Transforming HR: Creating Value Through People

IoT APPLIED TO HR

2019-08-12T05:30:00.000-07:00

IoT will most likely impact the business landscape just as profoundly as the cloud. Although not yet quite as robust in its offerings to HR, IoT is predicted to provide undeniable benefits and spur new, ingenious applications. IoT is like a digital nervous system of mobile devices (including wearables) and sensors that connect devices with each other and with people. Because of this network of connectivity, IoT can collect a lot of data.

IoT is and will be increasingly more useful to HR departments. Mobile phones and tablets can serve as central hubs in IoT because they provide easy access to people and their preferences. HR incorporation of IoT allows managers to provide continuous performance management by gathering performance data through IoT and providing immediate feedback. Employees will someday use IoT to identify the availability of flex workspaces because through IoT vacant rooms will be shown as “available.” Attendance and location IoT trackers can monitor employee alertness on the job or provide time tracking to capture time and attendance data. IoT has endless, as yet untapped possibilities.

KSAs of Client-Centric Staff

2019-08-08T03:30:00.000-07:00

HR staff must have the interpersonal skills needed to relate effectively to clients and the creativity skills to resolve problems when they occur (for example, conflicting goals among clients).

Manufacturing employees can be quite confident that each car on the assembly line will have essentially the same task requirements as every other car when it reaches their workstation. An assembly-line worker can also rely on the quality-control inspector to catch any errors before a car is shipped to a dealership. Not so in HR. HR staff must successfully perform their tasks with all types of clients who have all types of personalities — in the absence of a “quality inspector” to catch service mistakes before the client’s experience is completed.

HR staff must find and fix mistakes quickly, appropriately, and creatively when HR fails the client in some way. The nature and criticality of each client’s judgment of the quality of each service experience make it essential to assess an HR applicant’s attitude toward client-centric service before that person is hired.

Spotting Talent for Service

Former Chili’s Chairman Norman Brinker said, “Look for people who are smart. Remember, sinners can repent, but stupidity is forever.” At go!Mokulele Airlines in Hawaii, a receptionist was overheard telling a prospective employee on the phone, “You don’t need specific qualifications to work here. You just need to be customer-focused.” Among the best predictors of performance in any job are cognitive ability and three personality dimensions that are good indicators of a client-centered disposition:

•» Conscientiousness: the extent to which a person is dependable and organized and perseveres on tasks

•» Agreeableness: the degree to which a person is amiable, tolerant, honest, cooperative, and flexible

•» Emotional stability: the degree to which a person is secure, calm, and independent and can work autonomously

Integrated vs. Separate HR and Payroll

2019-08-05T02:00:00.000-07:00

rganisations often agonise over the best approach to running their HR and Payroll systems, with a common question being whether to have a fully integrated HR and Payroll system or to operate entirely separate systems. The arguments for and against each option are set out below:

1. Arguments for Integration

In an integrated system, the core HR Management System and payroll modules sit on top of a common database, so all data about an employee such as their pay, conditions, cost centre, organisation, position and personal information are simultaneously available in every module. This has several advantages in terms of processes and workflow. For example, a newly hired employee can be set up in the system by an HR administrator, the employee can add personal data through self-service and pay details can be added by a payroll administrator using the same core data. There is no need for cross-referencing or waiting for data to flow through the system.

The biggest risk with separate (non-integrated) HR and Payroll systems is that the same core data is frequently needed by both, relying on either an electronic interface or even manual re-keying, requiring additional work to manage and validate the transfer. Both these methods almost always cause delays and potentially problems in reconciliation. From a business process perspective, it’s usually much easier to design a process based on a smooth flow of data between HR and payroll within the same system. Retaining all data within the same system also reinforces the idea that the HR module is the master source of data about people. If the two systems are not synchronised, it could lead to problems in performing certain calculations, for example, where pay calculations are based on position-related data that needs to refer to Terms & Conditions (held at the HR level) in order to work out overtime pay or calculate a pay increase.

2. Arguments for Separation

In some cases, separate HR and Payroll systems may make good sense on cost grounds. For example, when implementing the payroll module of a large ERP module, it may not be economically viable to implement the payroll module to pay only a small part of the organisation, which may have its own pay rules. Paying a relatively small number of people (for example a country where only a few people are employed) involves many of the same set-up costs as those for a large population and it’s not uncommon for global implementations to feed separate, stand-alone payrolls or to outsource to a local provider. The ‘tipping point’ for these calculations will vary according to several factors such as payroll complexity, the availability of local providers and scale. In some organisations, the payroll system seems to be working well enough – people are paid the right amount every week or month and the view is that there is no point throwing something away that is fit for purpose - ‘If it’s not broken, don’t fix it’. When the same payroll system has been running for some time, it will probably have reached a point of maturity where the team responsible for it feels comfortable, knows it thoroughly and is reluctant to change. Staying with the same system means there is no need to set up new software and its operation will not require staff to be retrained. The current license period may not have expired, in which case the team may wish to let the contractual period naturally expire, saving cost. However, it’s important to recognise that introducing an HR system will inevitably have an impact on payroll process (as outlined in the pro-integration argument) because of the fundamental need to reconcile the systems. This may actually introduce more cost as the data will need to be passed to payroll by some means, either through re-keying or via an interface.

Disadvantages of Best of Breed: The Pros and Cons

2019-08-01T07:00:00.000-07:00

The disadvantages of Best of Breed HR applications are:

❐ The potential cost of evaluating all options within a given market to identify the most appropriate software may be prohibitive. In the HR market, there are many potential providers with very different offerings, which can confuse or delay selection decisions.

❐ Perhaps the strongest argument against Best of Breed applications is that they are often produced by small, start-up organisations that initially get a good foothold in the market, become popular but cannot then sustain the growth needed. This has been particularly true of highly specialised providers that operate in niche markets – for example, when flexible benefits initially became popular, several small providers launched web-based systems to support flex and many subsequently went out of business, leaving customers with unsupported systems. The solution is to thoroughly check the financial status of any software vendor.

❐ The need for the organisation to acquire a different set of skills to support specialised software. Increasingly, support contracts are available to minimise the burden of maintaining these skills; organisations are also turning to cloud-based solutions to transfer the organisational system management overhead outside the business.

Advantages of Best of Breed: The Pros and Cons

2019-07-29T02:30:00.000-07:00

The advantages of Best of Breed HR applications are:

❐ Best of breed software providers are typically quicker to respond to market trends and the requirements of particular sectors.

❐ Each Best of Breed component can be implemented as a stand-alone application. This incremental approach subjects the organisation to smaller amounts of change, reducing organisational trauma.

❐ Best of Breed HR software contains an inherent best practice business model that is specific to the function rather than the overall flow of organisational data. As such, HR functions have greater freedom to review business processes and change their approach and organisation structure.

❐ Although integration is often cited as a reason for selecting ERP, the reality is that integration need not be complicated or expensive. In an HR context, most organisations need only 10-12 key integration points to link the HR / Payroll system to Finance (for example transferring transactions to the General Ledger and providing basic data to populate headcount tables).

Disadvantages of ERP

2019-07-24T01:00:00.000-07:00

The disadvantages of ERP systems are:

❐ ERPs are often seen as too rigid and too difficult to adapt to the specific workflow and business process of some companies.

❐ The re-engineering of business processes to fit the "industry standard" prescribed by the ERP system may lead to a loss of competitive advantage. Some organisations operate unique, value-adding processes that provide a competitive edge but these often do not fit within the limits of highly structured ERP systems.

❐ Implementing ERP is expensive and buyers often report substantial cost and time overruns against their original budget. Once an ERP system is established, switching costs are very high, leading to dependence on a single supplier and lack of organisational flexibility. In some cases, project costs spiral out of control – in November 2012, the US Air Force abandoned its plans to implement an ERP system after spending the first $1 billion, concluding that finishing it would cost far too much more money for too little gain (reported by Computer World, November 13, 2012, “Air Force scraps massive ERP project after racking up $1 billion in costs”.

❐ In theory, ERP systems should allow organisations to consolidate support around a common set of skills. However, in practice, ERP systems require different specialist skills across each application – so the Finance module needs different skills from Logistics and different skills again for Human Capital Management. Organisations may therefore have to hire in additional consultants to get the range of skills needed.

❐ Research has found an inherent paradox in ERP - organisations with the scale needed to justify an ERP system may be the least equipped to derive benefits from the technology. Organisations that are mechanistic, dominated by routine, highly programmed technologies and tightly regulated operations present the best initial fit with ERP requirements but are the least able to capitalise on the information potential these systems provide. However those that are flexible and adaptable are the best placed to create value from the knowledge but are often a poor fit with the requirements (and budget) of ERP systems.

Advantages of ERP

2019-07-20T20:40:00.000-07:00

ERP: The Pros and Cons

The advantages of ERP systems are:

❐ ERP contains an overall business model that provides organisations with an inherent set of business processes, linking together different organisational functions and ensuring the most efficient flow of data.

❐ ERP links physically separate business processes such as order tracking, finance and Human Capital Management, based on common data sets. ERP eliminates the time delay that can prevent accurate forecasting, for example, allowing inventory and resourcing estimates to be kept at an optimum level.

❐ Because ERP Systems centralise data in one place, they eliminate the problem of synchronising changes between multiple systems and the consolidation, for example, of different finance, payroll and manufacturing applications.

❐ ERP links revenue, cost and profit data at a high level of detail, enabling real-time financial modelling.

