Speaking Engagements UPCOMING
Predict and Prepare sponsored by Workday 12/16
PAST BUT AVAILABLE FOR REPLAY
The Bill Kutik Radio Show® #171, 2/15
The Bill Kutik Radio Show® #160, 8/14
The Bill Kutik Radio Show® #145, 1/14
Workday Predict and Prepare Webinar, 12/10/2013
The Bill Kutik Radio Show® #134, 8/13
CXOTalk: Naomi Bloom, Nenshad Bardoliwalla, and Michael Krigsman, 3/15/2013
Drive Thru HR, 12/17/12
The Bill Kutik Radio Show® #110, 8/12
Webinar Sponsored by Workday: "Follow the Yellow Brick Road to Business Value," 5/3/12 Audio/Whitepaper
Webinar Sponsored by Workday: "Predict and Prepare," 12/7/11
HR Happy Hour - Episode 118 - 'Work and the Future of Work', 9/23/11
The Bill Kutik Radio Show® #87, 9/11
Keynote, Connections Ultimate Partner Forum, 3/9-12/11
"Convergence in Bloom" Webcast and accompanying white paper, sponsored by ADP, 9/21/10
The Bill Kutik Radio Show® #63, 9/10
Keynote for Workforce Management's first ever virtual HR technology conference, 6/8/10
Knowledge Infusion Webinar, 6/3/10
Webinar Sponsored by Workday: "Predict and Prepare," 12/8/09
Webinar Sponsored by Workday: "Preparing to Lead the Recovery," 11/19/09 Audio/Powerpoint
"Enterprise unplugged: Riffing on failure and performance," a Michael Krigsman podcast 11/9/09
The Bill Kutik Radio Show® #39, 10/09
Workday SOR Webinar, 8/25/09
The Bill Kutik Radio Show® #15, 10/08
PAST BUT NO REPLAY AVAILABLE
Keynote, HR Tech Europe, Amsterdam, 10/25-26/12
Master Panel, HR Technology, Chicago, 10/9/012
Keynote, Workforce Magazine HR Tech Week, 6/6/12
Webcast Sponsored by Workday: "Building a Solid Business Case for HR Technology Change," 5/31/12
Keynote, Saba Global Summit, Miami, 3/19-22/12
Workday Rising, Las Vegas, 10/24-27/11
HR Technology, Las Vegas 10/3-5/11
HR Florida, Orlando 8/29-31/11
Boussias Communications HR Effectiveness Forum, Athens, Greece 6/16-17/11
HR Demo Show, Las Vegas 5/24-26/11
Workday Rising, 10/11/10
HRO Summit, 10/22/09
HR Technology, Keynote and Panel, 10/2/09
Adventures of Bloom & Wallace
|
- I Hired Naomi!
Last month I posted the first installment of this series on planned changes in the mix and style of B&W consulting engagements/projects for 2011. It’s now with great pleasure that I announce one of those engagements. Beginning in January, I’ll be acting as a strategic advisor to the Human Capital Operations and Technology Solutions practice at Mercer, led by Kim Seals, who reports to Pat Milligan, the executive responsible on a global basis for all of Mercer’s Human Capital businesses.
A major focus of my work with Mercer will be their Human Capital Connect solution powered by Peopleclick Authoria technology, advising on business and marketing strategy through software architecture and functional roadmaps.
There were many factors that influenced my decision to take on Mercer and Human Capital Connect as a strategic advisory client, and none of them will surprise you:
-
Human Capital Connect (HCC) is based on the premise that proprietary, transformational consulting-based, best HRM practices packaged as intellectual property, if delivered through highly automated strategic HRM processes, would be a 1 + 1 = 3 proposition for everyone involved. I’ve written often enough about the importance of embedded intelligence to ensuring that self-service doesn’t produce any unintended side-effects but also that it does produce better decision-making at every level and, therefore, better business outcomes from our investments in HRM software. Although there are a number of similar efforts underway across our industry, Mercer’s commitment to embedded intelligence and the assets they’re bringing to Human Capital Connect are very persuasive. Quite frankly, without the type of embedded intelligence that I’ve advocated for so many years, and to which Mercer is committed with Human Capital Connect, even truly great HRM SaaS just sits there and stares at you. Removing knowledgeable and effective HR professionals (although this doesn’t apply by any means to all HR folks) and replacing them with automated HRM processes is a recipe for disaster if the best thinking and subject matter expertise of our best HR professionals isn’t captured and delivered to every user through the software. Without embedded intelligence, self service is really just data entry, and that’s not on my list of preferred HRM software behaviors.
- In addition to my commitment to embedded intelligence, which can be applied when automating any aspect of HRM, it’s really strategic HRM (called talent management in some circles) that makes a difference where it matters. Strategic HRM is all about improving revenues and profits, about business outcomes, rather than about achieving greater efficiency and effectiveness in the HR function. And that too is the focus of Mercer’s Human Capital business. So HCC isn’t just focused on reducing the administrative costs of various talent management processes but rather about using embedded intelligence and their own transformational consulting to drive those processes toward greater business outcomes — and with that objective I’m entirely simpatico.
- Mercer’s mix of human capital consulting clients, and therefore their prospect base for HCC, mirrors quite closely the types of large, complex, global organizations that have always been the focus of my direct end-user consulting. And while I no longer take on full-blown, large scope, transformational consulting projects with these same types of end-users (because such projects exceed the human resources of a solo practitioner), working with Mercer will enable me to keep my finger on the pulse of these types of firms, the HRM issues they are facing, and the ways in which HRM technology can enable the more effective delivery of strategic HRM. Although my strategic HRM delivery systems planning methodology can be used by organizations of all sizes and whether public or private sector, the challenges and, therefore, the opportunities and payoffs of the methodology loom much larger when applied to global, enterprise-scale clients.
- I’ve worked over the years with many, many HRM software vendors and outsourcing providers, often with competing vendors and providers, but the names of my clients (except for the very few that have insisted on perpetual anonymity) rarely appear “in print” except on my personal bio and in the relevant disclaimer notices. And when they appear on my personal bio, they’re listed in the aggregate under suitably vague headlines describing the type of engagement. But in choosing to work beginning again in 2011 with a few clients at a time, therefore becoming more engaged in not only specific projects but also in the outcome of these projects, I am applying that age-old yet VERY valuable guidance that you are judged by the company you keep. Not only does Mercer have a globally reputable brand, which they protect quite carefully in terms of the oversight of their workforce and work products, but I know well the people with whom I’ll be working directly, and their personal brands are also of the highest integrity.
