#SEanalytics Symposium Mission Critical Analytics

I'm chairing Symposium's Mission Critical Analytics conference next week too.

It should be a good event, with some great speakers:

• Andrea Eccles, Chief Executive and Editor of Measuring Up, City HR Association

• David Littlechild, Group Head of Engagement & Insights, Lloyd's Banking Group 

• Rachel Credidio, Group People and Transformation Director, Aster Group

• Laura Sherlock-Smith, Head of HR Report and Analytics Development, UBS

• Edward Houghton, Research Adviser, Human Capitals & Metrics, CIPD

• Neil Parkinson, HR Analyst, CBRE

• Sunil Kaushal, HR Analytics Thought Leader

• Adam Gibson , Head of Workforce Planning and Deployment, Metropolitan Police

Maybe see you there?

You may also be interested in my posts from speaking at the last two conferences:

• #SEanalytics Mission Critical HR Analytics 2016 - part 1 (2016)

• #SEanalytics HR Analytics - part 2

• #seAnalytics - Levels of Planning, Measurement and Analysis (2015)

• Symposium Events - Analytics for Employee Engagement

More about me:

@joningham, http://linkedin.com/in/joningham 
info@joningham.com, +44 7904 185134

Top 100 HR Tech Influencer - Human Resources Executive 
HRD Thought Leader - HRD Connect
Mover and Shaker - HR magazine

Also develop your Strategic HCM capabilities at my new Strategic HR Academy

• 
  

People - vs just business - analytics

I've had this article published on HRZone in a special hub site on automation, analytics and data in HR:

The need for people - vs just business - analytics

There has been some useful development in HR’s use of analytics over the last few years.

One of the positive aspects of this has been the increased use of the term workforce analytics, rather than ‘HR analytics’, to signal that we are interested in insight on the whole workforce, not just on what happens within the HR department.

A goal which is often linked with this shift is that we need to move further towards ‘business analytics’.

Whilst I support the increasing focus on business I think we also run the risk of missing something vital if all we focus on is HR and the business.

This missing link is the quality of our people we develop through our HR activities…

(Read the rest of the article at HRZone.)

Consulting   Research  Speaking  Training  Writing

Strategy  - Talent - Engagement  - Change and OD 

Contact me to create more value for your business

jon [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

#SEanalytics HR Analytics - part 2

In part 1 of this post I described the typical data and technology oriented approach to HR analytics and then ran out of space sharing my personality analysis from IBM Watson.

You can do analytics this way, but lots of organisations don’t have the data or technology. And even if you do, I think you need to combine with my way too.

But that's not the only way of doing things. It is technology and data which is causing change in analytics but it’s not the best place to start doing analytics.

Another of Thursday's speakers noted that most of our analytics are transactional not strategic. But we understand the value of strategic analysis so why not do this instead? I therefore suggest that analytics should really be based on strategy, questions and insight.

So yes, it is the question which is important, and these questions should come from your strategy.

Importantly, identifying the right strategic questions isn't going to be about listening to the questions the business is asking – they won’t know what they need to know, at least not as well as HR can do. And it isn’t just about understanding the way the business operates, it’s also about having deep insight into how people can be developed, motivated and aligned etc.

The key to doing it is plotting your HR strategy out as a value chain, a bit like the balanced business scorecard / business strategy map. I use a value chain that is the framework used in the CIPD's Valuing Your Talent work. However, the reason that it’s important is the fact it’s a value chain, not that it provides standardised measures (I'll post again later why that's a distraction).

There are four reasons for suggesting this:

• It helps clarify and communicate your HR strategy. This is important because the real difficulty in doing analytics isn't the measuring, the data cleaning or the statistics. Instead of this it's being clear about what you're trying to do and therefore what you need to know. The value chain format helps this to happen. 
  

• It focuses on outcomes as well as activities and as well as the business. As I noted earlier, you need to understand and provide insights into people not just the business.
   
• It helps identifies how each of these objectives can be measured, or better, assessed - hence my focus on evidence not just metrics.
   
• It makes predictive or at least descriptive analytics easier.

