This paper presents the detailed analysis of academic development index and longevity among forensic science laboratory (FSL) employees as the key factors for improving organizational performance based on human capital development. The data were collected from human resource database involving 171 (88%) employees out of 195. New mathematical formulations were developed for academic development index <i>A d</i>, a measure of the time delay in academic development while working within FSL, simple longevity ( <i>L s </i>) and complex longevity ( <i>L c </i>), based on years served and academic certificates attained. The values of <i>A d </i>, <i>L s </i> and <i>L c </i> were compared for different units and departments including zonal laboratories between Y2014 and Y2016. Both total and average values of <i>L s </i>, <i>L c </i> and <i>A d </i> indicated an imbalance in the distribution of staff in different laboratories, necessitating re-allocation to improve performance. The employment trend analysis shows that the work force has been diversified from Y2004 to Y2016 leading to improved management of finance, procurement and human resource in the FSL. As a result of a training program, the percent of staff with MS c has been increasing from about 3.5% in Y2004 to 9% in Y2015. The average values of longevity and academic development index were observed to be the better parameters for comparing laboratories or units than the total values. Results show a balanced staff distribution based on <i>L c </i> and <i>A d </i> is inevitable for improved performance. It was concluded that the new indices ( <i>A d </i> and <i>L c </i>) are important tools for describing the development of the workforce and competitiveness of the FSL.
Staff experience and longevity in the FSL brings the competencies and ability to perform analytical work to the client’s needs. Experience may be established through academic development for employees which will in turn offer professional advice for the FSL management. Academic development is a pre-requisite for promotion in some professional steps within the FSL as per government regulations for instance from senior to principal levels. Successful management of FSLs requires a great sense of self-awareness, commitment or engagement of staff and the presence of the staff in the processes. The years staff has worked stayed in the specific FSL in connection with the organization’s mode of operations, creates a defined model or processes from which performance of the organization can be measured. The advantage of academic development mixed with longevity prior to promotion is that the FSL can move its technical innovations into the most inventive and profitable directions. Existing processes and employees’ skills form a business model to which new technologies fit in, hence, reducing risks. To enable the technology to fit into existing processes, engaged employees with high longevity to maintain the processes, are required.
To be able to maintain the processes on daily basis, the FSL need skilled employees who perceive that their roles are of paramount importance. Well-developed staff (academically and professionally) are required which need to be created by the FSL itself by keeping them longer via effective employee development programs. This paper analyzes the staff academic development and longevity [
All employees within FSL are eligible to academic development during their carrier, through different paths or routes depending on opportunities available to personal abilities. Academic development, staff occurrence in the FSL activities, finding a balance between effective employees and efficient laboratory service are among the driving forces for the development of the workforce. In addition, experience may be established through both academic and professional development.
Based on
path ends at a box denoted as “to date”, (such as A-B-C-D, H-K, H-F-N, or A-E-M-D, etc.).
Among the factors affecting FSL growth, development and competitiveness, is the human resource management. The human capital within the FSL has two main components which are individual staff or employees and the FSL as an organization. Human capital have four key attributes [
From the individual level, the importance of human capital depends on the degree to which it contributes to the creation of a competitive advantage [
During human capital theory development, greater attention has been paid to training related aspects (denoted in this paper as academic development). Human capital investment is any activity which improves the quality (productivity) of the worker. Therefore, training is still an important component of human capital investment. This refers to the knowledge and training required and undergone by a person that increases own capabilities in performing activities of economic value. However, training required is that which focuses on the FSL specific activities, for which such colleges to provide training are lacking within the country and also in the region. On the other hand, research on longevity issues has not been reported compared to training and academic development.