I’m looking forward to working with Kim Seals and the Human Capital Operations and Technology Solutions team on an ongoing basis through 2011 and hope that I can make a positive contribution toward the results of their efforts.
Over the next month or two, I’ll be doing similar write-ups on the other clients/engagements that I’ve selected for 2011, highlighting what it is about a particular initiative or client that makes them a good fit for me. I’ll also be committing to new licenses in 2011 for my HRM domain model/architectural “starter kit” and related training — please note that all 2010 license slots have long been filled — and keeping my eyes open for 2012 clients/initiatives that will be a good fit for me. And you thought I was retiring? Didn’t you know that 70 is the new 40?
With many thanks to Leo Collum, the great business cartoonist, from whom I bought the above customized cartoon in the early days of Bloom & Wallace. Leo passed away in late October and is remembered here by The New Yorker.
For those of you who haven’t started your list, here’s mine for Thanksgiving 2010:
- Ron Wallace — if you haven’t met The Wallace, you’re in for a treat. He’s smart (and never flaunts his far greater intellect than mine), beyond funny (especially when doing those imitations of all the satellite systems he’s helped design), kind to everyone even when they’re not, 150% behind me in everything I do, an enthusiastic dancer, able to design/fix anything electronic/mechanical/plumbing/etc., infinitely patient, very slow to get anywhere close to angry, doesn’t complain no matter how ill/uncomfortable he is, shares my love of travel/adventure/British mystery DVDs/boating/the list is of shared interests is very long, understands my need to “fly” solo, never asks me what anything costs (knowing I won’t go overboard even as he’s buying me great jewelry), likes most of my friends and is happy to have them travel with us, provides full infrastructure support so that I can pursue my dream career, still a hunk after all these years (Ron went through college on gymnastics scholarships), and thinks I’m the best thing that ever happened to him. What more could any woman want?
- Friends and family who are also friends — I value friendship above diamonds, and those who know me realize that’s high value indeed. No one gets through life unscathed, no one! And it’s your friends who not only share your triumphs but will also see you through the really tough times. You know who you are.
- Good health and great health insurance — Ron and I have watched the whole health care reform discussion with just one point of view: everyone should be as free from worry about their health care costs as we have been, even as we’ve battled a number of expensive health issues. I can’t even imagine having to fight with an insurance company in order to get what Ron needed when he was diagnosed a few years back with non-Hodgkins lymphoma. He’s fine now, but the bills were enormous and would have broken even our generous budget if not for great coverage. And when my right shoulder rotator cuff repair surgery turned into a case study in rotator cuff fabrication, leaving me unable to work for months while I was first immobilized and then in screamingly painful rehab, again the bills were enormous. But thanks to Ron’s NASA career, we’ve got the same kind of insurance our Congressmen have. We’d like to see everyone have this level of financial protection and peace of mind, but what do we know about health care?
- My career, clients and colleagues — I’ve had an amazing run, and the best is yet to come. Imagine being in on the very ground floor of the use of computers in business and still being able to contribute? For those of you worried about your career, and who isn’t in these trying times, please take heart. There’s always opportunity for those who are willing to work their butts off, invest in their KSAOCs, and do the heavy lifting. To all the colleagues and clients from whom I’ve learned so much, and those yet to come, I’m very grateful for the opportunities and hope I’ve given as good as I’ve gotten.
- The accident of birth — I come from pioneer stock. My grandparents were refugees (aren’t all Jews?) from a shtetl in Lithuania. They came to the USA at the turn of the 20th century to avoid conscription into the Czar’s non-kosher army as well as the pogroms. Like every American except our native Americans, we’re all refugees of one sort or another, even those who think they’re special because they came first or brought some wealth with them. Were it not for my grandparents having the courage to leave the familiar behind, to make what was then quite literally a trek across Europe to get bilge (they thought steerage was first class) passage to the USA, to arrive with no English and just the bundles they carried to a gentile America which was still quite hostile to Jews, I would never have had the opportunities that so many of us take for granted. Freedom isn’t free, and democracy isn’t a birthright, so count your blessings that you’re here.
- Those who never rest so that we can — our military and their families, our first responders, those who work the midnight shifts in emergency rooms, there are so many who won’t be having as peaceful or comfortable a Thanksgiving as you and I will have. My thanks to every one of them.
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. However you’re spending Thanksgiving, take a few minutes without any media distractions to remember why we’re celebrating the first American holiday — and to count your own blessings. And for those of you who read my Thanksgiving post for 2009 and think you’re having deja vue, you are. Blessings are blessings. By the way, that picture is of Bloom & Wallace, Silicon Valley 1973. We should definitely have bought more land while we were there.
Should Our Role Model Be Cher?2010 MTV Video Music Awards
2010 MTV Video Music Awards
My paean to older workers, a twitterverse:
When does a worker become an older worker? At a particular age? when KSAOCs with half-lives have degraded to that point? When they look old?
Am I an older worker? I accept being a senior citizen when it comes with discounts, medical coverage, help putting my luggage in the overhead.
Am I an older worker? I accept the need to adapt the physcial demands of my job (heavy travel, very long days) to my changing body.
Am I an older worker? I embrace the knowledge/energy/ideas of much younger colleagues, learning as I go, and believe they do the same with me.
Am I an older worker? I am as passionate today as when I started professional work in 1967 about the promise of IT for HRM, and passion counts.
Thank G-d my boss, who is also me, but even more so my clients, don’t give a farquar about my age. They only care about the value I can add — tomorrow.
The only reasonable basis for HRM decisions about any worker are: ability to contribute, actual results delivered, value of their KSAOCs, and similar.
