Leveraging Human Capital in a Shared Services Environment
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Leveraging Human Capital in a Shared Services Environment

on

  • 849 views

Karla Timmons presents how the U.S. Department of the Treasurey leverages their human capital

Karla Timmons presents how the U.S. Department of the Treasurey leverages their human capital

Statistics

Views

Total Views
849
Views on SlideShare
849
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Leveraging Human Capital in a Shared Services Environment Leveraging Human Capital in a Shared Services Environment Presentation Transcript

    • Leveraging Human Capital in a Shared Services EnvironmentKarla TimmonsSenior Advisor – HR ConnectU.S. Department of the TreasuryOffice of the Chief Information OfficerHR Connect Program Officekarla.timmons@do.treas.gov 1
    • Session ObjectivesHR Metrics case study at U.S. Treasury HR LoB Mission and goals Direction and guiding principles Lessons learnedMetrics as an enabler for HR TransformationShare insight on how government is changing
    • About Treasury Mission: “Serve the American people and strengthen national security by managing the U.S. Government’s finances effectively, promoting economic growth and stability and ensuring the safety, soundness and security of U.S. and international financial systems.” – Strategic Plan FY 2007-2012 One of the for original departments of government established by the First Session of Congress in 1789 12 major components – Departmental Offices and 11 operating bureausBureau of Public Debt Financial Management ServiceInternal Revenue Service Office of Comptroller of the CurrencyOffice of Thrift Supervision Bureau of Engraving & PrintingU.S. Mint Alcohol & Tobacco Tax & Trade BureauFinancial Crimes Office of the Inspector GeneralEnforcement NetworkTreasury Inspector Generalfor Tax Administration
    • HR LoB Provider of ChoiceTreasury is one of nine OPM-approved (5 Federal, 4Private) HR LoB Shared Service Centers (SSC) Competitive marketplace environment Mixed Life Cycle (Development and Maintenance)Executive Sponsor Chief Human Capital Officer for TreasuryEnables Human Capital operational and strategic needsfor: All of Treasury Department of Justice - Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms Department of Homeland Security - US Secret Service Department of Housing and Urban DevelopmentMajor Partners Public and Private sectorServes the human resources needs of 145,139 employees
    • What Is An HRLoB Shared ServiceCenter (SSC) and Why Use it?Central point delivering products and services supporting the humanresources life cycle end-to-end processFederalized HR products and services for Human Capital Strategy Organization and Position Management Staff Acquisition Employee Development and Performance Management Compensation Management HR Development Employee and Labor Relations Separation ManagementGovernance structureCertified by Office of Personnel Management (OPM)Transforms delivery of HR services providing enterprise-wide efficienciesBusiness intelligence Human Capital strategy and accountability Meaningful performance metrics to illuminate past performance Decision support to guide future management actions and HR policy
