The recent confusion in the ASTI about benchmarking seems to raise the question, do teachers and the public service sector in general really understand what benchmarking is all about?

Perhaps the distrust is understandable since benchmarking, when mentioned in the past, generally referred to performance benchmarking - a tool widely used in industry to establish performance standards. This is obviously not the remit for the new Benchmarking Body. The body is solely interested in looking at the job, not the person doing it or how well it is being done. This is a critical point, which seems to be overlooked or, at least, not understood. How well a particular job is being done is a matter for the managers in organisations and of no interest to the benchmarking body. The other aspect, which seems to be causing concern, is that benchmarking will lead to a change in jobs. Again, there is no link between the type of benchmarking envisaged and change. It will allow, if desired, tracking of any changes that occur from now on. The benchmarking process allows for an accurate snapshot to be taken of key job dimensions, which can be used later, if desired as a reference point.

So what is benchmarking? In essence, it is a process that compares the value of a job and its associated pay norm with that of another. There are some dimensions that are worthwhile explaining in a little detail - two critical issues arise in particular.

Firstly, how do you accurately value a job and what aspects are given the most weight? For example, is responsibility for people more important than responsibility for physical resources and, if so, by how much? How are job complexity and skill to be factored in and what other elements need to be included?

Fortunately, there are ways, which have been around in one form or another for more than 50 years, to do this. Factored-rated plans are the best because they have the ability to take on board different job types and they have a strong capability to be objective, particularly when carried out by experienced analysts. The factors cover all the dimensions of a job from issues such as responsibility, knowledge and experience right through to mental and physical demands. These aspects are then weighted so that the more important ones are given the recognition they deserve.

Secondly, what elements are to be included in the pay calculation? For example, are benefits such as access to performance pay, expenses, overtime, subsidised canteens and so on to be included? Provided the approach is agreed at the outset, this does not present a problem. Indeed, a methodology has already been successfully implemented to produce the widely accepted Buckley Report on pay for higher public servants and employees at senior executive levels in the public sector.

The rationale for developing a strong basis for valuing jobs and setting relative pay levels is a positive and necessary strategy.

Job profiles will change, as indeed will the remuneration packages in the benchmark organisations. The need to be able to address ongoing change, it is anticipated, will be a major factor for continuation of the benchmarking process.

The benchmarking body is seen as the most significant development in industrial relations in the public service for many years. In a time of rapid change, the need to move forward with new structures and relativities is important. There is nothing to fear from the benchmarking process as there is no downside in terms of actual loss.

Perceptions of relative values may be disturbed. However, the consolation will be that a fair and objective system will have been applied. For those who benefit from the process, the outcome will likely be acceptable if not welcomed. Those who perceive that they have not done well out of the process may not be so satisfied.

Tom McGuinness is chief executive of the Irish Productivity Centre