Last year, we embarked on a vast undertaking -- the Compensation and Classification Project for Clerical and Technical Staff. The purpose of the project was to provide clarity, order and flexibilty to our compensation and classification program in order to improve our system and prepare us to meet our current and future needs.

The idea for the project actually originated in 1994, when the Board of Trustees of Indiana University indicated that it felt the time had come to update the university's job classification and salary structure. Over decades, what had once been a fairly simple, comprehensive system had grown into a complex, multidimensional, increasingly inflexibile structure.

Now, Indiana University was not alone in this problem. Many corporations and most universities have faced or are now facing a similar situation. One of the great scramblers of large organization classification and compensation systems has been technology. Over the last 15 years, extraordinary numbers of new positions have been created in our work environments as a result of the explosion of new technologies. As in any new situation, each position seemed unique, unprecedented and requiring of its own separate status. Only now, as the technology trend gains some history and pattern, can we achieve the perspective that allows us to look back and begin grouping those positions into stable categories.

The problem was greatest -- as might be expected -- at IU Bloomington. When we began the process of updating our classification system there, we had more than 900 different job titles as well as over 500 individual requests annually for job reclassifications from clerical and technical personnel. Other IU campuses had recognized the problem and already taken some steps toward system redesign. Since IU Southeast was just beginning an update, it was included with IU Bloomington in the project and has run a parallel course.

The process of developing a new classification structure, while complicated to execute, was straightforward. We began by collecting and examining employee-generated position descriptions in the form of Position Analysis Questionnaires (PAQs). Employees completed and returned 1,700 PAQs which had 900 different job titles on the Bloomington campus.

Through a process of analysis and categorization, we narrowed these 900 down to 181 job classifications. These 181 were then evaluated and ranked. Following this, individual positions were compared against the 181 classifications and slotted to one. For those who felt their slotting needed further review, an appeals process was established, and on the Bloomington campus, the 450 appeals received are now under final consideration with decisions expected by the end of October.

The process of establishing the new compensation structure began by comparing our total compensation package -- including salary and the dollar value of benefits -- to data collected from other major employers in Indiana. Because the work of a university requires us to recruit, develop and retain the highest quality staff, we entered this process with a commitment to being a competitive employer.

From the comparison process we built a new structure that includes 10 pay grades, each with a minimum, midpoint and maximum salary range. Midpoints reflect an average salary equal to that paid by other comparable employers, and our philosophy is that they represent the target rate around which we want most of our salaries to eventually fall. The ranges also provide flexibility, allowing room to pay different amounts to different people performing at different levels. This assists us in fulfilling another part of our philosophy, gradually moving us away from inflexible, across-the-board increases toward increases based on experience and performance.

The next step of the process -- the creation of a new, written set of policies for setting pay increases and a performance management policy for setting individual goals and objectives -- is still under development. We continue to consult with the CWA, which represents clerical and technical staffs on the Bloomington campus, on details of these policies. Meanwhile, IU Southeast has introduced its program and continues the implementation of its new system.

Let me say it again -- this has been a vast, complex undertaking, but one that is close to fruition and delivery of improvements for everyone involved.

I want to thank all of the many participants in this important undertaking: employees, administrators, supervisors, CWA, members of campus-wide committees that oversaw the project, and the consultants from William M. Mercer, Inc., who so knowledgeably guided us through this process.

But, the final and most important step in the process is yet to be done -- communication of the results of this project to every clerical and technical employee as well as everyone who manages clerical and technical employees. We now move from our commitment to getting the project done to a commitment to getting everyone to understand it and the impact it will have on them and the university at large.

The rollout of our communications effort begins with this supplement, which we hope will orient everyone for the next step -- a video education program that will be held in most units by personnel representatives. The video presentation will be followed by questions and answers, some of which may be addressed by the representatives, the remainder of which can be directed to Human Resources staff.

I strongly encourage everyone to view the video in their unit, check a copy out of the library, visit the version of it on our Web page, direct questions to the Human Resources office, and participate in the dialogue and final refinement of our new compensation and classification program.

Return to Table of Contents