Further info and resources from my website

Showing posts with label multinational payroll. Show all posts
Showing posts with label multinational payroll. Show all posts

Thursday, November 11, 2021

Payroll vs Compensation: The sempiternal HRIS conundrum

RIO DE JANEIRO

Recently, a UN agency which is making the transition from an SAP-based HR system to Workday asked me what they should keep in their legacy system and what should be tracked in Workday. I was glad to share my knowledge and experience as this issue is something I witness in every HRIS implementation I work on. (Disclosure: In my distant past, I worked several years for the UN in New York and Madrid.) 

To understand the complexity of the analysis to be undertaken, you have to realize that the situation is radically different based on whether this is the first time you're embarking on an HRIS project versus whether you already had an on-premise HRIS system and are now moving to a cloud-based one.

If the latter, two situations may arise:

(1) Your scope includes Payroll: In that case it's to a large extent a shift-and-lift exercize. Of course, you may struggle with the limited availability of country payrolls in the cloud system you're moving to versus your legacy system (for instance, SAP has scores of country payrolls whereas Workday has only 4, with 2 more in the works.) This will limit your shift-and-lift capabilities as for the countries in your scope missing a cloud payroll you'll find yourself in a situation similar to the next one.

(2) Your scope doesn't include Payroll: either because (a) your cloud vendor doesn't cover your scope fully, or (b) because to minimize risk, you decided to keep Payroll out of scope for the time being. That's when you have to make a determination what to keep in your local Payroll system and what can be moved to your new cloud system's Compensation module. 

This exercize is similar to the one you'll have to run if you've never had a full-fledged HRIS in the first place. Or, which is the same, if your HRIS is basically your payroll system where HR Admin/Compensation and Payroll are subsumed in the same tool. You'll be surprised by how many companies, domestic or global, still fall in this category.

What is Payroll and what is Compensation?

There may be as many answers as there are unique circumstances. However, one can safely adopt the  following rules of thumb:

  • Gross versus net: Compensation, and therefore your new HR system, should definitely hold your gross salary and similar items (such as allowances), whereas the net amount will be held by your local payroll. Don't get confused by the word "calculation" and think that all calculations are made in Payroll and simple amounts are held in Compensation. A Seniority allowance will have to be calculated first in Compensation and only when you have the amount due to the employee, will it then feed Payroll which, after performing a gross-to-net calculation, will then disburse the amount to the employee (via direct deposit or check.)

  • Complex calculation: If a given compensation component needs to be calculated based on criteria and data which are not tracked in your new HRIS (let's say, time worked) then the decision is obvious: only track it in Payroll. 

  • Compensation Package/Total Rewards visibility: One of the advantages of a modern HRIS is the ability to have all your employees' full compensation at your fingertips with a few clicks. If a compensation component is considered as meaningful and can be calculated in your HRIS then it should be part of Compensation. This criterion should definitely be taken into account when selecting a system as Workday, SuccessFactors and Oracle HCM Cloud (a.k.a. Fusion) are far from being interchangeable when it comes to their ability to take different data types into account when calculating a compensation item



  • Document generation: If there is little doubt that producing a Payslip is a task best left with your local Payroll tool(s), you may decide that it makes sense from a business perspective that storing it in your new HRIS as part of Employee Documents (depending, of course, on your vendor's technological prowess.) On the other hand, if you use your HRIS to run your Annual Salary Review process, then generating your employees' Compensation Statements will be a task for Compensation, not Payroll.

  • Many other criteria  and factors could also weigh in, depending on a company's unique circumstances, but remember the cardinal rule: Your new HRIS should NOT be a carbon copy of your Payroll, the two are linked but as explained in the few examples provided above they are quite different beasts and as such should be treated differently. 


    (The Blogger/Consultant, after having just implemented an Oracle-based HRIS is now taking a two-week vacation in the Wonder City before starting a new HRIS implementation project, this time based on Workday.)

Friday, July 22, 2016

Middle Kingdom: Musings on Chinese HR, technology and the country

SHANGHAI
The Oriental Pearl Tower  seen from the Bund.
As spectacular as un-Chinese since, unlike Muslim
minarets and Gothic cathedrals, Chinese palaces, pagodas
and pavilions have traditionally been low-rise affairs
Surprising as it may seem for the globe-trotter I am, until this week I had never set foot in China. Although I had worked on many global projects which involved rolling out an HR system for a Chinese workforce the opportunity never arose for me to visit the ancient land known to Marco Polo as Cathay* (the name is still used by one of the most successful airlines in the world, based out of Hong Kong.)

It was therefore with great trepidation that I boarded the world's largest aircraft, the Airbus A380, for the longest trip east that I had ever taken in order to spend most of the week in Shanghai with the local subsidiary of a multinational client. This was a unique opportunity to gather business requirements face to face with HR users in their local environment, something only imperfectly done in virtual meetings, on the phone or by email.

You soon realize that if in China rules and laws may not be voted on by a democratically elected parliament, but rather handed down by the omnipotent Communist Party, they are adhered to ferociously, as I was reminded when, during one of the workshops I led, I suggested we shorten the lunch break from one hour to 45 minutes. The reaction was a categorical NO. Labor laws are labor laws: one hour's break for lunch is one hour. Can't say I was shocked since that is exactly the same rule as in France (but outside the rest period, the Chinese workforce is a hard working one and I was impressed by the quality and dedication they bring to the task.) Actually, many other aspects of China's labor laws seem to be directly inspired from France's: such as the 1-2% of a company's payroll which must be set aside for the worker union to spend on employee benefits. But then French laws are at times very socialistic, if not outright Communist (ever wondered why the Labor Code in France is a little red book?)

Replica of Xi'an Terracotta Army
soldier, gifted to the blogger
by the Chinese delegation to the
UN World Tourism Organization where
he worked in the 1990s


A rapidly changing country
As everybody knows, China has managed to bring hundreds of millions of people into middle-class wealth faster than any other country on earth: in the past 25 years income per person has risen 13 times, whereas in the rest of the world the figure is barely 3 times. I see on Shanghai overcrowded roads more SUVs  than anywhere else but the US. Beijing has more billionaires than New York.  If there ever was a national success story it is China. And yet serious problems are looming: it is still an autocratic country, unemployment is rising, especially in the poorer rural areas in the country's western half, inflation is high (Shanghai home prices rose by 20% last year), the population is greying fast as a result of the one-child policy aiming at reining in demographic pressure, pollution shows its ugly face in many places with foul air a constant irritant. Some un-Chinese traits such as individualism and Western-style consumerism are on the rise in this increasingly unequal People's Republic. (I always marvel at Chinese tourists who buy designer bags at Paris upscale department stores for a price that is higher than many workers back home make in a year)

Now, to the topic at hand, requirements to manage a Chinese workforce as part of a global HRIS. In some aspects HR law and  practice in China may be complex, even cumbersome (but is there a place  where that is not the case?) However, in many other aspects it is quite simple and even free-market based, reminiscent of the practice in the (income-tax free) Persian Gulf states. For instance, in Europe and America, there is a quite clear-cut distinction between permanent employees and contractors, HR processes apply fully to the first, not to the second. In China, there are no contractors: everybody is a permanent employee. There are also no part-time workers. In other countries, some employees may work only 30% of the normal schedule, and in some cases be paid differently, all depending on labor agreements and regulations. In China, if you're going to work for a company, you work full time. Otherwise, go somewhere else. And no labor agreements either, which makes it much easier to set up compensation plans and eligibility rules
Art Deco glory.
East meets West at the spendid
waterfront neighborhood known
as the Bund

Over lunch, when the Head of HR asked me why there were so many strikes in France (yes, that national trait has made it to the other end of the world) I replied, "For the usual reason: to get more money." She looked very surprised: "Really? But if they want more money and they are not getting it from their current employer, why don't they just move to another better-paying company?" Admirable logic, which makes sense in a fast-growing, emerging market like China, but, alas, does not apply in sclerotic European countries like France.

