CLC FS AnalyticsEra Appendix PDF

Appendix
Implementation Support
Appendix A: CEB HR Leadership Academys Data Analytics Module
p. 69
Methodology Overview

Appendix B: Evaluating Analytic Impact p. 70 Appendix C: Demographic Profile of Survey Participants p. 71
Additional Quantitative Findings

Appendix D: Analytic Impact Not Driven by Budget, Organization Size, or Region Appendix E: Organizations Are Most Reliant on In-house Data Analysis Appendix F: Vendors Are Most Often Used to Assess Employee Engagement Appendix G: Satisfaction Levels of Various Analytic Resource Providers Appendix I: Three Drivers of Analytic Impact Stand Above the Rest
p. 73 p. 74 p. 75 p. 76 p. 86
Appendix H: Frequency of Tracking Metrics p. 77
Additional Case Profile Resources

2013 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved.CLC5841813SYN
Appendix J: Orient Around Human Capital Questions to Accurately Assess Needs (Gap Inc.) Appendix K: Gap Inc.s 15 Scalable Human Capital Questions Appendix L: Gap Inc.s 100 Human Capital Questions Appendix M: Seagates Financial Implications of Talent Decision Scenario Display Appendix N: Wishbone, Inc.s Talent P&L Dashboards
p. 87 p. 88 p. 89 p. 93 p. 94
68
Each year, the design and facilitation team enhance the content of the CEB HR Leadership Academys curriculum to ensure its resonance with HR participants in the classroom and CEB researchs global best practices.
CEB HR Leadership Academy was designed in 2007 to develop the critical business, analytical, and leadership skills required to operate as a strategic partner to their internal stakeholders. To date, more than 5,000 HR Business Partners from more than 785 organizations across the globe have graduated from CEB HR Leadership Academy. With only 25% lecture, CEB HR Leadership Academy relies on peer group discussions, interactive activities, case studies, presentations, and individual work to teach and embed these skills.
APPENDIX A: CEB HR LEADERSHIP ACADEMY IS ENHANCING THE DATA ANALYTICS MODULE TO ADDRESS SKILL GAPS
New Data Analytics Module
Traditional HRBP Role: Metrics Use and Creation (2007)
New HRBP Role: Application of Business Judgment to Data (2013)
Using Statistics to Enhance Decision Making In This Module, Participants Will Learn How To:
Application of Business Judgment to Data In This Module, Participants Will Learn How To:
Develop and use metrics to make the business case for HR programs; Develop and use metrics to align HR strategy with corporate goals; and Work with line managers to determine what metrics would be most valuable to driving their business decisions.
Work with the line to identify critical human capital questions that impact their ability to make decisions; Use both talent and business data to provide HRbusiness insights to the business; Support analytics staff with metrics prioritization and methodology selection based on business needs; and Understand methodology used for data analysis and communicate the rationale to the line.
Other Delivery Options
As using data to make informed decisions is a cross-functional topic of interest, we are not only creating this content for an HRBP audience but also for Finance and Recruiting as well. CEB will pilot virtual delivery with this module as well, making it the first virtual module available to participants.
Appendix69
We used multivariate linear regression to determine the impact of a variety of drivers on Analytic Impact.
APPENDIX B: EVALUATING ANALYTIC IMPACT

CEB Survey and Analysis Process
Step 1: Collect information on talent and HR performance from senior HR leaders. Examples:
Step 2: Survey senior HR leaders on the goals of talent analytics activities at their organization. Examples:

Step 3: Survey heads of analytics functions and/or analytics leaders on analytics activities and organizational structure. Examples:
Satisfaction with talent outcomes, such as employee performance, employee engagement, retention, quality of hire, and strength of leadership bench Near-term and short-term goals of the HR function
Investments in analytics Role of the CHRO in talent analytics Short-term and long-term goals of talent analytics
Organizational structure of those who conduct talent analytics Analytics activities Metrics tracked and reported Sophistication of analysis Vendor use and satisfaction
Step 4: Use cluster analysis, factor analysis and multivariate linear regression to design an index of talent analytics performance.
Step 5: Calculate a weighted average of variables that drive Analytic Impact and use multivariate linear regression to determine the impact of drivers X1Xn on Analytic Impact
Examples:

Cluster analysis Factor analysis Multivariate linear regression
Y = + 1X + 2C +
Y = Analytics and Activities X = Prevalence/Effectiveness of Driver X C = Control Variables 1 = Impact on Analytic Impact of Driver X
Appendix70
CEB surveyed heads of HR and heads of Talent Analytics from more than 160 organizations.
The survey included participants from organizations across the globe, including North America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.
APPENDIX C: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF SURVEY PARTICIPANTS

