“So Jeff…the real question is…how soon do you want to start saving money?” the salesman asked across my kitchen table. I looked up at him, then back down at the quote for the new household de-ionized soft water system, and then back at him. I hadn’t yet developed my professorial; is-that-really-all-you-got-glance-over-my-glasses-look yet but this was one of the moments that led to its development.
“So…Stan, after my $200 installation cost and $75 a month thereafter my net savings will still be…lemme see here….back page….the one with all the footnotes and fine print…”
“Ninety-two-fifty-six” Stan said as he pointed to the number on the quote.
“Because of the pipes” my voice bearing a nascent prodding tone.
“Yes! The pipes. They are corroding in the walls as we speak. And all the detergents and soaps you won’t have to buy, the finish on your cars you won’t have to replace…it all adds up over time!” Stan’s accountant-look was highly developed.
Fast forward 10 years and $11,107.20 in unrealized savings (I also didn’t buy Microsoft at $30 a share) I heard these words “really…I don’t know why they want to put off saving money”. Stan?!? No, these words were spewing from my mouth in talking to a colleague about a client hesitating putting in a modern WFM system.
“But look what they are spending, no!…WASTING now on their manual process” Bryan said “all that money down the drain each month!”
“You ever sell soft water systems, Bryan?” I asked.
“What?” Bryan said
“Never mind”, I said.
The fact is, it’s hard not to sound like a door-to-door salesman sometimes when talking about the ROI for workforce management and time & attendance systems like Kronos Workforce Central and ADP eTime (and related products) – even though we aren’t even in the business of selling them. I would argue that this is probably because it is one of the few IT automation projects that really does have reasonable and measurable returns on investment if not stone-cold payback in less than a year in many cases. I believe this aversion to large capitalization of PR/TK/WFM projects is due to two interrelated perceptions.
The first is that payroll, and thus payroll processing, is one of those inescapable ‘gotta do it no matter what’ things in business. Like death and taxes the rate will never drop to zero so why spend good money after bad trying.
The second perception is that if payroll is basically getting done now, how bad could it be? Or from an ROI perspective, we couldn’t possibly be wasting THAT much money so there surely couldn’t be THAT much money to save. This idea is fostered in looking at partial-picture benchmarks like burden rate and direct paycheck processing costs or comparing one company’s Timekeeping/PR contract with another.
Now this is a blog, not to mention one with ‘101’ in the title, so you must forgive the short treatment I am about to give this subject. I believe, however, we need to get back to some fundamentals in how we go about the business of paying people and measuring the true cost of doing it. So here we go:
#1: Get it RIGHT first. Error rates much past 3% and you are inviting EXPENSIVE trouble from the Department of Labor and Unions. (Note: If you are getting away with more than 3% it is like borrowing from the Mob..don’t do it)
#2: Emps and Sups tracking time. If it weren’t for the outrageous penalties for the above this would easily be the #1 area of return in most Time Keeping and WFM automation projects. Paying producers to manage the time accounting of yet other producers is a huge waste of direct productivity.
#3: Payroll people processing payroll. Having half an army of people to pay your army of people is a waste of money.
That’s it. Check this plumbing first and see how an improved TimeKeeping/WFM solution could improve these numbers. These are really what WFM/TimeKeeping systems are all about. Oh sure, you can make a lot of suds by tossing words like ‘Human Capital Management’ and ‘Metro Workforce Model’ into the mix but that will only add a fresh lemon scent to all the big dollars going down the drain. Hmmm... Maybe Stan had a point?!?
The other day I was in a meeting with the usual suspects from HR, Finance, Manufacturing & IT. We were discussing going to a new Payroll vendor (and thus their embedded timekeeping system) from the existing in-house system and payroll company. Our prime reason for meeting was discussing the critical interface to cost accounting. It was right after I finished my second doughnut that I reached my limit.
Not of doughnuts (like there’s a limit?!?) but on how many times the vendor rep over used the term ‘Payroll’s Data’ to describe what we were capturing in the timekeeping system. Granted she was from the payroll company, so that is generally her purview, but this casting of diverse information with a single purpose is a common problem in many companies we go into.
If the only purpose for keeping track of time (yes this is a Kronos blog, but this other stuff matters too!) were to pay people we would still be calling it ‘The Payroll System’. And, in most companies, it would still be 1890 and we would also be anxiously awaiting the stagecoach with the strong box of cash so we could collect our pay, ride into town and have our fill at Maginty’s Saloon & Doughnut Emporium. I'm guessing Kronos Timekeeper wasn't available back then?
