| Course | MHRM 6101 Foundations of Human Resource Management |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 3 |
| Paper type | Case memo |
| Length | About 800 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Memo, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | MS in Human Resource Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MHRM 6101 Week 3
Memorandum
To: Chief Executive Officer, Kestrel Freight & Warehousing
From: Director of Human Resources
Date: January 20, 2026
Re: Last peak season's operator shortfall and a request for HR to join volume planning
Summary
Last peak season, Groveport and Obetz ran short of trained equipment operators, agency temporary workers filled the gaps, mis-picks more than doubled and our largest retail customer escalated to you on November 18. The shortfall was set in motion on July 14, when the volume increase was agreed without HR in the room. I am asking that the HR director, or a delegate, hold a standing seat in sales and operations planning whenever new volume is under discussion.
What Happened, in Order
Our normal time to hire and certify a reach-truck operator is about six weeks: two to three weeks to recruit and screen, then three weeks of training and supervised hours before certification. On July 14 we had eleven weeks. By September 8 we had under four.
Table 1
Timeline of the 2025 Peak-Season Shortfall
| Date | Event | |
|---|---|
| July 14 | Sales and operations agree to a 30 percent volume increase for the home goods account from October 1 | |
| September 8 | HR learns of the increase when a site manager requests operators | |
| September 8 to October 1 | 17 working days remain to recruit, train and certify 42 additional operators | |
| September 19 | Agency contract signed for temporary operators at both sites | |
| October 1 | 19 of 42 operators hired and certified; the rest of the gap covered by agency staff | |
| October to November | Mis-pick rate rises from 0.4 percent to 0.9 percent of order lines | |
| November 18 | Customer escalates to the chief executive | |
Composite organization; figures from internal records.
Why This Is an HR Problem, Not Only a Hiring One
Barney (1991) traced durable advantage to assets that are useful, scarce among competitors and slow to copy. Wright et al. (1994) applied that argument to people: a trained, experienced workforce fits those tests, because a competitor cannot hire it overnight. Our trained operators are exactly that kind of resource. The home goods account came to us partly because our accuracy was better than the retailer's previous provider.
Agency workers are the opposite. They are available to any warehouse in central Ohio on the same terms, they arrive untrained on our systems and they leave when the season ends. When we filled 23 operator positions with agency staff, we replaced a resource that distinguished us with one that anyone could buy. The doubled mis-pick rate is what that substitution cost.
The decision that created the shortfall was not a hiring decision. It was a capacity decision made without asking whether the people needed to deliver it could be ready in time. That question belongs to HR, but HR cannot answer a question it is not asked.
What the Shortfall Cost
The shortfall cost us in three ways. Agency operators were billed at about $8 an hour above the wage of our own operators, and across 23 positions for roughly eleven weeks that premium came to about $80,000. Overtime for our certified operators, who covered the most demanding equipment because agency staff were not cleared for it, added close to $60,000 more. The third cost is harder to price: the retailer applied service credits for mis-picks in November and has told our account manager it will review our contract in the spring. Two of our longest-serving operators also told their supervisors that the season's overtime was the reason they were looking elsewhere, and one has since left. Cross-training eight to ten current operators, at a premium of a dollar an hour and one extra week of training each, would cost a fraction of this single season's agency premium.
What I Am Requesting
I request three things. First, that HR attend sales and operations planning whenever volume changes of more than 10 percent at any site are discussed. Second, that any such commitment include an HR estimate of the operators needed and the weeks required to have them certified, before the start date is agreed. Third, that we cross-train eight to ten current operators to work at any of our three sites, so that a moderate increase can be met while new hires are trained.
Ulrich (1997) argued that HR earns its place in strategy by delivering results the business can see, not by claiming it. A seat at planning is a test of that. If HR's estimates prove unreliable over the next two peak seasons, the seat should be reconsidered.
What This Memo Cannot Show
I cannot prove that six more weeks would have filled all 42 positions; the local labor market for operators was tight. The comparison of mis-pick rates also includes other changes during peak season. Even so, the timeline shows that HR's late notice removed most of the time any hiring plan would have needed.
