A Consultant's Casebookabout me: Andres Inn, Ph.D.


Experimenting with the ModelThe model reasonably approximates the performance of recruiters. Below is summarized the behavior of the system during a 221day working year. The horizontal scale presents working days. Two variables are graphed on the vertical scale; the number of persons in the Applicant Pool is graphed as variable 1; and the number of persons signing up as Recruits is graphed as variable 2. During the oneyear simulation, the number of applicants in the Applicant Pool varies from 0 to 4, and the recruiter is able to sign up 13 new recruits during the year. These figures reasonably described the recruiting process at the time.
The model worked. From the data at hand, the model accurately reflected the work behavior of a recruiter. It predicted the number of applicants he prospected, and predicted the number of recruits he enlisted into the Army. Still, it was necessary to develop a feel for how accurately the model reflected recruiter behavior. We focused on those components of the model that are under the control of the recruiter to examine how well our model described the actual system. A brief review of the basic model suggests that, while there are relatively few such components, they might include the following: • Prospecting Effort, or the number of leads worked each day, • Sales Time, or the average number of days required to sell one prospect, and • Enlistment Processing Time, or the average number of days required for MEPS processing.

All material is copyrighted! Not to be used without the written permission of Andres Inn. ©2000.
Send mail to Andres.Inn@mail.ee with questions or comments about this web site.