Heads of HR Surveyed by Region Heads of HR Surveyed by Industry
11% APAC 6% Central and South America 3% Aerospace and Travel/ Transportation 9% Other 3% Media 5% Technology 5% Retail 2% Professional Services 20% Oil and Gas, Mining, and Utilities 7% Manufacturing
n = 108.
Source: CEB, CEB Corporate Leadership Council Analytics Survey, 2013.
54% North America
1% Education 3% Consumer Goods 1% Construction and Real Estate 22% Financial and Insurance 8% Government/ Nonprofit 9% Health Care and Pharmaceuticals 2% Leisure and Hospitality
29% EMEA
n = 108.
Heads of Analytics Surveyed by Region

7% APAC 3% Central and South America 34% EMEA
Heads of Analytics Surveyed by Industry

18% Other 1% Construction and Real Estate 2% Media 7% Technology 5% Retail 2% Professional Services 15% Oil and Gas, Mining, and Utilities 4% Aerospace 3% Consumer Goods 2% Education 26% Financial and Insurance 2% Government/ Nonprofit 7% Health Care and Pharmaceuticals 6% Manufacturing
56% North America
n = 116.
n = 116.
Appendix71
CEB surveyed over 9,500 business leaders in 30 countries.

The survey included participants from Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Americas.
APPENDIX C: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF SURVEY PARTICIPANTS (CONTINUED)

Global Labor Market Survey by Region Global Labor Market Survey by Industry
37% APAC
14% North America 8% Central and South America
41% EMEA
3% Utilities 4% Travel/Transportation 11% Technology 7% Retail 1% Restaurant 1% Real Estate 10% Professional Services 2% Pharmaceuticals 2% Oil and Gas Mining 2% Media 11% Manufacturing
1% Aerospace 5% Construction 4% Consumer Goods 11% Education 6% Financial Services 9% Government/ Nonprofit 7% Health Care 1% Insurance 2% Leisure/ Hospitality
n = 9,528.
Source: CEB, CEB Global Market Survey, 2013.
n = 9,528.
Source: CEB, CEB Global Market Survey, 2013.
Appendix72
Leading Analytic Organizations are not determined by their size, budget, or geography.
APPENDIX D: ANALYTIC IMPACT NOT DRIVEN BY BUDGET, ORGANIZATION SIZE, OR REGION

Myth 1: Leading Analytic Organizations Have Bigger Budgets
Average Size of Budget in Thousands
$700
Myth 2: Larger Organizations Are More Effective at Analytics

Average Number of Employees in Thousands
The number of employees does not differ significantly.
$648.70
= 20% $520.10
Leading Analytic Organizations spend less than other organizations.
60
49.5
= 2%
50.7
$350
30
$0
n = 108.
Others
Analytic Leading Organizations
0
n = 108.
Others
Leading Analytic Organizations
Myth 3: Organizations in Certain Global Regions Are More Effective at Analytics

Percentage of Leading Analytic Organizations in Different Regions
There is little difference in the percentage of Leading Analytic Organizations across geographies.
Myth 4: Organizations with Centralized Talent Analytics Teams Are More Effective at Analytics
Percentage of Organizations with Centralized Talent Analytics Team 39.6% 40.0%
The impact for organizations with a centralized talent analytics team does not differ significantly.
30%
40%
= 1%
25%
22%
25% 22%
20%
15% Asia
n = 108.
Europe
North America
0%
n = 108.
Others
Leading Analytic Organizations
Appendix73
Nearly one-half of respondents indicated their organizations relied on in-house analysis for their talent analytics.
Few organizations were reliant on other types of analytics resources, including providers of licensed software, business intelligence, and professional services.
APPENDIX E: ORGANIZATIONS ARE MOST RELIANT ON IN-HOUSE DATA ANALYSIS

Reliant on In-House Analysis
Percentage of Heads of Talent Analytics
Reliant on Licensed Software Providers

21% Reliant
48% Reliant
n = 116.
n = 116.
Reliant on Business Intelligence Providers

12% Reliant
Reliant on Professional Services

16% Reliant
n = 116.
n = 116.
Appendix74
Sixty-two percent of organizations report using vendors to support their assessment of employee engagement.
Organizations less frequently use vendors to support talent data analysis, data integration, and the development of visualization tools.
APPENDIX F: VENDORS ARE MOST OFTEN USED TO ASSESS EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

Use Vendors to Distribute Surveys to Assess Employee Engagement
Use Vendors to Conduct Analysis of Talent Data

62% Agree
45% Agree
n = 116.
n = 116.
Use Vendors to Build Software for Data Integration

Use Vendors to Create Visualization Tools

47% Agree
43% Agree
n = 116.
n = 116.
Appendix75
Overall, organizations are most satisfied with professional services firms.