As I’m sure you are all well aware, ‘TimeCards’ and ‘TimeKeeping Systems’ are used to collect information for a diverse set of needs in companies. To meet these needs, we slice and dice and collate time worked and time off and either put them into virtual buckets directly—as on a timecard: 14 hours worked on April 1st on the Boston Cream line, or via rules and pay codes: 12 hours of regular time plus 2 hours of overtime worked April 1st on the Boston Cream line. Generally speaking, the granularity of information needed to put the right amount of money in the employee’s pocket each pay period is less than the more intricate ‘siloing’ that happens in a very granular project and/or cost accounting structure fed by the same timekeeping system. Obviously it would be silly to have a different time collection system for each of the different purposes of Pay, Labor and Costing but sometimes we effectively do this by not crawling out of our silos often or soon enough.
“It is company data” I said to the Payroll vendor rep after I had wiped the powdered sugar from my tie.
“Of course it is your company’s data, I meant the data used to do your company’s payroll” the rep said.
“And costing”, I said.
“Costing?” she said
“Yep… we need to feed the cost accounting system from this data as well’, I said. The cost manager just nodded as his mouth was full of an Apple Fritter (highest density pastry per cost unit by the way)
“ How are we going to do that?” the rep asked.
“That’s what we are all here to find out” I said. “So you see why I don’t want to cast anything too strongly for any single purpose until we make sure all the consumers of this data are fed.”
“Ok” she said as she grabbed the last ‘old fashioned’.
Figures. I thought to myself.
I’ve found when putting in a new major component in the HR/PR/WFM world it is best to get everyone out of their respective Payroll, Labor, Project, Costing, etc silos to revisit who needs what information, when, and how. You would assume the liveliest discussions come about because of the impending changes to the system—people making sure they keep their silo properly filled with the data they need. Much more exciting, however, are the discussions initiated to figure out what data they are actually using now.
This happens all the time when an interface needs to be re-written. For example, when we go to one of the consumers of the existing feeds they might indicate they need extended dollars coming in. The next question is, of course, “based on what?”
“Well… Hours x Rate” I suppose.
“Straight time, overtime, Pay Rate, Burden Rate, Bill Rate?” and “Where do we get the rate and who maintains them?”
“Those are all fantastic questions” most people will say. “Let us get back to you on that”.
Which, of course, leaves me time for one more doughnut.
I have a pair of argyle socks that I've had for a really long time. They are basically black with an electric blue thread as part of the argyle pattern. I bought them as a concession to a somewhat overly corporate-Gordon Gecko-look. (Remember the movie Wall Street...Greed is Good!). The socks just seem to take the edge off the suit. I don't have the suit anymore (or the suspenders) but the socks live on in my sock drawer. Well...one of them does.
In case you didn't know, there are basically two schools of thought for sorting out a sock drawer. First is the method of picking through the drawer and removing only the socks that you want to get rid of. When you are done tossing those you will be left with only the purest stockings from which to choose the next time. The second, though less common method, is to toss all of the socks out onto the bed and only put back in those socks that truly meet our new standard of fashion and/or visible hole location. Some would argue that the same disposition of winners and losers could be achieved by either method but I don't. I believe once you have a clean slate you are much more considerate of what you put into the new space. By contrast, you can stumble over the same tattered footwear day after day and never bother to throw them out. Even after you mistakenly put them on in a dark room and realize they are not all black but the electric argyle variety for the 50th time. Well... one of them is.
I was discussing this problem I have with socks with a CFO colleague of mine. He mentioned that Financial Executives International (FEI) has an annual survey that tries to measure the cost of compliance each year with meeting socks standards. Yeah, I was confused too until I realized he was talking about SOX not SOCKS... as in Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 compliance. He then
went on to point out that the cost trend continues downward "As companies continue to find efficiencies in complying with Section 404 and make compliance part of a routine practice...". Also continuing is the delta between companies with centralized operations and systems and those with decentralized operations. Decentralized folks spend almost 50% more on average in total compliance costs than their centralized counterparts of similar size. I asked which was more profitable but apparently the FEI guys didn't include that metric...go figure. They do measure things like SOX 404's effect on reporting accuracy, fraud detection, and investor confidence-all areas that show positive trends so even the people that have to write the checks for compliance say it is working.