Language-wise (you may want to brush up on my 5 pillars of "glocalization") if you're going to roll out a global HRIS in China, make sure all self service features are available in Mandarin. Otherwise, the system won't be used. Many HR power users, even if working for a multinational company, will struggle with English, so having the whole system in Mandarin is a must.

Workflows with different levels of approvals is also a must-have in a country where deference to senior management is part and parcel of the culture. Electronic notifications have made great progress in the Middle Kingdom but some document still need to be printed out for signature and be handed out to the relevant recipient. If you ever wondered why China is referred to as the Middle Kingdom it's simply the name in Chinese: The first character for the name is a horizontal rectangle cut in half by a vertical stroke, meaning, you've guessed, Middle. Like all great societies, China sees itself as the center of the universe. Can't blame them; after all, they are the most populous nation on earth, soon to be the richest, and the one with the longest continuous civilization in the world.

It's all about Human Resources


HR rules and HR Departments are nothing new in this country. The US only got its Civil Service with its grades and steps and examinations at the end of the 19th century, but the Chinese Ming dynasty, which ruled the country until 1644, already had a Department of Personnel with a nine-grade bureaucracy and legendary examinations one had to sit for and pass before being entitled to a position. Modern China is simply the heir to a long, centuries-old  tradition.

Among the various HR domains and processes, time recording can be quite complex in many Chinese companies, especially manufacturing now that China has become the world's factory. However, soaring taxes, transportation and energy costs means that China's labor force is no longer as cheap as it was. China will increasingly have to move up the value chain, which explains the strong emphasis on training, competencies, learning and development, and executive assessment. Again, nothing surprising in this ancient Confucian culture where learning values  are rated very high.
The blogger ready to board the Shanghai
MagLev Train. At an average speed of 300 km/186 m
per hour, with a peak speed of 430 km/237 m per hour,
it is the world's fastest train.  It is also the only one that runs on
magnetic-levitation technology.  Whether it is profitable
remains to be seen as it is pricey and covers a short distance
(in a highly congested area, though)

Payroll, is of course, highly regulated like everywhere else, but China is far from being the worst offenders. And there are limits to nannying employees: for instance, salary advances, which in some countries are mandatory if requested by the employee, simply don't exist in China You are paid for the work done, not the promise of it. For any help, go to your family, is the message in a culture where family bonds are stronger than in the West, but weaker than in Mao's times (In China people don't resort to banks for their savings needs but rather to the family or peer-to-peer networks.)

Absence management is also complex, and China is rather unique in that it distinguishes between absence types mandated by law and  those awarded by a company as a benefit for a differentiated treatment. The former  have to be taken during the take period, and if the employee leaves before its end they are compensated; whereas the latter, if not taken, are lost and are not compensated. And just as part-time employees are unusual, taking an unpaid leave or a sabbatical is unheard of for most people. Note the existence of many recruiting and training agencies (such as Zhaopin or 51job.)

Benefits involve many players: government, worker union and employer. Noteworthy that if some benefits (such as birthday allowance) are not provided by the worker union then the employer will play the substitute role and provide them.

In a  country where education has long been seen as a passport  to success, small wonder that competency frameworks, training agencies and learning models are all the rage. Many companies would finance employee degrees in exchange for a guaranteed stay with the company (similar to tuition reimbursement by US companies.) For some useful training (such as languages), private enrollment would also be refunded by the employer if the employee brings evidence of the certification thus earned.


China's HRIS vendors hold their own
To meet the HRIS needs of Chinese companies, whether domestic or subsidiaries of multinationals, the array of providers is quite large. SAP's market share is largely around its on-premise offering, and Oracle's is based on PeopleSoft. Cloud vendors are represented by Workday, a distant third but growing fastest. Kronos is well-entrenched when it comes to time management. Unsurprisingly for such a highly patriotic, even nationalistic, country, Chinese vendors have, together, a majority market share. They include household names in China such as Beisen, the undisputed talent company, and other vendors such as Neusoft (or even micro-blogging firm Weibo) covering various HR processes, when not the whole gamut of functions.



The biggest challenge facing homegrown vendors is how to go global, not an easy task when some tools which we take for granted are not available in China. First-come visitors to China may be surprised, even shocked, to find that social media and internet tools like Facebook and Google are banned (unless you, or your company, are lucky to have your own VPN.) In the West, and even the rest of the world, so much HR work, actually so much business work, involves using these platforms that you may be thrown offbalance when you realize you cannot keep up with your friends (on Facebook), get your email (on Gmail), check a video on YouTube, or plan an itinerary on Google Maps. Surprisingly and erratically WhatsApp, despite being a Facebook product, is allowed to operate in China. The Chinese make do with local variants such as Baidu, Weibo or WeChat (which is integrated with LinkedIn.).

The Chinese are a justifiably proud nation, but also a pragmatic one. They will find ways to live up to their full potential and be a full member of the global business community, something they've longed for and craved for a long time.Needless to say that this post only covers the People's Republic of China (PRC) aka Mainland China. Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao are completely different in terms of context, HR maturity and vendor landscape. In due course they will warrant their own blog post.

(The blogger is currently crisscrossing the globe gathering requirements for a multinational company. Next stop: Detroit, USA.)

(This is the latest in a series of wide-ranging articles focusing on a single country. Previous posts:

August 2011: Brazil Rising: Thoughts on HR, technology and an emerging giant 
December 2012: My 20-Year Affair with Spain  - with more than 9,000 views it is one of my most popular blog posts
June 2013: Thoughts on India, its HR/technology space
Nov. 2014: Of Switzerland, the country, its HR practice and technology landscape)

NOTE: All photos are the work of the blogger and copyright applies
From the blogger's library

*I strongly recommend Gary Jennings' superb novel, The Journeyer, about the great man's 13th- century travels throughout a China few  people had ever seen then. 1,000 pages which you can't put down until you reach the end. For anybody wanting to understand China's wrenching changes in a historical perspective, Jonathan Spence's In Search of Modern China is a must-read. Nobel-Prize winner Pearl Buck's novels, set in pre-Communist post-Imperial China,  have a lot to say about the Chinese soul and experience. The movie buff I am relishes Zhang Yimou's movies (especially when the incomparable Gong Li is in them): Raise the Red Lantern, Ju Dou, Red Sorghum and Flying Daggers are favorites. He is also the man behind the highly acclaimed opening and closing ceremonies at Beijing's 2008 Olympics. 

