Question

Prepare a policy position that addresses the issue, "Does it make sense to invest in the productivity improvements offered by the HR module?"

Suppose that you apply the maximums to recruiting and training. Here are the costs:
Recruiting costs per new worker are $5000.
Each employee trains 80 hours per year at $20 per training hour
Workforce complement increases by 4.2% to cover the 80 hours people are in training.
For this exercise you need a spreadsheet and both the Capstone Courier and Annual Report. Use the Round 2 reports for the analysis. Human Resources statistics like workforce complement and turnover are on Courier page 12. Use Annual Report Income Statement's total Labor cost to estimate payroll costs.
Assume the following productivity payoffs:
Round 1 - 102%
Round 2 - 105%
Round 3 - 108%
Round 4 - 112%
Round 5 - 115%
Round 6 - 118%
Prepare a policy position that addresses the issue, "Does it make sense to invest in the productivity improvements offered by the HR module?" Suppose that you apply the maximums to recruiting and training. Here are the costs: Recruiting costs per new worker are $5000. Each employee trains 80 hours per year at $20 per training hour Workforce complement increases by 4.2% to cover the 80 hours people are in training. For this exercise you need a spreadsheet and both the Capstone Courier and Annual Report. Use the Round 2 reports for the analysis. Human Resources statistics like workforce complement and turnover are on Courier page 12. Use Annual Report Income Statement's total Labor cost to estimate payroll costs. Assume the following productivity payoffs: Round 1 - 102% Round 2 - 105% Round 3 - 108% Round 4 - 112% Round 5 - 115% Round 6 - 118%

Answer 1

Yes, it makes sense to invest in the productivity improvements offered by the HR module.

Step-by-step explanation:

Investing in the HR module's productivity improvements appears financially viable when considering the associated costs and anticipated benefits.

The costs involved include recruiting costs per new worker ($5000), training expenses per employee (80 hours at $20 per training hour), and a 4.2% increase in the workforce complement to cover training hours.

Utilizing the Round 2 reports, relevant statistics from the Capstone Courier, and the Annual Report Income Statement's total labor cost, one can estimate the payroll costs accurately.

The productivity payoffs, ranging from 102% to 118% across Rounds 1 to 6, suggest a progressive improvement in efficiency.

These payoffs indicate the percentage increase in productivity resulting from the HR module's implementation. As the productivity gains consistently rise over the rounds, it supports the argument for investing in the HR module.

Furthermore, a thorough spreadsheet analysis incorporating these costs and payoffs will provide a comprehensive overview of the financial implications.

By comparing the cumulative costs with the cumulative productivity gains, decision-makers can assess the overall profitability and feasibility of investing in the HR module.

Therefore, the policy position favoring the investment aligns with the positive trend in productivity payoffs, emphasizing the long-term benefits of implementing the HR module for enhanced organizational efficiency and effectiveness.

Answer 2

Investing in HR productivity improvements can be beneficial, calculated via ROI, considering varying productivity payoffs. Automation in response to wage increases can lead to increased productivity but fewer jobs. Internationally, productivity growth rates critically determine long-term productivity levels, with the UK potentially surpassing Canada in the example provided.

Step-by-step explanation:

To determine whether it is beneficial for a company to invest in productivity improvements offered by the HR module, we must calculate the return on investment (ROI) considering the increasing productivity payoffs over several rounds. We'll analyze the investment versus the output in terms of improved productivity and reduced labor costs from automation and training. The initial cost includes $5000 recruiting cost per new worker, 80 hours of training at $20 per hour, and an increase in workforce complement of 4.2% to address training hours. However, the productivity gain varies from 102% in Round 1 to 118% in Round 6. To estimate the payroll costs, we'll use the total labor cost from the Income Statement in the Annual Report.

For instance, if the firm is faced with a rise in labor costs due to union wage increases, management might opt to invest more in machinery, which in turn increases labor productivity but could also result in fewer workers being needed. This alternative could be more cost-effective if the rise in wages is significant, e.g., from $16 to $24 an hour.

When it comes to international productivity levels, if the productivity level per hour in Canada is $30 and it grows at 1% per year, after 5 years it would increase to approximately $30*(1+1%)^5. Conversely, if UK's hourly productivity level is $25 with a 3% annual growth, after 5 years, it would be around $25*(1+3%)^5. Therefore, productivity in the UK would surpass Canada's, highlighting the impact of growth rates on long-term productivity levels.