International

Journal of An integrated system

Manpower
17,1
framework and analysis
methodology for manpower
26
planning
C.M. Khoong
Information Technology Institute, Singapore

Introduction
The human resource management (HRM) function is a key supporting element
in the management of organizations. From the perspective of corporate
objectives, HRM is responsible for ensuring that the right people are available
at the right places and at the right times to execute corporate plans with the
highest levels of quality. Such a role is also often referred to as manpower
planning. It is reasonable to say that manpower planning is the core of HRM,
supported by other aspects of HRM. Process and system improvements to
manpower planning imply benefits to the HRM function and to the organization
as a whole.
The extent of computerization in manpower planning in organizations is
typically limited to traditional database management systems which do not
take advantage of advances in computer technology in the 1990s. Such systems
serve the purpose of maintaining records on employee data and for generating
management reports on the state of the manpower establishment. Indeed, even
in large organizations which employ thousands of employees, a significant
technology 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 corporate
planning. In fact, it is not uncommon to find manpower planning being handled
entirely manually in many large organizations.
Closing the manpower planning technology gap has significant long-term
benefits to the organization, above and beyond the support it can provide to
HRM. To this end, the crucial first step is to understand the different
perspectives in manpower planning, and the interactions among these
perspectives. By perspective is meant a particular view of information, which
leads to a particular set of decisions over the information. Major perspectives in
manpower planning include:
International Journal of Manpower,
Vol. 17 No. 1, 1996, pp. 26-46.
© MCB University Press,
• establishment requirements planning (at various levels of manpower
0143-7720 stock aggregation);
 • career progression planning (at various levels); An integrated
• staff movement planning (at various levels); system
• personnel assignment; framework
• posting projection;
• succession planning;
27
• recruitment, retention, staff promotions, postings, and training.
Each of these planning perspectives has been well studied in the past. In
reality, these perspectives can interact with one another in intricate
(constructive or destructive) ways. Few insights have been reported on such
interactions and the impact of these interactions on the resultant manpower
plans.
In this paper, we provide an analysis of these interactions in the form of
decision and feedback loops. The synthesis of these interactions leads to an
integrated decision support system (DSS) framework for manpower planning.
To implement the DSS framework in organizations, a methodology for analysis
of the manpower planning business process and feasibility assessment of DSS
deployment is needed. In this paper, we propose the integrated system
framework and the analysis methodology. This framework-cum-methodology
package is used in applications deployment and consultancy undertaken by the
author’s institute.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The first section defines
various manpower planning perspectives and their interactions. The next
describes the integrated system framework. The following section details the
process and system feasibility analysis methodology. The final section
concludes the paper.

Interacting perspectives in manpower planning

Key manpower planning perspectives are defined below. Major interactions of
concern among perspectives are analysed in the subsequent subsections.

Planning perspectives
The various manpower planning perspectives listed above may be defined as
follows:
• Establ ishment requirements planning (ERP). This determines
manpower requirements levels over a multi-year horizon, given
projections of the organization’s workloads and growth policies. ERP is
sometimes referred to as manpower requirements forecasting in the
literature.
• Career progression planning (CPP). This determines steady state
progression rates for each age-grade-stream combination (also called the
career prospectus) in the manpower stocks, and the change in career
International prospectus over time given the current age-grade-stream profile of the
Journal of manpower stocks. (The stream of a staff reflects his or her potential to
Manpower attain a certain grade by the time of retirement.) CPP is sometimes
referred to simply as career planning in the literature. An example of a
17,1
career prospectus is given in Figure 1.
28 • Staff movement planning (SMP). SMP determines the mix of various
staff movements (recruitment, promotions, attrition, retirement and
continuations) required over a multi-year horizon to transform the
manpower stocks from its current state towards various staff holdings
targets. A basic illustration of staff movements across an organizational
hierarchy, for a given snapshot in time, is given in Figure 2.
• Personnel assignment (PA). From the perspective of operational staffing
requirements of functional units in the organization, PA distributes new
recruits to units and handles job rotations across units for staff already
in service.
• Posting projection (PP). This determines, for each individual, the list of
posts that he or she can possibly move to which. The list may be sorted
in terms of suitability of posts and expected time needed before
movement to each post.
• Succession planning (SP). SP determines, for each post, the list of
potential successors. The list may be sorted in terms of suitability of
individuals and expected time needed before succession by each
individual.
• Recruitment, retention, staff promotions, postings and training. These
are well-known, basic operational activities of the HR function that
support manpower plans. Collectively, we refer to these as near term
events in manpower planning.

