Assessing staffing requirements: six methods compared

The method a local authority uses to calculate its staffing requirements often decides how far the result will be accepted, long before the first figure appears.

Anyone setting out to assess the staffing requirements of an administrative unit faces a choice of methods that is rarely made deliberately. In practice many local authorities reach for the method that has grown up historically in their own organisation, regardless of whether it fits the question at hand. The result then often looks vulnerable as soon as it is discussed politically. A brief overview of the common procedures shows where the strengths of each one lie and when the effort of a deliberate choice pays off.

Six procedures, one aim

Staffing requirement assessment rests at its core on six established methodological approaches. Analytical task analysis (analytische Aufgabenanalyse) breaks activities down into individual steps and assesses the time each of them takes. It produces robust figures, but demands a great deal of data collection and is suited above all to standardisable high-volume tasks such as case processing in a citizens’ office. The key-figure method (Kennzahlenmethode) works with comparative values from similar administrations and can be applied quickly, but loses explanatory power as soon as local circumstances differ markedly.

The workplace method (Arbeitsplatzmethode) asks staff directly how much time they spend. It is easy to introduce, but carries the risk of subjective distortion, particularly where employees expect additional posts. Estimation by senior managers (Schätzmethode) works in a similar way, but draws on their experience rather than on self-reporting, and is well suited to smaller, manageable areas. Regression-based models (regressionsbasierte Modelle) relate staffing levels to case numbers or population data and allow forecasts for growth or contraction scenarios. Full organisational reviews (Organisationsuntersuchungen), finally, combine several of these elements into a comprehensive expert report, usually with external support and with correspondingly higher costs in time and money.

Why the wrong choice turns out expensive

The most common mistake in practice lies rarely in the execution, but in the choice of method itself. A rough key-figure estimate quickly looks thin in a council decision on additional posts once the opposition asks about the detail. A full task analysis for a small specialist team of five people is, conversely, usually out of all proportion to the effort involved. The method has to match the weight of the decision. The greater the political or financial leverage, the more detailed the underlying basis should be.

Then there is the question of acceptance. An assessment that involved the staff affected meets far less resistance in implementation than a result derived purely by calculation. This participatory element is regularly underestimated when the method is chosen, although it has a share in the later success of implementation. Authorities that bring staff councils and senior managers into the data collection early report far fewer subsequent conflicts about the staffing figures arrived at.

A further cost factor lies in the timing. If the assessment is only set in motion once the bottleneck is already being felt, there is hardly any room left for a sound choice of method. Authorities then reach almost inevitably for the quickest method available, regardless of how suitable it is for the case in front of them. Forward-looking, cyclical requirement planning that keeps staff turnover and age structure permanently in view creates the time buffer needed for a reasoned choice.

A pragmatic approach to the choice

In my book Personalmanagement in der öffentlichen Verwaltung I describe, in Chapter 3, a tool tip that lets authorities play through their staffing requirements for different future scenarios instead of relying on a single static snapshot. The approach combines key-figure comparisons with scenario-based projections and so makes the effects of staff turnover, demographic change and shifting tasks visible before they become an acute problem.

For practical purposes a two-stage approach is advisable. First, a short key-figure analysis clarifies whether there is any significant need to act at all. If there is, a more detailed analysis follows for the areas affected, at a level of detail matched to the political weight of the decision. The effort of data collection then stays proportionate to the benefit, and the results rest on a basis that also withstands critical questioning. Separating these two stages consistently usually saves time in data collection and at the same time adds confidence in argument before the council and the staff representatives.