How Axiomera Grades Jobs: R/S/E/WC Explained
Axiomera is a proprietary job evaluation methodology built for organisations that need an EUPTD-compliant grading framework but cannot justify the cost and timeline of a full KF Hay or Mercer IPE implementation. It uses four dimensions, a 1000-point scale, and nine responsibility zones. This article explains how it works, where it came from, and when to use it over the established global methodologies.
The four dimensions
Responsibility
Formal accountability for outcomes. Assessed across three sub-dimensions: financial scope (budget owned or directly influenced), people scope (direct and indirect reports, including matrix relationships), and decision autonomy (degree to which the role can act without seeking approval). The heaviest-weighted dimension because it best distinguishes between jobs that look similar on a job description but operate at different organisational levels.
Skills and Knowledge
What the role requires, not what the incumbent possesses. Assessed across technical depth (specialist knowledge required to perform core duties), breadth (range of functional areas the role must navigate), and interpersonal complexity (degree to which success depends on influencing, negotiating, or communicating across organisational boundaries). Critical distinction: skills are assessed against the role specification, not the person's CV.
Effort
Physical, mental, and emotional demands of the role as designed. Physical effort matters more in operational and care roles. Mental effort (sustained concentration, problem complexity, time pressure) matters more in knowledge-work roles. Emotional effort (exposure to distressing situations, de-escalation requirements, empathic labour) is the dimension most consistently underweighted by traditional job evaluation, which creates EUPTD exposure in health, social care, and customer-facing roles.
Working Conditions
Environmental and structural conditions inherent to the role. Physical environment (exposure to noise, temperature, hazard). Schedule and availability requirements (shift work, on-call, travel). This dimension anchors the EUPTD gender-neutrality requirement for roles in male-dominated sectors where working conditions have historically attracted informal pay premiums that are not captured in formal grading.
The 1000-point scale and nine zones
Total scores range from 0 to 1000 points. The nine responsibility zones are defined by score ranges that correspond to organisational contribution levels, from entry-level operational roles (Zone 1: 0-110 points) to group executive roles (Zone 9: 850-1000 points). Zones are the unit of grouping for EUPTD Article 4 compliance: all roles within the same zone are candidates for the same job group.
| Zone | Score range | Typical level |
|---|---|---|
| Z1 | 0 - 110 | Entry operational, task-defined |
| Z2 | 111 - 220 | Skilled operational, some autonomy |
| Z3 | 221 - 330 | Professional entry, specialist knowledge |
| Z4 | 331 - 440 | Experienced professional, project scope |
| Z5 | 441 - 560 | Senior professional, functional leadership |
| Z6 | 561 - 670 | Team or function head |
| Z7 | 671 - 770 | Senior manager, multi-function scope |
| Z8 | 771 - 849 | Director or country head |
| Z9 | 850 - 1000 | Group executive |
How it compares to the global methodologies
| Dimension | Axiomera | KF Hay | Mercer IPE | WTW GGS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Implementation time | Days to weeks | Months | Months | Weeks to months |
| External certification | No | Yes (proprietary) | Yes (proprietary) | Yes (proprietary) |
| EUPTD gender-neutrality | Designed for it | Requires adaptation | Requires adaptation | Requires adaptation |
| Benchmarking access | No | Yes (Hay database) | Yes (Mercer database) | Yes (WTW database) |
| Auditability | Full (trace per role) | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate |
| Cost | Project-based | High (licence model) | High (licence model) | High (licence model) |
The key trade-off is benchmarking access. Hay, Mercer, and WTW give you salary survey data tied to their grading outputs. Axiomera does not. If your primary objective is external benchmarking, use a global methodology. If your primary objective is EUPTD compliance with an auditable, cost-effective grading foundation that you own and can explain to a works council, Axiomera is the right tool.
When to use Axiomera
Axiomera works best for organisations that: need EUPTD-compliant job grouping but cannot wait 6-9 months for a global methodology implementation; want an internally owned grading system that HR can operate without external consultants after initial setup; are in CEE or Iberian markets where global methodology licence costs are disproportionate to company size; or need to calibrate across 50-400 roles in a defined project timeline.
It is not the right tool for organisations that need their grading system to be globally recognised (for cross-border pay transparency reporting or global mobility programmes) or that are already licensed on Hay, Mercer, or WTW and have trained graders in-house.
See Axiomera applied to your roles
We can grade a sample set of 10 roles using the Axiomera framework in a 30-minute session. Enough to validate whether the methodology fits your organisation before committing to a full project.
Book a grading demo