THE HUMAN FACTOR
A case for true strategic partners Measuring the effectiveness of human resources operations the number of stevedore training programmes, time to fill vacancies or the number of applications. Instead, HR should develop and measure metrics which give a holistic picture of HR’s impact on port viability. The number of metrics is contained solely by imagination, but the following would prove beneficial for adaptation:
By Burnett B. Coke
T
HERE IS AN old adage that “whatever doesn’t get measured doesn’t get done”. Today, more than ever, human resources (HR) development, as a strategic partner, needs to prove the effectiveness as well as efficiency of its functions. This can only be done through the diligent development and application of metrics – systems of measurement – and processes to evaluate HR operations, and more so, their impact on the maritime organisation.
1. Human capital return on investment (ROI). That is, net income/compensation costs. Whereas it does not create a direct correlation between staff developmental input and port output, it does give a reference point for evaluating the return on investment in employees. For a more thorough understanding, output should be compared with historical data to determine whether HR programmes are influencing port profitability.
Improving value The first step towards improving HR value adding is to understand the difference between effectiveness and efficiency. Efficiency is primarily the ratio of inputs (stevedores/staff) to outputs (TEUs) and the cost per unit moved. Effectiveness is the extent to which HR meets the goals of the organisation and satisfies the needs of the stakeholders. It is possible for HR to be effective but not efficient, or efficient but not effective. It is now necessary for HR to prove that it is both, concurrently.
The process begins with a thorough understanding of the organisation’s goals and, thereafter, identifying and measuring employee behaviour and programmes which are related to these goals. The number of these
metrics should be enough to ensure thoroughness, but not too many to cause confusion. In addition, HR must avoid equating efficiency and effectiveness with a simple counting exercise. In other words, it’s not about
2. Workers’ compensation costs/employee. That is, total WC costs/average number of workers. The use of current versus historical costs and absenteeism can assist in evaluating programmes designed to reduce workplace injuries, illnesses and turnbuckle accidents. Given >
CARIBBEAN MARITIME I MAY - AUGUST 2008
45