1. The first way works as follows:
Suppose 2 functions F1 and F2 respectively have been found that are somewhat comparable to the function f to be evaluated (see the picture opposite). And their evaluations are:
KH PS AC Pr total
F1: 400 - 43% 175 - 200 - V1 = 775
F2: 350 - 38% 132 - 152 - V1 = 634
Remember, we don't really need to know what "350" actually means. It could - in E. Hay's original views - be any number. What is important is that function F1 apparently has a clear difference in KH compared to F2, so 15% more points and that is (rounded) 400 points.
Apparently PS of function F1 is also clearly heavier than for F2, so there is a difference of 15% (38 --> 43). But if we do not know why 38% was chosen, we can continue - we accept the evaluations of F1 and F2 as they are.
Finally, we see that AC of F1 is two steps (of 15%) heavier than F2: 152 (--> intermediate value175 ) --> 200. As a result, both functions have the same Short Profile, V1: AC is one step heavier than PS.
Now we are going to reflect the function f to be weighted to F1 and F2.
First we determine whether the character of the function is also a V1 profile, or perhaps E or V2. The Database will certainly have appealing examples, for example:
E: Advisor, Researcher (little accountable for results; obligation to make efforts)
V1: Secretary, Product Manager
V2: Project leader, Product development group manager
V3: Sales & Marketing Manager
V4: Production manager (highly accountable for results; result obligation)
Suppose we argue that the character of the function comes closest to V1.
The second factor we now determine is the % Problem Solving. For hierarchical positions this follows from the hierarchy because each higher hierarchical layer has at least 1 step higher Problem Handling. For non-hierarchical positions, this is determined by the nature and freedoms in the work process. Suppose this is very similar to that of F2, so 43%, then 2 of the 3 factors that we need to calculate the total score have already been determined.
The final step is to determine either KH or AC. So for example, whether the 'full basket of knowledge', i.e. subject knowledge, breadth/composite knowledge, and social skills (informing, explaining or persuading) is equal to that of F1 or to that of F2. Suppose we are convinced that F1 -350 points is the best choice, then we have the end result:
f: 350 - 43% 152 - 175 - V1 = 677
This total score can then be translated into a scale classification and a salary.
The special thing about this method is that, apart from the Main Characteristics, none of the underlying sub-characteristics have been discussed or even valued. Only the three main characteristics have been determined by comparing them with known functions, so that the weight of the function is determined.
This was the method that Edward Hay had in mind in the middle of the last century.
If we can work in this way, large numbers of functions can be classified quickly. It is usually possible to quickly determine the Short Profile and the % PS, but then either KH or AC must be determined in more detail. That brings us to the second approach.