Being very effective at Succession Planning seems to be more elusive than excelling at any other Talent Management function or process. This is somewhat counter-intuitive given that the other major Talent Management activities – Workforce Planning, Recruiting, Performance Management, Learning and Development, and Total Rewards Management – (a) tend to be the focus of many organizations’ continual process improvement efforts; and (b) all have major elements in common with Succession Planning.
Citing just two examples to illustrate the latter point -- Recruiting, like Succession Planning, should ideally involve external talent pipeline-building and talent relationship management being practiced ahead of specific resourcing demands. Even Total Rewards Management as a process has similarities with Succession Planning in that both might require a re-evaluation of current practices (against market / industry practices) when there are talent retention issues or attraction challenges in critical roles.
The fact that effective Succession Planning has been shown to materially drive business results and competitive advantage -- coupled with how few organizations claim they practice SP broadly and effectively -- highlights what appears to be a huge missed opportunity to-date for many organizations. Here’s the data …
Missing the opportunity (so far):
- A 2010 study by ASTD and i4cp showed that only 14% of respondents to their survey described their succession planning efforts as effective to a “high” or “very high” extent.
- An analysis of the FTSE 100 (largest co’s on London stock exchange) conducted by global Leadership Risk Management firm Talent Intelligence (November, 2010) found that:
> only 2% of the FTSE 100 stated that key leadership roles were being actively identified and benchmarked against the external market
> only 10% had identified the roles critical to the success of their organization or that had a major impact should a key individual leave
> while 49% of organizations developed individuals internally for succession purposes, this was typically driven by employee-centered training and development purposes as opposed to leadership risk management reasons
> up to 79% of the FTSE 100 rely on internal succession planning alone to replace the most critical roles in the business
- More than half of companies cannot immediately name a successor to their CEO should the need arise, according to a 2010 survey of 140 CEO’s conducted by Heidrick & Struggles and Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University. Other very telling findings from this study included:
> a full 39% of respondents cited that they have "zero" viable internal candidates
> the majority of firms or 65% have not asked internal candidates whether they would even want the CEO job if offered to them
> on average, boards spend only 2 hours a year on CEO succession planning
- And finally, according to executives participating in a July 2011 Canadian Financial Executives Research Foundation study, only 40% of Canadian private companies surveyed had a clear business ownership succession plan in place.
The opportunity being missed:
In the words of John J. Barry, leader of PwC's Center for Board Governance which advises audit committees and boards of directors: “Proactively approaching management succession can generate real benefits, as effective succession planning typically helps to reduce recruiting costs (e.g., exec search fees), establish stability, promote top talent, and enable quick response to unplanned leadership vacancies.”
It is almost universally believed that a well developed succession planning process promotes higher retention rates across-the-board, likely due to employees and leaders recognizing that time, attention and skill development investments are being made in them.
As for two real-life examples from hugely successful enterprises:
Apple has basically been able to seamlessly transition to new leadership and continued success after Steve Jobs’ passing as their succession plans were put in-place well before his health declined. Jobs in-fact wrote in his resignation letter …“As far as my successor goes, I strongly recommend that we execute our succession plan and name Tim Cook as CEO of Apple.”
Additionally, McDonald's is credited with having a succession plan that served them well when two of their CEOs died in the course of a single year. “And yet, the company proceeded without a hitch" stated Charles M. Elson, director of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware.
And very interestingly noted, with respect to Succession Planning technology … Bersin & Associates’ “High Impact HR Study” in 2010 of over 1,200 HR practitioners revealed that – as an “HR System application area” … Succession Planning drives a higher degree of “HR Department impact” than Compensation, Learning, Performance or Recruiting based on rankings by the respondents.
So what are the underlying reasons or impediments to effective Succession Planning?
Well, let’s start with a terminology / labeling nuance …Succession Planning is much more aptly referred to as Succession Management. The reason -- while Succession Planning has historically looked within internal talent pools to find successor candidates, Succession Management looks at both internal and external talent pools – and ideally in an integrated fashion. Moreover, you likely have a flawed process if you think of succession in terms of just planning.