So if it comes down to getting the same improvement for less money it seems the centralized approach has the greatest effect. Which is exactly my point about Socks! You get rid of a lot more garbage if you dump it all out and review each piece carefully before putting it back in. Over time this costs less to maintain even if the sorting process can seem a bit painful. (I got a really big consulting job once with those socks!).
This is precisely the reason more and more companies are centralizing their HR (PeopleSoft), Payroll (ADP) and TimeKeeping (Kronos) systems. This means sorting through a myriad of laws, systems, policies and practices at various sites and companies until you arrive at as much common ground as possible. Unusual variations are scrutinized as to business justification (Oh, union contract) and cost ($3million a year... renegotiate the contract!) until the leanest possible system is put in place.
Well, in reality, like Sarbanes-Oxley itself, that is really just the best starting point. It takes time to truly hone in on all the efficiencies possible. They don't all happen the first year. They do become easier, however, to implement when you have a new, supported, well documented system to work on. Obvisously this doesn't just apply to Kronos Timekeeper and these efficeiences are almost impossible to implement on old, unsupported, poorly documented platforms.
So if you are in the middle of a painful centralizing/sorting process with your HR/PR/WFM system, hang in there, it should ultimately be a good thing. If it doesn't seem to be going that way and you are having trouble deciding what should stay and what should go give Improvisations a call. We are all about making the tough decisions. In case you were wondering, I'm going to throw the electric blue argyles away. Just as soon as I find the other one.
If you have been following the last few blogs on strategic reconciliation in the Kronos WFM environment you know that I have been digging up some rather old but timeless principles about strategy and tactics from Sun Tzu the 6th century BC Chinese military leader. I promised that in this edition I would rejoin modern society and showcase these principles at work in two actual WFM implementations. More specifically, the actual consequences of ignoring these principles as well as the salvation of applying them.
In the past examples, you may have noted several concubines and at least one Chinese foot-soldier were executed. In the interest of maintaining similar drama in our present example, not to mention honesty, I should warn you that a consultant did not survive the end of the project in our first example. I know, I know… it makes me shiver too but that is what really happened.
The first project was in a company that needed to solve three major competitive issues:
- high labor costs
- falling product quality
- poor costing transparency
This was actually stated on a power-point slide in their last big internal operations review as cause for their diminishing market share. Some pages later, I noticed on their list of capital projects a ‘ShopFloor Time Clock System’. Under the ‘Benefits and ROI’ column it stated ‘Needed to achieve strategic goals in cost management & product quality’. Again, if you don’t believe the ‘S’ word (strategic) has the ability to convince people whatever follows has amazing problem solving powers you need to be more wary. Moreover, rest assured this effect is cumulative once you commit the dollars to it. In this case, it was now a $250,000 strategic capital project and, like Sun Tzu and a quarter-million infantry, had an air of invincibility to it.
Most unlike Sun Tzu, however, was the consultant/general —we’ll call him ‘G’ – that was hired to drive the project. I first met with G in order to work out the plan for interfacing the new time-keeping system to payroll. I had been given a list of (page of) pay codes that were being proposed and I had a lot of questions. During this meeting G’s pager went off numerous times with the most annoying high-pitched beeping sound. (This was before cell phones and the ability to buy annoying ringtones). At each review of the pager’s LCD display he would consult a little laminated card. It turned out that he and his girlfriend had come up with about 30 different two-digit numerical codes they used to send more meaningful messages to each other. ‘01’ – for ‘Leaving Work’, ’02’ for ‘Please get milk’…. Seriously. I’m not kidding. I stopped reading after seeing number 10. Did I mention there were 30?!?
“But back to the pay codes” he said. “That’s only a partial list so far. I’m meeting with the cost guy tomorrow and I’m sure he will need more. It’s part of our strategy on reducing cost thru better labor transparency… better we meet after then, ok?”. I faked a nod of understanding and turned to leave. As I was walking out I passed the safety manager on her way to G’s office. G’s pager went off again and he shut the door--- “What was that high-pitched whine?” the safety manager asked. Sounds like the noise before defeat if you ask me.
In my last blog in this series introducing the concepts of strategic reconciliation I touched on the elements of strategy itself. Our guest commentator was the Chinese general, Sun Tzu, who was a mover-and-shaker in the shock-and-awe business in the 6th
century BC but whose theories have also been effectively translated and employed in other disciplines. Two of his ideas I revealed last time are pillars of the Kronos product line strategic reconciliation effort we employ with shock-and-awe
at Improvizations. These ideas have some interesting parallels with Sun Tzu’s The art of War:
“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat”
And...
“All men can see the tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved."