Descriptive analytics is simply looking back up the value chain trying to work out why something has or hasn't happened, ie doing root cause analysis. You won't necessarily have data for all of these potential root causes but basing descriptive analytics on a strategy map means that at least you're looking at the most important things and also that you are more likely to already have good data (at least on the outcome and  the main relationship with this, since you will already be measuring what's on the strategy map).

Predictive analytics can include several different things. However to be worthy of a different name I think it has to involve more than understanding data relationships which have existed in the past and then trying to extrapolate these into the future, especially as with increasing complexity this is getting harder to do. To me, it should involve looking further down the value chain at the consequences of particular actions which could or could not be taken. I call this branch effect analysis (the opposite of analysing root causes).

The issue with this is that even if you can extrapolate into the future you might not have the data to do this, particularly if you're trying something new.  So predictive analytics may need to be based upon:

• Continual case (start to measure now to do analytics later)
• Comparative case (use benchmarking and research to show benefits other organisations have achieved)

A lot of maturity curves suggest may take 10 years from start of the journey to doing predictive analytics, after jumping over or through a brick wall. It doesn’t have to take that long – the value chain is the key to being able to do it now.

So there you go. You might now better understand why Watson thinks Im authority challenging and somewhat inconsiderate (at least to prevailing wisdom)! But I hope you will have found some of these ideas useful too.

#SEanalytics Mission Critical HR Analytics 2016 - part 1

I'm speaking today at Symposium's HR analytics conference.

I've been pleased that although several of the sessions have been focusing quite hard on data, conference chair Peter Reilly has already suggested we really need to focus on the question. This is what I'm going to be talking about later on.

I put the emphasis on data down to the prevalence of the analytics maturity curve, which one of the other presenters is using in their session (I had expected more to do so).

These are typically presented as an arrow moving from data and matrics through to forecasting and prediction, and often include a brick wall at some point to illustrate the tricky bit in the journey.

I advise against using them. Actually I don’t like any sort of maturity curve as I believe that each organisation needs to find its own path. And I particularly don’t like the analytics one because I think the three factors it’s build upon – technology, data and analytical tools, particularly the use of statistics, are the wrong things.

Also, although it is usually presented as an arrow it really involves a cycle - using better technology providing better data requiring better statistical analysis needing better technology etc etc. We've talked about some of this earlier on as well and I don't deny that the latest insights from machine learning and artificial intelligence are fantastic.

Actually one of the speakers suggested that automated personality tests were pretty terrible – I don't agree. This is my Twitter personality analysis from IBM Watson and I think those of you know know me will probably agree it's really very good. I just don't think it's the key approach in analytics.

Personality Profile*: @joningham

You are informal, somewhat inconsiderate and shrewd.

You are energetic: you enjoy a fast-paced, busy schedule with many activities. You are authority-challenging: you prefer to challenge authority and traditional values to help bring about positive changes. And you are philosophical: you are open to and intrigued by new ideas and love to explore them.

You are relatively unconcerned with both tradition and taking pleasure in life. You care more about making your own path than following what others have done. And you prefer activities with a purpose greater than just personal enjoyment.

*Compared to most people who participated in our surveys.

Data Behind Your Personality

Big Five

Openness 68% (± 5%)

Adventurousness 97% (± 4%)

Artistic interests 60% (± 9%)

Emotionality 26% (± 4%)

Imagination 65% (± 6%)

Intellect 98% (± 5%)

Authority-challenging 98% (± 7%)

Conscientiousness 25% (± 7%)

Achievement striving 87% (± 9%)

Cautiousness 57% (± 8%)

Dutifulness 35% (± 5%)

Orderliness 18% (± 6%)

Self-discipline 46% (± 4%)

Self-efficacy 91% (± 8%)

Extraversion 65% (± 5%)

Activity level 99% (± 7%)

Assertiveness 97% (± 7%)

Cheerfulness 28% (± 9%)

Excitement-seeking 57% (± 7%)

Outgoing 76% (± 7%)

Gregariousness 51% (± 5%)

Agreeableness 30% (± 9%)

Altruism 69% (± 6%)

Cooperation 54% (± 7%)

Modesty 2% (± 5%) - yeah OK, I suppose I am posting up my own Twitter personality!