Other characteristics of a flawed process in this arena include having the same “high potential” individuals in a number of different succession pools; or not reflecting changes in business strategy, context or culture by appropriately re-confirming the most viable successor candidates; or just doing Succession Management at periodic intervals.
And not to leave out what is perhaps the most prevalent and success-limiting mistake found in Succession Management frameworks across the globe ... using a lens of “successor candidates have to be ready now.”
Steve Goldberg
January 2012
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Trajectories and Root Causes in HCM
As most HR professionals know, HR was among the last corporate functions to rely heavily on metrics and KPI’s. So now that we have a plethora of metrics to leverage in HR / HCM, including both leading and lagging indicators, we are now ready to take the next step – or next few steps. These next steps include: looking at the direction or trajectory of metrics data, and when the trajectory turns negative or unsatisfactory, evaluating and addressing potential root causes.
For many decades, Finance departments and CFO’s have paid close attention to key business indicators such as major changes in DSO (Days Sales Outstanding), or changes in Cost of Sales, or fluctuations in Cost of Capital, or G&A expenses on the rise as a percentage of total expenses, etc.
Foundational HR-related metrics such as revenue per employee, engagement and/or turnover rates, ratio of HR staff to total workforce, time-to-productivity – and even more creative metrics like % of first choice candidates hired, or average time to be promotion-ready -- can also be very instructive or telling when they reverse course or trend-line. When that occurs, organizations should thoroughly examine potential causal factors until suitable actions are determined.
Sometimes “causal factor analysis” will reveal that the changing trajectory of a metric might be acceptable, or no real cause for action; e.g., when employee engagement turns ‘South’ right after a staff reduction; or when the ratio of HR staff to total workforce temporarily turns ‘North’ when new Benefit plans are introduced -- or when a company increases HR staff after outsourcing HR services to a firm which perhaps over-commoditized HR service delivery with too much emphasis on automation / technology-enablement.
Other times, “causal factor analysis” will highlight instances when corporate / HR action is necessary to avoid business problems becoming more pronounced. When revenue per employee or employee engagement starts turning for the worse, and no intervening variables can readily explain the change (e.g., nothing was taken away from employees and the organization is fairly stable) … there are some likely explanations which should be investigated.
We will probably start seeing more HR technology offerings which include very practical “decision-support guidance”… highlighting likely explanations for the types of trajectory changes mentioned here, and essentially teeing-up alternative courses of action. Customers that avail themselves of these capabilities might experience these hypothetical scenarios – and business benefits:
- Time-to-productivity trending down … Determined to be largely due to encouraging / incenting early retirements, which resulted in losing mentors who likely kept time-to-productivity within acceptable ranges
- Employee engagement trending down … Determined to be largely due to hiring less experienced, less costly people-managers
- Average performance ratings of key talent trending down … Determined to be largely due to shifting away from relying heavily on executive search firms for key roles -- to increasing employee referral incentives when referred employees are ‘A’ players
For many decades, Finance departments and CFO’s have paid close attention to key business indicators such as major changes in DSO (Days Sales Outstanding), or changes in Cost of Sales, or fluctuations in Cost of Capital, or G&A expenses on the rise as a percentage of total expenses, etc.
Foundational HR-related metrics such as revenue per employee, engagement and/or turnover rates, ratio of HR staff to total workforce, time-to-productivity – and even more creative metrics like % of first choice candidates hired, or average time to be promotion-ready -- can also be very instructive or telling when they reverse course or trend-line. When that occurs, organizations should thoroughly examine potential causal factors until suitable actions are determined.
Sometimes “causal factor analysis” will reveal that the changing trajectory of a metric might be acceptable, or no real cause for action; e.g., when employee engagement turns ‘South’ right after a staff reduction; or when the ratio of HR staff to total workforce temporarily turns ‘North’ when new Benefit plans are introduced -- or when a company increases HR staff after outsourcing HR services to a firm which perhaps over-commoditized HR service delivery with too much emphasis on automation / technology-enablement.
