SELECTING AN HR STRATEGY

• Transactional excellence
• Simple and easy to manage structure
• Little HR technical knowledge required
• High customer contact
• Low HR operational costs

• Slow identification and reaction to problems
• Difficult to globalize
• Functional silos and lack of cooperation
• The minimal use of metrics makes it difficult to prove economic value during budget reductions
• There is no emphasis on rewarding great people management

• High customer contact
• Solutions that fit the unique needs of the business unit
• Rapid reaction to local problems
• High “personal” credibility with local senior managers

• Generalists can become too loyal to their business unit leadership and less so to corporate leadership
• Generalists can do too much “hand holding”
• Generalists may have insufficient technical knowledge to solve complex one of a kind problems
• Information transfer between generalist in different business units is often limited and most information is never captured in central HR
• The reliance on paper and at the lack of technology means answers are slow to get
• The generalist’s model is relatively expensive compared to most other strategic models
• The minimal use of metrics makes it difficult to prove economic value during budget reductions
• There is no emphasis on rewarding great people management

• Strong interpersonal relationships and high visibility with executive management
• Fast response time to major corporate problems
• Smaller sized HR with lower headcount

• De-emphasis on transactions minimizes customer interactions.
• Many HR professionals evolving from the personnel model may not be capable of becoming strategic.
• The emphasis on outsourcing may mean reduce HR headcount.
• The emphasis on corporate strategic issues can make the cadre of generalists feel “isolated” from corporate.
• The highly centralized corporate unit can become averse to taking risks and may evolve into a “meeting culture”.
• The minimal use of metrics makes it difficult to prove economic value during budget reductions
• There is no emphasis on rewarding great people management

• The call center gives more accurate and consistent answers
• Managers and employees do less answer shopping and spend less time waiting
• Call center staff are relatively low cost per hour
• Some call center is also handle HR transactions
• Call centers serve as a central depository for HR “answers”
• Call centers can help in breaking down HR silos

• More difficult and complicated HR problems cannot be solved by call center personnel
• Set up time and costs can be significant
• There can be conflicts between generalist and call center staff
• Many managers and employees may resist shifting from “their” generalist to a call center

• An increased focus means more of a strategic impact
• Outsourcing allows external experts that specialize in efficient transactions to handle things that internal HR can do as well
• Takes advantage of” economies of scale” that vendors might have in handling transactions
• Reduces the need for HR to invest it’s limited capital resources in, call centers, HR software and other HR technologies by taking advantage of the investments that have already been made by outsource firms

• HR may select the wrong functions to outsource as a result, the firm loses its competitive vantage
• HR must be skilled at vendor management
• Outsourcing firms cannot handle the most complex HR systems (with their customized workaround’s), forcing HR to adopt the “vanilla” approach
• You can’t outsource “broken” systems until they are fixed
• Outsource vendors may be unstable
• Because vendors must make a profit, the overall costs might not be lower
• Outsourcing services can seldom be tailored to the unique needs of a company or business unit
• Outsourcing transactions reduces HR’s contact with its internal customers
• Without transactions, that were once the training ground of “future” HR managers, HR may weaken its internal talent pipeline

• HR problems are identified and solved faster
• External consulting costs are reduced
• Improvement in HR’s internal image and exposure because it is directly attacking major HR and management problems

• External consulting may be superior because they have already experienced similar problems at other firms
• “Excess HR staff” may be transferred to the centers of excellence, which may degrade the quality of the help they can provide
• Budget pressure may, over time, reduce the centers of excellence staffing levels were staff quality to the point where they are unable to be responsive
• Set up costs and time can be significant
• Most of the established centers of excellence have not succeeded in practice
• Managers may resist using internal consultants because of their existing relationships with external consulting firms
• If a center of excellence fails it sends a clear message that HR can’t “handle” the most difficult problems which will negatively impact our image and their ability to be strategic in other areas

