Category Archives: Strategic HR

The Social Network for Workforce Planning

Posted on by
Reply

Last week I had the opportunity (and honor) to emcee the SuccessFactors Workforce Planning Summit in London. Firstly, a note of thanks to all of our speakers who braved the inclement weather to make the event such a success – a room full of attendees spent the day furiously jotting down notes on how to make workforce planning a success in their own organizations.

I took away several really interesting points, including the selection of “value chains” (as opposed to the more formal “job families”) as the pilot segment for workforce planning – what a great way to tie forecasts to the value that the workforce provides!

Also of note; the concept of workforce planning networks – beyond stakeholders and champions, who else in the organization will be affected/influenced by workforce planning and what impact will it have?

The idea came to fruition when one of the presenters discussed how their organization’s affinity groups were positive role models in supporting the execution of the workforce planning process. In many cases, affinity groups wouldn’t be a primary audience for workforce planning communications, yet, in this organization, they were seen as very helpful in suggesting the appropriate next steps for workforce planning.

As such, the presentation got me thinking about a modified “social network” for workforce planning – as part of change management, explicitly identifying the broader network of individuals and groups that may be touched by workforce planning.

This might include affinity groups, project teams, data analysts, strategic planners, HIPOs, and staff in leadership development programs, for example. Each group may be affected by workforce planning in a different way – some more directly than others – but it is worth considering how they might play a role in your workforce planning process or in ongoing integration with other activities around the firm.

Tip of the Week: Change Management Practices that Drive Workforce Planning

Posted on by
Reply

Workforce planning is a strategic approach to developing human capital capabilities.  It is proactive, it is quantitative, and it requires the ability to translate future business requirements into future workforce requirements.  Therefore, in order to be successful, change needs to happen on two levels within an organization.  The first is within the HR function itself, including its mindset, activities, and people.  The second is within the management group as the conversations with HR business partners move beyond people-topics into business execution topics.

1. Change within HR:
The first thing to remember is that change doesn’t happen if you just ask nicely.  People must be motivated to change.  When you’re talking particular behaviors at work, this means rewriting job descriptions and changing evaluations and rewards.  There will also be training involved.  This is fairly comprehensive, so most organizations build the capability in what we call a Center of Excellence (CoE).

A CoE is a small set of employees with specific skill sets who enable workforce planning for the entire organization.  They run the analytics, ask the tough questions, and in the process, train HR business partners over time.  This allows an organization to look at job descriptions, performance criteria, and rewards for around 2-4 people rather than the entire HR community.

Having a software system in place enables the CoE to have a broad reach within the organization as it automates the analytical component, ensures consistency of definitions, consistency of process, and will enable the CoE to train the HR business partners much more quickly.

2. Change in interactions with business managers:
Often, the introduction of workforce planning is one of the first real strategic conversations business managers have with HR partners (this, of course, is not always the case – just a general observation).  While the conversation has previously been around the current state of people and meeting certain targets, it now shifts to a theoretical vision of the future and translating that vision into human capital requirements.

Some managers aren’t comfortable having this dialogue so it is critical that the HR representative has a solid understanding of the strategy, can push back when further clarification is needed, and can facilitate decision-making.  It is also important to maximize the use of management’s time to avoid unnecessary or redundant tasks.  This is the best and quickest way to have workforce planning branded as a business initiative rather than “another HR program”.

I have found a good method for opening the door to conversations with managers.  Approach the manager and say, “I’d like to speak with you about your long-range planning so I can understand the workforce requirements necessary to enable you to execute.”  After all, workforce planning should be a part of strategic planning, and at its essence it’s a risk audit that ensures you have the right people in place to execute on business strategy.

The key here is to establish a process that works with and on the business and is flexible enough to meet varying needs across the organization.  (SuccessFactors has established a methodology based on its 30+ years of practice that you can see below.)

My tip for a successful change management process:
Before you get started with workforce planning, stop and think about the change on each of the groups involved and what communications need to be in place to facilitate awareness and buy-in.  Concentrating on the foundational elements will pave the way for a successful process.