Hay Group has the highest satisfaction levels among professional services groups. Kenexa has the highest satisfaction levels among software providers. SAP Business Objects has the highest satisfaction levels among business intelligence providers.
APPENDIX G: SATISFACTION LEVELS OF VARIOUS ANALYTIC RESOURCE PROVIDERS

Vendor Satisfaction Levels
Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied
Licensed Software Providers

100%
Business Intelligence Providers
Professional Services
17% 28%
15%
14% 33%
20% 43% 40% 38%
50%
80%
50%
39%
63% 66% 77% 56% 57% 60% 62% 70%
50% 33% 17%

0% Kenexa PeopleSoft
23% 8%
Taleo Success Factors
20% 11%
SAP Business Objects
10%
Oracle IBM Hay Group Towers Watson AON Hewitt Mercer
n = 116.
Appendix76
APPENDIX H: FREQUENCY OF TRACKING METRICS

Metrics Tracked Through the Organization and Metrics Reported to the Board
Percentage of Organizations Tracked Through the Organization Compensation Average Bonus Increase for Each Performance Rating Average Merit Increase for Each Performance Rating Compensation Competitiveness Compared to External Market Benchmarks (Gap to Market) Compensation Expense as a Percentage of Revenue Compensation Expense as a Percentage of Total Operating Expense Compensation Expense per FTE Employee Perceptions of Pay Process Fairness Internal Equity (e.g., by job) Number of Off-Cycle Pay Actions Percentage of Bonus Budget Spent on High Performers Percentage of Merit Budget Spent on High Performers Percentage of New Hires Citing Compensation as a Reason for Attraction Percentage of Pay Actions Processed Accurately Percentage of Pay Actions Processed on Time Percentage of Employees Leaving Voluntarily, Citing Pay as a Reason for Departure Benefits Average Time Off Usage by Type Benefits Communication Benefits Competitiveness Compared to External Market Benchmarks (Gap to Market) Benefits Expense as a Percentage of Revenue Benefits Expense as a Percentage of Total Operating Expense 28% 30% 61% 22% 37% 3% 4% 32% 17% 26% 69% 66% 73% 37% 49% 59% 41% 59% 36% 50% 46% 17% 22% 25% 56% 34% 36% 56% 34% 41% 34% 22% 20% 9% 29% 28% 6% 2% 3% 13% Reported to the CEO or Board of Directors
Appendix77
APPENDIX H: FREQUENCY OF TRACKING METRICS (CONTINUED)

Percentage of Organizations Tracked Through the Organization Benefits (Continued) Benefits Expense Management Benefits Expense per FTE Benefits Satisfaction Index Benefits to Total Compensation Health and Safety Expense per FTE Health and Wellness Expense per FTE Health Plan Costs (Compared to Each Other, and to Benchmarks) Health Plan Enrollment Rates Retirement Plan Participation Rate Wellness Program Participation Rate 32% 64% 27% 54% 20% 43% 59% 65% 56% 46% 8% 36% 16% 26% 10% 15% 29% 23% 22% 13% Reported to the CEO or Board of Directors
Appendix78

Percentage of Organizations Tracked Through the Organization Recruitment Percentage of Direct Hires Sourced in House Applicant Ratio (Applicants/Offers Accepted) Application Volume Average Time to Fill Cross-Functional Mobility (Internal Functional Movements) Employment Brand Strength External Hire Rate Internal Hire Rate Internal External Hire Ratio Interviewee Offer Rate (Offers Extended Versus Applicants Interviewed) Labor Market Trends Net Hire Ratio New Hire Failure Rate New Hire Performance Satisfaction New Hire Satisfaction with Recruiting New Hire Turnover Rate Pipeline Size (Number of Potential Applicants Identified) Quality of Hire Recruitment Cost per Hire Recruitment Expense Breakdown Recruitment Source Breakdown Referral Rate 40% 59% 52% 79% 41% 25% 60% 63% 84% 44% 28% 41% 14% 24% 39% 48% 30% 24% 58% 41% 64% 39% 9% 56% 7% 22% 7% 14% 17% 18% 35% 3% 9% 15% 3% 5% 3% 16% 7% 6% 18% 13% 9% 6% Reported to the CEO or Board of Directors
Appendix79

Percentage of Organizations Tracked Through the Organization Recruitment (Continued) Rehire Rate Staffing Rate: Temporary Versus Permanent Total Number of Hires Transfer Rate Transfers Types of Hires Engagement Employee Commitment Index Employee Engagement Level Employee Net Promoter Score Employee Retention Index Engagement Capital Diversity Age Staffing Breakdown Average Workforce Age Ethnic Background Staffing Breakdown Gender Staffing Breakdown Leadership Ethnic Breakdown Leadership Gender Breakdown Staffing Rate : Disability Staffing Rate : Minority Staffing Rate : Multilingual 76% 73% 67% 86% 57% 73% 32% 46% 17% 40% 38% 37% 55% 41% 52% 15% 22% 7% 34% 82% 20% 47% 11% 30% 71% 14% 34% 7% 25% 49% 91% 38% 63% 67% 2% 13% 40% 6% 13% 18% Reported to the CEO or Board of Directors
Appendix80

