Specialist advisory
Equal Value Analysis
Assess whether different roles involve work of equal value using a structured evidence base.
Equal-value analysis examines job demands across factors such as knowledge, responsibility, effort and working conditions.
We support organisations in establishing robust job evidence, analytical comparisons and governance alongside appropriate legal advice.
How we can help
- Scope and population definition
- Job information review
- Factor framework
- Analytical job comparison
- Job-evaluation evidence
- Pay and workforce data
- Governance and documentation
- Risk identification
- Specialist legal interface
- Action planning
Questions this work should answer
- Which jobs should be compared?
- Is job information current and reliable?
- What factors reflect the work fairly?
- Are evaluation processes free from bias?
- How do pay outcomes align with job demands?
- What further evidence or legal review is needed?
Visual process
From issue to implementation
01
Frame
Clarify the business question, stakeholders, scope, evidence and success criteria.
02
Diagnose
Review current arrangements, data, employee outcomes, market context, cost and risk.
03
Design
Develop practical options, model implications and test the preferred direction.
04
Embed
Translate decisions into governance, documentation, communication and sustainable operation.
Typical outcomes
- A structured comparison of job demands
- Improved job evidence
- Clearer risk areas
- Documented analytical reasoning
- A basis for action and governance
A balanced decision framework
Business
Alignment with strategy, operating priorities, capability and affordability.
People
Fairness, clarity, employee value, behaviour and the manager experience.
Delivery
Data, systems, governance, communication and practical implementation.
Related expertise
Building reliable evidence for equal-value comparisons
Equal-value analysis compares the demands of different jobs. It does not rank the worth of the people doing them or assume that similar titles describe equivalent work. A useful starting point is a consistent account of responsibilities, required knowledge, decisions, effort and working conditions, supported by examples from the roles.
Choose and test the comparison framework
The factors must capture the demands of the jobs under review without overlooking less visible work. Responsibilities for people, information or service continuity can be important even where a role has no large budget. Review factor definitions and evidence requirements before making comparisons. Use calibration discussions to identify inconsistent interpretations and record the rationale for conclusions.
Keep job value and pay analysis distinct
Structured work-value analysis helps establish whether roles have comparable demands. Pay analysis then examines the reward outcomes for the relevant populations. Salary, allowances and other remuneration may need separate examination. An evaluation score alone does not explain a pay difference, and a difference in pay does not by itself establish the underlying cause.
What information is needed?
Current role descriptions, organisation charts, role-holder or manager evidence, evaluation records and a defined pay dataset are useful inputs. Missing or inconsistent evidence should be logged explicitly. Avoid treating an old grade or a current salary as proof of job size, because that can reproduce the very inconsistency being investigated.
What happens after the comparison?
The output should identify the comparisons made, the evidence used, uncertainties and issues requiring further investigation. Findings can inform pay equity reviews and remediation planning. Where legal rights, claims or remedies are involved, the analytical work should be coordinated with qualified legal advisers; the consultancy review is not a legal determination.
Discuss equal value analysis
Reward Associates can provide independent, senior-led support from initial diagnosis through design and implementation.