Barriers to eHRM Adoption

2019-07-17T08:35:00.000-07:00

Although e-HRM offers enormous potential, in practice organisation often implement only a small proportion of the functionality available. In many cases, organisations have bought the functionality but failed to switch it on or use it its full extent – this is like having a powerful car parked in the garage that is used for only short, low speed journeys. Yet, if the technology to implement e-HRM is available and provides significant benefits, it raises the obvious question, “Why isn’t doesn’t every organisation deploy the maximum amount of HR technology”? Several crucial factors influence the adoption of eHRM:

❐ Competitive Strategy: HR technology strategy should be directly related to the HR and competitive business strategy of the organisation. Where the overall strategy is solely based on lowering the cost of production, a simple e-HRM replication strategy is more likely. However, if the competitive strategy is based on innovation or differentiation, the organisation is more likely to focus on good people management, leading to an enhancement or (ideally) transformational approach to technology will find it harder to justify an investment in sophisticated people management technologies, whereas knowledge-based organisations such as those in the technology, pharmaceutical and professional services sectors are likely to view people as unique differentiators where ‘talent management’ is critical.

❐ Size of the Business: Larger organisations may be more willing to invest in complex e-HRM systems because they have access to larger budgets and other resources, as well as having a larger employee population to manage, reducing the per-employee cost. Larger organisations are also more likely to deploy a large ERP system, of which the HR module forms part of the infrastructure.

❐ Management Perceptions of the HR Role: If managers want HR to take a more strategic approach to HR, they will tend to be more supportive of e-HRM and favour a transformational approach; however, where employees and managers see HR as passive and transactional, they will tend to have a more negative attitude towards e-HRM. In some cases, line managers may see employee and manager self-service as a potential barrier to their relationship with HR

❐ HR Perception of Technology: If HR teams perceive technology to be too technical, it will be difficult to make the transition. In some cases, e-HRM leaves HR professionals cold or at best, disinterested, especially where its use is perceived as a transactional, administrative activity that does not enhance HR’s strategic reputation. For many HR professionals, e-HRM remains merely an administrative tool and its role in the development of strategic HR practice is often discounted; there is an underlying sense that somehow ‘people’ people do not need to understand or use technology. This may partly explain why the majority of HR technology investments remain at the basic administrative/ operational level; only obvious cost reduction is seen as a viable outcome of the use of technology, limiting its use to the most basic processing functions.

❐ Lack of Technical Infrastructure: It’s easy for those who regularly have access to a computer at work to access e-HRM technology – a simple web link will take them to a wide range of services – but what of those that work outside, on factory floors or in remote environments? The answer so far has been to provide employee kiosks in cafeterias or other common areas, but there are issues of privacy and lack of time in the working day that mean this is a limited solution. However, the next few years are likely to see a reduction in the cost of tablet and smartphone technologies that will solve this problem and enable people to access HR services anywhere, anytime.

❐ Inability to Translate Requirements into a Viable Business Case:

Making any kind of technology investment requires a strong business case, to quantify the benefits of technology and the impact on the organisation. If the project has been very technology-centred or has focused mainly on administrative processes, there may not be a good understanding of what might be possible at the next level.

e-HRM Strategies

2019-07-14T20:34:00.001-07:00

Experience suggests that there is no ‘one size fits all’ for introducing e-HRM. Organisations typically follow one of three strategies

❐ Replication: This approach involves simply recreating the content and functions of the existing system(s). It is typically an IT ‘refresh’ activity, a strategy often followed because older technology becomes non-viable or is simply out of date. There is usually no desire to improve HR/Payroll processes or service quality – its intention is simply to reduce costs or avoid system obsolescence. Projects are relatively unambitious, with little vision and a focus only on technology, simplifying IT support and lower maintenance costs, rather than creating long-term business value. The main advantage of this approach is that it can be undertaken relatively quickly using technical resources. However, because there is no focus on business processes, it may result in missed opportunities to create business benefits and there is a risk that old processes will not work effectively under the new technology - end-users may have the same frustrations they had with the old system. It should only be undertaken in circumstances where old technology will absolutely fail if nothing is done and there is no time to take a more strategic approach.

❐ Enhancement: This approach can take several forms and it is shaped by intention and ambition - even when an entirely new system is purchased, organisations may decide that there should be only an incremental, evolutionary impact on HR service delivery and operations. There is often little appetite to use technology to drive through major changes; it may be that the organisation does not believe that radical change is possible, perhaps because it expects resistance, lack of resource or cost issues that prevent a full transformation. It may be that a strategy of ‘change by stealth’ is more appropriate, where the technology platform is developed over a period of time. However, by playing safe, organisations may not achieve the Return on Investment needed and the lack of a technology champion or adequate resource means that projects may not get beyond the initial implementation phase; it may have the same impact as if a pure Replication strategy had been pursued.

❐ A Transformational approach: Technology is part of a wider strategy, enabling highly devolved HR services, making managers more accountable, where the HR function takes on a more substantial role. It involves a revolutionary restructuring of HR service delivery, including the use of service centres, outsourcing and the Business Partnering model. For an organisation under cost pressure to transform HR services, this is a better strategy. The vision often includes giving on-line access to processes, policies and procedures and extensive self-service. Technology has a truly transformational role under this approach, with a major impact on the organisation, changing the roles of HR, managers and perhaps even employees. It is not an easy option and requires a large investment in infrastructure and resources to make it work, with an emphasis on managing the changes. However, the business case typically offers a good payback.

Organisations have a choice as to which technology strategy to pursue and the approach typically depends on factors such as culture, expectation, previous experience, an awareness of what is possible and the strength of the business case.

Why Companies Outsource the HR Function

2019-06-20T10:22:00.000-07:00

While short-term cost savings are generally seen as the major reason for outsourcing, they are not the only reason. Academic research suggests the following drivers for HR Outsourcing

❐ Influence from Elsewhere in the Business: Organisations often explore outsourcing as part of a business-wide exploration of service delivery options, together with several other internal functions. For example, the organisation may have a parent company that encourages or requires an outsourcing strategy. Indeed, research indicates that the decision to outsource is often not driven by the HR team alone – there is usually pressure from fellow directors or other internal forces.

❐ Cost Reduction: The most obvious benefit of outsourcing is the removal of cost from the HR operation, achieved by streamlining processes and the introduction of leading-edge technology to support new processes. Although in theory organisations could achieve much of the cost reduction through their own efforts, many lack the skills to bring about the transformation or do not have the right technology or scale to do so. For this reason, organisations often conclude that it is much more cost-effective to use an external provider that has an established infrastructure in place and can bring expertise and experience to their customers. Outsourcing providers deliver services to a wide range of customers and are able to spread costs over a large number of employees, enabling them to achieve extensive economies of scale that would not be available to individual organisations. Outsourcing also reduces the cost of overheads involved in providing the service, smoothing out peaks and troughs in workload to ensure consistency of service delivery.

❐ Moving HR up the Value Chain: HR often sees administration as a barrier to working strategically – if the function can be freed from the burden of administrative work, there is more scope to operate at a higher level (this issue will be explored in subsequent chapters). Even in organisations where the HR Business Partner model has been introduced, evidence suggests that organisations experience difficulties in breaking away from administrative tasks and seek transformational approaches that enable HR to concentrate on other activities. For example, Business Partners often find themselves pre-occupied by operational issues and are unable to diagnose and develop strategic HR solutions, becoming ‘bogged down’ in detail.

❐ Risk Reduction: All organisations have a legal obligation to comply with the requirements of local and national employment legislation. Employment legislation continues to become more complex (especially in Europe) and non-compliance can ultimately lead to legal action. A report by BusinessHR and MORI, which looked at UK SMEs and their attitudes towards staff attraction, retention and motivation found that 43% of managing directors experience difficulty in keeping in keeping up with growing employment legislation. The risks are obvious – failure to comply with legislation can consume huge amounts of management time, while the cost to employers of defending a tribunal claim can be very high (in some cases, such as those linked to gender and disability discrimination there are unlimited penalties). Bad experience of employment claims is often the trigger for exploring outsourcing options.

❐ Service Quality Improvement: Companies that want to improve the speed, quality and effectiveness of their HR operations face two barriers. Firstly, they lack knowledge of best practice processes and how to implement them and secondly, their HR teams are so entrenched in current ways of working that they find it difficult to make the transition to a customer-focused service centre approach. HR outsourcing service providers typically bring experience and knowledge of best practice processes, built through experience of working with a range of customers and technologies.

❐ Increasing HR’s Capacity to Respond to Organisational Change: Outsourcing is a tool often used by smaller organisations during their early growth if they are not able or motivated to invest in an internal HR function. It can also be used by organisations that wish to transform HR but cannot see an effective way to change their service delivery structure without external intervention. Likewise, outsourcing is sometimes a response when one division of a company is sold (such as in the case of a management buy-out) leaving it with no HR infrastructure, as an alternative to establishing a new internal HR operation.

Why is HR Service Delivery Important?

2019-06-17T22:12:00.000-07:00

In his 1997 ground-breaking book ‘Human Resource Champions’, Management Professor (and HR guru) Dave Ulrich set out a model for the operation of the Human Resource function that would influence a generation. One of the roles he defined for the HR function was the ‘Administrative Expert’, a role designed to cope with the vast range of back-office support services that ensure the business is compliant with statutory requirements and internal policy. HR typically delivers two distinct types of service:

❐ Simple transactional services: Administration arises as a direct result of employing people and covers a vast range of processes – including issuing employment contracts, managing pay and conditions and maintaining personal data, all of which require effective administrative processes. As a minimum, processes must be legally compliant, but ideally they should also be cost-effective, efficient and of good quality. These activities are generally considered to be ‘compliance’ processes – they enable the business to operate within the law and policy, although they do not in themselves provide any direct strategic capability.