SuccessFactors Workforce Planning Methodology

SuccessFactors Workforce Planning Methodology

Business Execution Metrics – The Right Answer

Posted on by
Reply

In college, whenever my statistics professor was asked a direct question, he’d almost always answer “It depends”.  What’s a good R Square? “It depends”.  What’s the best measure of central tendency? Yup, “It depends”.  At first that answer drove me a bit crazy, though eventually I came to understand that it really was the right answer, in that statistical measures don’t exist in a vacuum.  One number or stat very rarely provides a complete answer, it usually only begs more questions.  Context is the key.

I was reminded of this when I was working with a client recently, developing a metrics scorecard for their organization.  We’d identified a number of metrics that we felt would be useful for the organization, the subsidiary of a larger parent company, to track.  We noticed, however, that some of the metrics were similar to metrics already being tracked by the parent company, though they were calculated a little bit differently.

“Should we just calculate the metrics for our scorecard using the same methodology as the parent company”, they asked?  Now it was my turn to play statistics professor.  “It depends”, I answered.  How were the numbers going to be used, both by the parent and the affiliate?  Was management going to be held accountable to specific targets, or were the measures being tracked to provide guidance and decision support to the organization’s leadership?  How important was it to be able to benchmark the results against other organizations? 

If there were different, and legitimate, differences in how the numbers would be used, there may be reason to calculate them differently.  I cautioned of course, that whenever you have two sets of numbers you need to be able to reconcile the two, and the onus to do so would undoubtedly fall on the affiliate, not the parent.  This obviously creates added complexity and risk of confusion.  Still, under some circumstances, it could be the right choice.

The example I gave for keeping two sets of numbers was around turnover.  This organization, like many, wrestled with whether or not to include certain types of terminations, like retirements, in their voluntary termination calculations.  Many managers argued that the retirement of their employees was something largely or entirely beyond their control (particularly true in countries or companies where there are mandatory ages set for retirement), and as such it should not be “counted against them”.  A debatable point to be sure, but certainly there are some terminations that even a good manager will have little power to prevent. 

However, when an organization is trying to monitor its workforce and plan for the future, it absolutely has to track all terminations, regardless of reason.  So the terminations of retirees, students returning to school, etc. absolutely need to be accounted for.

Again, the key here is identifying the purpose of the numbers – why are you tracking them in the first place?  If the aim is to assign accountability, you may calculate your metrics one way.  On the other hand, if you’re trying to understand the bigger picture for your organization, particularly if you want to  accurately benchmark yourself against other organizations, you might choose another calculation.  It’s all a matter of the broader context.

What’s the right answer?  “It depends”, of course.

Do we really want pay for performance?

Posted on by
3

A colleague recently commented that “the best companies have a pay for performance culture”.   While I generally agree with my friend, it did make me think about whether this statement is actually true.  After a good five minutes of intense thought, I’ve come to the conclusion that it is not exactly true.

A pay for performance culture is one where people receive monetary rewards based on the value they provide to the company.  The more value you provide, the more you are paid.   The assumption is people will provide more value if they are financially incented based on their contributions.   Another assumption is the company can accurately measure people’s performance contributions.

Adopting a pay for performance mindset, while generally a good idea, can over-simplify what business leaders truly want and what actually motivates employees.  To illustrate this, consider the following 4 pay for performance cultures in order of best to worst to somewhere in-between.

The best scenario:  performance without pay. Businesses don’t actually want to pay for performance.  What they ideally want is performance without having to pay.   But most employees are not willing to accept this proposition.  We rightfully expect to be paid for what we contribute.  Nevertheless, it is possible to inspire people to achieve high levels of performance without focusing on pay.  Volunteer organizations do this all the time.  There are a lot of things that motivate people.  The motivational value of pay varies depending on the type of job and employee, and business leaders who use pay as the sole tool for motivating employees risk adopting a very expensive and marginally effective leadership approach.

