Design a Job Analysis and Job Description

Proof required

Submit: (a) the role chosen and your rationale for selecting it, (b) documentation of the two job analysis methods used (e.g., notes from job holder interviews and O*NET task inventory review), and (c) a consolidated task inventory listing the 10–15 most important tasks for the role with frequency, importance, and difficulty ratings for each task.

What gets checked

• Two distinct methods are used and documented — O*NET data alone without a method addressing the specific role context is insufficient
• Task inventory covers 10–15 tasks with frequency, importance, and difficulty ratings — not just a list of tasks
• Role is real and the submitter has direct access to information about it

Common mistakes

• Using O*NET as the sole source — O*NET provides useful benchmarks but cannot replace analysis of the specific role in the specific organisation context
• Task inventory lists responsibilities without ratings — ratings are what make a task inventory analytically useful

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Challenge the task importance ratings: 'You rated task X as high importance — but from your interview data, did the job holders confirm this? Were there tasks they identified as critical that weren't in your O*NET-derived list?'

Proof required

Submit: (a) the competency framework with five to seven competencies, each with a definition and three behavioural indicators at three performance levels, and (b) a complete job description covering: role title, department, purpose statement, key responsibilities (from the task inventory), required qualifications, required competencies (cross-referenced to the framework), reporting relationships, and working conditions.

What gets checked

• Behavioural indicators are specific and observable — 'demonstrates leadership' is not a behavioural indicator; 'coaches three or more junior team members through a complete project without direct supervision' is
• Job description key responsibilities are derived from the task inventory — not written from memory
• Qualifications in the job description are justified by the task requirements

Common mistakes

• Competency definitions are abstract rather than behaviourally anchored
• Job description qualifications are not linked to task requirements — asking for an MBA for a task inventory that doesn't include complex analytical work is not justified

What a verifier looks for

• Review the behavioural indicators for specificity: ask the submitter to read the 'proficient' indicator for one competency — would two HR professionals independently make the same assessment of a job candidate using that indicator? If no, it's too abstract.

Proof required

Submit: (a) Q&A log from the review session (minimum 250 words with at least two challenges and responses), and (b) attendance record with reviewer name and HR credentials.

What gets checked

• Reviewer has HR or talent management expertise
• Q&A log shows challenges to competency definitions or job analysis methodology
• Responses address the analytical basis for design choices

Common mistakes

• Review with a line manager rather than an HR professional — line managers assess the content validity, not the job analysis methodology
• Challenges met with 'this is standard practice' without analytical justification

What a verifier looks for

• Challenge the competency framework design: 'You included five competencies — but your task inventory has 12 tasks across three distinct functional areas. Could a single competency framework cover all three areas, or should there be different competency profiles for different specialisations within this role family?'
• Provide written confirmation (minimum 150 words) of your HR credentials and the challenges raised.