The first idea is basic enough—no matter how good your Kronos implementation tactics are, if they are not aligned with an overall strategy, you will ultimately fail to achieve as much as expected. It also implies at some level it is better to err on the side of having a good strategy without tactics than the other way around—after all, delayed victory is better than rapid defeat. This is why we always start every project by learning what the governing strategy is (thus ensuring that there is one) before we try to align to it. Digging into Sun’s next thought, however, it appears that there exists an inherent and desirable separation between his tactics and his strategy. The strategy is not revealed or readily derived from those noisy, in-your-face activities known as tactics. (study note: Projects and Project Plans are, by definition, tactics.
Sun Tzu, of course, was speaking about his enemies being unable to derive his strategy from his tactics. I would argue, however, he probably kept his troops in the dark too. Not just in case they were captured but because they really didn’t need it to do their job. That’s the trademark of hierarchical leadership -- the answer to ‘Why are we here?’ changes dramatically as you move down the chain. It is fascinating to see how the answer from the same person changes depending on who is asking the question.
Imagine a cold and rainy night in China around 510 BC. Thousands of Sun Tzu’s troops begin to dig in after an unexpected, lightning march to the brink of the enemy’s most important city. Sun Tzu’s second in command returns from the columns and bows in front of his general. “The last of the divisions have arrived, Sir. They are freezing and hungry… may I ask why we are here in this unprotected valley?” “My good friend”, Sun Tzu replies “ We must appear at points the enemy must hasten to defend; march swiftly to places where we are not expected”. The commander fakes a nod of understanding and walks off. A short while later a common foot soldier walks up to Sun Tzu and says, “What are we doing here? We are all freezing and hungry!” With a flash of his sword Sun Tzu’s addresses his soldier’s need and says, “Because I said so.” Although this display appeared to re-align the remaining troops they were, in reality, demoralized and failed to take the city.
Can you believe some people find it hard to apply Sun Tzu’s concepts in modern Society whereas others see them as timeless? Perhaps it depends on where you work and the kind of projects you have been part of. In my experience, the two biggest mistakes organizations make with their Workforce Management strategy and tactics are being either too vague or too extreme at the various levels in the workforce and/or stage of the project. When at a crossroads, opportunity or problem in a project one can’t afford to ignore the governing importance of strategy. By the same token, when the strategy is questioned by the implementers, quoting some ancient prose or seeing the push-back as insubordination is highly demoralizing regardless of any inherent method to the madness.
The trick is to press the two sides up against each other at the right times and in the right measures and ask to questions very carefully. By injecting the appropriate amount of strategic context back into the tactics it ensures that those on the ground not only arrive at the destination but that their purpose in being there is also fulfilled. Conversely, by asking questions of management when the tactics seem a bit strange or painful gives important feedback as to one’s true position on the bamboo gantt chart.
In my next blog I will share two stories from the real world and current century. I will show where reconciliation was absent and someone was lost and where strategic reconciliation was employed and a company was saved. In the mean time, consider how the strategy and tactics (or leaders and implementers) are in conflict in your organization or project and how you have been handling them.
"The use, and overuse, of strategy in
business is more often than not pretentious over-claim by people who do not
really understand what they are talking about." [i]
An example of this in the workforce
management world I've encountered was a manager (at a large company you most
certainly have heard of) that wanted his title to include the words "Strategic
Payroll". He wasn't planning on redefining the scope of the job at all but you
must agree, if you didn't know any better, the word 'Strategic' makes whatever
comes after it sound much better. In reality, Payroll delivery is tactical.
Putting the word Strategic in front of it is like a putting a Jacksonion
(That's Michael not Andrew) uniform on a banana republic general. The more bling the less effective the
country's military tends to be.
The
etymology (fancy uniform for 'true meaning or use') of the word 'Strategy' is military in origin. I believe business people love to borrow
concepts from military doctrine because; 1) many of the same principles of
opposition (competitors) and territory (market) translate well and, 2) it just
sounds a lot cooler without necessarily enhancing our effectiveness.
In a recent whitepaper about Workforce Management (WFM) I touched on
a campaign (there I go tossing about military terms) at Improvizations to help
our customers align and reconcile their WFM projects with other strategic
initiatives within their organizations.
This is much easier, and sometimes not even necessary, in organizations
whose leadership has a firm grip on strategy in the first place. This is because reconciling one's forces
(ooops, I mean 'departments') towards one mission (I mean 'vision') has long
been fundamental to the elements of strategy.