The headshot photograph of Cher, who is almost a year younger than me, is a publicity still published everywhere for her latest movie, Burlescue, to be released later this month. Her photo from the 2010 MTV Video Music Awards gives new meaning to the lyrics of her signature song, “If I Could Turn Back Time”
- #HRTechConf 2011
After being prompted that not everyone is following me on Twitter — in fact, that not everyone is on Twitter — I thought I’d better capture my tweets on this topic in a blog post. So, in case you missed this debrief, here were my thoughts as of 10/19/10 via Twitter on having missed #HRTechConf 2010. I’ve added the updates and expansions as of 11/10/10:
- “I will be in touch with all vendors with whom I’d scheduled briefings/demos to reschedule them.” Added for post — I plan to offer 2 hour slots to vendors willing to do deep dive demos, with me asking questions throughout, so that I can speak with confidence about the brilliance of their object models/application architecture/etc. as they compare to my own thinking in these areas. Hopefully, vendors with whom I’ll be meeting (and I’m hoping that some of you will want to visit me in Fort Myers this winter!) will have had a chance to read my relevant posts and whitepapers even as I’m studying their Web sites and briefing packages so that our time together can be as productive as possible. I also hope they won’t hesitate to prepare a list of questions for me as well. The least I can do in return for the time vendors give me — and I truly appreciate their time — is to share what I know against their specific questions.
- “My thanks to all the bloggers who covered this important event. But where’s the live streaming replay?” Added for post — I can’t imagine why LRP didn’t provide live streaming of key events, at a cost of course, along with replays for registered attendees. I would have loved to have seen some of what I missed, and I’m sure others would too. Can we hope for some of this in 2011?
- “I’ll never be able to celebrate my 65th w the whole industry unless I freeze that Bday. Under review.” Added for post — This isn’t a biggie. I’m already planning for #HRTechConf 2011, and there’s absolutely nothing to prevent me from showing up in my birthday tiara. After all, 66 is when I could collect full social security, and that may be something to celebrate if there’s any $$ left when I get there.
- “Too damn many vendors using the latest buzz words, SaaS and cloud, to describe what they’ve got.” Added for post — I’ve already written about this at length, but I may use next year’s conference as an opportunity to plant a scarlet letter, a very large one, on the worst offenders. Forewarned is forearmed. There’s no shame at all in having a business strategy that’s licensed/on-premise, licensed/hosted, and/or subscribed/hosted, but please don’t call whatever’s going SaaS and cloud. I know that’s acceptable by many of the IT analysts, but it’s not acceptable by me.
- “Not enough discussion/understanding that HCM software architecture is what matters. I’ll work on this.” Added for post — I’ve already written extensively about this, including very recently. I’ve got more planned and will keep fussing on Twitter too. What HR leaders can’t see and/or don’t understand will bite them — it already has — so this is a point that deserves ongoing attention.
- “Jason Averbook deserves HUGE credit fo taking myplace in THE GREAT DEBATE. I owe him one.” Added for post — By all accounts, Jason was terrific, which is no surprise. Given the generational divide, it’s amazing on how many relevant topics Jason and I agree entirely. How I wish there were a recording of this debate so that I could have learned from it, and I sure hope that LRP will provide at least streaming audio and replay of key sessions at the 2011 #HRTechConf. There, I’ve said it twice in one post. Anyone listening at LRP?
- “Customers aren’t using important parts of TM software because their processes/data need an overhaul.” Added for post — For far too many years and automation cycles, HR leaders have avoided the truly heavy lifting of rethinking their business, to include the designs of processes, business rules and data. Crap job definitions, no or hoked up positions, employee status codes that date to the first coming, organizational structures mired in cost center codes of yesteryear, different process flows for the same business event and different work weeks without any justification for same, and the list goes on of process, business rule, data artifacts that can hobble even the best of talent management software, not to mention talent management processes. Add in trying to manage this crummy data across dozens of interconnected but not integrated applicatons, and it’s little wonder that the whole house of cards is in serious danger of collapsing. It’s time to repair the roof folks, and that’s going to hurt, but for many organizations, it’s the only way forward. So no more complaints from end-users about talent management software inadequacies (although those are real) until they’ve put their own houses in order.
- “I’m planning now for 2011 in Las Vegas. Maybe I’ll be discovered for the entertainer inside.” Added for post — Some of you may remember my cousin Joey, the last of the Borsht Belt comedians, to whom I’m related on the Bloom side, but few of you know that I’m also related to the Three Stooges on my mother’s side. Comedic DNA runs deep within me, within so many Jews, because there’s no better grist for the comedians’ mill than long suffering. Well, there’s plenty of that in our industry. Software that not only doesn’t work as promised but which just plain doesn’t work. Maintenance fees that are choking off all new investment. Systems integrators who know less about your software than you do and charge a ton anyway. End-users who cling to what they know even when those processes/data designs/business rules/etc. were never much good. And the upgrades that ate Chicago, thereby moving us to Las Vegas. Perhaps #HRTechConf 2011 is the place where we once and for all declare war on these enemies of effective human resource management — “The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind.”
Get your budget requests in now for travel/registration etc., and I’ll see you in Las Vegas. I think we’ve already got our theme song.
SHRM -- Are You Listening?
Forty years on, and we’re still talking about organizational readiness for strategic HRM (of which talent management is a large piece). Boring! The time for action is long past. SHRM, are you listening?
Why the hell isn’t your critical HRM data (e.g. positions, jobs, KSAOCs, worker, organizational structures, etc.) in better shape? Why aren’t your HR professionals better at performing data analysis, including the use of rigorous statistical analysis techniques? And what about not having outcomes-based metrics? Can business leaders capture the opportunities of their industries without a truly strategic approach to the people side of the business? Great software is only an enabler. Great HRM needs much more than great software. SHRM, are you listening?
Do I sound cranky? HRM software has come a very long way over the course of my career, and we’ve learned a ton about how to do effective selections through implementations. But while the concepts of strategic HRM are well-understood, their execution still stinks in many to most organizations despite the efforts of some really great HR leaders. And I believe that improving that execution, improving fundamentally the practice of strategic human resource management, will require major changes to the HR profession. SHRM, are you listening?