 

Uncompromising 28% (± 6%)

Sympathy 75% (± 9%)

Trust 96% (± 5%)

Emotional range 21% (± 8%)

Fiery 32% (± 8%)

Prone to worry 34% (± 5%)

Melancholy 33% (± 5%)

Immoderation 17% (± 5%)

Self-consciousness 29% (± 5%)

Susceptible to stress 21% (± 8%)

Needs

 

Challenge 84% (± 8%)

Closeness 9% (± 7%)

Curiosity 70% (± 11%)

Excitement 12% (± 10%)

Harmony 18% (± 10%)

Ideal 33% (± 9%)

Liberty 32% (± 13%)

Love 54% (± 9%)

Practicality 47% (± 8%)

Self-expression 18% (± 7%)

Stability 4% (± 10%)

Structure 33% (± 7%)

Values

Conservation 6% (± 6%)

Openness to change 69% (± 6%)

Hedonism 10% (± 13%)

Self-enhancement 36% (± 9%)

Self-transcendence 23% (± 7%)

#ATD2016 An Alternative to Kirkpatrick Evaluation

ATD International Conference Talent Strategy Mapping from Jon Ingham

I've come to ATD's main international conference after speaking at ATD MENA last year.  But also because I've been following the tweets from the last couple of years and have been increasingly concerned by the heavy focus on the Kirpatrick evaluation model here (much, much stronger than the CIPD's Learning and Development Show etc).

Kirkpatrick Partners suggest that "Don Kirkpatrick’s groundbreaking four levels of training evaluation is the most widely used training evaluation model in the world. Ask any group of trainers whether they rely on it in their practice, and you’ll get an enthusiastic affirmation."

The first statement is absolutely true.  The second is nonsense.  Come on!, we all know if doesn't work.

Last year there was also a session on Kaplan and Norton's Balanced Business Scorecard and how that helps training and learning evaluation.  It doesn't.  The BBS works for the rest of the business because it provides balance, flow and the ability to link planning objectives (the business strategy map) to measures (the scorecard).  It doesn't work for talent management and development because it doesn't give us balance or flow.

So I decided to come and talk about my own model, based upon the strategy map, which does provide these benefits (have a look here for an explanation).  It's also very closely related to Kirpatrick's 4 levels but because it's organic vs mechanistic (ie I don't tell you what you need to measure, this comes out of your own business and talent management / development strategy) it works whilst Kirkpatrick doesn't.

Participants in my session had an opportunity to try the approach out too and the strategy maps / value matrix they came up with for a health insurance business represented in the room is provided below (thanks Keith):

The objectives and measures in here are what I suggest WHA should evaluate, and the measures for evaluation are provided by the framework.  There's no need, worry, complexity or confusion to have to consult Kirkpatrick on what a particular measure should be.  And if it's not in the value matrix, you probably don't need to both evaluating it.

I asked our 'client' (Keith, the CHRO) whether the measures we'd identified were mainly the same or different from those they currently use for evaluation and he said they were largely the same.  That was a slight shame but participants had only had a maximum of 15 minutes to play with my framework, so I wasn't too disappointed.

And I think it does demonstrate the main point I was trying to make which is that Kirkpatrick's four levels are too constraining.  Eg up at the top of the matrix there's an objective about improved collaboration which is going to be measured through network mapping.  A great, perfectly aligned measure.  But where is that in Kirkpatrick's system?

It also demonstrates the difficulty measuring strategic attributes (those at the top of the framework) in an objective, quantified way.  Eg we didn't get to develop a measure for change agility, but I bet it won't be a percentage or rating, it's going to be something a bit more complex and therefore qualitative and potentially subjective, which is fine - but of course rules out doing a quantitative ROI study.

But I'm going to leave this post with my criticism of the Kirkpatrick model - if you want a critical review of Jack Phillips ROI methodology have a look here.


Later: actually I am going to extend my discussion into Phillips methodology as well.  This is because I've been reading more of his writing at the ATD conference and I think this demonstrates very effectively why Kirkpatrick / Phillips doesn't work.

