| Course | HRM-5400 Lifestyle Benefits and Compensation in the New Millennium |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 2 |
| Paper type | Module 2 written assignment: job analysis and job evaluation |
| Length | About 676 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | Master of Science in Human Resources Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HRM 5400 Module 2
Ranking the Work: A Point Factor Plan for Four Jobs at Brightwater Systems
Student Name
Master of Science in Human Resources Management, Thomas Edison State University
HRM-5400: Lifestyle Benefits and Compensation in the New Millennium
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
Ranking the Work: A Point Factor Plan for Four Jobs at Brightwater Systems
Introduction
Internal alignment concerns the pay relationships among jobs inside one organization. Milkovich et al. (2014) describe a sequence for building it: analyze jobs, describe them, evaluate them and arrange them into a structure. Brightwater Systems has never done this. Its pay reflects the bargaining power of each new hire, which is why two engineers doing similar work can earn $20,000 apart. This assignment carries out the first three steps for four jobs that span the company.
Job Analysis
Job analysis is the systematic collection of information about the work. Brightwater used three methods: a structured questionnaire completed by incumbents, interviews with each job's manager and a review of work samples such as support tickets and code reviews. Combining methods corrects the weaknesses of each; questionnaires reach everyone but invite inflation, and interviews add depth but depend on the interviewer. The analysis recorded tasks, the knowledge and skills they require, the decisions incumbents make, the consequences of errors and the people they work with. Each job description now states the job's purpose, essential functions, qualifications and reporting relationships, which also supports compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act by identifying essential functions.
Choosing an Evaluation Method
Ranking and classification are simpler but hard to defend as a company grows. Market pricing alone would import competitors' choices and ignore Brightwater's own priorities. A point factor plan takes more effort but makes the basis for each job's value explicit, which matters for pay equity and for explaining decisions to employees. For a company approaching 400 employees and New Jersey's pay range disclosure rule, transparency is worth the effort.
The Point Factor Plan
Each factor has five degrees, and a job earns the factor's maximum points multiplied by its degree divided by five. The weights reflect the strategy set in Module 1: knowledge and problem solving carry 65 percent because Brightwater competes on technical innovation. A committee of managers from engineering, product and customer support set the weights, which builds acceptance.
| Compensable factor | Weight | Maximum points | What it measures |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge and skill | 40% | 400 | Education, technical depth and experience required |
| Problem solving | 25% | 250 | Complexity and novelty of problems |
| Accountability | 20% | 200 | Effect of decisions on customers, revenue and the product |
| Working relationships | 15% | 150 | Internal and external collaboration and influence |
Evaluating Four Jobs
The resulting order, support specialist, data analyst, software engineer and product manager, matches most managers' judgment, which is a useful check on validity. The product manager scores highest because the role combines technical depth with responsibility for product decisions and wide influence. The support specialist scores higher on relationships than the analyst and engineer, recognizing the customer contact the job requires, a factor that pure market pricing tends to miss.
| Job | Knowledge | Problem solving | Accountability | Relationships | Total points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Customer support specialist | Degree 2: 160 | Degree 2: 100 | Degree 2: 80 | Degree 3: 90 | 430 |
| Data analyst | Degree 3: 240 | Degree 3: 150 | Degree 3: 120 | Degree 2: 60 | 570 |
| Software engineer II | Degree 4: 320 | Degree 4: 200 | Degree 3: 120 | Degree 2: 60 | 700 |
| Product manager | Degree 4: 320 | Degree 4: 200 | Degree 4: 160 | Degree 5: 150 | 830 |
Keeping the Plan Fair
Point plans can carry bias if factors favor work traditionally done by one group or overlook skills such as emotional labor in customer roles. Including working relationships as a factor and reviewing degree definitions for gendered language reduce that risk. Equity theory explains why this matters (Adams, 1963): employees compare their pay and contributions with those of others, and perceived unfairness inside the company reduces effort and increases turnover even when pay is competitive. Shaw (2014) adds that pay differences among people doing similar work affect cooperation and turnover, so the internal structure matters for performance as well as fairness.
Conclusion
The point factor plan gives Brightwater a defensible internal order for its jobs based on measured content and its strategic priorities. Module 3 will place market pay data against these points to build pay grades and ranges.