Grade 4 q3(t )
A42(t ) A43(t ) A44(t )
q2(t )
Grade 3 q1(t )
A32(t ) A33(t )
Figure 1.
Career prospectus
for a four-grade Grade 2
A22(t )
structure at time t.
Each horizontal slice is
a stream. Aij(t) reflects Grade 1
the promotion age
Age
 w Appt level 4 An integrated
w system
p framework
w Appt level 3
w
p p w
29
w Appt level 2
w
p p w p w

w Appt level 1 Figure 2.

Snapshot of staff
r r r r Key movements across the
r = recruitment organizational
Stream Stream Stream Stream p = promotion hierarchy
4 3 2 1 w = wastage

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 one
perspective. The traditional perspective is bottom up, in the sense that
organizational units first do their own ERP (based on forecast workloads),
after which the plans are successively balanced and aggregated towards an
overall organizational plan. Another perspective is top down, in which top
management first assess the long-term growth targets for the organization
(based on business area focuses), and then distribute the targets across units
in the organization. In practice, both perspectives can coexist and interact.
Bottom-up ERP is likely to be triggered first to develop medium-term
expectations of the organization’s outputs. This serves as an input to top-
down ERP, where the business vision is used to develop long-term
expectations 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 look
like a managerial career path hierarchy). Another scale is tied to the salary grade
of the staff (which is often the scale used to define a technical career path). The
salary grade scale is normally more stable than the appointment hierarchy scale
(which may change each time the organization is restructured). It is also normally
the case for a banding of appointment levels to be tied to each salary grade. It is
conceivable that many levels of appointments can fall into the same grade.
CPP should normally be done based on the salary grade scale, since this is
more stable. This requires establishment requirements plans to be interpreted
International along this scale, since these plans prescribe the desired proportion of staff in
Journal of each grade. For very large populations, CPP may also need to be done based on
Manpower the appointment scale. The grade-based CPP first constrains the appointment-
based CPP, which may in turn feed back that staff proportions within particular
17,1 grades are not shaped smoothly enough to support progressions across grades.
This can lead to fine-tuning of grade-based CPP.
30
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 in
grade-stream-age combinations. In the medium term, management may also be
interested 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 SMP
for the organization. Feedback from the lower level SMP (based on more detailed
knowledge of the impact of short- to medium-term events that may affect
movement 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 are
fed into CPP to compute career prospects. CPP outputs prescribe promotion and
recruitment policies to SMP, as constraints in staff movements. This sequential
flow of decision making is quite rigid, and most organizations can manage with
more flexibility. Feedback mechanisms in the reverse direction, i.e. from SMP to
CPP and from CPP to ERP, can be of strategic value in the sense of engineering
manpower policies for the organization. The perspective providing the
feedback acts as a simulator of policies passed into it; the perspective receiving
the feedback can then be used to refine its decisions iteratively. For instance,
instead of merely asking the question, “How can manpower availabilities fit
requirements?”, management can now ask, “What should requirements be, so
that staff availabilities can meet requirements?”