Another
manager I've heard about with the ubiquitous title of General but funny name
(Sun Tzu) identified nine strategy elements employed in his organization (the
Chinese army) that were the cornerstone of his military successes under CEO
(King) Wu. Sun Tzu's writings, The Art of War are one of those military
works bandied about in business and political circles in recent years. Quite frankly, while his theories may be
timeless from a military perspective, they need to be thoroughly sanitized to
effectively relate many of them to mainstream business culture today. Tzu was not a big fan of "Think Win\Win" - one
of his early demonstrations was executing two of the King's favorite concubines
that Tzu had trained to be military commanders. That whole situation is hard to
reconcile with most companies' HR policies let alone a clear corporate
strategy.
Are you a bit confused about how all this relates to
your WFM project (implementing Kronos Workforce Central anyone?) and reconciling it to the corporate strategy? Good. This is how I frequently feel when walking into a new company and asking
about what their corporate vision and strategy is. You hear the word a lot, and
there are frequently all sorts of theories, citations, and fancy doctrine
thrown around but all too often that's really all there is. And that,
Grasshopper, is lesson #1. Before you
try to align and reconcile your WFM project to a master corporate strategy make
sure there really is one first.
You
might be able to glean this strategy from various levels in the organization
but I suggest you go right to the top.
As Sun Tzu put it in chapter 4: " 人皆知我所以勝之形，而莫知我所以制勝之形"
-
allow me to translate: "All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but
what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved." It might not be communicated well down throughout
the organization so it is better to get is 'straight from the King' as it
were. Don't be surprised either if you
are the first one to bring a clear version of the CEO's and other leader's
strategies to the HR/PR table. It might
not match the 2007 PowerPoint slide on your HR VPs wall and it may be hard to
break the news the strategy has changed but don't worry, killing the messenger is
generally not practiced in most of the companies we've encountered.
Here are two clues to test whether or not your
company has a real corporate strategy in play:
- Ask
all the Sr. Staff (in separate
conversations) what are the major components of the current corporate
strategy. If the majority has the same
answer there probably is one about.
- Ask
the CEO what the major components of the corporate strategy are. If they match with the majority of senior
staffers there is definitely one about.
The reason you go to the senior staffers first is
that often they will only have their purview to offer. It is the amalgam you must compare to the
CEO's perspective. Whether or not it is
a true strategy but also an effective one is a bit more difficult but here are
some tests we use to see if it is worth reconciling to. Keep in mind these elements don't necessarily
have to be written down in one place or even at all. Of course if the word doesn't get out it is
probably harder to get everyone on the same page. Or in Sun Tzu's case; on the same bamboo
slat.
The Art of War on Bamboo
Strategy Tests (Courtesy of Sun Tzu-once HR ran it
through the PC machine)
- Does
it have a clear, definable mission or
vision? Can it be summed up in a simple
statement? Remember the famous Nike
mission statement: "Crush Rebok". Any
questions? (Honda put a little more detail in theirs: "We will crush, squash,
and slaughter Yamaha". )
- Does
it describe the climate that creates the opportunity (timing, trends, etc)
being made or seized. "With the
expansion of the MP3 format, wouldn't it be cool to make and sell portable MP3
players".
- What business space are we planning to
conquer? Sun Tzu called this 'The Ground'. It is not merely the territory but the actual reward from which new
advances can be made.
- How
does the Leadership rate? While many see
the quality of the leadership separately from the quality if the strategy we
suggest there is one fundamental piece that must be there: Will the people follow
them?
A
complete strategy also clearly defines the methods (or tactics if you want to eep with the military theme) employed to execute the strategy. Quite often, of course, this is where the IT,
Manufacturing, Marketing, Engineering or WFM consultants like us come into the
picture. Methods are our stock and trade
but unless they are aligned with a true strategy they will fail. Our friend Mr.
Tzu liked to put it this way "Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to
victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat".
Most
companies we get called into fall somewhere in the middle on the strategy continuum-they
are not completely without one but it is not wholly aligned throughout the
organization. This is most obvious to us
when you compare the objectives and direction of different projects throughout
the company-they do not align well. (Warning: Sometimes they only appear not to
align until you understand the strategy behind it!)
In my next blog I will talk about helping
this alignment between the various organizational initiatives and the overall
corporate strategy-now that we know that we have one. (Note: no concubines, favored or otherwise,
were harmed in the writing of this blog.)