The worst scenario:   pay for poor performance. The worst case scenario for a business occurs when employees are rewarded for doing things that undermine company performance.  This occurs more often than companies would like to admit, particularly in companies whose managers have to comply with restrictive personnel policies, rules, and regulations.    Rewarding poor performance encourages counterproductive behavior and destroys the motivation of high performers.  High performers dislike it when they do not receive any sense of recognition or rewards for their contributions.  But they hate it when they see rewards going to poorer performing colleagues.

A lousy scenario:  performance only for pay. One of the problems with creating a direct link between pay and performance is some people will never feel they are getting paid enough.   No matter how much pay these people receive for doing something, over time they always seem to want more.  Payouts can quickly switch from being a reward to being an expectation.  Today’s financial bonus is tomorrow’s entitlement.  Once this happens, pay ceases to be a motivator and becomes a source of dissatisfaction.

The pragmatic scenario:  performance influences but does not completely determine pay. Research on productivity, fairness, and motivation indicates that there should be a positive relationship between how much people are paid and how much they contribute to the company.  But the relationship between pay and performance does not need to be perfect to be effective.  Many things influence pay levels beyond individual performance (e.g., overall company financials).   Conversely, pay is only one of many things that influence performance.  Companies should create a link between performance and pay, but should not overemphasize pay as the only reason why employees should seek to perform at higher levels.

Establishing links between pay and performance does tend to increase productivity.    But it is not just the promise of pay that drives the productivity.  When you link pay to performance, employees and managers get much more serious around defining what they mean by “performance”.   And clearly defining performance expectations drives all kinds of benefits for increasing workforce productivity, regardless of pay levels.

HR Executives Do It Better

Posted on by
1

The “it” I’m referring to here is recruiting. Last week, an HR Collaboration track made its debut at the Enterprise 2.0 conference in Santa Clara, California.  This was the first time Human Resources was singled out at the conference, born out of the need for better alignment between Enterprise 2.0 and specific business objectives.

The conference chose to go much deeper into the topic of “people and culture” because HR leaders are so well positioned to initiate sweeping change across a business. The keynote panel on the morning of day one kicked off the new track and covered multiple issues that keep HR professionals awake at night.  Three senior level HR executives from customer organizations were on the panel as well as Oliver Marks and moderator Bill McNee.

Each of the panelists is making Enterprise 2.0 real in their companies by using collaborative technologies to recruit and retain employees.  Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH) was one such customer on the panel.  They are a 180 year-old publishing and education company with a globally dispersed workforce.  The challenge they’re facing is one where they have to bring social to business in order to appeal to the way their customers, and employees, expect to communicate and get work done.

Two recommendations to keynote attendees looking to bring social collaboration into their business from Ciara Smyth, EVP and Chief Human Resources Officer for HMH were:

1) Start viral.

2) Trust your employees.

For companies looking to survive in a 2.0 world, business is now dependent on how quickly they can innovate new products and speak to a younger, tech-savvy audience. Being able to keep up with an iPad wielding, platform agnostic customer base is critical as business leaders seek to remain competitive in industries that have traditionally been slow to adapt to change. Are there any industries older than Facebook and Twitter NOT facing the same pressure?

The video from the Human Resources Meets Enterprise 2.0 and the Cloud panel can be found on the Enterprise 2.0 Conference website at http://tv.e2conf.com/ (you’ll need to register to view the videos).

2010: The Year that Planning and Analytics Caught On

Posted on by
2

Like many professionals who try to balance daily work demands with awareness of industry and practice trends and innovations, this year I’ve attended and/or presented at my fair share of conferences, workshops, and trade shows.   Playing varied roles in these trade events in 2010 has led me to develop some strong feelings about where Strategic Workforce Planning and Analytics are going. 

The economy is turning, and with it, investments in HR and WF Analytics and Planning.  Conferences are better attended compared to the past couple of years, which my highly tuned analytics skills tell me is a good trend.  But the bigger picture is that IT budget purse strings are being loosened, and in ways that free up internal resources:  http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20101004-704380.html.   HR and workforce investments can now help HR professionals to focus on what has admittedly been a niche-y area within HR.  Workforce planning and analytics skills and practices are growing in demand, even ahead of any unanimously recognized economic recovery (almost there…where are the jobs?!?).

