Ahead of the HCMI course module this week on workforce intelligence (part 1 of 2 of the HCM module) I thought that I'd repeat a coversation recently regarding the state of play.
The conversation had been focused around education and learning being the fulcrum of the human capital argument. The focus of attention switched to that of measurement. All nodded when the statement was made that measuring something helped to understand what you were measuring without exception. This was particularly key around social science subjects....
Somebody made the comment that 'they thought measurement related to human capital/human capital management had come a long way since its beginnings'.
Unfortunately my response was that 'Based on the evidence, I didn't believe this was the case and that it was more wishful-thinking than reality.'
Sure, simple HR metrics had been around since the seventies and are still very prevalent today. But actually despite effort relatively little headway had been made on any large scale, save for a few exceptions.
Using education as an analogy, I remarked that putting some simple one-dimensional metrics together like absenteeism, HR FTE/total FTEs etc was akin to Infants School. Putting these metrics into some kind of scorecard was Junior School. Developing a more robust design of scorecard using strategy mapping, metric trees and trade-offs was akin to Secondary School.
Developing these into modelling (causation) analytics and evaluating human capital management, like the 15OE framework (See JoAHCM Volume 1 no 2 2007 & Vol 2 No 1 2008) and the subsequent derivative analysis and intelligence was similar to tertiary education and beyond.
In a market context, many organisations had not got out of Infant School as they were still 'benchmarking' single metrics of limited insight. Some had progressed to Junior School and a fewer number had managed to get to secondary level. Very few had got to tertiary level given our knowledge of the market-place.
'Why was that?' asked one of those present.
'A multitude of reasons' was my reply, 'lack of understanding, lack of importance, lack of emphasis, lack of resource, lack of diligence, lack of expertise, limited ambition of HR functions and too much ephemeral band-wagon jumping by various players - and throw-in the complete red-herring by analysts wanting to value human capital'.
'But we are talking people, here - right? enquired another.
'Yep - but that doesn't necessarily mean much when you've got PR. There are a few exceptions that we know of and work with,' was my response.
'That's pretty damning' came a further comment.
'Unfortunately it is - would you like me to say it nicer,' I replied.
'No, no - I just meant that it doesn't say much for industry or the HR profession,' the person responded.
'Yes - I know'...............
Comments (1)
Hi,
I have worked in Australia for many years in the HRIS space and particularly with developing / implementing measurement and reporting frameworks.
My recent work (7 years) with a major regional bank has involved developing a model and setting up tools that now supports a very powerful and successuful HR MIS service which has contributed significantly to changing the way the HR function now goes about its business.
However whilst progress has been made it is never fully recognised and therefore resourced/organised in a way that would take full advantage of what they now have available.
I can't undertstand this particularly when you compare it to a finance MIS function. Its taken along time for the HR function to realise it has to own the HR information function and have resources embedded which span the IT/HR divide. Even this recognition still does not go far enough in understanding you have to organise the roles/ mandate/ responsibilites etc to achieve what they say they want in terms of modellling/strategic insights.
Given that the organisation's HR function is very progeressive and well led its a constant disappointment they can't get their heads fully around taking it to the next level.
I guess until there is a groundswell of recognition and understanding of what it is then even the most progressive organisations are going to find it difficult. Its just a pity even as you say that despite the "talk" and the obviousness of doing something in this space, still after 30 years it has not progressed very far. Will it ever happpen and does it say that in the end deep in physce of organisations, it is not really believed that HR can make a difference?
Posted by Geoff Fredericksen | June 21, 2008 3:21 AM
Posted on June 21, 2008 03:21