Interactions between SMP and short-term events

In a fashion similar to ERP-CPP-SMP interactions, the SMP perspective also
interacts with short-term decisions like recruitment, retention, staff promotions,
postings and training. The SMP perspective operates in terms of numbers of staff
in each age-grade-stream category, while short-term decisions essentially involve
specific individuals. The feasibility of SMP decisions depend on the short-term
events in the manpower establishment. For instance, the number of actual
promotions may be less than the level recommended by SMP. SMP gives broad
guidelines for each year, which can be continually revised in a rolling horizon
fashion 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 of
functional units, PP recommends posts for staff based on career development
concerns. If these two perspectives were to operate independently, An integrated
inconsistent plans may ensue because, depending on how postings are system
effected, either operational staffing needs or career development needs may be framework
ignored. The two perspectives need to recognize one another. The PA
perspective may take precedence for recruit pools and in operational crisis
situations, while the PP perspective may take precedence in “peaceful” times
for staff in service. 31

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, one
would notice that the two perspectives actually use different criteria. The PP
perspective addresses the question, “Which jobs have the best use for this
person’s skills and potential?”, while the SP perspective addresses the question,
“Which person has the best skills or potential that meets this job’s
requirements?” In other words, while the PP perspective compares posts based
on relative utilization of competences of each person, the SP perspective
compares persons based on relative importance of competences for each job.
The two perspectives are illustrated in Figure 3. The actual value to the
organization for assigning a person to a post is a normalized aggregation of the
values derived from both perspectives. Thus, the two perspectives cannot
operate independently.

Macro manpower system dynamics perspective

Top management sees HRM in a macro perspective, pieced together with
corporate objectives, long-term operations scenarios, external labour market
forces, national political and economic conditions, national population and
education statistics, etc. In the short term, such external conditions may be
assumed to be fairly constant for the purpose of manpower planning, but in the

Post x Person x

Weights Weights
Relative Relative
importances utilities

Figure 3.
Person Person Person Post Post Post Succession planning
1 2 n 1 2 n
versus posting
projection perspectives
Succession planning perspective Posting projection perspective
International long run of, say, ten to 20 years, these conditions can imply severe internal
Journal of constraints in the manpower establishment.
Manpower Top management should see the importance of understanding the macro
interactions among internal and external dynamics. To this end, system
17,1 dynamics provides the technology for mapping out the dynamics and for
analysing long-term effects of policies. There are two aspects to the use of
32 system dynamics. The qualitative aspect is an iterative process of mapping out
the dynamics using influence diagrams. The quantitative aspect is a simulation
process that provides feedback for qualitative evaluation of policies. Long-term
forecasts of political, economic and social indicators are fed into the model to
temper the simulated rates. A system dynamics model for macro manpower
policies is depicted in Figure 4.

Organization Retirees
retirement age +
+ + Work output
+ rate +
Establishment
requirements +
+
Establish Work
fill – Rate of + output
leaving
–
+ External
+ retirement rate
Recruitment
rate Leavers +
+ Rate of loss to –
+ competitors External job
market
Recruitment –
opportunity – +
+
+ Propensity
to join External
Organization competitors establishment
+ benefit requirements
competitiveness +
Propensity to +
join
organization +

+ +
Rate of + +
Labour Economic
labour market – exchange growth rate +
expansion
Death rate
+ +
**
Figure 4. –
Macro manpower –
Rate of
system dynamics + school + +
Schooling
perspective population registration Population Birth rate
Previous frameworks An integrated
Interactions among the various manpower planning perspectives have rarely system
been discussed in the literature. Comprehensive manpower planning system framework
frameworks have been discussed in the past, but with framework modules
treated separately in functionality, and probably executed by independent units
in the organization as well. This situation is readily discerned from published
surveys(Ashton and Ashton, 1988; Edwards, 1983a; Gass, 1991; Price et al., 33
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). These
models use techniques such as extrapolation/regression, work/productivity
measurement, or econometrics. There is no discussion in these publications on
interactions among levels in ERP.
Analytical models for CPP have been studied quite extensively (Bartholomew
and Forbes, 1991; Bennison and Casson, 1984; Edwards, 1983a; 1983b; Edwards
and 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. Various
studies were conducted on steady-state and control-theoretic aspects of CPP
models. These models all treat grade-based CPP only and do not discuss
interactions with appointment-based CPP.
SMP models have also been extensively analysed in the past (Aronson and
Thompson, 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; Price
and Gravel, 1984; Price et al., 1980; Purkiss, 1981; Silverman et al., 1988;
Verhoeven, 1982; Young and Abodunde, 1979; Zanakis and Maret, 1981), in
particular in the USA, where the military services are major users of such
models. Most of these models use some form of linear programming or network
optimization. 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 section
entitled “Interactions among ERP, CPP and SMP” have not been addressed in
the 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) and
Steurer and Wallace (1978). Unfortunately, almost all of these models are
specialized to the needs of USA military services, and lack general industrial
relevance. Also, interactions of these PA models with PP models are not treated
anywhere in the literature.
We are not aware of any significant treatment of PP and SP models in the
manpower planning literature. On the other hand, these models are available in
International numerous commercial software tools. Most of these software tools perform
Journal of simple staff-to-job matchings based on a database of competences. The tools
Manpower mostly adopt the SP perspective and do not offer any insights on the
interactions between PP and SP.
17,1 Short-term events like recruitment, retention, promotions, postings and
training also lack treatment in the manpower planning literature, and unsur-
34 prisingly so since these events are normally beyond the scope of planning.
Commercial software is available that provide database management
capabilities to support these events.
The need for a macroscopic system dynamics perspective has been
suggested in Wolstenholme (1990) but has not been explored further in the
manpower planning literature.
In summary, previous developments of the various manpower planning
perspectives have been disparate, and can benefit much from an integrated
framework. Our proposed framework, which we describe in the next section, is
a concrete step in this direction.