Other times, “causal factor analysis” will highlight instances when corporate / HR action is necessary to avoid business problems becoming more pronounced. When revenue per employee or employee engagement starts turning for the worse, and no intervening variables can readily explain the change (e.g., nothing was taken away from employees and the organization is fairly stable) … there are some likely explanations which should be investigated.
We will probably start seeing more HR technology offerings which include very practical “decision-support guidance”… highlighting likely explanations for the types of trajectory changes mentioned here, and essentially teeing-up alternative courses of action. Customers that avail themselves of these capabilities might experience these hypothetical scenarios – and business benefits:
- Time-to-productivity trending down … Determined to be largely due to encouraging / incenting early retirements, which resulted in losing mentors who likely kept time-to-productivity within acceptable ranges
- Employee engagement trending down … Determined to be largely due to hiring less experienced, less costly people-managers
- Average performance ratings of key talent trending down … Determined to be largely due to shifting away from relying heavily on executive search firms for key roles -- to increasing employee referral incentives when referred employees are ‘A’ players
Monday, July 18, 2011
The “Next Hill” in Talent Management Software?
Let’s begin with a few data points as a backdrop:
• In the US, 93% of US-based Global 100 companies use executive coaches (Bono, Purvanova, Towler, & Peterson, 2009).
• Between 40 and 60% of Fortune 500 companies use executive coaches, according to research by consulting firms such as the Hay Group and Manchester.
• As of 2008, there were approximately 12,300 business/executive coaches in North America (Frank Bresser Consulting Report, 2009).
• On January 1st, 2011 the very first Baby Boomers turned 65. As many of the occupants of this group are perhaps no longer fitting into the plans of their employers -- or no longer desire conventional, very demanding job situations -- a portion of this group will be parlaying their experience (along with appropriate certifications) into becoming independent executive coaches. This will further swell the number of independent executive coaches as referenced above.
While the supply of business / executive coaches keeps climbing, demand is also significantly increasing – principally due to two factors:
• The inexorable exodus of baby boomers is resulting in unprecedented numbers of key employees having gaps in their professional and/or management development … particularly within organizations that have not institutionalized mentoring and experience-transfer programs.
• More organizations are now promoting a culture of transparency, self-awareness and personal growth, particularly with people-managers … as their strengths and developmental issues likely affect the productivity, retention and engagement of everyone around them.
The proliferation of organizations using coaches is no surprise, since industry studies continue to report that the average ROI for companies investing in executive coaching can be seven or more times the investment made in these services. Although once used as an intervention with troubled staff, indeed coaching is now part of the standard leadership training for executives in such companies as IBM, Motorola, J.P. Morgan Chase, Hewlett-Packard, Google and many others.
So is the effective procurement and management of independent coaching engagements truly the next frontier (or next hill) to be conquered in the HR software market? That remains to be seen, but I personally believe that technology-enabling this highly strategic Talent Management ‘niche domain’ will - at the very least - start getting more attention than it ever has to-date.
After all, few if any HR/Talent Management software applications focus on capturing major cost savings/efficiency gains while simultaneously focusing on improving the quality and productivity of key talent throughout the enterprise. Most HR leaders today cannot tell you how much coaching is happening in their company, how much they are spending, what the coaching engagement is about, or whether it is working.
A relatively new company called Scout OnDemand is aiming to change all that.
Scout’s technology allows the streamlining of coaching fee structures, intelligent matching of coaches with individual coaching needs -- and perhaps most important given how many employees are typically affected by the recipients of external coaching – provides customers with solid assurances that coaching engagements are properly measured and managed for desired results.
In addition to providing best-in-class SaaS-based solutions for addressing the aforementioned business problems, Scout OnDemand’s mission is to also educate organizations utilizing external coaches that current models for providing key talent coaches are exploitive in terms of cost. This is basically due to the fact that numerous (“middleman”) companies today provide access to a network of independent coaches for a fee comparable to executive search firms, but most don’t do an effective job of matching, managing and measuring these pricey engagements – often exceeding $500 per hour.