Workforce Planning and Analytics create business value and bolster business strategy.  Given the titles of presentations, the conversations between conference delegates, and the overall language coming from HR and non-HR professionals, HR is clearly more focused on strategic, operational, and financial business outcomes.  I attribute much of this to workforce analytics and planning; now, not only is HR gaining support in this space in terms of investment, it is also strengthening its credibility and strategic impact on the business it serves.  

Firms’ Analytics and Planning capabilities can mature quickly.  What we have historically seen as evolutions in organizations’ HR capabilities in these areas, sometimes taking years, is no longer necessarily the norm.  Comcast is one example of a company presenting their story of accelerating the pace of change, “getting good at” workforce reporting/analytics and driving impactful results quickly.   A common theme: the critical success factor is engagement and support from business executives, as well as strong leadership of the function. 

The Foundation is set for Strategic Workforce Planning.  It has commonly been a relatively linear process for HR to 1) get some data, 2) make sure it’s clean, 3) look at the history, 4) understand why things happen and 5) begin to get predictive with that knowledge.  After that, it would take a while to then 6) look ahead and model workforce availability against business need.  Practically speaking, HR went through a long process, taking several years, to get to workforce planning:  obtaining data and cleaning it up, focusing on reporting quality, then start and grow analytics improvements, before beginning workforce planning.  

However, I’m seeing more companies turn that maturity model on its head.  The practice of strategic workforce planning is becoming both more foundational and more sophisticated.  I have heard several stories from people who have successfully practiced workforce planning on Excel files, using a pilot approach that is less dependent on rock-solid systems and data and more reliant on strong capabilities, relationships, and organizational readiness.  Some firms even have what they consider beginner-level reporting and analytics with pretty advanced workforce planning processes.  This means to me that 1) while great analytics capability absolutely strengthens workforce planning, it’s not a requirement to get started, making inertia less of a risk to workforce planning than ever before. 

Client/vendor services and relationships are of critical importance in Analytics and Planning.   My company, SuccessFactors, provides workforce analytics and planning software as a service  – “in the cloud.”   In addition to our industry-leading workforce planning and analytics experience and expertise, we also deliver real empathy and familial commiseration to our clients.  I frequently hear of newcomers’ admiration of that genuine care – they want us to put them on cloud nine, too.   And SuccessFactors is investing significantly to emphasize these areas even more to enable us to grow while driving our clients’ success.   All of these lead me to believe that, while having bulletproof, ever-more innovative products is paramount, we’re powerfully differentiating ourselves in how we take care of our “members.”   We are on their team, we don’t succeed if they don’t succeed; and their knowledge of our commitment will bring long-term success for both sides of the relationship.

HR 2.0 or 1.0 – how’s your version of HR paying off?

Posted on by
2

Perhaps my search was not “optimized” but what I found under “Strategic HR”, “HR 2.0”, and “HR Blog” was disappointing. Why aren’t more HR professionals and experts talking about how HR can make the difference between average company performance and stellar performance? Studies prove that when companies treat the HR function as strategic (and don’t just pay lip service) and put systems in place to efficiently capture, measure and present information for analysis about the workforce, they outperform.

A study of 157 companies utilizing SuccessFactors for strategy execution (not just to optimize a process) found users of the solutions experienced average revenue growth of 15.4% over a 12 month period (compared to an average industry growth of 10.6%).

Sure, some of this was due to efficiency gains around a process (short-term). But the key was the ability to get better execution from the workforce through strategy alignment and clear identification of top performers. Top performers in a company are shown to be 3x more productive so why aren’t we focused on attracting, developing and retaining top performers instead of “streamlining transaction times” and “reducing manual transaction” – isn’t that HR 1.0?

Small and medium sized businesses stand to benefit the most by focusing on their workforce because they are growing and expanding at a higher rate than large businesses and have greater demand for skilled workers. Milan P. Yager, NAPEO executive vice president says that if small business loses even one seasoned knowledge worker it affects them competitively. He says that “these business owners want to ensure that seasoned workers convey their knowledge, or even continue working longer if possible.”