An integrated system framework

A generic manpower planning system framework is proposed here. This
framework is part of an umbrella manpower and service operations
management concept, which is presented in Khoong and Ku (1994b). Technical
details of some aspects of the system framework which have been developed are
presented in Chew and Khoong (1994) and Khoong (1994b). The key motivation
behind the framework is the integration of the interacting perspectives
described previously. Furthermore, the framework provides a detailed
structuring of the manpower planning workflow into decision layers, which is
also unprecedented in the manpower planning research literature. Lastly, the
framework is guided by a detailed list of performance indicators, which is
innovative in analysing manpower planning systems.

Framework architecture
The framework is organized into six decision layers:
(1) Descriptive analysis. Provides support to strategic planning through
analysis of historical and future trends.
(2) Strategic planning (organizational). Derives long-term plans and policies
from an organizational (aggregate) perspective.
(3) Tactical planning (organizational). Refines and controls adherence to
strategic plans in the short term from an organizational perspective.
(4) Tactical planning (individualized). Translates tactical, organizational
plans into short-term plans from the perspective of individual staff.
(5) Operational planning (individualized). Refines and controls adherence to
individualized tactical plans.
 (6) Execution (manual). Implementation of actions in view of individualized An integrated
operational plans. system
The system framework is illustrated in Figure 5. In the framework, additional framework
modules not discussed previously are also included. These modules interface
manpower 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 and 35
distinguished. Second, data and decision flows among the planning functions,
as well as the feedback mechanisms, are also clearly structured. Third, the
relative impacts and frequency of usage of planning functions becomes
apparent and consistent. The conceptual design of each decision layer in the
framework is explained below.
The descriptive analysis layer provides capabilities for analysing internal as
well as external labour supply and loss trends, capabilities for projecting ahead
the effects of staff movement policies and simulating the behaviours of

A
Descriptive analysis

Cohort trends Wastage Labour market Staffing

analysis analysis analysis projection

B
Strategic planning (organizational)
Corporate Establishment Career progression
requirements
planning planning planning

Productivity Staff competence Staff movement

measurement development planning

C
Tactical planning (organizational)

Training Staff movement Recruitment

planning control management

D
Tactical planning (individualized)

Succession Posting Personnel

planning projection assignment

E
Operational planning (individualized)