Literature shows the importance of training on employee’s productivity and firm’s competitiveness, indicating that the workforce’s lack of training is related to low competitiveness [
Thus, FSL’s human capital can add value if it contributes to lowering costs and providing increased performances. The human capital indicators such as training attended and team-work practices have a positive association with organizational performances [
Longevity is a measure of how long an employee has been working in the FSL (measured in years). This study differentiates between simple longevity (years worked in a given organization) and the newly introduced concept of complex longevity (by considering the initiatives made to improve the academic levels of the staff while building their longevity in the FSL). This paper presents the mathematical formulation for quantifying workplace complex longevity and tries to answer the question: how much of a competitive advantage is employee longevity? Employee longevity (simple and complex) is a signal of a strong company that has established some competitive advantages. Employee longevity suggests they have a lot of experience and therefore likely to be very efficient and effective. Longevity shows that the company is growing and improving over time. A growing company keeps things interesting for good employees by providing them new challenges and professional growth opportunities. Moreover, longevity suggests that the company continues to provide value to its customers and is able to raise prices or improve margins or both. A company cannot keep employees over the long-term without steady compensation increases and therefore the company needs to be creating and capturing value to be able to keep those employees.
Organizational stability stimulates longevity, because good employees stick around. High employee longevity in FSL shows that the organization has found a rhythm of work that is balanced. Employee longevity suggests that the workload (normal and the heavy bursts in FSL) is sustainable by the employees over the long term.
However, arguments against longevity exist and there are some logical reasons why longevity may not be the best tool for all organizations. For companies that need to change and adapt to new conditions, doing that with legacy staff can be difficult. Employees with experience outside the company (and who has dealt with such changes), are required to initiate major change initiatives without help of outside consultants. Having a mix of legacy and newer staff will help in moving forward, while making necessary adjustments.
Workplace learning is conceptualized in broad and diverse ways, and essentially covers a mix of the issues pertaining to both organizations and workers [
This diversity of theories is problematic because: “[m]any researchers construct their model, conceptualization or theory of learning, with the explicit claim or by implication that it might adequately cover all aspects of workplace learning, in all contexts” [
The study was conducted using GCLA as a study area, details of which are shown in
Components of the study | Units studied and parameters | Sample size | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Employment trend | Number of new employee | N = 171 | ||
Academic development with certificates attained | Percent of total employees with different academic certificates (BSc, MSc, FTC, CPA, CPSP, Diploma and Advanced Diploma) | |||
Maximum employment time | Years | 40 | ||
Number of degrees included in the academic development analysis | BSc, MSc and PhD | 3 | ||
Simple longevity (Ls) and complex longevity (Lc) analysis | Years studied | Y2014 | Y2016 | |
Product Quality Services Department (PQSD) | 6 | 6 | ||
DNA Laboratory | 6 | 8 | ||
Toxicology and Chemistry Laboratory (TOX-CHEM) | 7 | 5 | ||
Environment Management Laboratory (EML) | 4 | 6 | ||
Northern Zone Laboratory (NZL) | 4 | 4 | ||
Lake Zone Laboratory (LZL) | 5 | 6 | ||
Southern Highlands Zonal Laboratory (SHZL) | 3 | 4 | ||
Total | 35 | 39 | ||
Academic development index | Product Quality Services Department (PQSD) | 11 | ||
Chemicals Management Department (CMD) | 9 | |||
Forensic Science and DNA Services (FSDS) | 13 | |||
certificates, attendance in short courses and simple and complex longevity. The forensic chemistry and toxicology laboratories were combined in this analysis due to lower number of staff.
In this study, it was assumed that a strong relationship exists between longevity and academic development and that certificates attained while at work are relevant to the performance and competitiveness of the FSL. Moreover, only existing employees were considered in this analysis to assist human resource management team to decide on placement of staff in different areas. It was further assumed in this study that employees may enter the FSL at any point in time with any certificate indicated by circles or boxes in
This objective was accomplished through the assessment of staff experience and longevity in FSL as part of the laboratory’s staff credentials or certificates which reflect broad, in-depth knowledge, sufficient expertise within the organization. Staff experience was expressed using simple and complex longevity. Simple longevity or experience, Ls, is defined as the period in years from first employment with FSL to date, given as per Equation (1):
L s = Y t d − Y e (1)
where Ytd = year to date, (Y2015 for this case), and Ye = year of first employment.
