The document discusses the challenges organizations face with talent management due to 'competency chaos', where disparate definitions and implementations of competencies lead to inefficiencies in decision-making processes. It emphasizes the need for a cohesive competency strategy to ensure that talent management systems provide accurate data for effective decisions, ultimately linking talent management to business outcomes. To overcome these obstacles, organizations must focus on defining competencies clearly, integrating them into systems, and maintaining governance to drive better performance and value realization from their HR technology investments.

1. Getting Past Competency Chaos
A Crucial Step on the Path to Talent Management Value Realization
In pursuing the promise of HR technology an organization must also overcome the inevitable pitfalls standing
in the way of those promises. We welcome you to use what you learn here to assess your organization’s
current level of maturity and align your talent management strategies to surmount one of the most important
immediate hurdles you face—that of competency chaos. Your reward will be technology that works better
and acceleration down the path toward talent management value realization.
Introduction
In 2005, while discussing the emergence of tools to support strategic HR capabilities, research analysts from
the Gartner Group noted:
The interests of four diverse communities—executives, IT, HR and vendors—are
coming together to support the emergence of a new suite of human capital management
applications, which we call talent management application suites (TMAS) 1
While vendors and IT managers have their own motives for pursuing integrated suites, for business and
human resources executives the demand for TMAS is driven by a need to gain maximum value from human
assets. The decisions made by managers about people are increasingly viewed as crucial to building a ready
supply of the right talent for organizations competing in a knowledge economy. This vision of managers
armed with the information needed to make better talent decisions—that will add real value in the drive for
enterprise performance and sustainability—is the primary reason for the significant investments organizations
have been making in these application suites.
Problem
The need to make better talent decisions has, indeed, been the objective of recent talent management
technology implementations. Yet this goal has proven illusive. In a rush to automate talent management
processes and put sophisticated tools in place, organizations have overlooked factors that lead to the
realization of strategic return on these investments. Instead, they have inadvertently exposed themselves to
risks associated with getting poor data faster to make quick and inappropriate decisions.
To understand the current state of affairs with today’s talent management application suites and the persistent
obstacles to using this technology more strategically, it’s helpful to look at previous research presented on the topic.
Figure 1 on the next page shows a typical architecture for a talent management application suite, as identified
by the pioneering research from the Gartner Group’s report in 2005. 2
1
Gartner’s Dec 2007 research publication – ID Number: G00152102: Unlocking the Strategic Value From Talent Management
Application Investments by James Holincheck.
2
Gartner’s June 2005 research publication – ID Number: G00126407 Talent Management Application Suites Can Enhance Workforce
Effectiveness by James Holincheck.
Real Leadership Advantage ™

2. Figure 1:
This research, updated in 2007, states:
Customers talk about implementing talent management applications to support strategic
human capital management. However, much of what has been implemented focuses on
automating what was previously done on paper or in Microsoft Word documents or
Excel spreadsheets.1
Holincheck goes on to list some of the key reasons for this more tactical reality of most implementations.
The lack of integration between talent management applications can cause many issues
for companies in gaining strategic value from their investments…From an IT point of
view, there is shared data that is used across the multiple applications that must be kept
in sync. A core HRMS solution (personnel, payroll and benefits administration) typically
provides the system of record for basic employee and organizational hierarchy data…
However, competency models, job profiles and individual talent profile data are
typically not stored in the core HRMS... It is stored in each talent management
application. Thus, if several vendors are used for talent management applications, then
these vendors need to integrate with another vendor to ensure that this data stays in sync.
The analysis of talent data should drive decisions on how to best leverage talent to
achieve specific business outcomes. The lack of consistent and integrated talent profile
data makes it difficult to analyze and use strategically… However, it is just this type of
analysis that is the key to unlocking the strategic value of talent management
investments.
2

