Getting Headcount Reporting Right -- How Napkins and Yankee Stadium Helped

It goes like this ... in the 90's I was brought to Zurich as an expat to run global HRIS for the investment banking division of 1 of the 'big 3' Swiss banks at that time. I spent the first month gathering the perspectives of my key internal customers and was then summoned to Basel to meet with the #2 executive in the overall bank. The first half hour of that meeting focused on what the bank was paying in expat costs for me (and my family) to be there. The exec then lit up his cigar, took out a napkin, drew criss-crossing horizontal and vertical lines on it, and said the following: "If you can help us get and maintain a truly accurate headount by business unit / by region (filling in the boxes on the napkin with illustrative numbers), your 3-year stay here in Zurich will be well worth the cost." We then each had a small cognac in his office for good luck and off I went.

In retrospect, that astute executive knew that the global rollout of an HR-ERP, innovative comp planning and workforce planning tools, and even HR process re-engineering to leverage the new tools (i.e., the global HRIS function's mandate) would all be compromised if consumers of headcount and 'people cost' data didn't believe the numbers ... or the numbers didn't match the excel s/sheets they felt compelled to maintain. Fortunately for me, I had been down this road before. In the late 80's I received my one and only call from the Chairman of Paine Webber as I ran HRIS there as well. He said the following ... "I would like you and your team to suspend all headcount reporting until we can get all employees in the company to Yankee Stadium to raise their hands -- so we can finally get an accurate headcount." We were obviously forced to get it right.

The answer or solution was twofold: Data Standards and Effective Education -- including mandatory education and training for all consumers of HR data / reports / metrics ... so they (a) understood how ALL numbers were being arrived at; and (b) understood why Finance, HR, Payroll and Business Units might report numbers that were different -- even though all might still be accurate based on their reporting methodology! The training also included real-time 'learning tidbits or booster shots' in how to properly interpret every report or specific data when delivered.

There are appropriate reasons and purposes for counting or not counting employees on salary continuance, or on paid or unpaid leave, or long-term or short-term contractors, or summer interns, or part-timers under or over 20 hours/week ... and on the comp costs side, whether to count deferred comp, or sign-on's, or employee referral bonuses, or other imputed income (e.g., club memberships) or whether to blend different salary rates if multiple assignments for hourlies, etc, etc.

There are 2 choices for getting this right as I see it: Let your line managers, sr execs, HR, Finance and other admin staff throughout the organization spend untold hours (and perhaps millions of dollars) forever reconciling and explaining why numbers are different depending on who reports them (the "1 source of the truth" notion is not enough ... purposes will vary) --- or aggressively attack this near-universal problem with HR-related data standards and very effective training for all consumers of the information.

Steve Goldberg
HR Technology Advisor
July 2012

Next 3 (of 5) Often Overlooked Questions to ask your HR Technology Provider

Again, based on procuring and implementing the solutions of over 20 HR Technology vendors as a global HRIS practitioner (in the 80's and 90's), and then moving over to the solution provider side in various executive roles, I would urge all companies evaluating HR technology vendors to ask the following 5 often overlooked questions.

The last 3 questions below are discussed in this post ... the first 2 were discussed in my previous post.

(1) Can you provide some data on how you've executed in recent years against your product roadmap?

(2) How do you define the word 'solution'?

(3) What are the various ways that you specifically ensure customer success?

(4) Which of your product capabilities would you say are "truly game-changing" if any, and can you provide examples of customers that have experienced this type of business impact?

(5) How do you deal with a situation where a large and strategic customer requests product changes or enhancements that would likely not be applicable to -- or leveraged by -- many other customers?

---------------

What are the various ways that you specifically ensure customer success?

A comprehensive program for ensuring customer success is one of the key things that separates solution providers that otherwise have comparable technology and people capabilities.  Such a program typically begins with fully understanding -- and then tracking to -- the customer’s definition of success.  The ‘tracking to’ part of this relates to having a variety of mechanisms and means for effectively intervening (ideally as a partnership) when the trajectory of success metrics does not foretell a good outcome.  Those various "mechanisms and means" are the heart of any customer success program and should be fully understood and well documented.  It should also be noted that success metrics might appropriately look different for the “initial go-live” phase than for a broader roll-out phase, a solution optimization or maximum adoption phase, etc.  Finally, the role that “driving user adoption and understanding adoption impediments” plays in ensuring customer success cannot be over-stated.

Which of your product capabilities would you say are "truly game-changing" if any, and can you provide examples of customers that have experienced this type of business impact?