References
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(5), 422-436. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040968
Milkovich, G. T., Newman, J. M., & Gerhart, B. (2014). Compensation (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Shaw, J. D. (2014). Pay dispersion. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 521-544. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091253
HRM 5400 Module 2 instructions, in plain terms
The second HRM-5400 written assignment covers internal alignment through job analysis and job evaluation. Expect questions on how job analysis is done, what a job description should contain, the strengths and weaknesses of ranking, classification, point factor and market pricing methods, and how to build a job structure. Some versions ask you to evaluate a set of jobs; others ask you to recommend a method for an organization. Show your reasoning for factors and weights, and if you score jobs, show the arithmetic. Back the plan with Milkovich and colleagues and at least one study. Expect at least one question asking why an organization would build its own evaluation rather than rely only on market data, so be ready to explain what internal alignment adds.
How the HRM 5400 Module 2 example is put together
The introduction states the internal alignment problem at the composite company. A job analysis section explains the three methods used and what the job descriptions now contain. A short section compares evaluation methods and justifies a point factor plan. Two tables follow: the plan's factors, weights and maximum points, and the evaluation of four jobs with degrees and totals. The text checks the result against managers' judgment and explains surprises, such as the support role's score on relationships. A fairness section addresses bias in point plans and uses equity theory to explain why internal fairness matters. Checking the results against managers' expectations, and explaining where they differ, is a simple validity test that strengthens the plan without extra research.
Where the marks sit in the HRM 5400 Module 2 rubric
Here mentors check that job analysis and evaluation are explained correctly, that the point plan itself is sound and that it is applied to a real or realistic employer. Point factor answers earn the most when factors and weights are justified by strategy, degrees are defined and scores are calculated correctly. Recognizing the limits of a method, including possible bias, shows critical thinking. Tables that show the plan and results make grading easier. Every factor and weight should trace back to a cited source or to the strategy. Answers that set out degree definitions clearly enough for another evaluator to reach the same scores show an understanding of reliability. Mentors also reward attention to pay equity risks in the choice of factors, which connects job evaluation to the legal topics of Module 6.
HRM 5400 Module 2 help: mistakes that cost marks
Students lose points by choosing factors that overlap, such as education and knowledge as separate factors, by giving weights without a reason, or by making arithmetic errors in point totals. Others skip job analysis and evaluate jobs from titles alone. Define each factor and its degrees. Tie weights to strategy. Show how points are computed. Compare the results with managers' judgment and explain differences. Address fairness. A free first sample using your own HRM-5400 Module 2 jobs is available on request. Before scoring, have a second person rate one job independently and compare results, which exposes vague degree definitions. Keep the number of factors small enough to apply consistently.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More HRM 5400 and Master of Science in Human Resources Management sample papers
- HRM 5400 Module 1: Written Assignment: A Total Compensation Strategy for a Software Firm
- HRM 5400 Module 3: Written Assignment: Market Pricing and a Pay Structure
- HRM 5400 Module 4: Written Assignment: Paying for Performance in a Software Company
- HRM 5400 Module 5: Written Assignment: Benefits and Pay for Special Groups
- HRM 5400 Module 6: Final Project: A Best Practice Proposal for Total Rewards
- HRM 5500 Module 7: Discussion: Continuous Improvement in Hiring
- HRM 5600 Module 4: Final Project: A Learning System for Entrepreneurial Behavior
- HRM 6100 Module 6: Final Project: Five HR Functions at Costco, Analyzed
- HRM 6000 Module 2: Written Assignment: Engagement and the Employer Brand
HRM 5400 Module 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HRM 5400 Module 2 sample paper?
The full job analysis and point factor plan for Brightwater Systems is above, with four jobs evaluated and ranked.
What is job evaluation?
A systematic way of determining the relative value of jobs inside an organization, used to build an internal pay structure.
What is a point factor job evaluation plan?
A method that scores jobs on weighted compensable factors, such as skill and responsibility, and adds the points to rank them.
What are compensable factors?
Characteristics of work that an organization values and is willing to pay for, such as knowledge, problem solving and accountability.
Why does internal pay equity matter?
Employees compare their pay with coworkers', and perceived unfairness reduces effort and raises turnover even when pay is competitive.