Interpretive Stimulations Analysis

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 274
  • Published : March 13, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
Interpretive Simulations Final Paper
Fundamentals of Human Resources
7/29/10

1. Describe your long range goals and strategies in the HR Management Simulation. When I first began this simulation, I was confused and unsure of how to strategize. I questioned whether my strategies should be more for the benefit of the company or for the benefit of the employee. Maybe I am naive in my thought process but I ultimately decided to strategize for the employees. It is my belief and experiences in both the corporate and non-corporate sectors that happy employees are more productive therefore leading to more profit for the business. I also believe that the more money invested into the training and safety of the employees the less likely the company will have to spend exorbitant amounts of money on turnover training, medical benefit claims and workers compensation. It was not my strategy to immediately implement pay raises. While I believe everyone likes to get a raise, I believe it is more important to invest in benefits and training. I did budget for a few smaller quarterly raises when instead of yearly because I felt a quarterly increase offered a bigger incentive. To summarize, my strategic plan was to invest in the employee’s benefits, training, and overall safety. I also supported my decision to invest in the employees by offering the smaller quarterly raises. My long range goal was to implement a “win-win” scenario and I believed the best way to do this was by investing in the people responsible for production. I believed that content employees would offer better production, therefore increasing the company’s overall profit margin.

2. Describe how you reviewed and forecasted the organization’s categories listed below. Also, what were your outcomes? * Staffing- In order to make my forecasts in regards to staffing changes, I began by consulting the staff reports. I used that report to forecast the amount of employees projected to resign. I almost always chose to follow the number provided and usually added one to two additional hires to close any possible gap. The bulk of my hires were outside employees for lower positions. I tried to hire internally for upper level jobs. In the instances where I chose to hire internally, I closed the gap by adding new hires to fill those promoted positions. After making my decisions, I consulted the staff analysis to look for overages/ shortages. Sometimes I would change my decision if the number was large but usually I kept the decisions with the idea that not all projections are absolute. The results were not what I expected. I consistently remained short on staffing throughout the simulation. I do not know if it was that I did not understand or if my calculations were incorrect. The following table reflects the shortages. Quarter 0| Short 14|

Quarter 1| Short 58|
Quarter 2| Short 70|
Quarter 3| Short 80|
Quarter 4| Short 85|
Quarter 5| Short 11|
Quarter 6| **No results from quarter 7 to consult***|

As you can see from the data in the table, for a timeframe of 4 quarters I progressively increased my shortages. These shortages affected my unit labor cost and production rates because my units produced in overtime were rising to compensate for the shortage of employees. Ironically, my production value did increase each quarter despite the staffing shortages which I attribute to satisfaction with other performance measures.

* Employee Turnover- I reviewed this information on the student comparative results screen after each quarter. I did not do much to forecast in this department because I believed by implementing my strategic “win-win” plan, these numbers would increase with each quarter as new benefits and more financial investment was made into the employees. For the most part this assumption was true. With the exception of 2 quarters, the turnover...
tracking img