Jobs are changing. Is job evaluation keeping up?
10 September, 2026
Written by Cal Irish
Remember when ‘digital’ was something you just put in front of a job title?
Now we have data scientists, cybersecurity specialists, AI leads and roles that didn't exist, or looked very different, a few years ago.
And it's not just technology. All professional services across higher and further education have evolved too, with new specialisms emerging and existing roles taking on broader and more complex responsibilities.
Which raises an interesting question: when the work changes, how do we make sure we're still assessing it consistently?
It's a question we've never shied away from at ECC.
Earlier this year, we commissioned an independent review of our job evaluation schemes HERA and FEDRA. It looked at how the schemes fit with the changing HE and FE landscape, including the changing nature of roles. It also looked at the language, guidance and examples used within the schemes, and whether they continue to be equality-proofed and free from bias.
80% of respondents said all 14 elements used in HERA and FEDRA — covering things such as knowledge, problem-solving, planning, and communication — remain relevant to role analysis across the board.
The review also highlighted some useful areas for consideration around new and changing roles, including how the methodology is applied to highly technical and specialist roles, and these findings help with the ongoing development of HERA and FEDRA.
It’s the work that matters
Jobs don't always change in obvious ways.
Sometimes a completely new role appears. More often, the change is gradual. A role takes on new responsibilities, a technical specialism develops, decision-making becomes more complex, or a job that once sat neatly within one professional area starts to cross several.
The job title might change. It might not.
Either way, the question for job evaluation is the same: what is the job actually asking someone to do?
HERA approaches this by looking at the demands of the role across 14 distinct elements.
What knowledge does it require? How complex are the problems? How much planning and decision-making is involved? Does it involve managing people or resources? How much does the role need to communicate, influence or negotiate with others? What impact does it have?
These are the kinds of demands that help analysts understand the size and complexity of a role, whatever its professional area or specialism.
The challenge is making sure those principles can still be applied consistently as the nature of work changes. That means keeping terminology current, and continuing to develop guidance and examples that help people apply the methodology to different types of work, including technical specialist roles.
In other words, the underlying proven methodology can remain consistent while the way we illustrate and apply it evolves with the work.
Keeping pace doesn't mean starting again
Jobs will continue to change. New technologies will create new roles, existing roles will evolve, and some jobs will become almost unrecognisable from what they were a decade ago.
That doesn't necessarily mean starting again with the fundamentals of job evaluation.
It means continuing to make sure the approach remains relevant to the work people are actually doing, and that those applying it have the guidance and examples they need to do so consistently.
Jobs will keep changing. Job evaluation should keep pace.
