1. Field of the Invention
The present invention generally relates to a method for allocating human resources to meet the requirements of a service engagement and, more particularly, to the definition and weighting of capability attributes to identify the best match of available human resources for a given service delivery strategy.
2. Background Description
Companies involved in providing services need to define their staffing requirements over a life cycle of services offerings. For this application, the term “services offering” consists primarily of the application of labor resources to perform a project or implement a service for a customer. For example, a services organization may be contracted to implement a call center for a customer. Implementation of this call center may require different skills sets for various tasks and phases of the implementation. Understanding the labor resource requirements over the short, medium and/or long term allows the companies (e.g., service providers) to plan hiring, transfer or retraining activities to meet expected demand without having an excess supply of personnel.
The requirement of labor resources is different from the requirement for a physical part in a manufactured product. One difference is that, typically, demand for labor resources is more flexible than the demand for a particular part number or subassembly of a manufactured product. The labor resource requirements for the delivery of services offerings usually are defined as skills and/or attributes needed to implement the services offering.
For example, a service offering may specify a need for a Database Architect with DB2™ experience with skill level 8, of category regular employee in the geographic region metropolitan New York. The attributes listed here (i.e., skill level, category, geographic region) are provided as an example and are not intended to limit the invention to only these attributes. One knowledgeable in the art would recognize that numerous other attributes could be used. In addition, some of these attributes may have preferences but may allow for flexibility such as DB2™ experience is desirable but Oracle™ experience may be acceptable if the DB2™ experience is not available. Therefore, when planning the allocation of labor resources to such service engagements many different resources may be acceptable for a particular demand because of this flexibility.
In order to take advantage of this flexibility, it is necessary to present the allowable resources which can be applied to a given resource request or demand. The selection of the most appropriate resource would include the designation of the resource with some metric of ‘suitability’ such that the most suitable available resource would be matched to the demand. The suitability metric would allow second-choice and subsequent choices to be made based on these suitability metrics for each characteristic and/or attribute. The relative ‘goodness’ of a match and/or substitution would be defined by the metric.
An exemplary embodiment of the present invention provides a method for determining a set of permissible supplies for a given resource demand.
It is another exemplary embodiment of the invention to perform an analysis of the set of attributes against selection parameters to include substitution or match criteria in order to provide a recommendation for substitution of human resources for a service engagement.
According to the invention, there is provided a computer based method designed to consider a set of attributes that describe the resource capabilities required for delivering a services engagement and identify the actual real-world human assets that can be substituted and/or matched to these attributes. The goal of the invention is to produce an allocation plan that provides the set of permissible substitutes for a given resource demand, given a set of allowable substitute resources for a particular resource attribute, and substitution and matching rules for the given resource demand. This set may be in the form of a listing of acceptable substitutes and may also include but not be limited to a detailed description of the substitution rules.
The foregoing and other objects, aspects and advantages will be better understood from the following detailed description of a single embodiment of the invention with reference to the drawings, in which:
Referring now to the drawings, and more particularly to
These resources would consist of the actual human assets available to perform the service. Each available resource could be described by a set of resource attributes 130. For example, job role, skill level, geographic location, language spoken, etc. Unfortunately, the services organization may have only 20 programmers with the job role attribute of “C++ experience.” The service organization would have to hire more programmers with C++ experience or substitute some programmers with other values for the job role attribute that might be acceptable, though not ideal. That is, the service engagement may want 25 programmers with C++ experience; however, it may be acceptable to include 5 JAVA programmers to perform some of the functions of the C++ programmers. This means the service engagement would have acceptable attribute substitutions 150 data that would define what attribute values may be used as substitutes for other attribute values.
Once the acceptable allowances have been determined for all the attributes associated with a demand, the demand substitution allowances 140 are examined to determine which attribute substitutions are allowed for that particular demand. For example, the acceptable attribute substitution 150 may allow DB2 programming attribute to be substituted for a senior C++ programmer. For example, the 140 input data describes how, for a particular demand, it may be that substitution is not permitted on the job role attribute. Alternatively, 140 input data, for a particular demand may specify that a particular attribute (for example geography) does not constrain the set of acceptable substitutes, and any substitution is permitted.
Allocation of resources for a service engagement must consider the availability of the human assets. The desired situation is when the ideal resource in terms of attributes is available for each engagement. However, this is rarely the case. As such, service organizations must compromise, or make allowances, for staffing engagements with the best available resource. Once the various inputs have been analyzed and the allowances and substitutions defined, the Employee Substitution for Service Engagement Method 100 creates an Employee Allocation Plan 160. This employee allocation plan 160 provides a ranked list of the available resources for each engagement demand. This ranked list is determined through a weighting of metrics and penalties associated with the various substitutions. The method for calculating these rankings and creating the employee allocation plan 160 is described by the flowchart of
Data utilized by the method may be stored in a single database or distributed across numerous databases within the service organization network. Solid lines are used in
For example, let a resource Ri be described by a set of K attributes ak, where k={0, 1, . . . , K−1}. Attributes are categorical, taking values from a finite set of possibilities. Let R be the set of all available resources. Each demand is associated with a resource request Ri and Boolean variables Sik and Mik as demand substitution allowances 203. Boolean variable Mik indicates whether attribute aik is to be considered in determining possible resources to fill demand Di. If Mik=0, then attribute aik does not constrain the set of acceptable substitutes for demand Di. Boolean variable Sik indicates whether substitution for attributes aik is allowed for demand Di. If Sik=0 and Mik=1, then an exact match for demand Di is required. If Sik=1 and Mik=1, then either an exact match or a match from a list of acceptable substitutes T(aik) from 204 is permissible.
Once the demand is selected, the method initializes the allocation of employees at step 220. This initialization accepts the set of all resources 202 data without regard to the suitability of the resource for the particular demand. This data can be stored in a database associated with the computer in which the method is implemented or can be stored in other database accessible through a network. Following the flowchart of
Here, the metric can be general. It can be a “cost” associated with a particular substitution (that is, using a Java programmer rather than a C++ programmer costs $10, while using a New Yorker when you requested a Californian costs $800. This may relate to for example, costs of retraining, or commuting, or to some qualitative decision on the “loss of quality” incurred by using a substitute. In this scheme you can simply add up the substitute costs to get a final metric for how far away you are from ideal. That is, if you substitute both geography and programmer type, you add up the two costs, so that's worse than substituting only one of them. Alternatively, a simple priority scheme could be used. Such as, if the only attribute which doesn't match is “geography”, then I would choose substitutes in the following preference order: NY, NJ, PA, etc.
At step 233, the penalty of the resource is updated with the penalty determined for the attribute. The process then checks to determine if all attributes have been considered at step 230. If all attributes have been considered, the new set of eligible resources and the associated metrics are provided to the user at step 240.
This method can also be defined by describing the algorithms associated with each step as provided below. The description appears in the flow in italics.
Do for each iε{0, . . . , I−1} for all demands (step 210). Consider all demands.
While the invention has been described for a preferred embodiment, those skilled in the art will recognize that the invention can be practiced with modification within the spirit and scope of the appended claims.
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11198311 | Aug 2005 | US |
Child | 12051960 | US |