Firstly, the article in the ATD's current TD magazine: The Value of Engagement.  Because Phillips uses the Kirkpatrick levels he's forced into completely inappropriate measures.  How do you measure engagement?  Not through 'reaction to engagement'!  What on earth is that?

Or take his new book on the ROI o Organisation Development.  There's not one single mention in the index of complexity, and only a couple of brief mentions of intangibles.  Ie there's no recognition at all that when you focus on something as deep as OD most of the outcomes you're creating fall into Phillips' bucket of intangibles and don't play a role in his perfectly precise ROI equation.  So what's the point of it?  I wasn't in the bookstore long enough to work out whether he recommends a 'reaction to organisation development' measure.  But wouldn't that be bizarre!

Actually, all you've got to do is to go back to the value matrix, check how you're planning to create engagement or a better (in WHA's case more agile) organisation and then measure / evaluate that.  Which is why we need a qualitative measure for change agilty.  And a discussion rather than a single reliable but completely invalid figure for ROI.


You can review the slides from my ATD presentation / workshop session here. 

• Consulting   Research  Speaking  Training  Writing
• Strategy  - Talent - Engagement  - Change and OD 
• Contact me to create more value for your business
• jon [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

 

#HRTechMENA and the Analytics of Not

One of the most interesting comments at HR Tech MENA yesterday was in a panel when moderator, Abdulhussain Tejani, suggested that as well as selling business cases HR needs to get better at expressing the costs of not doing something.

I agree and think this is a core opportunity for HR analytics as this provides a powerful new opportunity to businesses to understand the capabilities of their workforces, the way these capabilities support their business performance and the activities which develop the requires capabilities.

Analytics should therefore help people get the support and experience they need; organisations to maximise the value of their workforces; and therefore the Dubai and other economies to receive the additional  investment required to boost national productivity.

This is important as Dubai and other countries in the region and elsewhere are finding business particularly challenging at the moment given the low oil price (and yes I know it's Abu Dhabi which has the oil).

But there is also an opportunity in the 'analytics of not.'  Often the cost of doing something is clear, but the cost of not doing it is not.  This distorts investment towards sub optimal approaches.  Analytics should help restore the balance towards doing what is in the employees, organisations and countries' favour.

One example is the cost of recruitment.  Analytics are already helping lead organisations towards forming external talent pools of pre-identified, pre-qualified individuals who they can bring onboard quickly once there is a vacancy.  This helps reduce time to hire and increases quality of hire too.  It can also minimise what can be significant business costs - for example, in reduced customer satisfaction or lost revenue.

In fact, for a few organisations at least, analytics has shown the cost of carrying a vacancy is such that it can be better for the business to recruit in advance of its specific replacement or growth needs.  Either a business will have a vacancy by the time a person joins, or the organisation can give the new hire a short-term project until a vacancy arises.  Even then the cost involved in carrying the excess headcount can be less than is saved by avoiding a job vacancy.

Put another way, there is a cost involved in more proactive recruitment but there is an opportunity cost involved in remaining reactive too.

Similar findings can be found in learning and development.  For example some UAE organisations may be concerned about the cost and effort involved in taking on more women but what is the cost of not employing and training them?

Analytics will help us understand the costs of skill gaps in a workforce and should show more employers the benefit of working with their employees to provide better skills development and hence boost organisational and national productivity.

The basic method of undertaking this analysis is to start with the business and HR strategy and specify objectives and measures at each of the levels described in my book, 'Strategic Human Capital Management', namely inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes, and the final business results.

Once this measurement setting process has been completed, organisations can then analyse the different costs involved in distinct levels of activity, producing different outcomes and varying business results.

My expectation, as more businesses start to invest in workforce analytics, is that many of these organisations will be surprised by the 'costs of not.’

The use of analytics should therefore start to move the Dubai and other economies, as well as many people's working lives, in a more positive direction.

Notes:

I'll be speaking about the above approach to analytics at ATD ICE on Sunday.

Andrew Marritt refers to the potential significance of 'not' in this post too.

• Consulting   Research  Speaking  Training  Writing
• Strategy  - Talent - Engagement  - Change and OD 
• Contact me to create more value for your business
• jon [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com