Training Posting chain Self appraisal/

management planning promotion

F Figure 5.
Execution Manpower planning
Recruitment/retention/postings/promotions/training system framework
International individuals as they flow across the manpower establishment, and capabilities for
Journal of analysing the long-term dynamics of the manpower system at a macro level. The
Manpower information focus of this layer is on correlations among individuals, the organi-
zational hierarchy, and career prospectuses. Key planning parameters are the
17,1 types of movements and the behaviour of cohorts. In particular, the labour mar-
ket analysis module corresponds to the macro perspective discussed previously.
36 The strategic planning (organizational) layer provides linkages from corporate
plans to manpower requirements plans, which the layer in turn translate into
career prospectuses and staff movement plans needed over the next few years to
match staff availabilities with establishment demands and to sustain the health of
the manpower establishment. The information focus of this layer is on career
prospectuses. Key planning parameters are staff grades and career streams.
The tactical planning (organizational) layer translates staff movement plans
stipulated by strategic planning into finer decompositions of recruitment, pro-
motion and wastage flows in the nearer term. This layer also reconciles deviations
from strategic plans which resulted from uncontrollable factors in the near term
(for instance, staff performance or vacancies which warrant movement patterns
which were not foreseen in the strategic movement plan). Specific recruitment
and training needs for the work year are also established. The information focus
of this layer is on the linkage between career prospectuses and the organizational
hierarchy. Key planning parameters are areas of specialization.
The tactical planning (individualized) layer proactively prepares individuals
for postings, within the guidelines stipulated by the career prospectuses and
organizational tactical plans. While the upper layers have addressed staffing
needs in terms of aggregate numbers, this layer examines the possibilities by
balancing the career development and potential of specific individuals in the
manpower system with the staffing needs of the organization. The information
focus of this layer is on the organizational hierarchy. Key planning parameters
are posts, jobs and/or areas of deployment.
The operational planning (individualized) layer confirms staff movements at
the points of need, for final approval by users for execution. Specific training
needs for individuals are also scheduled. Staff appraisal and ranking processes
are carried out that lead to changes in the status of individuals. The information
focus of this layer is on the linkage between the organizational hierarchy and
individuals. Key planning parameters are staff competences.
The execution layer supports reactions to actual happenings such as
recruitment, training, postings, promotions and retention. The information
focus of this layer is on individuals. Key control (instead of planning, since this
layer is reactive) parameters are events.

Framework performance indicators

Clear performance indicators need to be established to continuously monitor
the health of the manpower establishment, and to point to areas for
management attention. The framework is envisaged to support numerous
manpower planning performance indicators:
 (1) Gaps between establishment requirement and staff holding levels. An integrated
(2) Gaps between current and desired steady state career prospectuses. system
(3) Gaps between planned and actual recruitment, promotion, retention and framework
training levels.
(4) Gaps between individual career progressions and their ideal
progressions. 37
(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 the
sense that the system can contribute directly to reducing gaps measured by
these indicators. The other indicators depend on a mix of computer
recommendations, human planner judgement and social dynamics of the
manpower establishment.

Technologies for framework implementation

The state of the art in computer and decision support technologies may be
injected into the framework as follows:
• statistical analysis, simulation, and EIS tools serve the descriptive
analysis layer;
• decision analysis, integer programming and network flow tools serve the
strategic planning (organizational) layer;
• knowledge-based reasoning and partitioning tools serve the tactical
planning (organizational) layer;
• knowledge-based reasoning and routeing tools serve the tactical
planning (individualized) layer;
• decision analysis, network flow and scheduling tools serve the
operational planning (individualized) layer; and
• man-machine interface tools serve the execution layer.
In a nutshell, intelligent optimization tools are provided to the planning decision
layers (strategic planning (organizational), tactical planning (organizational),
International tactical planning (individualized), operational planning (individualized)), while
Journal of man-machine interactive and visually intuitive data capture and analysis tools
Manpower are provided to the descriptive analysis and execution layers. Much of these
technologies have been available for a while, but the lack of an integrated
17,1 approach to the deployment of these tools was lacking, and insufficient
attention has been paid in the past to making the power of these tools fully
38 accessible to users. A common complaint from users has been that the benefits
of using sophisticated tools are usually outweighed by the cost of providing the
data and decision links needed to operate the tools.
Activities along the boundary of manpower planning also benefit from
advanced computer technology. For instance, in the recruitment process,
intelligent machines scan in résumés of job applicants, perform shortlisting of
candidates based on the acceptance criteria, generate letter responses to
applicants and, for shortlisted candidates, schedule interviews with recruitment
officers. Another setting is the appraisal process, which includes a process of
negotiation among assessors for the purpose of moderating appraisal results. In
large, multi-echelon, multidisciplinary organizations, the process of moderation is
a very intricate and subjective one. The lack of complete information with
assessors results in the use of benchmark performers to moderate the rest of the
establishment. Group decision support systems have a clear role to play here.

