ISSUE 91 : Nov/Dec - 1991 - Australian Defence Force Journal

10 AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE JOURNAL NO. 91 NOVEMBER DECEMBER 1991
The rationale for this is that Warrant Officers
would be the best source of information about their
particular trade. They have had at some stage
performed the job at operator level and would have
also supervised operators. They are also in a better
position to gauge change since most if not all of
them were in the ADF in 1981 which is the datum
point for change in all the surveys, as this was when
the last Work Value Inquiry was conducted.
The survey instrument sought factual information
on how duties in each employment classification are
performed by an operator working at normal job
standards, making the survey rank-free. Warrant
Officers were not asked to fill out the questionnaire
about what they do in their current jobs, for they
may be in non-Corps Branch Mustering jobs. Any
survey of this nature needs to be valid and as valuefree
as possible. To achieve this, the survey has some
stringent controls imposed on its conduct:
a. The questionnaire is completed after a standard
briefing under the guidance of a member of the
project staff. This was designed to minimise the
number of questions that may be answered
incorrectly because the recipients misunderstood
what was being asked of them and it also
ensured that the documents were in possession
of the WVP Team on completion and reduced
the "losses in transit"
b. Service-neutral terms were used in the design
and structure of the questionnaire to avoid bias
towards a particular service; and
c. An independent consultant would analyse the
data and compare his results with our primary
analysis of the data.
The main limitation that this survey faced was
that it was a "snap-shot" sample and out of the
12,(MX) selected only 6,000 responded. The sample
was drawn from a data base of personnel in jobs in
March 1989 but the team could only collect data
from June 1989. Consequently, a si/eable proportion
of the sample had left the Services or had been
posted to another job by the time the team visited
their location.
Senior Officer Job Evaluation
.lob Evaluation measures the contribution individual
jobs make to the ongoing operation to the
ADF. Two measures are considered forjob evaluation
and they are internal relativity (industry based
specific comparisons between jobs within the ADF)
and external relativity which is determined by
comparison with specific market salary practice.
The output of job evaluation is principally the
development of a grading system lor jobs.
The Senior Officer Job Evaluation Survey was
trialled in May 1989 and distributed to all LTCOL
(E) to GEN in the three services, representing some
1623 positions. Unlike the OR Work Analysis
Survey Questionnaire this instrument was divided
into two parts, the first part being a set of qualitative
questions that required written short form answers
that would compliment and qualify the second part
of the document which included a series of suites of
questions designed to evoke alpha-numeric responses
for computer analysis.
A main problem associated with the Senior
Officer Job Evaluation was a review of the ADF
organisation conducted by Major-General Sanderson
was under way at the same time the survey
instruments were distributed. It appears from initial
analysis of the data, that some of the recipients felt
that they had to justify their positions and this had
some effect on the data showing job size and
accountability. This effect is assessed as minimal.
The Medical Officer and Dental Officer Job
Evaluation Questionnaires are very similar, with
many questions identical or with specific references
to medical or dental aspects of the job interchanged
as appropriate.
J he purpose of these two questionnaires was to
gather data on all medical and dental officers as a
distinct group operating in the ADF. The data from
this questionnaire will be used for objective evidence
as part of the salary policy determination process.
The data becomes an instrument in establishing the
value of medical officers in the ADF and relating
that value to other public and private sector doctors
and dentists to establish arguments for an appropriate
salary scale to maintain the military medicine
speciality within the \l )F.
The survey document used for the Medical and
Dental Officer was based on the Senior Officer Job
Evaluation Questionnaire. The Medical Officers
received a document that was designed to capture
information about medical and military aspects of
their jobs and the Dental Officers Job Evaluation
was a similar document with appropriate modifications
for specialist dental aspects of their jobs.
The Junior Officer Job Evaluation is the second
largest survey with a population of over 8,000
personnel which represents all ranks from Pilot
Officers to Major (equivalent) in the three services.
The final survey instrument has been finalised, it is
similar in composition to the Senior Officer Job
Evaluation Questionnaire, with two parts to the