Over the past few weeks, the international news has been dominated by the threat of the United States introducing new and increased trade tariffs. There are many economic and political arguments in favour of and against trade tariffs. One of the arguments used in favour of tariffs is that the US wants an equal playing field with its trading partners, meaning that taxes on an American product imported into other countries should not be higher than the taxes that are levied on the same product when it is imported into the US. This got me thinking about the unfair playing field on data privacy and data protection that surely impacts services in Europe and Switzerland. Let me explain.

In the area of HR data, there are many similarities across the US, EU, and Switzerland (CH). For example:

• Protection of Personal Data: All 3 regions require companies to implement measures to secure employee data.
• Employee Rights: Employees have certain rights over their personal data, such as access and correction.
• Employer Obligations: Employers must ensure lawful processing of HR data and adopt security measures.
• Job Applicants: Employers must ensure secure handling of job applicant data, only use it for hiring decisions, and they cannot keep candidate data indefinitely without justification.

However, there are fundamental differences. For example:

Which Region is the Most & Least Regulated?

1. Most Regulated: EU
   The GDPR is the strictest framework, applying to all EU countries with severe penalties for violations. It mandates explicit consent, detailed transparency requirements, and strict data transfer rules.
   
   
2. Second Most Regulated: Switzerland
   The new FADP (effective September 2023) is aligned with GDPR in many aspects but has lower penalties.
   
   
3. Least Regulated: US
   The USA lacks a federal data privacy law; instead, it has a patchwork of state laws (e.g., California’s CCPA is strict, but other states have minimal regulations). Some industries (e.g., healthcare, finance) are heavily regulated, but HR data in many states remains lightly governed.

What are the Consequences for EU and Swiss Companies?

Data privacy and protection regulations are designed with good intentions – to safeguard individuals’ rights, build trust, and promote ethical and responsible business practices. PeopleWeek does not advocate reducing the standards in Europe. However, the differences in regulation and enforcement create a significant disadvantage for European service companies, including technology companies. Our start-up costs and ongoing overheads are significantly higher than for US companies. Innovation is slowed down as we need to invest more time implementing data privacy safeguards and solutions. If want to enter the US market – and other markets with weaker regulations – we still need to maintain the cost and “weight” of European standards. This means that we have a competitive disadvantage in terms of prices or profit margins.

PeopleWeek takes data security and privacy very seriously. We have invested significant time and money into building solutions that comply with EU and Swiss regulations. We continuously implement new processes and systems as the legal, risk, and technology landscape evolves.

The new US presidency is likely to pose even greater challenges for Europe. The US will reduce regulations in many industries and areas (e.g., crypto, financial services, environmental). At the same time, Europe continues to increase regulations. This creates an unlevel playing field in the same way as tariffs. Politicians, regulators, and the business community in the EU and Switzerland must work together to find solutions so that we have high standards but are not at an unfair disadvantage in international markets.

During my HR career, and now as an HR software provider with regular insights into how diverse companies operate, I often see mind-boggling levels of unnecessary organisational complexity. I wonder how these companies ended up with such complex practices and the potential cost savings of simplification (not to mention other benefits such as employee job satisfaction and innovation).

While some organisational complexities are necessary – e.g., unavoidable due to the nature of the workforce, legal requirements, or the regulatory landscape – many others are unnecessary. In this article I explore the impact of unnecessary organisational complexity, which reduces productivity and increases business operating costs.

I will share some practical examples of necessary and unnecessary complexity, the negative impacts of the latter, why top management need to proactively eliminate it, and how technology can help improve efficiency but is not a panacea.

Necessary Organisational Complexity

Organisational complexity is often an unavoidable aspect of business operations. Several factors contribute to this, for example:

1. Organisations with a diverse range of jobs undoubtedly have to manage a greater level of complexity. Different types of job may require different processes for different groups of employees within the same organisation, for example recording working time, managing performance, recruitment, training, and health and safety.
2. Organisations with operations in different sectors and countries will be subject to different laws, regulations, and market norms. Their processes and systems must be able to manage this complexity, for example managing employee absences, compensation, benefits, and statutory reporting.
3. Many organisations have a significant employee population with no work IT access. This means that many core processes have to be designed to be done with and without computer access.
4. Historically some sectors have had high levels of employee absenteeism and attrition. This results in a workforce that is very challenging to manage and HR departments often struggle to keep up with the volume of administrative tasks.
5. Some countries, sectors, and companies more than others are subject to onerous legal and regulatory requirements. This is not a criticism of regulation. It is simply an observation that managing such requirements is usually complex.