3. Overcoming Competency Chaos: A Crucial Step on the Path to Value
Realization
The Gartner research points to a number of factors preventing organizations from getting strategic value from
their talent management applications. Chief among these is the difficulty organizations face in effectively
developing, deploying, and integrating competency libraries and job profiles across disparate systems.
The need to improve talent decisions and the effective use of human assets are the primary goals of the talent
management application suite. Every day, decisions are made in the areas of selection, performance and pay,
development, succession, and promotion. All of these require a common taxonomy to describe the skills and
behaviors – or competencies – that drive organizational performance.
When used effectively, competencies are more than a mere library of desired traits. Rather, sets of
competencies are assembled into competency models, or job profiles, that accurately describe successful
performance in critical roles. These job profiles become the basis for making more sophisticated and effective
decisions about talent.
As demonstrated by the Gartner study, the importance of competencies and job profiles to strategic talent
management is well documented. Yet, organizations continue to stumble when implementing competencies
for a wide variety of reasons. Some of the most common challenges are:
lack of stakeholder and constituent buy-in to competency models which often occurs when the relevant
stakeholders are not involved in the initial design or when their unique needs are not addressed in the job
profiles that are created
lack of a process for updating and keeping competency models current as the organization changes
lack of appropriate competency governance processes and policies which often results in the demise of
the view of competencies as a fair and objective tool
failure to integrate competencies and profiles into critical business and talent management processes
little consideration for how competency models and competency content need to integrate with various
talent management technology platforms
designing competency models without the end use in mind
using competency models designed for one purpose to try to fit another resulting in the need to adjust
models after the fact
lack of a single system for managing competency content and making it accessible to all users so that
changes to the competencies are made as they happen in all locations
lack of a plan to execute against the competency models and successfully ensure that they lead to real
behavior change in the organization
Defining Competency Chaos
At the center of most of these problems is a condition called competency chaos. Competency chaos is the
situation that arises when different parts of an organization create their own sets of competency content to
match their specific HR needs. In other words, competency chaos is the state of confusion that reigns when
different parts of an organization independently define and use the same or similar competencies in different
ways.
Competency chaos can happen for many reasons. In one organization, three different departments defined
their own competencies, with the result being three different definitions for “communication skills.” In
another, the conversion of job descriptions created a far too diverse competency catalog. In a third, a central
3

4. competency model was identified, but some departments felt it didn’t quite work for them, so they redefined
the competencies to suit their specific needs.
The consequence is that each part of the organization has its own set of definitions for the content that should
serve as the foundation of the common talent management systems. Imagine different business or functional
groups having various definitions for the accounting codes used to manage expenses and run a business. That
would certainly create accounting chaos. In turn, this would doom any ambitions an organization might have
to make smart financial decisions based on a
comprehensive and accurate accounting of Imagine different business or
the overall financial position of the enterprise. functional groups having various
In a similar way, competency chaos
jeopardizes the successful implementation of
definitions for the accounting codes
talent management systems and weakens used to manage expenses and run a
their promise to provide an organization with business.
a solid plan to manage its human capital as an
asset.
Deceptive Complexity
One factor that contributes to the deficiencies of competency management is the appearance that
implementation is simple. Talent management system vendors focus on their applications and assume that
their clients can develop their own set of competencies. They generally provide support only for finished
competency profiles mapped to organizational positions. In addition, just about every talent management
technology vendor and human capital consulting firm professes the ability to do competency modeling, but
many of them lack grounding in the art and science of building proper models and profiles and fail to
understand the necessary talent management perspective.
Because many organizations believe that competencies are simple, they think they can create and implement a
competency-based solution by gathering a group of people to brainstorm a set of competencies in an
afternoon. While that process may elicit a list of desirable traits, in many cases those traits are statements of
altruistic vision and have little connection to the business strategy and, as a result, do nothing to improve
business results. Without a well-defined direction emanating from a clear competency strategy, the benefits of
an aligned workforce are never realized.
What makes implementing competencies so difficult? There are many factors that contribute. Among them:
Many different uses and views of the same competencies
Competencies can be applied in many ways within an organization, just as they are used in many
ways in systems—as a basis for interviewing candidates for an open position, underlying a skills
inventory, to define development needs—different groups have different, usually overlapping
needs, and the result is a legacy of different approaches and levels of quality.
Many different types of competencies
Competencies work in different ways and do different things. In addition, there are many ways of
looking at competencies. For example:
Core competencies describe the culture and behaviors of an organization.
4