Scout also believes their solution will have the impact of expanding the use of coaching in organizations way beyond senior executives. By making coaching more manageable, transparent and affordable, it will become feasible for companies to employ coaching more widely – for managers and supervisors, high potentials, and also to complement key training programs.
Just as organizations are now extending the use of enterprise software to facilitate social collaboration / social learning / socially-rooted innovation, it certainly seems that rapidly changing corporate cultures, management styles and demographic shifts might usher in yet another new Talent Management technology domain.
I am excited to now serve as one of Scout OnDemand's Board Advisors; and they can be contacted at https://www.scoutondemand.com
Steve Goldberg
HR Technology Industry Advisor
July 2011
• In the US, 93% of US-based Global 100 companies use executive coaches (Bono, Purvanova, Towler, & Peterson, 2009).
• Between 40 and 60% of Fortune 500 companies use executive coaches, according to research by consulting firms such as the Hay Group and Manchester.
• As of 2008, there were approximately 12,300 business/executive coaches in North America (Frank Bresser Consulting Report, 2009).
• On January 1st, 2011 the very first Baby Boomers turned 65. As many of the occupants of this group are perhaps no longer fitting into the plans of their employers -- or no longer desire conventional, very demanding job situations -- a portion of this group will be parlaying their experience (along with appropriate certifications) into becoming independent executive coaches. This will further swell the number of independent executive coaches as referenced above.
While the supply of business / executive coaches keeps climbing, demand is also significantly increasing – principally due to two factors:
• The inexorable exodus of baby boomers is resulting in unprecedented numbers of key employees having gaps in their professional and/or management development … particularly within organizations that have not institutionalized mentoring and experience-transfer programs.
• More organizations are now promoting a culture of transparency, self-awareness and personal growth, particularly with people-managers … as their strengths and developmental issues likely affect the productivity, retention and engagement of everyone around them.
The proliferation of organizations using coaches is no surprise, since industry studies continue to report that the average ROI for companies investing in executive coaching can be seven or more times the investment made in these services. Although once used as an intervention with troubled staff, indeed coaching is now part of the standard leadership training for executives in such companies as IBM, Motorola, J.P. Morgan Chase, Hewlett-Packard, Google and many others.
So is the effective procurement and management of independent coaching engagements truly the next frontier (or next hill) to be conquered in the HR software market? That remains to be seen, but I personally believe that technology-enabling this highly strategic Talent Management ‘niche domain’ will - at the very least - start getting more attention than it ever has to-date.
After all, few if any HR/Talent Management software applications focus on capturing major cost savings/efficiency gains while simultaneously focusing on improving the quality and productivity of key talent throughout the enterprise. Most HR leaders today cannot tell you how much coaching is happening in their company, how much they are spending, what the coaching engagement is about, or whether it is working.
A relatively new company called Scout OnDemand is aiming to change all that.
Scout’s technology allows the streamlining of coaching fee structures, intelligent matching of coaches with individual coaching needs -- and perhaps most important given how many employees are typically affected by the recipients of external coaching – provides customers with solid assurances that coaching engagements are properly measured and managed for desired results.
In addition to providing best-in-class SaaS-based solutions for addressing the aforementioned business problems, Scout OnDemand’s mission is to also educate organizations utilizing external coaches that current models for providing key talent coaches are exploitive in terms of cost. This is basically due to the fact that numerous (“middleman”) companies today provide access to a network of independent coaches for a fee comparable to executive search firms, but most don’t do an effective job of matching, managing and measuring these pricey engagements – often exceeding $500 per hour.
Scout also believes their solution will have the impact of expanding the use of coaching in organizations way beyond senior executives. By making coaching more manageable, transparent and affordable, it will become feasible for companies to employ coaching more widely – for managers and supervisors, high potentials, and also to complement key training programs.