In an effort to make these changes before I’m too old to care, I have two concrete suggestions. We need to change the education of HR professionals, and we need to change the work experience of HR professionals. That’s right, we need to change everything about how future HR professionals are equipped for their careers and then how their careers are developed. And that surely means that we’ll get HR professionals with a different mix of initial KSAOCs and emphasize the growth of different KSAOCs over their careers. Will that also affect everything about how we recruit, hire, deploy, develop, compensate, manage, etc. HR professionals? Absolutely, but we have to start somewhere, I think we should start with their education. SHRM, are you listening?
HR professionals must have some degree of mastery of the full range of business processes so they will understand the interplay among those processes and human resource management — and so that they can plan for and execute against those interconnections. They must also have been trained, rigorously, in the thought processes and mathematics of systems thinking and data analysis and how to bring those techniques to bear on every aspect of HRM. If this sounds like an MBA program, that’s the point. My own MBA, acquired going nights for five years while working full-time, was hard won, but that learning has helped me to function as a business person first and an IT or HRM person second. Production planning requires workforce planning. Opening new markets requires the full workforce life cycle applied to new KSAOCs. Financial management must focus on labor costs, to include the costs of non-employee workers, if it’s to help manage the largest expense of most organizations. And the list of interconnections among business processes and those of HRM is the right starting point for doing anything strategic about HRM. SHRM, are you listening?
And that’s just for starters. All modern, high quality MBA programs include a heavy dose of IT running through all the other courses because technology enablement is now the foundation of everything else that we do. But where there’s a concentration in HRM, that concentration must include solid coverage of HR technology and the lifecycle of using that technology to enable HRM processes. No technology, no HRM in this century, so there’s just no excuse for any HRM academic concentration not delivering substantial mastery over the role, selection, and deployment of the relevant technologies. And that means getting actual hands-on experience with the best of what’s current. Could SHRM do deals with HRM software vendors to make their products and some of their staff available for academic curriculae? Of course it could. SHRM, are you listening?
Would SHRM leadership qualify by the educational requirements I’ve just listed? Time’s running out for all but the best US HR leaders because increasingly the best software and outsourcing providers will deliver a lot of what’s needed and the ranks of ordinary SHRM members will be decimated. Why should struggling companies pay US corporate professional salaries for work that can be automated and/or moved to lower cost economies? With so many options now available for remote communications, do the HR professionals servicing US-based workforces really need to be onsite or even US-based? Just as so many other corporate jobs have been reduced forever in onshore numbers by the automation and globalization of work, this too is the future of much of what HR does. Is SHRM listening?
Perhaps I’m ranting because even as we’ve made tremendous progress in the research and academic understanding of strategic HRM, and in the automation support for strategic HRM, we’ve made only modest progress in the actual practice of strategic HRM over the 40+ years of my career. The technology itself is no longer a reasonable scapegoat for this lack of progress, which brings us to the hr profession and its practioners. Does SHRM understand that they own this problem? And if SHRM and the HR professionals don’t handle the problem, their operating executives and line managers will. Is SHRM listening?
In the interests of full disclosure, I’ve been a paid-up SHRM member since 1988 but have never attended a national conference.
Of the many reasons cited for outsourcing one or more HRM business processes as well as for making investments in HRM software, none is more susceptible to marketing hype than that outsourcing providers and software vendors deliver “best” practices in HRM. The best HRM software, “out of the box,” may certainly deliver some good practices in business event workflow, data edits, regulatory reporting, and even considerable guidance and content around the strategic HRM processes (but only a few software vendors actually do this to any extent). But no software, “out of the box,” can deliver “best” HRM practices in those areas that really matter, e.g. proposing both the KSAOC profiles and related assessment tools that will produce a better fit hire for a specific role in your organization or proposing the design of an incentive compensation plan which will motivate your sales force to greater productivity and revenue generation. If you don’t have proven competency models for your key roles, you won’t get competency-centric HRM, no matter what the software does. If you don’t have proven practices around how to conduct an interview with a position seeker embedded in that software, then there’s a great likelihood that the interviewer will ask inappropriate or even illegal questions. However, great HRM software does enable those who actually know what “best” practices are to execute them much more effectively and to institutionalize them, bringing those “best” practices to everyone.
In human resource management (HRM), there are three types of practices that are amenable to process or practice improvement through automation, outsourcing, process redesign, etc. and which can have an impact on achieving business outcomes. I call these three types of practices big P processes, little p processes, and business rules. When we speak of “best” practices in HRM, we need to be very clear as to which of these three types we’re referring, and we need to understand their very different impacts on business outcomes.
Big P processes are the fundamental designs of the HRM business for a particular organization. To what extent do you have competency-centric HRM processes? Around what approach to competency models? And how do you determine who has what competencies and to what degree? To what extent do you have a total compensation approach to rewards and remuneration? Around what approach to balancing the various business objectives served by different forms of total compensation? What is your leadership development approach, and upon what assumptions about adult learning and motivation is it based? How do you integrate your competency models and behavioral approach to assessing competencies into your staffing processes? These are just some of the important questions that shape an organization’s entire approach to its human resource management processes, and here is where true competitive advantage can be found when such processes are shaped very effectively for a given organization. But there is no software or outsourcing provider that tells you the answers to these questions. At best, your HRM delivery system and, especially, its software platforms are robust enough to support the answers you select, the big P processes you design, and the business rules that you need – now and over time.
Little p processes are the actual work flows (manual and automated steps) triggered by specific HRM personal life events (employee has a baby), work life events (manager conducts employee performance review), organizational life events (manager establishes a new work team), and external events (IRS issues new tax tables). These are the events for which HRM software and the HRM delivery sytem must supply the transactions and data structures needed to capture, validate, respond to, store, share, report on, etc. the relevant data. This perspective is especially important because today’s HRMDS presumes a very high degree of self service, thus forcing the redesign of nearly every business event-initiated little p process as a matter of course. The best HRM software and HRMDSs offer well-designed, “good” practice workflows for single event processing (the system transaction perspective) as well as multi-step work flows (designed in their work flow engines, to include configuration tools for those work flows). Seeing how an HRM software vendor or outsourcing provider executes a prescribed scenario (which is often a business event-initiated process) is a key part of evaluating the fit between that software’s/provider’s offering and your business needs. Increasingly, HRM BPO providers’s little p processes, called their service delivery model, will not be subject to change as that provider works hard to reduce the complexity, cost and variability of their HRMDS.