5. Level-based competencies refer to those competencies shared by people at specific levels of an
organization (e.g., managerial, leadership).
Functional competencies refer to competencies, usually behavioral, shared by individuals in a
particular function.
Technical competencies refer to the technical skills necessary to get a job done.
Career path competencies identify the developmental competencies needed for a future position.
Competencies can also be categorized as threshold vs. differentiating. While these categorizations
are not similar to those above, they are important considerations. Threshold competencies are like
“table stakes”; they refer to the competencies that are necessary, but they don’t separate high
performers from average performers. Differentiating competencies, on the other hand, do just that.
They are the competencies that are exhibited by “A” players that are not demonstrated by “B” or
“C” performers. These competencies are discussed in greater detail later in this paper.
Different levels of granularity
Certain processes (e.g., selection) use competencies as a whole, while other processes (e.g.,
development) focus on competencies at the behavior level.
General enough to be comparable for succession planning but specific enough to be relevant, clear, and
measurable
Different uses for competencies place different demands on competency profiles. Competencies
are best understood and adopted when they speak directly to an individual, but yield the best
analytics when they can be used to aggregate comparisons across the organization.
Emotionally charged because they are the basis of performance and pay
Because of their tie to performance and pay, it is natural for every constituency to try to adjust the
competencies to fit their strengths. “Gaming” the system may be natural, but it can wreak havoc
with an attempt to leverage competencies to generate prescriptive or predictive analytics.
Need for objectivity and fairness
Because of their tie to performance and pay, it is critical that the competencies are perceived as
objective and fair. This can only happen is a measure of inter-rater reliability if introduced. If that
is not the case, “easy graders” will cause further grumblings of inequity and undercut the
utilization and perceived value of the system.
Competency chaos and the fractured nature of competency integration across an enterprise is not the fault of
the systems, process, and data tools. In fact without the proper competencies the systems, process, and tools
can’t progress and mature. As more organizations seek to evolve their talent strategies and realize value from
their talent management initiatives, the imperative to squarely address the competency foundation and
minimize competency chaos is increasing.
In short, the payoff from talent management strategies is often stalled by the lack of a coherent, competency-
based foundation, for both aligning talent strategy with business strategy and enabling execution of that
5

6. strategy through a focus on the performance behaviors most essential to strategy success. To paraphrase
Winston Churchill, “[Competencies] are the worst form of [talent management] except when you compare the
alternatives.
Solution
So how does an organization create a comprehensive competency strategy, avoid competency chaos, and
avert the risk of the rush to automate? The chart below depicts the current landscape of today’s maturing
talent management strategies, avoiding competency chaos, and advancing to a vision of Enterprise Talent
Management Value Realization. While it suggests the use of technology application tools, it is obvious that
more than technology is needed if the strategic vision is to be realized.
From Competency Chaos to Talent Management Value Realization
High
Vision for automation, but immature Vision for business impact, sound
strategy; simplistic and ineffective strategy, and solid integrated competency
competency models with effective models and profiles; combining
implementation in terms of executive automation with effective implementation
commitment and execution excellence for in terms of executive commitment and
Implementation Effectiveness
enterprise adoption execution excellence for enterprise
adoption
Well-Oiled HR Machine Mature Competency Strategy with
Enterprise Talent Management
Value Realization
Competency
Strategic Vision Without Impact
Strategy Start-up
Vision for automation, but immature Vision for business impact, sound
strategy; simplistic and ineffective strategy, and solid competency models
competency models with ineffective and profiles; uses automation but with
Low
implementation ineffective implementation
Low High
Competency Strength
Because many talent management strategies are relatively immature, and because competency chaos is a
frequent impediment to their success, an approach is needed that accelerates more immediate returns on talent
management initiatives. This approach would:
reflect a realistic view of current conditions pertaining to technology, competency content, and talent
management decision processes
balance the attention on technology tools with attention to key implementation barriers such as the
foundation of competency content that is needed to define the behaviors essential for strategy success
quickly define the scope for an early win where competency alignment within one or more talent
management processes would lead to better talent decisions and more desirable outcomes
continue the process of gradually resolving competency chaos so talent management applications can
capture the accurate and consistent data needed for better talent decisions and lay a rock-solid foundation
for greater integration in the future
6

