Evaluating HP Enterprise Services Resource Planning Model
This paper evaluates the quality of the resource planning optimization model developed by Santos et al. (2013) for Hewlett Packard Enterprise Services (HPES), a business segment employing more than 100,000 knowledge workers worldwide. The evaluation examines the implemented modeling approach, its primary constraints, and the simplifying assumptions embedded in the model — notably the assumption that all project opportunities are independent. The paper also analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of the developed two-phase optimization framework and assesses the sufficiency of the validation effort, concluding that while the model represents a significant improvement over HPES's prior manual approach, limitations around tacit knowledge quantification and project interdependence remain areas for further refinement.
- Introduction: Context and scope of the evaluation
- Evaluation of the Modeling Approach: Strengths and Weaknesses: HPES constraints, SOAR model limitations, demand uncertainty
- Simplifying Assumptions in Model Development: Independence assumption and resource-based view limitations
- Strengths and Weaknesses of the Developed Model: Refined model benefits and tacit knowledge gaps
- Evaluation of the Validation Process: Two-phase SDC and optimization module assessment
- Conclusion: Summary of findings and model limitations
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper applies a clear evaluative framework — separately addressing strengths, weaknesses, simplifying assumptions, and validation — which keeps complex technical content organized and readable.
- It grounds abstract modeling concepts in concrete organizational context, using specific figures such as the $120 million sales loss and the 100,000-employee workforce to illustrate real-world stakes.
- Secondary sources (Doving & Nordhaug, Ghosh, Ravesteijn & Zoet) are integrated effectively to support and extend the primary source's claims rather than simply restating them.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates sustained critical analysis of a single primary source. Rather than summarizing Santos et al. (2013), the author interrogates assumptions, identifies gaps — particularly around tacit knowledge and project interdependence — and evaluates whether the validation process was sufficient. This moves the paper beyond description into genuine critique.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with an introduction that establishes organizational context and scope. A combined strengths-and-weaknesses section evaluates the original SOAR model and its constraints. A dedicated section then examines the simplifying assumptions before a parallel section evaluates the refined model's own strengths and weaknesses. The validation process is assessed separately before a brief conclusion summarizes findings. Each section builds logically on the last, maintaining a consistent evaluative thread throughout.
Introduction
Any multinational organization with more than 100,000 knowledge workers faces profound challenges in harnessing this pool of talent for a diverse set of information technology projects. The resource planning function for Hewlett Packard's Enterprise Services business segment was especially challenged in this area, prompting Santos et al. (2013) to develop a refined model that can be used to identify optimal supply and demand solutions in highly uncertain environments. This paper provides an evaluation of the quality of the implemented approach for the refined modeling method developed by Santos et al. (2013), including its strengths and weaknesses as well as the simplifying assumptions made during model development. An analysis of the respective strengths and weaknesses of the developed model is followed by an evaluation of the sufficiency of the effort used in the validation process. A summary of key research findings is provided in the conclusion.
References
'Business summary' (2013) Yahoo! Finance. [online]
Doving, E & Nordhaug, O (2010, July 1) 'Investing in Human Resource Planning: An International Study,' Management Revue, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 292–295.
Droege, SB & Hoebler, JM (2003) 'Employee turnover and tacit knowledge diffusion: A network perspective,' Journal of Managerial Issues, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 50.
Ghosh, P (2008, December) 'Retention strategies in the Indian IT industry,' Indian Journal of Economics and Business, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 215–222.
Hassan, M & Hagen, A (2006, January 1) 'Strategic human resources as a strategic weapon for enhancing labor productivity: Empirical evidence,' Academy of Strategic Management Journal, vol. 5, p. 6.
Heerwagen, JH, Kampschroer, K, Powell, KM & Loftness, V (2004, November–December) 'Collaborative knowledge work environments,' Building Research & Information, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 510–528.
Houston, M & Goggins, P (2008, January) 'Notes from a Centralized Office: A Renewed Interest in ERP Has School Administrators Reconsidering the Vast Business Management Systems They Abandoned a Few Short Years Ago,' Technology & Learning, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 19–23.
Ravesteijn, P & Zoet, M (2010, July) 'A BPM-Systems Architecture That Supports Dynamic and Collaborative Processes,' Journal of International Technology and Information Management, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 1–5.
Santos, C et al. (2013) 'HP Enterprise Services Uses Optimization for Resource Planning,' Interfaces, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 152–169.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.