Can HR software be designed to minimise its environmental footprint?

When I think about the impact of technology on the environment, the first thing that comes to mind is the energy used to power and cool data centres. It is in these data centres – usually sprawling, high security buildings that and are full of servers, cabling, and racks – that software code and customer data is stored. If software companies have a fall-back data centre and regularly back-up customer data, the consumption of hardware resources is even higher. These are realities that we accept, a bit like the fact that very few people switch off their electrical devices at home rather than leaving them in standby mode (although we know this consumes – in fact, wastes – electricity).

A few years ago, the PeopleWeek management team asked itself what PeopleWeek could do to limit our impact on the environment. We already hosted our data in a world-class, energy efficient data centre. What else could we do? We rarely travel as most client meetings and are by video conference. It is also rare that team members travel for meetings. The offices are paperless. We don’t use disposable plastic in the office. In short, our environmental footprint was relatively low and as a start-up we did not even have many customers and their data to host. However, we knew that overtime we would acquire a lot of customers and their precious data.

MINIMISING DATA STORAGE BUT NOT THE USER EXPERIENCE
With this in mind, PeopleWeek decided in 2020 that all modules and new features would be designed to prevent unnecessary data storage by our clients – and consumption of CPU and RAM. This philosophy was first put into practice with the design of our Recruitment Module. We decided that it would only be possible for candidates to upload 1 document with their job application, i.e. their CV. The system would allow applicants to write a cover/motivation letter directly into the UI (if the customer wants this feature) but they would not be able to upload a cover letter, educational certificates, employment references, samples of work, etc.

We received a mixed reaction. Most organisations said that they do not need the supporting documents until they make a final hiring decision or have identified their top 2-3 candidates. At that stage, they might look at supporting documents, though they would probably only need them as part of the onboarding process (using PeopleWeek’s Onboarding Module). Other organisations were very surprised that applicants could not submit as many documents as they like. “This is not how we are used to working” was the typical response.

When I asked the less-than-enthusiastic organisations how many of the applicants’ supporting documents they typically reviewed prior to making a hiring decision (as opposed to as part of the onboarding process), they all said it was rare unless they received only a few job applications. This made me wonder why their initial response to this aspect of the design of PeopleWeek’s Recruitment Module was not to their liking. There are a few themes:

  • Discomfort amongst HR professionals to adjust to a new way of working;
  • Nervousness about the reaction of some hiring managers (personally, I could not imagine many hiring managers spending time on reviewing supporting documents); and
  • Concern that applicants may feel deprived of an opportunity to submit more information about themselves.

However, the primary reason for the initial objection was that they had not really thought about the data consumption, and the environmental impact, associated with giving applicants the option to upload multiple documents. Once I pointed out to them that if 100 people applied for a job and they each submitted on average 15 pages, it would add up to 1,500 pages. If the applications are held on record for 24 months – before being anonymised and all attachments deleted – that constitutes a significant amount of data. What’s more, PeopleWeek performs a daily back up of client data, meaning you have to double the data storage. Now imagine the organisation has 30 job vacancies per year, that adds up to 45,000 pages. And 100 job vacancies is 150,000 pages or 300,000 once backed-up. Now imagine a software provider like PeopleWeek has hundreds or thousands of customers (as we hope to have one day), that constitutes a heck of a lot of data storage. This may be fine if hosting all those documents adds operational value but, as I have seen in my conversations with HR professionals, they rarely even read them apart from for the candidates that are selected for hiring.

CAN THIS PRINCIPLE APPLY TO OTHER DESIGN FEATURES IN AN HR SOFTWARE?
A recruitment module is just one example of how environmentally conscious design can minimise the environmental impact of software. The principle can be applied to other features of an HR software. Here are a few simple ideas that PeopleWeek has implemented or is in the process of implementing:

  • Applying a cap to the size of attachments that can be uploaded;
  • Applying a cap to and compressing photos that can be uploaded (PeopleWeek is photo heavy as we are also a collaboration platform for sharing news and creating events);
  • Building a core set of reports for all clients for each module so that they do not have the need to create tens or hundreds of reports that are auto-generated but nobody actually reviews them;
  • Replacing an updated payslip rather than adding it;
  • Placing a cap on the number of applicants when a job is posted, at which point the vacancy is automatically unpublished (but can be re-published later if needed);
  • Anonymising job applications, which also necessitates the permanent deletion of any uploaded documents (this is also a required feature for sound data privacy practices); and
  • Transferring onboarding documents from the Onboarding Module into the new hire’s Employee Profile, thereby only storing them in one location.

LEADING BY EXAMPLE
At PeopleWeek we believe that we need to show leadership on this topic, even if some organisations ultimately decide that they will not purchase our software because, for example, they want applicants to be able to upload 3 or 4 documents or as many pages as they like. Of course, we need to bring our clients with us on the journey and we can only do this if the user experience is a positive one despite certain environmentally minded features. However, we also need to invest time to help raise awareness amongst potential clients and existing clients. In our experience, perhaps after some reflection, organisations typically understand PeopleWeek’s philosophy and embrace it. They also soon realise that it involves only minor changes to existing ways of working, the overall user experience is positive and business operations are unaffected.

by

HR Software: Ready-made or Tailor-made?