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

An open letter to Workday's Bhusri and Duffield: Time to fix Europe

RIO DE JANEIRO

Dear Dave and Aneel,
Drip-feeding country extensions
is NOT the right strategy

A great admirer of Workday's since its beginnings, for various reasons you will find summarized in several of my blog posts, the global and European person I am was more than gratified to see that you have decided to open an office in Germany. However, this cannot hide the fact that  before you open a new market, you should make sure the previous ones are up and running.

The Frenchman in me cannot therefore understand why you are expanding in Germany when you have yet to make France work. It was exactly three years ago  that you opened the French office and in that period of time you have only signed up two French customers: Lafarge and Sanofi. Even Oracle has managed to sign up more Fusion customers in France, which is the ultimate insult. With France being PeopleSoft's most successful market outside the United States, it should have been a piece of cake to convert many of these customers to Workday. Adding insult to injury, Danone, of all customers switched from PeopleSoft to... SuccessFactors when it should have been yours. A crime!

What has gone wrong?

The most serious mistake you have made is one typical of American multinaltionals: starting a presence in the UK and thinking that with that "Europe is solved." The UK, as many British people may have told you, is not in Europe, but off Europe. In a couple of years, they may no longer even be in the European Union. Opening an office in London is no more meaningful than opening one in Chicago. With most EMEA executives being UK-based (and British) you have made your EMEA organization EMEA in name only. As is natural they would focus on what they know best: the UK market, which explains your success in the UK, and then the "low-hanging fruit" of the Netherlands and Scandinavia. But the rest is as far away from them as planet Mars. The appointment of Chano Fernandez, a Spanish national, was a step in the right direction, but I have a feeling you didn't hire him because he hails from Spain, a country close to my heart (read my blog post "My 20-Year Affair with Spain") but because he was at SAP. And, anyway, since he was appointed, a year ago, I have yet to see a single Spanish company select Workday. Or an Italian company. Or a German one.

You have clearly made some casting mistakes, hiring the wrong people for the wrong roles in the wrong geography. Worse, many of the people you have hired in key positions have no prior experience in HR systems, your flagship product. Don't get me wrong: it may make sense sometimes to hire people from a  wider field, but when your product is first and foremost about HR, it boggles the mind to see so many people in key Workday EMEA roles who have no experience of talking to HR leaders, have no sense of the local HR ecosystem or a deep understanding of the competition.

As you know, every HR market is quite parochial. Sending to France a high-flying VP from HQ who speaks no French, cannot spell the name of some of the competitors, is not on a first-name basis with many opinion leaders and system integrators is a waste of your resources. And are you surprised at the results? Are you surprised that some of your better people,especially from sales, have left and are joining your competition?

Another key dimension of the local nature of HR is localization or what I  call "glocalization". I am
Marketing 101 mistake: English-language product screens
on  Workday's French website (As of  09-02-15 )
flabbergasted that it is taking you so long to develop the various country payroll localizations needed to be successful in the European market. You have waited for your 11th year in business to finally come up with your first European localization: the UK (well, not yet available, just announced for this year.) And France won't be available before next year. Wouldn't it make sense, from a product strategy perspective, to have swapped the countries and delivered France first?  That UK-centricity I mentioned earlier is again at work. Do you remember the number of European localizations (including Payroll) we released in PeopleSoft 8 between 2000 and 2001? EIGHT! Why this suspenseful drip-feeding of localizations at Workday? (And don't get me started on other regions of the world such as Asia or Brazil where I spend part of the year, and which are unlikely to get anything from you before eons - unless there is a clear change in product direction.)
Used to be one of the blogger's favorite 
Workday features. 
Now gone

You got so many things right from the beginning, and are still performing so brilliantly in many areas, that it pains me to see how you lost sight of the ball in Europe, and are making mistakes which, based on your previous PeopleSoft experience, you shouldn't have made. I guess you wouldn't be human if you didn't repeat some of your past mistakes.

Another thing. Please tone down the paranoid streak in your Partner and Alliance organization. So many positive things are already being written/said about you, you don't need to overdo it by becoming a marketing control freak who tries to prevent any constructive criticism to be published. All of your admirers, whose numbers include me, do not want you to turn into another evil company of which there are far too many in our industry.

I hope that my advice will help Workday grow into a better, more focused and successful SaaS company.

Oh, one last thing: Please bring back the Wheel. I miss it a lot.

Sincerely,
Ahmed Limam

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Going Global: HR Hub, HR System of Record or Talent Profile? - That is the Question

All the global HR data that's fit to capture
PARIS
This is the latest in my "Going Global"  series of posts. In "Glocalization or the Five Pillars of a Localized Software" I discussed what it meant to have a "glocal" HR project. In "A Five-tier Approach to a Multi-Country Payroll Project" I touched on the always sensitive issue of payroll for an international company.

Today, I'd like to share my experience and thoughts on  what, chronologically, should come first: how to organize a global workforce data.

First of all, why are we even bothering with this, some of you may wonder. I was recently talking to the HR director of a global life-sciences company and, when I asked how many employees they had, she replied, "14 or 15 thousand, maybe 16,000...unless it's gone up to 17,000 after the latest acquisitions." She eventually confessed, "Actually, we have no idea."

"You mean, you don't have a global tool where you centralize all your employee data?" I asked. She nodded her head.

Unfortunately this company, whose name compassion demands I keep secret, is far from being the only one in a similar situation. The sad truth is that way into the 21st century  there are still many global companies, some quite large and with high name recognition, who still have no idea of their headcount worldwide. Somebody explain to me how you can manage a global workforce when you don't even know how many they are, let alone where they are, what they do and how much they cost you.

Dear HR Leader, you shouldn't feel proud of yourself for allowing such a situation to continue under your  stewardship. Hopefully, this gentle prodding will jolt some of you into action.

There are basically two schools of thought about organizing your workforce data: one favors creating all your employee data, regardless of what country they are in, in a single repository called a global HR System of Record (SOR) or Information System (HRIS). Other companies prefer to keep different HR systems per country or regions and aggregate the data in a global HR hub (also known as global HR Master Data.) I will discuss the pros and cons of both with some best-practice tips before talking about a third type of data repository that has been gaining in popularity in the last few years: the Global Talent Profile.


1. GLOBAL HR SYSTEM OF RECORD (SOR)

This approach is the neater and tidier of the two as it tracks in the same system all relevant data pertaining to your employees be they in Afghanistan, Algeria, Austria, Argentina or Australia. The following are some advantages that I have witnessed.


