DDBA 8582 Week 11 Workforce Agility Plan Example

The Price First: An Agility Plan for a Health Insurer That Opens on a $360,000 Annual Holding Cost and Its Break-Even, Then Argues for Buying Most Surge Capacity Through Movable Permanent Staff Rather Than a Larger Contingent Periphery

Student Name

Walden University

DDBA 8582: An HR Plan for Organizational Agility

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

The Price First: An Agility Plan for a Health Insurer That Opens on a $360,000 Annual Holding Cost and Its Break-Even, Then Argues for Buying Most Surge Capacity Through Movable Permanent Staff Rather Than a Larger Contingent Periphery

Summary

[after]

Table 1

Plan Summary

The Components and How They Depend on Each Other

The scenarios from Week 2 define what the plan must absorb: a five-month ramp for a large new client, nine months to certify most reviewers and four months to shift staff out of a closing product line. The Week 3 audit showed where the current arrangement breaks: training capacity in claims, almost no flexibility in utilization review and slow internal moves. Each later component answers one of those breaks, and several depend on each other.

The shared core from Week 4 lets enrollment specialists cover claims after their season; that coverage is what allows the Week 6 labor mix to cut agency use in claims. The chained design from Week 5 covers absences in specialty claims; its practice time is a line in the Week 8 cost model. The Week 7 redeployment process meets the 120-day window only because the shared core fixes pay grades in advance, removing a fourteen-day stage. The Week 9 trigger releases the agency pool early enough for its ten-week training to finish. And the Week 10 analysis changed two components: the release deadline now preserves seniority among volunteers, and specialists are paid for maintaining their chain link.

The Central Choice

The plan buys about 70 percent of its surge capacity through functional flexibility, permanent staff who can move between roles, and about 30 percent through numerical flexibility, the agency pool. Today the proportion is roughly reversed.

The case for leaning on permanent staff comes from research on commitment. Arthur (1994) compared steel minimills whose human resource systems emphasized commitment, through broad jobs, training and employee involvement, with those emphasizing control and found that commitment systems were associated with lower scrap rates and lower turnover. Tsui et al. (1997) found that employees in relationships where the employer invested broadly and over the long term performed better than those in narrow, short-term exchanges. Functional flexibility depends on that kind of investment: cross-training and shared cores make sense only for people the insurer expects to keep.

The case against comes from the flexible firm literature. Kalleberg (2001) noted that numerical flexibility lets firms adjust quickly and protects core workers from layoffs during downturns. A heavier permanent workforce raises fixed cost and, in a prolonged slump, could force layoffs that a larger agency buffer would have absorbed. The plan answers by keeping agency staff for work that is seasonal and simple, enrollment processing and ID card mailing, where agency staff perform well and the commitment argument is weakest, and by keeping the agency pool on a minimum-volume agreement so it can expand if needed.

Why the Price Is Worth Paying

Kogut and Kulatilaka (1994) argued that flexibility should be valued as an option whose worth grows with uncertainty. The insurer's environment, with client wins, regulatory change and product exits each plausible within a few years, is uncertain enough that holding the option is worth its cost if events occur at the assumed rates. If they occur less often, the plan costs more than it saves, and the board should know that from the first page.

Review

The plan will be reviewed after any activation and annually, comparing actual events with the assumed frequencies.

Phasing

The plan starts with the components that cost least and close the largest gaps: the trigger and the redeployment deadline in the first quarter, the chain in specialty claims in the second, and the shared core for enrollment, claims and provider staff over the following year.

What Would Change the Plan

If the sales team's estimate of large client wins falls below one in eight years, the board should revisit the holding cost, since the plan's case rests most on that event.

Owner

The chief operating officer owns the plan, with workforce planning reporting on it quarterly.

First Report

The first quarterly report will show training progress, agency use and any activations.

Limits

Frequencies and avoided losses are estimates. The plan's benefits depend on managers honoring the release deadline and on agency partners meeting their lead times.

References

Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 670-687. https://doi.org/10.2307/256705

Kalleberg, A. L. (2001). Organizing flexibility: The flexible firm in a new century. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 39(4), 479-504. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8543.00211

Kogut, B., & Kulatilaka, N. (1994). Options thinking and platform investments: Investing in opportunity. California Management Review, 36(2), 52-71. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165744

Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative approaches to the employee-organization relationship: Does investment in employees pay off? Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1089-1121. https://doi.org/10.2307/256928