Percentage of Organizations Tracked Through the Organization HR Planning Business Partner Span of Control Contractor Temp Ratio HR Corporate Staffing Ratio HR Expense Breakdown: Function HR Expense per FTE HR Staffing Allocation HR Staffing Ratio HR Technology Expense Rate Operating Expense per FTE Operating Revenue per FTE Outsourcing Vendor Expense Ratio Work Planning Average Voluntary Termination Value Average Workforce Tenure Employment Level Staffing Breakdown Leader Span of Control Manager Span of Control Organization Tenure Staffing Breakdown Retention Rate Turnover Cost 44% 67% 47% 34% 40% 57% 67% 26% 18% 28% 23% 15% 16% 27% 36% 10% 32% 40% 36% 45% 39% 25% 57% 16% 46% 32% 33% 9% 10% 14% 16% 15% 9% 17% 5% 27% 20% 10% Reported to the CEO or Board of Directors
Appendix81

Percentage of Organizations Tracked Through the Organization Succession Average Span of Control Bench Strength Employee Leadership Potential Employee Satisfaction with Leadership High Performer Growth Rate Manager Quality Index Number of High-Potential Employees in Critical Roles Number of Ready Now Successors Percentage of High-Potential Employees Positions without Ready Candidates Ready Now Candidates Successor Pool Coverage Successor Growth Rate Transition Success Rate Employee Training Average Training Class Size Development Expense per FTE Development Program Penetration Rate Educational Attainment Breakdown E-Learning Abandonment Rate E-Learning Usage 25% 17% 9% 15% 19% 46% 3% 3% 2% 4% 2% 5% 49% 41% 38% 52% 14% 21% 41% 56% 59% 59% 59% 58% 20% 6% 22% 29% 21% 39% 6% 16% 27% 35% 31% 36% 34% 46% 13% 3% Reported to the CEO or Board of Directors
Appendix82

Percentage of Organizations Tracked Through the Organization Employee Training (Continued) Employee Satisfaction with Training Executive Development Expense Rate External Vendor Expense L&D Cost per FTE L&D Executive per FTE Learner Application Learner Performance Improvement Training Channel Delivery Mix Training Course Content Breakdown Training Effectiveness Training Expense per Employee Training Hours per FTE Training Staff: Ratio Training: Total Compensation Expense Rate Tuition Reimbursement Request Rate Performance Management Absence Rate Average Performance Appraisal Rating Employee Downgrade Rate Employee Turnaround Rate Peer Review Rate 41% 78% 10% 11% 9% 14% 42% 2% 5% 3% 65% 16% 38% 27% 12% 9% 9% 36% 35% 40% 50% 53% 25% 13% 32% 14% 6% 10% 9% 4% 2% 2% 4% 4% 9% 16% 12% 5% 4% 5% Reported to the CEO or Board of Directors
Appendix83

Percentage of Organizations Tracked Through the Organization Performance Management (Continued) Performance Appraisal Participation Rate Performance Improvement Performance Rating Distribution Performance-Based Pay Differential PTO Utilization Rate Self-Review Rate Unscheduled Absence Rate Upward Review Rate Organizational Design Cost Reduction After Organizational Design Changes Employee Collaboration Effectiveness After Organizational Design Changes Employee Role Clarity After Organizational Design Changes Increase in Efficiency After Organizational Design Changes Satisfaction with Individual Job Design Satisfaction with Inter-Functional Coordination Competency/Talent Assessment Competency Assessment Participation Rate at Assessment Centers Satisfaction with Assessment Center Success of Psychometric Testing 48% 18% 16% 20% 13% 4% 3% 7% 32% 6% 10% 10% 14% 15% 17% 1% 4% 4% 5% 7% 77% 30% 84% 49% 19% 20% 16% 11% 38% 9% 55% 24% 2% 5% 3% 3% Reported to the CEO or Board of Directors
Appendix84

Percentage of Organizations Tracked Through the Organization Change Management Employee Satisfaction with Communication Retention After Implemented Change Downsizing/Layoffs Termination by Performance Termination Rate Termination Reason Breakdown Union/Labor Relations ADR Success Rate (Grievances Resolved ADR Process/Grievances Resolved) External Complaint Factor Grievance Rate Grievance Time to Resolve Industrial Dispute Absence Days per FTE Staffing Rate: Union Employees Additional Metrics Corporate EthicsIntegrity Ratio Employee Safety Rate Employee Compliance Rate 38% 36% 34% 27% 25% 28% 21% 10% 33% 22% 7% 24% 5% 5% 6% 3% 2% 5% 54% 78% 60% 19% 37% 22% 33% 9% 18% 3% Reported to the CEO or Board of Directors
Appendix85
32%
Diagnosing Business Problems Where Analytics Can Be Used Identifying Business Problems Where Analytics Can Be Applied Discussing Talent Priorities and Challenges with Business Understanding Data Requests from the Business Units Understanding Past Business Unit Growth Goals Effectively Protecting Data
25%24%
The three most important driver categories of Analytic Impact are applying business judgment, partnering with the business and identifying business problems.
20%
40%
0% Applying Judgment to Data Challenging Business Assumptions

27%
34% 33%
Applying Business Judgment Average: 31%
Differentiating the Highest Value Metrics Motivating Line Partners to Take Action Communicating Data Insight to Line Partners Teaching Business How to Interpret Talent Analytics Sharing Examples of Success/Impact
22%
Drivers of Analytic Impact
34% 33% 30% 29%
Partnering with the Business Average: 27%
Meeting Regularly with Business or Line Partners