❐ Transformational HR services create value for the organisation through processes such as learning & development, performance management, talent management and recruitment, leading to increased employee engagement and the creation of competitive advantage. These types of services tend to be delivered in organisations where the Human Resources model is relatively mature and where adding value is more important than compliance with policies. Providing HR and Payroll transactional services is expensive for an organisation, representing an overhead to the business both in terms of operational cost and managerial time. Anything that can be done to reduce the cost of delivering these services represents money the business could invest in other customer facing activities that can create wealth. As a result, there is often pressure on HR functions to meet the dual and sometimes conflicting requirement of reducing the cost of delivering service while at the same time improving its quality. A key decision facing organisations is how best to structure the delivery of HR and Payroll services to meet these needs, a problem that remains just as much a challenge now as it did in the mid-1990s.

Benefits Realisation

2012-05-03T02:02:00.000-07:00

The realisation of the envisaged benefits is vital, and benefits that will be delivered 2, 3 or 12 months after implementation can be lost or are often not tracked and measured properly. This can lead to negative perceptions that the transformation programme has failed. This chapter therefore explains how to:

Ensure that the HR transformation benefits become an integral part of business as usual by embedding the benefits into operational scorecards and making their achievement an integral part of the business plans and objectives.
Set targets and implement measures that rigorously assess the delivery of benefits and ensure that they are managed and realised.
Develop plans that detail the timing and delivery of benefits and a process for monitoring progress against this plan.

The key to sustainable benefits delivery is in three key areas, these are:

Measuring benefits
Managing benefits
Sustaining benefits

Cutover and the Transition to Business as Usual

2012-04-30T09:00:00.000-07:00

With the system and processes now tested and accepted by the HR and business user communities, the attention turns to the planning and execution of the cutover to the new system and processes. Whilst there are distinct technology and process facets to this stage, they are more closely interdependent than those in the build and test stage. Indeed, the interdependency with the capabilities work is also critical as these streams of work need to cut over as a coordinated whole rather than as separate entities. Clearly, the technology and processes need to be in place for the transactional responsibility to shift but the new capabilities within the HR function must also be in place if HR is to vacate its transactional role.

From a technology perspective, the main activities are the following:

to ensure that the live technical environment (hardware, software and network) is ready for the HR system;
to ensure that the data are ready to be loaded and the mechanism for performing the load, often a combination of automated and manual approaches, is also ready;
to ensure all users have the means to access the new system;
to develop the technical cutover plans.

From a process perspective, the main activities are the following:

The scheduling and delivery of the system and process training. Often the change leaders take a role in this either as trainers themselves or in a 'train the trainer' role.
Business cutover planning, including planning data reconciliations, system down-time and any parallel running of the old system and new.

Before the live cutover is performed, many programmes opt for an integrated cutover rehearsal that coordinates the whole technology and process cutover and determines how long and in what precise order each element is addressed.

Throughout this stage and towards the latter part of the build and test stage, the hub of the change shifts from something that the programme is 'pushing out' to the organisation to something that the organisation is embracing and 'pulling in'. The increased involvement of the line areas and HR in the programme is a major catalyst in this. This is then consolidated during this stage, as the transition from the programme team to those responsible for supporting the new system and processes is effected. This is an important symbol in the transition to the new 'business as usual' and begins to draw to a close the 'implement change' phase of the change cycle model. How to embed the targets and benefits from the transformation programme into business as usual to ensure that these benefits are realised. However, successfully hitting the transformation targets and delivering benefits is not only dependent on getting these targets incorporated into business plans and business as usual but is also dependent on embedding the technology and processes.

The change readiness and impact assessments will have identified where there is resistance to the new technology and processes and the reasons for this resistance. It is important that during the cutover phase, the programme targets this resistance and produces communications, training and briefings that specifically address the reasons why different groups are resistant to change. For example, managers may resist self-service because they regard capturing and managing sickness absence and leave as an additional overhead and 'HR's job'. The communications should emphasise that self-service will make entering this information easier, as it will go straight into a system rather than on a paper form and once it is entered into the system, managers will be able to view reports that provide quick and instant data on staff attendance, thereby enabling the managers to more easily manage and balance staffing across the different working shifts. The advantages of the self-service system will mean that managers are more likely to adopt the new technology and ways of working.

A useful tool to support adoption and embedding of new technology and ways of working can be the 'Day In the Life Of' tool. This tool involves shadowing key managers for a period of time to understand the pressures they face and what they have to deliver on a day-to-day basis. The data collected during this exercise is then analysed and used to identify how self-service and new ways of working will improve managers' jobs. These improvements can be placed into communications, on the Intranet or presented as scenarios in workshops. This enables managers to better understand how the new processes and technology will work and gives them a reason and incentive to adopt and embed the new ways of working. How to ensure that managers not only adopt the new technology and processes but also continue to work differently and deliver benefits after the programme has been disbanded.

Build and Test | Process and Technology

2012-04-26T00:56:00.000-07:00

There are two main alternative approaches to this stage and it is important that you choose the right approach for your circumstances. The first approach is prototyping; that is, the incremental configuration of elements of the systems solution followed by testing with the users followed by further iterations of fine-tuning. This process is repeated for all elements of the systems solution. The second is a full build against a detailed specification or blueprint followed by full system testing.

One advantage with the first approach is that the HR and business users get the opportunity to see and feel HR self-service quite early in the build process. This serves to maintain momentum and enthusiasm and helps to match expectations against system delivery. The main disadvantage with this approach is that it can take longer unless it is tightly managed — the temptation can be to continue with minor refinements rather than to end that element of the solution and move on to the next.

In the case of the second approach, the main advantage is that you have better control of the costs and schedule and at the end of the build you have a more complete solution. But there is less possibility of making changes during the build and after it is delivered any changes will be more expensive. There is a heavy reliance on the quality of the detailed specification that the system configurers are using.

During this stage, there is a greater distinction between the technology- and the process-related activities than during the detailed design stage. Even with the prototyping approach, the system configurers are primarily focused on the technology build and system test activity. The HR and business users, however, should be primarily focused on operating procedure definition, training course preparation, development of user security profiles, test script development and user acceptance testing. The methodology and programme plan provide the means of linking the process and technology (and people) streams here. The interdependencies and 'touch points' are closely aligned through this even though the team members may be working on their own specific tasks.

The change management theme of course continues. The change leaders mobilised during detailed design perform the next iteration of impact and readiness assessments, often at the local functional or site level, and initiate the resulting actions. The change focus should not be restricted to the line areas; HR must be preparing for this change. There is an important link here with the capabilities work, as HR needs to get ready to let go of much of the transactional work and begin to focus on what the business partner role really means and how they will equip themselves for this. An excellent way of bringing this to life is the use of 'conference room pilots' where the business and HR users of Web-based HR technology adopt their new roles in a controlled environment, testing how the new roles, process and system fit together in a simulation of the new environment.

Conference room pilots provide a good example of how wider involvement in the programme activities can be achieved and there is greater opportunity during this stage to use involvement in the programme activities as an action to promote awareness and commitment. Typically, involvement from HR and the business in defining operating procedures, preparing training course material and particularly user acceptance testing, make the programme 'come alive' for many. One area that provides excellent opportunity for involvement but is often neglected is that of data cleansing and preparation. This involves checking the validity of existing data, mapping it to the data required in the new system and creating any additional data fields that are not present in the current systems. Involvement in this can be achieved across all employees in the organisation as they are requested to check and validate their own individual employee record data. This is a very powerful approach to moving the perception of the HR transformation programme from concept to reality.

Impact and Readiness Assessment

2012-04-22T08:53:00.000-07:00

The starting point for assessing impact and readiness is that the stakeholder identification and initial impact and assessment have already been completed. The task at this stage is to take the initial analysis down to the next level of detail both in terms of the stakeholder groups themselves, the understanding of the impact on those groups and the levels of resistance-commitment. For example, during initial stakeholder analysis all employees may have been treated as a homogeneous group. This would now be too broad for the differing impacts that they may experience. Therefore, the employee stakeholder group may, in this case, be subdivided into office-based employees and shop floor—based employees in order to take account of the differing impacts of HR self-service technology in their respective areas. The key here is to balance the degree to which stakeholder groups are subdivided. As a rule of thumb, the level of department on a particular site is usually the lowest level of subdivision necessary.

Then for each of the detailed stakeholder groups, the impacts are recorded for each relevant process in terms of change from the 'as is' way of working to the 'to be' way. Clearly, not every process impacts every stakeholder group and the degree of impact differs in each case. From this, a picture of relative impact emerges. Those groups with the greatest impact are often those where most attention must be paid in the change planning that follows.

At this stage, it is also useful to assess the readiness to change for each detailed stakeholder group. This readiness assessment concentrates on the attitude that the detailed stakeholder groups have towards the new processes and systems. There are a number of factors listed here:

History of change within the organisation: Has change been managed effectively previously?
What is the capacity for change in the organisation? Have major change initiatives been recently completed or are under way?
What is the level of awareness of the detailed stakeholder group as to the nature of the change for them?
And finally, 'what's in it for me?' On balance, will the detailed stakeholder group view this as a positive or negative change, bearing in mind the nature of the impact on them?

There are a number of approaches to undertaking a readiness assessment, and they are summarised in Figure 1.