Game-changing is, of course, beyond “wow factor.”  We’re talking about a solution or suite of solutions that fundamentally if not radically changes the way a business operates – leading to new (and often material) sources of value and/or competitive advantage.  One example in the world of HR/Talent Management technology is the ability to better understand cause and effect in the context of what people-related factors are behind a precipitous decline in sales, or an exodus of some strategic customers.  While this “game changing” capability relies on leveraging science or sophisticated statistics in HR/HCM, a game-changing impact can also be the result of a simple feature or capability that allows the potential benefits of a system to be unlocked or fully realized. 

An example from my background was the introduction of a “Challenge Feature” in a Global Workforce Planning & Decision Support Tool which allowed global line managers the ability to easily flag and comment on questionable or incorrect data on employees in their charge.  Due to a combination of well-designed workflows and internal service level agreements involving all data owners, “challenges” were automatically routed to and addressed by the appropriate data owner within 24-48 hours.  The manager’s free-form comments in a “Challenge Box” also helped the data owner – wherever they resided in the world -- research the problem if necessary.  This fairly simple feature totally elevated confidence in the data … inextricably tied to confidence in -- and use of -- the system, which drives ROI of course.  

How do you deal with a situation where a large and strategic customer requests product changes or enhancements that would likely not be applicable to -- or leveraged by -- many other customers?

There is probably no correct or perfect answer to this one; rather it’s perhaps a “test of vendor integrity.”  The vast majority of solution vendors will have to deal with this situation at one time or another to win a very large/strategic account or generally take their business to the next level, so it is probably wise to be dubious about claims of “our roadmaps are never hijacked or dominated by any one customer.”  That said, a SaaS multi-instance or "secure SaaS" architecture is often able to solve this dilemma for the vendor and their ‘unique’ customer.  When this is not an option, the feature could perhaps also be tied to a particular customer/user profile, so other SaaS customers would not even see the particular functionality.  

Steve Goldberg

HR Technology Advisor

July 2012

First 2 (of 5) Often Overlooked Questions to ask your HR Technology Provider

As mentioned in my last post ... based on procuring and implementing the solutions of over 20 HR Technology vendors as a global HRIS practitioner (in the 80's and 90's), and then moving over to the solution provider side in various executive roles, I would urge all companies evaluating HR technology vendors to ask the following 5 often overlooked questions.

The first 2 of the 5 questions below are discussed in this post ... the next 3 in my subsequent post.

(1) Can you provide some data on how you've executed in recent years against your product roadmap?

(2) How do you define the word 'solution'?

(3) What are the various ways that you specifically ensure customer success?

(4) Which of your product capabilities would you say are "truly game-changing" if any, and can you provide examples of customers that have experienced this type of business impact?

(5) How do you deal with a situation where a large and strategic customer requests product changes or enhancements that would likely not be applicable to -- or leveraged by -- many other customers?

---------------
Can you provide some data on how you've executed in recent years against your product roadmap?

Product Roadmaps should be viewed as a general indication of the solution provider's R&D (not just product) priorities -- and associated timing of having those releases commercially available.  Most vibrant solution providers will (or at least should) be allocating a percentage (e.g., 10-15%) of their business analyst, development and marketing resources to researching totally new products, technologies, solution concepts, etc.  As customer and market demands change -- and business / economic conditions ebb and flow, Product Roadmaps are of course adjusted.

This is not a negative reflection on the solution provider --- IF --- adjustments can be explained in a way that don't raise other questions.  For example, if the solution provider consistently relies on explanations along the lines of "we under-estimated the complexity of the new functionality", that raises questions about their ability to estimate their development and testing efforts -- a core competency for development organizations.

Roadmap adjustments are totally normal, particularly if they are modest in nature; e.g., 1 or 2 quarters -- vs. a 2-year adjustment; although even a 2-year adjustment in a particular component of a release can have a legitimate explanation ... such as some other market-driven priority took its place. 

The key point here is that the absence of a Prodct Roadmap and supporting/accompanying set of processes for producing one that represents the "intersection of customer/market benefit, vendor benefit and true product innovation" is a much more telling and concerning issue than one that is adjusted after being published.

How do you define the word 'solution'?

Anytime an HCM / Talent Mgt software provider equates the word 'solution' with one thing -- e.g., "technology or software for automating a particular process", that is a preliminary indication that you are likely dealing with a vendor that is minimizing the many other critical components of a holistic and well conceived solution.  These include consulting and guidance as needed, data model construction and implications, process changes and best practices to be considered, analytics frameworks, integration with other systems and data repositories, change management and appropriate training (and marketing) to drive user adoption, addressing competency issues as needed, etc. 