Business rules are the specific eligibility criteria for a health care plan, the number of hours considered to be a full-time work year for some set of employees, the exact formula for calculating sales incentives, the elapsed time allowed between promotion to a managerial role and completion of the new manager training program, and the questions you may not ask a position seeker in a specific situation. They are the decisions we make and implement to hire from within and grow our own talent or to search out experienced management to augment what we have. An outsourcing provider and/or transformational consultant might well argue that a specific client’s business rules are more complex and variable than can be justified by the client’s business needs, and they might insist on either simplification and standardization of those business rules or require that the client pay a higher migration and ongoing servicing cost. But no HRM BPO provider or HRM software vendor stipulates those business rules (except where they are regulated and not subject to the customer’s control), let alone which business rules would constitute best practice for a specific client at a moment in time and in a particular situation. Even where an HRM BPO provider, typically one offering comprehensive, integrated HRM BPO, has a considerable HRM consulting capability and a delivery system that really can deliver business rules, the most that provider would do is to help the client determine which business rules, ideally a simpler and more consistent set, will do the best job for that client. But that’s a work product of domain consulting, not an outsourcing service.
Big P processes transcend the automated components of the HRM delivery system to include the strategies, organizational design, business outcomes and policies, etc. which are the essence of the HRM business and, therefore, which shape all HRM processes (big P and little p) and business rules. While HRM software, regardless of your chosen deployment model, does speak of such “processes” as career management or staffing, they do so more from a marketing, little p (again, think work flow) and data structure perspective than from a big P process design perspective. They, in fact, offer very little guidance (although their implementation consultants may) and few constraints on how an organization decides to assign ownership for and/or responsibility over its HRM processes, how an organization measures the true business outcomes of these processes (as opposed to the activity metrics of the processes), and who should play what roles in these processes, let alone the basic plans or intent and business practices around which these processes are designed. Again you’re left with software as an important enabler, with surrounding delivery system capabilities providing further assistance, but the design of these big P processes and their execution remains the responsibility of the client’s HR organization.
Every organization needs to create a set of business rules that are shaped by the business outcomes they are intended to help achieve (e.g. having common compensation and benefit plans across an organization makes it easier to move people across business units, thus enabling organizational synergies), have the fewest needed complexities and differences across the organization, and are designed with the HRM delivery system in mind (i.e. with the intention of using technology to a very great extent to enable intelligent self service). This latter point is key, because self service puts a real premium on ease of use and customer satisfaction, both of which objectives depend on having HRM business rules (to include data definitions and code sets) that are understandable to everyone. But no matter how sleek the delivery or how standard and simple the rules, they have to be the right rules for the business or the business really suffers.
Are there best practices in human resource management (HRM) and in the human resource management delivery system (HRMDS)? Absolutely! With respect to the HRMDS, it’s reasonable to expect that a reputable outsourcing provider and/or software vendor will offer best practices in whatever elements of your HRMDS they are providing. By offering such HRMDS best practices as embedded intelligence in self service, click to speak from self service to customer care center, fully effective-dated business rules and event processing, well-defined little p processes, and many of the other features that I’ve discussed in previous columns, along with excellent migration tools that enable the configuration of their offering to support your business rules and big P processes, an HRM BPO provider or HRM software vendor can greatly improve your HRMDS. And we know that an excellent HRMDS is a necessary but unfortunately not a sufficient condition for achieving best practices in HRM. But to achieve best practices in HRM, your HR community, with whatever consulting support they require, must do the heavy lifting of big P process and business rule design and implementation. If you don’t know what competencies matter, how to recognize them, what motivates them to perform, etc., then you are in grave danger of having your HRMDS enable the rapid and cost-effective hiring of the wrong people. If you don’t know what types of compensation produce the best sales results, then providing every sales person with self service access to current accrued sales commissions may reinforce their displeasure with the plan design rather than motivating them to sell more. No pain, no gain.
While it’s true that an outsourcing providers’ terrific HRM delivery system, or an HRM software vendor’s SaaS InFullBloom, including lean and rigorous little p processes (think work flow), can make it possible, even easy, to execute really excellent business rules and big P processes, it can just as easily speed up and spread around really stupid business rules and flawed big P processes. Imagine what happens when a poorly designed benefits plan has such an efficient enrollment little p process that everyone wants to take advantage of it, thereby costing you much more than would have been the case if folks stayed in their old plans? Or the classic example: imagine being able to engage management fully in making gut-based (rather than competency-based) but mediocre hiring decisions faster and at lower cost? As so often happens, the devil really is in the details.
M/V SmartyPants at St. Charles Yacht Club, Fort Myers
When I wrote this post last November about our last sail on Mar-Lin nights, our new boat didn’t have a name, I had never seen her nor handled her controls (think user experience!). Our new boat was mostly represented by a growing (ultimately huge) file of email exchanges, contract document versions (of course I implemented version controls), long lists of equipment annotated as to must haves/nice to haves/undesireable and then rated as standard as delivered/factory option at known price/factory modification at unknown price etc.
Then M/V SmartyPants, our new American Tug 34 (rebranded the 365 sometime this year), was delivered without major incident by her cross-county trailer truck from her builder in LaConner WA to our launch point at Gulf Marine on San Carlos Island and then on to her homeport of St. Charles Yacht Club at the end of March. It was love at first sight, along with a healthy dose of trepidation.
I manned the helm once she was launched and took her home, but we had onboard not only Ron but also the dealer and the electronics guru to ensure that all went smoothly. We had perfect weather for that trip home, and I loved every minute of it ( including all the calibration/timed runs for the electronics) except when I was petrified in the face of so many new systems to learn, so much power at my fingertips, and an altogether different type of helm action than I’d ever experienced. Have I mentioned that I had NEVER manned the helm of a power trawler, let alone one this sophisticated and powerful.
And there she sat, in her slip at St. Charles, as 2010 produced challenge after challenge every time we thought we’d be able to take her out — and here I’m using challenge to mean our putting our boating life on hold without a second thought as the needs of friends and family and clients took precedence. Ron paid the occasional visit, doing many of the initial and obvious projects needed to prepare her for our use, but to me SmartyPants was just biggest check I’d ever written at one time until last weekend.