14%
Articulating a Strong Point of View
Identifying Business Problems Average: 25%
21% 21%
36%
29%
Consistently Tracking Metrics

21%
Maximum Impact of Drivers on Analytic Impact Grouped by Category
Automating Data or Metrics Reports Effectively Storing Data Effectively Managing Data
< 1% 17% 16%
Data Management Average: 20%
Maintaining Data Governance and Standards Collecting Talent Assessment Data
31%
21%
Collecting HR Cost Data Collecting HR Efficiency Data

< 1%
18%
Collecting Employee Opinion or Attitude Data Understanding Business Unit Workflows and Processes Understand Business Unit Structure
15% 12%
APPENDIX I: THREE DRIVERS OF ANALYTIC IMPACT STAND ABOVE THE REST
< 1%
Maintain an Enterprise Viewpoint Effectively Performing Inquisitive Analytics Effectively Performing Descriptive Analytics Effectively Performing Predictive Analytics Effectively Performing Prescriptive Analytics
23% 21%
Data Organizational Acquisition Knowledge Sophistication: Average: 18% Average: 9% 20%
Appendix86
19% 19%
Gap Inc. conducts a needs assessment oriented around key human capital questions, not metrics, to help the business clearly articulate its needs without worrying about the data it needs.
Requiring business stakeholders to translate their needs into metrics introduces noise that creates an incomplete or distorted indication of the real business question. Gap Inc. seeks to understand the decision support the business needs first and then investigate the data required to meet that need.
APPENDIX J: ORIENT AROUND HUMAN CAPITAL QUESTIONS TO ACCURATELY ASSESS NEEDS

Situation: We Want to Maximize the Impact of a New Training Program
Typical Approach: Business-Initiated Data Requests What data do I need?
Gap Inc.s Approach: Team-Initiated Needs Assessment What questions, if answered, would enable you to make better decisions for your business?
100 Human Capital Questions Survey1 (Illustrative) Please rank the top 15. 1. Are we losing critical talent? 2. Have we sufficiently minimized time to productivity for new hires? 3. Are we accurately predicting quality of hire? 4.
Typical Questions:

What data will address my challenge? What data am I most familiar with? What metrics have we tracked in the past? What metrics were featured in the Harvard Business Review article I just read? What metrics are gathered by the retail benchmarking report I received?
What is the challenge I need help with? What question do I need to answer? What decisions do I need to make?
Resulting Request: What is the age distribution across my employees?
Resulting Request: What are the drivers of training effectiveness? Do longer-tenured employees benefit from the same training approaches as new hires? Result Clear understanding of questions scope Ability to pursue all relevant metrics without re-scoping
Result Unclear understanding of underlying business need Wasted time and resources re-scoping and/or pursuing request
Appendix87
APPENDIX K: GAP INC.S 15 SCALABLE HUMAN CAPITAL QUESTIONS

Turnover and Retention 1. What is our voluntary turnover rate among individuals in critical roles? What are the associated costs to the business? 2. What percentage of our high performers are at high risk for departure? 3. What is our voluntary turnover rate among top performers? What are the associated costs to the business? Talent Infrastructure 4. What is the depth and quality of the successor pool for key positions? 5. What percentage of our workforce moves internally each year between lines of business or functional areas? 6. What percentage of our workforce is promoted annually? How does this compare across demographic segments and lines of business? 7. Which lines of business or managers are the best developers of talent as measured by the promotions out of their department? Workforce Productivity 8. How differently do we pay our top contributors from our average contributors? Is this in proportion to their contribution? 9. In the last five years, has workforce productivity increased, decreased, or remained the same? What is our relative performance against competitors? 10. Are we under-staffed in areas, where if we added people, we would increase our profitability? Diversity 11. How diverse is our managerial population? How does it vary across our lines of business? 12. Is the recruiting pipeline appropriately diverse to ensure diversity in hires and the overall workforce? 13. Is our successor pool sufficiently diverse? Employee Engagement 14. What percentage of our employees are fully engaged and are doing their best work at all time? How does this vary across functions and lines of business? 15. What percentage of our employees would say they are committed to the organization? Why are they committed?
Appendix88
APPENDIX L: GAP INC.S 100 HUMAN CAPITAL QUESTIONS