Analysis methodology
To examine system deployment possibilities in a manpower planning setting, it
is first necessary to understand the reasons behind the manpower planning
technology gap. This is discussed above. This understanding helps in the
execution of the system feasibility assessment methodology, which is also
explained above. Even after the needs for automated manpower planning have
been established and the system developed, the proper immersion of the
manpower planning system into the user environment remains a tricky problem
that cannot be overlooked. Such issues are discussed above.

Understanding the manpower planning technology gap

Current usage of computerized decision support aids in manpower planning is
extremely low. The state-of-the-art technology available for supporting
manpower planning draws from the fields of operations research, artificial
intelligence and statistics, and utilizes graphical, interactive man-machine
interfaces for simulation and presentation. This is, unfortunately, a significant
departure from current HRM practices, in which the tools of manpower
planners are at best at the technology level of spreadsheet software. There is
thus almost total reliance on the discretion of human manpower planners for the
design and implementation of HRM policies. This has implications for the
depth, breadth and accuracy of insights on the state of the manpower
establishment, and also implications for the consistency, efficiency, and quality
of manpower planning procedures.
 Plugging the technology gap can go a long way in alleviating these problems. An integrated
To this end, we need first to analyse the causes of the technology gap. Based on system
our case studies with client organizations [25] and findings in the literature, the framework
following key causes may be discerned:
• There is a dearth of readily available and appropriate automated decision
support tools in existence. The degree of sophistication of most tools is
limited to simple trend analyses. Tools which have more sophisticated
39
decision modelling capabilities are unfortunately too complex for users to
map their manpower planning problems into the software.
• The HRM function is a staff function rather than a line function, with
implications for the degree of need for automated decision aids. While
line decisions may be do-or-die for the organization, staff decisions are
advisory in nature. Thus, performance indicators on staff functions are
less demanding and rarely seen as bottlenecks in the managing the
organization’s value chain.
• Manpower planning decision procedures have many subjective
intricacies and data uncertainties. The more sophisticated the automated
tools are, the greater is the reliance on accurate and comprehensive
knowledge of data and policies in the appropriate level of detail and
within certain rational cause-effect boundaries. The returns from
advanced technology can be greatly diminished by difficulties with
obtaining and maintaining such knowledge.
The insights gained from the above points are that, on one hand, there is a need
to educate the HRM community on the potential of advanced technology in
manpower planning and, more importantly, there is also a need
methodologically to immerse the automated tools into manpower planning
processes. These needs are addressed in the following subsections.

Feasibility assessment methodology

We review here a particularly successful feasibility assessment methodology
for decision support systems. This methodology is explained in greater depth
in Khoong (1993) and Khoong and Ku (1994). The generic and holistic nature of
this methodology makes it readily applicable to manpower planning systems.
The methodology proposes that the feasibility assessment exercise proceed
along 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.
International (7) Overall cost-benefit assessment.
Journal of (8) Recommendations for follow-up system development.
Manpower In the above steps, the term “organization” is focused on those parts of the
17,1 organization which are involved (directly or indirectly) in the applications domain
(e.g. manpower planning). Each step of the exercise is conducted jointly with
40 users; this contributes to users’ agreement with, and ownership of, the results of
the exercise. Figure 6 illustrates the flow of the exercise (step (3) is particularly
technical and complex). Figure 7 gives the detailed flow of analysis undertaken in
step (3). Key issues examined in step (6) for the manpower planning domain have
been 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.

