« links for 2008-01-30 | Main | SaaS is a Delivery Model, Not a Market »


Naomi Bloom

Jim, excellent thoughts here. And applicable across the HRM domain's technology-enablement. I would add to this the type of active reports that we're seeing with Meta4 and Workday (examples only -- no endorsement intended) as well as the type of embedded intelligence that deduces what further information, however presented, would be helpful to the user because of what they are trying to do, e.g. providing a comparison of hospital outcomes to someone during open enrollment who is trying to decide between two HMOs for which they are otherwise eligible. Naomi

Peter Brasket

Jim - looming behind the reporting issue is the actual tracking problem -- how many enterprises can actually auto-tag applicants by source, and thus do cost-per-hire analysis by their talent sources (individual job boards, SEM, SEO, etc.)?

To earn "completeness of vision" status I'd suggest the ATS-component of an HCM offering must provide clients the ability to auto-tag applicants by both primary source (i.e. Careerbulder) and preferably by secondary source (i.e. Google, along with the initial search string).

Provide better reporting, but auto-track the important stuff.

Ronald Kreugel

Good thoughts and certainly valid arguments. I hope that technology providers will include more Web2.0 functionality and improve usability of their systems. This will lead to more user acceptance and improvement is always good.

At the end it will be a question of cost to build in that extra functionality and the ROI for the users investing in the technology. Most providers already deliver standard reports based on best practices and FARC (=frequently asked report criteria).

Peronally I believe in a (limited) number of standard reports for basic users and leave customized and ad-hoc reporting up to a super user or reporting specialist. The reporting specialist will be more effective to find results quickly as he/she will make reports regularly, whereas basic users will do it more ad-hoc.

A search on Google can be simple and quick if you use the "I'm feeling lucky"-button and know exactly what you are looking for. Not all users have the experience or skill to define the best or most accurate search criteria. This might influence the search results and eventually lead to comparing apples and oranges.


Great comments from everyone. This problem exists primarily because HR doesn't know what to measure and the data is so dispersed. As an example, the real question on evaluating staffing sources is which ones identify the best employees - measured by time to productivity, new hire turnover, 3 year performance averages, average LOS, % that are identified as high potentials, etc - in the short and long run, and then look at the cost and time elements and work effectively with your best sources to drive time and cost down. No one can do this analysis because the data relative to the hiring proces and new hire/employee quality are not integrated. Until HR leaders realize that their ERP/HRMS applications and their talent management applications cannot drive true talent measurement they will never have insight into the business impacts of talent management and workforce productivity. They need an independant platform with strong content, where people-related data and nonHR KPIs are integrated and real decision support information is pushed out to HR and line users. They can do this with installed products or ASP/OnDemand. And they need to so this now.

Scott A. LaFata

Jim, my cut on it is that as companies morph their recruiting and hiring practices away from the standard resume submission online - and may I add - 1990's style technology (Meta4, PeopleSoft and Oracle) based talent management systems looking for keywords and resume details - and look for more advanced means to recruit, train, and mentor - and look at true talent and other human traits such as "workstyle" as qualification - more of our clients look to very customized use of BI away from current vendor capability for their needs. One must wonder if artificial intelligence based on exponential factors would be a superior means to " B.I. - defined factors without learning" in the coming years.

Amit Avasthi

Jim, i think you have a very valid point. It would be really nice to reform reporting. I linked your post to my post here (http://amitavasthi.blogspot.com/2008/04/i-got-interested-in-this-very-nicely.html) and looked at it from the customer side. Would look forward to your comments.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    My Bookmarks