links for 2008-05-13
-
Interesting take on the desirability of using Web 2.0 in HR.
-
A lot of good discussion in this thread about HRO.
For those who may not have seen, here are links to find the latest on the lawsuit from the vendors.
Here is commentary from various sources about the lawsuit:
Dirty Fighting Hits the Tech Market
Truth, Lies and Vendor Mudslinging - SuccessFactors Sues Softscape
I often get a chuckle out of articles discussing SaaS. Most people, outside of the HCM world, think about SaaS in the context of Salesforce.com. It has certainly had a lot of success, but it has also spawned a lot of stereotypes like:
I have been doing a lot of briefings for the "Magic Quadrant for E-Recruitment Software" update. One of the things that has stood out to me is the lack of innovation (for the most part) around reporting and analytics. Most vendors have three components to their reporting/analytics offering:
The challenge with the offerings is that it puts the onus on the user to find the information that they truly need. A user has to go into the list of standard reports and find which one will answer the question. If that does not work, then they need to create a new one in the ad-hoc reporting tool. Similarly, if a user is lucky, a dashboard will provide the information that they need to answer a question (or the ability drill-down into metrics will provide the information).
Given what we have learned from the world of search, why does it still work this way? Why can't a user just enter a question and have the system suggest which reports, graphics, or dashboards would best answer the question? I am not suggesting Natural Language Processing (NLP). I am thinking about an approach akin to a Google search. Google does not provide "the answer". It provides links to what it thinks best matches what the user asked for. The user can navigate the suggestions and choose which one will work best. It can work the same way for reporting. Even if the "best fit" report suggested does not quite provide the answer, at least it provides the starting point for using the ad-hoc reporting tool to answer the question.
An HCM application also provides context for the search. So, if I am a hiring manager and I am creating a requisition, then there may be a set of common questions that the system could suggest (e.g., what are the characteristics of high performers in this position? what is the market rate of pay for this position relative to our budget?). If you ask a vendor during a demonstration, "How long does it typically take to fill a requisition for this position?". They can easily navigate to the "Time to Fill" report and then drill down into the specific position data. They should be able to do it -- they are experts on how to use the reporting tools. You can get training so you can do it too, but why should you? Since the vendor knows the best way to answer the question, why not build that intelligence into the system (and have the system learn as users choose which reports best answer specific questions)? If I ask the same question multiple times, then maybe the system can save the question and the report I typically use to answer the question as a "favorite".
In this age of Web 2.0, there is a lot of focus on improving the user experience. In reporting, it has focused on providing more graphical views of information and drill-down. What do you think? Are vendors doing enough to provide users the information they need to make decisions and take appropriate actions?