In our HR Systems and Technology class we have learned about a lot of cool amazing systems for every aspect of HR. I'm so excited that these technologies exist, and I hope that I get a chance to use them all in the future to make wherever I work a better place =)
But a thought has occurred to me from reading my classmate's posts. We can't let technology replace human interaction, and the human touch.
As many problems as technology solves, we can't view these solutions as a set-it-and-forget-it type of deal. Rather, they should be implemented with the idea that they'll free up HR time for MORE human interaction and strategic initiatives.
For example, at a recent company happy hour, I happened to be sitting with a coworker that I don't get to talk to very often. I put her on a lot of interviews for engineering candidates and she shared with me some of her feelings and ideas about our interviewing process. I brought these up to my manager, and we met with this engineer and discussed them more in depth and I was blown away. The ideas were AMAZINGLY WONDERFUL!
Even with the world's best ATS (which we don't have, but even if we did), or the most perfect HRIS and performance management systems, we wouldn't have learned an interviewer and employees feelings on our recruiting processes unless we talked to them.
And while HR system companies often put out content blogs about best practices or try to make suggestions to customers about how to best utilize their product, how many of us will really take it to heart?
Whereas if you have a person standing in front of you, explaining something to you very passionately with first hand experience, which one will give you the best insight and strong motivation to make necessary changes to existing systems and processes?
Let's make sure that the great technology available to us doesn't make us lazy, but instead helps us to improve!
Friday, August 8, 2014
Friday, August 1, 2014
Compensation Leveling
In this week's class we looked at PayScale and learned about pulling reports from this site to see what certain positions are making in certain locations. The thing about this site, our teacher mentioned, was that all data (titles and the corresponding compensation) were self-reported. So we were cautioned to take it with a grain of salt and know that some people may have inflated their titles.
At work, someone had suggested to HR that we use PayScale, but it was shot down due to the self-reported aspect of it. Old school compensation people tend to distrust anything self-reported. Instead, we use Radford. Companies have to report in all of their job titles, leveling them to existing job titles in a database, and report their compensation so that they can get data.
At work I attended a compensation presentation that told us that titles are linked to compensation. A lot of time people think they can give people a new title to make them happy, regardless of what their duties and pay are. But out in the world, apparently, what your title is will definitely correspond to the compensation you should be receiving.
I'm curious to hear about what classmates' experience with compensation leveling is!
At work, someone had suggested to HR that we use PayScale, but it was shot down due to the self-reported aspect of it. Old school compensation people tend to distrust anything self-reported. Instead, we use Radford. Companies have to report in all of their job titles, leveling them to existing job titles in a database, and report their compensation so that they can get data.
At work I attended a compensation presentation that told us that titles are linked to compensation. A lot of time people think they can give people a new title to make them happy, regardless of what their duties and pay are. But out in the world, apparently, what your title is will definitely correspond to the compensation you should be receiving.
I'm curious to hear about what classmates' experience with compensation leveling is!
Saturday, July 19, 2014
Integrated HR Systems
In our last class we had someone from Oracle give us a sales pitch/demo of Oracle's suite of HR systems. These systems were a mix of technology built by Oracle, and a few small companies that Oracles bought. We were given the inside scoop that when a big company buys smaller companies in order to take over their technology, that they do some quick front-end skin work to make all the platforms look alike (as if it were all one system), but there was weird patch work on the back to make the systems link up.
And therein lies the issue with finding a complete suite of HR technology to use at work: Do the systems link up with one another and share information?
The thing that drives HR and Recruiting teams crazy at my work place is that none of our HR technology talks to each other. The main HRM system does not get information fed into it by our ATS. So when we hire people (in our ATS), someone has to manually input a bunch of information into the core HRM system. If you update someone in one system, you have to manually go into another system and make the same change. Not only does this process lead to errors, but it is also incredibly slow.
So what solutions are available to us?