*Tool*	*What is it?*	*How & when to use it?*
Questionnaires	A set of questions usually in a tick box format They can be done as paper exercises, by e-mail or via the intranet	They can be sent out to a variety of stakeholders They can be used to gather a lot of information quickly from a large number of people They are often used as the first vehicle to identify areas that need to be probed in more detail
Focus Groups	A workshop with a group of people (5–15) to elicit more detail about why particular issues have been raised	They are usually run either as natural work groups, or as representatives from various stakeholder groups Format and content are changed to suit group characteristics and issue(s) to be discussed They allow the 'why' to be explored in more depth
One-to-One Interviews	A structured interview where individuals are asked a number of questions and answers are recorded and analysed	These are either used to elicit information around sensitive areas or to ascertain how aligned a particular group is around each stage of the project They are often used with leadership and managerial groups

Figure 1: Approaches to readiness assessment.

When using questionnaires or working with focus groups or conducting one-to-one interviews, examples of questions to assess change readiness can include the following:

	Disagree			Agree
Are you aware of which self-service tools will be rolled out to your business unit and which ones you will need to use?	1	2	3	4	5
Do you understand how the self-service tools will work?	1	2	3	4	5
Do you understand your role and responsibilities for using the tools as a manager?	1	2	3	4	5

Useful tool for mapping and redesigning process

2012-03-14T08:31:00.000-07:00

A useful tool for mapping and redesigning process is 'brown paper'. An overview is developed in the 'As Is' processes, these are sketched onto large pieces of brown paper, as demonstrated in Figure 1.\

Figure 1: Example brown paper.

A workshop is then convened with HR and, where appropriate, representatives from the line where the process is debated and challenged. This also involves identifying for participants the extent to which the proposed HR technology can automate and change different tasks. Attendees at the workshop then redraw the existing process, identifying strengths that they wish to retain and sketching out improvements to the way that participants interact and the way the information flows through the process. A new brown paper is produced from the workshop as demonstrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Example brown paper.

There are a number of issues that need to be taken into account when building a brown paper:

Disagreement about how the process is performed is OK. It is probable that different people perform the same process differently; that is, a significant finding. Try to capture both and get agreement on future processes.
Not knowing the answer to every question is OK. In the process of asking questions needed to identify the flow, it almost always happens that a question will be asked that no one can answer and people can be tasked to get an answer.
Have specialists on hand who can answer questions about what can and cannot be achieved using the HR system. Participants may come up with solutions that cannot be delivered by technology. It is best that these issues are addressed in the workshop so that participants can design processes that can be delivered and you do not have to ask participants to keep redesigning processes in later workshops. If this is not done, having lots of unanswered questions about what the system can and cannot do, will result in a process that is so high level and has so many questions that it needs more design work after the workshop or further workshops have to be convened.
Ask for hard copy and complete examples. All key documents should be obtained with 'live' information, if possible. Ask for a printed copy of significant computer screens if the function is 'online' or interactive between the user and system.
No value judgements (yet). The process of creating the initial brown paper should be a fact-gathering exercise. The evaluation of the information comes later. At this point, all ideas are good ideas.
Identify one stream of activity and do it start to finish: then integrate other streams with it. Experience has shown that participants may become confused when trying to understand and document several different flows simultaneously. By choosing one and taking it start to finish, similarities and differences can more readily be identified, and the meeting more easily controlled.
Write explanations directly on the brown paper. The only paper attached to the brown paper should be 'live' documents and their adhesive note critiques.
Be challenging, do not fall into the trap of merely refining existing processes and responsibilities and essentially promoting the status quo. HR transformation is about shifting from today to tomorrow. Therefore, when reviewing processes, question whether HR should be involved in a task and how that involvement adds value.
Capture the impact on the line and employees. Where HR is removed from tasks and where the line will use self-service, it is important that this information is captured and detailed. This understanding of how responsibility for process changes is vital for moving to the next stage in the change process, that of determining the impact of the new processes and systems on the organisation and the readiness of the organisation to adopt them.

Overview of the key steps in mapping HR processes

2012-03-11T03:03:00.000-07:00

Overview of the key steps in mapping HR processes, summarising key actions and outputs.

Step	Activity	Tools	Output
Define the Target Process	Define key HR activities as processes Prioritise key processes Break processes into manageable chunks Identify and document key process variations Involve subject matter experts	Brainstorming, customer focus groups	Prioritise reengineering efforts
Develop 'As Is' Models	Conduct workflow analysis (who does what when, where, how) and identify handoffs Audit existing constraints in systems (e.g., compatibility, integrity, and consistency of data) Determine problems in current process from customer's and administrator's perspectives Identify key measurement related to process (e.g., cost, quality, time, rework, etc)	Workflow analysis, activity analysis, systems audit, focus groups, interviews	Flow map of existing processes and their performance in terms of cost and quality
Challenge underlying assumptions	Challenge each activity in the current process (why is it done, why is it done there, why is it done then, why does that person do it, why is it done this way etc) Challenge current policies, practices and philosophy Explore alternative delivery methods Cut across functional silos Incorporate and leverage information technology	Visioning, scenario building, brainstorming, critical thinking	Identify opportunities for radical improvement
Develop 'To be' Models — Identifying where and how technology will impact the process	Solicit information from broad base about alternatives Benchmark other companies Integrate separate processes Take detailed design of new information systems Draft new process flow Assess potential impact of new process (cost/benefit, risk etc)	Benchmarking, conflict resolution, issues resolution, simulation, consensus building	Design new processes, select best information technology to support process, determine impact of new processes
Implement, Roll out, Market	Implement incremental approach Conduct pilot testing Implement systems integration Market the programme, create curiosity, implement trial use Offer training to support users Manage resistance Anticipate and address morale problems	Marketing, communication, training, coaching, experimentation	Facilitate the smooth migration to new system and user's acceptance of the new processes
Measure BusinessImpact	Capture business impact of HR processes before and after reengineering Measure business impact, not just budget and milestones in programmes and activities Separate short- from long-term impact	Activity analysis, cost analysis, customer service survey, focus groups	Monitor progress and impact

Figure 1: Source— based on recognised models from a variety of consulting firms.

Detailed Process and Technology Design

2012-03-07T00:21:00.000-08:00

Through envisioning, defining the service-delivery approach and building the business case, the HR transformation solution will have become ever clearer. Careful consideration will have been given to the people, process and technology elements such that the overall solution is one that will deliver the vision and benefits targeted. The first stage of implementation, therefore, is to finalise the design at the detailed level.

Detailed design follows the principles of the systems mindset by considering the multiple linkages between elements of the solution, working from the whole solution to the details of the constituent parts. By utilising this and the target benefits, those charged with developing the detailed process and technology design can begin.

During business case definition, the technology solution that best fits your specific needs will have been identified. The task in detailed design is to specify the configuration of this technology solution right down to the level of the system screens on which the transactions are performed. The main decisions that need to be made at this stage are the following:

Which elements of the process will be performed by the system and which elements need to be performed outside of the system?
Which data fields must be completed in order for the process to work and which are optional?
Can the technology solution be configured to support the new processes without needing to modify the underlying code or programming of the system? Often this is termed the 'vanilla' system. Modification over and above the 'vanilla' system means that additional implementation and maintenance costs will be incurred. If thebusiness benefits can be delivered with the 'vanilla' system then clearly this is the ideal route. If this is not the case then the costs (including maintenance costs) of making the modifications need to be weighed against the reduction in benefits if the modifications are not made.
In the case of global or multinational implementations, are there local country or regional differences that need to be addressed? Ideally these should only be local statutory differences as these should already be 'pre-configured' in the technology solution. Any additional differences will need to be developed and maintained separately. In a similar way to the 'vanilla' system debate above, modifying the system for local requirements adds to both the initial implementation and the ongoing maintenance costs.

The decisions around detailed design are usually made in workshops with HR and the line, or by the HR and line representatives on the programme team. Involvement of HR and the line is crucial in this process as it provides both a check that what is being designed is pragmatic and workable and that those who will need to operate the new processes and systems are engaged to promote commitment.

As the detailed design proceeds, where resolution on particular design issues cannot be achieved through the workshops or the programme team, it may be necessary to take some of these decisions to the steering board for direction. This 'design authority' role is one that the steering board should play by exception but it can be critical particularly in providing guidance and direction on the degree of customisation or local variation.

From a process design perspective, the main task at this stage is to map the processes onto a diagram that shows what the system will do and what the responsibility of HR, managers, employees or external agencies will be.

HR Culture

2012-03-03T08:16:00.000-08:00

HR transformation requires HR to change its own culture. In this section, we present a model of culture our clients have found helpful (Figure 1) and set out three cultural challenges for HR to address.

Figure 1: Culture model.

We know that you cannot change culture easily and you cannot change culture by running culture change programmes. You need to be clear about the kind of culture you would like to create and how distant this is from your current culture. You also need to be clear about the values and behaviours that will create the desired culture. But you will not achieve culture change by just focusing on behaviour. Culture is the product of the way the organisational system works and therefore we shape culture by focusing on many different levers.

Figure 1 can be broken down into three components.

At the right of the model is the experience of culture which ultimately results in performance. A key task here is for HR to define its target culture which should be aligned to the overall business culture; reflect how the HR function will deliver value and which will drive high levels of discretionary effort and engagement from within HR. This task should be addressed at the envisioning phase so that by implementation there are some clarity and commitment to the culture HR is seeking to shape.
The middle section sets out how culture is expressed. We hope that this work will build on foundations already laid. For example, we anticipate that HR will be able to work through how organisational values are brought to life through the work of HR. We also expect the HR capability frameworks will reflect the skills and behaviours needed to drive high performance. The areas that may need particular attention are decision-making processes and, what Ed Schein calls, the artefacts — the stories, rules, symbols, climate, etc. that communicate culture. Good examples of work in this area are where:
- HR teams have communicated the transformation story and the kinds of stories they would like colleagues in the organisation to be telling about HR at work;
- HR teams have used symbols (like the National Grid capability framework) in order to get the message across;
- HR teams have changed the rules to make decision making more effective.
These are just some examples but we hope they illustrate the need for you to be very intentional about how culture is communicated verbally and nonverbally.
The left of the model lists the shapers of culture. These reflect the different parts of the organisational system and each of these needs to be aligned with the target culture. So, for example, if the HR leadership does not refer to a new HR capability framework when reviewing performance, identifying development needs or providing coaching, it is unlikely that this capability framework will be embedded.