Workforce Demographics and Diversity 1. What percentage of our workforce will retire in the next year or next five years? 2. What is the average age in our organization? In the last five years has it increased, decreased, or remained the same? 3. What is the average organization tenure? In the last five years has it increased, decreased, or remained the same? 4. What is our ratio of managerial to non-managerial staff? In the last five years has it increased, decreased, or remained the same? 5. What is our ratio of customer-facing or revenue-generating staff to back-office staff? In the last five years has it increased, decreased, or remained the same? 6. What percentage of our current managerial positions are occupied by women or minorities? How does it vary across our lines of business? 7. What percentage of our identified successor pool are women or minorities? 8. How many part-time, temporary, or contract employees exist across our organization? What business units rely on them most heavily? Workforce Productivity 9. What is our revenue per employee? Is it higher than our competitors? How does it vary across lines of business or geographies? 10. How does our head count per unit of production compare to that of our direct competitors? 11. How many dollars of operating profit are generated for every dollar invested in compensation and benefits? 12. What percentage of every dollar of operating expenses is invested in compensation and benefits? 13. Is the ROI on Human Capital higher than the ROI on working capital, invested capital or plant and equipment? 14. In the last five years, has workforce productivity increased, decreased or remained the same? What is our relative performance against competitors? 15. What is the average time-to-full-productivity for new hires? How does this compare to median tenure within our organization? Workforce Health & Safety 16. How many workplace injuries per 100 employees occur on an annual basis? How does this compare across our locations and within our industry? 17. How many health and safety incidents occur per one million hours worked? How does this compare across our locations and within our industry? 18. What is the dollar cost impact of short- and long-term disability absences and claims? Workforce Relations and Satisfaction 19. What percentage of our employees are fully engaged and are doing their best work at all times? How does this vary across functions and lines of business? 20. What percentage of our employees would say they are committed to the organization? Why are they committed? 21. How many of our employees have applied for positions outside the company in the past six months? 22. How many EEO complaints or lawsuits are filed annually? 23. What do we incur in legal costs to arbitrate, defend, or otherwise resolve complaints and lawsuits?
Source: Successfactors.
Appendix89
APPENDIX L: GAP INCS 100 HUMAN CAPITAL QUESTIONS (CONTINUED)

Workforce Turnover and Mobility 24. What percentage of our workforce moves internally each year between lines of business or functional areas? 25. What is our average position tenure? 26. What percentage of our workforce is promoted annually? How does this compare across demographic segments and lines of business? 27. What is the average time between promotions? How does this compare across demographic segments and lines of business? 28. Which lines of business or managers have the highest voluntary turnover rates? Is this a persistent or recent phenomenon? 29. Which lines of business experience the greatest annual knowledge loss from terminations, transfers, and promotions combined? 30. Which lines of business or managers are the best developers of talent as measured by the promotions out of their department? 31. Which lines of business or managers are magnets for high potential employees as evidenced by their transfer rate into various departments? 32. What is our voluntary turnover rate among key executives? What are the associated costs to the business? 33. What is our voluntary turnover rate among top performers? What are the associated costs to the business? 34. What is our voluntary turnover rate among individuals in critical roles? What are the associated costs to the business? 35. What is our voluntary turnover rate among all individuals in hard to hire positions? What are the associated costs to the business? 36. Do we retain our key/most productive people at a higher rate than our best competitors? 37. What is our involuntary termination rate? What percentage of these actions are due to poor performance?
Workforce Planning 38. Are we over-staffed? 39. Are we under-staffed in areas, where if we added people, we would increase our profitability? 40. What is the magnitude of competency gaps between needed and actual capabilities? 41. What is the ratio of internal to external hires to balance institutional knowledge with fresh ideas? 42. What percentage of our critical roles are staffed with below-average performers? 43. What percentage of key positions have identified successors? 44. What is the depth and quality of the successor pool for key positions? 45. What percentage of our high performers are at high risk for departure? 46. Where in the organization are our high performers concentrated? Where are there very few? Is this by design? 47. Are our highly experienced and skilled talent deployed in positions requiring their skills? Could any of these positions be staffed with less experienced talent? Staffing and Recruiting 48. What is our employment brand strength among prospective employees? 49. Do our new hires continually increase the overall quality and productivity of our workforce? 50. What percentage of critical roles are unfilled as of today? 51. What percentage of our first choice candidates accept our offers? 52. Which recruiting sources provide the highest-performing employees? 53. How deep is our pipeline for positions known to be hard to replace?
Appendix90
APPENDIX L: GAP INC.S 100 HUMAN CAPITAL QUESTIONS (CONTINUED)