  • It allows for consistent reporting, as well as data and process streamlining, which is always important when trying to foster a common culture across subsidiaries belonging to different parts of the world. I am still amazed at the variance in organizational structure between different subsidiaries with similar size, business background and whose only justification is history. I always start telling my clients that History is a great discipline, but in the world of business if your only rationale for a process is history, you are soon going to be...history!
  • A common user experience across different time zones: there are few things more frustrating for an HR user with global responsibilities than to have to toggle back and forth between radically different tools. Finding the required information, launching a particular  process or producing a required report can be so time-consuming that sometimes you just forgo carrying out these tasks which is detrimental to the business. It is so much easier to create a reporting relationship between Employee A in China and their manager, Employee B, in South Africa, when both are part of the same data structure than when you have to struggle with different systems that have their own data model, architecture and access rights.
  • Even more important, for the global VP of HR, or the CEO if s/he feels so inclined, is to see at a glance consolidated vital statistics about the workforce to support decision-making, and, added bonus, in real time. Another key advantage is that having a single system of truth makes it even easier to feed other systems that depend on HR to produce other processes, whether HR-related (such as payroll or benefits) or not (e.g. procurement.)
  • Also,without the synchronization of a single version of the employee-data truth  it is impossible to have a meaningful on/offboarding process. Many companies lose sizable amounts of money because they terminate employees and give them their last paycheck without having recovered expensive equipment (laptops, smartphones etc.) they were given. Maybe the employee understood that "given" as literally. And once the employee has left the company with his/her last payslip you can kiss goodbye to ever getting corporate property back. 



Although an increasing number of companies are adopting this approach, it still accounts barely for one-third of all global companies. The reasons are manifold:

  • There are not many vendors that can provide you with a truly "glocal" HR system (see my aforementioned post about the definition of a true "glocal" system) that match your country footprint.
  • It is a complex task to reconcile in a single system data that is statutorily required in countries as varied as the US and France, to take just two examples. The American salaried/hourly distinction is unknown in France which relies on a manager/non manager (cadre/non cadre)  category. It therefore becomes very tricky to arrive at a meaningful comparison of employees across different time zones. (FTE comparisons are another global HR headache since definitions vary across countries as to what is an employee, especially when contractors are used.)
  • Ignorance and lack of interest from HR managers, especially at corporate level, means that no effort is made to remedy this situation until the CEO throws a fit because the company's latest annual report was too vague about global headcount. And one thing that shareholder and financial analysts do not like is vagueness about such possible liabilities. (After the CEO has been pacified by an explanation about the complexity of the problem, the global Head of HR often moves on to other issues and forgets about this "inconvenience" until some other crisis comes up and reignites the issue.)

For all these reasons, a majority of global companies still rely on multiple systems which can be consolidated into a global HR data master or hub


2. GLOBAL HR MASTER DATA (OR HUB)

In this approach, corporate policy is based on a "live and let live" approach whereby every subsidiary decides on what system they want as their local HR system of record and these are then consolidated through a master data system which in turn can feed into third-party systems and be used to produce reports. Some key points:

  • Local systems and processes are not disrupted, which can be of value if there is no agreement on global processes. I have seen too many situations where subsidiaries are asked to jettison a system for   a new one in which they have had little say in shaping it, or, even worse, where the features on offer were inferior to what they used to have.
  •  As the below graph shows, most local subsidiaries would use a local HR admin system, often based on a  local vendor. Others use their payroll system as a proxy core HR system. Home-grown and outsourced systems make up the difference.
  • Best practice dictates that interfaces be built between the Hub and the third-party systems. Unfortunately I still see some companies preferring the double-entry approach where data are entered twice: in the local system and in the Hub. This is pure madness as not only is it more expensive to do, but is prone to errors.
  • It is also important to note that many companies use a Global HR Hub just to run reports off it as Phase 1 of the project. They then build interfaces to feed the data contained in the Hub to third-party systems. Whereas I feel the former  makes sense as a stopgap tool, once you move to the latter, you might as well start considering seriously a Global HR System of Record: sure, this one will also require the creation of some complex interfaces, but they will always be by definition fewer than what a Master Data system will entail. 




One of the big drawbacks is that some processes will break as you move from one system to another as workflow which initiated in one application does not span all others. The fact that other organizational structures will not be replicated "as is" is another issue, too.

It is worth mentioning that if over 60% of global companies use multiple HR systems of record, not all are consolidated into a Global Hub. There are probably not more than 10% that bother to create such a consolidated view via a master data system, the rest do not have any tool to consolidate one way or another.  Yes, your calculation is right: a whopping 50% of global companies cannot report accurately and in real time about key workforce data, let alone ensure data streamlining and reduce duplication.


3. GLOBAL TALENT PROFILE

With the emergence of talent systems, many companies, regardless of whether they have a global HR SOR or Hub in place, have developed another global employee database which focuses on the non-administrative, non-regulatory aspects of the workforce. Such a data repository, usually known as Talent Profile, will focus on the most relevant employee data items in terms of talent processes: basic administrative information, skills, jobs, rating scales, courses etc. You build it by importing the basic admin data from the different source systems, and then are free to build the talent profile as fits your business.

The advantage of such a repository is that, unlike the previous two, it is much less complex to implement. Since they have little regulatory content it is much easier to adopt consistent talent processes across different countries. And for many heads of HR, and especially line managers, the value of a global talent profile may appear as more obvious than a global SOR or hub. There is a trend for companies to build a Talent Profile and then decide a Hub is sufficient, even if they already had a SOR: in that case they prefer to expand the Global HR Hub rather than the HR SOR and limit it to the country/ies where it was already available. Are we witnessing the beginning of the end of global HR Systems of Record as we know (knew) them? 




While there is no denying the business value of a Global Talent Profile (just think how the business benefits from the ability to show and offer your high potentials a global career plan in a timely fashion,) relying on a Talent Profile at the exclusion of the other two misses a key point: the two categories (Global HR SOR/Hub and Global Talent) are not interchangeable. The former brings value to senior decision-makers (CEO, VP of HR), the latter to HR managers (recruiters, trainers etc.) and line managers. As such they are both part and parcel of a true HR management system. In some cases it may make sense to put in place a Talent Profile  before a modern consolidated HR system; sometimes that would feel like putting the ox before the cart. In all cases, it is a grievous mistake to consider that with one, especially a Talent Profile, one can skip on the other. Do that and you look at your business the way a one-eyed person looks at the world.

Whatever approach you use, a single view of your workforce/talent data brings advantages which cannot be realized without a good data governance model in place. Always remember the GIGA principle: Garbage In, Garbage Out. Many of my clients call me for help complaining about their software vendor's shortcomings when the issue lies squarely with the users. For instance, you'll find users in different subsidiaries that are reluctant to use the system because the data is obsolete or doesn't reflect reality ("Oh dear, but we haven't used those job codes in years:") Well, whose fault is it? Have you communicated this information to the corporate HRIS team? Is there an HRIS manager/coordinator in the first place? Do they solicit feedback from local users? Have they involved them in the design of the global system?

All these questions will determine the success of a global HR system, whether it is a Talent Profile, a Data Hub or an HR System of Record. Those who have worked with me know that I have zero tolerance for, and am quite vocal about, vendors who over-promise, under-deliver and build crappy products. But that does not mean that HR leaders and users can hide behind that to shirk their responsibilities. After all, your HR system is YOUR tool, it is about YOUR people, YOUR company. It is therefore YOUR duty to do the required due diligence and ensure you have the best system to meet your company's requirements. It is nobody else's responsibility.

NOTE: In order not to overload the graphs I have simplified them. Thus, the interfaces are all shown as one-way to reflect the more important flow direction, even though some (for instance between Payroll and HR) is often a two-way flow (to update compensation data following payroll processes.) Also, interfaces can be much messier than what appears, with payroll interfaced with a third-party system (such as a Benefits provider.)  And in the case of companies that do not use either a Hub or a SOR, point-to-point interfaces will make the graphs (and the reality behind them) even clunkier. But all these deviations do not detract from the best practice tips offered in the post.