Unnecessary Organisational Complexity

While some complexity is inherent, many organisations suffer from self-imposed complexity. Here are some examples that I regularly see in a variety of organisations:

1. Decision-making processes where too many people are involved in a workflow. I recall an organisation asking PeopleWeek to build a workflow where 5 people must approve a job vacancy (one after the other) before it can be published.
2. Lack of empowerment of employees resulting in the concentration of administrative tasks with managers or support functions. Examples that come to mind are HR managing employees’ absence requests, accounting submitting employees’ expense claims, and managers writing performance objectives for their team members rather than employees taking the lead.
3. Lack of empowerment of managers is a similar problem and can result in a culture where managers do not take ownership (as they are not expected to). This creates complexity because workflows have to skip managers or include additional people to check that the manager has made the “right decision”, e.g., HR, Finance, or a more senior manager double approving timesheets, home-working requests, expenses, and even annual performance reviews.
4. Employees having multiple reporting lines and it being unclear what each manager is responsible for. This can be challenging for the employee, doubles the managerial effort, and makes workflows in IT systems heavy to build and maintain.
5. Heavy performance management forms and processes that require too much employee and manager time to complete and leave little time for the employee and manager to have a meaningful conversation (“dialogue”). HR also take on the role of the police to ensure completion deadlines are respected (which is rare in most organisations).
6. A mix or design of employee benefits that may be very attractive to employees but is very challenging to administer and consumes a disproportionate amount of time. An example is employee share participation schemes that are so complex they are barely manageable, even with a customised software solution.

The Cost of Unnecessary Complexities

The cost of unnecessary complexity is high, including:

• Inefficiencies leading to lost productivity and time wastage.
• Low employee job satisfaction as there are too many menial tasks, decision-making is slow, and there is not enough time to work on higher value-added activities.
• Low technology transformation as processes have to be managed manually (Excel and other “home-made” tools) or in many different IT systems, which is expensive, risky, and not a good employee experience.
• IT systems need a high degree of customisation to be able to handle the complexity, which is expensive and renders the systems more difficult to maintain.
• Bureaucratic organisational cultures that are slow moving and poor innovators.

It’s clear that an organisation exhibiting these characteristics may struggle to attract talented late Millennials and Gen Zs, who generally seek work environments that are dynamic, tech-enabled, and innovative.

The Role of Top Management

Top management, starting with the CEO, should actively identify and eliminate unnecessary complexity. While this task may not seem as glamorous or exciting as product design, marketing, or sales, it deserves equal attention. Just as management would never accept an unnecessary 10% discount on the selling price of a product or service, they should not tolerate a 10% reduction in productivity due to unnecessary organisational complexity. Prioritizing simplification can lead to significant improvements in efficiency and overall business performance.

The role of Technology

Well-designed technology offers a fantastic opportunity to automate organisational activities and streamline processes, significantly reducing complexity. However, if an organisation is unnecessarily complex, its IT solutions will mirror that complexity, making the implementation of new technologies and user adoption more difficult and costly. This could ultimately lead to failure.

By taking a proactive approach, organisations can align their processes and culture for success, leveraging technology as a powerful tool to enhance efficiency. Addressing unnecessary complexity unlocks significant benefits, including freeing up valuable resources, boosting employee satisfaction, and fostering innovation. Focusing on simplicity positions organisations for long-term success in a fast evolving world. As such, reducing organisational complexity is not just beneficial; it’s a strategic imperative.

Throughout my HR career I often wondered why my colleagues and I were using a standalone, specialist recruitment software (commonly referred to as an “Applicant Tracking System”) rather than a recruitment module within our HRIS. It did not make sense to me for many reasons, including the efficiency of the end-to-end process if an applicant ended up being hired, and the high cost in terms of running two systems and potentially an integration between them.

In this article I will explain why it does not make sense to use a standalone ATS if you can manage the recruitment process just as well in an HRIS.

WHAT TYPE OF FUNCTIONALITY DOES A MATURE ATS OFFER?