    • Treasury’s HR LoB Shared Service Center Products and ServicesFeature rich offerings include these products and services: Personnel Action (PAR) Processing Awards Administration Self-service for Employees and Managers Mass Processing Employee Relations Separation/Clearance Management Configurable Workflow for Managers and HR Drug Test Tracking Organization Change Management Employee Relations Business Analysis Labor Relations Position Management Workers’ Compensation Position Description Library Manage and Tracking HR Initiatives Position Classification Help Desk Support Staffing Acquisition and Recruitment FAIR Act Reporting Competency Management Business Intelligence – Workforce Analytics Performance Management Report Generation Pay and Leave Administration Easy-to-Use User Interface Employee Benefits Repository for Employment and Payroll Data Benefits Administration and Benefits Interfaces to agency systems Counseling Personnel Security Time and Attendance System Security Payroll Processing
    • Requirements for Performance Measures and AccountabilityThe Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) 1993 Report performance goals in quantifiable, measurable form Establish performance indicators for each program activityThe President’s Management Agenda (PMA) eGovernment Human Capital InitiativesHuman Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework Strategic Alignment Leadership & Knowledge Management Talent management Performance culture AccountabilityHR Line of Business Performance Model Management of Government Resources (Strategic Objective) Specific Measurement Groupings
    • CHCO Human Capital Strategic GoalsAttract Talent – recruit high quality and diverseworkforceDevelop Talent – meet current and futureorganizational needs by closing skill gapsRetain Talent – keep skilled and dedicatedemployees by creating career opportunitiesTransform the Human Capital Occupation –move the Human Capital professional to aconsultative/strategic partner role
    • Treasury Journey toHuman Capital Business Intelligence 9
    • Our ChallengeLegacy ‘Reporting’ capability a set of disparatesystems Excel, reporting modules of various systems, mainframe tools, custom applications Reports required extensive ‘handcrafting’ and human heroics to deliver What constitutes a report was ambiguous Data on reports was confusing and often misunderstoodAll of this creates frustration for customers andthe reporting teamTeam set out to identify a better option
    • Our Guiding Principles for New SolutionSelf Service Orientation – Empower HR ProfessionalsDynamic Reports – real timeCarefully designed portal to optimize use of the internetEasy-to-use for HR customersAffordable long termSecureIntegrated into enterprise architectureEliminate duplicative report creation – across entirecustomer baseClose down legacy systemsLeverage investment in HR Connect
    • Establish Position on BI Business Intelligence Enabling sound business decision making to support Human Capital/Talent Management initiatives. Reporting Metrics Analytics Data Information Knowledge Low High Transformation Business Intelligence grows rapidly beyond HR to encompass many enterprise systems.
    • Business Intelligence Architecture Future Systems Mainframe PeopleSoft (Learning, Payroll Onboarding, HRMS v8.8 System Recruiting, etc.) Data Aggregation Extract, Transform, Load Microsoft SQL Server 2005 and Analysis Services Microsoft SQL 2005 Reporting Services
    • Workforce Analytics Functionality andFeaturesAccess to HR Connect and Payroll Tabular DesignData Fields Current Workforce StatisticsDynamic Reports on history and Historical Statisticscurrent pay period Ad-Hoc Query w/historyParameterized Reports Planning and Forecasting Enhanced Self Service for the Performance Measures novice HR business analyst On-line Help Drop Down Boxes Web forms for requesting reportsRobust ad-hoc query for the HR on lineSuper User report writer Process map for Tier 1 and Tier 2 Drag & Drop, Filters, Formulas Reporting Reduces writing Code Data DictionariesSubscription (automated generation Embedded in Reportand email delivery) On-line Help TabShared Library Report Descriptions Eliminates duplicative report Read More Links creation Snap ShotDrill DownDrill Through