Organization
study

Physical
processes

Decision
processes

Technical
feasibility

Economic
feasibility
Key

Reference link Environmental

feasibility
Study sequence

Overall
assessment

Figure 6.
Feasibility assessment DSS
methodology recommendations
 Problem
An integrated
statement system
framework
Resources
41
Tasks

Objectives

Constraints/
policies
Key

Reference link Assumptions

Modelling sequence

Cost
models

Figure 7.
Procedural Decision process
rules analysis

• 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 a
straightforward matter, as the direct benefits of such systems would tend to be
highly intangible. Furthermore, the effects of such benefits (or the lack of them)
may only surface several years after the manpower planning decisions have
been made. The manpower planning performance indicators highlighted
previously provide some key dimensions along which benefits of the system
can be quantified and measured.
International Key environmental issues
Journal of Various processes need to be studied or put in place to ensure smooth
Manpower implementation of the system in the user environment. Key actions include:
17,1 (1) Establish the principles for design of career prospectuses.
(2) Establish the correct level of detail in data provided to the system.
42 (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 the
appropriate amount of attention, with surprising consequences for the success
of system deployment. We discuss the items below.
For (1), the design of prospectuses should recognize the difference between
the long-term career development needs of individuals and the short-term
corporate development needs of the organization. Thus the prospectuses
should have a high degree of stability and generality across areas of
specialization. In the nearer term, specific career development needs along the
organizational hierarchy should be mapped clearly to points along the stable
prospectuses.
For (2), the key principle is that if the level of detail is too high, the plans may
not be controllable; if the level of detail is too low, the plans may not be
implementable.
For (3), the user needs to see the logic of the system’s solutions by stepping
through 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 not
straightforward for plans based on one type of effect to influence plans based on
the other type of effect.
For (5), the principle is to distinguish need-to-have planning modules clearly
from the nice-to-have ones, and to compare the relative impacts of modules on
manpower planning performance indicators.
For (6), it is important to know which parameters are controllable in the short
and long terms. For instance, wastage rates are uncontrollable in the short term
but moderately controllable in the long term through retention policies;
promotion rates are moderately controllable in the short term but highly
controllable in the long term through the career prospectuses. Furthermore,
certain manpower policies can have wide-ranging effects on the controllability
of parameters.
 For (7), the point to note is that historical data can give good indicators on An integrated
expected future behaviours of highly uncontrollable parameters (e.g. attrition), system
but cannot give good indicators on expected future behaviours of highly framework
controllable parameters (e.g. promotions).
For (8), the differences between managerial and technical career path
competences should be recognized. The following observations are
important: 43
• Managerial career path competences tend to be underspecified because
only explicit responsibilities (e.g. number of personnel supervised) tend
to be recognized. Also, movements along managerial career paths are
traditionally reactive, such that the incumbent often ends up with a post
in search of definition of necessary competences.
• Technical career path competences tend to be overspecified because only
detailed skills and project experiences (e.g. ability to repair a particular
type of equipment) tend to be recognized. Also, movements along
technical career paths are traditionally proactive, such that the
incumbent often ends up with a set of competences in search of a
definition of posts.
• Industrial methods of competence measurement (e.g. the Hays method)
tend to be biased towards the managerial career path, because
managerial competences tend be more tangible and observable. Fairness
in managerial versus technical competence measurement remains a
major challenge.
The insight from the above observations is that a set of rules would be needed
to record horizontal and vertical relationships among competences. The rules
serve the following key purposes:
• to describe the relative importance of competences to posts, e.g. through
application of weights to competences;
• to relate the competences to one another, to normalize competences
across different disciplines, functions and/or organizations to facilitate
job rotations; and
• to identify additional competences which may be expected of staff, in the
event of missing data which may be useful for measuring fit;
• to provide foresight on whether the staff’s current competences imply
that the potential exists to acquire the (possibly different) competences
needed for future postings.
A robust competence structure can provide excellent support to HR managers
for devising corrective actions for under-achievement or underutilization of
competences by staff. Indeed, the quality of the competence structure may also
be make-or-break for the manpower planning system.
International Concluding remarks
