Improving HR | FIT-FOR-PURPOSE

THE BIG IDEA

Let’s pick an HR process, it doesn’t really matter which one… Got one? Good, let me ask some questions.

When was it created? When was it last reviewed? When was it last designed from the ground-up? When was it tested against the value of its outcomes? How is the value of its outcomes measured? How is the efficiency of the process measured?

Can you answer those questions easily? Immediately?

I don’t expect so, and you wouldn’t be alone. You see, the majority of processes in HR are defined at a point in time and then frozen in place until one of two things happen: 1) they break catastrophically; or 2) something external to the process forces a change.

Sure, annual processes like performance management, or the compensation cycle, might get a light dust-off every year, but that’s more likely to be about updating the milestones such as submission deadlines, etc. than it is to be about designing the process.

Now, I’m not about to go on a rant about continuous improvement in HR – and you won’t find me pushing for Kaizen, DMAIC, Six Sigma, or any other structured methodology for informed improvement.

I’d like to believe that HR processes were ready for such approaches, but in my experience we are so far from having a) structure to our process delivery; and b) measurable process factors such as throughput, turnaround, etc. that any data-driven improvement is, at best, wishful thinking.

So, if we accept that a rigorous structured approach to process efficiency and effectiveness is beyond our immediate scope, we have to fall back to a simple question: is this process fit-for-purpose?

TRY THIS

Believe it or not, according to the various online sources, the term “fit-for-purpose” only began to appear widely during the 2000s, though it feels like it’s been around much longer. Certainly, in my experience, it’s not the norm to apply the term to HR processes. So let’s take a look at a common definition:

Fit-for-purpose (adj.): appropriate, and of a necessary standard, for its intended use

Hopefully, given everything we’ve talked about so far, it should be immediately apparent why this is a GREAT frame within which to consider HR processes.

Appropriateness

Let’s look at a quick example.

As we’ve discussed, in the old days, everything people- and employment-related was administrated through HR; Sick days, Vacation, Jury Duty, and on, and on… We may think of these as data fields in our HRIS now but, not so long ago, these were form-based approval chains (with carbon copy paper included!)

Given what we now know about managerial empowerment, is it appropriate for HR to be involved in the approval of a Vacation Day for an employee?

Depending on your organization size and internal accountabilities, you may be answering that with a resounding “yes!” Or, you may be saying that that’s the very last thing that HR should be involved in…

Either way, the point is not an absolute “either/or”, it’s about knowing whether the process is appropriate or not. In other words, appropriateness swings back to my basic qualifier: are you involved because you’re justified, or justified because you’re involved?

While this may be a simple example, I hope you can see that this is a quick and incisive test of HR processes. For me, any strategic HR planning off-site, or process design kick-off meeting, should include some time spent assessing and discussing the appropriateness of existing processes.

Necessary Standard

I love the fact that this is called out in our definition of “fit-for-purpose”, because it could have been left under the umbrella of Appropriateness.

Let’s get playful with our simple example of Vacation approval in order to illustrate the point – after all, who said we couldn’t have a little fun?

We’ve already decided that HR doesn’t need to be directly involved in the approval, because that wouldn’t be appropriate. But what happens once the Vacation has been approved? Well, in our scenario, let’s agree that fact needs to be tracked in our HRIS. How does the data get there?

In version one of our process, the Manager visits his team dashboard and enters the approved dates and times of the Vacation.

In version two of our process, the Manager visits his team dashboard and clicks the “I wish to approve Vacation days for an employee” link.

Immediately, in the HR suite, a bell rings, and a red light starts flashing.

After a quick huddle, the HR Business Partner for the Manager’s department, Malcolm, heads for the door, pausing only to put on some running shoes and grab a fur lined cushion.

A quick sprint later and Malcolm arrives at the Manager’s office, slightly out of breath. He kneels and offers the cushion to the Manager, who proceeds to place a completed and signed Vacation Approval Form on said cushion. Malcolm stands and walks backwards out of the office, bowing all the way.

A second sprint, and the magical form arrives back at the HR suite, where it is passed to an HR data specialist for encoding into the HRIS, enshrined for all time as a statement of record.

Both versions accomplish the same thing, but our absurd second version is definitely overkill compared to version one! Said differently, version two is of a completely UNnecessary standard for the task in hand.

The flip side to overkill is when a process is underdone, where there isn’t enough care and attention to the task in hand. A good example of this would be a disciplinary process that was so loose that it didn’t provide sufficient support for subsequent legal defense, or a promotion process that does not include specific reference to guidelines to ensure fairness of treatment.

A simple way to think of an underdone process is that it provides multiple opportunities for unexpected variance, unexpected outcomes, or even opportunities for breakdowns.

A process is of a necessary standard when it is just enough – neither overkill nor underdone – to deliver as expected.

USE THIS

In fact, we can pull from the Project Management lexicon here and say that a process is of a necessary standard when it:

Delivers TIMEly outcomes
Ensures QUALITY of outcomes
Minimizes COST of outcomes

Going back to our assessment, this provides three simple questions to ask of any existing process:

Is it fast enough?
Does it have the right checks and balances?
Does it require the minimal resource necessary for completion?

An absolute yes to all three? Then your process is very likely of the necessary standard!

If, however, your process doesn’t pass this sniff test then it’s not of the necessary standard and, by definition, it’s not fit-for-purpose. And if you happen to also find it’s not appropriate, then the route forward is clear: process design.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

“Satisficing is one of the foundations of productive human behavior; it prevails when we don’t waster time on decisions that don’t matter, or more accurately, when we don’t waste time trying to find improvements that are not going to make a significant difference in our happiness or satisfaction.” ~Daniel J. Levitin