Manpower Planning - The Overall Framework

InternationalJournal ofManpower17,1

26

An integrated systemframework and analysis

methodology for manpowerplanning

C.M. KhoongInformation Technology Institute, Singapore

IntroductionThe human resource management (HRM) function is a key supporting elementin the management of organizations. From the perspective of corporateobjectives, HRM is responsible for ensuring that the right people are availableat the right places and at the right times to execute corporate plans with thehighest levels of quality. Such a role is also often referred to as manpowerplanning. It is reasonable to say that manpower planning is the core of HRM,supported by other aspects of HRM. Process and system improvements tomanpower planning imply benefits to the HRM function and to the organizationas a whole.

The extent of computerization in manpower planning in organizations istypically limited to traditional database management systems which do nottake advantage of advances in computer technology in the 1990s. Such systemsserve the purpose of maintaining records on employee data and for generatingmanagement reports on the state of the manpower establishment. Indeed, evenin large organizations which employ thousands of employees, a significanttechnology gap may exist between the manpower planning function and other(especially line) functions in the organization. Such a gap may be surprising,but even more surprising is that the gap is rarely raised as an issue in corporateplanning. In fact, it is not uncommon to find manpower planning being handledentirely manually in many large organizations.

Closing the manpower planning technology gap has significant long-termbenefits to the organization, above and beyond the support it can provide toHRM. To this end, the crucial first step is to understand the differentperspectives in manpower planning, and the interactions among theseperspectives. By perspective is meant a particular view of information, whichleads to a particular set of decisions over the information. Major perspectives inmanpower planning include:

• establishment requirements planning (at various levels of manpowerstock aggregation);

International Journal of Manpower,Vol. 17 No. 1, 1996, pp. 26-46. © MCB University Press, 0143-7720

An integratedsystem

framework

27

• career progression planning (at various levels);

• staff movement planning (at various levels);

• personnel assignment;

• posting projection;

• succession planning;

• recruitment, retention, staff promotions, postings, and training.

Each of these planning perspectives has been well studied in the past. Inreality, these perspectives can interact with one another in intricate(constructive or destructive) ways. Few insights have been reported on suchinteractions and the impact of these interactions on the resultant manpowerplans.

In this paper, we provide an analysis of these interactions in the form ofdecision and feedback loops. The synthesis of these interactions leads to anintegrated decision support system (DSS) framework for manpower planning.To implement the DSS framework in organizations, a methodology for analysisof the manpower planning business process and feasibility assessment of DSSdeployment is needed. In this paper, we propose the integrated systemframework and the analysis methodology. This framework-cum-methodologypackage is used in applications deployment and consultancy undertaken by theauthor’s institute.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The first section definesvarious manpower planning perspectives and their interactions. The nextdescribes the integrated system framework. The following section details theprocess and system feasibility analysis methodology. The final sectionconcludes the paper.

Interacting perspectives in manpower planningKey manpower planning perspectives are defined below. Major interactions ofconcern among perspectives are analysed in the subsequent subsections.

Planning perspectives The various manpower planning perspectives listed above may be defined asfollows:

• Establ ishment requirements planning (ERP). This determinesmanpower requirements levels over a multi-year horizon, givenprojections of the organization’s workloads and growth policies. ERP issometimes referred to as manpower requirements forecasting in theliterature.

• Career progression planning (CPP). This determines steady stateprogression rates for each age-grade-stream combination (also called thecareer prospectus) in the manpower stocks, and the change in career


28

prospectus over time given the current age-grade-stream profile of themanpower stocks. (The stream of a staff reflects his or her potential toattain a certain grade by the time of retirement.) CPP is sometimesreferred to simply as career planning in the literature. An example of acareer prospectus is given in Figure 1.

• Staff movement planning (SMP). SMP determines the mix of variousstaff movements (recruitment, promotions, attrition, retirement andcontinuations) required over a multi-year horizon to transform themanpower stocks from its current state towards various staff holdingstargets. A basic illustration of staff movements across an organizationalhierarchy, for a given snapshot in time, is given in Figure 2.

• Personnel assignment (PA). From the perspective of operational staffingrequirements of functional units in the organization, PA distributes newrecruits to units and handles job rotations across units for staff alreadyin service.

• Posting projection (PP). This determines, for each individual, the list ofposts that he or she can possibly move to which. The list may be sortedin terms of suitability of posts and expected time needed beforemovement to each post.

• Succession planning (SP). SP determines, for each post, the list ofpotential successors. The list may be sorted in terms of suitability ofindividuals and expected time needed before succession by eachindividual.

• Recruitment, retention, staff promotions, postings and training. Theseare well-known, basic operational activities of the HR function thatsupport manpower plans. Collectively, we refer to these as near termevents in manpower planning.

Figure 1.Career prospectusfor a four-gradestructure at time t.Each horizontal slice isa stream. Aij(t) reflectsthe promotion age

Grade 4

Grade 3

Grade 2

Grade 1

q1(t )

q2(t )

q3(t )A42(t )

A32(t )

A22(t )

A43(t )

A33(t )

A44(t )

Age

An integratedsystem

framework

29

Interactions among levels in ERP ERP is technically seen as a forecasting and spreadsheet calculation process.However, the process of ERP can itself be approached from more than oneperspective. The traditional perspective is bottom up, in the sense thatorganizational units first do their own ERP (based on forecast workloads),after which the plans are successively balanced and aggregated towards anoverall organizational plan. Another perspective is top down, in which topmanagement first assess the long-term growth targets for the organization(based on business area focuses), and then distribute the targets across unitsin the organization. In practice, both perspectives can coexist and interact.Bottom-up ERP is likely to be triggered first to develop medium-termexpectations of the organization’s outputs. This serves as an input to top-down ERP, where the business vision is used to develop long-termexpectations of the organization’s outputs. This in turn revises the medium-term expectations.