We were finally able to do an overnight shakedown cruise last weekend, and my love affair with SmartyPants continues, unabated. I managed to dock for fuel and a pumpout without taking out either the dock or the dockmaster, and I managed to get her back into our slip without taking out Ron or the pilings, but both moves need a lot more work. In between we had a lovely time, with me making lists of all the needed items/projects (think features/functions) to bring the boat up to fully usable standards, and Ron actually doing useful stuff. I think that Ron would say that much of our married life has been spent with me making lists and keeping us organized while Ron was/is the man of all work. My memories are a little different, but he’s not far wrong. The fact is that in the boating part of our lives, Ron is far more able than I am to do the heavy lifting/plumbing/constructing/rewiring, etc., but my lists are a work of the lister’s art.
Sitting on the hook in Glover’s Bight (that’s just around Cattledock Point from the Caloosahatchee River for those of you with a handy chart) last Sunday night, watching the sunset as we drank our sundowners on brand new cockpit directors’ chairs and teak table (all folding of course for easy stowage), and watching the overflights of a zillion seagulls, pelicans, ibis etc., the memory of that big checked faded completely (not to mention all of the work needed to earn it). Also fading was some of the trepidation with which I faced this new boat, and more of that will depart with each such cruise.
Change is hard, as I wrote last November. Going from master of your vessel (work or position!) to novice on the new one is very unsettling, especially for someone who values being a master. But becoming a master of mastering change itself is probably the most important KSAOC for personal and professional success and fulfillment in the world of today and tomorrow. I’m going to work hard, as time and tide permit, to master as much as possible of the workings of SmartyPants, with a particular focus on docking and backing her into the slip. But I know and accept (well, I’m still working on the accepting part) that I’ll never know as much about the electronics as Ron already does. Just as so many of the really important projects in my professional life are either a team success or a team failure, so too will be the running of SmartyPants. And Ron’s engineering, agility and strength KSAOCs are just as critical to our marital partnership’s boating success as are my list-making and helmsmanship.
- 50 Reasons Not To Change
When I began my solo consulting practice in 1987, I worked at any one time with one to three large, global, complex corporations, using the then current version of my strategic HRM delivery systems planning methodology. I helped the HR executives of those companies refine their overall HRM business strategy and then design the needed systems delivery capability, which was essentially the HR technology plan in those days.
These projects took 6-9 months, with me working intensively with a carefully selected client team led by an HR executive, and with a steering committee that always included senior line executives as well as the CFO and CIO which was chaired by the senior most HR executive. Hewlett-Packard, International Paper, Bank of America, ALCOA, Metropolitan Life, Reynolds Metals, and more proved to be really heroic clients. They were willing to work hard at drawing a line of sight from their needed business outcomes to the work of HRM and on to HR technology, and they were determined that their own teams would do the heavy lifting.
With my strategic planning methodology in hand, along with “starter kits” for all the relevant tasks (those same “starter kits” which grew into the IP that I began licensing in 1995), I became team coach, mentor, coxswain, deliverable reviewer (some still cringe at my red ink markups, and yes we still used physcial documents in those days), senior management explainer, and much more. I celebrated the team’s accomplishments and made up the difference when the team struggled. It was very satisfying personally to be a part of the team, especially when their recommendations were accepted and acted upon by senior management, perhaps because I had just come from nine years at AMS managing software development teams and management consulting practices. Many of those early client team leaders and members have remained valued colleagues; some became good friends. Lori Leonard, Emily Eason, Becky Everett, Jack Flynn are just some of the amazing executives with whom I worked; they educated me, shared my passion, and helped me hone my craft.
During those years, my biggest professional frustration was with the limitations of the then current HRM software. Integral, Tesseract, Genesys, InSci, M&D, MSA, Cyborg and many more Snowdens of Yesterday weren’t able to deliver all that we needed, especially around their unmodeled data designs and mired in the past assumptions about HRM. And they weren’t quick enough (as evidenced by their having faded from the scene by the mid- to late 80’s) to adopt the improved technology, then called cooperative computing before being popularized by PeopleSoft as client server.
In order to have a broader and deeper impact on our industry (no one ever said I lacked ambition), to improve more directly and profoundly the quality and capability of HRM software that was available to my corporate clients, I changed the mix of my consulting business in the mid- to late-90’s to spend time working directly with the software vendors and outsourcing providers. By then I had built up enough credibility through my work with some of their major prospects and customers for these vendors to take at least a small interest in my thinking about such truly foreign concepts as models-based systems analysis, rapid application development techniques, my preferred behaviors of applications architecture, and scenario-based requirements.
At first my work with these vendors was mostly intense and long-running, allowing me to be involved deeply in the design of some landmark HRM software. To the earliest of these projects I brought my IP as consulting aides, but later on, once I had begun to license my IP, these deeply involved consulting engagements were almost always with licensees of my HRM object model and architectural “starter kits.” There were a number of intense, next gen, vendor software projects in which I was able to become coach, mentor, coxswain, deliverable reviewer, senior management explainer, domain modeler, architectural advocate, and much more. On these projects, I celebrated the team’s accomplishments and made up the difference when the team struggled, and it was again very satisfying to be a part of the team when their recommendations were accepted and acted upon by senior management. I count among my most valued colleagues as well as close friends many of these next generation HRM software project team members, and I am the richer for the learning that each one of these projects brought me.
But something changed rather dramatically at the beginning of the new century. Because of the increasing vendor/provider interest in my work, I began taking on much more focused, short term, almost topic-specific engagements with many more end-users, vendors and HR outsourcing providers. HR technology implementation crisis interventions, HR technology selection process advice, strategic alignment failures and opportunities, vendor reference checks and vendor viability assessments were just some of the spot projects in which end-users engaged me as fewer and fewer of them wanted to or were able to do the heavy lifting needed to follow the Yellow Brick Road, let alone to implement the resulting recommendations, without a lot more consulting support than a solo could provide. Market segmentation, partnerships and alliances, product/service assessments, business strategy reviews, tell me everything you know about HRM software architecture or the competitive landscape in the fewest possible days — these and many more similar vendor/provider engagements came my way as my reputation grew. I tried hard to bring as much value as I could to even the most focused, short duration project, but I really felt the lack of continuity, of team membership, of seeing the results of collective hard work.