For a given laboratory, unit or zonal operations, the total staff simple longevity is determined as per Equation (2):
L s t = ∑ i = 1 N s ( L s , i ) (2)
Let Ns be the number of staff in a given laboratory or unit, the average simple longevity can be determined using Equation (3):
L s ¯ = 1 N s ∑ i = 1 N s ( L s , i ) (3)
Depending on the qualification during the first employment in the FSL, that is, BSc, MSc or PhD, the corresponding arbitrary points, denoted as Pi, was assigned to each qualification, that is, Pi = 5, 10, or 20, respectively. The values of Pi were arbitrarily selected in that order to differentiate the weights of BSc, MSc and PhD certificates. Any other values could be selected in that increasing order. Each staff score, Sc, is thus defined as per Equation (4):
S c = P i × Y i (4)
where Yi is equal to years the degree has been used in FSL or Ls for the specific degree.
Given that an employee can only have a maximum simple longevity of 40 years (employed at the age of 20 years and retiring at the age of 60 years) then the maximum score is obtained when employed with PhD on the first day, as per Equation (5):
max ( P i Y i ) = P i ( = 20 ) × Y i ( = 40 ) = 800 (5)
If at employment date in 2000 an employee had a BSc, then this BSc will have a value of Yi of 15 years at a reference year, Y2015 (denoted as to date). Moreover, if such an employee acquires an MSc degree in Y2010, then, the value of Yi for MSc will be 5 years in Y2015. All staff will have a specific score value, PiYi less than 800, based on which, a normalized score for each staff can be defined as per Equation (6):
N s c = P i Y i max ( P i Y i ) = P i Y i 800 (6)
The maximum of 3 certificates for each staff were considered in this study, that is, at BSc, MSc, and PhD levels, defined as j = 1, 2, 3. The total normalized score, Nsct is defined as complex longevity for each staff, given as per Equation (7):
L c k = N s c t = L j = ∑ j = 1 3 ( P i Y i 800 ) (7)
For each value of j, a different degree is considered, and the time since it was received is multiplied by the degree score, Pi. Each staff will be represented by a single value of Nsct or Lc which is the measure of how useful the academic qualification of the specific staff has been in the FSL, and also indicates a measure of staff’ experience. The quantity, Lc, is thus a compound measure taking care of both time elapsed since a given degree was obtained and academic credentials possessed thereafter. For comparison between different laboratories or FSL units, the total values of Lc for all staff in the laboratory can be used. Assuming that a laboratory has Ns staff members, then the staff members will vary as k = 1, 2, 3, …, Ns, then total complex longevity for that laboratory will be determined as per Equation (8):
L c t = ∑ k = 1 N s [ ∑ j = 1 3 ( P i Y i 800 ) ] (8)
For a laboratory or unit with Ns staff, the average complex longevity can be determined as per Equation (9):
L c ¯ = 1 N s ∑ k = 1 N s ( L c , k ) (9)
Higher value of Lc implies that a specific employee has worked in the laboratory for many years with those years supported by degrees or certificates obtained while working in the FSL.
Another measure of staff experience was established through academic development index where courses relevant to the job requirements are taken. Academic
Staff identifier | Simple Longevity | Qualification and year attained | Points = Pi | Years to date = Yi | Score | Lc,i | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ye | Ls | |||||||
A | 1991 | 25 | BSc | 1991 | 5 | 25 | 0.1563 | 0.3063 |
MSc | 2004 | 10 | 12 | 0.1500 | ||||
PhD | - | 20 | 0 | 0.0000 | ||||
B | 1995 | 21 | BSc | 1995 | 5 | 21 | 0.1313 | 0.1813 |
MSc | 2012 | 10 | 4 | 0.0500 | ||||
PhD | - | 20 | 0 | 0.0000 | ||||
C | 2008 | 8 | BSc | 2008 | 5 | 8 | 0.0500 | 0.0500 |
MSc | - | 10 | 0 | 0.0000 | ||||
PhD | - | 20 | 0 | 0.0000 | ||||
D | 2010 | 6 | BSc | 2010 | 5 | 6 | 0.0375 | 0.0375 |
MSc | - | 10 | 0 | 0.0000 | ||||
PhD | - | 20 | 0 | 0.0000 | ||||
E | 2005 | 11 | BSc | 2005 | 5 | 11 | 0.0688 | 0.1313 |
MSc | 2011 | 10 | 5 | 0.0625 | ||||
PhD | - | 20 | 0 | 0.0000 | ||||
Total simple longevity, Lst | 71.00 | Total complex longevity, Lct | 0.7063 | |||||
Average simple longevity, L s ¯ | 14.2 | Average complex longevity, L c ¯ | 0.1413 |