Interactions among levels in CPP Many organizations have at least two scales for describing the seniority of staff.One scale is tied to the organizational appointment hierarchy (which tends to looklike a managerial career path hierarchy). Another scale is tied to the salary gradeof the staff (which is often the scale used to define a technical career path). Thesalary grade scale is normally more stable than the appointment hierarchy scale(which may change each time the organization is restructured). It is also normallythe case for a banding of appointment levels to be tied to each salary grade. It isconceivable that many levels of appointments can fall into the same grade.

CPP should normally be done based on the salary grade scale, since this ismore stable. This requires establishment requirements plans to be interpreted

Figure 2.Snapshot of staff

movements across theorganizational

hierarchy

w

w

ww

p

w

wp p

p p w p

w

w

w

r r r r

Stream4

Stream3

Stream2

Stream1

Appt level 4

Appt level 3

Appt level 2

Appt level 1

Keyr = recruitmentp = promotionw = wastage


30

along this scale, since these plans prescribe the desired proportion of staff ineach grade. For very large populations, CPP may also need to be done based onthe appointment scale. The grade-based CPP first constrains the appointment-based CPP, which may in turn feed back that staff proportions within particulargrades are not shaped smoothly enough to support progressions across grades.This can lead to fine-tuning of grade-based CPP.

Interactions among levels in SMP SMP has interacting perspectives analogous to those for CPP. In the long term,SMP is exercised for the organization’s manpower stocks as a whole, described ingrade-stream-age combinations. In the medium term, management may also beinterested in looking at subsets of the population, e.g. specific divisions or special-ist pools. SMP, if exercised on these subsets, is first constrained by the overall SMPfor the organization. Feedback from the lower level SMP (based on more detailedknowledge of the impact of short- to medium-term events that may affectmovement plans) to the higher one may lead to adjustments in staff movements.

Interactions among ERP, CPP and SMP The chain of planning activities starts with ERP, from which requirements arefed into CPP to compute career prospects. CPP outputs prescribe promotion andrecruitment policies to SMP, as constraints in staff movements. This sequentialflow of decision making is quite rigid, and most organizations can manage withmore flexibility. Feedback mechanisms in the reverse direction, i.e. from SMP toCPP and from CPP to ERP, can be of strategic value in the sense of engineeringmanpower policies for the organization. The perspective providing thefeedback acts as a simulator of policies passed into it; the perspective receivingthe feedback can then be used to refine its decisions iteratively. For instance,instead of merely asking the question, “How can manpower availabilities fitrequirements?”, management can now ask, “What should requirements be, sothat staff availabilities can meet requirements?”

Interactions between SMP and short-term events In a fashion similar to ERP-CPP-SMP interactions, the SMP perspective alsointeracts with short-term decisions like recruitment, retention, staff promotions,postings and training. The SMP perspective operates in terms of numbers of staffin each age-grade-stream category, while short-term decisions essentially involvespecific individuals. The feasibility of SMP decisions depend on the short-termevents in the manpower establishment. For instance, the number of actualpromotions may be less than the level recommended by SMP. SMP gives broadguidelines for each year, which can be continually revised in a rolling horizonfashion as better understanding of short-term events are received as feedback.

Interactions between PA and PP While PA assigns staff to posts based on operational staffing needs offunctional units, PP recommends posts for staff based on career development

An integratedsystem

framework

31

concerns. If these two perspectives were to operate independently,inconsistent plans may ensue because, depending on how postings areeffected, either operational staffing needs or career development needs may beignored. The two perspectives need to recognize one another. The PAperspective may take precedence for recruit pools and in operational crisissituations, while the PP perspective may take precedence in “peaceful” timesfor staff in service.

Interactions between PP and SP The interaction between the PP and SP perspectives is subtle. On the surface,one perspective seems to be the “dual” of the other. But on careful scrutiny, onewould notice that the two perspectives actually use different criteria. The PPperspective addresses the question, “Which jobs have the best use for thisperson’s skills and potential?”, while the SP perspective addresses the question,“Which person has the best skills or potential that meets this job’srequirements?” In other words, while the PP perspective compares posts basedon relative util ization of competences of each person, the SP perspectivecompares persons based on relative importance of competences for each job.The two perspectives are illustrated in Figure 3. The actual value to theorganization for assigning a person to a post is a normalized aggregation of thevalues derived from both perspectives. Thus, the two perspectives cannotoperate independently.

Macro manpower system dynamics perspectiveTop management sees HRM in a macro perspective, pieced together withcorporate objectives, long-term operations scenarios, external labour marketforces, national political and economic conditions, national population andeducation statistics, etc. In the short term, such external conditions may beassumed to be fairly constant for the purpose of manpower planning, but in the

Figure 3.Succession planning

versus postingprojection perspectives

Post x

Person1

Person2

Personn

Succession planning perspective

WeightsRelativeimportances

Person x

Post1

Post2

Postn

Posting projection perspective

WeightsRelativeutilities


32

long run of, say, ten to 20 years, these conditions can imply severe internalconstraints in the manpower establishment.

