Glossary · concept
Workforce Capacity Balance
Trade-off between regular workforce (smooth but expensive in idle months), hiring/firing (cheap month-to-month but high churn cost), overtime (capacity flex but premium pay plus fatigue) and subcontracting (flex but quality and lead-time risk). Captured as decision variables in APP.
Capacity-Workforce Trade-offHire-Fire-Overtime-Subcontract Mix
Workforce capacity balance describes the central trade-off in medium-term production planning (APP): facing a wave-shaped demand pattern, the manufacturer mixes four levers — (1) hold a regular workforce (same shift every month): smooth operation and good morale, but capacity-over-demand wage cost in idle months, (2) hire and fire (seasonal or temporary workers): lower monthly wages but training, onboarding, severance and morale loss plus collective-agreement constraints show up as churn cost, (3) overtime: high capacity flex but Turkish Labour Law premium (50% on weekdays, 100% on weekends), the 270-hour annual cap, fatigue and quality slip, (4) subcontracting: extra capacity flex but quality, communication and lead-time risk plus single-supplier dependency. In the literature, Bowman (1956) studied this trade-off via Linear Decision Rules; Holt, Modigliani, Muth and Simon (1960) modelled the four levers as continuous decision variables in the HMMS model. In practice a well-calibrated APP model optimises the annual mix — regular workforce sized to base load, hire-fire taken in small quarterly steps, overtime confined to specific weeks within the annual cap, subcontracting distributed within a framework-agreement capacity ceiling.
Örnek
A 200-worker mid-size manufacturer with summer peak 30% above baseline runs a mix of 5% hire-fire (temporary workers), 12% overtime, 8% subcontracting and 75% regular capacity; total workforce cost is 15% lower than the intuitive mix.