Monday, September 17, 2012

Dead software walking: PeopleSoft 7 years after its acquisition by Oracle

PARIS
With most PeopleSoft customers
having reached the end of the
toothpaste, time has come to
throw the tube away and get
something else
Two years ago I wrote a post on the waning of PeopleSoft and its corollary, the various options left to its customers. Back then I was heavily criticized by the Oracle/PeopleSoft ecosystem as exaggerating the reports of the death of the once-king of HR systems. And yet, today, developments are proving me right. As the following timeline graph shows, Oracle has stopped investing in any meaningful way in the PeopleSoft platform, no net new customers have been reported, the number of projects and resources are down and current customers are embracing the below options in greater numbers. It is therefore time to provide an update on these options.

ON DEATH ROW: Innovation goes out the window when Oracle comes through the door. Hardly surprising
when we realize that last time Oracle brought truly great innovation to the IT market was
THIRTY YEARS AGO with the modern relational database.

Since then Oracle has either copied its competitors (e.g. Apps -SAP, Fusion -SAP/Workday) or
 bought and killed them (e.g. PeopleSoft, Siebel, Hyperion etc.)



As the timeline graph shows, as an independent company PeopleSoft released a  new version every 12-18 months with substantial functionality in each one. However, in the seven years since Oracle took over, only two releases have come out. Yes, that's one every 3 ½ years which even in the glacial pace of ERP releases is quite unique. Now, if the features developed were game-changing and disruptive one might make the case that maybe it was worth waiting that long. But look at what has been delivered in those releases. Release  9.0 (December 2006) brought the first talent management feature (Talent Profile) aiming at stemming the hemorrhage of PeopleSoft customers going to the likes of Taleo and SuccessFactors. That concern was even more apparent with the next release, PeopleSoft 9.1 (September 2009), which delivered the back integration of Talent 9.1 to previous PeopleSoft releases (actually just 9.0 and 8.9.) It did not stop the hemorrhage and Oracle was left with no other solution than to buy Taleo five years later thus proving the futility of its PeopleSoft-based talent management offering. The only feature of note was the three localized payrolls (Argentina, China, Thailand - in the case of Argentina it was a partner-developed solution which  was productized in 9.1.) Apart from that you are more likely to find a four-leaf clover in the Mojave Desert than truly innovative PeopleSoft functionality in these releases.


OPTION #1: Upgrade to PeopleSoft 9.X and wait for 9.2 

To be thorough in the analysis, let us consider in detail the option of staying with PeopleSoft and upgrading to one of these two releases. The advantage is that you remain on the same product, your users will not be traumatized with having to learn a new user interface, you can use the Oracle maintenance for longer (remember that Oracle usually maintains the latest release for five years after general availability.) This could be the opportunity for you to implement features you never switched on and which could bring some business value. That's what some companies are doing and which I call "squeezing the PeopleSoft lemon."

The problem with this option is that, first, 9.0 didn't get much uptake from customers (and, anyway, support is ending this year) and, as shown in the graph, 9.1 is hardly any better in terms of features of value (unless you are a global company with a significant workforce in the three countries that got a new payroll.) Also, be aware that every upgrade requires more than just the latest release. For instance, moving from PeopleSoft 8.9 to 9.1 requires an upgrade from PeopleTools 8.46 to 8.51 and also a platform upgrade (from Oracle database 9 to 10, Weblogic and all other third-party software.) New hardware may also be required which, needless to say, Oracle would be glad to supply you with. And, of course, there is no guarantee yet on when 9.2 will be released and what it will contain. (Oracle is making noises about end 2012 meaning it will not be  available before mid 2013 at the earliest)

When taking into account the costs, time, resources, complexity and energy involved in carrying out this upgrade vs. benefits received, it is clear that this option does not make much sense. Why continue to invest on a product on its last legs? Investing in PeopleSoft now is like buying a roundtrip ticket on the Titanic after it has hit the iceberg.


OPTION # 2: Switch to Oracle Fusion

The main reason Oracle stopped investing in PeopleSoft is that it has been throwing all its R&D firepower on the successor product, Fusion. (For a detailed analysis of Fusion, read my post "Error 404: Oracle Fusion not found"  from November 2011.) So if you have a good relationship with Oracle (admittedly a rare occurrence for many customers) why not try and see whether Fusion can meet your needs? Because it is the same vendor there are some advantages, in particular license-wise. Like for like you are supposed to get a free license (but check that first.) Another advantage is that because it is the same vendor, some migration help is available in the form of an upgrade path (but not necessarily a direct one) depending on the point/major release (8.8, 9.0, 9.1 to Fusion.)

On the downside, if the customer uptake on 9.X was not as impressive as Oracle might have liked, Fusion is getting tepid response from the US and even less from Europe, despite a better user interface and good analytics features. And of those who have decided to take the leap of faith, very few hail from the ranks of PeopleSoft, making it even less of an obvious choice for you. (One exception in Europe is French banking giant SocGen which is currently implementing some Fusion HCM modules*.) Clearly Oracle customers are reluctant to be the guinea pig for a largely unproven product, especially knowing Oracle's track record when it comes to beta releases. Many modules are still not ready for prime time, neither are many country localizations (If with PeopleSoft you could manage your workforce in 10 countries, why would you be ready to settle for less in Fusion?) Because the Fusion code is different all the upgrade help Oracle promises cannot hide the fact that we are talking here about a full-fledged reimplementation.  And any help in the form of an upgrade path or an upgrade script is limited, only for those customers on 8.8 or 9X, meaning that you have to upgrade from, say 8.3, to one of these point releases and then to Fusion. Going through two implementations may be asking too much and will prompt the search for alternatives.

One variant of the two previous solutions is to maintain your HR system of record on PeopleSoft and move everything else to Fusion or vice versa: adopt Fusion Core HR but interfaced to the other PeopleSoft products you have already implemented. One key advantage is that it allows you to test the Fusion waters before you decide whether Fusion is ready for prime time and expand the footprint. The biggest drawback of this son-of-Frankenstein approach is that, contrary to Oracle's statements, you'll have to do all the integration work which largely preempts the point of a full-Oracle solution. A recent ZdNet article ("Oracle's Cloud Fusion app integration: More complicated than it has to be") explains some of the issues with this mongrel  approach: I love the reporter's comment that "No, Mr. Customer, you don't need to do the integration work, Oracle does!" (I'm paraphrasing.)


OPTION # 3: Third-party support

Considering the limited value that releases 9.0 and 9.1 bring, one might wonder why on earth any customer has upgraded. And even if not large in numbers, there are PeopleSoft customers that have moved to one of these two releases. Why? Shall we question their sanity? Apart from ignorance and mistakes, which we all make, the main reason can be seen from the below support table.


End of the line? Dead in the water? Whatever you want to call it, PeopleSoft's
best days are behind it... and its customers!