A mature ATS enables an organisation to manage all steps of the recruitment process in the platform. Here are some examples of the functionality needed by most organisations:

• Create a job vacancy using a database of job descriptions
  
• Job vacancy approval workflows that include relevant information for budgeting
  
• Posting jobs on their careers page and on external websites
  
• Advertising the same vacancy in different locations
  
• A quick and easy process for candidates to apply to vacancies
  
• A way to manage spontaneous job applications
  
• Ability to assign an existing job application to a different job opening
  
• Ability to invite an applicant in the database to a new job opening
  
• Customisable folders / categories for managing the job application workflow
  
• CV filtering tools
  
• CV database management
  
• Interview questionnaires
  
• Ability to identify job applications originating from an employee referral
  
• Bulk downloading of CVs
  
• Email templates and bulk email management
  
• Capturing interview feedback and ratings
  
• Assigning applicants to talent pools
  
• Calendar management for scheduling interview slots
  
• Automated notifications at different steps of the process
• Onboarding tools for converting a candidate into an employee
  
• Data protection compliance in all jurisdictions.

IF THE ATS OFFERS SUCH A COMPLETE SET OF FUNCTIONALITIES, WHY DOES IT MATTER IF IT IS A STANDALONE SOLUTION?

There are several disadvantages of a standalone ATS versus an ATS built into an HRIS. Here are the 5 main ones:

1. Dual data entry: Unless the ATS is integrated with the HRIS, the organisational data in the ATS must be kept up to date manually, i.e., dual data entry. Examples are the lists of employing entities, departments, cost centres, recruitment managers, managers, email addresses, job descriptions, etc.
2. Integrations: The best way to avoid the inefficiencies associated with point 1 is to build an integration between the ATS and the HRIS. However, this is expensive to implement, the integration must be maintained, and the integration may not offer a real-time synchronisation of data. Integrations also break occasionally and need to be fixed.
3. Onboarding: Once a preferred candidate has been selected and accepted the offer, they need to be onboarded into the HRIS. Whilst an integration between the ATS and HRIS may help with certain aspects, it is very unlikely that the ATS will enable you to manage all steps of the onboarding process, e.g., transfer documents and signed forms into the new hire’s employee profile, share information with the IT department, complete any compliance processes, etc.
4. Costs: Implementing and running both an ATS and an HRIS is likely to be more expensive than managing the entire employee lifecycle (including recruitment) in one system.
5. Data protection: Storing employee data and job applicant data in the same platform means that you only have to manage the security of one system.

In my opinion, these downsides of a standalone ATS are so significant that even if an HRIS is only able to offer 80% of the functionalities of a standalone ATS it may be worth making compromises. And we should never forget that the most important user experience in the recruitment process is not that of HR or the hiring manager, but of the applicant (I would be hesitant to make compromises in this regard).

SO WHY DON’T ALL ORGANISATIONS MANAGE RECRUITMENT IN AN HRIS?

The primary reason is that most HRISs do not offer the functionality required. In other words, an ATS typically offers much more complete and powerful functionality. As such, HR departments may have little choice but to use the HRIS for all processes apart from recruitment (this is also often also the case for training or Learning Management Systems).

ISN’T AN ATS TOO EXPENSIVE FOR MANY ORGANISATIONS?

The price of an ATS varies but it is true that they may be prohibitively expensive or not represent good value for money for some small and medium-sized organisations. This may either be because they do not have the budget or because their recruitment volumes are too low to justify the investment.

AT RISK OF BECOMING OBSOLETE?

From the point of view of an HR and technology professional, in the year 2024 there should be no technological rationale for the continued dependence on the standalone ATS. An HRIS should be able to offer recruitment functionality that is equivalent to that offered by a mature ATS. While 2023 has seen a widespread fascination with the possibilities of artificial intelligence, paradoxically, most organisations do not even have an HRIS with an in-built ATS, which is clearly a lot more basic than deploying AI. (Incidentally, certain ATS solutions leverage AI, especially in assessing applicants for potential suitability, but this practice is not without its share of controversy).

At PeopleWeek, we’ve developed a solution. We now offer clients the option of a comprehensive ATS called the “Recruitment Plus” module, or a streamlined version called the “Recruitment” module. Both modules are available at a significantly lower cost than a standalone ATS and offer the advantages of being part of a “one stop shop” solution covering the entire employee lifecycle.