This is a lot to get right and align and it is unlikely that this will be achieved in one attempt. However, if HR teams are clear about the kind of culture they are seeking to create and take intentional actions to bring this culture to life, the outcome is likely to be a period of fine tuning rather than regular remodelling.

In our discussions with senior practitioners three particular cultural challenges have been highlighted for HR:

Challenge 1 — To become more client-focused

Client relationship management is one of the core capability areas for HR — this is about working as a trusted advisor: developing and implementing the strategic agenda whilst securing client buy-in and commitment. But there is a dilemma here. Does client-focused mean giving clients exactly what they want? We do not think so. HR functions must learn lessons from external providers and develop a consulting mindset. As consultants we have yet to come across clients who only want us to agree with them. What they really value is opinion, challenge, research, fresh thinking and an approach that gets to grips with their real problems, not just presenting issues. We do not think HR professionals are any different if they are performing effectively. So, this will mean more HR professionals will need to learn to question and challenge what clients are asking for. Although difficult at times, partnership must be built on a relationship where support and challenge are expressed in equal measure.

Challenge 2 — To articulate a clear value proposition

Linked to the need to be more client-focused, HR professionals must be able to articulate how HR adds value. This means getting better at measuring outcomes and estimating inputs. It means being able to have a sensible discussion about the use of resources and priorities. It also means being able to articulate what will be delivered, by whom, at what cost and when. In this way, the organisation will be able to make better choices and will see the amount of perceived low-value work diminishing.

Challenge 3 — To market and sell HR better

This challenge is, of course, linked to the previous two. Lawler and Mohrman (2003), in their survey of trends and directions in HR, point out that perceptions of the contribution made by HR are not changing as fast as the actual change on the ground. This is clearly a cause for concern. Part of the problem is that HR professionals have not traditionally thought about how they market and sell themselves. For example, during our client relationship workshops we spend time thinking about HR's value proposition and about the way HR sells itself to the organisation. Generally speaking, this is often the first time HR professionals have thought about themselves from a selling perspective. They are not very good at thinking about their experiences and packaging them in a way that enables clients to see what they are capable of contributing.

The point we make on all HR transformations is that whatever cultural attributes the function wishes to develop, they need to be hard-wired into the other organisational levers — the way you organise, use technology, manage your work processes, lead, develop people and so on.

We want to emphasise the important role that the HR leadership team needs to play throughout the process of HR transformation and have set out below a few of the things that we have found effective HR leadership teams have done well:

worked collaboratively to create a vision;
provided strong and visible personal commitment to a transformed HR;
engaged actively with the implementation process (they have not just delegated and walked away) and put at risk their own personal credibility around delivery;
seen HR transformation as a process, impacting the whole HR terrain, and been prepared to work through the process with the HR transformation programme team;
led from the front, taking an active role in influencing and communicating with key business stakeholders and the HR function;
given time to regular workshops and other interventions throughout the process;
remained patient — things do not always go to plan — and been prepared to address unexpected challenges;
used external facilitation and consultancy well — consultants have supported the internal team and have not replaced them;
acknowledged that members of each team need to work through the implications of change and transition for themselves;
recognised that they are, themselves, part of the transformation process.

We would like to amplify the last two of the points above. The first point is around the way individuals are supported through transition. We make quite a big deal of this in our capability workshops, and draw heavily on the excellent work of William Bridges (1993) in this area. In providing good change leadership there is a need to help people with endings: to help them to come to terms with the fact that the way things were has gone for good. Some of the things that have been done to help with this include practical actions like changing job titles, working environments and reporting lines. But they also include things like 'end of era' celebrations or the symbolic binning of old material. In helping people with beginnings, things like the capability framework, conferences and symbols (a visual representing the HR capabilities was used very effectively by National Grid) help people to understand the purpose of transformation; engage with the plan to implement it; see a picture of the new world of HR and the part they will play in it. Good change leaders make this happen.

The last bullet point above is really important. A huge amount of credibility is gained when the leadership group themselves acknowledge their need to change and then do something about it. Particularly good examples of this have been when the leadership group has participated in the capability development work-shop and is seen to be working through the issues of behavioural change as much as the rest of the HR team.

We have also seen some very poor things happening during implementation — and often outside the direct control of HR. We hope that you will not identify with these, but some examples are set out as follows:

The capability development programme was split so that senior people participated in learning groups and the remainder of the function in capability workshops.
A travel ban was imposed just after learning groups had been set up on a multinational basis — which prevented non-UK participants from attending.
Participants were made redundant during a workshop.
An outsourcing solution for transactional and advisory activities was adopted against the will of the broader leadership group.

The reality is that HR leadership matters. If the HR leadership group does not step out with enthusiasm and keep the drumbeat of change pounding, then your best plans will flounder. It can often be a cliché to talk about the need for senior commitment to a change programme. With respect to HR transformation, we can say with a high degree of confidence that this is true, and we hope that in this section we have set out some of the things for the leadership team to focus on.

Review Learning and Build into on Going HR Capability Development

2012-02-28T00:10:00.000-08:00

We have already noted how one of our case study organisations has engaged in HR capability development over some years now and has used the experience of each wave to focus development on new requirements that will help the organisation achieve its strategic goals.

Review can take a number of forms and the following have been beneficial:

Review after each learning intervention — although this is essentially 'in the moment feedback' it allows you to change design to make the learning experience more appropriate to participants.
More formal review after a phase of development activity — conducting a short review to identify how participants have used the new knowledge in their work and to gather more considered reflections on the learning experience.
Use of the capability framework to assess shift in capability — typically as part of a more formal development discussion.
Customer survey — to assess how colleagues in the organisation have experienced HR and whether they are working with HR professionals in different ways.

We believe that irrespective of how you articulate and build HR capability, the most important thing is that developing HR professionals is not ignored or cut short. HR professionals need to know what is expected of them in their transformed roles and they need to be given support to acquire and apply new capabilities.

Invest in HR Capability Development | Excellent Business Partnering

2012-02-24T09:09:00.000-08:00

Without investment in ongoing capability development many HR professionals will be left knowing what they need to do differently but without the knowledge and skills to contribute differently.

Where possible, we strongly recommend that HR professionals achieve professional qualifications and accreditation through their relevant professional institute or governing body. This is important in building the credibility of HR, in ensuring professional standards and in developing a community of influential HR professionals. However, the acquisition of a formal professional qualification does not always address sufficiently the full range of capabilities that HR professionals need to acquire to operate as effectivebusiness partners.

A pre requisite must be to include a cost line for capability development in any business case for HR transformation or in the HR budget. There will be a one-off investment needed (particularly in the new capability areas). There will also be an on-going need to invest — to keep stretching people and to bring new joiners up to speed.

So, what are the approaches to capability development? In addition to the 'on-the-job' forms for development there are five main strands to consider:

Mandatory workshops
Optional workshops
Action learning groups
Coaching
Mentoring
Self-managed learning/on-the-job development

We have used combinations of each where we have supported capability development. Below we set out things to consider in broad terms for each strand followed by three case studies showing how organisations have blended these strands.

Mandatory Workshops

Typically workshops are offered to address the three new capability areas — although one of the case study organisations also made organisational design mandatory. These workshops are intended not just to deliver knowledge and skills, but also to deliver three additional benefits to HR:

Create a common language
Deliver a consistent approach and tool kit
Create a network and community amongst HR professionals

In this way, even if some HR professionals have already acquired the requisite capabilities, there are benefits in their participating in mandatory workshops so that the additional benefits set out above are realised across the HR professional community. Additionally, more experienced members of the HR team should be encouraged to share their knowledge and experience.

Optional Workshops

Here, the workshops described above (or slight variations of these) are offered to HR professionals but are not mandatory. In addition, optional workshops have also been offered in areas such as 'Becoming a trusted advisor', 'Influencing skills', 'Facilitation skills' and 'Managing Conflict'.

The main advantage in this approach is that those HR professionals considered to be competent in a capability area need not repeat the training. The benefits of this approach are:

Training is focused on identified need.
Overall development costs are reduced (or spent on areas of identified need).
Individuals considered competent in a particular capability area are motivated to address development gaps rather than attend workshops where they consider themselves skilled.

Action Learning Groups

Action learning groups typically comprise around 6-8 members, supported by an external facilitator, with the aim over time for the group to become self-managing. The approach is based on the group working on real business issues. Learning is achieved at two levels — applying the knowledge and experience of the group to the issue under discussion. Reflecting on the way the group works together as a learning experience in its own right.

This approach to HR capability development is used in two main ways:

Each participant brings his or her own 'live' issue or project to address with the group.
The group works on a 'live' business issue together over a period of meetings.

The first of these approaches places the onus on the individual to identify an issue and bring it to the group. In our experience, this approach has not always been successful with the main challenges being that people do not prepare sufficiently and they are not skilled in framing a problem or issue in a way the group can engage with quickly. However, where this approach has succeeded it has enabled participants to apply knowledge in the new capability areas very quickly and there is early pay back to the organisation on the investment made in development.