Selecting the right HR software platform is challenging. Firstly, organisations need to make the strategic decision on whether to purchase

Selecting the right HR software platform is challenging. Firstly, organisations need to make the strategic decision on whether to purchase a “one-stop-shop” solution, a variety of stand-alone solutions for different activities, or a core HCM system with integrations to specialist software (e.g. recruitment, learning, talent, etc). The trend for organisations of all sizes is to implement one-stop-shop solutions. Secondly, once the strategic decision has been made, there are many HR software solutions to choose from and other important criteria such as IT security, customer support and pricing.

Most HR software is either highly customisable (tailor-made) or off-the-shelf (ready-made). Nonetheless, when selecting or implementing software, companies – small, medium, and large – tend to expect the new solution to deliver content and processes that are identical, or at least very similar, to their existing ways of working. Whilst the importance placed on causing as little internal change as possible is well-intended, the long-term downsides are often overlooked.

More importantly, business and HR leaders need to remember that in an increasingly competitive world your mid- and back-office processes need first and foremost to be efficient in terms of cost, quality, and speed.

In the case of HR processes, they are certainly important in the promotion of an organisation’s culture. However, bespoke processes – that require bespoke software solutions – are very unlikely to be a differentiator in an organisation’s success and culture is primarily shaped by humans, not by technology.

In this article, I will share my thoughts on the following points:

  • Why organisations want to maintain existing processes
  • Why seeking the status quo is not always a good idea
  • Why it is difficult to select an HR platform
  • How technology can help
  • Whether organisations should adapt or customise

WHY ORGANISATIONS WANT TO MAINTAIN EXISTING PROCESSES
There are many reasons why organisations want software to “bend” to their existing ways of working and the main driver is usually minimising change management.

In the case of HR software, the HR department (or at least the HR decision-makers), often have a fear of requiring employees or managers to change their existing processes, for example their company-specific way of managing performance reviews, recruitment, timesheets, or expenses. They may also be reluctant to introduce changes that have a downstream impact on other departments, for example, accounting, finance, and IT.

It is also often the case that HR is one of the least well-resourced departments, with a heavy workload and little capacity to take on additional change management. Unfortunately, many HR teams are also poorly equipped to manage change because they lack the experience and skills, or are perceived as an administrative function, so they have limited ability to influence business leaders and drive change.

WHY SEEKING THE STATUS QUO IS NOT ALWAYS A GOOD IDEA
In our experience, making software decisions with an imperative to maintain existing processes is often flawed for 3 key reasons:

  1. The existing customised processes are often inefficient and/or add little business value. Moreover, there has usually been very little (or maybe no) internal discussion about the efficacy of existing processes or consideration of alternative approaches;
  2. The additional implementation costs associated with building bespoke IT solutions may be disproportionate to the added value they bring; and
  3. Bespoke IT solutions tend to be significantly more expensive to maintain, which results in increased systems overhead costs (internal operating costs or system licence fees).

Of course, if an organisation has a large budget for implementing and running customised HR processes, then points 2 and 3 will be of less concern.

However, the reality is that most organisations operate in cost sensitive environments. Even in good times you need to prepare for difficult times, competition continuously puts pressure on margins and not-for-profit organisations are usually dependent on unpredictable external financing. Current macroeconomic conditions suggest that there will be more pressure on profits in the next few years, e.g. inflation, commodities shortages, supply chain disruptions, and exchange rate volatility. The war in Ukraine is now compounding these challenges.

WHY IT IS DIFFICULT TO SELECT AN HR PLATFORM
PeopleWeek talks to organisations in many sectors, of varying sizes (revenue and employees), and with a presence in many countries. We regularly see HR directors and other decision-makers struggling with the available HR software solutions in the market. There are 2 main reasons for this challenge:

  • The highly customisable solutions are too expensive (and require lengthy implementation times and internal resources); and
  • The off-the-shelf solutions offer limited customisation possibilities and functionality.

These two points are often compounded by a lack of pragmatism about adapting – not completely changing – current ways of working to use existing software solutions.

HOW TECHNOLOGY CAN HELP
Software companies need to accept these realities and offer their clients practical solutions. The answer is not “forcing” clients to work within narrow technology boundaries or charging expensive fees for developing unique solutions that are then, typically, paid for by the first client and re-sold with very high profit margins to other clients. This approach is neither sustainable for the client nor for systems architecture, which becomes overly complex.

PeopleWeek was conceived with the ambition to offer the best of both worlds by being an off-the-shelf solution that also allows a significant amount of customisation. In addition, customisations need to be affordable and the only way this can be done is by building the customisable features into the core system design and making them configurable by the client themselves without any IT skills needed. This is PeopleWeek’s raison d’être.

ADAPT OR CUSTOMISE: WHAT’S THE BOTTOM LINE?
I regularly remind myself of the key drivers of business performance outlined by Ram Charan’s in his best seller “What the CEO Want You to Know”: Cash, Margin, Velocity, Growth, and Customers

Whilst effective HR processes are clearly important for organisations, HR professionals and business leaders must not lose sight of the fact that overly customised approaches are unlikely to make a fundamental difference to overall performance. In addition, organisational culture is driven by people and leadership, not by processes and technology.

