Dear Mizanur,

just to say that I don't like the word 'resource' when people refer to human (living) beings. It just indicates how 'hard' business can be. Perhaps you can replace 'resource' by something else? E.g.  Human Contributor management in stead of Human Resource Management.

@Marcel,

thanks for your intervention. Humans should not be considerd as crude materials, even if they are used as resources in some countries and industries.

Dear Kamal,

Perhaps I would say: It are the human contributors that massively bring in/provide the (financial, social) resources to the economy of Jordan.

Good question. I concur with all the contributors. There is no doubt that humans are the asset of any organization/company. Because, no organization can function without humans. Even machines need humans to operate. That’s why good organizations/companies are focusing on human capital. Therefore, humans are a valuable a resource for any business.

Thank you (Asmat) Sir. 

The prinicples of managment apply only to HR for planning, Organizing , control, Lead / direct, coordinate and control....From an organization point of view the Human resources is the one which can bring in investment, run the organization, monitor and control other resources to optimum level of effectiveness/ efficiency for the organization goal.

I agree that it is okay to treat humans as business resource. humans are indeed the most essential resource of business because they have emotions, and can reduce or expand output at will. humans create value for the business by applying other resources. 

@Kamal, that is exactly what it is in Nigeria. Human resource when well managed can stimulate positive fortunes for the organisation and when mismanaged, the organisation goes no where with d abundance of inanimate resources

Though there is multiplicity and infinite possibilities in types of worldviews. For the discussion, they can be abstracted into two categories:-

Category A:- Abrahamic(#1)/Anthropocentric/Non-Dharmic, Scientific/ Newtonian/ Darwinian worldview (#2).  Largely driven by two founding statements:-

" And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. " - Book of genesis 1.26 (#4)

“… Scientific Enquiry is a means to understand nature in order to gain power over it and exploit it for human purposes. This goal he believed was divinely sanctioned, to be accomplished with religious zeal…” - Francis Bacon (16th Century)

Consequences (relevant to our discussion here):-  Human as a resource view(#6)--->Human as capital-->Human Resource Asset Accounting(#3), Perpetual Upgrade, Planned Obsolescence, Linear Modelled perspectives, Schismic relationship between organization and humans working in it.

Category B:- Natural/Quantum/Dharmic(#1) largely guided by the following sanskrit verse:-

"tat tvam asi" (#5) (#5.1) 

Consequences (relevant to our discussion here):- Flat hierarchy, Networked organization as a family, work as life calling, non-linearity, sense of connected-ness in a non-linear way, integrative paradigms, human as caretaker of mother nature

Conclusion:- No worldview category is superior over other in absolute sense, eventually it depends on the worldview of the human context, in which any theory is to be applied. If the consequences and worldview category of that human context are in sync, then its fine, otherwise conflict, which is evident in universalist implementation of these Category-A principles as part of globalization on human with Category-B worldview)

__________________________________________________________

Bibliography:-

#1. Malhotra Rajiv, Being Different - An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism, Harper Collins, 2011

#2. Arora, S. et.al (2014), “Quantum Creativity – A World View Perspective”, presented at the Global Conference on Managing in Recovering Markets, Mar 5-7, 2014,  http://bit.ly/Rukq3T 

#3. Human Resource Asset Accounting - http://bit.ly/1mTWvTy

#3.1 Maria L. et.al, Human resource accounting and international developments: implications for measurement of human capital, Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies, http://bit.ly/1sdG5ug

#4. Book of genesis 1.26, http://biblehub.com/kjv/genesis/1.htm

#5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi

#5.1 Mahavakyas - http://bit.ly/TJImRy 

#6. Human as Battery - The Matrix Philosophy - http://bit.ly/1pQ6ils    

Humans are resources even though 'Human Resources' may not sound right to some people. Saying they are asset does not sound better in this sense.

The key is to treat people fairly.