Just as organizations are now extending the use of enterprise software to facilitate social collaboration / social learning / socially-rooted innovation, it certainly seems that rapidly changing corporate cultures, management styles and demographic shifts might usher in yet another new Talent Management technology domain.
I am excited to now serve as one of Scout OnDemand's Board Advisors; and they can be contacted at https://www.scoutondemand.com
Steve Goldberg
HR Technology Industry Advisor
July 2011
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
A Dozen Things (Still) Needed in HR Technology
Here’s the same list I published 6 months ago, all of which I believe are still very much needed in HR Technology circles ...
1. More end-customers embracing the fact that underlying HR data models are as important as any other, perhaps more “wow-evoking" component of an HR technology infrastructure.
To illustrate this point --- As astute purveyors of simple headcount reports know, the report is not highly valuable without being accompanied by clear definitions and even training around which people are counted – and how. This data model issue gets much more interesting when you consider the notion of a “highly valued or excellent employee.” If someone is an excellent performer who consistently gets the highest performance ratings based on assigned objectives, than what should someone be labeled who achieves those same ratings – plus consistently refers candidates who become great employees, generates innovative ideas that translate into revenue streams, and has great potential to contribute in other roles that may have increasing importance to the organization over time?
One more important point on HR data models – perhaps a related phrase or concept that should be used going forward is “integrated people data architecture” – thereby forcing “people data” to be integrated and viewed in conjunction with other types of business and organizational data such as Finance, Sales, Product and Customer data.
2. Configurability toolsets that are not necessarily the exclusive domain of vendors’ consulting services organizations or end-customer power users.
3. More standardized and demarcated definitions of what the following terms mean in the context of HR technology: usability, inter-operability, scalability, adaptability and configurability.
4. Also related to the evolving lexicon of HR technology terms is the fact that more clarity is needed around these half marketing / half capability descriptions: “embedded analytics” and “embedded social collaboration.” It seems to this observer that excessive license is still being taken regarding the word “embedded.” Are these capabilities embedded at the transaction level, the business event / scenario level or the decision-making level? Do I need to know these capabilities exist to use them or will the system let me know they exist? How easy and accessible are they to use?
5. Better technology integration and a unified user experience between HCM modeling tools (e.g., for workforce planning, compensation modeling, succession modeling) and the TMS or HRMS platforms used to data-populate and record the results of those modeling scenarios.
6. More technology-enabled “business intelligence linkages” between on-the-job performance, or better yet, broad-based data on employee value ( see #1 above) … and the sourcing / screening / selection practices, learning and development practices, and total rewards and recognition practices that led to those levels of employee performance.
7. The recognition that only when end-customers focus sufficiently on change management, and solution providers deliver less complex/more intuitive/more engaging / “what’s in it for me?” user experiences -- will broad user adoption occur; and moreover, that the absence of these elements will almost always result in lower ROI, sub-optimal business value and unrealized business cases.
8. Solution capabilities that highlight HR business process bottlenecks and/or defects … along with their causes, associated data patterns and potential remediation steps.
9. Less focus -- by both solution providers and end-customers -- on HR technology features (‘what it does’) and functions (‘how it does it’) … and more emphasis on capabilities (a significant category or core theme of a set of features) … as it is capabilities that paint a much clearer picture of the strategic (= R&D funding) direction of an HR technology solution provider and their suite of products; e.g., social collaboration and mobile computing capabilities are feature category sets that typically represent an on-going R&D commitment to these areas.
10. Moving past the notion of “role-based” architecture and system design to “human factors-based” architecture / system design … as an individual’s role is only partially indicative of how they think about and approach the people management and people collaboration aspects of their job. Many people in the same type of role think about and approach the people management / people collaboration aspects of their role quite differently.
11. The recognition that successful HR technology implementations should never be principally measured or defined by “going live at (or close to) on-time and on-budget” … but by the incremental and measurable business value and impact it delivered to the organization.
12. More solution capabilities that are focused on human capital-related problem-solving and risk and opportunity identification / management --- and perhaps a little less emphasis on all the features and functions involved in HR process automation and enablement.