Sadly, most PeopleSoft customers who have upgraded have done so not because of the carrot of high-value functionality but because of the stick of desupport. Caught between the rock of an upgrade to 9X and the hard place of moving to Fusion, many have chosen what they feel is the least of the two evils.

And yet, if the issue is support, there is an alternative: third-party support. If you are unsure of which final alternative to pursue (see Options # 4 and 5 below) but are unhappy about paying Oracle a hefty maintenance fee and getting little in return you can move to a company like Rimini Street which will take over supporting your implementation at half of what you are currently paying. In Europe, for instance, companies such as Deutsche Post and Sita have done exactly that. In these days' tough economic climate saving 50% of your maintenance bill is not something to be scoffed at. Some of the savings can then be used to research other more permanent options, while doing it at your own pace without being pressured by your vendor to upgrade to a new platform that you don't feel is right for you.


OPTION # 4: Switch to a new HCM system

Once you start looking at non-Oracle alternatives, the first obvious choice is to expand your ERP footprint. Since a large proportion of PeopleSoft HR customers run SAP for Finance, it therefore makes sense to look at whether running SAP HCM brings value. If the business case, which you will of course have done comprehensively, shows many integration points between HR and Finance (e.g. employee data needed for expense refunds or employee skills for project management) then SAP HCM is a  valid choice. (I am discarding Oracle EBS HR since its shelftime is as limited as PeopleSoft.) Many large PeopleSoft customers have adopted this approach, such as French banking giant BNP which has discontinued using PeopleSoft as its HR system of record and is moving to SAP.

Another variant is to look at HCM suites (vendors that only focus on HR) which would make sense if your project is domestic or limited to a single region of the world. If you are US-centric Ultimate or Lawson could be a good choice, if European/Latin American why not Meta4?



OPTION #5: Going SaaS 

You can cast your net wider and, if ready to move your HR system to the cloud, rip and replace it completely with a SaaS system. Of course I am talking here of a true SaaS system, so that will rule out the cloud version of Oracle Fusion which purports to be SaaS when it is just hosted. Revealingly, a majority of Fusion early adopters have picked the on-premise flavor.

SAP has a promising true SaaS offering based on the SuccessFactors platform: its HR admin module (Employee Central) may not be as robust as its on-premise counterpart but is a good way to start. Workday is the other true SaaS vendor, the one that started the whole SaaS ball game rolling, and has replaced many PeopleSoft implementations. For a full comparison of Workday vs. PeopleSoft, you can read my post of a year ago, recently updated, PeopleSoft vs Workday - Old vs New, which became this month my most popular post, further evidence that momentum is shifting from on-premise to SaaS, with PeopleSoft customers looking at Workday even more actively. Among PeopleSoft's customers defecting to Workday (I gave some examples in the previously mentioned blogpost) a historic customer, computer maker HP,  is adding its name to the list.

In both cases the advantages of a SaaS system, if you are ready for this delivery model and want a full web-based system, are just phenomenal: unlike PeopleSoft you don't have to pay for any database license, hardware, third-party system, middleware nor maintain an army of in-house IT consultants. And you get the most modern of HR systems, with some of the best user experience around. On the minus side: if your requirements are truly unique, and the configuration capabilities of the SaaS system do not meet all these requirements, then customization is necessary and SaaS will not work for you. Also, be careful not to underestimate your resource needs when doing your business case: you may not need the cast of thousands required by a traditional PeopleSoft implementation, but every Workday update will require several FTE days of work per quarter to test the new features.

SOFTWARE GRAVEYARD:
After three decades of

invaluable service
to the business community
it is time for PeopleSoft
to rest at Oracle, where
all software products
go to die


With PeopleSoft way past its sell-by date, time has come, for those who haven't done so yet, to look even more seriously at the various available options. One option, though, is no longer available: do nothing. Stay on an antiquated HR platform at your own risk and peril, and see how your HR and business objectives are hamstrung by old, obsolete technology.

*UPDATE Jan. 2014: SocGen, like Dutch bank ING, have stopped their Fusion implementation and keeping PeopleSoft...for the time being!

(Ahmed Limam spends a large part of his time on 3P activities: Post-PeopleSoft Planning, helping organizations from different geographies and industries make an audit of their PeopleSoft implementation and decide on the best course forward.)




Friday, October 7, 2011

Notes from a good conference in a tacky town

Can you tell the original one (which I can
see from my Paris home) from the fake one
which graced the view from my Mandalay
Bay hotel room? 
LAS VEGAS
In my book High-Tech Planet  I called a chapter “The tackiest town on earth” because most of the action took place in Dubai.  Now that I have been to Las Vegas I have to revise my judgment: Sin City wins top honors (at least the runner up for the title has the Persian Gulf as an exotic background.) Thankfully I was too busy inside the Mandalay Bay Hotel complex with the 14th HR Technology Conference  to  wonder  about the meaning (if any) of creating a surreal city in the middle of the desert  or, to make an easy pun, wander about either.

One of the most eagerly awaited presentations was SAP’s debuting of its SaaS offering, Career On-Demand, the German software company’s reply to the smaller talent management vendors who have been eating its lunch in that market segment for the past half decade (but not available until Apr. 2012.)  Although there was no doubt that its user experience was an improvement on R/3 (in itself not an insurmountable task), I felt underwhelmed by what I saw. Even the Fusion features which Oracle demoed at its booth looked better. (By the way, anybody saw  the many Vegas cabs sporting “Oracle-#1 HCM” ads?) The LinkedIn import function in the new SAP product is good (but then other talent management vendors already offer it.) SAP is still playing catch up and it shows.  On the last day, Merck  explained in their presentation why they decided on Lumesse’s ETWeb system for their  100,000- strong merged companies’ performance management rather than SAP which they use as their HR system of record. Nothing I have seen so far is going to reverse the trend.

Speaking of Lumesse, on Day 1 of the conference, they announced their acquisition of Edvantage, a Norway-based Learning  vendor (acquisisition #11  this year in my count.) This makes them the fifth talent management -TM) vendor to offer the full gamut of TM functions, and so far the only European vendor to do so. Another European vendor that attracted quite some attention was Meta4 which many people had already buried regarding the American market, and who is staging a comeback, or at least attempt #2. Considering  their strengths there are few vendors who really deserve to  succeed the second time round in the land of the second chance.

Workday was again the vendor that attracted the most attention. Unsure, though, whether that was due to the fun dance they performed in their booth. In my two decades in the HR system business I  sure never thought that software updates  would make great lyrics nor make bodies gyrate to a catchy tune. (You can watch here the video.)  Their announcement of an alliance with NorthgateArinso (NGA) on multi-country payrolls was of more direct consequence to our business, though. Since many global customers are hesitating whether  to replace their current HCM vendor with one that only covers two countries, and all of them in North America, this alliance was only a question of time before it was announced. After all, the only other possible suitors were Oracle or SAP, direct competitors to Workday. NGA is a good compromise: its SAP-based offering (whether hosted, on-premise or outsourced) offers more  payroll localizations than any other vendor and the only issue now is the extent to which either vendor offers a decent out-of-the box connector to the other’s product (HR admin for Workday and the various payrolls for NGA).  Let’s watch closely how their first joint customer AIG fares under this arrangement.