development is a factor of skills gained during the studies, as well as a demonstration of effective ways to study and manage time. Given the year of employment, Ye, with a starting qualification (Certificate, Advanced Diploma, BSc, MSc or PhD), any added degree or certificate, Yt years later, adds to staff academic development. The academic development index, denoted as Ad, quantifies the delay time for a specific staff from one degree or certificate to another, determined as per Equation (10):
A d = 1 + [ ∑ i = 1 n ( 1 Y t ) ] + 1 L s f d (10)
where Yt = years from the first graduation, to the next graduation, while working within the FSL, and Lsfd = simple longevity of last degree or certificate in years, and n = number of degrees or certificates. The base value of Ad = 1, corresponds to the value of Ad for the certificate leading to employment in the FSL and n is the number of degrees or certificates attained. When Lsfd = Ls, a condition satisfied when an employee did not attain any other degree or certificate from first employment, then adding 1/Ls to Ad signifies that an employee who had worked longer in the laboratory should have made efforts in attaining a next certificate, provided that the last certificate was not a PhD. A measure of delay is given by the reciprocal of Lsfd or Ls. Higher value of Ad signifies that a given staff has gained additional certificates faster or in short time intervals, while working within the FSL. For a laboratory with Ns staff, the average academic development index was determined as per Equation (11):
A d ¯ = 1 N s ∑ i = 1 N s A d , i (11)
Higher values of Ad signify staff who acquired the degrees in short time intervals (shorter Yt and hence high reciprocal values). Lower value of Ad indicates that the corresponding staff attained the degree after a longer time interval (high Yt and hence lower reciprocal values) or none of certificates were attained after employment (routes J, K, L, N, Q, D in
S/N | Staff details | Year attained | Yt | 1/Yt | ∑ ( 1 Y t ) | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ye | Starting qualification | BSc | Adv. Dip. | MSc | Certificate | Diploma | PhD | Yt1 | Yt2 | Yt3 | Yt4 | Yt5 | Lsfd | 1 Y t 1 | 1 Y t 2 | 1 Y t 3 | 1 Y t 4 | 1 Y t 5 | 1 L s f d | ||
A | 1995 | MSc | - | - | 1995 | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | - | 20 | - | - | 1 | - | - | 0.05 | 1.050 |
B | 2005 | BSc | 2005 | - | - | 2011 | - | - | 1 | - | - | 6 | - | 4 | 1 | - | - | 0.167 | - | 0.25 | 1.417 |
C | 1982 | Dip | - | - | - | - | 1982 | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | 33 | - | - | - | - | 1 | 0.03 | 1.030 |
D | 2005 | BSc | 2005 | - | 2010 | - | - | - | 1 | - | 5 | - | - | 5 | 1 | - | 0.2 | - | - | 0.2 | 1.400 |
E | 1986 | BSc | 1986 | - | 1995 | - | - | - | 1 | - | - | 9 | - | 20 | 1 | - | - | 0.111 | - | 0.05 | 1.161 |
F | 2008 | BSc | 2008 | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | - | - | - | 7 | 1 | - | - | - | - | 0.143 | 1.143 |
The decrease in BSc percentage from 5% to 3% between Y2000 and Y2004, respectively, can be attributed to the need for business competitiveness which necessitated introduction of additional skills or professions and disciplines such as certificates, to complement the core carder for new functions such as accounting and procurement management which slightly diluted the BSc. Chemists with BSc have been given great opportunities and support to acquire MSc in order to improve the FSL analysis capability but also as a carrier or professional development requirement from a senior chemist level to a principal chemist (as per
Results in
ways of working depending on situation. Training can help solve these performance problems by explaining the details of the job aiming at reducing duplication of effort in the workplace. The time spent correcting mistakes and the problem solving necessary to correct poor performances is reduced by training. Improved performance from employee training and diversification can reduce staff turnover, lower maintenance costs by reducing unnecessary equipment breakdowns and result in fewer customer complaints. Better performance from employees typically creates less need for supervision and brings increase work output.
