I have not been posting much lately as I have been working on a lot of things. Here is a preview of what is coming soon.
Hype Cycle for HCM Software -- This has been a major undertaking. Each dot (the technical term is Technology Profile) on the hype cycle is almost its own research note. It is in the home stretch though and I hope will be published in the next two weeks.
The SuccessFactors IPO -- Yes, I have noticed the filing. I have been working on a note (sorry, but I have to serve the paying customers first) providing Gartner's perspective on the impact of this event. For other perspectives, you may want to look here, here, and here. I will provide a link on the blog when it is published next week.
A Simple Taxonomy of Alternative Delivery Models -- I did a post awhile back discussing the difference between SaaS and other delivery models for business processes/applications. We are refining that approach and looking at other areas besides business processes/applications. This research is not HCM-specific, but a broad look across IT.
Different Views of Skills Management Tools -- I get a good number of calls from IT organizations wanting skills management tools. Different tools solve different problems. I am going to write a short note about this.
Different Approaches to Workforce Planning -- I have an inquiry coming up where a client is interested in what is available in the market for workforce planning. I am going to take that response and create a research note.
Another Workforce Analytics Case Study -- I have found a really good one and will be working on this soon.
MarketScope for Large Enterprise HRMS, 2007 -- This is an update to the note we published in 2004. I have been alternating between the Magic Quadrant for U.S. Midmarket HRMS (published last year) and this MarketScope. I am just getting started on this now (and am already running late).
Well, that is a lot when you put it in writing. I better get back to work.
"Now, I admit I have an old world view of leadership, but I believe that the CEO is responsible for everything that happens on his or her watch. To be sure, they reap the accolades when times are good, so they should be held accountable when things go wrong. And, I would say that a 96% failure rate for their HR function would rise to the definition of something going wrong, seriously wrong on their watch. To put it another way, I'd like to see a survey of those business CEOs and other executives who are willing to put their money where their opinions are. Instead of griping about HR and then investing a measly 0.9% of total operating costs-the U.S. norm for the last ten years-I'd like to see how many would sign up to invest 5%, 6% or more of their operating costs to fix their gripe. Frankly, I'm tired of CEOs' vapor capital approach to HR; all they invest is hot air. If they want a world class HR function, they're going to have to pay for it."
I think this is an extremely valid point. As much as HR organizations need to change their focus to be strategic contributors, C-level executives can be equally at fault. If C-level executives do not make the proper investments in a strategic HR capability, it will not emerge. It is that simple. However, HR can do its part to get the investment they need to be a strategic contributor.
See my post from earlier today. There is a lot senior HR leadership can do in a 100 days to start to convince C-level executives to make the investments. Do not be afraid to start small. Pick one particularly thorny business problem that is plaguing the C-level set and show them how you can help solve it in that first 100 days. Then, do it again and again. You get the picture. Once the track record for delivering business value exists, the investments will surely follow.
SystematicHR had a great post that critiqued a Mercer write-up about what a CHRO should do in the first 100 days on the job. For anyone thinking about how to make HR more strategic, both are a good read.
It started me thinking about why limit it to the first hundred days on the job. Many of the recommendations should be done every 100 days.
"Connect the goals of the HR function to the goals of the business. By starting with the broad business challenges and strategy, you’ll convey to senior executives that you understand the need to link workforce investments to business results."
A strategically-focused HR organizations should do this exercise every 100 days to make sure workforce investments continue to be linked to business priorities.
"Identify the greatest sources of pain for immediate attention and prioritize longer-term issues. While you won’t be able to address all of the organization’s workforce or HR issues in the first 100 days, you can identify the most critical ones, assess the available resources and develop a plan of action."
A strategically-focused HR organizations will use a portfolio management approach to assess the priorities of workforce investments at least every 100 days to make sure the right priorities are addressed.
"Build the case for change within the function and throughout the organization. The scope and magnitude of change will be different in each organization, but there’s no question that people will expect action – and business challenges will demand it."
Managing change is not a one-time event that just occurs in the first 100 days. It is an ongoing process that needs to be addressed well beyond the first 100 days. It is a good idea to take a checkpoint every 100 days and see if needed changes are really taking hold, and if not, what actions can be taken to move change forward.
Is your HR organization on this kind of 100 day plan? If not, should it be?