The current state of quantitative measurement and cost benefit analysis in the human resource departments of large, publicly-held corporations

Scope and method of study. The study examined the use of quantitative measurement and cost benefit analysis in human resource departments. Twenty nine human resource managers of large, publicly held corporations in the State of Oklahoma evaluated by Value Line Investment Survey were interviewed. Usage was explored in each of the following four subsystems within the human resource department: Training and Development, Staffing, Employee Relations, and Compensation and Benefits. Other items explored in the study include: the ability of human resource managers to measure benefits, quantification in new areas, automation in the department, human resource credibility and reasons why human resource personnel do not use more quantitative measurement and cost benefit analysis.; Findings and conclusions. Training programs are more likely to be measured subjectively than objectively. Few human resource managers are measuring training programs in terms of results. Participant feedback is the most often used method of measurement. Results of training programs are more likely to be presented to management in demographic terms than in economic terms. Training continues to be considered an expense rather than an investment by most companies, although a few companies are beginning to think of some training costs as investments. Few are measuring the benefits of their pre-employment testing programs and selection policies at this time but they are using quantitative measurement in a variety of studies related to staffing activities such as destaffing, learning curve associated with pre-employment tests and retention of employees from specific universities. Employee relations programs are monitored but actual cost benefit analysis is considered too difficult because there are so many variables involved. Companies are measuring job performance in new and different ways. Few human resource managers have developed their ability to measure the benefits of their training programs in economic terms. They are making quantitative measurement in a number of areas previously though to be unmeasurable or too difficult to measure. The computer is providing the human resource personnel an additional ability to perform quantitative measurement and cost benefit analysis. The human resource managers in this population perceived themselves as having more credibility than the marketing function and above the training and development function. There are varied reasons why human resource personnel have not used more quantitative measurement and cost benefit analysis. These include corporate cultural reasons such as reactive rather than proactive management, lack of management persuasion, inadequate manpower and insufficient time. Other reasons appear to be related to the human resource manager's skill level and orientation.