Journal of This paper gives a flavour of the approach towards realizing the benefits of
Manpower advanced decision support technologies in the manpower planning function. So
far, the system framework and analysis methodology have served our purposes
17,1 well; we nevertheless expect to refine them continually through research and
industrial applications experience.
44
References and further reading
Aronson, 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”, in
Niehaus, 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 XXXII
International Meeting, 12-15 June, Anchorage, AK.
Collins, R.W., Gass, S.I. and Rosendahl, E.E. (1983), “The ASCAR model for evaluating military
manpower 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 of
Operational 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 an
Organizational Context, John Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 61-88.
Edwards, J.S. and Morgan, R.W. (1982), “Optimal control models in manpower planning”, in
Tzafestas, 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 specialty
manpower decision support system”, Interfaces, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 57-73.
Feiring, B.R. (1993), “A model generation approach to the personnel assignment problem”, Journal
of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 44, pp. 503-12.
Forbes, A.F. (1970), “Promotion and recruitment policies for the control of quasi-stationary
hierarchical systems”, in Smith, A.R. (Ed.), Models of Manpower Systems, English University
Press, London, pp. 401-16.
Forbes, A.F., Morgan, R.W. and Rowntree, J.A. (1980), “Manpower planning models in use in the
CSD”, 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 personnel
planning 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.
Gass, S.I., Collins, R.W., Meinhardt, C.W., Lemon, D.M. and Gillette, M.D. (1988), “The army long- An integrated
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,
system
NY. framework
Grinold, R.C. and Marshall, K.T. (1978), “Manpower planning under uncertain conditions”, in
Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W. and Niehaus, R.J. (Eds), Management Science Approaches to
Manpower Planning and Organization Design, TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences,
Vol. 8, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 209-17. 45
Holz, B.W. and Wroth, J.M. (1980), “Improving strength forecasts: support for army manpower
management”, Interfaces, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 37-52.
Keenay, G.A., Morgan, R.W. and Ray, K.H. (1977), “An analytical model for company manpower
planning”, 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 planning
in 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 and
scheduling”, tutorial proceedings, Symposium on Intelligent Systems Applications ’93, 10-12
November, 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 of
Computer Technology, 22-26 August, Singapore, pp. 239-43.
Khoong, C.M. (1994b), “Optimal manpower flow models”, Proceedings of the 3rd International
Conference 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 operations
management”, 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 preemptive
multicriteria military personnel assignment problems”, Management Science, Vol. 30, pp.
1362-74.
Klingman, D., Mead, M. and Phillips, N.V. (1984), “Network optimization models for military
manpower planning”, in Brans, J.P. (Ed.), Operational Research ’84 – Proceedings of the 10th
International 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 through
optimal personnel assignment in the US Navy”, European Journal of Operational Research
Society, 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 class
corresponds 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, John
Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 13-34.
International Mehlmann, A. (1980), “An approach to optimal recruitment and transition strategies for
manpower systems using dynamic programming”, Journal of the Operational Research
Journal of Society, Vol 31, pp. 1009-15.
Manpower Mensch, G. (1970), “Personnel assignment under risk – a class of stochastic zero-one programs”,
17,1 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,
46 DC, 6-10 August, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp. 773-85.
Morgan, R.W. (1979), “Some models for a hierarchical manpower system”, Journal of the
Operational Research Society, Vol. 30, pp. 727-36.
Niehaus, R.J. (1995), “Evolution of the strategy and structure of a human resource planning DSS
application”, 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 network
codes”, 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 human
resource planning”, OMEGA, Vol. 8, pp. 639-45.
Purkiss, C. (1981), “Corporate manpower planning: a review of models”, European Journal of
Operations Research, Vol. 8, pp. 315-23.
Silverman, J., Steuer, R.E. and Whisman, A.W. (1988), “A multi-period, multiple criteria
optimization 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: a
historical 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 for
manpower selection and allocation decisions”, Management Science Approaches to Manpower
Planning 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”, Journal
of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 34, p. 1007.
Tyler, G.W. (1984), “A historical application of McClean’s steady state manpower model”, Journal
of 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 Manpower
Planning 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.