This is an excellent eBook debunking some of the negative perceptions around "bespoke" solutions whilst at the same time, interrogating some of the positive affirmations around "off-the-shelf" software.
Does the provider truly understand your reward processes, mechanics and procedures?
Does the provider truly understand your compensation cycle?
Does the provider fit your business model, e.g. if you’re an agile business, is the service and software agile enough to ensure you remain ahead of your competition?
Will the provider move and change with you when you need them to, in the way that you need them to?
You of course are likely to have your own list and it's likely to differ from mine above. The point is that the decision to go with a "bespoke" or "off-the-shelf" solution should not be the main question to base your procurement decision on. All of your requirements need to be factored in to identify the provider that best meets those needs – and you know what; it could be "bespoke" or "off-the-shelf" or dare I say it, "neither"!
Despite this most companies still use Excel to do a large proportion of their reward administration and management. Is it just that our industry is behind the times or are there other underlying issues that could help explain this?
And yet in a 2015 survey conducted by Mercer in the US, only 22% of Total Rewards professionals were satisfied with their system implementation. Some of the reasons provided for this lack of satisfaction included:
There was a significant gap between the approach to compensation inherent in the system and our company’s approach.
It houses only minimal information and provides no analytics.
In direct contradiction to the above, some words that have been used to describe the use of Excel in HR processes include things like: flexibility; user-friendly and easy to use; powerful modelling and analysis; metrics and measurements can be adjusted on the fly to fit the specific and evolving needs of any company and it goes on. One could sum this up as enabling a company to apply its own reward processes and procedures and enabling a human to apply its own thought processes and unique way of thinking, visualising, analysing and interpreting results. It allows the user to be a human with a bit of automation thrown in to help reduce the labour intensity a little.
In this day and age I find it hard to believe that a technical solution cannot achieve these key fundamentals. But perhaps that is not the problem. We keep being reminded that we can do anything with technology these days; however I am not questioning technology's ability to provide this functionality. I think the real issue lies in seeing the role of the human in compensation management as a separate function and entity compared with that of the role of the technology itself. It would appear, somewhat ironically, that in the world of HR and Talent Management systems, that people and their contributions have been forgotten.
It’s true, Excel is a relatively fragile application that is unable to support communication or provide users with access to real-time data. In addition, the application's lack of version control can result in serious errors slipping through the cracks. So what if there was a way to remove these limitations so that compensation and reward professionals could continue to benefit from the positive human behaviour traits Excel helps to facilitate?
Compensation software solutions that have the right combination of human and artificial intelligence are able to make the most of the human ability to analyse and process information, whilst being complemented by the speed, accessibility and accuracy that technology can provide. Technology can free up the humans’ hands but humans can, and should, keep technology on its toes by constantly asking why, how, what and if. The end result being a far better, more sophisticated and fit for purpose compensation management solution.
So, 11 years on and we are, as one would expect, discussing with the client what to do with this system and where to take it next. Sure there have been various iterations and improvements over the years; the system still works and is fit for purpose but how do we ensure that it's fit for purpose for the next 10 years? The world has changed substantially over the past 11 years; can we honestly say the system has changed with the world? Is it enough that the system "works"? Why fix something if it isn't broken? All perfectly valid and pertinent questions to ask.
So why am I sharing this story with you? I think the point I want to share with you is that it is easy to forget the value you get from the initial requirements gathering part of the process that you carry out when looking to implement a new system of any kind. However, you don't have to be looking to implement a new system to still go about doing this part of the process. Yes this takes up valuable time but you will learn things that will surprise you and perhaps the greatest value of all is that your system stakeholders remain engaged and understand that it is their system too and their opinion does matter.
