Job analysis and job families
Each role documented and grouped into families that share scope, accountability and skill requirements.
Pay that is fair inside and competitive outside. Job evaluation and grading at ACCUREX evaluates and grades every role, benchmarks pay against the market, and builds a salary structure a business can defend to its staff, its board and its budget.
Pay inequities drift in quietly. A role is filled off-cycle at a market rate, a merger pulls in a different pay structure, a counter-offer pushes one person ahead of their peers, a promotion skips a grade. By the time the first grievance lands, the business is looking at a pay structure it cannot defend to its board or to its staff. A job evaluation and grading engagement puts a defensible structure in place, with the market data to argue it and the roadmap to move the business toward it.
A job evaluation grading system at ACCUREX is built end-to-end around six parts:
Each role documented and grouped into families that share scope, accountability and skill requirements.
JDs rewritten against the analysis, so the grading sits on current information.
Roles weighed against a consistent set of factors and placed into grades, with grade boundaries recorded.
Pay and benefits plotted against the market at the percentiles leadership chooses.
Each option costed as a complete employer cost, so a pay-structure choice is also a cost choice.
Bands drawn around the grading, inequities surfaced and the harmonisation routes costed.
Share headcount, current pay data and what triggered the project; the engagement can be shaped from there.
Benchmark your payJobs are analysed in confidence with the people who know them, grouped into families and written up as current JDs.
Roles are evaluated against consistent factors and placed in grades; the grade boundaries are documented.
Multi-source market data is triangulated and validated at the percentiles the sponsor chooses.
Salary bands, internal-equity findings and harmonisation options are presented as costed choices; the sponsor picks and the roll-out is supported.
Pay figures are triangulated across sources and validated, so a benchmark holds up under board scrutiny.
Harmonisation and realignment choices are presented with their total cost-to-company numbers; leadership chooses with the figures in hand.
The engagement runs past the board approval into the roll-out, with the communications, the manager scripts and the exceptions handled.
Pay structure is lightly regulated, but two Kenyan rules shape the engagement:
Section 5 of the Employment Act, 2007 bars direct and indirect discrimination in employment on grounds including sex, race, pregnancy and disability. Grading and benchmarking are built to show equal pay for equal work.
The Cabinet Secretary issues Regulation of Wages orders for various sectors and skill categories; the salary structure sits above the applicable minimum.
A reviewer with compliance expertise confirms the current statute wording and the applicable Regulation of Wages orders before a pay-structure recommendation goes to the board.
A salary survey Kenya buyers can defend to a board does three things. It triangulates data from more than one source so a single survey's gaps do not become the figure. It sets the market percentile deliberately (median, 75th or higher) because the choice is a business decision, not a default. And it presents the data role by role at the grade level, so a line manager can see where their team sits without reading a 100-page report.
Businesses engaging job evaluation consultants in Kenya employers trust generally reach for the service at one of five moments:
Corporates, NGOs and development organisations, SACCOs and public institutions.
A set of graded job families, salary bands with their boundaries, benchmarking at the market percentile the sponsor chose, a total cost-to-company model, a harmonisation roadmap and a board-ready report. The output is a decision pack, not a market data file.
Job analysis describes what a role does and what it needs. Job evaluation weighs the role against a consistent set of factors to produce a relative value. Grading groups roles of similar value into named grades with pay bands around them. The three run in sequence and feed each other.
A points-factor approach anchored to the client's structure: roles are rated against factors such as scope, accountability, skill, decision rights and working conditions, and the scores produce the grade. The factor weightings are agreed with leadership at the start, so the method is both defensible and specific to the business.
Pay figures are pulled from more than one survey or data source, cross-checked against each other and validated against the client's own hires in the last twelve months. The triangulation closes the gap any single survey leaves open and keeps the benchmark defensible to a board.
Each grade gets a band with a minimum, mid-point and maximum, set to the chosen market percentile. Internal equity is then reviewed role by role within the grade, so people doing the same work are on comparable pay. Inequities are surfaced and costed before implementation.
A full employer cost view per role and per option: base pay, allowances, benefits, statutory contributions and any variable pay. Each harmonisation or realignment option is costed as a complete employer cost, so leadership can see what the pay-structure choice means for the pay bill.
The two inherited pay structures are mapped against the new grading, the inequities between them are surfaced, and the harmonisation options (red-circling, phased alignment, upward correction) are costed. The sponsor picks the route; the roll-out is supported.
The grading, the market data at the chosen percentile, the internal-equity findings, the costed options and the recommended path, with the salary bands and the implementation roadmap. The report is written for a board or a CEO reading cold, not for an HR team already briefed.
Section 5 of the Employment Act requires that pay decisions do not discriminate on the protected grounds. Regulation of Wages orders set statutory minimums for certain sectors and skill categories. Grading and benchmarking are structured to show equal pay for equal work and to sit above the applicable minimum.
Communications to staff, manager scripts for the hardest conversations, handling of exceptions (people above or below their new band), and the first review once the structure has been live for a cycle. ACCUREX stays on through the transition, not just the report.
Headcount, current pay data and what triggered the project are the three inputs scoping needs.
Benchmark your payTell us what you need. An ACCUREX consultant will respond with practical next steps and a clear scope.