7. In short, a Competency Strategy needs to be developed, complete with a road map and timetable that outlines
the conditions required for success.
As part of the strategy, an optimal framework will be established that captures the core leadership capabilities
required at different levels in the enterprise, the key functional capabilities needed to further develop the
functional profiles at different leadership levels, and the core business skills required across the organization.
At the same time, it will ensure that the resulting output is simple and easy to use. This approach will make it
easy to map existing success profiles and
to create new job profiles in different
parts of the business. In a rapidly
changing business environment, roles and
jobs will change, disappear, and be newly
created, so the competency framework
must be flexible and enable an
organization to continue to apply the
framework as its business evolves.
A strong conceptual approach to helping
organizations build an enterprise-wide,
integrated capability framework is
illustrated.
Why an Enterprise Competency Structure Is Critical
The number and types of functional models and job families vary by organization. Inevitably, there is a
struggle to balance between the desire to create broadband functions and the need to get competencies closest
to the position so they are relevant to the job they attempt to describe.
The number of functions may also help to determine the competencies used in specific models. For example,
a recent report, “The Role of Competencies in Driving Financial Performance,” states that “Because financial
services companies tend to be stove-piped into distinct functional business units, [a good] communication
[competency] breaks down these large barriers, and makes individuals more effective and gives them greater
perspective.”
The most critical determinant of the optimal framework for competency models is their link to business
performance. Competencies are the embodiment of the organization’s business strategy through its people.
Research shows that when managers identify the competencies required for high performance, they are right
approximately half of the time. The problem is that they don’t know which half! Ultimately, the ability
(through research) to predict which capabilities are the most critical to performance allows for smaller,
simpler, and more targeted models.
Business Analytics to Link Talent Decisions to Business Outcomes
The final step in Talent Management Value Realization is when an organization is able to take full advantage
of their competency modeling efforts by conducting advanced analytical research. At that point, they can link
competencies with organizational outcomes that matter, such as profitability, increased revenues, customer
satisfaction, and employee engagement. When organizations can develop a process to determine which
dimensions of performance (competencies, behaviors) predict each critical strategic objective or outcome,
they can achieve the real business impact of the initiative.
7

8. A business impact analysis can help organizations determine:
which competencies best differentiate “A” players from “C” players
which behaviors have the greatest overall impact on outcomes such as productivity, customer service, and
employee engagement
where efforts should be focused to gain the greatest performance improvement
where key business strategies or initiatives may be at risk due to talent constraints
This analysis can use statistical methodologies to examine the ratings from a group of individuals to
determine the competencies and behaviors that have the most significant impact on key outcomes. For
example, if an organization wants to identify those competencies most closely associated with individual
productivity, the analysis would examine the relationship between competency ratings from feedback surveys
and individual productivity data obtained from the organization. The resulting analysis would generate
relative-importance weights for the competencies included in the survey as they relate to productivity. The
figures that follow show actual data from a PDI professional services client. This helped them determine the
competencies that were most critical for differentiating “A” vs. “C” performers.
Predicting Utilization
8