Yet, 90% of the companies I speak with claim their reason for evaluating a system is “the current process is cumbersome, people don’t like doing it, too much time is being spent, it is one of the last processes left to automate”.  Really?  Is that strategic?  Do you want a seat at the executive table? Then how about putting a system in place to help you analyze how well your hires perform, the characteristics of a top performer and who is the best person for a project or new role? On average the cost of a bad hire is equal to the annual salary of that employee. The cost of losing a top performer is at least 1.5x that employee’s salary.

Close to 24 months ago when the economy was in free fall, a top 3 management consulting company surveyed over 500 companies to find out if the SuccessFactors Business Execution software had made an actual business impact or whether the software was purely delivering a cost savings from bringing HR processes online. The business impact turned out to be very real because the right information was captured and visible for making strategic workforce decisions. A 40% increase in time spent on strategic priorities doesn’t come from completing reviews on time. A 67% increase in project completion is the result of understanding your talent and putting the right talent on the right projects. Check out the study for your self – http://www.successfactors.com/docs/sf_guide_MovingMountains_r5.pdf .

Those of you in human resources who are taking a strategic approach to your human capital are more than likely awarded more funding from your executives. Those focused on performing reviews annually online and trying to reduce costs by automating a process are most likely watching your budgets dwindle faster than the cost savings you are trying to produce. Come on – think strategically. Enough said!

How many Souls Have Left the Building? A Conversation on Employee Engagement.

Posted on by
Reply

EmpEngCover iiI recently had the opportunity to sit down with Brad Federman, author of a new book on Employee Engagement (unambiguously) titled, “Employee Engagement.”     http://theengagementfactor.wordpress.com

I wanted to get his opinion on all things Engagement – What is it?  Why don’t companies understand it? What can they do about it?  He offered some great insight, even better sound bites, and a compelling argument as to why this is THE business challenge the will separate the winners from the losers during the economic recovery.

Seven questions and answers that will be sure to lead your organization to Engagement bliss, or simply scare you to death.   One thing is for sure, if your company wants better execution, then your organization better address the engagement issue now or it will address your organization later.

Take a look and let us know what you think.  I’ll make sure Brad responds to any questions that you may have.

Many books have been written about the topic of Employee Engagement.  What makes this one different?

(Answer) First, most books on Engagement tackle a piece of the subject, but do not take a holistic view providing the reader with a less than realistic view of what engagement really is.  It would be the equivalent of educating someone on small business loans and giving them the impression that they understand everything there is to know about the economy.  Second, this is not an HR book.  This is a business book for managers, leaders, and executives who want to grow their organization regardless of their function. 

Why do you think so many companies still have a problem grasping this concept?

(Answer) The entire economy has been turned upside down, the employer-employee relationship has been turned on its head, a generational shift is occurring in the workplace, technology has dramatically altered how we communicate and perceive one another, yet most of our tools, structures and research we use as well as the habits we live by come from the 80’s and 90’s.  We have yet to catch up to our current reality.  Some don’t recognize the changes, others hope things return to what they coin “normal”, and many that recognize and grasp our new reality struggle with how to act on it.

World at Work recently released a study stating that Engagement has decreased 9% worldwide and 20+% among high-performers.   Did this surprise you?   What do you think the implications are for companies trying to navigate what appears to be a slow moving economic recovery?

(Answer) No it does not surprise me about this study.  The implications are simple and straightforward.  Those that focus on engagement now will recover faster and stronger than those that do not.  Many organizations are still healthy because they never lost sight of engagement during this difficult period.  When the economy does recover, the floodgates will open at certain organizations and they will lose their intellectual capital.  But that is not the scariest part.  The scariest aspect is that that there are companies right now that do not realize the bad shape they are in with their business. They blame their ills on the economy.   My question for those organizations is…You may have the bodies, but how many souls have left the building?  Without spirit they don’t have a business. 

What do you consider the top three reasons for decreased engagement?

