A case study on flexing for either direction
Ivey / ISB Case W17263, set February 2013. Prepared using the case method: context, situation and problem, and a recommendation built around four priorities the group identified as central.
Diversify from project management into asset ownership, and invest in solar power generation in Western India, both as a hedge and a sustainability position.
Each mark represents 10 people
PowerTech pays no bench rate: idle workers get full pay while training, versus the industry standard of 75 percent. Shop floor staff describe the training as building real professional skill, pointing to hands on exposure to Six Sigma, kaizen, and SAP.
With 11 projects running and 7 more at bid stage, engineering headcount has to hold regardless of the scenario. That leaves the shop floor, 390 fieldworkers, as the only part of the workforce this redesign can actually touch.
The only direct industry figure the case states
PowerTech's HR policies were built for one direction only: growth. With growth decelerating and the sector facing real two-way uncertainty, the shop floor workforce needs to flex either way, without triggering union unrest, without eroding the worker-friendly brand, and without ignoring the recognition grievance already surfacing in exit interviews.
A second, quieter problem: all four documented exit interviews cite the same grievance, non-recognition of good performance, despite near automatic promotion. A fix that only addresses flexibility, and not recognition, risks reading as punitive the moment a cost lever is pulled.
Hold permanent shop floor headcount steady. Route future growth through contract labor, so the buffer absorbs the next cycle, not headcount.
Full pay stays for active training. Beyond a set idle window, pay steps down toward the industry 75 percent benchmark.
Make the 80/75 promotion filter real. This is where Part 05's data engine plugs in directly.
Limitation worth saying out loud: none of this fixes the 90 percent, 8 client concentration risk. That is a client portfolio problem, not a workforce one.
The real lever behind the other three recommendations is knowing, with data, who is doing well. One index, built from information PowerTech already collects, can guide promotion, training and hiring decisions at once, without expanding or shrinking the workforce more than necessary.
The 80/75 promotion rule stops being nominal. Advancement follows the score, which is exactly what the exit interview grievance was asking for.
The 600 hour budget, already running above target, gets pointed at the people most likely to convert it into performance.
New trainees are scored on the same framework from day one. Not everyone should pass through to shop floor staff.
If the market contracts, the index tells you who to protect first, instead of a blind, seniority only call.
If PowerTech had this index running in 2011, what would Malhotra already know today that he currently does not?