1. We could buy a complete suite of core HRM, ATS, performance management, etc. from a vendor like Successfactors, Workday, etc. and then all of the systems would talk to each other.
Ideally, by buying a complete suite from one company, the technology should all run on the same smooth platform. But, as we have learned, if the technology of a small company was eaten by a big company and then sold as part of a larger suite package, is that connection really a complete connection? Or is it something hastily thrown together with digital scotch-tape and glue?
This is definitely something to look out for and inspect when choosing to purchase a "complete" system from someone.
Another issue with a "complete" suite is that some functions may be better than others, so one department or team may be suffering more than others. For instance, ADP has core HRM, payrolling, and even offers an ATS. But I have never heard of anyone using ADP's ATS, because it is probably not user-friendly to recruiters.
2. We could find independent systems that have cross-comparability with other independent systems, like ADP with Cornerstone, and BambooHR with Greenhouse ATS. The issue of course is that these options are limited.
Why can't ever system just be built on the same kind of platform and everything just link up with one another?? That would make our lives so much easier!
And therein lies the issue with finding a complete suite of HR technology to use at work: Do the systems link up with one another and share information?
The thing that drives HR and Recruiting teams crazy at my work place is that none of our HR technology talks to each other. The main HRM system does not get information fed into it by our ATS. So when we hire people (in our ATS), someone has to manually input a bunch of information into the core HRM system. If you update someone in one system, you have to manually go into another system and make the same change. Not only does this process lead to errors, but it is also incredibly slow.
So what solutions are available to us?
1. We could buy a complete suite of core HRM, ATS, performance management, etc. from a vendor like Successfactors, Workday, etc. and then all of the systems would talk to each other.
Ideally, by buying a complete suite from one company, the technology should all run on the same smooth platform. But, as we have learned, if the technology of a small company was eaten by a big company and then sold as part of a larger suite package, is that connection really a complete connection? Or is it something hastily thrown together with digital scotch-tape and glue?
This is definitely something to look out for and inspect when choosing to purchase a "complete" system from someone.
Another issue with a "complete" suite is that some functions may be better than others, so one department or team may be suffering more than others. For instance, ADP has core HRM, payrolling, and even offers an ATS. But I have never heard of anyone using ADP's ATS, because it is probably not user-friendly to recruiters.
2. We could find independent systems that have cross-comparability with other independent systems, like ADP with Cornerstone, and BambooHR with Greenhouse ATS. The issue of course is that these options are limited.
Why can't ever system just be built on the same kind of platform and everything just link up with one another?? That would make our lives so much easier!
Saturday, July 5, 2014
Applicant Tracking System Needs
In our most recent class we discussed Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS), their purpose, capability, and how a company's needs and requirements for their ATS can vary. Much of the need that a company will have will depend on candidate flow.
I have worked with three different ATS systems, and they have met company needs to varying degrees.
The first ATS that I worked with was a very simple called Newton (side note: Wow! It looks like they heavily revamped the software since I last used it over a year ago). When I used Newton I was working at a 300+ person pre-IPO technology company. For the number of recruiters and open positions we had, and the pipeline that we tended to generate, Newton did the job fairly well. It allowed us to easily review and track candidates and corresponding notes. However, it lacked a robust reporting feature, offering very limited reporting capability. But given its price (I don't know the details, only that it was VERY affordable), and the needs of the recruiting team, it was not a bad option.
The second ATS that I used was Jobvite. Jobvite is a pretty well known ATS and widely used by larger companies. (Actually, at the company where I used Newton, we considered switching to Jobvite for their better reporting feature, but in the end decided against it). Jobvite has more bells and whistles than Newton, such as being able to further differentiate user access to the ATS, allow employees to post jobs to social media, and schedule interviews through the system. But at the time that I used it, there were also a number of strange glitches such messages getting sent or received with heavy delay, notes or messages not saving, and scheduling not going out.
While Jobvite's reporting feature is rather robust, occasionally the info in the reports would be incorrect (hello, major glitch!). Also the custom report was difficult to use, and every other day reports would refuse to load or download.
