As another year goes -- by no means, quietly -- in the books, we are reminded of the very significant progress being made across the entire spectrum of HR technology solutions; e.g., the availability of much more configurable, integrated, usable if not engaging enterprise TMS and HRMS solutions; and in general, offerings which go far beyond process automation and extend toward enabling end-to-end, strategic talent management.
So, what’s left to be done ---- PLENTY!
Here’s a list of a dozen things that come to mind that would continue advancing the HR technology market in material ways, many of these ideas will be further explored in subsequent blog posts:
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. Yes, Naomi Bloom, you had me sold on the importance of HR data models long ago!
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 “holistic information architecture” – thereby forcing “people data” to be integrated and viewed in conjunction with other types of business and organizational 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 in the spirit of the holiday season ---- a Baker’s Dozen 13th item I’d like to see in the HR technology domain:
13. More highlighting of the difference between “industry best practices for HR technology” and “company best practices for HR technology” --- the latter category are the ones that work best for YOUR organization!
Friday, December 31, 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
10 HR technology / HCM systems capabilities many wish they had ...
HR technology solutions have unquestionably come a long way in “technology attribute areas” like configurability, usability, inter-operability and lower cost of ownership. Fortunately for business users of these solutions, business benefits and impacts now extend beyond the virtues of the tool or platform itself … thanks to advances in facilitating workforce collaboration, leveraging embedded analytics, enabling more robust workforce planning, achieving a more integrated, cross-functional talent management model, etc.
That said, here are 10 capabilities that many end-customers would say they are still waiting for --- particularly as it relates to true Line Manager Enablement. These capabilities are much more about managing Human Capital risks, problems and opportunities -- than about the automation of a standard HR business process.
1. Provide guidance as to when it is best to fill a staffing gap by using a temp or contractor, training an incumbent, transferring or redeploying another employee, or hiring a new employee.
2. Identify “enrolled employees” (good performers who could be excellent if they were more emotionally connected or engaged) and what actions/programs should be considered.
3. Identify “key employee retention risks” and viable options for stabilizing those situations … [Note: A retention risk might be someone in the last year of stock option vesting who is paid under market in a business unit with below-average engagement].
4. Highlight employees or business units experiencing a “trajectory change” in productivity, engagement, retention, etc., and business-related variables that could be causing the change.
5. Highlight instances where the value of certain competencies (e.g., consultative selling) are becoming much more important to the organization; and related to that, identify otherwise good-performing employees who may consequently need to retool, be redeployed or replaced.
6. Highlight key employee situations where “non-financial rewards” would offer a very favorable “perceived value-to-cost ratio” … [Note: Non-financial rewards (such as assigning a coach or mentor, or allowing an employee to work from home) also typically have a cost attached].
7. Provide guidance as to where to look for possible talent management-related reasons for declining sales, declining customer service ratings, longer product development cycles, losing more high-performing employees to competitors, etc.
8. Provide a broad and realistic perspective on “organizational readiness” for such events as a shift in business strategy, change in product / services mix, M&A transactions, etc.
9. Identify situations where changing an employee’s role, manager or business unit might convert that employee from a good to very good or excellent contributor.
10. Highlight where a particular HCM metric or KPI is “actionable now” … or if it’s more appropriate to investigate further (with related metrics) before taking action.
That said, here are 10 capabilities that many end-customers would say they are still waiting for --- particularly as it relates to true Line Manager Enablement. These capabilities are much more about managing Human Capital risks, problems and opportunities -- than about the automation of a standard HR business process.
1. Provide guidance as to when it is best to fill a staffing gap by using a temp or contractor, training an incumbent, transferring or redeploying another employee, or hiring a new employee.
2. Identify “enrolled employees” (good performers who could be excellent if they were more emotionally connected or engaged) and what actions/programs should be considered.
3. Identify “key employee retention risks” and viable options for stabilizing those situations … [Note: A retention risk might be someone in the last year of stock option vesting who is paid under market in a business unit with below-average engagement].
4. Highlight employees or business units experiencing a “trajectory change” in productivity, engagement, retention, etc., and business-related variables that could be causing the change.
5. Highlight instances where the value of certain competencies (e.g., consultative selling) are becoming much more important to the organization; and related to that, identify otherwise good-performing employees who may consequently need to retool, be redeployed or replaced.
6. Highlight key employee situations where “non-financial rewards” would offer a very favorable “perceived value-to-cost ratio” … [Note: Non-financial rewards (such as assigning a coach or mentor, or allowing an employee to work from home) also typically have a cost attached].