I was more than gratified by the 100-120 who attended my session on Expanding to Europe. Based on the number of HR executives who came to talk to me or contacted me afterwards, going global is increasingly becoming  part and parcel of many HR projects. 

No HR  Technology Conference is complete without the vendor-sponsored parties. In spite of my 9-hour jetlag, I managed to drag myself to some of them on Monday night. I found the SilkRoad party quite cool, and the Cornerstone one friendly and fun (and quite young –some of their executives were not even born when some major products were launched.) I passed on the late evening’s big bash since by then all life had deserted me, and I barely managed to crawl back to my room.  

One last word on the location: in comparison with Chicago the facilities were better, and the fact that we could stay on the premises was an advantage. On the down side, the Mandalay Bay has all the charm of a crowded mall, with the most dreadful hotel-elevator experience I have ever had (one day there was a long line stretching back into the lobby.) And, of course, Chicago is an amazing place with great architecture, culture and a true lake to breathe some fresh air. It is also more easily reachable for most US-based attendees and even more so for the many Europeans who came. After this interesting experiment in Sin City I definitely vote for the conference to go back to the Windy City. 


(The original Eiffel Tower is the one on the left-hand side.) 

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

A five-tier approach to a multi-country payroll project

PARIS
Although the bulk of the upcoming HR-technology projects deal with the various components of what goes by the name of talent management, by far the largest number of current HR systems still deal with good old payroll. Such a focus makes sense since you may decide to eschew compensating adequately your workforce, or recruiting them effectively, or training them in line with your company's objectives but there is no way you can avoid paying them.

With the pace of globalization showing no sign of abating most companies find themselves operating across several countries which brings to the fore the need to manage their workforce as part of a single HR system. Most multinationals have been doing just this for a good decade now: two thirds of them have a global HR system of record for all their employees from which they send the relevant data to other HR systems such as learning, time management, benefits and, primus inter pares, payroll.

Traditionally payroll has been managed via a local vendor, either outsourced or in-house, but in the last few years the proportion of large, global companies deciding to use a single, global payroll system (even if not necessarily on a single instance) has grown quite substantially. New vendors, purporting to deliver the Holy Grail of a true global payroll system, have appeared on the landscape muddying the waters of what can be done, what can only be dreamed of and what is pure fantasy.

I have spent a good portion of the past 15 years either implementing payrolls, helping end-user organizations select a new payroll system or, as part of the vendor community (especially now-defunct PeopleSoft and pre-Fusion Oracle) developing a global payroll. In my book, "High-Tech Planet", I describe the fun associated with making a business case for a global payroll.

Assuming you have decided to run your own payroll inhouse (versus outsourcing it in full or in some countries-but I will discuss this as well further below) and regardless of whether you want to do so with an on-premise system or a hosted (SaaS) one, there are basically five ways to go about it based on:

- Funding: Who will pay for it? Sure, ultimately you the customer will end up paying for it, but there are ways to go about it. The vendor can fund this out of its general licensing revenue or you the customer can pick the tab directly.

- Build: Usually he who pays for it builds it, but this is not necessarily always the case as a player (say, a subsidiary) can contract out to the development organization to do it.

- Support/maintenance: This is a key issue and again it is not always an easy decision, the builder is not always the maintainer.

-Ownership: Some of the prior issues will determine, and be determined by, who actually owns the localized payroll.

Having defined some of the key criteria and remembering what it means to have a localized payroll (if you have not done so, please read my post on the five pillars of a "glocal" HR system: http://bit.ly/eRqx5J) here are the five ways you can run your global payroll system. (And, yes, I know, my mind seems to work in fives, probably the remnant of a childhood spent using my fingers to count.)

Tier 1: The truly global payroll 

SAP is the undisputed leader covering more countries
than several vendors put together. Vendors like ADP
whose offering is made up of disparate payrolls are not
included. The figure for Oracle, PeopleSoft refers
logically to each separate product line. Although
Workday currently has the same number of country
 payrolls (two) than other vendors not mentioned here,
I am including them as I believe they will increase
 that number in the coming years
This is the ideal situation. Your payroll vendor offers a localized offering for all of the countries you operate in, meaning they have built all the different aspects required to run a payroll in, say, the US, China, Argentina and South Africa (check that they comply with my five golden rules described in the above post). They built it from their Corporate Development organization, they support and maintain it (every time a rule changes you get a patch), they pay for it themselves out of the hefty license/support/usage fee you are paying. All you have to do is "just" implement the required software and you are in business. Perfect? Trouble-free? Not really. First of all, you have to remember that every vendor will have their own definition of the law and, surprise, surprise, that definition tends to be more limited than yours. So make sure you do your due diligence on that part when comparing the offering of different vendors, you may be comparing apples and oranges (I would recommend checking if they have product managers or development engineers in the various countries you want to cover.) Second, there are few, very few vendors that cover several geographies in this Tier-1 solution in a systematic way*, meaning that you will most probably have to resort to other solutions to complete the global model you need.


Tier 2: The half-baked payroll

HR software vendors are anything if not resourceful. If the Corporate Development organization for reasons I explained at length in my book, does not want to fund a localized payroll for some countries that are key to you, chances are that your vendor's country manager of, say, Nigeria  or Thailand or Tunisia (assuming you are in contact with them), will tell you that they would fund it themselves and contract out to Development to build the required features. You can thus end up with a product developed by your vendor following their development guidelines, on their codeline, with their own people responsible for developing other parts of the standard product. For all intents and purposes, it sounds and feels like the Tier 1 solution, except that it ain't. First of all, once they've built and delivered it, Development won't touch it with a ten-foot pole. The subsidiary, sometimes under constant prodding from you, will have to finance it and if the local market does not warrant it (you were a one-off case) you may wait a long time for that statutory report on overtime pay required by the government of Brazil. And, of course, there is no guarantee that any new off-the-shelf release of the core HR system and payroll (Tier 1) delivered by the vendor will be compatible with this Tier-2 product.

Tier 3:  The partner-built payroll

This is a variant of Tier 2 whereby, since Corporate Development doesn't want to have anything to do with the local payroll (either directly or indirectly, "hey, we don't even have time to build what we committed to"), a local partner is enlisted to replace Development. The great advantage here is that the partner, usually a local payroll vendor, knows the country requirements quite well since they have been developing their own system for  a long time: they therefore have the knowledge, people and resources to develop the localized layer of rules, processes and reports that you need for countries X, Y or Z.

All they need to do is get trained on the core payroll engine, understand the global vendor's development guidelines and they can get you the country extension you wanted in a faster turnaround your global vendor could never dream of. Who will pay for this? you may ask. Well, it all depends on the relationship between the global vendor's  subsidiary and the local vendor: sometimes there is a true partnership whereby they split the licensing revenue or the local payroll vendor gets royalties. (You will not believe how much frequent-flyer mileage I accrued traveling across several time zones and meeting countless payroll vendors to fix these issues) As a customer you need to understand the intricacies of such deals to ensure proper and speedy maintenance. Also, what happens if the local vendor bows out of the agreement? Will the global vendor's subsidiary pick it up as a Tier 2 solution? Will the global vendor accept to productize it and bring this local payroll into the standard product (make it a Tier 1 solution)? What about the compatibility issue with new releases of the global system? Since the global and local products will be on separate release schedules (and sometimes technology stacks) serious issues might arise.

