Classification systems organize the workforce. They group related jobs into families and series, define levels of responsibility, standardize titles, and create job descriptions that explain what roles do and how they differ. 

Done well, classification:

• Provides clear expectations for employees.
• Creates a consistent foundation for leaders to make defensible decisions.
• Supports career mobility and professional development.

Working titles vs. Classification titles:

Working titles help with communication in day-to-day operations. Classification titles anchor equity and internal consistency. Both matter, and both should follow the same framework.

Job evaluation provides the method for comparing roles. It establishes how much weight each job carries inside the structure, using measurable factors such as:

• Knowledge and skills
• Complexity and problem solving
• Responsibility and impact
• Work environment and conditions

Approaches include:

• Quantitative methods like point-factor systems that assign scores across compensable factors. They provide precision and require training and documentation.
• Nonquantitative methods such as job ranking, classification, or pair comparison. They are simpler to apply but less precise.
• Market referencing to supplement internal evaluation by comparing benchmark jobs with peers.

This is the foundation. Collect information directly from employees and supervisors through interviews, questionnaires, and desk audits. Review policies, organizational charts, and job documents. The goal is to capture not just tasks, but also decision making, scope, and impact.

Example: In one city, interviews with administrative staff revealed that they were managing complex contracts in addition to clerical work. That insight shaped the level criteria and justified creating a new specialist class.

Translate the analysis into clear, accurate descriptions. Each should state the role’s purpose, essential duties, qualifications, reporting relationships, and distinguishing characteristics. A good description is not a task list. It explains what makes the role distinct.

Example: A county rewrote its IT job descriptions to separate “support technician” from “systems analyst.” By clarifying differences in problem solving and scope, they reduced confusion and clarified career pathways.

Apply a consistent method to determine the relative value of roles. Whether using point factor scoring, whole job ranking, or a hybrid approach, document the rationale for every decision. Transparency builds confidence and defensibility.

Example: A water district used a point factor tool to evaluate engineering roles. Documenting factor scores made it clear why “project engineer” and “senior engineer” differed, which prevented grievances when ranges were adjusted.

Organize jobs into coherent families and series. Establish levels such as entry, journey, senior, lead, and supervisor, with observable criteria that make distinctions clear. Ensure alignment across departments so similar roles are evaluated consistently, regardless of where they sit.

Example: A city realigned its HR jobs into a single series: Analyst I, II, Senior, and Manager. Before, departments used inconsistent titles. Afterward, career pathways were clear and comparisons were defensible.

A system is only effective if it evolves with the work. Build in regular reviews, every few years or when major changes occur. Define triggers such as reorganizations, new technology, regulatory changes, or shifts in service delivery. Establish governance for how requests are submitted, evaluated, and approved.

Example: One county adopted a policy requiring reevaluation whenever technology significantly changed a job’s duties. This kept its system current during rapid digital modernization.

Job enrichment vs. Job enlargement
Agencies sometimes confuse these concepts. Enrichment adds higher-level decision-making and accountability. Enlargement adds more tasks at the same level. Confusing them can lead to inappropriate reclassifications.

Resistance to Change
Employees often worry: Will my job be downgraded? Does a new title mean less pay? Will I lose overtime eligibility? Transparent communication, side-by-side maps of current and proposed structures, and clear answers to questions reduce anxiety and build trust.

Role Ambiguity
When job descriptions lag behind reality, employees fill gaps informally. Over time, ambiguity undermines equity and defensibility.

Examples in Practice:

Public safety clarity
Senior officer and sergeant duties blurred. By revalidating level criteria and reaffirming role distinctions, the agency restored progression and reduced disputes.

Water operations pathway
A district clarified how licensure and skill depth tied to level movement. Adding structured differentials stabilized turnover and made expectations clearer.

IT refresh
An agency divided one IT bucket into Infrastructure, Applications, and Data, each with defined levels. A point-factor tool supported precise distinctions, reducing one-off fixes.

• Skills and competency-based structures
• Agile frameworks that simplify maintenance
• Career pathways that highlight lateral and upward mobility
• Transparency and equity practices supported by audits and governance
• Data and analytics that spot drift and maintain consistency
• Flatter structures where appropriate to support responsiveness

CPS HR Consulting partners with public agencies to design and maintain classification and job evaluation systems that are clear, defensible, and sustainable. We bring:

• Technical rigor anchored in public-sector practice
• Practical implementation tools for maintenance
• Guidance on communication and change management to build trust
• Structures that withstand review by employees, unions, and boards

The result: Agencies gain clarity, employees gain transparency, and organizations gain a structure that adapts as work changes.

If your classification and job evaluation systems are overdue for review, CPS HR Consulting can help you build a framework that supports your people and your mission.