MHRM 6901 Week 5 Capstone Peer Workshop Example

Week 5 Discussion: Capstone Peer Workshop

Peer Workshop: Posting Hartwell's Workforce Section With One Question, Naming One Unstated Premise in Each of Two Classmates' Drafts and Recording What Changed After Their Readings

My Section and My Question

I have posted my workforce planning section for Hartwell Baking Company, the composite Wisconsin bakery in my capstone. It estimates that the second restaurant contract needs about 27 technician hires in the first year and that Hartwell's current sources can supply about eleven. I have one question for readers: does the demand estimate of 27 seem built on assumptions you would accept if you were Hartwell's chief financial officer? I am asking only about that number, because every option in the section depends on it, and I have stared at it too long to see it clearly. Cappelli (2008) argues that talent plans should treat demand as uncertain rather than fixed, so if the number is shaky I would rather show it as a range now than defend it later.

Reading Ana's Section

Ana, your compensation section for the regional hospital system argues that raising nurse pay to the market's 60th percentile will cut turnover by a third. The argument is clear and the cost table is easy to follow. The premise I could not find stated is that pay is the main reason nurses leave. Your exit interview data shows pay as the top reason, but at 31 percent of departures; the other 69 percent cite scheduling, workload and managers. If pay explains a third of departures, can a pay increase cut total turnover by a third? Stating the premise, and the evidence for it, would let a reader judge the claim.

Reading Marcus's Section

Marcus, your succession section for the software company is persuasive about which roles are critical. The unstated premise is that the people named as successors want the roles. The section lists two successors for each director role but does not say whether anyone asked them. If even one declines, the plan has a gap it does not show. A sentence on how successors were identified would close it.

What Changed After Your Readings

Two classmates answered my question, and both found the same weak point. I had assumed that a third of the eleven retirement-eligible technicians would retire in year one. Jordan asked where the third came from; I had taken it from a conversation with one plant manager. Priya noted that several technicians had told HR they would retire sooner if night coverage increased, which my own risks section mentions but my estimate ignores. I have revised the section to show demand as a range, 25 to 29 hires, with the retirement assumption stated and its source named. I also moved the night-coverage point from the risks section into the demand estimate.

Nicol et al. (2014) found that students often learn more from reviewing others' work than from receiving comments, because reviewing forces them to apply standards they then turn on their own drafts. That matched my experience this week: naming Ana's unstated premise made me look for my own. Booth et al. (2016) treat a research argument as a claim backed by reasons and evidence and held together by warrants; the premises I found in all three sections were missing warrants.

References

Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & FitzGerald, W. T. (2016). The craft of research (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Cappelli, P. (2008). Talent on demand: Managing talent in an age of uncertainty. Harvard Business Press.

Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.795518