(Answer) Fear, Control, and Self Interest starting with senior leadership then cascading down from there.  The ingredients that create strong, productive relationships are also the same ingredients that create healthy, dynamic organizations – Trust, Transparency, Authenticity, Ownership (accountability), Creativity and Resourcefulness.  Unfortunately difficult circumstances cause many organizations, specifically senior leadership, to neglect what is important.  During difficult economic times people tend to act or make decisions based on fear, concerns, or anxiety.  All of us have fears, concerns, and anxiety but if we are able to admit when we are falling prey to them and work through those issues with others then we are able to make healthier decisions.  When stress and fear take over we look at the world in exclusive terms and in limiting ways.  We become focused on mitigating risk and lose sight of opportunity.  We decide to put in a number of controls to create predictability and political jockeying goes into overdrive because everyone wants to keep their job.  These types of behaviors not only spread and change the culture of an organization, but they hamstring the very people who can help us survive these challenges and come out of the other end.  Stress and fear can either be our jailor or our counselor.  It is our choice.  Too many leadership teams during downturns like this one choose, consciously or unconsciously, the jailor and then rationalize it to make themselves feel comfortable.

Many CEO’s still view Engagement as Soft and HR-ish.   Assuming one of them gave you 30 seconds to convince him/her that this is important, what would you say?

(Answer) First of all I would love to have more CEO’s give me 30 seconds.  Any takers?  More importantly, I would like to see a CEO convince me that it is not important.  But since you are asking the questions, here it goes…I would ask them “What factor(s) is most paramount to their success? “  Is the answer is product innovation, sales, service. My next question is going to be “How do your people impact service, sales, product innovation?” Then I would ask them “Why it is acceptable to only 11-24% of their employees proactively helping the organization toward that goal?”  Last I would ask them “What do they think the impact is?”  Seriously, we would not settle for a manufacturing plant at 70% capacity, so why would we settle with our people.   We shouldn’t. We should invest in them.  

Can you share a success story from a company that has made significant improvements in Engagement and the business impact of doing so?

(Answer) We worked with a high tech firm.  They were using a home grown survey that had too many questions, was not tied to research, and was not adding any value.  The survey was seen mainly as an HR activity.  They decided to make a change and they went with our survey the Engagement Index.  The first year that we worked with them the feedback illustrated very low levels of Engagement.  We were very clear with them about which issues were needed to be resolved in order to get an ROI from this process.  We also helped them with follow up, focus groups, and action planning.  Leadership was seen as a large portion of the issue.  There was a real lack of trust in their senior leadership.  First came a bit of shock, then regret, and then the excuses.  We helped them process the feedback and they came to the realization that not only did the organization have to make changes, but their leadership had to as well.  We have worked with them for four years now and their engagement levels have significantly improved.  There leadership is now trusted, and people believe in the mission and direction of the company.  Many employees shifted from being angry, complaining, sabotage – to pulling for the company even during difficult times.  Financials had been going south, but one year into our efforts they were able to create an 11M positive shift in profit and the engagement numbers and financial numbers have continued to go in the right direction.  They have taken the shackles off of their employee’s hands, allowed them to get back to work, and work passionately together along the way.  

Shameless Plug Time – Say anything you want here to convince readers as to why they should purchase this book.

(Answer) This is a book about business, but more importantly, it is a book about life.  The book will help you improve your relationships, team, division, organization, or strengthen customer relationships.  Any professional, manager, or executive would benefit from this read, but don’t take my word for it.  Here is what others have said:

“This will be the definitive book on employee engagement for years to come.”

“I know this sounds crazy, but this book has more to do with navigating life than improving employee loyalty, etc. I was surprised at how much I gleaned from this “business” book.”

“If you read one book on Engagement, make it this one!”

“Thoughtful. Brilliant. A genie in a bottle!”

“It will give you insight into the language and concerns of the decision-makers.”

Strategy Definition or Strategy Execution…

Posted on by
2

Which is more important?   It’s a bit of a chicken vs. egg argument, but it’s fair to say that both are critical to driving positive financial results.   Put it this way, if defining strategy explains 15% of a company’s financial performance then 85% must be explained by the execution of the strategy.  You can’t separate the two, but given those percentages it’s also fair to say that execution is  a much harder task. The more you study this the clearer the evidence becomes.