9. Building a Competency Strategy
To avoid competency chaos and achieve Talent Management Value Realization, six conditions must be met:
1. clear vision
2. aligned strategy
3. solid foundation
4. executive commitment
5. execution excellence
6. ongoing management and governance
Clear Vision – a view into a future where integrated human capital management processes reliably yield
the information and talent decisions needed to ensure a supply of superior leaders who will drive
improved performance. This includes an understanding of how each of the talent management processes
will be addressed and the associated competency requirements.
This also includes a clear vision of the projected culture of the organization and the message that the
competencies should send when they are presented to the organization. In addition, it includes a clear link
to business outcomes, both for stakeholder buy-in and to evaluate impact.
Aligned Strategy – a solid understanding of the outcomes desired from the organization’s business
strategies and their alignment with a maturing talent management strategy and Information Technology
systems integration strategy. Based on the organization’s vision, the behaviors and experiences most
crucial to addressing its business needs are clearly linked (by competencies) to integrated human capital
management processes.
Solid Foundation – a strong competency management foundation supported by reliable data sources.
This becomes the basis for integration of talent management applications and enables strategic,
enterprise-wide impact.
This requires a consistent and duplication-free competency library, a set of consistent competency profiles,
and an underlying rationale that will support business analytics. The content must be simple enough to adopt
and use on an everyday basis and strong enough to support its objectives. Most often this will include a clear
framework that parallels the organizational structure, including the number of hierarchical levels and
9

10. functional delineations. This will serve as the foundation for all competency component development, use,
and lifespan management. To paraphrase Albert Einstein, “Make [the competencies] as simple as possible, but
not simpler.”
Executive Commitment – clear direction from executive management will help ensure that managers
and employees get involved early and often so that they understand the value in doing things differently.
Execution Excellence – the best talent management applications implemented with the best processes will
not achieve desired business outcomes if managers and employees don’t know where to start, or if they find
the process too hard to use. In addition to skillful project management, successful execution requires a
simple implementation process that addresses technology and infrastructure issues, competency foundation
requirements, and organization/people concerns. It must make the new leadership “brand” memorable,
measure the engagement, and reinforce the message whenever and wherever necessary.
Ongoing Management and Governance – the more effective the competency implementation, the more
susceptible it will be for each group that wants to tailor the models and profiles to fit its specific needs.
This is a fast track to competency chaos. It is imperative that policies and business rules are put in place
to protect the integrity of the competency system and the resulting data. Clear and strong governance of
competency content is essential to the continued usefulness of your talent management system.
In addition, a system of record for managing, updating, accessing, time-stamping, and sharing all competency
data must be integrated into the governance plan. Without such a system, different versions will inevitably
appear and a proper audit of the application of profiles will be virtually impossible.
Finally, the organization will need a plan for managing and updating competency content to keep it alive.
Competency content needs to evolve as the business strategy evolves. Inadequate supervision of the changes
needed or the lessons learned from the use of the competency models will, at best, render them irrelevant and,
at worst, guide behavior that will be inconsistent with the company’s direction.
By charting a path that meets these conditions, an organization will be able to more quickly move from the
efficiency gains of technology automation into the arena of alignment of performance behaviors with strategy
execution needs which is required for Talent Management Value Realization.
Specific Approach
Overcoming competency chaos for Talent Management Value Realization may seem difficult. To make it
easier, we recommend a three-step process that considers the current maturity of the organization’s talent
management strategies.
1. Figure out where we are now.
How mature are our current talent management strategies?
What’s our existing business need and vision for Talent Management Value Realization?
What Talent Management Applications and IT Systems do we have in place and how well aligned
are they?
What are our competency assets and how can they be put together to create a cohesive foundation?
Where do we have gaps?
What level of executive commitment is there to overcome barriers and realize success?
10

11. 2. Determine where we need to go.
What is required to support development and learning systems?
What about selection readiness assessment?
What is needed to stand up to the scrutiny of pay for performance or succession planning and
promotion decisions?
What kind of competency framework will we need to minimize overlap, redundancy, and chaos?
3. Build a strategy road map.
What is the foundational architecture?
What do we need first?
What’s needed for a quick win?
What more will be needed?
What is our timeframe?
The following table suggests five levels of maturity in competency implementation (paralleling the
model/structure outlined by Carnegie Mellon in their CMM-P 3 ) that can be used to diagnose and assess the
current level of your organization. It also suggests the conditions that should be present to move from one
level of maturity to the next. Using this table, organizations can create a specific agenda to sequentially
progress toward greater maturity.
For example, in moving toward Talent Management Value Realization, an organization must start with a
strategy that has the end result in mind. If the goal is a system to identify, differentiate, and develop talent for
better decisions of all types – selection, promotion, development, and succession – then an integrated talent
management system will be needed with organization-wide analytics based on an aligned set of standards for
all processes from recruitment to retirement. This means better tools to:
build, customize, and manage a single, consistent competency and model library
structure those competency models to provide both vertical and horizontal comparability
leverage information about competencies by getting different applications to talk to each other
enable managers to make sound decisions about jobs and people on a daily basis
3
Talent People Capability Maturity Model (P-CMM) Version 2.0, 2008 Carnegie Mellon University by Bill Curtis, Bill Hefley, and
Sally Miller.
11

