| Literature DB >> 35392044 |
Abstract
Human resources are the first resource for enterprise development, and a reasonable human resource structure will increase the effectiveness of an enterprise's human resource input and output. The reality is that even if an enterprise designs a human resource allocation plan in accordance with the corporate strategy, it is impossible for the enterprise to operate in full accordance with the plan during the operation process, so the human resource allocation plan only reflects the law of the enterprise's human resource needs during the enterprise development process. Giving effective guidance to the specific work of human resources is difficult. It is impossible to carry out effective human resources structure adjustment to adapt to changes in human resources demand due to changes in corporate tactics, business, scale, and other factors, especially when the current domestic human resources market has not yet fully formed. This paper examines the impact of key factors such as the company's business growth scale and production efficiency improvement on human resource needs with the goal of improving team structure, optimizing staff allocation, controlling labor costs, and improving efficiency and benefits. In this paper, we attempt to develop a human resource demand forecasting model based on business development and economic benefits and guided by intensive human resource development. We analyze and forecast the enterprise's total human resource employment, personnel structure, and quality structure using this model. In light of this, this paper employs an improved BP neural network to construct a human resource demand forecasting system, resulting in a new quantitative forecasting method for human resource demand forecasting with strong theoretical significance. Simultaneously, the human resource demand forecasting system developed can enable enterprises to carry out personnel demand forecasting from the actual situation, making forecasting more applicable, flexible, and accurate, allowing enterprises to realize their strategies through reasonable human resource planning.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35392044 PMCID: PMC8983221 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3534840
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Comparison of qualitative methods for demand forecasting.
| Technical method main features | Technical method main features |
|---|---|
| Management evaluation | Subjective, experience has a greater impact |
| Current situation forecasting method | Short-term forecast, easy to operate |
| Experience forecasting method | Requires rich experience and objective judgment |
| Scenario description | Hypothetical description |
| Work research forecasting | Accurate job analysis is required |
| Microintegration | Short-term forecast, enterprise stability is required |
| Zero-based forecasting | Requires a thorough analysis of manpower needs |
| Driving factor | Find the root cause of the driving force |
| Delphi method | Expert independent judgment, long time |
Comparison of quantitative methods for demand forecasting.
| Technical method main features | Technical method main features |
|---|---|
| Trend forecasting method | Single factor change |
| Statistical forecasting method | Statistical modeling |
| Workload forecasting method | Estimated workload |
| Labor quota method | Total tasks, labor quota |
| Trend extrapolation method | A clear trend over time |
| Budget control method | Cost budget control |
| Industry proportion method | Adapt to professional division of labor |
| Benchmark method | Follow the example |
Figure 1Improved BP neural network structure.
Figure 2The improved BP neural network prediction flowchart.
Relevant data of a mobile branch in a city from 2005 to 2016.
| Year | The total output value of the enterprise/100 million | Economic benefit/100 million | Total number of employees/thousands | Turnover ratio | Management ratio | Ratio of researchers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 9.81 | 1.33 | 2.20 | 4.53 | 3.40 | 61.75 |
| 2006 | 11.90 | 1.65 | 2.11 | 3.89 | 3.32 | 63.98 |
| 2007 | 12.13 | 1.83 | 2.05 | 3.96 | 3.29 | 64.32 |
| 2008 | 13.34 | 1.95 | 2.03 | 4.02 | 3.28 | 64.53 |
| 2009 | 14.32 | 2.11 | 2.00 | 4.31 | 3.28 | 65.02 |
| 2010 | 15.11 | 2.35 | 2.02 | 4.52 | 3.26 | 66.53 |
| 2011 | 17.20 | 2.52 | 2.04 | 4.32 | 3.25 | 66.46 |
| 2012 | 18.64 | 2.65 | 2.12 | 4.22 | 3.26 | 67.76 |
| 2013 | 19.89 | 2.98 | 2.31 | 4.13 | 3.23 | 66.49 |
| 2014 | 20.46 | 3.04 | 2.42 | 4.04 | 3.22 | 65.48 |
| 2015 | 22.54 | 3.25 | 2.35 | 3.68 | 3.20 | 66.33 |
| 2016 | 23.78 | 3.47 | 2.21 | 3.75 | 3.14 | 67.58 |
Comparison of forecasts of various indicators.
| Predictor | Year | True | Predicted | Relative error (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total enterprise output value | 2015 | 22.54 | 22.01 | 2.35 |
| 2016 | 23.78 | 24.56 | 3.28 | |
|
| ||||
| Economic benefits | 2015 | 3.25 | 3.16 | 2.77 |
| 2016 | 3.47 | 3.62 | 4.32 | |
|
| ||||
| Turnover ratio | 2015 | 3.68 | 3.45 | 6.25 |
| 2016 | 3.75 | 3.63 | 3.20 | |
|
| ||||
| Total number of employees/thousands | 2015 | 2.35 | 2.22 | 5.53 |
| 2016 | 2.21 | 2.16 | 2.26 | |
|
| ||||
| Ratio of managers | 2015 | 3.20 | 3.23 | 0.94 |
| 2016 | 3.14 | 3.22 | 2.55 | |
|
| ||||
| Ratio of researchers | 2015 | 66.33 | 64.95 | 2.08 |
| 2016 | 67.58 | 65.34 | 3.31 | |
Figure 3Prediction results of the total output value of enterprises.
Figure 4Economic benefit forecast results.
Figure 5Prediction results of the total number of employees in the enterprise.
Figure 6Prediction results of turnover ratio.
Figure 7Predicted results of the proportion of managers.
Figure 8Prediction results of the proportion of scientific researchers.