The second approach is more thematic. Some of the learning groups we have supported have tackled more strategic themes, examples being how to increase levels of engagement; the employee of the future; increasing line manager capability in people skills. With this approach, the learning groups decide how to approach the task and, with the support of the facilitator, take 'time outs' to reflect on how the group is working and to think about how to use tools and techniques related to the new capability areas. This approach builds deep bonds between group members and by the end of the process, groups are also self-managing.

In our experience this is a powerful way of learning as it not only engages theory and practice, but also gives organisations an immediate return on their investment. We anticipate that this approach to learning will gain ground in coming years linked also with virtual learning environments.

Coaching

Coaching has its place in the development repertoire and, in our work with organisations, has been used in two ways:

In its more conventional sense of an external coach working on a number of coaching objectives with an individual. Typically, this approach has been used with more senior members of the HR leadership team.
As part of the action learning group process — where individual coaching sessions are held between learning group meetings with two objectives: First, to help the individual reflect on the experience of the learning group and their contribution. Second, to address individual development goals that are inappropriate to be tackled at a learning group meeting.

This latter approach has been particularly powerful and has enabled individuals to accelerate the application of new capabilities.

Mentoring

Mentoring has been used in two different ways:

Linking HR professionals with other HR professionals. For example, people who are at 'Mastery' in a given capability area with those who are developing that capability;
Linking HR professionals with colleagues outside of HR primarily to build their knowledge of the business and to improve the way they influence the organisation.

Where possible, HR mentoring should be integrated into any organisational approach to mentoring.

Self-Managed Learning/On-the-Job Development

Individuals clearly need to take ownership for their development too. Most self-managed learning can be linked to general resources available to the wider management population — whether e-learning resources from business schools, library resources or links to external Web sites such as the CIPD.

On-the-job development can include work shadowing, work placements, project roles, temporary assignments, meeting/workshop facilitation, project team leadership.

In terms of HR partner capability, there is also a challenge to HR professionals to read more broadly — including publications like Financial Times, McKinsey Quarterly, HarvardBusiness Review, Sloan Management Review and The Economist. Each of these brings interesting insights from the world of Consultancy and Academia which HR professionals should be using with internal clients to change the conversations they hold and bring fresh thinking to the table.

In the following we set out three examples of how different organisations have tackled capability development.

AXA has combined mandatory workshops, optional workshops and self-managed learning.

Mandatory workshops include (but are not limited to) consulting skills and organisational design. These were chosen because organisational design was considered to be a significant gap across the HR community and a strategic skill set. Consulting skills were also a significant gap and there was a strong need to build a common approach in the way HR professionals engaged with business colleagues.

A suite of optional workshops is available to HR professionals to sup-plement the mandatory workshops and to address areas such as project management.

E-learning and other learning resources are available through the organisation's Intranet to address specific individual development needs.

Development plans are agreed and monitored as part of the performance review process.

National Grid has engaged in HR capability development over some years now and has completed a number of 'waves' of development. Development has focused mainly on mandatory workshops, action learning groups, coaching and mentoring.

The first wave was to put all HR professionals (irrespective of organisational level) through mandatory workshops in the areas of strategy and change management, client relationship management and project management.

The second wave established action learning groups supported by coaching of learning group participants. These learning groups were thematic and coaching reinforced the learning group experience and addressed individual development needs that were inappropriate to address in a learning group context.

A third wave of development is in progress — partly to bring new joiners up to speed on new capabilities and partly to build HR capability in internally developed change management methodology.

As capability development covered all HR professionals, including the HR leadership team, it proved to be very effective:

HR leaders were able to contribute their experience to more junior members of the team.
A common language and tool kit were developed which could be reinforced through the line management structure.

This organisation decided to roll out mandatory workshops for the bulk of the HR professional community and run learning groups supported by coaching for the HR leadership group.

The mandatory workshops in all three new capability areas (strategy & change management, consulting skills and project management) were extremely successful and went a long way to creating a common language and toolkit. Although the HR leadership team thought they already had the capability covered by mandatory workshops, this was not the case.

In this instance the approach taken to learning groups was for each person to bring along his or her own 'live' issue. We experienced two problems — first, people did not prepare adequately for the learning group, and second, they did not have the requisite knowledge in the new capability areas and more time was spent in covering ground addressed in workshops than on the 'live' issues.

The main learning here was that adopting a dual approach for the HR leadership team/the rest of HR was ineffective as the HR leadership did not have the foundation tools and techniques they thought they had which meant they played 'catch up' and were unable to provide the coaching and support to team members that would have been beneficial.

Whilst aspects of this capability development approach were successful, the dual approach adopted falls into the 'How not to' category and we do not recommend it.

Establish a Capability Baseline | Excellent Business Partnering

2012-02-20T08:08:00.001-08:00

Establishing performance expectations through a capability framework or equivalent will enable you to baseline current capability. This capability assessment can be integrated with the performance review process or stand alone as a developmental discussion. What your capability framework will enable you to do is allow line and HR to self assess against the performance levels and to discuss this assessment with their line managers.

National Grid has adopted a similar approach to baseline capability for line managers, shared services and HR Partners (generalist and specialist). This approach is set out in the following case study.

The example below is taken from the line manager self-assessment for Manage ER and Cases:

Element	Not applicable at this stage	Significant development need	Development need	Adequate	A clear strength
Able to access, interpret and act upon policies and processes that relate to a Case
Effectively manage short- and longterm sickness absence
Conduct the dismissal process

Elements were categorised: essential for all managers, event driven (just in time development) and not essential for all managers.

For shared services and HR Partners a similar self-assessment, followed by manager review process, was adopted.

AXA has adopted a different approach to baseline capability and this is reflected in the following case study.

Development options are listed for each of the four performance levels to enable HR professionals to create their development plan. Quite a few of these options are mandatory. This approach is based on a view that most HR professionals do not have the required new capabilities. Base lining is therefore about ensuring people have met mandatory skills acquisition at their level and that HR develops and uses a common language and toolkit.

An example capability development sheet for business partners and senior business partners is as follows:

Capabilities
Demonstrates the impact of HR interventions on thebusiness KPIs and the strategic plan Challenges the status quo Leads specific aspects of organisational change, e.g., organisational design elements Contributes to the development of business HR strategy Translates HR interventions into business benefits Designs and/or supports initiatives and programmes Coaches middle-senior line managers Manages key HR projects Demonstrates a broad understanding of the external influences that impact the business

Development needs
	Awareness and application of OD best practice Commercial and businessawareness Consulting skills Influencing skills Project management skills Change management skills Coaching skills

Development activity
		Organisation design skills Organisation design skills Influencing skills Facilitation skills Advanced presentation skills—winning hearts and minds Project management Change management Improving performance through coaching

Define Performance Expectations | Excellent Business Partnering

2012-02-04T01:16:00.000-08:00

Having clarified the contribution expected from line managers, shared services and HR professionals, the next step is to turn this into a set of performance expectations. We have chosen to use the term 'capability framework' to describe this set of performance expectations.

Our experience in developing HR capability frameworks with a wide range of organisations highlights two general points:

All of the capability frameworks we have been involved in developing have over 80% common elements. In this sense, we can claim to have identified a set of capabilities that these organisations believe to be core to the role of business partner and specialist.
Each organisation needs to articulate its capability framework in its own way and in language relevant to that organisation. In this sense, there is no one-size-fits-all as each organisation will emphasise different contributions required from HR to deliver its strategic agenda.

Although these statements may appear to be contradictory they are not. What it means is that whilst we have found broad agreement on the capabilities that need to be developed, each organisation will want to express these in a way that is relevant to its circumstances.

Line Manager Capabilities

Many line manager capabilities will remain those expected of people managers. So, being able to select the right people, set goals, motivate the team, give feedback, deal with under-performance, etc. will remain core to the line manager role. What you will need to work out is where you draw the boundary between the line manager role in people management and HR's. This will include being clear about the extent to which managers must use self-service for reporting, policy and process information; take full or partial responsibility for people processes such as talent acquisition, employee relations and case management, reward and benefits, etc.

Here we give an example of how National Grid has approached this task.

As part of implementing a shared services model, National Grid has set out in detail the expectations of managers in delivering their people management responsibilities. These expectations are set out under four headings:

Manage ER and Cases
Manage Rewards and Benefits
Manage Resourcing (recruitment, leavers and contracts of employment)
Manage Learning and Development (training, development and talent)

A number of capabilities are then identified under each of these four headings. Some capabilities are common to all areas, for example, ability to access, interpret and act upon policies and processes that relate to that area; understanding of relevant employment legislation for that area. Other capabilities are specific to each area. Some examples for the area of Manage ER and Cases are:

Compose appropriate correspondence associated with the different stages of a case.
Effectively manage short-and long-term absence.
Administer a formal verbal and written warning.
Conduct a dismissal process.

The National Grid approach emphasises to managers that if they feel out of their depth or if they are dealing with a dismissal or appeal they should phone HR for assistance and advice.

Across all capability areas, some capabilities are essential for all managers and some are not. For example, conducting an appeal is not considered essential for all managers.

Shared Services Capabilities

Similarly, it is important to define the capabilities required of those people working in shared service centres, if you have these. These also need to reflect the model adopted by your organisation. So, for some HR shared service centres a 'shallow' model applies where capabilities focus mainly on administration, policy advice and help desk. Other organisations may have a 'deep' model which may also include end-to-end processes including policy development. In this instance your capability requirements are going to overlap with those in specialist roles/ centres of expertise.

We again use an example from National Grid to illustrate the types of capabilities that apply in a 'deep' shared services model.

In implementing its shared services centre, National Grid developed a capability framework which differentiated between 'What we do' and 'How we do it'.

What We Do capabilities focused on: Process, Information, Quality.
How We Do It capabilities focused on: Client Relationships, Working Together, Communication and Project Management.

