There are a number of challenges facing the HRIS and ERP vendors in the Talent Management space. I believe the 5 items listed here will make it increasingly difficult for them to sell their Talent Management tools.

1.  Cost – which, for both the time and the license of ERP talent management, appears to be exponentially higher than alternatives in the market. If you cannot provide significantly more and better functionality then you are not likely to claim the larger money. Vendors can’t claim brand and stability either when the focused Talent Management players have famously strong brands as well.
2. Legacy mindset – Talent Management is a rapidly evolving industry. The HRIS vendors are often restricted in their development to fit the paradigm of their existing products. This isn’t a good way to pursue a burgeoning industry.
3. Different buyers – the top executive might be the same buyer for both Talent Management technology and HRIS systems, but the influencers, users and often the decision makers at a lower level of the organization, are different. The strategic thinkers in the Talent Management divisions of companies are separating themselves from the more tactical, even though critically important, transactional folks.
4. ERP vendors design for HR – even with the development of MSS or ESS systems, the design is focused on the benefit it delivers the HR department. Talent Management is a business owner user and is needed for their benefit in developing, evaluating, managing, and planning for their workforce. This is a different paradigm than the HRIS vendors are accustomed to on a day-to-day basis.
5. Long development and implementation cycles – vendors can’t make changes fast enough to keep pace with the evolving growth of this infant industry of Talent Management. Changes that address pressing business needs must happen quickly.

I would love to hear your thoughts.

Cheers,
Lois

Related blogs:

8 Essential Questions for Every Software Purchase

Guest Post By Tom McKeown, President of Aquire

In his early days in office, President Ronald Reagan was handed a 2,000 page document by Secretary of State Alexander Haig that was his strategy document for dealing with the Soviet Union. Reagan took the document and, weighing it with his hands, said, “I’m a big picture guy, how about you sum it up in one page.” It was not what Haig wanted to hear but that was his boss.

In that regard Reagan was no different than many chief executives of companies today who need to make critical decisions but don’t have the time or patience to pour through raw data. They need objective, easy to read information presented in a format that all but dictates what decision needs to be made. In short, they need analytics. 

But, how do you get analytics on your company’s most valuable asset, your people? The first step is setting measurements and sticking to them. Now it’s easier for some areas, such as sales, where you give an individual a quota and they are judged on whether they make it or not. Or, manufacturing and development where you can measure how many widgets or code is produced. It becomes tougher as you get into those middle areas in a company where success is not so easily defined. But if you take the time, you will be able to find measurable benchmarks for every position. 

The second step is then to visualize this data in a way that an executive can understand and then use. Why not use the one tool that already has all of your employees graphically displayed, your organizational chart? Most people only think of and use an organizational chart to show reporting relationships. However, products available today, like Aquire’s OrgPublisher, allow you to pack any data you have from an ERP, HCM, or even a spreadsheet into an individual’s corresponding box in the chart. Then with hierarchical summary engines and corresponding graphics, you can easily get useful analytics company-wide or drilled down to individual divisions and departments.

So, whether you’re the boss or are trying to impress the boss, there is an easy to use tool out there to help you align your people with your business goals. 

A 25-year veteran of the software and technology industry, Tom McKeown has been with Aquire since 2005.

 I’m a great proponent of social media and participate through many websites. Today I saw a new #hashtag, or footnote, on Twitter. It was #NOOE (Not Opinion Of Employer). Organizations strive to bring diversity into their workforce, but often the diversity is classified within the governmental race- and gender-based diversity definitions. We also look to a diverse workforce as one of the best ways to achieve innovation and progress, building our team with very different backgrounds and ideas. Then along comes social media that allows people to publish their unique ideas, concepts, and opinions for all the world, literally, to see.

This is when employers freak out that the world will perceive the employees’ tweets and blog postings as the official position or  reflection of the organization. There is no denying that, just as people take on part of their identity from the company they work for, part of an employer’s identity is wrapped around who works for the company. A blog post, a Twitter remark, a Facebook photo, a LinkedIn comment – organizations find themselves vulnerable from any number of fronts. We must protect the company on both legal and ethical grounds. We publish guidelines and rules of engagement. We educate employees with the consequences of leaving the corporation open to lawsuits and harmful publicity. It’s something we have to do. But we also have to remember what, more importantly, who helped get our companies to where they are now – innovation and diversity of people, opinions, skills, and backgrounds.

Social media offers us new tools to communicate directly with our customers. Customers can provide direct feedback to us on our products, employees, and organization. We can’t pass that up! So, how can we strike the balance of encouraging diversity and expression of innovative ideas within our workforce planning with the protection of the corporate image?

I like the #NOOE #hashtag idea. It’s a footnote that can prove valuable in both directions. But I think the most important (and world changing) part is discussing the mindset changes required to not only survive but benefit from the age of social media. We must keep an open mind – accept differences of opinions and nurture the ability to disagree with an individual without disregarding the person altogether. We’ve already learned that lesson in the workplace. We can find strength in diversity in social networks, too.

Cheers,
Lois

It started as an #HR_Tech chat on Twitter. A group of us were discussing the metrics and analytics in HR. There was some smack talk about the lack of value of turnover data being a lagging indicator of talent.

Then the chatter began about the importance of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and a great tweet from @MikeBBoston, “while lagging indicators aren’t sexy, what do they say about those who ignore history? not to mention base-lining/modeling.” This is so true. We must learn from history or we are destined to repeat it. If your turnover rate stinks – learn from it.

Headcount analysis, turnover rates, wanted or unwanted attrition, all have their place in workforce planning. You simply need to know if they are the right things to be focusing on and verify you’re using them in context to make them meaningful. Do you have bench marking and goals you are trying to reach? Then there is my favorite – are you looking at your metrics as they tie to your leadership?

My comment in the Twitter chat was, “Turnover is often a symptom of poor leadership or poor hiring practices – ignore at your own risk!” This obviously struck a chord because I started getting tweets and e-mails from many people about how true this statement is.

People don’t leave companies – they leave their leaders. If you are experiencing turnover problems – can you see the numbers as they relate to each leader? We find you can pinpoint a lot of problems to the leader if you look at your numbers as they fit within the hierarchy. Those bad turnover numbers often roll up to point right at the decision makers and the communicators causing the problem.

Can you visualize your numbers this way? How much better might your decisions be if you could see your metrics this way?

Cheers,
Lois