7. Provide guidance as to where to look for possible talent management-related reasons for declining sales, declining customer service ratings, longer product development cycles, losing more high-performing employees to competitors, etc.
8. Provide a broad and realistic perspective on “organizational readiness” for such events as a shift in business strategy, change in product / services mix, M&A transactions, etc.
9. Identify situations where changing an employee’s role, manager or business unit might convert that employee from a good to very good or excellent contributor.
10. Highlight where a particular HCM metric or KPI is “actionable now” … or if it’s more appropriate to investigate further (with related metrics) before taking action.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
ONE SENTENCE that says a lot about HR Technology implementations
Since it's Labor Day weekend, this is my shortest blog post to-date ... although I have to admit, this ONE SENTENCE distills much of my 25 years of 'lessons learned' from implementing HR Technology solutions:
Success is more about project governance, people management, change management, vendor management, end-user involvement/ownership, marketing and post-implementation infrastructure optimization than it is about making commercially viable software do what it's supposed to do.
Have a restful holiday weekend all!
Sg
Success is more about project governance, people management, change management, vendor management, end-user involvement/ownership, marketing and post-implementation infrastructure optimization than it is about making commercially viable software do what it's supposed to do.
Have a restful holiday weekend all!
Sg
Friday, August 20, 2010
Embracing social networking to drive business results
With 400 million active Facebook users and 80 million registered LinkedIn users, the need for social networking and interaction has secured and validated its place in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Moreover, large-scale economic uncertainties fundamentally change the drivers that attract, motivate and retain employees, including the need to perhaps socialize more during challenging times.
This viral trend, however, has posed an interesting challenge for organizations that want to capitalize on the potential business benefits of social networking and collaboration without making work so ‘social’ that employee performance suffers. Organizations therefore have to optimize the mix of non business-related social networking -- with business and job performance-related social collaboration … as these two clearly bleed into each other and can’t easily be de-coupled. A purely social contact today can become a critical business or job-relevant contact tomorrow, and someone who is not a contact today can become a social or business contact tomorrow.
Most large companies now have ‘social computing’ policy guidelines in an effort to ensure that company-sponsored (through technology platforms) social networking doesn’t cross over to ‘diminishing returns’ in the form of minimal company benefit – or worse, company liability. As an example of appropriate social computing policy, employees should be advised that when they discuss the company or company-related matters, they should write in the first person; and also make it clear that they are speaking for themselves.
In the midst of all the excitement being generated by social networking, and particularly, its potential to drive business benefits when guided appropriately (e.g., social learning, social collaboration-infused innovation, social networking as a driver of productivity, retention and engagement), I will offer-up one tip for organizations looking at the Talent Management Suite market:
You may recall when “embedded analytics” was being claimed by nearly every HCM solutions vendor, even when it might have been more aspirational than a reality. Well, “embedded social collaboration” may be a quasi-universal vendor claim that is at that same stage. Trust but verify!
This viral trend, however, has posed an interesting challenge for organizations that want to capitalize on the potential business benefits of social networking and collaboration without making work so ‘social’ that employee performance suffers. Organizations therefore have to optimize the mix of non business-related social networking -- with business and job performance-related social collaboration … as these two clearly bleed into each other and can’t easily be de-coupled. A purely social contact today can become a critical business or job-relevant contact tomorrow, and someone who is not a contact today can become a social or business contact tomorrow.
Most large companies now have ‘social computing’ policy guidelines in an effort to ensure that company-sponsored (through technology platforms) social networking doesn’t cross over to ‘diminishing returns’ in the form of minimal company benefit – or worse, company liability. As an example of appropriate social computing policy, employees should be advised that when they discuss the company or company-related matters, they should write in the first person; and also make it clear that they are speaking for themselves.
In the midst of all the excitement being generated by social networking, and particularly, its potential to drive business benefits when guided appropriately (e.g., social learning, social collaboration-infused innovation, social networking as a driver of productivity, retention and engagement), I will offer-up one tip for organizations looking at the Talent Management Suite market:
You may recall when “embedded analytics” was being claimed by nearly every HCM solutions vendor, even when it might have been more aspirational than a reality. Well, “embedded social collaboration” may be a quasi-universal vendor claim that is at that same stage. Trust but verify!
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
What to call HR Technology implementations to increase odds of success
I’ve ended my brief hiatus from blogging in which I was heads-down on white papers and other HR technology projects. I will try to get back to roughly a bi-weekly blogging schedule.