Each of these seven capabilities had a number of capability areas. So, Process, for example, had three capability areas:

manages workflows effectively,
builds expertise in policies,
delivers HR processes.

Four performance levels were then aligned to each of these capability areas. So, for 'Delivers HR Processes', Level 1 performance requirement was 'can follow defined processes' whereas Level 4 performance requirement was 'creates processes and matches them with customers'.

HR Partner Capabilities

To initiate discussion on HR Partner (generalist and specialist) capabilities, our starting point is typically a 'strawman' capability framework containing the following elements:

Strategy and Change Management — the ability to both shape and execute the organisation's strategic agenda. Explicit in this capability area is knowledge of the 'business' and of change management tools and techniques that will enable your organisation to deliver its strategic agenda.
Consulting Skills — the ability to work with clients through a consulting process so that the outcomes are owned by the client. Influencing, credibility, conflict resolution, facilitation, coaching are all characteristics of effective consulting.
Project Management — to use the principles of project management (it is not about becoming an expert on Prince 2 or similar Programme Management methodologies) to shape work so that the value proposition is transparent to clients. In this way, work should have clear terms of reference, deliverables, timescales, resource estimates, etc.
Core HR Skills — we still need to bring our traditional core HR skills (in Talent Acquisition, Employee Engagement, Learning and Development, Recognition and Reward, HR Information) to the table, but our focus needs to be more on their strategic contribution rather than process excellence.

We have found high levels of buy-in to the three new capability areas of strategy and change management, consulting skills and project management. In defining performance criteria, the following considerations are important:

the number of performance levels you need to put in place to reflect the breadth of capability in your HR team;
the level of detail you want to go into to describe performance levels;
how an HR capability framework integrates with other leadership frameworks you may have;
how the capability framework dovetails with HR career paths.

Organisations we have worked with have tackled these considerations in different ways. Here we present three examples of how largely common content has been developed in different ways.

Example 1: Discovery communications

Discovery Communications have articulated HR capabilities under seven areas:

Commercial
Operational
HR Expert
Culture and Change Champion
Organisation Development and Talent
Credible Activist
Creative and Innovative

Capability requirements are set out under each of these areas. So, for example,

Commercial includes: knows how the business makes money; understands costs versus value.
Culture and Change Champion includes: effectively manages change programmes; helps leaders share the company's culture and contributes to a positive climate.
Operational includes: helps internal customers navigate through HR processes; customises solutions to achieve the right business results.
HR Expert includes the development of expertise in the areas of ER, L&D, Recruitment, C&B and Project Management.
Credible Activist includes: able to use knowledge and turn it into action; applies a consulting approach to the HR role.
Organisational Development and Talent includes: actively works with the business to design and develop the organisation; supports internal and external talent pipeline growth.
Creative and Innovative includes: customises solutions to achieve the right business results; initiates change and takes proactive suggestions to the leaders.

As Discovery Communications is a leader in creative media it was thought important that HR also mirrored this broader business capability of creativity and innovation. HR needs to be working in that space too!

When Nicky Riding took up the role of HR Director EMEA it was the first time Discovery had an integrated HR function to support its EMEA business. It was also clear that an enthusiastic and able HR team needed to be focused on those capabilities that would help the business perform. A relatively flat structure exists and therefore the approach taken is straightforward with a common list of requirements set out under each heading.

Example 2: AXA UK

AXA uses the visual below to articulate HR capability areas.

For each of the capability areas there are four levels of capability: Entry Level, Foundation Level, Building and Expert.

Performance criteria are set out for each level and capability area. Examples (not an exhaustive list) of those performance criteria used at Foundation Level are:

understands and interprets business strategy,
understands the KPIs within the business,
delivers key aspects of organisational change,
coaches front line supervisors,
is commercially aware,
influences, communicates and consults with senior managers, builds relationships with the business.

This approach does not set out the subsets for each capability area but does define performance criteria at levels between Foundation (Entry Point) and Expert (Mastery). In addition, AXA have also defined capabilities in some detail for the new capability areas of organisational design, project management, consulting skills and change management.

AXA have also set out a high-level career path, showing that as people progress hierarchically, their core HR knowledge and expertise become less important and the 'new' capability areas become more important. A visual used by this organisation is given in Figure 1.

Figure 1: AXA HR career paths.

Our third example is again National Grid. In the first edition of this book we presented the National Grid HR capability framework in some detail. This framework has been in place since 2001 and has been updated recently. The initial framework and the outcome of a recent review are shown in Example 3:

Example 3: National grid

HR capabilities were defined around the following framework:

This framework therefore incorporated five core HR capabilities (shown in the pentagon) and three new capability areas:

Strategy and Change Management,
Client Relationship Management,
Project Management.

For each of these eight capability areas a set of capabilities were defined along with relevant performance levels, against which HR professionals could self assess.

This framework was reviewed in 2008. Most of the framework reviewed remained unchanged. The main changes made were to place a stronger emphasis on the following:

designing and implementing appropriate organisational structures,
quantifying the value of HR services delivered,
ensuring projects reflect task (what) and process (how),
developing resourcing strategies and plans,
putting in place strategies and plans to build organisational capability.

National Grid is a good example of an organisation that has developed and worked with a framework over time and, through applying the 80/20 rule, has made adjustments to the framework to reflect changing business priorities without losing the robustness of the initial content.

These are not the only ways to express HR Partner capabilities. Other organisations we have worked with have adopted a lighter touch and others have gone into greater detail. What is important is that the capability framework makes sense to your organisation and to your HR professionals and enables you to identify capability gaps and development needs.

Clarify HR's Contribution

2012-01-30T07:01:00.000-08:00

It is important that there is a dialogue with business colleagues about the contribution needed from HR and that contribution should be anchored in the critical issues faced by the organisation.

We use a number of techniques to gain clarity on HR's contribution and here we explain two techniques that have proved to be particularly helpful:

'Strawman' discussion document,
'Accountability Workshop'.

Strawman Discussion Document

For those of you unfamiliar with the term 'strawman' — this is a proposal put up for discussion that is robust enough to stand up to critique (i.e., it has substance), but not so robust that the proposals cannot be taken apart and re-worked. It is therefore different from a draft document where the expectation is that the proposals are well formed.

This document typically sets out the responsibilities and accountabilities for employees, managers, HR generalists, HR specialists, HR shared services (transactional and advisory), outsourcers, etc. as a basis for discussion. An example of how this approach has been used is presented in the case study below.

A four-page discussion document was written setting out the capability shift required in HR professionals and options to address this capability gap. This 'strawman' paper was then discussed one to one with the global HR leadership team and other key stakeholders elsewhere in the business. Feedback enabled a firm proposal to be developed which was then signed off through the HR transformation governance structure without any substantive change. This approach was quick and effective in building a coalition of support for the final proposal and in clarifying the contribution needed from HR professionals.

Accountability Workshop

As a precursor to organisational design, we have found it helpful to combine the work on HR delivery channels and the scope of HR services that are delivered through these channels to ascertain where accountability for HR service delivery will lie. Our suggested forum to complete this work is through an Accountability Workshop.

This type of workshop brings together HR and stakeholders from other parts of the business to work through changes in people management accountabilities. Typically statements of the scope of people-related activities are used to stimulate discussion (irrespective of whether these activities are performed by line managers, different members of the HR team or outsourced service delivery channels).

The Accountability Workshop then focuses on identifying, for each activity area, accountabilities for managers, HR and outsourcers, and whether the impact of HR transformation makes these accountabilities stronger, neutral or weaker.

In preparing for the workshop, focus on completing two strawman templates, one template showing the 'as is' and another presenting the known accountabilities in the 'to be' delivery model. Through desk research and interviews, it should be possible to develop a very robust picture of the 'as is' and a good starting point for the 'to be'. What this preparation work is likely to highlight are inconsistencies in accountabilities across the organisation. These templates can be tested in advance with participants and any outstanding issues can be presented for discussion/resolution at the workshop.

The reason for completing both the 'as is and a 'to be' template is to be able to manage implementation more effectively. Knowing how HR transformation will impact different organisational roles will enable communication to be tailored and subsequent interventions to be structured to secure stakeholder buy-in.

We have found that an accountabilities workshop works well when participants are drawn from the HR function and the line and comprise typically around 15–20 people. Participants do not necessarily need to be the most senior people, but should have a grasp between them of the full range of HR services. In the workshop, the aim is to validate the 'as is' template and to finalise a 'to be' template. The balance of time should be spent on considering the 'to be' template.

At the workshop, a process we have found that works well is to:

Create a large version of the template strawman (sheets of brown paper work well).
Organise participants into five small groups.
Introduce the task, setting out the aims of HR transformation, givens, assumptions etc.
Allocate a heading per group.
Ask each small group to complete their template, identifying where they believe accountability will lie.
Rotate groups to comment on the work of their colleagues (a sticky dot can be placed alongside a statement requiring clarification or which needs to be challenged; anything missing can be written on a Post-it™ note).
Work through each of the templates and reach agreement where issues have been flagged (with dots and Post-it™ notes).

Typically, an Accountability Workshop takes a couple of days to work through all the issues. This is, however, an extremely good investment of time as the output will have been created jointly between HR and other business colleagues and the output also provides a clear statement of role expectations. If there is any ambiguity about what strategic contribution the business needs from HR, this type of workshop helps to bring clarity to this area. The outputs from this workshop will then need to be discussed with key stakeholders.

We have found that the workshop outputs are helpful in framing a number of interventions that need to be undertaken as part of the HR transformation process. For example:

high-level activity analysis (supporting analysis of future resource needs);
HR process mapping;
accountability mapping and role definitions;
capability identification and development requirements for different roles;
stakeholder communications;
structure design.