What do the greatest companies all have in common?  You got it — the ability to focus their organization on strategy execution by ensuring that each individual is working (i.e., executing) on goals that matter to the organization.  What type of goals “matter?”  Put simply, only the ones that have a direct line back to the Strategy sitting in a binder on the CEO’s bookshelf.

We’re just researching what impact we have on our customer’s ability to communicate strategy and execute new directions faster. The early results are very intriguing and positive – and we promise to share them when we finalize our research.   The timing is also significant as the economy has forced companies to be agile and demands that companies be able to shift their strategy (and subsequent execution) at a much more rapid pace than in a bull market.

The thing that struck me when doing some desktop research was that even though we know that 85% of performance is due to execution, the amount of content available is unbelievably skewed towards strategy — a simple web search on “Business Strategy” returns 3X more hits than “Business Execution”  (80M hits vs. 24M hits).   The term strategy execution returns only 3.5M hits.

The good news is that the “worm is turning.”   Execution is the topic du jour – maybe it’s the economy, maybe it’s just the natural evolution of business.   Regardless, you can put us squarely on the “Business Execution” team, and we’re looking forward to sharing our results soon.

After all, Execution is the name of the game to drive financial results

Make it Simple, Fun and Relevant – Part 1

Posted on by
Reply

Often when meeting with customers and prospects I get the question: how do we make SuccessFactors so easy to use for managers and employees across the world? The question always arises from HR pros when I explain that we don’t build SuccessFactors for them, but rather for busy managers and individual contributors around the world. Fail to make it easy to use and no one will use it. Simple. No usage means no transactions, which means no strategic data. This leaves managers and executives in the dark when it comes to making decisions around the biggest cost to businesses today – people.

No one can afford to be blind sighted when it comes to their people. Now more than ever, with so much need for restructuring and resizing, this is critical. Our approach to designing the SuccessFactors Suite simply has to be different from “design for super users,” those who use the same tools day in and day out. It doesn’t matter much though if it’s hard to use, if users spend all their time figuring it out.

I decided to ask one of our User Interface leaders how we actually make it so easy and rewarding for people to use SuccessFactors. User Experience Manager Andrew Wong was pleased to share this with us. There are three pillars to the SuccessFactors approach to design:

  1. User Involvement – Over the years, SuccessFactors has conducted volumes of research, including usability testing, focus groups, site visits, customer interviews, surveys, and usage data analysis. We talk to companies of all sizes, customers and non-customers alike. We also talk with end users — the managers and employees who use our product — not only HR professionals, whose challenges are often different than the everyday challenges that our end users face. You can often find us performing usability testing at trade shows and at our annual SuccessConnect user conference.
  2. Innovation – We value the creative process and innovation, and we believe that innovation is what significantly differentiates SuccessFactors from products that stick to a more conventional approach. We constantly challenge ourselves to solve problems better than how they’ve been solved before, and we do not settle for “me-too.” Our NEXTlabs™ is a testament to our commitment to innovation. “New” and “exciting” are never words we avoid in our thinking. We lead with ideas, and we embrace change.
  3. Corporate values – Another way we differentiate ourselves is by designing in a manner consistent with our founding principles: measurable customer success and delight, superior excellence, and constant improvement (Kaizen!). We also align our goals throughout the company and enforce our Rules of Engagement (including our “no jerks” rule) to ensure that we are all working well together, with nothing but our customers’ best interests at heart.

Our latest product, Stack Ranker, features many user-friendly design elements – it is visually appealing, easy to use, provides all the relevant information a manager requires at a glance, and strives for simplicity (see the screenshot). The Stack Rank appears clearly and cleanly on the right-hand side of screen. Easy-to-understand results will drive usage.

Our design pillars form the foundation of our truly User-Centered Design approach to building fun and easy to use software. Next week Andrew will share with us the 8 principles that drive our success in user interface design. We want our customers to get the most value out of their investment – creating a great user experience helps us to ensure that the system is used so customers will have a rich source of data from which to make their most important people-related decisions.