As the title of this blog post implies, I feel a change is in order with respect to how HR technology implementations are labeled, marketed and positioned within organizations. Whether we want to admit it or not, many HR technology implementations do not live up to expectations – either in terms of empirically measured ROI, or anecdotally reported perceptions of the new system or module. While there are many useful articles and blog posts about causal factors, perhaps we haven’t adequately considered the need to simply call these very strategic initiatives something else. Why?
For one thing, there’s a legacy here that cannot be ignored so easily … a few decades of HR systems being owned by the HR function and designed more from an administrative, compliance or transaction-processing perspective. Consequently, line managers (the true stewards of Talent Management) didn’t exactly view the announcement of a new HR system as cause for celebration. Even Integrated Talent Management Suites have not always proven to be so integrated or designed from a “what’s in it for the user?” perspective.
Compounding this challenging legacy is the fact that the terms “next generation HR system” … “new HR system” … and/or “new Talent Management system” have been so broadly used within customer organizations – often before they were ready to materially change business outcomes -- that they’ve lost much of their meaning and ability to change attitudes toward broad adoption.
There’s perhaps yet another reason to call HR technology implementations something else – the words "technology implementation." Most astute observers of large-scale, complex technology implementations would probably agree that for every technology implementation considered widely successful, there is one considered a train-wreck. So, there you have it -- the double whammy syndrome of labeling these initiatives “HR Technology implementations.”
A logical candidate for re-naming these projects might be more reflective of what they really are --- or should be – “Foundational Change Management Initiatives" ... in which technology will be a major component. These endeavors are truly aimed at changing hearts and minds about how people should be managed for competitive advantage, using technology as an enabler. This is an "inside-out" transformation, brought about by such techniques as being open about perceived take-aways (and offsets), identifying and converting those “on-the-fence”, promoting major benefits at the individual stakeholder level, etc. The most successful change management efforts are designed to impact at a very personal level, not at the level of how processes will be better or more efficient for the organization.
Every time I hear about an HR technology implementation to optimize and enable HR/Talent Management processes, I quickly ascribe 3 things to the effort: (1) the change management dimension has been short-changed once again; (2) an overly simplistic, process-centric view of Talent Management / Human Capital Management which will likely prevent holistic thinking about the Talent Agenda; and (3) no more than a 50/50 probability of resounding success due to (1) and (2).
As the title of this blog post implies, I feel a change is in order with respect to how HR technology implementations are labeled, marketed and positioned within organizations. Whether we want to admit it or not, many HR technology implementations do not live up to expectations – either in terms of empirically measured ROI, or anecdotally reported perceptions of the new system or module. While there are many useful articles and blog posts about causal factors, perhaps we haven’t adequately considered the need to simply call these very strategic initiatives something else. Why?
For one thing, there’s a legacy here that cannot be ignored so easily … a few decades of HR systems being owned by the HR function and designed more from an administrative, compliance or transaction-processing perspective. Consequently, line managers (the true stewards of Talent Management) didn’t exactly view the announcement of a new HR system as cause for celebration. Even Integrated Talent Management Suites have not always proven to be so integrated or designed from a “what’s in it for the user?” perspective.
Compounding this challenging legacy is the fact that the terms “next generation HR system” … “new HR system” … and/or “new Talent Management system” have been so broadly used within customer organizations – often before they were ready to materially change business outcomes -- that they’ve lost much of their meaning and ability to change attitudes toward broad adoption.
There’s perhaps yet another reason to call HR technology implementations something else – the words "technology implementation." Most astute observers of large-scale, complex technology implementations would probably agree that for every technology implementation considered widely successful, there is one considered a train-wreck. So, there you have it -- the double whammy syndrome of labeling these initiatives “HR Technology implementations.”
A logical candidate for re-naming these projects might be more reflective of what they really are --- or should be – “Foundational Change Management Initiatives" ... in which technology will be a major component. These endeavors are truly aimed at changing hearts and minds about how people should be managed for competitive advantage, using technology as an enabler. This is an "inside-out" transformation, brought about by such techniques as being open about perceived take-aways (and offsets), identifying and converting those “on-the-fence”, promoting major benefits at the individual stakeholder level, etc. The most successful change management efforts are designed to impact at a very personal level, not at the level of how processes will be better or more efficient for the organization.
Every time I hear about an HR technology implementation to optimize and enable HR/Talent Management processes, I quickly ascribe 3 things to the effort: (1) the change management dimension has been short-changed once again; (2) an overly simplistic, process-centric view of Talent Management / Human Capital Management which will likely prevent holistic thinking about the Talent Agenda; and (3) no more than a 50/50 probability of resounding success due to (1) and (2).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