Excellent Business Partnering

2012-01-26T06:58:00.000-08:00

Before we set out a process to identify and develop capability, we want to explore what excellent business partnering looks like. The title 'Business Partner' is currently the title of fashion in the HR profession. We also know that during our 25+ years' experience of working in HR titles have their seasons. The profession has long been seeking to move into the strategic partnering space — indeed the shift from Personnel to HR Management was an earlier precursor of this. But there is still confusion about what this more strategic role (whether played out by generalists or specialists) looks like. As it is generally the current title of choice in HR, we will use the term 'Business Partner' for convenience. We predict that this title 'will, in time, fall…' out of fashion and will be replaced. So, irrespective of title, what we are more interested in is what this role really looks like. What do HR professionals do if they are working in this space? What does excellence look like?

Even David Ulrich recognises that there are quite different versions of business partnering in organisations. In a People Management interview (28 June 2007) he talks about the business partner title having broadened in organisations to a point where it describes a nearly impossible role: where HR Partners are expected to contribute across a very broad front and where, for many HR professionals, it has been easier to keep doing operational HR than the strategic.

Recent research (Box 1 summarises some key sources), along with our own experience of working with a wide range of organisations, suggests that excellent business partnering (whether HR professionals wear a generalist or specialist hat) embraces the following five characteristics:

Understanding your organisation's business. Without this understanding HR professionals cannot even begin to shape a business-focused people and organisational agenda. This means being fluent in the metrics and the language of your organisation. We must understand what it takes for our organisations to perform and be able to hold our own in conversations about customers, markets, stakeholders, financials, operations, etc. This requirement was identified by a number of our senior practitioners. Alison Grace (Rackspace) identified business awareness, commercial acumen and mental agility around numbers as key HR capabilities. Ian Muir (ESAB) also underlined the need for commercial fluency, including numeracy and financial literacy. Jerry Arnott (DWP) stated that 'what has increased in importance is an absolute necessity for HR professionals to understand their business and metrics/numeracy. These are areas that need to be beefed up considerably. The problem is that in many instances HR does not identify with the business or understand it'.
Building strong relationships with business colleagues. Much research and writing about business partnering focus on the need for HR professionals to demonstrate personal impact and credibility. The essence of partnering is an ability to change the kinds of conversations HR professionals hold with business colleagues. This means being confident to challenge colleagues, bring new thinking to the table, influence effectively and ask the kinds of questions that make people think differently. Strong relationships are relationships of equals. Ian Muir (ESAB), recalling his time as HR Director for Cable and Wireless International, stated that 'success as a Business Partner is much more the product of intellectual, physical and commercial alignment to the client. Building this relationship is critical and this happens on the fly, in corridor conversations as much as in more formalised surroundings. My desk was within 5 metres of the CEO's desk in an open plan office'.
Acquiring a new toolkit of expertise. Expertise must be developed in core HR disciplines such as talent acquisition, capability development, employee relations, etc. and in the areas of business change and organisational development. This means developing a strong understanding of change management tools and project management approaches alongside traditional HR subject areas.
Bringing this toolkit of expertise to the table in a way that is problem-led so that we work with our business colleagues to identify a solution rather than telling them, as 'the expert', what the answer is. We need to work in ways that build business commitment to and ownership of outcomes. Many authors are clear that excellent business partnering requires strong consulting, coaching and facilitation skills. Frances Allcock (BBC) pointed out that HR activity must be aligned to the organisation's strategy. If no time is made for senior HR professionals to engage in strategic conversations with business colleagues and to understand business problems, there will be resistance because HR will be seen as imposing solutions and how these products help the organisation to deliver its strategy is missing.
Focusing on the organisation's change agenda — shaping and delivering the strategy, developing and building organisational capability, addressing systemic organisational issues. Business partners need to be able to shape small- and large-scale organisational changes and bring the toolkit of change management and organisational development skills to help the business move forward successfully.

Box 1: Research on the role of the business partner

Corporate leadership council — Building the next generation of HR-line partnerships (2007)

The Corporate Leadership Council (CLC) concludes that the strategic role is HR's most powerful lever for demonstrating business-level impact. The Council research demonstrates that the people in the role and the design of the job both strongly influence the effectiveness of the HR strategic role.

The person in the role

The CLC research argues that the implication of focusing on the person in the strategic role is critical. Effectiveness in the strategic role requires business analytics, leadership and persuasion skills. Business analytics drives strategic effectiveness, but only if HR can persuasively communicate them (i.e., using data-driven business cases to identify solutions tailored to customer needs has the strongest HR strategic impact). With the problem understood, the person in the HR strategic role must then be able to develop and defend a strong point of view regarding the answer and then take ownership for solution delivery.

The design of the job

The research also indicates that HR must re-examine the design of the job to improve performance. Successful design shifts the role from broad involvement across the HR touch points of numerous projects to deeper ownership on a select few high-impact projects.

Critical HR professional skills identified by the CLC are:

People skills	HR expertise	Implementation skills	Business skills
Influencing others Leading people Communicating clearly	Recruitment and retention expertise Performance and development expertise Compensation expertise Compliance expertise	Driving to results Managing projects Managing change Applying technology Managing vendors	Knowing your business Knowing business fundamentals Applying business analytics Taking a global approach

David Ulrich — A new mandate for human resources (1997), from partners to players (2001), masterclass on building sustainable value through your HR value proposition (2007)

Although he did not actually use the expression HR business partner, Ulrich is credited with the emergence of the HR business partner role. In his seminal book in 1997 he describes the new HR role, which can help deliver organisational excellence, in four ways:

Become a partner in strategy execution
- Define organisational architecture (i.e., five essential organisational components: strategy, structure, rewards, processes and people);
- Guide management through rigorous discussion on fit (e.g., the company culture fit against its strategic goals);
- Lead in proposing, creating and debating best practice in culture change programmes or reward systems;
- Take stock of own work and set clear priorities. HR professionals might have a dozen initiatives in their sights but they must have skills to be able to join forces with managers to systematically assess the impact and importance of each one initiative.
Become an expert in the way work is organised and executed — delivering efficiency to ensure that costs are reduced whilst quality is maintained.
Become an employee champion — representing employee concerns to senior management and at the same time working to increase employee contribution. HR also has an important role in holding a mirror up in front of senior executives.
Become a change agent — building organisation's capacity to embrace and capitalise on change. Using the change model 'who, why, what and how', introduce this to the management team and guide them through it.

Since 1997, Ulrich has used a range of terms to describe the role of HR business partner. In a 2001 book he co-authored with Dick Beatty, he argues that the HR role needs to shift from partner to player to meet strategic challenges. It goes on to explain that there are six ways in which HR players contribute to organisations: coach, architect, builder, facilitator, leader and conscience. Ulrich and Beatty state that by fulfilling these roles HR professionals can make a valued contribution to strategic decision making that builds winning organisations.

Coach

Coaches executives to change their behaviour.
Fully grasping and understanding organisation stakeholder scorecard is critical.
Contracting skills are essential.
Ability to build relationship of trust with business leader.
Can give clear, direct, candid and useful feedback.

Organisational architect

Must have a concept of what constitutes an effective reorganisation in line with the needs of the company, for example, the McKinsey model.

Builder

Delivers the value proposition to the customer.
Turns ideas into actions.
In order to design and deliver he or she must be current in theory and the practice of HR.

Facilitator

Facilitator role encompasses strategic change leadership.
Understands importance of getting things done and making change happen.
Facilitates teamwork. Engages teams to increase team effectiveness and helps teams learn from successes and failures.

Leader

Exemplar on how to manage.
Focuses on deliverables.
Demonstrates capabilities set out in the leadership model.

Conscience

Ensures organisation plays by the rules.
HR plays referee role to honestly evaluate business practices.

More recently, a 2007 masterclass referred to the need for HR professionals to build competencies as:

Credible activist — building relationships of trust so that an active stance can be taken to shape culture, drive change, influence direction.
Cultural steward, talent manager/organisational designer and strategic change agent — which are areas HR BPs should know about and do to make a difference.
Business ally and day-to-day tactician — competencies he sees as table stakes. They are necessary but are not sufficient without the above two areas.

Ulrich states that these three roles have a strong correlation with impact on business performance.

B Kenton and J Yarnall — The HR business partner (2005)

In their book on business partnering, the following characteristics were identified:

Delivering to the business — understanding the bigger picture/business environment, systems thinking, being able to apply skills to a wide variety of business needs, providing expertise and support/facilitation, taking a longer term perspective.
Working alongside managers in the business — collaborating, building strong relationships, involving others in finding solutions, building trust, contracting so that work undertaken is transparent, working at both content and process levels.
Self-awareness and impact — focused on learning, questions things, credible, resilient, dynamic, energetic — someone who moves people forward.
Creating and leading change — proactive and inventive, applies knowledge of change theory, influences others to engage them in the change process, creative, works well with ambiguity and complexity, path-finding.
Maintaining a business focus — prioritising, utilises business data, challenges appropriately, seeks feedback for insight and learning, sets measures and defines clear deliverables at the start of any project.

What this means in practice is that excellent business partners will engage with colleagues around strategic themes: sustaining high-performance during difficult economic times; integrating new businesses; driving efficiencies and cost management; creating higher levels of employee engagement; identifying new individual and organisational capabilities; shaping and creating a high-performance culture; helping management teams to perform and work together more effectively … and so on … that will drive revenue/customer satisfaction, control costs and build reputation. Indeed HR professionals, working as business partners, need to be able to ask and address whatever the key questions are that will help their organisation to deliver high-performance.