A solution provider that doesn't have these other components of a total solution (i.e., for solving a business problem) on their radar, or in their customer interactions, has perhaps not evolved to the extent that the customer requires.  However, this dynamic can also be a function of the limited bandwidth of a smaller supplier -- in which case discussions should still be held with the customer to ensure all of these components are somehow accounted for in the implementation plan and have owners attached.

Steve Goldberg
HR Technology Advisor
June 2012

5 Key Questions to Ask your Prospective HR Technology Provider

Based on insights and some "hard lessons" gleaned from procuring and implementing the solutions of over 20 HR Technology vendors as a global HRIS practitioner, and then moving over to the solution provider side in various executive roles, I would urge all companies evaluating HR technology vendors to ask the 5 questions below.  I will explain the thinking behind each of these in subsequent blog posts.

(1) Can you provide some data on how you've executed in recent years against your product roadmap?

(2) How do you define the word 'solution'?

(3) What are the various ways that you specifically ensure customer success?

(4) Which of your product capabilities would you say are "truly game-changing" if any, and can you provide examples of customers that have experienced this type of business impact?

(5) How do you deal with a situation where a large and strategic customer requests product changes or enhancements that would likely not be applicable to -- or leveraged by -- many other customers?

Steve Goldberg
June 2012

Strategic Planning: Staying Ahead of the Curve

In the 1980’s, when the words “Talent Management” were mostly heard in the offices of Hollywood agents, very few people could have predicted that Talent Management solutions would become the basis of a multi-billion dollar industry with around a dozen publicly traded companies.

The Talent Management domain itself has now evolved from largely disconnected “strategic HR” processes into well-recognized best practices for achieving Integrated Talent Management. Coinciding with that evolution, we’ve also seen increasing levels of sophistication propel the process called Workforce Planning into the realm of Strategic Workforce Planning.

Ten years ago, Workforce Planning was generally viewed as a cyclical or “as needed” exercise many large companies went through to figure out what type of skills were needed where in the organization, and how many people with necessary skill sets were required. This set of activities was rarely viewed as a core HR business process for two reasons: the lack of formalization and sophistication around the activities; and the absence of what best—or even common—industry practices looked like.

Even as recently as five years ago, only the most forward-thinking organizations were identifying a process owner for whatever ‘Workforce Planning’ was deemed to entail. Fast forward to today, and there are at least four networking groups on LinkedIn that connect workforce planning professionals with a total of 8,000 members between them.

Despite this emergence of Workforce Planning as a core HR or Talent Management business process, and the universal recognition of its associated business benefits, effectiveness at Workforce Planning continues to elude many organizations.  This should be no surprise. After all, forecasting anything that has many moving parts, unknowns and factors outside one’s control is a very arduous task. Moreover, HR departments, where ownership of Workforce Planning commonly resides, are taxed with just keeping up with current business. Further compounding the challenge, highly engaging and sophisticated tools for enabling Workforce Planning and modeling have only recently become available.

There is perhaps another interesting dynamic operating here that makes Workforce Planning success fairly elusive. It seems modern day Workforce Planning or Strategic Workforce Planning is now rich enough in complexity and depth to now be appropriately “unpacked” into separate sub-processes—each of which may have more relevance to the organization than the traditionally defined ‘Workforce Planning’ which tends to focus on very long term plans.

An example of one of those sub-processes that is earning more attention in Talent Management circles is Organizational Planning, largely because Organizational Planning aims to translate business strategy into near-term structural plans; and long-term workforce plans into specific actions. The Organizational Planning process is an important and necessary complement to the long term forecasting process, and has a higher impact on near term results.

According to the newly-released HCI report “Creating a Better Plan: Connecting Business Strategy, Structure and Talent,” strategic planners were 31% more prepared for the recent economic recession than those organizations that did not have an effective organizational plan (what the study calls “Reluctant Planners”). It also found large gaps between organizations that were strategic planners vs. reluctant planners when it came to employee engagement, profitability, and the agility needed to pursue new business opportunities. The HCI study concluded that “Organizations that master these disciplines are simply more agile, and thus more able to quickly transform and adapt when faced with any major change.”

As the Talent Management landscape and business climate overall continue to forge ahead amid lots of uncertainty, an organizations’ ability to adapt to change quickly and efficiently is not an option. Having a strategic plan in place – including a corresponding strategic workforce plan—enables organizations to not only weather upcoming storms, but also prepare for organizational growth while providing increasingly demanded transparency.

Steve Goldberg
May 2012