Case 1 summary:

Domino’s Pizza, an American pizza chain opened in the 1960’s and is the brain child of the Monahan
brother’s of Ypsilanti, MI. The Monahan’s are credited with creating a long-standing value proposition of
delivery pizza within 30 minutes or less. This was ground breaking at the time, because most pizza
companies had delivery times of an hour or more. They also were the first to use assembly line-based
systems and conveyor-belt oven technology to ensure uniform temperatures and reduce baking times.
Domino’s strategy evolved over the decades to include advancements in technologies that provide
customers the ability to customize and track their online orders. Domino’s new strategy had to address
the culture and the high turnover rate. Turnover in the food services industry is common, but Domino’s
annual turnover rate was soaring at 158 percent. They couldn’t retain employees and the quality of the
worker had to improve in order to increase its customer’s satisfaction, which was lower than any other
pizza chain. David Brandon, the CEO in this case, was tasked with revamping the enterprise to rethink its
value proposition, reputation, HR strategies and polices, and the quality of the food. This case provides
insight on the solutions and the results of Dominos new strategies and value proposition. The
implementation and execution of enterprise wide strategies has satisfied investors and wall-street but the
company’s culture still needs some refining.

1. Explain how Domino’s strategy differed from its competitors.

Domino's strategy differed from its competitors because it relied on the speediness of service - pizzas
were delivered to customers' homes in under 30 minutes. However, that did not offer Domino's pizza a
sustainable competitive advantage because competitors have imitated and replicated this part of
Domino's strategy, such that they are no longer offering a unique value. Domino's competitors were not
only offering pizza in about the same amount of time as Domino's, but they were also making better
tasting pizza, or pizza at a lower cost. Domino’s through its turnaround strategy diversified its products
and improved the taste of its pizzas. However, in order to create and maintain a sustainable performance
over time, it should rely on rare, hard to copy and valuable resources, like its culture (focusing not only in
managers but also in employees).

2.Has the firm been able to achieve a long term strategic fit between its strategy and HR practices in your
opinion? Why or why not?

A long-term strategic fit between strategy and HR practices assumes that strategy will not change over
the long-term. This is highly unlikely because the supporting workers—the employees who could just as
easily work at McDonald's, Wendy's or Starbucks—are not valued to the same extent as management.
They are underpaid, and in the eyes of many employees, this is equivalent to being undervalued. When
people feel undervalued, they are likely to quit when a better opportunity arises, neglect their work duties
when possible, and even engage in deviant behavior to harm the organization or its stakeholders.

Case Summary 2

This will be an in-depth look at a case study based on a popular financial establishment, Capital One. In
June of 2007 the chairman of Capital One, Richard Fairbanks decided to mandate an effort to strip $700
million dollars out of the company’s operating costs by the year 2009. “The cost reduction plan included
consolidating and streamlining functions, reducing layers of management and eliminating approximately
2,000 jobs”. The mandate had unexpected consequences. Instead of a “mad scramble in workforce
planning”, rather the planning staff added new variables to their simulations thus modifying projections
for the company’s talent needs. Along with many other companies, Capital One is creating a set of ideal
practices for workplace planning that focuses on the future of corporate planning.

Workforce planning such as the model that Capital One developed are being developed and utilized by
many other companies is a process in which are “executed by a metrics and analytics group of 20 people,
plus hundreds of executives, managers, and analytics from the business lines and corporate functions”.
They work together in a blended fashion along with human resources to build models. The models flow
to Matthew Schuyler, Capital Ones chief human resource officer directly to Richard Fairbanks, Capital
One's CEO. These models will also aide Schuyler in determining changes in the span of control. The span
of control will ultimately determine optimal methods for staffing managerial positions as well as any
related costs that they will incur.

What really gives workforce planning its true power is when a connection is made to line managers who
can perceive business needs and have the ability to project growth and efficiency changes. In efforts to
not under or overshoot staffing needs, Schuyler remains flexible to remain right on target. “That flexibility
derives from a more sophisticated approach to planning that looks at a range of possible situations about
business circumstances and then computes the labor needed to match them” (Snell, Morris, &
Bohlander,2014). The metrics involved in Capital One’s planning models make it possible for industry
leaders to anticipate the talent needs for an individual business option along with the human resources
and labor costs, including the resulting consequences of such. This ability to foresee what repercussions
their decisions will create is an invaluable tool that will aid in developing their business and increasing
performance.

Why do you think it’s important for Capital One to calculate the “disengagement” factor of its employees
when it comes to workforce planning?

There are three reasons that is important for Capital One to calculate the cost of disengaged employees.
First, they are less likely to be productive for the company. The disengaged employees are working to be
financially secured and not to get ahead within the company’s objectives. So, they don’t work so hard as
they are disconnected from their workplaces or they are not involved to the vision of company. The
disengaged employees can also make costly mistake because they are not paying attention to their job.
Second, it decreases morale. For example, when co-workers are trying to come up with new ideas, the
disengaged employees can discourage others through their lack of interest. The most harmful part of the
disengaged employees is that it can be contagious to others. Last, it will help Capital One to get out from
the crisis. For example, if Capital One figures out the cost of disengaged employees they can either replace
them, or try their best to reengage them.

We have learned from this chapter five steps of strategic planning: establishing a mission, vision, and
values for organization, analysing external opportunities, analysing internal strengths and weaknesses,
formulating strategy, and implementing strategy. Calculating the cost of disengaged employees is one of
internal analysis. It is important to analyse and evaluate the capacity and cost of employees, and a
company should know which segment the employees are occupied.

2. What merits do you see to breaking down the planning process by business units through multiple
layers of leaders? Do you see any drawbacks of doing so?
Breaking the planning process down to the lowest level business manager is ideal because in complex
organizations such as Capital One, these managers are likely to have a better idea of which jobs and people
are critical than a high-level manager might. In addition, each manager is also likely to have a better idea
of what the “endgame” for her/his unit should be. Moreover, mixing the staff with each business units
gives flexibility when it comes to decision-making. Each business units has different duties and different
views; it can bring the best options by combining ideas. Also, it is time-saver when they make decision
without the need for forwarding information to each department and for waiting responses of other
department. By breaking down the planning process by business unites through multiple leaders, it keeps
the workforce focused on the corporate goals. It allows the financial resources to be used wisely, and
human resources to be productive.

We don’t see many drawbacks in breaking down the planning process by business units since it increases
the productivity of the employees and encourages the development of the workplace. However, breaking
down to lower level managers is likely to be somewhat less useful in simple, or small, businesses in which
top level managers have a good understanding of all of the HR “pieces of the puzzle” and the business’s
ultimate “endgame.” Also in some types of cooperation which the time is very important, planning could
be costly and time consuming.