This explosion in the sheer number of clients/engagements brought a disproportionate increase in the overhead associated with scoping/proposing/contracting/travel planning/prework and post-work/executing/debriefing/invoicing/etc. for each of these small engagements, in sharp contrast to the lack of same when working with just a few major clients at a time. And this was happening at exactly the same time that there a corresponding explosion — which continues and escalates to this day — in the amount of information (general business, HRM and IT-related), vendors, influencers, conferences, etc. which I needed to track and/or about which I needed to know. By the end of this new century’s first decade, my work was beginning to feel like Chinese food, eat, eat, eat but I’m still hungry. Throw in a blog, more vendor-sponsored thought leadership speaking and writing engagements, Twitter, and you get the picture. Working my butt off, learning like mad, getting to know a ton of terrific industry thinkers, but not feeling that great satisfaction of being part of a team that’s bringing important changes to our neighborhood, to the intersection of HRM and IT.
So, like any good analyst, especially one facing her 65th birthday, and with the good fortune of having not needed to work for many years (in the face of a modest cost model and neurotic life-long saving), it was clearly time to develop a SWOT for my own professional life:
-
Strengths — I love my work, still feel pretty competent and have an amazing network of expert colleagues to help me stay that way, have built up the only IP (HRM domain model and architectural “starter kits”) of its kind which is in greater demand than ever as the whole industry moves to objects/SOA/Web services, models-based development and many of my preferred architectural behaviors, can always use more money for various philanthropic interests, value the comraderie of my HRM/IT neighborhood, think there’s still an awful lot of work needed to “clean up” that neighborhood and more (and here I should also mention that the thought of my giving him my full attention 24/7 brings a very wierd look to Ron’s face);
-
Weaknesses — I miss being part of a team, feel intellectually as well as physically drained (no matter how stimulated) after “slam, bam, thank you ma’m” consulting engagements, dislike the administrative burden of lots of short-term engagements, dislike the always on/always on top of everything/not enough time for deep thinking aspects of short-term engagements and similar;
-
Opportunities — There are important vendor/provider/consultancy initiatives underway that are driving in directions of interest to me and that are owned/championed by executives I trust and admire, more such opportunities than I could possibly address, major sea changes in our industry of which we’re in the middle right now whose outcomes will be very clear in a few years and to which I would like to contribute, and still unmet requests to license my IP along with the requisite training; and
-
Threats — How would I continue to stay broadly knowledgeable and visibly objective while working in an ongoing, quite strategic manner with fewer clients at any one time? How would I ensure that I don’t become unduly dependent on a small number of clients, thereby jeopardizing my industry observer/analyst role? How do I ensure that multiple, ongoing relationships achieve their desired results in an era of consolidating vendors, transient CEOs, and a whole host of things that go “bump in the night?”
It’s amazing what a little analysis will accomplish, and in this case the results are obvious — and so are my plans for Bloom & Wallace Release 2011.
Bottom Line — Bloom & Wallace Release 2011
For 2011 (and probably beyond), I plan to work with, at any one time, a small and select group of “strategic advisory” clients. I will continue to advocate broadly for best practices in our industry, using my blog, Twitter, and a range of public forums to do so, but I will concentrate my 2011 direct client work in relationships where there’s a shared commitment that goes beyond expertise on demand and where my contributions can make a durable difference. With respect to my IP, I’ll continue to provide licenses and training to selected licensees beginning in 1Q/2011; all 2010 slots have been taken. I intend to keep up a full schedule of vendor briefings/demos with me providing the type of intense feedback that many (most?) vendors appreciate. There’s no tougher assignment than bringing great HRM software (now almost entirely SaaS) and software-enabled HRM services to market successfully, and I want to encourage our vendors/outsourcing providers by continuing to educate their prospects/customers about the relevant business and technology issues and equipping them with “killer” scenarios (so a lot more blog posts for 2011) to look under the covers. I hated missing HR Tech this year when my very close friend’s son died so unexpectedly, so I’m already looking forward to seeing all of you next year in Vegas and have been practicing “Happy Days Are Here Again,” just in case.
The graphic illustrating this post comes from http://scbyrnereport.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/here-are-50-reasons-to-avoid-change/ but the original source is unknown. Updated 11/13/2010 — I now know the origins of this graphic, thanks to a comment from its owner, MP Bumsted, on this post when it appeared on www.enterpriseirregulars.com The graphic and its citation can be found at http://13c4.wordpress.com/2007/02/24/50-reasons-not-to-change/
Dennis Howlett
This is the first of what I suspect will be many posts for which the impetus is a question from a specific colleague, in this case Dennis Howlett. So as to give credit, or at least curiosity, where it’s due, this one’s for you.
Having seen me refer to (Dennis might say pimping) my latest post on Twitter, “Multi-tenancy: Tables Stakes For HRM In 2011,” and no doubt after reading every post and article I’ve written on the subject (all of which are posted on this blog site), he sent me a perfectly reasonable and very Dennis-like direct tweet: “Why do you keep banging on about MT? It doesn’t make sense unless there is something humungous I am missing.”
Well, if you’ve read any of Dennis’ work on ZDNet, AccMan or followed him on Twitter , you’d know that he’s a pretty smart guy with strong opinions. So, if after reading my complete works on the subject of multi-tenancy, I had somehow not made the business case to Dennis, shame on me. I immediately responded to his inquiry and, given his feedback, my response was useful. But the more I thought about it, I more I felt that, if my previous writings hadn’t made the business case for multi-tenancy to Dennis’ satisfaction, I had better take my latest response to his question and turn it into a post — and so I have.