When using Jobvite we have a pretty good candidate flow and a large resume archive, but, Jobvite unfortunately at the time did not allow full resume text searches (not sure about the situation now). Therefore, it was extremely difficult to search for talent that applied previously that may be a fit for a new opening.
The latest ATS that I have been using is a new company called Greenhouse (which I have heard is fairly more expensive than Jobvite, but I do not know the exact number). I would like to honestly tell the class that when you switch from one ATS to a new ATS the experience is incredibly painful, especially if you have a lot of open positions. Learning the new system, training others on the new system, getting everything set up, and then transferring data is an experience that was very trying.
All that being said, when I first started using Greenhouse there were a lot of bugs and confusion, but a lot of that seems to have smoothed out. What Greenhouse had that Jobvite lacked was definitely customer service. For Jobvite, it was a huge task to get any response about ATS issues, but with Greenhouse, I can chat someone immediately (Eastern Standard Time hours apply though, so their international coverage is limited to non-existent).
Greenhouse still needs to smooth out its scheduling feature and create a custom report building feature, but it has full resume text search and other features that Jobvite and Newton lacked. Also it has SSO capability, that at my current company, is very very necessary.
After working in 3 different ATS I have determined my own requirements for an ideal ATS beyond the normal requirements:
When it comes to finding the right ATS for a company there are so many things to consider. I hope that this post helped you learn a little about 3 different ones!
I have worked with three different ATS systems, and they have met company needs to varying degrees.
The first ATS that I worked with was a very simple called Newton (side note: Wow! It looks like they heavily revamped the software since I last used it over a year ago). When I used Newton I was working at a 300+ person pre-IPO technology company. For the number of recruiters and open positions we had, and the pipeline that we tended to generate, Newton did the job fairly well. It allowed us to easily review and track candidates and corresponding notes. However, it lacked a robust reporting feature, offering very limited reporting capability. But given its price (I don't know the details, only that it was VERY affordable), and the needs of the recruiting team, it was not a bad option.
The second ATS that I used was Jobvite. Jobvite is a pretty well known ATS and widely used by larger companies. (Actually, at the company where I used Newton, we considered switching to Jobvite for their better reporting feature, but in the end decided against it). Jobvite has more bells and whistles than Newton, such as being able to further differentiate user access to the ATS, allow employees to post jobs to social media, and schedule interviews through the system. But at the time that I used it, there were also a number of strange glitches such messages getting sent or received with heavy delay, notes or messages not saving, and scheduling not going out.
While Jobvite's reporting feature is rather robust, occasionally the info in the reports would be incorrect (hello, major glitch!). Also the custom report was difficult to use, and every other day reports would refuse to load or download.
When using Jobvite we have a pretty good candidate flow and a large resume archive, but, Jobvite unfortunately at the time did not allow full resume text searches (not sure about the situation now). Therefore, it was extremely difficult to search for talent that applied previously that may be a fit for a new opening.
The latest ATS that I have been using is a new company called Greenhouse (which I have heard is fairly more expensive than Jobvite, but I do not know the exact number). I would like to honestly tell the class that when you switch from one ATS to a new ATS the experience is incredibly painful, especially if you have a lot of open positions. Learning the new system, training others on the new system, getting everything set up, and then transferring data is an experience that was very trying.
All that being said, when I first started using Greenhouse there were a lot of bugs and confusion, but a lot of that seems to have smoothed out. What Greenhouse had that Jobvite lacked was definitely customer service. For Jobvite, it was a huge task to get any response about ATS issues, but with Greenhouse, I can chat someone immediately (Eastern Standard Time hours apply though, so their international coverage is limited to non-existent).
Greenhouse still needs to smooth out its scheduling feature and create a custom report building feature, but it has full resume text search and other features that Jobvite and Newton lacked. Also it has SSO capability, that at my current company, is very very necessary.