Steve Goldberg
HR Technology Industry Advisor
1. More end-customers embracing the fact that underlying HR data models are as important as any other, perhaps more “wow-evoking" component of an HR technology infrastructure.
To illustrate this point --- As astute purveyors of simple headcount reports know, the report is not highly valuable without being accompanied by clear definitions and even training around which people are counted – and how. This data model issue gets much more interesting when you consider the notion of a “highly valued or excellent employee.” If someone is an excellent performer who consistently gets the highest performance ratings based on assigned objectives, than what should someone be labeled who achieves those same ratings – plus consistently refers candidates who become great employees, generates innovative ideas that translate into revenue streams, and has great potential to contribute in other roles that may have increasing importance to the organization over time?
One more important point on HR data models – perhaps a related phrase or concept that should be used going forward is “integrated people data architecture” – thereby forcing “people data” to be integrated and viewed in conjunction with other types of business and organizational data such as Finance, Sales, Product and Customer data.
2. Configurability toolsets that are not necessarily the exclusive domain of vendors’ consulting services organizations or end-customer power users.
3. More standardized and demarcated definitions of what the following terms mean in the context of HR technology: usability, inter-operability, scalability, adaptability and configurability.
4. Also related to the evolving lexicon of HR technology terms is the fact that more clarity is needed around these half marketing / half capability descriptions: “embedded analytics” and “embedded social collaboration.” It seems to this observer that excessive license is still being taken regarding the word “embedded.” Are these capabilities embedded at the transaction level, the business event / scenario level or the decision-making level? Do I need to know these capabilities exist to use them or will the system let me know they exist? How easy and accessible are they to use?
5. Better technology integration and a unified user experience between HCM modeling tools (e.g., for workforce planning, compensation modeling, succession modeling) and the TMS or HRMS platforms used to data-populate and record the results of those modeling scenarios.
6. More technology-enabled “business intelligence linkages” between on-the-job performance, or better yet, broad-based data on employee value ( see #1 above) … and the sourcing / screening / selection practices, learning and development practices, and total rewards and recognition practices that led to those levels of employee performance.
7. The recognition that only when end-customers focus sufficiently on change management, and solution providers deliver less complex/more intuitive/more engaging / “what’s in it for me?” user experiences -- will broad user adoption occur; and moreover, that the absence of these elements will almost always result in lower ROI, sub-optimal business value and unrealized business cases.
8. Solution capabilities that highlight HR business process bottlenecks and/or defects … along with their causes, associated data patterns and potential remediation steps.
9. Less focus -- by both solution providers and end-customers -- on HR technology features (‘what it does’) and functions (‘how it does it’) … and more emphasis on capabilities (a significant category or core theme of a set of features) … as it is capabilities that paint a much clearer picture of the strategic (= R&D funding) direction of an HR technology solution provider and their suite of products; e.g., social collaboration and mobile computing capabilities are feature category sets that typically represent an on-going R&D commitment to these areas.
10. Moving past the notion of “role-based” architecture and system design to “human factors-based” architecture / system design … as an individual’s role is only partially indicative of how they think about and approach the people management and people collaboration aspects of their job. Many people in the same type of role think about and approach the people management / people collaboration aspects of their role quite differently.
11. The recognition that successful HR technology implementations should never be principally measured or defined by “going live at (or close to) on-time and on-budget” … but by the incremental and measurable business value and impact it delivered to the organization.
12. More solution capabilities that are focused on human capital-related problem-solving and risk and opportunity identification / management --- and perhaps a little less emphasis on all the features and functions involved in HR process automation and enablement.
Steve Goldberg
HR Technology Industry Advisor
Friday, April 8, 2011
The Future of Employee Self-Service
HR Systems purveyors long ago realized that, like “point of sale data capture”, the best and most logical way to have accurate data in a system was to have data maintenance occur at the point of the event, and owned by the person who was most knowledgeable of the event. The result was the introduction of Employee Self Service or ESS. In the 1990’s, when leading HRMS vendors were a bit slow in offering extensive ESS, niche providers like Edify (later acquired by Workscape) stepped in with ESS Toolkits which extended the core HR system’s capabilities in this area.