PeopleWeek hopes that our all-in-one approach to HR and recruitment software may inspire other HRIS solutions. As this approach becomes commonplace, it could result in the traditional ATS becoming obsolete.

Over the past year, PeopleWeek has noticed increasing interest in mutualised HR software solutions. In this article I explain what a mutualised solution is, the main drivers and benefits of this approach, as well as the disadvantages.

WHAT IS A MUTUALISED SOLUTION IN SOFTWARE?

In simple terms, a mutualised solution in software is either a new platform, a new module, or a new feature that is collectively purchased (by clients) and sold (by the software company) to more than one independent organisation.

In PeopleWeek’s experience, mutualised solutions fall into one of the following three categories:

1. A tender, or Request for Proposals, is issued by several organisations that are looking to implement a similar software solution;
2. The software company is proactively approached by existing clients with a collective request to develop a new solution. This may happen as the result of shared clients knowing each other or even from spending time together at industry events and networking sessions; or
3. The software company proactively approaches a group of existing clients to ask them whether they are interested in contributing to the development of a new solution that will subsequently be deployed to a group of customers.   

WHAT ARE THE MAIN DRIVERS OR BENEFITS OF MUTUALISATION?

This needs to be looked at from two perspectives: 1) software clients and 2) software companies.

Clients

The main driver of mutualisation is financial/budgetary and there are two reasons for this:

1. Purchasing the same solution as part of a group of organisations increases the clients’ purchasing and negotiating power. This is particularly the case in RFPs.
2. Sharing the costs of software development (design, development, testing, deployment) amongst several organisations.

There are other important drivers of mutualisation:

• Smart design: Technology is a means to and end. It enables processes. When a solution is designed to be used by multiple organisations – that may have very similar or even slightly different existing processes – it encourages broad thinking, sharing of different practices, and may ultimately lead to improvements (e.g. user experience, efficiency, etc).
• Smart technology: Technology built to work for multiple organisations is likely to be designed smartly as it needs to cater to slightly different needs (e.g. different configurations within the same underlying technology).
• Simplification: Mutualised designs often result in a “90/10” or “80/20” solution for each organisation. They may not get all the “bells and whistles” they would like in the perfect solution but this may be helpful in forcing them to simplify existing processes or steps that are too complex relative to the value they add (and perhaps too expensive from a technology point of view).
• Speed of implementation: Technology companies will invest more time and people on a project if it is being developed for multiple clients and they have a guaranteed client base (i.e. future license buyers).

Software Companies

There are multiple reasons why software companies should be open to mutualised solutions:

• Client satisfaction, i.e. be responsive to client needs and offer value for money.
• Evolve their technology (improve and enrich their software’s functionalities).
• Win RFPs, i.e. acquire new clients.
• Develop new technology with a group of beta clients that will help them to design and test it.

WHAT ARE THE DOWNSIDES OF MUTUALISATION?

Again, this question needs to be looked at from the perspective of clients and software companies.

Clients

There are two main downsides of mutualised solutions for clients:

1. As mentioned above, mutualised developments tend to be a “90/10” or “80/20” solution for each organisation. It is not a customised solution.
2. There may be an upfront time investment to build alignment on the common needs (and, conversely, agree what needs to be different). This alignment building typically needs to be done before approaching the software company because you need to be confident that there is, indeed, sufficient alignment to make a common solution viable.

Software Companies

There are three potential downsides for software companies when developing mutualised solutions:

1. As with clients, it may be necessary to invest time to finalise alignment on the common needs and identify unavoidable differences.
2. The technology solution will often be more complex from a development point of view because it will need to cater for client differences. This means that whilst all clients will be using the same underlying technology (code, architecture), the solution may need to contain a high degree of configurability.
3. It may be incompatible with the existing pricing model. This is an important point and merits a paragraph on its own…

Unfortunately, the historical pricing and operating practices of most technology companies – past and present, large and small – are the polar opposite of mutualisation: they build a customised solution for one (the first) client; charge them the full cost of development despite the fact that this client has invested a significant amount of time co-developing and testing the solution (and has probably been the victim of lots of v1 bugs); and then re-sell it to other clients with a fat profit margin. This has been a very profitable modus operandi across the technology sector for as long as I can remember.