Top management should see the importance of understanding the macrointeractions among internal and external dynamics. To this end, systemdynamics provides the technology for mapping out the dynamics and foranalysing long-term effects of policies. There are two aspects to the use ofsystem dynamics. The qualitative aspect is an iterative process of mapping outthe dynamics using influence diagrams. The quantitative aspect is a simulationprocess that provides feedback for qualitative evaluation of policies. Long-termforecasts of political, economic and social indicators are fed into the model totemper the simulated rates. A system dynamics model for macro manpowerpolicies is depicted in Figure 4.

Figure 4.Macro manpowersystem dynamicsperspective

Organizationretirement age

Establishmentrequirements

Work outputrate

Rate ofleaving

Establishfill

LeaversRecruitment

rate

Recruitmentopportunity

Workoutput

Retirees

Rate of loss tocompetitors

Organizationbenefit

competitiveness

Externalretirement rate

Propensityto join

competitors

Propensity tojoin

organization

Externalestablishmentrequirements

+ ++

+

+

+

Labourexchange

Economicgrowth rate

Rate oflabour market

expansion

Schoolingpopulation

Rate ofschool

registration Population

Death rate

+

+

+

+

+

+

+ +

+ +

+

+

+

+

+ + +

+

+

+

+

–

–

–

–

––

**

External jobmarket

Birth rate

+

+

–

–

+

An integratedsystem

framework

33

Previous frameworksInteractions among the various manpower planning perspectives have rarelybeen discussed in the literature. Comprehensive manpower planning systemframeworks have been discussed in the past, but with framework modulestreated separately in functionality, and probably executed by independent unitsin the organization as well. This situation is readily discerned from publishedsurveys(Ashton and Ashton, 1988; Edwards, 1983a; Gass, 1991; Price et al.,1980; Purkiss, 1987; Smith and Bartholomew, 1988).

ERP models have been discussed in Bartholomew and Forbes (1991),Bennison and Casson (1994), Lawrence (1980) and Verhoeven (1982). Thesemodels use techniques such as extrapolation/regression, work/productivitymeasurement, or econometrics. There is no discussion in these publications oninteractions among levels in ERP.

Analytical models for CPP have been studied quite extensively (Bartholomewand Forbes, 1991; Bennison and Casson, 1984; Edwards, 1983a; 1983b; Edwardsand Morgan, 1982; Forbes, 1970; Forbes et al., 1980; Grinold and Marshall, 1977;Keenay et al., 1977; McClean, 1979; McClean and Abordunde, 1978; Morgan,1979; Purkiss, 1981; 1984; Tyler, 1983; Vajda, 1978) in particular in the UK,where the classic “Camel” model (Keenay et al., 1980]) was created. Variousstudies were conducted on steady-state and control-theoretic aspects of CPPmodels. These models all treat grade-based CPP only and do not discussinteractions with appointment-based CPP.

SMP models have also been extensively analysed in the past (Aronson andThompson, 1985; Collins et al., 1983; Cullingford and Scott, 1980; Edwards,1983b; Eiger et al., 1988; Gaimon et al., 1987; Gass, 1991; Gass et al., 1988;Grinold and Marshall, 1977; Holz and Wroth, 1980; Klingman et al., 1984;Lawrence, 1980; Mehlmann, 1980; Miller, 1984; Niehaus, 1995; Price, 1978; Priceand Gravel, 1984; Price et al., 1980; Purkiss, 1981; Silverman et al., 1988;Verhoeven, 1982; Young and Abodunde, 1979; Zanakis and Maret, 1981), inparticular in the USA, where the military services are major users of suchmodels. Most of these models use some form of linear programming or networkoptimization. None of these models discuss interactions among levels in SMP,nor discuss interactions between SMP and short-term events.

Interactions among ERP, CPP, and SMP that we have raised in the sectionentitled “Interactions among ERP, CPP and SMP” have not been addressed inthe literature, either.

PA models have been studied in Charnes et al. (1985), Feiring (1993), Gass(1991), Klingman and Phillips (1984), Klingman et al.(1984), Liang and Buclatin(1988), Liang and Thompson (1987), Mensch (1970), Pinar and Zenios (1992) andSteurer and Wallace (1978). Unfortunately, almost all of these models arespecialized to the needs of USA military services, and lack general industrialrelevance. Also, interactions of these PA models with PP models are not treatedanywhere in the literature.

We are not aware of any significant treatment of PP and SP models in themanpower planning literature. On the other hand, these models are available in


34

numerous commercial software tools. Most of these software tools performsimple staff-to-job matchings based on a database of competences. The toolsmostly adopt the SP perspective and do not offer any insights on theinteractions between PP and SP.

Short-term events like recruitment, retention, promotions, postings andtraining also lack treatment in the manpower planning literature, and unsur-prisingly so since these events are normally beyond the scope of planning.Commercial software is available that provide database managementcapabilities to support these events.

The need for a macroscopic system dynamics perspective has beensuggested in Wolstenholme (1990) but has not been explored further in themanpower planning literature.

In summary, previous developments of the various manpower planningperspectives have been disparate, and can benefit much from an integratedframework. Our proposed framework, which we describe in the next section, isa concrete step in this direction.

