My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 11/27/1984
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
1984
>
Agenda - Council - 11/27/1984
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/15/2025 11:19:34 AM
Creation date
4/4/2006 10:03:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
11/27/1984
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
311
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
-3- <br /> <br />Their estimate of what it would cost to re-evaluate a specific position or <br />incorporate a new one into the city, was $5 to $7 per occurrence. The other two <br />proposals did not offer such a capability. <br /> <br />Finally, a word about the conceptual framework of the CDC proposal. Their Job <br />evaluation study is one that is referred to as a task evaluation approach as <br />opposed to a whole Job evaluation approach which was proposed by the other two <br />firms. In a task evaluation, Jobs are broken down into many small functional <br />tasks and those tasks are rated and a point total derived. A specific job and <br />its relative worth compared to other jobs in an organization is determined by <br />the total of its task values. In the whole Job evaluation approach, the Job, <br />not individual tasks, is rated on its relative worth in various categories. <br />With this method, certain jobs may have an inherent bias due to preconceived <br />ideas about their complexity or difficulty. An example might be an evaluation <br />of a bomb disposal officer. Most people's initial reaction is that the job is <br />worth a great deal because of the element of danger involved. When you evaluate <br />the job on a "whole job" basis, that danger factor tends to expand into all the <br />areas that you may be using to rank the worth of the job. In fact, the danger <br />in bomb disposal work may be present only once in a great while, and the <br />majority of the job may be very routine and non-dangerous. The task approach <br />eliminates this type of halo effect because each separate function is evaluated. <br /> <br />In our example, the bomb disposal officer would be given fairly high points for <br />certain tasks like the diffusion of a bomb, but may receive routine marks for <br />other tasks associated with the work he or she would perform. The net result is <br />to provide a more accurate point total for all jobs surveyed. <br /> <br />For the reasons listed above, the committee felt unanimously that the CDC propo- <br />sal offered <br /> COST OF THE PROPOSAL <br /> <br />Many cities have called requesting to know the estimated cost per city of the <br />CDC system prior to the December 4 meeting. At this time, it is not possible to <br />give exact dollar amounts. Obviously the total cost to each city will be depen- <br />dent to a large extent to how many cities select to cotinue with this joint <br />approach. Additionally, there are some other factors that will influence the <br />cost. There is a possibility that quite a large number of out-state cities will <br />wish to use the comparable worth study that MAMA has developed. We estimate <br />that 30 additional cities may participate. If they do choose to join us, then <br />the cost per city could be reduced significantly due to the economies of scale <br />achieved by a larger group. <br /> <br />We have also been contacted by the Metropolitan Airport Commission, the <br />Minnesota Utility Association, and the city of Thief River Falls, Wisconsin. <br />They have all expressed some degree of interest in participating. <br /> <br />While a firm dollar amount is not possible to determine at this time, I can give <br />you a range of the dollars we are talking about if we make some simple assump- <br />tions. If the 57 MAMA cities all agree to participate and the charges are based <br />on a formula which takes into account both a minimum value charged to each city, <br />and some factor for the number of employees, then the cost would likely range <br />from approximately $4,000 to cities the size of Osseo and Minnetrista, to an <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.