1. CIOREVIEW.COMJUNE 22, 2016
CIOReviewT h e N a v i g a t o r f o r E n t e r p r i s e S o l u t i o n s
CIOReview
HR TECHNOLOGY SPECIAL
Jon Shanahan,
President & CEO
Businessolver:
Benefits Technology
with Purpose
Carmine Renzulli
EVP & CHRO,
Cypress Semiconductor Corp.
IN MY
OPINION
COMPANY
MONTHOF THE
Dave Dawson
CEO, iSolved
| |JUNE 2016
50CIOReview
Who's to Blame - When HR Tech
Investments Don't Deliver?
By Mark Berry, VP, CHRO, CGB Enterprises
The Launch of AnotherTechnological
“Titanic”
Some time ago, I had the opportunity to
work with a client who had almost a year
ago purchased a truly state-of-the-art
workforce analytics solution. They had
worked with the vendor to configure the
system, ship data to the vendor's cloud
environment, configure and test the
system, train end users in the capabilities
of the tool, and with great fanfare launch
the solution to the HR organization.
The Iceberg Appears
However, in spite of all of their best efforts,
they were unable to get much of what
they needed from their new system. They
expected that-given the work that had been
accomplished in launching the system-that
it was simply a matter of getting the right
person with the right skills–an “expert”
(me)-to extract the right information.
What Happened?
Unfortunately, they were wrong. Of the
list of metrics they wished to obtain, I was
able to extract approximately 50 percent of
the metrics and visualization they desired.
The remainder was unobtainable-due to
the following:
• Planning and Requirements Devel-
opment: They had acquired and "built"
a system without a clear "end" in mind.
They simply didn’t have much of what
they wanted–it hadn’t been built to pro-
duce what was needed.
• Data: Because of the above, they didn’t
have much of the data they needed to
generate the output desired.
• Configuration: Because the project team
hadn’t gathered stakeholder requirements,
necessary data wasn’t loaded and the
system wasn’t properly configured. Truly,
in putting “garbage” in, they were destined
to get “garbage” out (or at least little of
what they desired).
• Testing and Training: It was clear that
the system had not been fully tested, as
evidenced from a number of defects or
issues identified through my work. In
addition, training provided to end users
was insufficient to accomplish the desired
outcomes. They had to hire someone–me–
to overcome their lack of training. Even
I couldn’t overcome fundamental issues
with the system–issues that should have
been surfaced when it was tested prior
to implementation.
The inherent limitations of the
"finished" system set the stage for a candid-
and uncomfortable discussion with the
client. Senior stakeholders believed that
they were able to get what they wanted-
and needed-for their "customers". Project
team members felt that they had done what
they were asked to do, not considering that
there is so much more to standing up a
technology solution than simply extracting
data from existing system, aggregating that
data in the vendor's cloud environment,
and being able to visualize that the data is
in the vendor's system. The vendor felt that
they had provided what they were asked to
provide-and any issues experienced by the
client was not due to limitations or issues
with their technology.
What’s the Remedy?
When HR projects don’t meet their
planned (or unplanned, but required)
objectives, it’s easy for stakeholders to
resort to finger-pointing. We minimize
this, and maximize the probability of HR
tech project success when we:
Clearly distinguish who “owns” the
project. In the case of HR technology, the
logical owner would be of course the HR.
Although other stakeholders–Information
Technology, Procurement, and business
leaders, to name a few can make invaluable
contributions, the project must have one
(and only one) “quarterback”. For HR tech
projects, this should be HR.
Engage the Appropriate Stakehold-
ers in the Project-in the Right Roles and
with the Right Responsibilities. Make
sure you have a "mix" of people with di-
verse backgrounds, perspectives, and ca-
pabilities. A visionary group of HR leaders
can define aspirations for a new technol-
ogy, but others at a more tactical level
must ensure that such aspirations can be
translated into reality. A room full of data
Mark Berry
INSIGHTSCHRO
| |JUNE 2016
51CIOReview
"wonks" will build a great system that no one else can understand
or use. Getting the right teams–executive sponsorship, steering
committee, and tactical project team members–is essential to suc-
ceeding in every subsequent step.
Translate the vision for the organization’s objectives–the
“future state”, if you will–into clear, objective technological
requirements. Stakeholders need to have a clear, compelling
vision of what the future state will be post-implementation.
It's critical to have all requirements documented in advance of
beginning configuration-and being able to articulate the business
rationale for these requirements. It eliminates "nice, but never
used"-before it gets built.
Appreciate that no technology vendor is able to meet all
current and future business requirements. Consequently, the
focus is not on the “perfect” solution, but rather the “best” possible
solution. Strong leaders clearly comprehend the capabilities and
limitations of the proposed technology solution.
Prioritize the achievable key requirements and ensure
that the data required to generate these is accessible and in a
condition sufficient to make it usable. Lock scope once this is
completed. Many good projects have been run aground as a result
of poor prioritization and "scope creep". Don't let it happen.
Recognize that "go live" or "launch" is not the end of
the project, but rather the end of a phase. I'm forever amazed
that organizations believe you can implement HR technology,
and then walk away. Implementation is about launching an
operational system. Optimization is equally critical. It is about
taking that basic system and making it work for the business.
Whatever you do at "go live", don't quit.
So,Who'stoBlameWhenHRTechProjectsDon’tDeliver?
Invariably, when projects don't deliver what stakeholders want
(as is often the case), the inclination of many is to find fault and
if politics dictate-throw someone(s) "under the bus".
That “someone” can be one or more of several parties
including the vendor, consultant(s), Information Technology,
Procurement, and of course HR. However, if HR stakeholders
truly practice due diligence and undertake the actions
I’ve outlined above, the probability of “failure” and self-
protective tendency to blame others is minimized (if not
outright eliminated).
In the case of most HR technology projects, HR is the
“owner”, the “benefactor”, and primarily the resource leveraged
to effect the implementation. If HR truly operates as the project
“quarterback”, HR also owns the outcomes of the project. Sure,
it’s convenient to have other parties to blame, but abdication
of “ownership” whether at the beginning, middle, or end of a
project doesn’t address the fundamental need: a successful HR
technology project.
If we as HR fail to do these things, we are to blame.
No one else. Embracing “ownership” of HR technology
initiatives and following these recommendations increases our
probability of success exponentially and ensures that we get
the maximum benefits from our technological investments &
value post-implementation.
In the case of most HR technology
projects, HR is the "owner", the
"benefactor", and primarily the
resource leveraged to effect the
implementation