[i] Rosemary Grace Brooks:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Strategy---Probably-the-Most-Overused-and-Misunderstood-Word-in-Business&id=1738056
We believe...
-
In serious team engagement, throughout the project
- In applying the CANI theory of continuous
improvement to our Best Practices
- In preparing the organization for the CHANGE that is to come
-
In doing
the right thing, every time
So many consulting vendors say "we have a
methodology", "we do this all the time", "we'll hit the ground running", "it's eeeeeeeasy", "We'll
throw a lot of fantastic, experienced people at it and MAKE it happen for you.
Trust me."
Customers deserve a more thoughtful approach
If we could always use Kronos or always use Stromberg, or always use
Workforce AND always pick the right path without fully understanding our goals,
risks and opportunities...
If we could always simply ‘implement' the software without realizing
its role in the achievement of the objective...
But it doesn't work that way does it? The approach we
suggest... One we're working hard at continuously improving... One we're working to
document on this web site...is our client engagement philosophy.
We Listen, We Engage, We Do What We Say
This is a continuation of the Improvizations vision (earlier
blog link). There will be a series of blog articles and updates to the site
over the next few months that explain the thought behind this phrase. Everything
starts and stops with the management of CHANGE. It's the make or break, not
tool, but attitude/approach to a project.
--We LISTEN to everyone
and ask a lot of questions. Add this data to what we already know and we
quickly create a high level outline of what you might call a
"Roadmap" for the project. Some people call this Discovery. It's much
more than that. We kick off the project with the through-line items that are often
simply a project task to check off; Change
Management, Strategic Project Alignment, Training Zen, Risk Avoidance and
Mitigation planning. All start in the beginning and never are put to the
side. Think of a big block map of the country you grew up in. You could use it to get from here to there,
but it might take a while and you'd likely make many expensive mistakes along
the way.
--We ENGAGE not just the
small team who've been working on the project since it was just a thought, but
a wide variety of employees, consultants and vendors. We like BIG TEAMS. We expand
the requirements detail, capture problems and solutions from the field, work
with Vendors and specialty consultants to build a serious roadmap with budgets
and ROI, detailed Change Management and Risk Mitigation Plans, and flesh out
the overall project Plan. To continue the Roadmap analogy, this is that AAA "Triptik"
with some major construction highlighted to avoid and suggested paths to the destination.
With this level of detail we can add in the creation of fit/gaps, vendor
selection, training requirements and more. And depending on the expected timeline,
even create interim solutions.
"And this is where most people stop the process and begin the implementation..."
We disagree with that approach.
--How (what) do we DELIVER?
A unique task we perform is "Strategic Reconciliation"... looking at
all the related opportunities for integration and the creation of other
projects, necessary projects! OR perhaps the termination of some we find that
are now unnecessary. What's so great about this? It's knowledge of the
landscape, the traffic so to speak, and shows the best way to get from HERE to
THERE. Consider this the Web 2.0 version of the Google Maps on your personal
Garmin with options showing the fastest and/or best way to your destination with traffic
and weather avoidance showing up in real time. It of course also shows what
sights to see near the path. Consider these unforeseen opportunities. This plan
will re-route you the best way from wherever you end up for whatever reason.
We welcome you to the Improvizations way. Enjoy the trip.
Jeff Millard has written an introductory white paper on
this subject. Watch this blog over the next few weeks for more.
Well, Kronosworks is almost over. One of the topics I've found most interesting is Kronos' new found interest in the optimization of an implementation. This is so important, I believe, for customers to really get the intended benefit from the system.
I LOVE performing these analysis, process improvement, configuration validation, strategic reconciliation, ROI increasing, best practice implementation audits. They are just plain fun to do. There is no other job in which we can arrive on site and provide so much benefit; so great a return on an organizations investment in just a few days or weeks. And best of all, the entire team is so excited, engaged and committed to success. (I want to thank all of my audit team members as you've been a joy to work with.)
Let's face it, most Kronos implementations are not what they could be. In fact, most large software implementations of any kind are not! We've been doing these sorts of mini projects for years under various names;
- Post Implementation Audit
- Pre Implementation Audit
- Business Process Discovery
- Implementation Optimization
- Implementation Assessment
Whatever you call it, I think of it as simply putting all your Scrabble pieces together in a way they generate the most 'points'. This gets the organization the promised, but probably not delivered ROI for the original purchase, and allows continuous improvement to its use and benefits. I highly recommend everyone consider performing this research internally or with a very experienced consultant. Organizations ALWAYS find that the return on this investment is great.