An integrated system frameworkA generic manpower planning system framework is proposed here. Thisframework is part of an umbrella manpower and service operationsmanagement concept, which is presented in Khoong and Ku (1994b). Technicaldetails of some aspects of the system framework which have been developed arepresented in Chew and Khoong (1994) and Khoong (1994b). The key motivationbehind the framework is the integration of the interacting perspectivesdescribed previously. Furthermore, the framework provides a detailedstructuring of the manpower planning workflow into decision layers, which isalso unprecedented in the manpower planning research literature. Lastly, theframework is guided by a detailed list of performance indicators, which isinnovative in analysing manpower planning systems.

Framework architecture The framework is organized into six decision layers:

(1) Descriptive analysis. Provides support to strategic planning throughanalysis of historical and future trends.

(2) Strategic planning (organizational). Derives long-term plans and policiesfrom an organizational (aggregate) perspective.

(3) Tactical planning (organizational). Refines and controls adherence tostrategic plans in the short term from an organizational perspective.

(4) Tactical planning (individualized). Translates tactical, organizationalplans into short-term plans from the perspective of individual staff.

(5) Operational planning (individualized). Refines and controls adherence toindividualized tactical plans.

An integratedsystem

framework

35

(6) Execution (manual). Implementation of actions in view of individualizedoperational plans.

The system framework is illustrated in Figure 5. In the framework, additionalmodules not discussed previously are also included. These modules interfacemanpower planning with other key management processes in the organization.

There are several advantages in a hierarchical decision layer framework.First, roles and responsibilities in manpower planning are clearly bounded anddistinguished. Second, data and decision flows among the planning functions,as well as the feedback mechanisms, are also clearly structured. Third, therelative impacts and frequency of usage of planning functions becomesapparent and consistent. The conceptual design of each decision layer in theframework is explained below.

The descriptive analysis layer provides capabilities for analysing internal aswell as external labour supply and loss trends, capabilities for projecting aheadthe effects of staff movement policies and simulating the behaviours of

Figure 5.Manpower planning

system framework

Cohort trendsanalysis

Wastageanalysis

Labour marketanalysis

Staffingprojection

Descriptive analysisA

Strategic planning (organizational)

Productivitymeasurement

Staff competencedevelopment

Staff movementplanning

Corporateplanning

Establishmentrequirements

planningCareer progression

planning

B

Trainingplanning

Staff movementcontrol

Recruitmentmanagement

Tactical planning (organizational)C

Successionplanning

Postingprojection

Personnelassignment

Tactical planning (individualized)D

ExecutionRecruitment/retention/postings/promotions/training

F

Trainingmanagement

Posting chainplanning

Self appraisal/promotion

Operational planning (individualized)E


36

individuals as they flow across the manpower establishment, and capabilities foranalysing the long-term dynamics of the manpower system at a macro level. Theinformation focus of this layer is on correlations among individuals, the organi-zational hierarchy, and career prospectuses. Key planning parameters are thetypes of movements and the behaviour of cohorts. In particular, the labour mar-ket analysis module corresponds to the macro perspective discussed previously.

The strategic planning (organizational) layer provides linkages from corporateplans to manpower requirements plans, which the layer in turn translate intocareer prospectuses and staff movement plans needed over the next few years tomatch staff availabilities with establishment demands and to sustain the health ofthe manpower establishment. The information focus of this layer is on careerprospectuses. Key planning parameters are staff grades and career streams.

The tactical planning (organizational) layer translates staff movement plansstipulated by strategic planning into finer decompositions of recruitment, pro-motion and wastage flows in the nearer term. This layer also reconciles deviationsfrom strategic plans which resulted from uncontrollable factors in the near term(for instance, staff performance or vacancies which warrant movement patternswhich were not foreseen in the strategic movement plan). Specific recruitmentand training needs for the work year are also established. The information focusof this layer is on the linkage between career prospectuses and the organizationalhierarchy. Key planning parameters are areas of specialization.

The tactical planning (individualized) layer proactively prepares individualsfor postings, within the guidelines stipulated by the career prospectuses andorganizational tactical plans. While the upper layers have addressed staffingneeds in terms of aggregate numbers, this layer examines the possibilities bybalancing the career development and potential of specific individuals in themanpower system with the staffing needs of the organization. The informationfocus of this layer is on the organizational hierarchy. Key planning parametersare posts, jobs and/or areas of deployment.

The operational planning (individualized) layer confirms staff movements atthe points of need, for final approval by users for execution. Specific trainingneeds for individuals are also scheduled. Staff appraisal and ranking processesare carried out that lead to changes in the status of individuals. The informationfocus of this layer is on the linkage between the organizational hierarchy andindividuals. Key planning parameters are staff competences.

The execution layer supports reactions to actual happenings such asrecruitment, training, postings, promotions and retention. The informationfocus of this layer is on individuals. Key control (instead of planning, since thislayer is reactive) parameters are events.

Framework performance indicators Clear performance indicators need to be established to continuously monitorthe health of the manpower establishment, and to point to areas formanagement attention. The framework is envisaged to support numerousmanpower planning performance indicators:

An integratedsystem

framework

37

(1) Gaps between establishment requirement and staff holding levels.

(2) Gaps between current and desired steady state career prospectuses.

(3) Gaps between planned and actual recruitment, promotion, retention andtraining levels.

(4) Gaps between individual career progressions and their idealprogressions.

(5) Gaps between posting/succession plans and actual postings.

(6) Potential and performance profiles of leavers.

(7) Potential and performance profiles of cohorts.

(8) Recruitment success rate.

(9) Retention success rate.