As organizations aimed at  gaining competitive advantage, human resources plays a key role in helping organizations deal with a fast-changing environment.

 CCG 2011–2014Strategic Human Resources Plan.

This Strategic Human Resources Plan details the three human resourcesstrategies that are helping shape the future of the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG). We are establishing and maintaining a qualified and representative workforce, developing and supporting our people, and operating within a fair and effective management structure.

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/344817.pdf

I think that investing in educating people is the best successful investment.

It's an interesting question! Human's shall be considered as a strategic resource in modern business. The RBV view explains that resources that are rare, inimitable, valuable and non-substituteable can be a source of competitiveness of an organization. However, in this modern era anything that is CREATED BY HUMAN can be imitate by other HUMANS. However, the only resource an organization posses that is hard to imitate is human. If human's posses firm specific knowledge, skills and abilities (KSA's), it contributes for the ultimate success of an organization.

From our traditionals days onwards 5M's management has man,money,machine, methods and material among all the things the liveable one is the man so that man cannot be replaced exactly with another with same sort of ideas, views, IQ and etc 

hence, in the modern world the same thing but here the human was given important because they are the ones who make organization brand in creating new things, new ways, new methods with taking the technological assistance....

Good point raised by @ Syamala, interchangeability in human beings is not an exact replacement but only a retro-fitment....

In industries, we take the average between upper and lower thresholds on SKILLS, KNOWLEDGE, EXPOSURE, EXPERIENCE etc..

Human resources investment and qualification and I&D are always the key factors for economic value added of a business, a activity and to contribute for the development of a country, by the direct and indirect positive impacts on the economics of the country. Please kindly see the example of Prof. Kamal from health services on Jordan, or so many good examples. 

But the investment on education have not a short time payback it is because some countries dont invest  more in human resources.

Nowadays, the investment in education, money wise does not pay back much. So, I believe that they should encourage applied sciences.

Thanks  Prof. Kamal and JudehYes I agree to that we should encourage applied sciences at the same time

People can be developed into managers, scientists, teachers, preachers, and more. None of the other resources people use (financial, material, informational) can be developed in this unique way.

...By the way, read Peter F. Drucker's (1954) The Practice of Management where he answers your question nearly perfectly.

Here i attached my abstract of trends & issues of human resource accounting. I think  this is one of the suitable answer for modern business.

Abstract:

The people are the most important assets of an organization but the value of this asset yet to appear in financial statements. Human Resource Accounting is the measurement of the cost and value of people to the organization. It involves measuring costs incurred by the organizations to recruit, select, hire, train and develop employees and judge their economic value to the organization. With the accelerated growth in science and technology, the value of human capital is gradually increasing and hence it is essential for a company to reflect the investment in human resources. Through HRA decision makers may draw some inferences from reported values of human capital. Whether the organizations publishing HRA information use the appropriate model for valuation of Human Resources in India, and the private sector undertakings have HRA system being followed. The HRA concept itself represents a new way of thinking about people as assets. It has a great potential for future organization to understand the value of human forces and the same should mentioned in the financial statements. Key words: Human Resource Accounting, Human Assets, Human Capital,

Referring to the works of Peter Drucker might provide the near-perfect answer to the question posed. Thanks Reginald for pointing that out.

In today's knowledge-based organisations, it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep knowledge within. This is because some knowledge is tacit and is very difficult to codify and render explicit (we know more than we can tell). It takes years of learning for knowledge-intensive organisations to develop a knowledge base, and the holders of this knowledge are human beings who becomes a valuable resource that enables an organisation to achieve its strategic goals.

Organizational growth depends mainly on three factors: people, capital and technology. While capital and technology can be made available, skilled people are difficult to get in the knowledge era. Creativity and innovation are much needed in today's competitive business world. Hence the intellectual capital has become more important than financial capital. No doubt , people are considered as resource, which can be developed, prudently deployed for creating competitive advantage.