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE From the outset PeopleWeek designed its technology to be able to offer common solutions with different configurations. We then started offering mutualised solutions several years ago and can also deploy white label solutions. This approach has been an important way for us to develop our suite of software, acquire new clients, and respond to client requests in an affordable way. We see it as a win-win. Looking to the future, we hope that the trend towards mutualisation will continue to grow. This will put healthy pressure on software companies to evolve their modus operandi.

Despite the proliferation of articles and solutions for producing advanced analytics and fancy dashboards, many organisations – both large and small – struggle to produce basic HR reports.

For the HR professional this can be extremely frustrating. On the one hand, we constantly read about “big data” solutions (for processing large, complex, and fast data sets), artificial intelligence (AI), bots (software applications that are programmed to do certain tasks), and machine learning (systems that learn and adapt from patterns in data without following explicit instructions), yet many HR teams cannot reliably produce core data such as headcount, turnover, and demographics. I won’t even mention more complex data such as payroll related costs, payroll accounting, and productivity analysis.

In this article I look at the following topics:

1. The main reasons why many organisations have poor “HR data”;
2. Some relatively simple steps that organisations can take to improve the quality of their underlying data (and thereby lay the groundwork for more sophisticated analytics); and
3. How the design of HR software (HRIS) can help to address points 1 and 2.

WHY DO SO MANY ORGANISATIONS HAVE POOR HR DATA?

Based on my personal experience, both as an HR professional and working with clients, there are a number of common themes, including:

• Lack of investment in intuitive HR systems, which leads to HR and line managers handling data in Excel files.
• Use of multiple HR systems (for different processes) that are not integrated with one another, which results in too much manual effort (data entry) and human error.
• Different areas of the same organisation using different systems for similar processes (usually with different data fields, values, and formats), which leads to complexity and inefficiency in consolidating data for reporting. In larger organisations, this may be the result of mergers and acquisitions, and an inability to consolidate systems.
• Too much focus on the data needed by the finance/accounting department at the expense of what is needed to manage an organisation, including the people.
• The use of different systems for HR data and payroll data, which removes the incentive for the main HR system to have complete and accurate data.
• HR teams lacking quantitative skills and a general interest in data and numbers. The HR profession does not tend to attract people with this passion and these competencies.
• An organisational culture that has never emphasised the importance of good quality HR data, perhaps because it is seen as “HR data” as opposed to “business data”.

Of course, these themes are often interconnected. For example, a lack of investment in systems may affect the ability of HR and managers to effectively manage data. Conversely, the organisation’s culture or a lack of relevant skills or interest in the HR team may be a barrier to the organisation getting value from a perfectly decent HRIS.

STEPS FOR IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF ORGANISATIONAL DATA

At some stage every organisation finds itself in situation where it has little choice but to improve the quality of its organisational data. It may take many years, even decades, to arrive at that point but the day will surely come. Here are some practical suggestions for when it does:

• Organisations need to select HR systems that are intuitive to use and easy to maintain. This may even mean trading off on some desired functionality in a bid to keep things simple, or simplifying certain processes (click here to see the Q1 2022 blog on this theme). Some organisations have very little HR software and their HR teams would love a simple solution. Other organisations have very complex (and expensive) solutions that do not, in reality, sufficiently help HR and line managers in their day-to-day tasks.
• Organisations need to either use a “one-stop-shop” HR solution (of which there are many) or, if the organisation has made the strategic decision to use different/specialist software for different processes (e.g., recruitment, performance, training, etc), invest in integrating your HR systems so they contain consistent and up to date data. 
• I have been involved in acquisitions and mergers, as well as inherited HR roles where I have been responsible for business units post a merger or acquisition. Whilst it is undoubtedly hard work and fraught with cultural tensions when HR systems are consolidated, doing so is essential if organisations are to be able to produce good data and business insights. Consolidating systems also adds a lot more value when the exercise involves harmonising the data of the different organisations.
• Thankfully, I am seeing an increasing tendency of organisations to realise (perhaps after many years of push-back on HR directors), that a finance system or a payroll system is not the same thing as an HRIS. A finance system cannot be expected to meet all of an organisation’s human resources needs. Likewise, an HRIS cannot be expected to meet all of an organisation’s finance and accounting needs. Nonetheless, a sensible balance needs to be struck and there are an increasing number of HR software solutions that have been designed to meet the core accounting and finance requirements.
• By using an HRIS that includes a payroll module or integrating the HRIS with the payroll system, you immediately “up the ante” on the importance of the HRIS having complete and accurate data. This is because if the HRIS contains inaccurate data it is likely to result in inaccurate payroll (payments, tax withholding, social security, pension deductions, etc). Missing mandatory data may event prevent an employee from being paid. Making payroll dependant on the quality of data in the HRIS concentrates the minds of employees, managers, and HR alike.
• HR directors need to ensure that their HR team has a good mixture of professionals with strong quantitative and qualitative skills, and an interest in numbers and data. Ideally all HR team members would have a good all-round skill set, even if they prefer a role that is less data oriented. It is, however, no longer realistic to think that an HR team/department can be high performing if it is unable to manage data and work with numbers. You need to get your recruitment right and make it clear that a minimal level of data competency and numeracy is expected of everyone in the HR team.
• Changing – or evolving – an organisation’s culture is probably the most challenging theme to address, and I certainly do not have the time here to do the topic justice. In essence, leaders need to make it clear that everyone is responsible for the quality of organisational data and ensure that there are positive and negative consequences associated with this. For example, HR cannot have good data if employees and managers do not share information with HR in a timely manner. If HR is not receiving timely data there may be underlying causes such as poor or unclear processes, which will need to be fixed. HR teams also need to take pride in the accuracy of their data and very low error rates on processes that require data, such as payroll.