This is what she wrote:
“There’s something humongous that you’re missing, at least as regards the HRM domain. First, there’s a ton of dynamic business rules/content/etc., including regulatory stuff as well as common/good practice stuff (e.g. competency models) that modern software abstracts to meta data and which needs to be shared across customers (so one instance of this meta data shared across tenants and inherited by each, with the appropriate geographies for regulatory stuff). The advantages in cost, reduction of errors, speed of updates, etc. from being able to do this type of inheritance is substantial and, hopefully, factors into what vendors charge or could charge their customers. Second, there are good opportunities for aggregating useful data across customers (i.e. across tenants), ranging from the type of crowdsourcing that helps vendors see what features are being used, where there are challenges using them, etc., all of which should help vendors invest their resources more wisely and fix issues before they are huge, to benchmarking (e.g. ADP’s labor market data) to creating pools of contractors or applicants shared across tenants (obviously with the permission of all involved parties). While both inheritance and aggregation across customers can be done in single tenant virtualized environments with a variety of add-ons, all those add-ons introduce complexity, cost, and points of failure. These are by no means the only reasons I feel so strongly about multi-tenancy, but it’s been a long day of meetings and travel — really three long days — and, to use your expression (which I love), I’m knackered. Happy to do a call on all of this if we can schedule for next week.”
There are so many reasons for multi-tenancy in a SaaS world that we should now be asking the question: why would you want to subscribe software from an HRM software vendor or run on a BPO platform that isn’t multi-tenant? There are a few reasonable answers to this question, but they don’t apply to the vast majority of us. But if you too have questioned my perspective on this, I hope that the above (plus the other materials on this blog site) has made the case.
Mere Table Stakes
With 2011 practically upon us — here at Bloom & Wallace, we’ve got 2011 laid out and a lot of our major time blocks for 2012 in process — it’s time to declare the do we or don’t we need multi-tenancy discussion over for HRM SaaS, with multi-tenancy the clear winner for both vendors and their customers. What was a true differentiator over the last few years, i.e. architectural multi-tenancy, is now merely table stakes in what has become a real poker game among across a landscape that has far too many HRM software vendors.
So how can these HRM software vendors differentiate themselves? Who will be the winners, the ones not just left standing but the momentum players in 2011 and beyond? No one, least of all me, has a crystal ball, but I think there are some very specific architectural capabilities that are strong clues to an HRM SaaS vendor’s prospects. These are the architectural capabilities (but by no means all of them) that have a huge impact in terms of the quality, usefulness, economics, time-to-market as well as marketing/sales/service costs for their software.
Needless perhaps to say, but all too common in practice, great software architecture does not win the day if management stumbles in many other important areas, from product management and marketing to sales, operations and customer support. And we do know that great management of all the other business processes can produce terrific financial results when customers are locked in and paying heavily for that lock-in. But I’m at heart a believer that HRM, where lies competitive advantage for any firm, deserves great software — others can offer advise on great marketing, great sales operations, etc.
So what are those clues? What are the architectural differentiators among HRM SaaS for the next few years? Great HRM SaaS architectures should already be focused beyond mere multi-tenancy and on:
- Elegant and extensive configuration capabilities, to include pre-release sandboxes, regression testing tools, plenty of configuration and feature guidance delivered through the software, and a heavy dose of user (i.e. manager, employee, non-employee worker, applicant, beneficiary, etc.) insight about the many places where not only the customer’s administrators but also those customers will want to/need to adapt the software to how they choose to work;
- Interrogatory provisioning and configuration,which takes prospects from their earliest interactions with the vendor right through their repeated implementation cycles as their selected vendor releases 2-3 or more significant releases each year along with the more frequent releases of regulatory and similar updates, has the potential for changing fundamentally the cost of sales, the elapsed time to revenue, and the underlying dynamics of the whole ecosystem of systems consultants for those HRM SaaS vendors whose underlying architectures lend themselves to dynamic configuration and whose business model sees the promise and is willing to invest in these capabilities;
- Extensive and easily set up cross-tenant and cross-geography inheritance of every type of embedded intelligence, from the obvious regulatory rules to those proprietary materials like competency models and dictionaries, salary surveys and compensation planning guidance, which result from the partnering of HRM consultancies which have built those proprietary materials with HRM SaaS vendors who can deliver that material as embedded intelligence throughout the relevant processes of their products;
- Models-based/definitional applications development, while very difficult to achieve because it requires considerable upfront investment in the necessary foundation tools (which cannot simply be bought to support the complexity of our domain’s requirements), offers such an enormous potential for improvement in the cost/time/quality metrics of bringing new functionality to market that this now bleeding edge approach to HRM SaaS may create just the edge needed for newer arrivals to blow past their more established competitors;
- Extensive and easily set up cross-tenant data aggregation for all manner of useful purposes, including operational improvements by the SaaS vendor and delivering valuable benchmarking data to their customers, with the concommitant updating of those SLAs to state very clearly any such expansions of the SaaS vendor’s role along with very visible opt-in/opt-out by type of aggregation;
- Systemic effective-dating (of not only the business data but also the meta-data that drives the applications, the customer’s and regulated business rules, embedded intelligence, applications and application foundations) along with fully automated retroactive and prospective processing is one of those really boring, only the geeks love discussing it, but essential foundations for HRM SaaS because there simply isn’t the patience or staff available to continue the manual work-arounds that plague the partial/inadequate automation of HRM.
I could go on, but I’m hoping that I’ve already made the point that there’s more to great HRM SaaS than meets the eye. You can tell by the links that I’ve been doing quite a bit of writing about these topics, and I plan to do more in 2011. What were once just Naomi’s interesting ideas are now at the heart of a number of newer or still incubating HRM SaaS products whose vendors have taken their own thinking in these areas way past “my little ideas” (a favorite phrase from Agatha Christie’s Hercule Poirot). I applaud their accomplishments and what’s still to come as our industry moves past the discussion of multi-tenancy (just as we moved past the discussion of client server) to much more important and durable differentiators.
It’s much easier to explore a product’s UX (user experience), functionality, commitment to mobile, social underpinnings, integration of functionality and data across multiple applications, actionable analytics and other more visible aspect of applications software than it is to probe deeply under the covers to see whether or not the best architectural foundations have been built, and built to last. But even if you’re only signing up for a few years of a particular vendor’s HRM SaaS products, you may want to do a very good job of assessing their likelihood of becoming/remaining a successful vendor before you sign up so that you’re looking forward to that SLA renewal when it comes. After all, it remains entirely possible to build great-looking but short-sighted, poorly architected, crummy object modeled but still multi-tenant SaaS software. So look as hard under the covers as you do at what’s more easily visible.
|
|