Jive SBS Recent Blog Comments Syndication Feed

RE: Hiring and High Potentials

ondemand@knowledgeinfusion.com — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 10:40:46 GMT

Hi,

I think this blog is spot on. A while back I posted a blog with some tips on how we do recruitment at Atlassian. The approach is very similar with respect to the design which enables us to hire the best engineers.

We think that interviewing is not a HR task, although HR may be involved to ensure things run smoothly. To hire strong candidates, you need to involve your great performers in the. More here

RE: Demanding a Refund on Talent Management

ondemand@knowledgeinfusion.com — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:26:30 GMT

These ring true for me as well. Well designed and implemented tools can help....but the hard work involves "blocking and tackling" the fundamentals.

RE: Demanding a Refund on Talent Management

ondemand@knowledgeinfusion.com — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:19:29 GMT

Great post Suzanne. Thanks for sharing your perspective and the 10 reasons why Talent Management strategies fail by Chris Watkins. I cannot agree more with your comments and the 10 reasons, especially the first five. I have worked with many clients of recent who are set against going to the business to get business leader input on what Talent Management means to the business. We clearly advise that the only way to be successful is engaging with the business in developing the strategy and some HR professionals continue to say "The buisness believes it HR's job to develop the strategy, not the buisness".

What can we do differently to ensure HR doesn't continue to think the business should not be involved in the development of the Talent Management strategy?

RE: KI Friday Factoid 01/22/10: What Can HCM Software Vendors Learn From Target?

ondemand@knowledgeinfusion.com — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:54:36 GMT

Thanks for your comment Scott. I agree. Web 2.0 is offering vendors more flexibility in making their applications habitable by humans. Vendors that embrace the consumer-web are heading in the right direction.

RE: KI Friday Factoid 01/22/10: What Can HCM Software Vendors Learn From Target?

scott.lietzke@workday.com — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 22:49:35 GMT

Here, here, Andy.

Usable is such a critical word in this discussion, and I love your correlation between Target’s design-delivery philosophy for consumer products and the need for a change in philosophy for business applications. Traditional business applications were designed primarily for data capture and retention—usability, or even being useful for the end-user, was not even an afterthought. Today, however, two important things are true: the consumer Web has changed user expectations for the simplicity, flexibility, and usefulness of applications AND business applications are increasingly tailored to meet the needs of every employee in the business, not just the back office.

Today when we build new applications, we have the opportunity to apply the best consumer design patterns. We can optimize our interaction and visual design for established ‘surfing’ behaviors. The result for Workday is that our customers are able to deliver more relevant information to their workforce and distribute to employees the responsibility of completing HR tasks and operations through our Manager and Employee Experience. Continuous attention to design, usability, and utility—with EVERY user-type in mind—leads to higher adoption, more effective user sessions, and ultimately a more accurate system-of-record for our customers.

If you’re interested in hearing/seeing more about it, check out:

http://blogs.workday.com/Blog/The_Details_are_Never_Far_Away.html

RE: The Corporate Lattice

ondemand@knowledgeinfusion.com — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:30:45 GMT

Great new site guys.

I like the lattice idea too, although there are some major challenges in culture and reward (breaking or at least reducing the link to hierarchy) to make it work well.

Re people moving on: I've often thought (and blogged: http://strategic-hcm.blogspot.com/2008/10/career-partnership.html) that a true sign of a talent focused organisation would be one that actually encourages a high performing employee to leave at the most appropriate point, in order to come back even more talented later on.

RE: Bill Kutik Radio Show - End of Year 2009

john@yahoo.com — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:17:29 GMT

Great listen. Would be valuable to have you comment at the end of each one of the guest's on the show's statements. Almost like a response from one side of the political aisle. Keep up the good work.

RE: The Importance of Integrity

ondemand@knowledgeinfusion.com — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:54:45 GMT

Speaking as a vendor, I think this is truly the *only* approach that should be taken. Then again, it doesn't matter the industry, we all know what sales representatives are like: whether it's a good fit or not, they just want to meet their quota so their manager isn't breathing down their back. So it doesn't surprise me that sales representatives love to have a consultant scapegoat handy for when things don't play out the way they'd like.

In any case, on the vendor side, it comes back to knowing what clients benefit most from your product. Everyone in the HR space likes to think their platform or software can handle any organization's needs, but is that truly the case? From my experience, I definitely have worked with clients who really understood my product and could take full advantage of everything I can offer with it. In other cases, it was an un-ending struggle to explain to the client that our solution did not work exactly like some other product it was clear they wished they had purchased.

I can only echo Michael and say that vendors do need to have these kind of strategic partnerships. Vendors can benefit from third-party expertise, and can begin to focus on the client base that can get the most value from their products.

RE: The Importance of Integrity

ondemand@knowledgeinfusion.com — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:40:11 GMT

I think the message here is that the vendors are overlooking the fact that consulting companies such as KI are working on behalf of both parties. Their unbiased approach puts the right company with the right vendor. They should be grateful that a consulting firm is working with the client to set their expectations, define their requirements, help redesign business processes to work with the available technology, etc. If a client makes a bad decision, the vendor loses just as much as the client does.

It's the vendors that understand this that will get my business, not the vendor who will do anything to force their product on me without having any idea whether or not they can meet my requirements. KI's approach is the only approach that can achieve win-win-win.

My advice to vendors...start getting to know KI, build the relationship, and play by the rules, because the more they know your product and company, the better they can match you with the right client.

Thanks Jason & Co....

Michael Peterman

Four Seasons Hotels, LTD

RE: The Importance of Integrity

ondemand@knowledgeinfusion.com — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:22:45 GMT

Well, I'm surprised clients are so ignorant of it. That situation is the reverse of the HR Technology Conference, where many vendors are so used to "pay for play" that they insist on getting to speak if they agree to exhibit. We patiently explain that though the Conference Board and others may run their meetings that way, we don't. We separate Church and State: Vendors don't have to exhibit to present; and exhibiting offers no guarantee of presenting.

Unfortunately from a vendor's point of view, "pay for play" is a good deal -- a guarantee of ROI -- both in conferences and consulting. The difference is, as always, you want to change the world, and I'm happy to have my small part of it be different and better. Good luck to you.