Then, with PSFT release 8.0 in 2000, the HRMS market leader in the U.S. (at that time) significantly expanded its set of ESS transactions from roughly 20 to over 100, and made that enhancement one of the cornerstones of marketing that release.
Over the last 10 years, the concept and capability set of ESS has largely remained the same; i.e., fairly tactical self-updating capabilities around personal information such as changing an address or emergency contact, adding a dependent or beneficiary, changing payroll exemptions, adding new education or training information, etc. One interesting advance on the ESS front during this time was the embedding of role-based and personalized content, aimed at offering decision-support and coaching for managers, and content support for employees; e.g., informing them of their benefits enrollment options while enrolling. This was in fact the core offering of Enwisen, now part of Lawson.
More recently, core HR / HRMS solution providers have added the ability for employees to update their career interests, hobbies and other involvements outside work. This latter type of information obviously gives people-managers and organizations overall a much better opportunity to really connect with (needed to truly leverage) their human assets.
The continuing evolution and even future vision of ESS came up in my conversations yesterday with two prominent Talent Management suite vendors: SuccessFactors – in relation to their Employee Central offering for core HR functionality, and PeopleclickAuthoria. In fact, when Charles Jones -- the Chairman and CEO of Peopleclick Authoria -- uses phrases like “the system of record is fast-becoming the individual”, and “productivity is now all about total awareness and collaboration”, you know there’s a sea change going on relative to what core HR means, who owns it and the new way of defining ESS. Note: Silkroad Technology is also very much in the mix here with their HeartBeat offering.
With respect to redefining ESS, and whatever suitable replacement term someone comes up with, just think about the phrase above -- “total awareness and collaboration” – and think of all of the events, knowledge and forums for collaboration that relate to employees that are part of the value they bring to the organization and their fellow employees. Those events, pieces of knowledge and collaborations are the future of ESS.
Steve Goldberg
Then, with PSFT release 8.0 in 2000, the HRMS market leader in the U.S. (at that time) significantly expanded its set of ESS transactions from roughly 20 to over 100, and made that enhancement one of the cornerstones of marketing that release.
Over the last 10 years, the concept and capability set of ESS has largely remained the same; i.e., fairly tactical self-updating capabilities around personal information such as changing an address or emergency contact, adding a dependent or beneficiary, changing payroll exemptions, adding new education or training information, etc. One interesting advance on the ESS front during this time was the embedding of role-based and personalized content, aimed at offering decision-support and coaching for managers, and content support for employees; e.g., informing them of their benefits enrollment options while enrolling. This was in fact the core offering of Enwisen, now part of Lawson.
More recently, core HR / HRMS solution providers have added the ability for employees to update their career interests, hobbies and other involvements outside work. This latter type of information obviously gives people-managers and organizations overall a much better opportunity to really connect with (needed to truly leverage) their human assets.
The continuing evolution and even future vision of ESS came up in my conversations yesterday with two prominent Talent Management suite vendors: SuccessFactors – in relation to their Employee Central offering for core HR functionality, and PeopleclickAuthoria. In fact, when Charles Jones -- the Chairman and CEO of Peopleclick Authoria -- uses phrases like “the system of record is fast-becoming the individual”, and “productivity is now all about total awareness and collaboration”, you know there’s a sea change going on relative to what core HR means, who owns it and the new way of defining ESS. Note: Silkroad Technology is also very much in the mix here with their HeartBeat offering.
With respect to redefining ESS, and whatever suitable replacement term someone comes up with, just think about the phrase above -- “total awareness and collaboration” – and think of all of the events, knowledge and forums for collaboration that relate to employees that are part of the value they bring to the organization and their fellow employees. Those events, pieces of knowledge and collaborations are the future of ESS.
Steve Goldberg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