I fully agree to Prof. Jaharkanti Dattagupta.

Human resources are allways a key factor of prodtution in every tasks abillities and I&D, etc,

I have highly agree with the answers from the Prof. Kamal Eddin Bani-Hani & Prof. Jaharkanti Dattagupta for the reasons to consider humans as a resource in modern business Please.

Many Thanks,

R.Gopinath,(Engineer in BSNL),

Doctoral Scholar in Management, Bharathidasan University, Tamil Nadu, Trichy

Consider, IPO process. this can be used for product or service. Input, process and output.

Input are 5Ms. manpower, machinery material, money and minute.

Manpower = employees

Machinery = machine operators

Material = material procurement, material testing needs human

money = debt collectors, finance collectors are human

minute = time bound. satisfy customer needs to time. 

all input need human resource. without human resource, processing and output will be questionnable.  

Dear Mohamed,

You stated 5Ms with human resource as input. but  5Ms match  with process and output also.

In modern business technology is advanced and can be used instead of humans. However, this is often not possible for manufacturing companies, since they have challenges regarding a high product variety (due to mass customization). Case studies have shown that 90% of the assembly tasks are still performed by humans who rely on their own experience (not by any ICT tool or automation). Due to that humans are flexible and dynamic they can handle the fast changes in final assembly  were each variant may be connected to several different tools and/or components (which may also be similar to one another). This is superior to any robot. Although the processes can be automated, it is not necessarily the most cost-efficient solution. Therefore humans as a resource is still, and will be for several years to come, important in handling and managing production systems. 

https://publications.lib.chalmers.se/publication/121718-concept-model-towards-optimising-levels-of-automation-loa-in-assembly-systems

Article Relations between complexity, quality and cognitive automati...

Conference Paper Managing Production Complexity by Empowering Workers: Six Cases

Humans are not considered as resource. It is their skills, knowledge and abilities that are considered as resource. They can be used for value-generation; and can well be sold in the labour market for a price, that is  determined by the market or by collective bargaining arrangements. There is nothing derogatory in the use of the term.

One must distinguish between the human and what the human bears. Most of the time it is appropriate to focus on the human knowledge capital, being the KHIA (know-how in action) borne individually and collectively by the human agents in an organization. That KHIA is carried and utilized both by individuals and by the collective of knowledge, the so-called OSC or organizational structural capital. In that sense the human cpaital is not the humans but what they know.

However, if you take that view ALONE you will be ignoring the human resources as bearers or vehicles of that knowledge. It is not in contradiction with the idea of dealing with employees as individuals to say, for example, that our company 'needs 145 post-apprentice bricklayers next year" or "Our demand for 3 patent lawyers cannot be filled right now.". A clear example is that of a nuclear power station, which requires, by law, a certain number of SQEP operators (i.e. certificated operators) in order to operate its plant.

So, yes, humans are a resource, mostly but not exclusively in respect of what they know and can do, in that we invest in them, nurture them, need them for the operation of our businesses, but that does not exclude us from valuing them  as individuals as well.

we know FOP, and in today's modern world, PEOPLE is an asset which cannot be replaced by machines and as you invest in people they will give you astonishing results(Look for HR Accounting Principles).

There is no connotation in the use of 'resources' [as in 'Human Resources'] that we view people as machines. Quite the contrary.

One has to hold the two separate ideas in the mind at the same time. A bricklayer (or indeed a patent lawyer) can at the same time be a bearer of a specific, replaceable set of knowledge AND a highly creative contributor to the organisation AND a valued colleague AND  an individual. None of that stops us  considering that person as a resource as well as a friend and colleague.

And yes, you'd better invest in that bricklayer and that patent lawyer and then they will give you astonishing results. That's what you do with resources; you invest in them.

 I agree @ Kamal Eddin Bani-Hani, John Hamer Powell & shibu.

