Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Counting the cost of personnel

Letters

The view that people are the construction industry's 'greatest asset' does not sit comfortably with financial procedures for the valuation of personnel (NCE 9 March).

Accounting methods have difficulty in viewing people and their capabilities as an asset. When one company is about to be bought by another, the employees appear on paper as a cost.

By contrast, an item of construction plant is viewed as an asset.

Similarly, while the benefits gained from training are difficult to value, the cost is easier to quantify.

Respect for people is more likely when personnel are valued as assets on the balance sheet. The use of key performance indicators relating to staff competence (ie. putting into practice what has been learned, rather than trying to 'value' the training itself), is a step in the right direction.

What other ways do readers have for quantifying human capital within financial reporting procedures?

Colin Cotter (M), colincotter@constructionplus.net

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.