“We are looking to implement Best Practices at our sites. Do we have the staffing required to do so effectively? If not, can you help me prioritize our hiring needs for each site?”
These questions came from a company looking to better understand if it was adequately set up to execute projects at each site and if any systemic gaps needed to be addressed.
For each of the company’s sites, IPA performed a detailed comparison of the staffing across 17 functions relative to the staffing required for industry Best-in-Class sites with similar characteristics. For each site’s staffing comparison, we accounted for the portfolio characteristics (annual spend and average project size) and the site’s general approach to staffing regarding owner and contractor use.
Delivery and Client Use of the Results
In reviewing the staffing comparisons at each site, we identified specific strengths and opportunities to improve staffing such that the site would be better positioned to implement Best Practices. Further, by looking across sites, IPA was able to discover that most sites lacked the resources required to implement even industry average practices, which are less rigorous than Best Practices. This suggested systemic issues within the company’s staffing approach were preventing sites (and thereby, the company) from improving.
The study results were delivered in detailed briefings to individual sites. A summary-level report was also developed to communicate systemic staffing opportunities. The client used the information to level its resource requirements and decided to hire personnel at many sites in the high-priority areas IPA identified.