Keeping well-trained employees longer in an organization pays off significantly for companies because the cost of employee turnover is always high. Such costs include exit interviews, administrative functions related to termination, severance pay and unemployment compensation where applicable. Replacement costs consist of attracting applicants, entrance interviews, travel and moving expenses, pre-employment administrative expenses, medical exams and employment information. Thus, having employees with high longevity is an achievement and advantageous to the organization. This study analyzes simple and complex longevity for the FSL employees up to Y2016.
While some employees have worked up to 31 years in the EML, some of the staff had lowest simple longevity of 1 year. Such a mix allows the newly employed staff (Ls < 5 years) to learn from those with high longevity in the laboratory (Ls > 25). The benefits of having units with highest and lowest Ls values was also reported in terms of succession index and leadership competency index [
Analyzing values of Ls per individual staff do not provide a measure of whole laboratory strength in tackling challenges in laboratory work. The combined staff experience was established using total staff longevity in a given laboratory, Lst, which was further used to compare different laboratories as shown in
within FSL. The changes in Lst for different units are caused by staff movement from one unit to another, retirement and movement in and out of the FSL.
Laboratory units comprising staff with high complex longevity values will have advantage in problem solving, innovation, leadership and skills in equipment and facility management. Moreover, such individuals are familiar with policies and regulations, related to forensic science services. Thus based on results presented in
0.34 to 0.82 and 0.38 to 0.61, respectively. For the LZL, Lct dropped from 0.86 to 0.72 due to movement of analysts with MSc for undertaking administrative duties in laboratories at the headquarters. Highest values of Lct were observed for EML and LZL, indicating that highly experienced staff or large number of staff occupy these laboratories.
The total complex longevity, on the other hand, signifies the strength of a team culture rather than a “star” culture. Star culture often tolerates star performers that can be difficult to work with and may make an organization more difficult for everyone else. The stars are also not likely to stick around very long as they will be off to the next place that makes them feel like more of a star. Moreover, higher staff complex longevity shown in
In many ways, employee complex longevity adds value to a company’s competitive advantage. In cases where employee’s longevity has negative impacts to the firm competitiveness, the businesses in such industries or companies are more likely to have management-labor strife. This is because the dynamics of such industry are more about capturing a larger slice of the pie rather than trying to work together to make the pie larger (a competitive distributive approach vs. a cooperative integrative approach to business). If the company needs employee wages to be low in order to survive, the company may want a constant influx of entry-level employees so that the higher paid employees move on after a few years. Lower longevity is also needed by some firms when companies need a constant source of fresh thinking. Moreover, some types of work may be difficult to do for a long period, such as physically demanding work.
There are several advantages of high longevity in the FSL. First, new hires get to know the organization, the history, the way of doing business, generally referred to as the “culture” from those with high longevity or supervisors. However, new employees don’t learn FSL stuff overnight or even in two years. While there are some serious savings from reducing turnover and keeping people on long-term, there are also serious repercussions to keeping the wrong people for a long time.
In today’s hiring environment, the economic situation has been altered by huge pool of experienced, but older candidates. For those looking for employees who will bring a loyal and long view of employment, these hires are ideal, since
their professionalism and experience is not to be denied. On the other hand, staff with high values of complex longevity (
Several options for academic development initiatives available for FSL staff were assessed from the data collected from 1980 to Y2016, as shown in
While most of the routes show none of the staff, most of FSL staff opted for BSc to MSc, that is, route C. The largest number of staff took routes K and D, that is, BSc to date, followed by MSc to date. This analysis is useful for human resource professionals in the FSL in advising the staff during making choice before embarking on further studies. In general, compared to results presented in
In
Large value of Ad observed for FSDS and PQSD signifies that the individual
staff attained degrees or certificates in short time intervals while working within the FSL based on Equation (10). On the other hand, a lower value of Ad is an indication of staff taking long time to attain next certificates or lack of such efforts during their employment carrier (e.g., CMD). Thus, staff in the CMD attained degrees and certificates in long time intervals than those working in the FSDS and PQSD or they were attending training after employment. This can be attributed to availability of courses and programs related to chemicals and environmental management, compared to forensic science and product quality courses.