I strongly agreed with the answers of Prof. Kamal Eddin Bani-Hani, Prof. Shibu.N.S. & Prof.John Hamer Powell.

Business dictionary defines to Human Resource Management as the process of hiring and developing employees so that they become more valuable to the organization. Human Resources are assets to the organization.

In my opinion name of "human resource" is maybe good in business, but I have problem with thinking about people as "resouces", moreover value of such resource is hard to estimate: people develop, provide various imapact to te taksks fulfilling (sometimes reare specialists may be more precious than managers).

Are not your own capacities and skills and strengths resources? We speak of a person being 'resourceful' in a very positive sense. There's nothing pejorative or diminishing about being seen as a resource as long as you do not confuse that with some concept of objectification.

There are difficulties with assessing the value of all resources, since their capacity to add value (not necessarily monetary value) is context dependent. Generally speaking society may value the skills and knowledge of a banker more than those of a fireman but if you are trapped in a burning building you will value the fireman's skills far more.

Secondly, human resources reside not just in individuals (what is called HC or human capital) but also in the nexus of connections between individuals in an organization (so-called OSC or Organsitional social capital) and in the routines and processes that they create and enact collectively (Structural Capital or SC).

It's more than a name: if we think of the humans as resources we are motivated to  invest in them and respect them not just as friends or co-workers and colleagues but also as valuable, investible important components of the business. Again, these two relationships are not mutually incompatible in any way. you can love your child but also feel motivated to invest in her for her future and indeed (indirectly) for yours.

Dictionary meaning of 'resource' is something 'that be converted into money'. By this logic, more and more the modern businesses are going towards knowledge working, humans are becoming 'resources'.

On the other hand, the standardization of processes have led to 'one shoe fits all' proposition in modern businesses, thus reducing humans to be interpreted as mere resources. 

I too would like to agree to call it Human 'Contributors' than Human 'Resources'.

There are several non sequiturs in your argument.

1. Just because a dictionary ascribes a particular meaning to a word doesn't mean the dictionary accurately reflects the corpus of use. In this case the dictionary is far too restrictive, since business, even social, use of the word 'resource' focuses not on her/his/its exchange value so much as on the ability to produce a rent. For example,e a prima ballerina is an asset to the balletcc0moany not because she can be sold like some beast, but because the beauty of her dance and the effects of her years of training and discipline are things that audiences will pay to see.

2. Organizations have always been 'knowledge working', and there seems to be a general misunderstanding here that (to continue with my example) to consider the prima ballerina as a resource means that we see her as exchangeable, as a one-size-fits-all asset. How ludicrous. Fostering the knowledge use capacity of our colleagues does not equate to treating them  as knowledge units who know the same things and who can be exchanged one for another. Sometimes this could be true, particularly at lower functional levels, but anyone employing a plumber or a software coder should have experienced that even when, apparently, work can be manageralised and put in to a drill, the fact that the resource is human means that inevitable the bearer/user of the knowledge will enact it in a human and personalised way.

3. I don't see this standardization of processes as much as you do. In fact what I see is a new generation of standardized communication substrates in which individuals' knowledge and spirit is being enacted. But maybe we just have different experiences.

It's not the words we use; it's the manner in which we relate to our colleagues. You can attempt to change the language sued, but the beneficial spirit of seeing them as resources will remain.

Humans are very potent source in business, like a simple chain reaction formula be adapted by humans can make one millionaire in very less time, human resource development (HRD) / HR departments are there that is why in big companies. Unless we exploit human resource to optimum and maximum we can't make business flourish to the height we expect for.  

Exploit is a word often used  in the sense of 'abuse' but I realise you don't mean it in that way here.

There is no disrespect in referring to or thinking about humans as resources. We can hold more than one concept in our minds at the same time: we can see our colleagues as subordinates, as mothers and fathers, as originators of profit, as friends, as assets, as fellow-citizens. One of those roles (and only one) is as a resource in which we have to invest in order to achieve our aims.