    • Welcome to Workforce AnalyticsThis easy-to-use reporting application has been designed to provide Human Capital business intelligence anddecision support in addition to quick hit statistics and demographics on the workforce. Information provided isbased on workforce data as of pay period 08 ending 4/28/2008. This site viewed using IE 5.5 or higher. Contact Webmaster | Updated July 12, 2007
    • Model Performance Measures HCAAF HR LoB Performance Model• SES Performance/Organizational Performance Relationship Metrics • Organization and Position Management – Re-direction of HR to Front Line Mission Critical Occupations• Quality of Hires • Staff Acquisition – Quality of Hires• Comparison of Total Compensation and Employee Ratings • Performance Management – Attrition Rates by Performance• Employees in Mission Critical Occupations At or Above Rating Full Working Level • Compensation Management – Comparison of Total• Attrition Rates of those receiving the highest attainable rating Compensation and Employee Ratings compared to others • Separations Management – Separation Trends – Minimize• Treasury Workforce by Race, Nationality and Origin (RNO) Non-Retirement Separations compared to the Civilian Labor Force (CLF) • Human Resource Development – Employees in MCOs At HR LoB Performance Model or Above Full Working Level Working Group System Measures • Human Resource Strategy – Turnover of Permanent and• Compensation – Average Compensation Cost and Temporary Workforce Percentage of Corrections to Total Actions• Benefits – Participation Rates
    • Organization and Position Management Model Report Hypothetical data Re-direction of HR to Mission Critical Occupations While the number of MCOs have decreased by % MCOs in Workforce 12%, their percentage of72.0% the total workforce has70.0%68.0% increased by 19% from the66.0%64.0% FY 2001 baseline.62.0%60.0% 66.7% 68.9% 69.4% More generally, Treasury58.0%56.0% 62.4% increased MCOS by 11% 58.5%54.0%52.0% for the FY01 – FY05 period FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 of performanceTreasury Actual Workforce Profile (Full and Part time employees) Performance FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 IndicatorTotal Workforce 163223 168413 130128 125497 120407 -26.23%Count of Mission Critical Occupations (MCOs) 95546 105028 86791 86506 83617 -12.49%% MCOs 58.54% 62.36% 66.70% 68.93% 69.45% 18.63%
    • Separations Management Model Report Hypothetical data Minimize Non-Retirement Separations / Resignations Separations and Respective Eligibility Retirement Resignation Within 5 Within 6 - 10 Over 10 Other (Transfer, Death, Removal, Discharge, RIF, Termination) Linear (Resignation ) 70.00% 60.00% 60.00% % T o tal S ep aratio n s Percent of Total Separations 50.00% 50.00% 40.00% 40.00% 30.00% 30.00% 20.00% 20.00% 10.00% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 Fiscal Year Year FY Within 5 Within 6 - 10 Over 10 FY Total Retirement Resignation Transfer Death Removal Discharge RIF Termination FY01 29.03% 13.27% 57.69% FY02 29.58% 13.84% 56.57%FY01 16589 23.36% 56.74% 6.14% 1.74% 1.90% 7.08% 0.14% 2.90%FY02 14843 22.34% 55.06% 8.89% 1.89% 2.09% 7.46% 0.01% 2.26% FY03 30.56% 17.04% 52.40%FY03 13586 28.92% 48.65% 3.86% 2.24% 2.77% 6.94% 1.10% 5.53% FY04 42.51% 13.54% 43.95%FY04 12668 34.46% 43.17% 4.95% 2.27% 3.12% 4.52% 5.25% 2.27%FY05 13429 42.04% 40.43% 6.30% 1.91% 2.88% 3.70% 1.55% 1.20% FY05 47.95% 13.24% 38.82% Treasury resignations declined 16% Separations trend downward for those commensurate with an increase in within 10 years of retirement eligibility. retirements of 19% for the FY01 – FY05 Separations trend upward for those within 5 period of performance. years of retirement eligibility.