• Employees and managers may have their own “personal portal” which may also help increase their productivity because of the tailored information it can provide
• Using the web sends a message that HR understands the importance of technology
• Answers and transactions can be done anywhere and at anytime
• Web technology can make transactions “foolproof” resulting and fewer errors than the “people dependent” call center model
• M managers may argue that doing transactions “outside of HR” isn’t the best use of managers and employees time

• Shifting “HR work” to managers and employees may decrease their productivity. Their time may also be more expensive than HR staff time
• More difficult and complicated HR problems cannot be solved on the intranet
• HR loses a great deal of interaction with its customers
• The set up costs and time are significant
• HR may not have the capability to do the web site and it may be “less than cooperative” so delays may occur
• Not all managers and employees have easy access to the company’s intranet
• Not all managers and employees are comfortable using computers and the intranet. The significant amount of training may be required
• Closing down a recently opened call center can be expensive and politically difficult
• Generalists may resist the shifting of a portion of their former workload to the web and they may not use their extra time to produce strategic results
• Many managers and employees may resist shifting from “their” generalist to a web site

• Increases HR business impact by “educating” managers about what works and what doesn’t
• Shows that HR is “businesslike” because it uses the same types of metrics and analytics that the rest of the organization already utilizes
• Allows managers to be more involved and more successful in people decision making
• Allows corporate HR to closely monitor and compare people management “success rates” between regions and business units and therefore increase the speed of learning and the adoption of solutions that work throughout the business

• Requires close cooperation with it and HR it
• Requires the organization to have existing ERP and other data collection and data mining tools
• HR must become experts in metrics and analytics. Providing data about what works doesn’t always incite managers to change and improve

Technology and its related software are the mainstay of every HR function and system. By eliminating “paper” within HR, it instantly becomes cheaper, faster and more globally capable. E-HR also takes advantage of new capabilities in e-learning, workforce planning, analytics, online candidate assessment, applicant tracking systems and Web based management reports.

The e-HR model follows the supply chain and 6 sigma models to improve decision-making and productivity by using computer generated data to improve day-to-day decision-making. The e-HR model goes far beyond the “self-service” and “fact based” HR models. In addition to using technology to handle all transactions and to answer benefit questions, e-HR shifts almost all day-to-day HR decision making to line managers. Decisions like compensation, candidate assessment, retention and employee relations are no longer made by HR. Managers take “ownership” of their HR problems and they are able to make better people related decisions because of the laptop tools and information provided by HR.

• Globalization is not realistically possible without technology in HR
• Paperless systems are cheaper and faster the line managers can access to all HR information which allows them to make better HR decisions “closer to the customer”
•  
• Linked databases can “learn”, therefore reducing our future failure rate
• Technology can identify potential issues and” alert” managers of upcoming problems

• e-HR set up time and costs can be significant
• IT can drag its feet or refuse to cooperate

• In assuming the role of strategic leader in increasing employee productivity, it sends the message that it will do what strategic leaders do… take responsibility for actions across all business units. It uses it’s expert knowledge to influence others that it has no formal control over.
• Instead of focusing on” HR problems” instead it focuses on ‘business problems” (and opportunities). It uses its knowledge of people management to find and then implement people management tools that will make a major contribution towards solving these business problems.
• By shifting the responsibility and ownership for people problems and worker productivity, it actually increases its strategic impact because “ownership” forces managers and employees to take people issues more seriously HR increases its visibility throughout the organization because it becomes a consultant and expert rather than just a transaction specialist and information provider.
• HR shifts from a function that the” does HR” to a function that advises and influences others.
• Instead of focusing on transactions and providing information, HR focuses on identifying and solving business problems through the use of people management tools

• Many HR professionals might not be able make the transition from “doer” to leader
• Managers and employees may be unwilling to accept the responsibility for “owning” people issues
• HR might not have the skills or knowledge required in order to “influence” the entire organization
• The “old corporate culture” might resist changing to a Performance culture
• Low performers and people that resist change are likely to fight the transition
• Within HR there will be tremendous pressure to maintain the status quo
• Many traditional HR processes, approaches, programs and tools will need major revision if they are to contribute to a Performance culture