(10) Effectiveness of job-sizing descriptors in describing workloads.

(11) Effectiveness of competence structure in staff-to-job fits.

(12) Competence gaps between individuals and their appointments.

(13) Utilization of manpower resources.Indicators (1)-(13) are directly supportable by the system framework, in thesense that the system can contribute directly to reducing gaps measured bythese indicators. The other indicators depend on a mix of computerrecommendations, human planner judgement and social dynamics of themanpower establishment.

Technologies for framework implementation The state of the art in computer and decision support technologies may beinjected into the framework as follows:

• statistical analysis, simulation, and EIS tools serve the descriptiveanalysis layer;

• decision analysis, integer programming and network flow tools serve thestrategic planning (organizational) layer;

• knowledge-based reasoning and partitioning tools serve the tacticalplanning (organizational) layer;

• knowledge-based reasoning and routeing tools serve the tacticalplanning (individualized) layer;

• decision analysis, network flow and scheduling tools serve theoperational planning (individualized) layer; and

• man-machine interface tools serve the execution layer.In a nutshell, intelligent optimization tools are provided to the planning decisionlayers (strategic planning (organizational), tactical planning (organizational),


38

tactical planning (individualized), operational planning (individualized)), whileman-machine interactive and visually intuitive data capture and analysis toolsare provided to the descriptive analysis and execution layers. Much of thesetechnologies have been available for a while, but the lack of an integratedapproach to the deployment of these tools was lacking, and insufficientattention has been paid in the past to making the power of these tools fullyaccessible to users. A common complaint from users has been that the benefitsof using sophisticated tools are usually outweighed by the cost of providing thedata and decision links needed to operate the tools.

Activities along the boundary of manpower planning also benefit fromadvanced computer technology. For instance, in the recruitment process,intelligent machines scan in résumés of job applicants, perform shortlisting ofcandidates based on the acceptance criteria, generate letter responses toapplicants and, for shortlisted candidates, schedule interviews with recruitmentofficers. Another setting is the appraisal process, which includes a process ofnegotiation among assessors for the purpose of moderating appraisal results. Inlarge, multi-echelon, multidisciplinary organizations, the process of moderation isa very intricate and subjective one. The lack of complete information withassessors results in the use of benchmark performers to moderate the rest of theestablishment. Group decision support systems have a clear role to play here.

Analysis methodologyTo examine system deployment possibilities in a manpower planning setting, itis first necessary to understand the reasons behind the manpower planningtechnology gap. This is discussed above. This understanding helps in theexecution of the system feasibility assessment methodology, which is alsoexplained above. Even after the needs for automated manpower planning havebeen established and the system developed, the proper immersion of themanpower planning system into the user environment remains a tricky problemthat cannot be overlooked. Such issues are discussed above.

Understanding the manpower planning technology gap Current usage of computerized decision support aids in manpower planning isextremely low. The state-of-the-art technology available for supportingmanpower planning draws from the fields of operations research, artificialintelligence and statistics, and utilizes graphical, interactive man-machineinterfaces for simulation and presentation. This is, unfortunately, a significantdeparture from current HRM practices, in which the tools of manpowerplanners are at best at the technology level of spreadsheet software. There isthus almost total reliance on the discretion of human manpower planners for thedesign and implementation of HRM policies. This has implications for thedepth, breadth and accuracy of insights on the state of the manpowerestablishment, and also implications for the consistency, efficiency, and qualityof manpower planning procedures.

An integratedsystem

framework

39

Plugging the technology gap can go a long way in alleviating these problems.To this end, we need first to analyse the causes of the technology gap. Based onour case studies with client organizations [25] and findings in the literature, thefollowing key causes may be discerned:

• There is a dearth of readily available and appropriate automated decisionsupport tools in existence. The degree of sophistication of most tools islimited to simple trend analyses. Tools which have more sophisticateddecision modelling capabilities are unfortunately too complex for users tomap their manpower planning problems into the software.

• The HRM function is a staff function rather than a line function, withimplications for the degree of need for automated decision aids. Whileline decisions may be do-or-die for the organization, staff decisions areadvisory in nature. Thus, performance indicators on staff functions areless demanding and rarely seen as bottlenecks in the managing theorganization’s value chain.

• Manpower planning decision procedures have many subjectiveintricacies and data uncertainties. The more sophisticated the automatedtools are, the greater is the reliance on accurate and comprehensiveknowledge of data and policies in the appropriate level of detail andwithin certain rational cause-effect boundaries. The returns fromadvanced technology can be greatly diminished by difficulties withobtaining and maintaining such knowledge.

The insights gained from the above points are that, on one hand, there is a needto educate the HRM community on the potential of advanced technology inmanpower planning and, more importantly, there is also a needmethodologically to immerse the automated tools into manpower planningprocesses. These needs are addressed in the following subsections.

Feasibility assessment methodologyWe review here a particularly successful feasibility assessment methodologyfor decision support systems. This methodology is explained in greater depthin Khoong (1993) and Khoong and Ku (1994). The generic and holistic nature ofthis methodology makes it readily applicable to manpower planning systems.

The methodology proposes that the feasibility assessment exercise proceedalong the following eight steps:

(1) Study of organization structure and objectives.

(2) Study of physical processes in organization.

(3) Study of decision-making procedures in organization.

(4) Analysis of technical feasibility of system.

(5) Analysis of economic feasibility of system.

(6) Analysis of environmental feasibility of system.