    • Retaining Talent Hypothetical data Model Report Performance Ratings of Separated Employees We traditionally lose fully100% successful rated employees90%80% at rates greater than70% outstanding or exceeds Exceptional60% However, the gap is closing Superior50% Quality40% Marginal/Unacceptable30%20%10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Performance Ratings Fiscal Year Outstanding Exceeds Fully Successful Marginal/ Unacceptable 2003 14% 16% 68% 3% 2004 26% 27% 40% 7% 2005 19% 24% 53% 5% 2006 30% 27% 35% 8% 2007 31% 30% 30% 9% Average 24% 25% 45% 6%
    • SES/Organization Performance Hypothetical data Relationship Metric Model Report (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) Total of Pay Total of Pay Adjustments Numerical Adjustments and Rate of Basic $ of Pay Performance $ of Performance and Performance- Pay Prior to Adjustment to SES New Rating Performance- Based Performance- Based Award Pay Maintain Member Appointment (5,4,3,2,1; X Based Pay Award/Bonus Based as a % of Rate Adjustments (In Relative or N for no Adjustment (In $) Award/Bonus of Basic Pay $) Position rating) (In $) Prior to Pay (E)+(F)+(G) Adjustments (%) (H)/(D) 1 3 154,993.00 6,200.00 0.00 15,500.00 21,700.00 14.0% 2 X 5 152,646.00 7,632.00 0.00 22,897.00 30,529.00 20.0% 3 3 145,555.00 4,367.00 0.00 8733.00 13,100.00 9.0% 4 4 160,509.00 4,691.00 0.00 25,000.00 29,691.00 18.5% 5 3 153,540.00 3,071.00 0.00 7,677.00 10,748.00 7.0% 6 X 3 147,425.00 3,897.00 0.00 10,320.00 14,217.00 9.6% 7 3 155,581.00 6,223.00 0.00 16,000.00 22,223.00 14.3% 8 4 152,040.00 7,602.00 0.00 17,500.00 25,102.00 16.5% 9 4 141,377.00 7,069.00 0.00 17,500.00 24,569.00 17.4% 10 5 162,024.00 3,176.00 0.00 24,304.00 27,480.00 17.0% OPM required metric data Sample shows a correlation coefficient of 0.824 between the numerical performancerating and the total of pay adjustments and performance based award/bonus
    • Staff Acquisition Quality of Hires Model Report Hypothetical data Performance Ratings of Recent Hires 80% 70% 60% 50% FY 2004 Percent 40% FY 2005 30% FY 2006 20% 10% 0% Exceptional Superior Quality Unacceptable Category of RatingPerformance ratings of FY 2004, FY 2005 and FY 2006 hiresIncludes permanent workforce, on-board one year later, with rating < 1% of rated employees with no-rating not included
    • Staff Acquisition Quality of Hires Model Report Hypothetical data Loss of Hires Losses occur up to 34% within the first year of hire60% By year 4, losses may be50% 2% up to 52% 6% 3%40% 11% 14% % Loss in 4 Years 5% % Loss in 3 Years30% % Loss in 2 Years % Loss in 1 Year20% 34% 29% 29% 27%10%0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total Hires % Retained % Retained % Retained % Retained Year (Permanent 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 1 Year Later Workforce only) Later Later Later 2004 7096 71% 57% 51% 48% 2005 5930 66% 55% 52% - 2006 7777 71% 67% - - 2007 9942 73% - - -
    • Compensation Management Hypothetical data Model Report Average Cost of Compensation per FTE Average Compensation (General Schedule Permanent Total Bureau Avg Grade Avg Total Salary Workforce only) Employees BEP 11.76 82,699.79 621 120,000 12.77 BPD 9.94 60,953.90 1,975 12.84 13.06 100,000 DO 12.84 95,295.55 1,137Average Salary 11.76 11.77 11.08 12.39 11.5 80,000 9.94 8.76 8.98 FINCEN 13.06 95,205.35 281 60,000 FMS 11.77 81,037.76 1,779 40,000 IRS 8.76 57,796.51 89,091 20,000 MINT 11.08 78,696.84 666 0 OIG 12.39 86,581.58 96 TIGTA 12.77 93,224.22 771 TA l T N B IG ta O S PD S EP IN TT E IR D FM To O G C B B M TI N nd TTB 11.5 75,576.89 387 FI ra G Average Grade Grand Total 8.98 59,522.41 96,804 Actions and % Corrections FY 2006 Actions and Corrections FY 2007 Actions and Corrections 22387, 4% 27518, 5% Total Actions Total Actions Total Corrections Total Corrections 571834, 95% 573304, 96%