Tier 4: The project payroll

If neither of the previous works, usually because as a customer you represent too small a market share for the vendor to get involved even at the local level through a partnership with a local vendor or by having the product financed by the subsidiary, you can still build the local extension as part of your implementation. Your own people can do it, especially if they have experience working with the vendor, know the tools well, especially the core payroll engine. Or your system integrator (SI) could do it for you, especially if, as is likely, they have experience implementing that payroll or even building out localized versions: and like all SI's they would love to do it for you, in exchange for fat, cascading consulting fees. A third option would be to use the consulting arm of your vendor to build it for you, on a T&M basis. The advantage of the latter is that it may minimize risks associated with such a project, if only because you can assume that as part of the vendor's organization they would know the product better than your own folks or an SI. Whatever the option of this solution, you the customer as the owner and funder of this solution will still be responsible for  its support and maintenance. Tough decision to make, but well worth it if the country under consideration is a key one with many employees and user experience, analytics and integration issues demand a similar payroll be used for that country as for the other ones.

Tier 5: The third-party payroll

When all else fails, then you are left with only one solution: create an interface between (a) either your HR system of record or your global payroll (there are pros and cons to do either, I will discuss that in another post) and (b) either a local legacy payroll or, more likely, an established local payroll vendor's solutions for the countries where you do business. It could be either an ADP-like outsourced payroll or the myriad third-party payroll systems which, in spite of the global vendors' growing market share, still rule the roost all over the world and which your local team will have to install and use. If you're lucky, maybe that such an interface has already been built by your vendor. For instance, most of the ERP vendors (SAP, Oracle and PeopleSoft or "SOP") have built such an interface (goes by various names, Payroll Interface or ADP Connector) where, in a nutshell, they already map HR data (employee details, compensation, organization, contract, absence data etc.) to selected payroll systems. Just make sure you understand what is really covered and who will maintain such an interface. In some cases where the interface is too light (what I call a marketing interface rather than a true product one) you might as well build your interface yourself.  Especially when the number of local payroll vendors is huge and there is little chance of your global vendor to have built standard interfaces to all of them.



It is noteworthy to keep in mind that when "SOP" vendors start localizing their offering they do it on a module-by-module basis, meaning that they first release a localized  HR Administration system (contract types, national identifier, address format etc.) and only then (there can be a lag of several years between the two) the payroll rules (earnings, deductions, gross-to-net calculation etc.) In order to optimize a Tier-5 solution, you may want to check which of the vendors has the most localized HR Admin modules as this will help lessen the need to build such features prior to their use by a payroll interface.

One tantalizing thought is the extent to which a pure SaaS vendor (such as Workday) can meet the needs of large multinational companies since in a SaaS model the payroll sits on a vendor's data center and is accessed remotely by users. It is therefore hard to envisage how Tiers 2-4 solutions can be done with such a system. Could it be that a global payroll system will be hampered by SaaS? So far the jury is still out as there is no   vendor that has yet come up with a SaaS-based multi-country payroll. This probably explains why Workday has been quite slow at expanding its country footprint and few members, if any, of its growing customer base are using its payroll outside North America. But if a true SaaS vendor manages to enhance its configuration options to the level needed to quickly build local payrolls and/or add new payrolls quickly to its standard offering, then it will truly revolutionize the oldest of HR functions.

*A list of how various global vendors fare in terms of HR and payroll localization is available from www.AhmedLimam.com\ Vendor Localization Footprint (excerpt -Google Docs sign-on may be required.) Please note that the Tier-4 description therein is somewhat different from the five-pronged approach presented here since the Vendor Localization Footprint report does not by definition cover the Tier-5 solution presented in this post.

Thursday, July 8, 2010

Great Expectations: ADP acquires Workscape to contend more seriously in the Talent Management space

PARIS
It is one of the worst-kept secrets in the HR tech/services industry that ADP, the Grand Old Lady of our business, has been on the prowl for a Talent Management (TM) product to add to its already impressive portfolio. After plugging the recruiting hole in its offering with the acquisition of Virtual Edge (and Employease) in 2006, it was soon obvious that the Grand Old Lady of Roseland, NJ, was leaving more than small change on the table as many of its customers were buying from other TM vendors what they couldn't get from her. Hence, its  partnership with CornerStone OnDemand last year. Now, these partnerships have been around from Day 1 of our business and they mean only two things: (a) we don't have a viable solution, (b) we have a viable solution. Because of the ambiguous nature of these partnerships, they last only long enough for the weaker party (here it is undoubtedly ADP, not CSoD) to develop its own offering. PeopleSoft did it with ADP in the late '90s when it (PeopleSoft) was staggering in the dark towards a global payroll strategy. Workday has recently done it with Mr Ted while it builds (if ever!) its own recruiting solution, and ADP has been doing it on the TM front with CSoD until now.

What is Workscape bringing to the table? If ADP's goal was to enhance its compensation offering it sure got the prettiest bride around: Workscape is widely considered as having the best compensation tool in the industry. If it was more the performance management space that was the aim, this is still WIP since the Performance Management module is new (launched in 2008) with new modules around assessment expected by beginning of next year. However, there is no recruiting or learning capability - nor is there any talk of adding it to the roadmap. Another acquisition in the offing to plug this hole? Well, crater is a better word since these are two key features that no self-respecting HCM offering would be caught dead without.

Will Workscape help ADP grow internationally as some observers are claiming? I strongly doubt it in its present form. If ADP tries that, it would be a case of the blind leading the blind as Workscape is as parochial in its business (give or take the odd customer in Europe) as ADP. Sure, ADP has good name recognition in France (through the acquisition of GSI decades ago - still branded here as ADP/GSI) and Germany, but International still makes up for less than 15% of ADP's business.  So it will take more than this to make ADP the strong global player that it could become, but has so far shied seriously from.

Three major challenges await ADP as it embarks on this new adventure: integration, image and product rationalization. First, even if the jury's still out on the Virtual Edge integration, so far no major disaster in the form of product failures, strategy inconsistency or customer stampede towards the exit has been noted, so the omen are not too bad. Second, ADP has the dusty image of a vendor whose main business, payroll, is a bit passé. I've always looked at ADP as an old lady, who once upon a time was quite pretty but whose better years are now behind her. No amount of rouge, mascara and lipstick can hide the lines on the face. What she needs is a full facelift to enter the brave new world of 21st-century HR. Third, and to help overcome the second challenge, some product rationalization is in order. ADP is rather unique in the market (except for Sage) in that it is a collection of disparate payroll and HR products serving different market segments and geographies. While this has undeniably been responsible for ADP's success, especially in the US, it has reached a point where it becomes too complex to manage. Some streamlining and product retiring are inevitable. A product like Workscape that can be aimed at different market segments (although not the lower end of the market) and geographies (provided localization is available beyond the UK) could help ADP on that front.

In summary, it seems that our Grand Old Lady has emerged from her nap and, surprise, surprise, she's still kicking. Whether she relapses into her torpor or is reinvigorated will depend on execution on this acquisition  and the next moves she embarks on.