After working in 3 different ATS I have determined my own requirements for an ideal ATS beyond the normal requirements:
- Single Sign On
- Mobile interface
- Excellent customer service
- Easy to navigate (as few clicks as possible)
- Robust reporting feature (custom report builder)
- Scheduling capbility
- Full resume text search
When it comes to finding the right ATS for a company there are so many things to consider. I hope that this post helped you learn a little about 3 different ones!
Sunday, June 29, 2014
Thoughts on HR Systems of Record vs. Systems of Engagement
During class the other week we read a great article about HR Systems of Record vs. Systems of Engagement. As I have worked more and more with HR systems at work, this has constantly been on my mind.
In the recruiting function, I am working in the applicant tracking system (ATS) every day, all day. But what about the rest of the employees? When they approach the recruiting team about making employment referrals and we reply, "Please submit them directly through the ATS" the response is often, "What's an ATS?"
In my company, a big issue is that no one spends time in the HR systems that are being used, unless they are part of HR. Maybe employees will go in once per pay period to make sure their timecards look good, or once every few months to request time off, but otherwise the HR system never crosses their minds. They don't even know all of the functions that our existing HR systems have. What we have is just a system of record, and not a system of engagement.
Part of the issue, I believe, is that HR may not pick the most user-friendly technology to use. Systems like ADP are very well known and widely-used by huge international companies and seem like a really safe choice, so the UX and UI of the systems may never be considered. And people may never think about getting a full HR suite where the core HRIS, ATS, and performance management system actually connect and talk to one another. So you may be left with 3 separate systems with overlapping information that requires a lot of manual input but don't actually feed information back into one another. Once a system is implemented (a process that could take more than a year) it's very difficult to even consider undertaking that labor again, even if better systems are out there, so you end up stuck with less-than-ideal systems that you expect employees to use.
And that leads to the issue with the company HR systems: if it is being used. No matter what system you pick and how great its features are, if employees aren't using it, then it is not working. Employees won't use systems that (1) are difficult to use and ugly, and (2) they are not trained on. If systems aren't intuitive and feel like the '90s when we are already more than halfway through the year 2014, and employees are never given information about the uses and capabilities of a system, how can we expect it to become a system of engagement?
In the recruiting function, I am working in the applicant tracking system (ATS) every day, all day. But what about the rest of the employees? When they approach the recruiting team about making employment referrals and we reply, "Please submit them directly through the ATS" the response is often, "What's an ATS?"
In my company, a big issue is that no one spends time in the HR systems that are being used, unless they are part of HR. Maybe employees will go in once per pay period to make sure their timecards look good, or once every few months to request time off, but otherwise the HR system never crosses their minds. They don't even know all of the functions that our existing HR systems have. What we have is just a system of record, and not a system of engagement.
Part of the issue, I believe, is that HR may not pick the most user-friendly technology to use. Systems like ADP are very well known and widely-used by huge international companies and seem like a really safe choice, so the UX and UI of the systems may never be considered. And people may never think about getting a full HR suite where the core HRIS, ATS, and performance management system actually connect and talk to one another. So you may be left with 3 separate systems with overlapping information that requires a lot of manual input but don't actually feed information back into one another. Once a system is implemented (a process that could take more than a year) it's very difficult to even consider undertaking that labor again, even if better systems are out there, so you end up stuck with less-than-ideal systems that you expect employees to use.
And that leads to the issue with the company HR systems: if it is being used. No matter what system you pick and how great its features are, if employees aren't using it, then it is not working. Employees won't use systems that (1) are difficult to use and ugly, and (2) they are not trained on. If systems aren't intuitive and feel like the '90s when we are already more than halfway through the year 2014, and employees are never given information about the uses and capabilities of a system, how can we expect it to become a system of engagement?
Monday, June 23, 2014
First Post
Hello~ This is Jennifer Ho's HR blog for the UC Berkeley Extension class Human Resource Systems and Technology. Looking forward to learning a lot =)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)