Skip to main content
All CollectionsAdministratorSalary mapping
Which factor plan should we use?
Which factor plan should we use?

actor plan, work valuation, factor

Nina Wettergren avatar
Written by Nina Wettergren
Updated over a week ago

Sysarb currently offers three factor plans that all measure the areas described in the Swedish discrimination law as the basis for job evaluation, namely: knowledge and skills, responsibility, and working conditions.

Which of these three factor plans is best suited for you as a customer may vary depending on your business orientation and the types of professional categories found within your organization.

Our standard factor plan, consisting of 10 factors, suits most of our customers. However, one factor included in this factor plan may not be suitable for everyone, namely the "responsibility for people" factor. This factor does not pertain to personnel management but rather to responsibility for third parties, primarily in roles within healthcare and education fields. If you still intend to use this factor plan as a customer, you can either skip this factor or simply remove it. However, for customers who have the aforementioned types of roles within their organization, it is not acceptable to remove or disregard the evaluation of this factor, as it cannot be considered a gender-neutral adjustment. This is because primarily female-dominated groups of equal work would then miss out on several points in job evaluation, contributing to a lower valuation.

Many of our customers appreciate this particular factor plan because each factor measures only one area at a time, which often facilitates the process. However, several customers express that the number of factors feels extensive for their types of businesses and therefore prefer one of our other factor plans. It is worth considering that fewer factors do not always translate to a quicker job evaluation process.

Our factor plan with 7 factors closely resembles our standard factor plan. In this case, the factors of education and experience have been combined into a single factor, and mental and physical conditions have been merged into working conditions. Additionally, the responsibility for people factor has been removed. This factor plan is well-suited for customers where education and experience are often evaluated similarly (meaning that experience and education are considered roughly equally meritorious) and where the various roles within the company have similar working conditions.

The factor plan consisting of 4 factors may initially be perceived as the simplest one. However, one challenge with this factor plan is that several areas are evaluated within a single factor. In this case, the factors of education, experience, intellectual skills, and social skills have been merged into one factor. The breadth within this factor can often make it difficult to differentiate between the roles within the organization, as this evaluation also assumes that you, as the customer, have an understanding of which of the above areas carries more weight within the factor. It could involve a situation where one role requires very high social skills, while another role requires high levels of education. Should these two aspects be evaluated equally, or should one of these areas generate a higher level within the factor? This factor plan is particularly suitable for smaller companies where there is a clear complexity difference between the groups of equal work found within the organization. This is because achieving fine nuances becomes challenging when the factors are perceived to be relatively blunt.

Regardless of which factor plan you choose, it's important to know that they can all be adjusted. For example, you could start with the 7-factor plan but still evaluate mental and physical conditions separately by adding an additional factor. It could also involve incorporating a factor that is specific to your particular business. Customization options are available to ensure that the factor plan aligns well with your unique needs and requirements.

Did this answer your question?