While complex longevity signifies the years a given staff has worked with a given degree within the FSL, Ad looks at how fast the individual staff acquired new academic certificates while at work (based on reciprocals of the time intervals between certificates). While Lc gives score or weight to the academic degrees utilized in the FSL for a given time before attaining another academic level (PiYi), Ad tracks delays or stagnation time between academic certificates while working in the FSL. Although both are normalized, the two parameters Lc and Ad are opposite in nature, with low Ad indicating longer stagnation between academic certificates and lower Lc indicating degrees spent for a short time or lower complex longevity within FSL.
On the other hand, in the range C (which is the unsuitable range as it shows
delayed attainment of certificates), highest number of employees in this range was observed for CMD (18.9%) compared to both FSDS and PQSD. Thus, most advantageous staff were those in FSDS, attributable to arrival of new technology for molecular biology and DNA analysis, which necessitates staff to undergo further studies (BSc to MSc) to cope with the new demands from the Government and the society in general.
The employment trend analysis shows that diversification of workforce from Y2004 onwards has brought improvements from financial management and procurement management to human resource management leading to higher competitive edge of the FSL. As a result of a training program, the percent of staff with MSc has been increasing from about 3.5% in Y2004 to 9% in 2015. The highest total staff simple longevity for different FSL units (for Y2014 and Y2016) was observed in PQSD (Ls = 63 and 70 years), EML (Ls = 72 and 65 years) and, LZL (Ls = 71 and 73 years), respectively. Both Ad and Lc values were compared for different units and departments including zonal laboratories.
A comparison of individual staff simple longevity, Ls, for different FSL units showed that PQSD and EML had the highest simple longevity. That is, most experienced employees based on time alone, have been placed in these units. The toxicology/chemistry laboratories have staff with the least Ls values. Comparing the values of individual staff complex longevity, Lc, for laboratory cadres from different units and zonal laboratories for the Y2016, it is the NZL and EML which showed the highest complex longevity. These are just supporting units of FS.
Both total and average values of Ls, Lc and Ad indicated an imbalance for the distribution of staff in different laboratories, necessitating re-allocation to attain equal distribution of experienced and newly employed staff and hence improve competitiveness of the FSL. This is also observed in total staff complex longevity, for different laboratories, whereby, toxicology/chemistry and DNA laboratories have staff with lower total complex longevity, Lc = 0.56 and 0.34 compared with EML with total complex longevity of 0.95 and 0.98 for the Y2014 and Y2016 respectively.
Comparing individual Ad values, FSDS and PQSD shows higher values than CMD, which gives similar conclusion for average values. Analysis of both Lc and Ad revealed an imbalance in staff placement in the laboratories at headquarters (TOX-CHEM, EML, and PQSD) compared to zonal laboratories, necessitating re-allocation of staff. The overall average Lc for all staff increased between Y2014 and Y2016, indicating improvement in staff academic development and longevity. While DNA laboratory requires staff with specialized knowledge and skills, and re-allocation of staff in zonal laboratories has financial implications, a balanced staff distribution based on Lc and Ad is inevitable. The average values of Ls, Lc and Ad are the better parameters for comparing laboratories or units than the total values. Thus, the newly developed complex longevity, Lc, and academic development index, Ad, are important tools for describing the employee development.
The authors are grateful to the GCLA Management for financial support which enabled completion of this study. Special thanks to the Human Resource Officers for organizing the data collection exercise (N.O. Nombo, B. Lankii, G. Kasembe and A. Mapunda).
The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
Omari, G.C., Manyele, S.V. and Mwaluko, G. (2019) Analysis of Employee’s Longevity and Academic Development in Forensic Science Laboratory. Engineering, 11, 206-230. https://doi.org/10.4236/eng.2019.114015