40

(7) Overall cost-benefit assessment.(8) Recommendations for follow-up system development.

In the above steps, the term “organization” is focused on those parts of theorganization which are involved (directly or indirectly) in the applications domain(e.g. manpower planning). Each step of the exercise is conducted jointly withusers; this contributes to users’ agreement with, and ownership of, the results ofthe exercise. Figure 6 illustrates the flow of the exercise (step (3) is particularlytechnical and complex). Figure 7 gives the detailed flow of analysis undertaken instep (3). Key issues examined in step (6) for the manpower planning domain havebeen discussed previously. Step (7) may be further decomposed as follows:

• Consolidation of current problems, wish lists, and perceived problems.• Identification of benefits and risk factors associated with system.• Classification of benefits and risks.

Figure 6.Feasibility assessmentmethodology

Organizationstudy

Physicalprocesses

Decisionprocesses

Technicalfeasibility

Economicfeasibility

Environmentalfeasibility

Overallassessment

DSSrecommendations

Key

Reference link

Study sequence

An integratedsystem

framework

41

• Computation of capital costs and recurrent costs.• Quantification of tangible benefit and risk factors.• Interpretation of intangible benefits and risks.• Consolidation of costs and benefits.• Presentation of assessment tables.

Cost-benefit comparison for manpower planning systems is not astraightforward matter, as the direct benefits of such systems would tend to behighly intangible. Furthermore, the effects of such benefits (or the lack of them)may only surface several years after the manpower planning decisions havebeen made. The manpower planning performance indicators highlightedpreviously provide some key dimensions along which benefits of the systemcan be quantified and measured.

Figure 7.Decision process

analysis

Problemstatement

Resources

Tasks

Objectives

Constraints/policies

Assumptions

Costmodels

Proceduralrules

Key

Reference link

Modelling sequence


42

Key environmental issues Various processes need to be studied or put in place to ensure smoothimplementation of the system in the user environment. Key actions include:

(1) Establish the principles for design of career prospectuses.(2) Establish the correct level of detail in data provided to the system.(3) Establish the level of explanation needed from the system.(4) Understand the interactions among push and pull effects in the

manpower establishment.(5) Establish the optimal level of automated planning.(6) Understand and capitalize on the controllability of parameters.(7) Establish the correct interpretation of historical data.(8) Develop a robust staff competence structure.

Some of the above items may appear obvious, but yet fail to receive theappropriate amount of attention, with surprising consequences for the successof system deployment. We discuss the items below.

For (1), the design of prospectuses should recognize the difference betweenthe long-term career development needs of individuals and the short-termcorporate development needs of the organization. Thus the prospectusesshould have a high degree of stability and generality across areas ofspecialization. In the nearer term, specific career development needs along theorganizational hierarchy should be mapped clearly to points along the stableprospectuses.

For (2), the key principle is that if the level of detail is too high, the plans maynot be controllable; if the level of detail is too low, the plans may not beimplementable.

For (3), the user needs to see the logic of the system’s solutions by steppingthrough the consequences of plans. Simulation has a key role to play here.

For (4), it is important to note that push effects (e.g. planned staff movements,staff performance) and pull effects (e.g. vacancies, establishment requirements)cannot be combined into the same planning process, and that it is notstraightforward for plans based on one type of effect to influence plans based onthe other type of effect.

For (5), the principle is to distinguish need-to-have planning modules clearlyfrom the nice-to-have ones, and to compare the relative impacts of modules onmanpower planning performance indicators.

For (6), it is important to know which parameters are controllable in the shortand long terms. For instance, wastage rates are uncontrollable in the short termbut moderately controllable in the long term through retention policies;promotion rates are moderately controllable in the short term but highlycontrollable in the long term through the career prospectuses. Furthermore,certain manpower policies can have wide-ranging effects on the controllabilityof parameters.

An integratedsystem

framework

43

For (7), the point to note is that historical data can give good indicators onexpected future behaviours of highly uncontrollable parameters (e.g. attrition),but cannot give good indicators on expected future behaviours of highlycontrollable parameters (e.g. promotions).

For (8), the differences between managerial and technical career pathcompetences should be recognized. The following observations areimportant:

• Managerial career path competences tend to be underspecified becauseonly explicit responsibilities (e.g. number of personnel supervised) tendto be recognized. Also, movements along managerial career paths aretraditionally reactive, such that the incumbent often ends up with a postin search of definition of necessary competences.

• Technical career path competences tend to be overspecified because onlydetailed skills and project experiences (e.g. ability to repair a particulartype of equipment) tend to be recognized. Also, movements alongtechnical career paths are traditionally proactive, such that theincumbent often ends up with a set of competences in search of adefinition of posts.

• Industrial methods of competence measurement (e.g. the Hays method)tend to be biased towards the managerial career path, becausemanagerial competences tend be more tangible and observable. Fairnessin managerial versus technical competence measurement remains amajor challenge.

The insight from the above observations is that a set of rules would be neededto record horizontal and vertical relationships among competences. The rulesserve the following key purposes:

• to describe the relative importance of competences to posts, e.g. throughapplication of weights to competences;

• to relate the competences to one another, to normalize competencesacross different disciplines, functions and/or organizations to facilitatejob rotations; and

• to identify additional competences which may be expected of staff, in theevent of missing data which may be useful for measuring fit;

• to provide foresight on whether the staff’s current competences implythat the potential exists to acquire the (possibly different) competencesneeded for future postings.