References
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
Ulrich, D. (1997). Human resource champions: The next agenda for adding value and delivering results. Harvard Business School Press.
Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. C., & McWilliams, A. (1994). Human resources and sustained competitive advantage: A resource-based perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(2), 301-326. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585199400000020
What the MHRM 6101 Week 3 instructions ask for
In Week 3 you examine a case where HR's placement changed a business result. Write to a senior reader and put your finding and request first. Present the facts as a dated sequence, because dates make the gap between decision and notice hard to dispute. Introduce theory only after the facts, and use it to explain why the outcome matters, not to restate the case. Estimate costs where you can. Make a request specific enough to approve or decline, and state what your evidence cannot show. Keep the memo focused on one firm and one season rather than generalizing about HR everywhere. A timeline table and a short costs section usually carry most of the weight.
Inside the MHRM 6101 Week 3 example
A summary paragraph gives the shortfall, its cause and the request. A timeline table runs from the July 14 agreement to the November 18 escalation. A short paragraph compares the normal six-week time to certify an operator with the time HR actually had. A section applies the resource-based view through Barney and Wright and colleagues. A costs section estimates the agency premium, overtime and service credits. The request asks for a seat at planning, HR staffing estimates and a cross-trained operator pool, citing Ulrich. A closing section admits that six more weeks might not have filled every position.
MHRM 6101 Week 3 rubric: what earns full marks
Case memos are graded on whether the facts support the finding and the request follows from it. Leading with the finding respects a senior reader. A dated timeline is strong evidence because it makes causation visible. Theory should explain the facts rather than replace them; the resource-based view is credited when it shows why trained operators matter. Cost estimates add weight even when approximate. A specific request is valued over a general call for HR to be more strategic. Honest limits show judgment. Memos that open with theory, or that recommend change without tying it to the dated evidence, lose credit. Clear headings that follow the memo's logic make it easy to skim.
MHRM 6101 Week 3 help: mistakes that cost marks
Choose an event at work where HR was involved too late or not at all. Find the dates: when the decision was made, when HR learned of it and when the problem appeared. Put them in a short table. Then ask what was lost because of the gap, in money, quality or people, and estimate it roughly. Look for one concept from the reading that explains why the loss mattered. Finally, decide what you would ask for so it does not happen again, in terms someone could approve. Many memos describe the problem well but ask for something vague. If you have the dates for a case, send them to us. Rough figures are fine as long as you say how you reached them.
Get a MHRM 6101 Week 3 example written to your instructions
Share the case your section assigns, with the prompt and the rubric, and a memo that stays inside that organization is drafted. You pay nothing for the first custom sample, and it arrives within 24 to 48 hours. The firm, its retail customer and its peak season are a composite; no real company's operations are described.
More MHRM 6101 papers and MS in Human Resource Management samples
- MHRM 6101 Week 1: HR Belief Discussion Post
- MHRM 6101 Week 2: HR Function Role Brief
- MHRM 6101 Week 4: Freight Dispatcher Job Analysis
- MHRM 6101 Week 5: Supervisor Staffing Memo
- MHRM 6101 Week 6: Internal Posting Policy Draft
- MHRM 6101 Week 7: HRIS Question Inventory Brief
- MHRM 6101 Week 8: Selection Ethics Memo
- MHRM 6101 Week 9: Reporting Line Peer Reply
- MHRM 6101 Week 10: HR Structure Memo
- MHRM 6101 Week 11: HR Position Paper
MHRM 6101 Week 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MHRM 6101 Week 3 sample paper?
You can read the peak-season case memo below at no cost.
What caused the shortfall in the MHRM 6101 Week 3 memo?
A volume increase agreed on July 14 that HR learned about only on September 8.
How many operators were certified in time?
19 of the 42 needed by October 1, with agency staff filling the rest.
Which theory explains the cost?
The resource-based view, which treats trained operators as a resource competitors cannot buy quickly.
What does the memo request?
A standing HR seat in planning whenever volume changes by more than 10 percent, staffing estimates and a cross-trained operator pool.