12. Competency Implementation Maturity/Utility Model (abridged)
MATURITY LEVEL
1 2 3 4 5
CRITERIA
1. BUSINESS NEED: EXPERIMENT visibility; MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE INTEGRATED ENTERPRISE
pilot, play to core do latest thing; fad Communication Improve productivity, PERFORMANCE Shareholder Value
(competency list as values reduce costs, cut cycle Profit, ROI
statement), Control e.g., times, correct specific
perf mgmt rating on problem (e.g., high new hire
employees in a job or unit failure rate, turnover)
2. ORG SPAN, One-off pilot study: Single job in several org Multiple org units, Multiple business: Enterprise-wide:
IMPACT: pilot to single job, workgroup, units (e.g., sales); several processes, operations functions, processes multiple businesses
enterprise-wide department jobs in one job family, linked to produce linked in profit center
function economic outcome balanced scorecard
3. HR APPLICATION: Single HR function: Two or more HR Several HR functions that Several HR and other All HR functions across
One to all >job/team/org analysis/ functions: A and B, but interact in causal flow business functions multiple businesses,
design or >staffing or not linked synergistically value chain to increase (product geographies
>development or >perf to improve performance performance (e.g., better development/R&D,
management, or staffing + training + perf supply, production,
>compensation mgmt) finance, marketing/
sales) that interact to
improve business
performance
4. COMPETENCY Many data collection Standardized data Standardized BEI, 360 Standardized BEI, 360 Standardized BEI, 360
METHODOLOGY: methods: panel, survey; collection: survey, perf survey, test competency survey, test survey, test competency
inconsistent methods no standards management form assessment methods competency assessment methods
to standardized, assessment methods worldwide
reliable, validated linked
5. CONTENT: random No standard Standard core Standard core competency Standard core Standard core
ramblings to competency dictionaries competency dictionary dictionary used across competency dictionary competency dictionary
standardized, reliable, or definitions used across org units; processes; local used across business used enterprise-wide
validated content local supplements supplements; $EVA of functions; local with local supplements;
competence at supplements; $EVA $EVA of competence at
unsuccessful, average, and of competence at unsuccessful, average,
superior (+1SD) points on unsuccessful, average, and superior (+1SD)
performance bell curve and superior (+1SD) points on performance
points on performance bell curve
bell curve

13. MATURITY LEVEL
1 2 3 4 5
CRITERIA
6. IT SYSTEMS, None Integrated HR database Integrated HR database or Integrated HR and Integrated HR and
software support: or linked unit databases; linked unit databases linked ERP databases linked ERP databases
none to integrated simple Statistics software (e.g., SEM and time series SEM and time series
HRIS to ERP; s-o-a
survey>database> SPSS) to test reliability statistics to test statistics to test balanced
predictive analytics
reporting and validity of HR balanced scorecard scorecard value
competency independent value chain/causal chain/causal flow
variables to predict flow models: models: “upstream”
dependent variables $EVA “upstream” competency (HR
outcomes competency (HR learning and innovation),
learning and ops and customer IVs
innovation), ops and prediction of global
customer IVs business financial
prediction of DV outcomes
business financial
outcomes
13

