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.
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 :)
Assertion #8 and #10 are most important and could be refined as: nobody owns the problem, it's diffused across HR (which is split across people analytics, comp, TA, and talent management), Finance, and "the business." That's the supply-side, but there's a demand-side, too; which executive is slamming their fist for better SWP?
Given that it's 2023 and we have seen an explosion in sophistication in technology in the last 20 years, and that SWP isn't new, then there's probably a few possible reasons the for the lack of SWP growth into a new category. It could be because:
1. The tech doesn't exist or isn't advanced enough in to deliver it.
Unlikely, even if you consider HR is and has been the poor cousin in terms of enterprise tech compared to other functions in the enterprise.
2. We (Business, CXO's) don't value it enough.
Entirely possible. Despite the focus on people in business over the last 15 years we are immature when it comes to making the right calls and planning strategically with People as the main lens in business
3. It's bloody hard! Definitely.
As you yourself point out in your post, the world is a volatile place and the best SWP's in the world, even with contingency or disaster planning, cant and don't anticipate global pandemics or global financial meltdowns driven by our friends in the financial markets. The moment these hit, the plans are useless. One day we are all in a panic that certain sills will run dry globally within the next 3 months, the following day the sub prime mortgage scandal breaks, the world implodes and unemployment rockets.
I get the point John is trying to make in his post that you reference, but I feel he oversimplifies the situation and lays the blame too readily at HR's feet. This is not an HR problem, it is a business problem and if there's a strategic planning issue, or even a lack of capability in HR, its because the business - the CEO and his fellow C level execs - don't value the exercise or the function.
I think John's comment - "the primary goal of most workforce plans is to act proactively so that your organization smooths out the talent effects created when you enter a new business cycle." - comes across as out of touch and ignores somewhat the reality of business.
Many organisations don’t plan for cycles simply because they don’t see them, or fail/chose to ignore them. There are many examples of this during the pandemic. The likes of Peloton and Wayfair etc saw huge growth in business and share price during this time and yet not one of their senior team members seemed to understand that this growth was driven by temporary circumstances. Instead they chose to ignore it and simply draw a sales/growth graph that went north. And they are not alone, many organisations, I would argue the majority, do this.
The fish rots from the head. Until this changes, I can’t really see much of a push for SVP. And throwing HR under the bus as John does in his article doesn't help.
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.
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 :)
My two cents as a former HR leader:
Assertion #8 and #10 are most important and could be refined as: nobody owns the problem, it's diffused across HR (which is split across people analytics, comp, TA, and talent management), Finance, and "the business." That's the supply-side, but there's a demand-side, too; which executive is slamming their fist for better SWP?
Assertion #9 rings very true as well.
Given that it's 2023 and we have seen an explosion in sophistication in technology in the last 20 years, and that SWP isn't new, then there's probably a few possible reasons the for the lack of SWP growth into a new category. It could be because:
1. The tech doesn't exist or isn't advanced enough in to deliver it.
Unlikely, even if you consider HR is and has been the poor cousin in terms of enterprise tech compared to other functions in the enterprise.
2. We (Business, CXO's) don't value it enough.
Entirely possible. Despite the focus on people in business over the last 15 years we are immature when it comes to making the right calls and planning strategically with People as the main lens in business
3. It's bloody hard! Definitely.
As you yourself point out in your post, the world is a volatile place and the best SWP's in the world, even with contingency or disaster planning, cant and don't anticipate global pandemics or global financial meltdowns driven by our friends in the financial markets. The moment these hit, the plans are useless. One day we are all in a panic that certain sills will run dry globally within the next 3 months, the following day the sub prime mortgage scandal breaks, the world implodes and unemployment rockets.
I get the point John is trying to make in his post that you reference, but I feel he oversimplifies the situation and lays the blame too readily at HR's feet. This is not an HR problem, it is a business problem and if there's a strategic planning issue, or even a lack of capability in HR, its because the business - the CEO and his fellow C level execs - don't value the exercise or the function.
I think John's comment - "the primary goal of most workforce plans is to act proactively so that your organization smooths out the talent effects created when you enter a new business cycle." - comes across as out of touch and ignores somewhat the reality of business.
Many organisations don’t plan for cycles simply because they don’t see them, or fail/chose to ignore them. There are many examples of this during the pandemic. The likes of Peloton and Wayfair etc saw huge growth in business and share price during this time and yet not one of their senior team members seemed to understand that this growth was driven by temporary circumstances. Instead they chose to ignore it and simply draw a sales/growth graph that went north. And they are not alone, many organisations, I would argue the majority, do this.
The fish rots from the head. Until this changes, I can’t really see much of a push for SVP. And throwing HR under the bus as John does in his article doesn't help.