HOW SMARTLY DESIGNED HR SOFTWARE CAN HELP

We have tried to design PeopleWeek in a way that helps organisations to have clean and complete employee (personal and professional) and organisational data. Other HR software may have similar features. Even if your organisation does not have an HRIS, some of the design principles used by PeopleWeek would help you to better manage data in an Excel spreadsheet or “DIY” database. Here are some examples:

• Use dropdown lists rather than free text fields: Avoid data entry errors and the proliferation of unnecessary data values, for example, job titles, contract types, absence types, cost centres, department names, pay elements (for payroll). A classic example is that you want to run a report based on job titles but 10 employees performing more or less the same role all have slightly different job titles;
• Explain what different data fields mean: It may not always be obvious what a field means. An example is that sometimes HR get confused about the differences between “original employment date”, “continuous employment date”, and “employment date”. A simple explanation in the UI of a system (or in a spreadsheet) can eliminate the errors;
• Use an HRIS that contains a payroll module* or can be easily integrated with your payroll system that is used to calculate payroll and generate payslips.
• Control who can create new values in the HRIS: In many organisations, HR (and even managers) are free to create new values such as contract types, leaver (termination) reasons, work locations, department names, cost centres, job titles, training types, grade levels, etc. By controlling who has system admin rights to do this, you can eliminate such data “pollution”. When combined with the use of dropdown lists, it is even more effective;
• Hard code rules in the system: By creating simple system logics or rules you can avoid human error. Examples are linking departments to a pre-defined cost centre, mapping pay types to pre-defined monetary values, and work permit expiries triggering an “invalid data” value;
• System generated reminders: Notifications or alerts are a great way to remind employees, their managers, and HR to take specific actions on time, thereby keeping data up to date;
• Easy workflows: Processes that avoid unnecessary (too many) steps and walk you through a complex task (e.g., transferring an employee from one entity to another), greatly reduce error rates;
• Use Date Pickers: Something as simple as a date picker tool helps to avoid human error entering dates and confusion between date formats;
• Make fields translatable to help with reporting: Often systems and spreadsheets are unable to identify that data contains repeated (the same) values but in different languages. If a system allows values to be translated into multiple languages, you can generate smart reports that recognise two values that look different are, in fact, the same (e.g., “Male” and “Homme” or “Marketing Director” and “Marketingleiter”).

*PeopleWeek has a Payroll Data Management module that is customised for each country’s payroll requirements.

QUALITY IN, QUALITY OUT

Quality data is the starting point – the foundation – for value-adding analysis, metrics, reporting. This is what all organisations and their HR teams should be, and usually are, striving towards. However, it can feel like a distant reality. Without doubt it takes time to go from “rubbish in, rubbish out” to “quality in, quality out”. Nonetheless, I know from experience that it is achievable by addressing the root causes of an organisation’s poor data quality and using smartly designed HR software to make data management easier.

Author : 

PAUL JON MARTIN
MANAGING DIRECTOR AT PEOPLEWEEK SA

Date:
21.12.2022