A robust competence structure can provide excellent support to HR managersfor devising corrective actions for under-achievement or underutilization ofcompetences by staff. Indeed, the quality of the competence structure may alsobe make-or-break for the manpower planning system.


44

Concluding remarksThis paper gives a flavour of the approach towards realizing the benefits ofadvanced decision support technologies in the manpower planning function. Sofar, the system framework and analysis methodology have served our purposeswell; we nevertheless expect to refine them continually through research andindustrial applications experience.

References and further readingAronson, J.E. and Thompson, G.L. (1985), “The solution of multiperiod personnel planning

problems by the forward simplex method”, Large Scale Systems, Vol. 9, pp. 129-39.Ashton, R.H. and Ashton, A.H. (1988), “The use of management science models in human

resource planning”, OMEGA, Vol. 16, pp. 153-57.Bartholomew, D.J. and Forbes, A.F. (1991), Statistical Techniques for Manpower Planning, 2nd ed.,

John Wiley, Chichester.Bennison, M. and Casson, J. (1984), The Manpower Planning Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York.Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Golany, B., Lovegren, V., Mayfield, W.T. and Wolfe, M. (1985), “A goal

programming system for the management of the U.S. Navy’s sea-shore rotation program”, inNiehaus, R.J. (Ed.), Human Resource Policy Analysis: Organizational Applications, Praeger,New York, pp. 145-72.

Chew, L.W. and Khoong, C.M. (1994), “Optimization in staff movement planning”, TIMS XXXIIInternational Meeting, 12-15 June, Anchorage, AK.

Collins, R.W., Gass, S.I. and Rosendahl, E.E. (1983), “The ASCAR model for evaluating militarymanpower policy”, Interfaces, Vol. 13, pp. 44-53.

Cullingford, G. and Scott, D. (1980), “Optimality and manpower planning”, in Smith, A.R. (Ed.),Corporate Manpower Planning, Gower, Westmead, pp. 70-88.

Edwards, J.S. (1983a), “A survey of manpower planning models and their applications”, Journal ofOperational Research Society, Vol. 34, pp. 1031-40.

Edwards, J.S. (1983b), “Models of manpower stocks and flows”, in Edwards, J., Leek, C., Loveridge,R., Mangan, J. and Silver, M. (Eds), Manpower Planning – Strategy and Techniques in anOrganizational Context, John Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 61-88.

Edwards, J.S. and Morgan, R.W. (1982), “Optimal control models in manpower planning”, inTzafestas, S.G. (Ed.), Optimisation and Control of Dynamic Operational Research Models,North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 143-75.

Eiger, A., Jacobs, J.M., Chung, D.B. and Selsor, J.L. (1988), “The US Army’s occupational specialtymanpower decision support system”, Interfaces, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 57-73.

Feiring, B.R. (1993), “A model generation approach to the personnel assignment problem”, Journalof the Operational Research Society, Vol. 44, pp. 503-12.

Forbes, A.F. (1970), “Promotion and recruitment policies for the control of quasi-stationaryhierarchical systems”, in Smith, A.R. (Ed.), Models of Manpower Systems, English UniversityPress, London, pp. 401-16.

Forbes, A.F., Morgan, R.W. and Rowntree, J.A. (1980), “Manpower planning models in use in theCSD”, in Smith, A.R. (Ed.), Corporate Manpower Planning, Gower, Westmead, pp. 89-111.

Gaimon, C., Mohan, S. and Thompson, G.L. (1987), “A network approach to cohort personnelplanning using cross-sectional data”, Computers and Operational Research, Vol. 14,pp. 183-96.

Gass, S.I. (1991), “Military manpower planning models”, Computers and Operational Research,Vol. 18, pp. 65-73.

An integratedsystem

framework

45

Gass, S.I., Collins, R.W., Meinhardt, C.W., Lemon, D.M. and Gillette, M.D. (1988), “The army long-range planning system”, Operations Research, Vol. 36 pp. 5-17.

Grinold, R.C. and Marshall, K.T. (1977), Manpower Planning Models, North-Holland, New York,NY.

Grinold, R.C. and Marshall, K.T. (1978), “Manpower planning under uncertain conditions”, inCharnes, A., Cooper, W.W. and Niehaus, R.J. (Eds), Management Science Approaches toManpower Planning and Organization Design, TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences,Vol. 8, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 209-17.

Holz, B.W. and Wroth, J.M. (1980), “Improving strength forecasts: support for army manpowermanagement”, Interfaces, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 37-52.

Keenay, G.A., Morgan, R.W. and Ray, K.H. (1977), “An analytical model for company manpowerplanning”, Operational Research Quarterly, Vol. 28 pp. 983-5.

Keenay, G.A., Morgan, R.W. and Ray, K.H. (1980), “The Camel model: a model for career planningin a hierarchy”, in Smith, A.R. (Ed.), Corporate Manpower Planning, Gower, Westmead, pp.112-25.

Khoong, C.M. (1993), “Building intelligent decision support systems for planning andscheduling”, tutorial proceedings, Symposium on Intelligent Systems Applications ’93, 10-12November, Singapore.

Khoong, C.M. (1994a), “Frontiers of computer technology in human resource management”,Proceedings of the IEEE Region 10’s 9th Annual International Conference on Frontiers ofComputer Technology, 22-26 August, Singapore, pp. 239-43.