    • Benefits Management Hypothetical data Model Report FY 2007 Average % Employee Retirement Contribution RatesGrade (General # FERS Employees Contribution to Thrift 5% to 9% range in gradesSchedule only) Savings Plan 7 to 9% range from 2005 to 2007 02 4 9% 03 270 5% 04 1196 5% 05 2710 6% 06 1058 6% 07 2388 6% 08 1790 7% General Schedule FERS Employees Average % 09 1640 6% Contribution to Thrift Savings Plan 10 31 7% 11 1451 8% 25,000 12 1632 8% 13 3068 9% 9% 20,000 14 1477 8% 15 572 7% 15,000 7% 7% 10,000 5,000 0 2005 2006 2007
    • Benefits Management Hypothetical data Model Report Employee Health Benefits Program Participation Rates 72% to 98% % Bureau # Enrollees # Employees Provider for Departmental Offices # Participants % ParticipationAlcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 429 538 80%Bureau of Engraving and Printing 1797 2127 84% Drill AETNA HEALTH INC APWU HEALTH PLAN 149 12 13% 1%Bureau of the Public Debt 1725 2088 83% Down AV-MED 1 0%Departmental Offices 1175 1418 83% BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD 653 56%Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 234 294 80% CAREFIRST BLUE CHOICE 12 1%Financial Management Service 1565 1969 79% FOREIGN SERVICE BENEFIT PLAN 1 0% GEHA HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN 62 5%Inspector General for Tax Administration 691 783 88% KAISER PERMANENTE 150 13% KEYSTONE HLTHPLAN EAST 1 0%Internal Revenue Service 73292 101466 72%Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 2765 2809 98% MAIL HANDLERS BENEFIT PLAN 19 2% MDIPA 109 9%Office of the Inspector General 90 105 86% NALC HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN 6 1%United States Mint 1529 2027 75% Grand Total 1175 100%Grand Total 85292 115624 74% % Participation in Health Benefits Program120%100% 98% 84% 88% 86% 80% 80% 83% 83% 80% 79% 72% 75% 60% 40% 20% 0% E ga in a d Rv n e Br a ot e T b c oT x A m isr t n U it dS t s Oic o t e A o oa d Ef r e e t aae et o pr lle f h ur n y D p rmna noc mn Mn g mn C mt o ro e at e t l ev e o ac a nr v g n ee u u lic e t ue u f h Oic o t e Itra ne t e nen l a dTa e P b Db d in t aio f e fh lc h l n t eC r e c I s et r Gn r l f r S r ic in n ia n p co F ac l N t ok e ea o in n ia f e fh F ac l n rd e ea Gn r l ue u f Br a o ev e I s et r r s a r t g n p co Oic s ew r C e S r ic Pinin f e im Mt in Tx a f f f Customer Bureau
    • Transforming Reports to Deliver ValueHuman Computer Interaction (HCI) Focus The Workforce Analytics product suite incorporates enhanced usability design to support better decision making and enabling the Human Capital occupation to be more strategic. Decision Knowledge Interactive capabilities engage user in answering business problems and making better decisions Describe Information Increasing descriptive support for reports helps the reader e Va l u gain value in using the report information.Display DataHistorically, reports have presented only data. Reader isresponsible to provide domain knowledge to create value.
    • Our Results So FarA satisfied customer community Eager to do more automated reporting and analysisRaising awareness on importance of dataintegrity in HRMS environment Reports only as good as the data Identifying sources of data pollutionBuilding a stronger tie to the CHCO and otherbusiness leadersNurturing a BI competency that extendsbeyond HREvolving a dynamic dashboard capability inconcert with an enterprise portal project
    • Lessons LearnedIdentify metrics that align with the business Probe: What does the organization want from people? Research other metrics initiatives (past/current) and dovetail Establish executive support earlyFocus on accuracy – build trust in data Be prepared to resolve data integrity – upstream issuesSimple and accurate beats complex and wrongAvoid the Microsoft Excel trap A short term solution at bestLeverage HR Metrics to pave the way for HRTechnology initiatives – proof statements
    • Final Thought To be truly successful in HR Metrics initiatives, be prepared to lead change
    • Discussion Thank You Karla Timmons Karla.timmons@do.treas.gov 30