Step 3: Evaluate Options and Draw Broad Conclusions

This section describes various kinds of high-level conclusions and probing questions that can be derived from the detailed staffing plans that are typically produced when the strategic staffing process I have described is used. These analyses and questions are meant to provide the user with a better understanding of some of the big-picture issues and implications of the staffing plans that are developed. Two main categories of suggestions have been provided. The first set of suggestions should be applied when a single staffing plan or scenario has been developed. The second set should be applied when one staffing plan or scenario is being compared to another (e.g., to identify major differences between the plans). Often, it is this high-level analysis that determines which scenario or approach should be taken.

A Caution

Most organizations implement the strategic staffing process in order to develop staffing strategies and define staffing plans. The output from the process is usually a list of very specific staffing actions that should be implemented in order to ensure that an adequate number of qualified people will be available to support the implementation of the company’s business strategies. Consequently, the primary, most useful output of the process is these detailed staffing plans. While big-picture broad conclusions may help to identify key issues and implications, they should be developed in addition to (and not instead of) detailed staffing plans.

The Overall Approach

Organizations that are relatively certain of their future plans sometimes develop a single staffing scenario and create specific staffing plans that support that scenario. This approach might also be appropriate in situations where companies develop and apply standard staffing ratios or look only at the most likely scenario. When looking for overall conclusions, these companies tend to look for broad staffing implications of that single scenario.

Other organizations define several “what-if” staffing scenarios and develop staffing plans for each. This approach is most appropriate when the future is uncertain. An organization might develop a “best” case, a “worst” case, and a “most likely” case and define a staffing strategy that is the most effective hedge for all three cases. It also might want to define the implications of several possible approaches (e.g., defining the impact on staffing of a move from a 37.5-hour workweek to a 40-hour workweek). Generally speaking, analyses in these cases tend to include comparisons of one scenario with another; broad conclusions usually center on choosing one scenario over another.

Evaluating a Single Scenario

When you are trying to draw broad conclusions from a single strategic staffing plan, I suggest the following approach.

Review Initial Gaps and Surpluses

First, review your initial gaps and surpluses. Identify and focus on those that seem particularly large. At first, don’t worry about fixing any of the problems you see. Instead, get a feel for where the problems may be. Focus your efforts on the largest and most significant gaps and surpluses.

Review Assumptions

Review your assumptions to determine the possible causes of the large gaps and surpluses. Where necessary, revise your assumptions and rerun the model.

• Turnover. Review the assumptions that you made regarding losses. Are they realistic? Can the losses be reduced for any cell? Might the losses need to be increased in order to reduce surpluses?

• Planned hiring. Look at the hiring you have anticipated. Do your plans match your needs? Do your hiring plans reduce critical gaps? Might they be creating unnecessary surpluses?

• Other staffing moves. Look at the other staffing moves you have assumed (e.g., promotions or transfers). Are they really needed? Might they be continuing past patterns that are no longer appropriate? Are they addressing gaps and surpluses? Conversely, might they be creating additional gaps or surpluses? Might they be reduced or accelerated?

Compare Supply to Demand

Look at current supply and forecast demand. Identify job categories or cells that show a significant increase or decrease (e.g., 10 to 15 percent).

• Supply. Verify that your supply number is correct (e.g., that there is no double-counting and that no people are missed).

• Demand. Review your demand assumptions (e.g., the ratios you used). Are they realistic? Are they correct (e.g., have you applied the right assumptions, and are your calculations correct)?

• Compare supply to demand. From an overall or total perspective, what is the extent of the change? How large is the change in total population in absolute terms? How large is it in percentage terms? What rows or columns are changing most? Calculate the degree of change. Are these changes warranted? Are they realistic?

Develop Staffing Plans

Once you are sure that your assumptions are realistic and appropriate, rerun the model to update your net needs. Define staffing plans to eliminate gaps and surpluses.

Comparing Multiple Scenarios

When you are drawing broad conclusions across multiple scenarios, I suggest the following approach. First, run a staffing model for each scenario to be considered and define the most effective staffing strategies and plans for each scenario. It is sometimes helpful to establish one scenario as a base case and compare others to it. Review your results, adjust your assumptions, and rerun your models, following the process described for a single scenario. Once you are sure that your initial models are as accurate as possible, begin the comparison of one scenario with another. Here are some comparisons you may wish to consider.

Analyze Demand

Compare the overall total demand for the two (or more) scenarios. Calculate absolute and percent differences. Look for and calculate major differences in row and/or column totals. Look for large differences in individual cells.

Here is an example: Two merging organizations had different workweeks for nonexempt employees. In one, staff worked 40 hours each week; in the other, they worked just 37.5 hours. Clearly, implementing the shorter workweek would have a negative impact on production levels and would thus increase the number of employees that would be required. But by how much? The company’s staffing plan that supported the 37.5-hour workweek showed that 2,490 staff would be required to support planned production levels. If the 40-hour workweek was used, only 2,334 staff would be needed. This overall total was valuable in itself, but the company dug deeper. Where did the reductions occur? Were there no reductions at all in some particular job categories and large reductions in others? Or was the difference due primarily to across-the-board reductions?

Compare Net Needs

Compare the total net needs under one scenario to the total net needs under another (calculate absolute and percent differences). Compare row and/or column net needs as well. Look also for large differences in individual cells.

Here is an example: For the merging companies described in the previous example, one scenario (the 37.5-hour week) resulted in an overall gap of 449 staff. In the second scenario (the 40-hour week), the total gap was just 293 staff. Again, this overall difference was important, but detailed analysis was still needed. A review of gaps on a job-by-job basis showed that for some jobs there was no appreciable difference in the size of the gap between the two scenarios. The company concluded that the overall decrease was due primarily to large reductions in a few categories, not to an overall reduction in all categories.

When analyzing gaps, look also at absolute values, not just numeric differences. This approach sometimes provides a more realistic assessment of the amount of change that is actually occurring. Suppose that there was a gap of 10 staff in one job and a surplus of 5 in another. A straight arithmetic sum of the two would show a net gap of 5 staff (and thus 5 staffing problems to be addressed). However, adding the two using their absolute values would result in a sum of 15, not 5. This would show that there are actually 15 staffing problems to address (i.e., reducing the 10 gaps and alleviating the 5 surpluses).

Compare Staffing Plans and Numbers of Actions

Compare the number and type of staffing actions across scenarios. For example, implementation of one scenario might require 210 total hires, whereas implementation of a second scenario might require only 150 hires. Similarly, one scenario might require 122 hires, but another would require only 27 (with the balance being addressed through internal movement).