Khoong, C.M. (1994b), “Optimal manpower flow models”, Proceedings of the 3rd InternationalConference on Automation, Robotics & Computer Vision, 8-11 November, Singapore,pp. 2174-8.

Khoong, C.M. and Ku, Y.W. (1994), “A holistic feasibility study framework for decision systems”,IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. 24, pp. 100-6.

Khoong, C.M. and Ku, Y.W. (1994a), “The TSC project: a strategic R&D initiative in operationsmanagement”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 8,pp. 35-46.

Klingman, D. and Phillips, N.V. (1984), “Topological and computational aspects of preemptivemulticriteria military personnel assignment problems”, Management Science, Vol. 30, pp.1362-74.

Klingman, D., Mead, M. and Phillips, N.V. (1984), “Network optimization models for militarymanpower planning”, in Brans, J.P. (Ed.), Operational Research ’84 – Proceedings of the 10thInternational Conference on Operational Research, held at Washington, DC, 6-10 August,Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp. 786-800.

Lawrence, J.R. (1980), “Manpower and personnel models in Britain”, in Smith, A.R. (Ed.),Corporate Manpower Planning, Gower, Westmead, pp. 18-46.

Liang, T.T. and Buclatin, B.B. (1988), “Improving the utilization of training resources throughoptimal personnel assignment in the US Navy”, European Journal of Operational ResearchSociety, Vol. 33, pp. 183-90.

Liang, T.T. and Thompson, T.J. (1987), “A large-scale personnel assignment model for the Navy”,Decision Sciences, Vol. 18, pp. 234-49.

McClean, S. (1979), “The steady-state behaviour of a manpower planning model in which classcorresponds to length of service”, Operational Research Quarterly, Vol. 28, pp. 305-11.

McClean, S. and Abordunde, T. (1978), “Entropy as a measure of stability in a manpower system”,Journal of Operational Research Society, Vol. 29, pp. 885-9.

Mangan, J. and Silver, M. (1983), “The demand for and supply of labour”, in Edwards, J. et al.(Eds), Manpower Planning – Strategy and Techniques in an Organizational Context, JohnWiley, New York, NY, pp. 13-34.


46

Mehlmann, A. (1980), “An approach to optimal recruitment and transition strategies formanpower systems using dynamic programming”, Journal of the Operational ResearchSociety, Vol 31, pp. 1009-15.

Mensch, G. (1970), “Personnel assignment under risk – a class of stochastic zero-one programs”,in Smith, A.R. (Ed.), Models of Manpower Systems, English University Press, pp. 381-2.

Miller, G. (1984), “Army personnel planning system”, in Brans, J.P. (Ed.), Operational Research ’84– Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Operational Research at Washington,DC, 6-10 August, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp. 773-85.

Morgan, R.W. (1979), “Some models for a hierarchical manpower system”, Journal of theOperational Research Society, Vol. 30, pp. 727-36.

Niehaus, R.J. (1995), “Evolution of the strategy and structure of a human resource planning DSSapplication”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 14, pp. 187–204.

Pinar, M.C. and Zenios,S.A. (1992), “Naval personnel assignment: an application of linear-quadratic penalty methods”, ORSA CSTS Conference, 8-10 January, Williamsburg, VA.

Price, W.L. (1978), “Solving goal-programming manpower models using advanced networkcodes”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 29, pp. 1231-9.

Price, W.L. and Gravel, M. (1984), “Solving network manpower problems with side constraints”,European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 15, pp. 196-202.

Price, W.L., Martel, A. and Lewis, K.A. (1980), “A review of mathematical models in humanresource planning”, OMEGA, Vol. 8, pp. 639-45.

Purkiss, C. (1981), “Corporate manpower planning: a review of models”, European Journal ofOperations Research, Vol. 8, pp. 315-23.

Silverman, J., Steuer, R.E. and Whisman, A.W. (1988), “A multi-period, multiple criteriaoptimization system for manpower planning”, European Journal of Operations Research, Vol.34, pp. 160-70.

Smith, A.R. and Bartholomew, D.J. (1988), “Manpower planning in the United Kingdom: ahistorical review”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 39, pp. 235-48.

Steuer, R.E. and Wallace, M.J. Jr (1978), “A linear multiple objective programming model formanpower selection and allocation decisions”, Management Science Approaches to ManpowerPlanning and Organization Design, TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences, Vol. 8, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 193-208.

Tyler, G.W. (1983), “An extension to McClean’s steady state model of manpower system”, Journalof the Operational Research Society, Vol. 34, p. 1007.

Tyler, G.W. (1984), “A historical application of McClean’s steady state manpower model”, Journalof the Operational Research Society, Vol. 35, pp. 257-9.

Vajda, S. (1978), “Maintainability and preservation of a graded population structure”, in Charnes,A., Cooper, W.W. and Niehaus, R. J. (Eds), Management Science Approaches to ManpowerPlanning and Organization Design, TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences, Vol. 8, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 219-30.

Verhoeven, C.J. (1982), Techniques in Corporate Manpower Planning, Kluwer, Boston, MA. Wolstenholme, E.F. (1990), System Enquiry: A System Dynamics Approach, John Wiley,

Chichester.Young, A. and Abodunde, T. (1979), “Personnel recruitment policies and long-term production

planning”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 30, pp. 225-36.Zanakis, S.H. and Maret, M.W. (1981), “A Markovian goal programming approach to aggregate

manpower planning”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 32, pp. 55-63.

Documents

Manpower Planning - The Overall Framework