Scored blind to payroll, then compared: HR435's Unit 2 exercise ranks eight composite machining jobs on five factors and finds the maintenance technician paid below two lower-rated jobs. Searches like "hr 435 unit 2 assignment example", "hr435 unit 2 sample" and "hr435 unit 2 example" land here.
What a finished HR435 Unit 2 job evaluation exercise looks like
Five pages and three tables. The first defines the plan: technical knowledge weighted at 300 points, problem solving and accountability at 200 each, contacts and physical demands at 150 each, every factor divided into five degrees rising in equal steps. The second table scores the jobs. Machine operator lands at 350, quality inspector 460, CNC machinist 500, buyer 540, production scheduler 580, maintenance technician 620, shift supervisor 670 and manufacturing engineer 730. A sentence under every degree assignment explains it, such as the technician's top degree for physical demands, earned by confined-space work near energized equipment. The third table sets points beside current average pay, and the order breaks at one place: the technician, at $57,200, earns less than the buyer at $61,900 and the scheduler at $59,300.
How a HR435 Unit 2 example is structured
Nothing in the design lets pay influence the scores, and the paper says how. A method paragraph explains that three raters scored independently from job descriptions with salaries removed, then reconciled differences in a meeting, with any degree still disputed after discussion noted in the table. The plan definition comes next, because weights are a decision and the paper defends them: technical knowledge carries the most because the company competes on tolerances. Scoring follows job by job in a single table, degree and points for every factor. Only after all eight totals are fixed does the payroll appear. The comparison section identifies the one break in order, explains why the technician's pay and his internal value diverged, and flags two close calls between adjacent jobs. It ends by stating what the evaluation cannot decide, which is how much anyone should actually be paid.
Weights as a decision
Why technical knowledge carries 300 of 1,000 points at a company that competes on tolerances, and why contacts carries only 150.
Five degrees in equal steps
Each factor divided into degrees worth one fifth of its maximum, so degree three in accountability is always 120 points.
Three raters, salaries removed
Independent scoring from stripped job descriptions, a reconciliation meeting, and one disputed degree recorded rather than quietly averaged.
Eight totals, then payroll
The ranking from 350 to 730 fixed before a single wage appears, with the points-to-pay comparison placed in a table of its own.
One break in the order
The technician's 620 points against pay below two jobs scoring 540 and 580, stated as a finding for the pricing work to test.
Where marks go in HR435 Unit 2
The exercise gives up the most when current pay leaks into the scores. A ranking that happens to match the payroll line for line suggests the raters knew salaries and worked backward, and many sections read it that way. A method that visibly blocks that leak earns the credit. Weights asserted with no rationale are the second loss; a factor plan is a statement about what the organization values, and a paper should defend it in a sentence. Degree assignments with no explanation cannot be checked, which defeats the purpose of a point method. Arithmetic errors in a points table are hard to forgive here because the whole exercise is addition. Papers that jump from the ranking to recommended salaries have skipped market pricing, which belongs to the next stage of the course.
Get a HR435 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Job descriptions and whatever factor plan the Unit 2 case supplies are the inputs, along with the rubric. A worked evaluation comes back within 24-48h: factors weighted and defended, every degree explained, totals added correctly and pay compared only after scoring. Your first sample is free.
HR435 Unit 2 questions, answered
Why hide current pay from the raters?
Because knowing what a job earns pulls scores toward the existing order, and the point of job evaluation is to test that order rather than confirm it. The example strips salaries from the descriptions, scores all eight jobs, and only then brings in payroll. If your case gives you pay data up front, say how you kept it out of the scoring.
Can I use a different number of factors?
Yes. Many plans use three to six factors, and your instructor or case may supply a plan already. What matters is that each factor is defined, weighted with a reason, and divided into degrees a rater can distinguish. The example uses five because eight manufacturing jobs differ meaningfully on each, and fewer would blur the technician's profile.
Does a higher score mean the job should be paid more?
It means the job should sit higher in the internal order. How much more it pays depends on market data and on the pay structure, which later units build. The example ends at the finding that the technician is out of order, and it deliberately leaves the dollar answer to the pricing and structure work that follows.