As such, and given the additional costs involved in overly customised software solutions, PeopleWeek’s advice is:.

Question the effectiveness of your organisation’s existing processes;

Select software that is easily and sufficiently customisable to meet your organisation’s needs with low or no additional costs;

Customise with a pragmatic mindset, remembering that technology is a means to an end and not an end in itself; and

Unless the customisation will genuinely increase efficiency or you have a lot of money (to waste), do not customise.

These principles make commercial and operational sense, though it may be uncomfortable accepting the need to adapt. On the other hand, “if nothing ever changed there would be no butterflies”.

by

Performance Management and Technology: Modern Solutions for Age-Old Challenges

The value-added of performance management has been known for years. Yet, many organisations do not have a performance review process

The value-added of performance management has been known for years. Yet, many organisations do not have a performance review process or struggle to complete it properly. Why is this?

In this short article we cover the following topics:

  • The numerous benefits of performance management
  • Different approaches to performance management
  • Typical challenges
  • The role of technology
  • How we can help

THE NUMEROUS BENEFITS OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
Conducting performance reviews efficiently can have positive all-around results.

It is well-understood that setting clear expectations for employees and aligning individual priorities with those of the team, department and wider organisation is a basic building block for high performance.

There are other well-recognised benefits of effective employee performance management. For example, it can contribute to employee engagement, a positive work environment, and stronger connections between leadership and employees. Ultimately, all of these things lead to higher organisational performance, such as profitability, customer satisfaction, productivity, etc. This has been well-documented in many studies.

DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
As to be expected, organisations have different performance management practices, which is often linked to factors such as company culture, industry-specific norms, historical practices, legal requirements, the type of jobs, etc. For example, there can be significant differences in:

The frequency of performance reviews

  • Performance rating scales (or even no rating scales)
  • Incorporating (or not) 180 or 360-degree feedback
  • Including (or not) employee self-reviews
  • Providing ongoing feedback vs. performing more formal reviews at fixed times (e.g. mid-year and end-of-year)
  • The focus on business / operational objectives and individual development objectives
  • Assessing competencies
  • Asking work environment-related questions
  • Proposing compliance-related questions for organisations in more regulated sectors.

TYPICAL CHALLENGES
Employees, managers and HR professionals alike may recognise some of the following challenges associated with performance management, irrespective of the organisation’s profile (industry, country, maturity, size, etc):

  • Lack of alignment between the organisation’s strategic objectives and those of employees
  • A mismatch between the design of the performance management process and the desired culture of the organisation
  • Complaints from employees and managers that they do not have the time to complete the processes, especially at year-end when they may be asked to review the current year and set objectives and individual development plans for the next year
  • Too much time spent chasing employees and managers to complete each step of the process (e.g. set objectives, write the reviews, and have a 1-on-1 discussion), where HR teams end up becoming an “enforcer”
  • Poor quality of written comments, e.g. non-existent, too vague or too long Lack of consistency on ratings (i.e. performance expectations) between managers
  • Lack of consistency between ratings on individual objectives vs. the overall rating
  • The risk that the process becomes a box-ticking exercise and 1-on-1 conversations either do not happen or are of poor quality
  • Completing each step of the process weeks or months after the original deadline, meaning that it is now out of sync with the organisation’s business performance cycle and even with compensation decisions
  • Enabling the review process in different languages for employees in different countries who may not be comfortable in the organisation’s primary language
  • Remote working / Covid has made some of these challenges even greater (especially 1-on-1 discussions and ongoing feedback).

THE ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY
Technology, i.e. HR software and collaboration tools, can help solve many of these challenges. Here are some examples:

  • Digitalizing the current or desired performance management process, while respecting each organisation’s cultural or historical approach
  • Providing flexibility in attributes to include in the objectives review, the preferred rating scale, and the design of their very own evaluation forms
  • Combining or separating the timing of objectives, individual development and evaluations
  • Making it mandatory to complete the 1-on-1 part of the review process
  • Giving managers the opportunity to schedule the 1-on-1 review with their team members at the same time that they launch the self-evaluation process
  • Displaying the organisation’s strategic objectives in an objective setting User Interface
  • Allowing the option to make it an obligation to write comments and put a cap on the length of comments (limited number of characters)
  • Creating detailed reports for the HR department on completion stats and results
  • Offering complete adaptability on the timing of performance reviews, including within the same organisation
  • Providing organisations and their employees with a multi-language User Interface and forms

HOW WE CAN HELP
As both HR practitioners and technologists, the PeopleWeek team has significant performance management experience and deep insights into market practices. We have used this expertise to develop technology that addresses the practical realities of employees, managers and HR.

Our suite of tools is well-suited to medium-sized and large organisations alike and offers a lot of flexibility in the design of the performance management processes. This enables our clients to have tailored solutions without having to pay customised development costs or high license fees.

There are modern solutions for age-old challenges.

by