54. How does the performance of our new hires in their first six months vary by recruiter or hiring manager? 55. What percentage of applicants exceed the qualifications of our best current employees? 56. What percentage of our employment offers are accepted? How does this vary by gender, ethnicity, EEO category, or salary band? 57. What percentage of new hires leave voluntarily in the first six months? 58. What percentage of new hires are terminated in the first six months? 59. What is the dollar cost impact across recruiting, training, and lost productivity for each early-tenure departure? 60. What percentage of interviewees do hiring managers deem unqualified and not worth their time? 61. Is the recruiting pipeline appropriately diverse to ensure diversity in hires and the overall workforce? 62. How accurate are our pre-employment tests in predicting the quality of a hire? 63. How many inquiries or applications do we receive per open position? 64. What percent of referred applicants are hired? 65. Do referred applicants perform better, worse, or the same as nonreferred applicants once on the job? 66. What percent of recruitment sources are evaluated and dropped for newer more effective sources annually? 67. What is our time-to-fill by job grade and geographic location? 68. What is our cost per hire? As this figure rises or declines does new hire quality follow suit? 69. What percent of above-average performers are still with the firm after one year? Three years? Ten years?
Workforce Compensation and Benefits 70. What is the percent increase in employee performance as the result of every one percent increase in pay? 71. How much differently do we pay our top contributors from our average contributors? Is this in proportion to their contribution? 72. What percent of total compensation is tied to performance? 73. How much higher or lower are our new hire salaries compared to others in our industry? 74. What percentage of total compensation is direct compensation versus benefits? How do employee perceptions of this split compare to the actual figures? 75. Based on our workforce demographic, could we be offering a benefits package that is both more attractive and less expensive than the current offerings? 76. Has our stock options program added to or diluted our shares value? Workforce Training and Development 77. Is there a correlation in our organization between the percent of all people costs spent on training and firm profitability? 78. What is the percent increase in performance as a result of every $1,000 spent on training? 79. What percentage of poor performers become good or better performers within a year, as a result of our individual development efforts? 80. What percentage of underperforming managers turn around their performance by the next review period? 81. What percent of trained individuals are observed to use the skill or knowledge on the job? 82. How does the performance of employees participating in optional training programs compare to those not participating?
Appendix91
APPENDIX L: GAP INC.S 100 HUMAN CAPITAL QUESTIONS (CONTINUED)

83. How many dollars are spent annually per individual on training and development? How does this compare against our key competitors? 84. Do longer tenured employees continue to grow via training, or is training disproportionately offered to, or attended by, newer employees? 85. What percentage of managers gladly send employees to training sessions? Which courses are recommended by managers or fill quickly? 86. How have leadership development programs impacted productivity, profitability, or employee satisfaction? 87. What percent of employees identified and possible managerial successors attend leadership development sessions? 88. How much weight in managers variable pay or performance reviews is given to employee development? 89. What percentage of employees have an individual development plan created for them? 90. What percentage of employees complete the recommended steps on their development plan? HR Function 91. What percent of all corporate spending goes to HR? How does it compare to last year and our best competitors? 92. Does adding more or higher quality HR resources make a direct topor bottom-line impact? 93. What percentage of all HR employees have work experience in a line of business? 94. How do employees rate their satisfaction with HRs transactional services? 95. How do employees rate their satisfaction with HRs consultative (valueadded) services?
96. What percentage of HR programs actually achieve the ROI stated in their business case or project proposal? 97. What percentage of HR programs are discontinued every year for failing to achieve interim targets or meet expectations? 98. How many early warnings does HR communicate to line managers? How many are accompanied by recommendations for heading off the rising problem? 99. What are the avoided costs from timely HR interventions, whether identified by HR or line managers? 100. What is the ROI of our daily HR activities?
Appendix92
As part of the workforce distribution tool, Seagate displays the financial implications of different decision scenarios that leaders can take.
Seagate presents the financial implications using the percent difference in total labor cost of current and future distributions to the benchmark. The financial implications are not the focal point of the tool, but rather are presented to reflect the health of the workforce, acting as an urgency driver when a large percentage difference exists.
APPENDIX M: DISPLAY FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF TALENT DECISION SCENARIOS

Calculating Financial Implications
Step 1: Seagate calculates the estimated labor cost for each position (e.g., entry level, middle level). Example: A dd the lowest and highest labor cost for each position and divide it by 2. Lets assume the estimated labor costs are $50,000, $75,000, and $100,000 for entry level, middle level, and senior level respectively. Step 2: Seagate uses the total estimated labor costs to compare current and future organization distributions to the benchmark. Example: Multiply the position head count with the estimated labor cost for the position. Position Entry Level Middle Level Senior Level Total Benchmark Distribution Head Count 50 30 20 Cost $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $6,750,000 Current Distribution Head Count 30 40 30 Cost $1,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $7,500,000 Future Distribution Head Count 40 40 20 Cost $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $7,000,000
Step 3: Seagate expresses the financial implications in terms of the percentage difference in total labor cost of current/ future distribution and the benchmark. Example: The percentage difference between current and benchmark distribution is Benchmark Current Current x 100
Appendix93
Wishbone Inc. creates concise, one-page talent dashboards for line leaders, highlighting the four or five most critical metrics and their implications to P&L.
The company includes brief talent P&L statements with every talent dashboard, which communicate the business implications resulting productivity, operational, and financial implicationsof the talent metrics. The analytics team at Wishbone Inc. continually engages with the business to collect feedback on dashboard effectiveness and improve dashboard design for increased consumability.
APPENDIX N: TALENT P&L DASHBOARDS

Sample P&L Based Talent Dashboards
Leadership Dashboard: Corporate 2012 Talent Retention Dashboard: Manufacturing 2012
Wishbone Inc.1
Wishbone Inc.1 Wishbone Inc.1 Wishbone Inc.

