Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Gianni Giacomelli's avatar

I have been working on SWP as a "talent supply chain" for some time, because my colleagues and I have a pretty good skill data set. I am a believer - I think the way we do planning should resemble more a supply chain, with scenarios, than today's cottage industry. I am not saying that people are "boxes" that move around, I am just saying that the unit of measure should be skills and/or capabilities, and that should drive planning.

My impression is that your hypotheses are right on the money, and I would add a double click on

(a) data granularity sometime mismatched

(b) need to maintain this as master data in a decentralized way (master data management is a thorny problem in many companies, above and beyond HR data)

(c) HR culturally doesn't do data very well (sorry) compared to other functions, apart from administrative records maintenance

(d) this thing should be incredibly useful to the lines of business, and HR should be a COE the same way the CIO does some data centralization - but I think there's both HR not selling/explaining this well to LoBs and LoBs not being strategic enough for this part of their work (you would hope that after a decade of "war for talent" things would be different, but hey...)

Professional services firms are typically better at it because de facto their product is their people. But not always.

Expand full comment
David Melichar's avatar

Interesting topic. I've never thought of it as a "SWP" but it's definitely something I come across a lot and we try to solve it as well. According to my observations from companies of various sizes I've seen from inside (250+) it seems to me that my experience overlaps with what Gianni writes. It naturally varies according the type of employees and the size of a company.

1. SWP should start from good job description - skills, qualification, ...

2. the demand for future job needs (who we exactly need) is formulated outside HR, by business owners, often by first line managers

3. The quality of the formulation vary, HR is if often just collecting these needs, a lot of important details is "lost in translation" during internal communication

4. There is often a problem even to formulate and structure the job positions itself, the structuring of job descriptions is the next level

5. the less structured JDs you have, the less you can anticipate and plan future job needs. In general it works better in more structured companies with blue-collar workers (e.g.manufacturing), where JDs are more standardized. In less structured and standardized companies with office workers, there is a much harder exercise

6. JDs are usually written as plain text, not structured = thus a much worse input for any strategic planning

7. People and JD are not just numbers = that's why it works in financial planning not in HR

8. SWP we should start from job NEEDS (outcomes > outputs > proceses, activities > skills, qualification, etc), then to match them to to people, job positions.

9. Despite above it can work, but we need three components: App + centralised HR master data (including a inputs for JDs, skills etc.) as a key enablers + company culture that includes a strategic planning with "PDCA" mindset (btw one of the best management principles ever :)

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts