structure for the First Time

For organizations that have grown beyond ad hoc salary decisions and need a defensible, scalable grade structure, JESAP provides a complete starting point. The 15 factors cover every dimension relevant to compensation governance. The Job Grade module translates evaluation totals into grade bands. The resulting structure connects directly to market benchmarking and compensation planning without manual data re-entry.

JESAP Job Evaluation Framework -
Frequently Asked Questions

What is JESAP?

JESAP is a point-factor job evaluation framework that scores every role across 15 independently defined compensable factors organized into four categories: Knowledge and Skills, Contacts and Human Relations, Responsibilities, and Working Conditions. The sum of all factor degree scores produces a JESAP total that maps to a grade band.

How many factors does JESAP have and how are they organized?

JESAP has 15 factors across four categories. Knowledge and Skills: 8 factors covering experience, education, planning, decision-making, and supervision. Contacts and Human Relations: 2 factors. Responsibilities: 5 factors covering budget, data, equipment, safety, and mental demands. Working Conditions: 3 factors covering machine operations, hazards, and physical demands.

How does JESAP compare to the Mercer IPE methodology?

JESAP has 15 factors across four categories.Knowledge and Skills: 8 factors covering experience, education, planning, decision-making, and supervision.Contacts and Human Relations: 2 factors.Responsibilities: 5 factors covering budget, data, equipment, safety, and mental demands.Working Conditions: 3 factors covering machine operations, hazards, and physical demands.

How does JESAP compare to the Hay Group methodology?

Hay uses 3 factors. JESAP uses 15. Hay's three factors, Know-How, Problem-Solving, and Accountability, measure organizational hierarchy and cognitive complexity effectively but compress working conditions, physical demands, and safety responsibility into single dimensions. JESAP scores each of these independently, which is required for full equal pay audit defensibility.

Is JESAP compliant with the EU Pay Transparency Directive?

JESAP's 15-factor structure independently scores skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions, the four dimensions the EU Pay Transparency Directive requires job evaluation to cover separately. No dimension is compressed into another. The full scoring record stored in JESAP Studio provides the documented basis required for pay transparency reporting.

Does implementing JESAP require external consultants?

No. JESAP is designed for independent operation by HR and compensation teams. Factor descriptions and degree definitions are documented and accessible in JESAP Studio. The evaluator selects degrees from a documented scale with contextual definitions visible in the interface. No certified evaluator or consultant engagement is required to run evaluations.

What is the difference between JESAP and whole-job ranking?

No. JESAP is designed for independent operation by HR and compensation teams. Factor descriptions and degree definitions are documented and accessible in JESAP Studio. The evaluator selects degrees from a documented scale with contextual definitions visible in the interface. No certified evaluator or consultant engagement is required to run evaluations.

How granular are JESAP degree definitions?

JESAP uses up to 14 degree levels per factor. Factor 1 (Experience, General) has 15 levels, from 0 (Not Required) through 14 (15+ years of senior experience). Every degree has a documented threshold definition. Granularity at this level allows meaningful differentiation between senior roles that broad-degree frameworks would place in the same band.

How does JESAP handle factor weighting?

Factor weighting in JESAP is configured at the Job Grade structure level, not in the scoring interface. Evaluators score each factor on its own terms without the distortion of knowing which factors carry more weight. Grade band boundaries are set by the organization to reflect its strategic priorities. Weighting changes create a new grade structure version, preserving the prior structure.

A Job Evaluation Framework That Holds Up When It Has to.

JESAP is built for the moment when a grade is challenged, by an employee, a regulator, or an auditor. Fifteen independently scored factors. Documented degree definitions for every level. A permanent scoring record for every evaluation. A versioned grade structure with full history. The framework does not produce defensible grades by accident. It produces them by design.

Talk to Our ExpertsDownload Reports

CompBldr is a compensation platform that helps organizations design, manage, and optimize pay structures with clarity and consistency. It supports better workforce decisions, fair compensation practices, and scalable growth.

Call 800.397.5215 to speak with our experts and find the right solution for your organization.

5K+
Courses
8
Solutions
50K+
Users
300+
Clients

Product

Review SettingsJob DescriptionJob ArchitectureJob EvaluationMarket BenchmarkingCompensation PlanningTotal Rewards

Services

Compensation Consulting

Knowledge center

BlogBrochures Product UpdatesWhite PapersTeamCareerWebinarsNewsProduct UpdatesWhite Paper

Contact

800.397.5215Hours: 8:00AM-5:00PM ETlearnmore@trainery.one6801 Pleasant Pines Drive
Suite 103
Raleigh, NC 27613

TERMS OF SERVICE

Terms of UsePrivacy PolicyService Level Agreement

TERMS OF SERVICE

Terms of UsePrivacy PolicyService Level Agreement