14. Adapted from the Competency Maturity Model by Lyle M. Spencer and Paul D. Storfer
So, for example, if you have determined that your organization is currently at Level 2 and you wish to move the organization to Level 3, there are certain
things that you must have and certain things you must do to make that happen. Some of these will affect the culture and people in the organization and the
corresponding competency initiatives, and some will require investments in technology and systems infrastructure.
MATURITY LEVEL 3 TO THE EXTENT THESE ARE NOT IN PLACE, TO REACH MATURITY LEVEL
3, YOU WOULD NEED TO:
PEOPLE/ ORG Formalized HR management structure, within which HR seeks to Define the organizational structure
CULTURE provide some level of strategic information to senior executives Define the rules and roles of job functions (non-specific) for
Performance Management programs in place including a formal executives, managerial, line, and individual contributors
Performance Appraisal program of some kind. Implement a well-defined Performance Management Program
Formal recruiting efforts and supporting organization.
Some business processes formalized take into account Web-based
delivery of HR services and programs
COMPETENCY Competencies integrated into organizational Performance Define and implement a pilot Performance Management Program
INITIATIVES Management programs Seek employee acceptance and feedback during Performance.
Core competencies for levels of positions from executive through Management Program development
individual contributor are in place, typically within one just business Integrate Performance Management within workflow and consider best
unit; not yet consistent within all business units across geographies; practice research
identified competencies for a few job families, but not yet down to Explore metrics and scorecard utilization related to workforce
the functional position level capabilities
Some metrics related to performance of workforce are generated, Build competency definitions for all jobs in a single business unit, and
mostly turnover and retention then use this to pilot additional business units
SYSTEMS/ Fairly comprehensive HRIS capability, either a best-of-breed Talent Implement “go-live” plans for an HRIS that includes functionality for
INFRA- Management Application package or an Enterprise Resource Performance Management and Career Development
STRUCTURE Planning system or an effective home-grown system. Build appropriate interfaces to non-HR systems such as finance and
HRIS maintaining job and position levels and descriptions, as well customer relations/billing
as reporting relationships; organization structure and organization Ensure your systems have the capability to support basic or
charting a plus rudimentary metrics and scorecards related to capturing workforce
Ability to gain access to other non-HR systems such as financials capabilities, movement, and future trends
via automated interfaces (bi-directional) and customer relations to
generate some rudimentary metrics
Methodology for data input via Lotus Notes or similar and ready for
use to capture and update employee performance plans
With the previous table and this example, you can create your own tailored plan with specific initiatives that assist in increasing the maturity of the
organization and advancing toward Talent Management Value Realization.
14

15. Conclusion
Realizing value from today’s talent management strategies requires dealing with a rapidly changing
environment. Organizations must balance the opportunity cost risk of moving too slow with the “rush to
automate” risk of moving too fast. Increasing technology is playing a role as a tool for meeting human capital
business needs and enabling talent management success. However, as the technology stabilizes,
implementation issues often emerge as the biggest barriers to value realization. In the case of talent
management strategy, for many organizations the most painful Achilles’ heel may be the competency chaos
that often surrounds the competency content that is needed as the anchor for talent analytics and better talent
decisions.
By using a Talent Strategy maturity model, organizations can begin to assess where they are in setting the
proper competency foundation for their talent management systems, deal with competency chaos, and
determine what needs to be done to achieve the next level of maturity.
By recognizing the need to go beyond immediate attention on technology to resolving implementation
barriers, organizations can more quickly capture the data they need to make better talent decisions now and
lay a rock-solid foundation for greater talent management application integration in the future.
Realizing value from talent management strategies requires a coherent, competency-based foundation. This
foundation will enable organizations to:
have a springboard to go from vision to action
serve as the basis for aligning talent strategy with business strategy
enable execution of an aligned strategy through a focus on highly valued behaviors
enable the type of workforce analytic needed to help leaders know how to best address specific business
issues and drive specific business outcomes
offer line managers a concrete way to add value by improving talent decisions and driving enterprise
performance and sustainability
Personnel Decisions is a registered trademark of Personnel Decisions International Corporation in the United States and other countries.
Copyright © 2008, Personnel Decisions International Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
For more information on how we can help your company gain a leadership advantage, call
your local PDI office or 1.800.633.4410, or visit www.personneldecisions.com.
PDI_1008