1
Continuous Checks for Business Relevance Collect continuous line feedback on consumability of dashboards to ensure they include the most relevant data in the most easy-to-consume format.
Talent Acquisition Dashboard: Manufacturing Recruitment 2012
Highlights: Hired 82% of revised 2012 target 2012 (goal): 6,542 2012 (hired): 5,364 Met 100% of the diversity recruitment target Reduced time to fill and cost per hire Improved quality of hire Implemented new applicant screening systemobjective to reduce screening time by 20% Actual (2012) 1. Number of Hires 2. N umber of Minority Hires 3. Quality of Hire Index (%) 4. Time to Fill (Months) 5. Cost per Hire (Thousand $) 5,364 X 62% 4.3 23 Goal (2012) 6,542 X 60% 4 24.5 Actual (2011) 4,326 Y 54% 5.2 25
Less Data, More Value Highlight the few key numbers most relevant for senior executives to get a high-level overview of the function. Talent P&L Include a brief talent P&L statement in all talent dashboards, providing insight on how talent decisions impact businessproductivity gains, financial gains, and operational gains resulting from the investments.
Talent P&L Reduced cost per hire and time to fill lowered overall recruiting expense by $X over one year Improved quality of hire increased overall performance by Y% Increased head count led to reduced process times for key activities, lowering operational costs by Z%
Pseudonym.
Appendix94

CLC FS AnalyticsEra Appendix PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

CLC FS AnalyticsEra Appendix PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Appendix

Appendix A: CEB HR Leadership Academys Data Analytics Module

Appendix B: Evaluating Analytic Impact p. 70 Appendix C: Demographic Profile of Survey Participants p. 71

Additional Quantitative Findings

Appendix H: Frequency of Tracking Metrics p. 77

Additional Case Profile Resources

Traditional HRBP Role: Metrics Use and Creation (2007)

New HRBP Role: Application of Business Judgment to Data (2013)

Other Delivery Options

2013 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved.CLC5841813SYN

APPENDIX B: EVALUATING ANALYTIC IMPACT

Cluster analysis Factor analysis Multivariate linear regression

2013 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved.CLC5841813SYN

APPENDIX C: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF SURVEY PARTICIPANTS

54% North America

Heads of Analytics Surveyed by Region

Heads of Analytics Surveyed by Industry

56% North America

2013 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved.CLC5841813SYN

Source: CEB, CEB Corporate Leadership Council Analytics Survey, 2013.

CEB surveyed over 9,500 business leaders in 30 countries.

APPENDIX C: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF SURVEY PARTICIPANTS (CONTINUED)

14% North America 8% Central and South America

2013 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved.CLC5841813SYN

APPENDIX D: ANALYTIC IMPACT NOT DRIVEN BY BUDGET, ORGANIZATION SIZE, OR REGION

Myth 2: Larger Organizations Are More Effective at Analytics

Leading Analytic Organizations spend less than other organizations.

Analytic Leading Organizations

Leading Analytic Organizations

Source: CEB, CEB Corporate Leadership Council Analytics Survey, 2013.

Source: CEB, CEB Corporate Leadership Council Analytics Survey, 2013.

Myth 3: Organizations in Certain Global Regions Are More Effective at Analytics

Leading Analytic Organizations

Source: CEB, CEB Corporate Leadership Council Analytics Survey, 2013.

Source: CEB, CEB Corporate Leadership Council Analytics Survey, 2013.

APPENDIX E: ORGANIZATIONS ARE MOST RELIANT ON IN-HOUSE DATA ANALYSIS

Reliant on Licensed Software Providers

Reliant on Business Intelligence Providers

Reliant on Professional Services

Source: CEB, CEB Corporate Leadership Council Analytics Survey, 2013.

APPENDIX F: VENDORS ARE MOST OFTEN USED TO ASSESS EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

Use Vendors to Conduct Analysis of Talent Data

Use Vendors to Build Software for Data Integration

Use Vendors to Create Visualization Tools

Source: CEB, CEB Corporate Leadership Council Analytics Survey, 2013.

Overall, organizations are most satisfied with professional services firms.

APPENDIX G: SATISFACTION LEVELS OF VARIOUS ANALYTIC RESOURCE PROVIDERS

Licensed Software Providers

Business Intelligence Providers

20% 43% 40% 38%

63% 66% 77% 56% 57% 60% 62% 70%

50% 33% 17%

Source: CEB, CEB Corporate Leadership Council Analytics Survey, 2013.

APPENDIX H: FREQUENCY OF TRACKING METRICS

2013 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved.CLC5841813SYN

APPENDIX H: FREQUENCY OF TRACKING METRICS (CONTINUED)

2013 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved.CLC5841813SYN

APPENDIX H: FREQUENCY OF TRACKING METRICS (CONTINUED)

2013 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved.CLC5841813SYN

APPENDIX H: FREQUENCY OF TRACKING METRICS (CONTINUED)

2013 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved.CLC5841813SYN

APPENDIX H: FREQUENCY OF TRACKING METRICS (CONTINUED)

2013 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved.CLC5841813SYN