You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Workforce Performance Management (WPM)’ category.

Ventana Research recently released the results of our Next-Generation Business Planning benchmark research. Business planning encompasses all of the forward-looking activities in which companies routinely engage. The research examined 11 of the most common types of enterprise planning: capital, demand, marketing, project, sales and operations, strategic, supply chain and workforce planning, as well as sales forecasting and corporate and IT budgeting. We also aggregated the results to draw general conclusions.

Planning is the process of creating a detailed formulation of a program of action designed to achieve objectives. People and businesses plan to determine how to succeed in achieving those objectives. Planning also serves to structure the discussion about those objectives and the resources and tactics needed to achieve them. A well-managed planning process should be structured in that it sets measurable objectives and quantifies resources required to achieve them. Budgeting is a type of planning but somewhat different in that is financially focused and is done to impose controls that prevent a company from overspending and therefore failing financially. So while planning and budgeting are similar (and budgeting involves planning), they have different aims. Unlike budgeting, planning emphasizes the things that the various parts of the business focus on, such as units sold, sales calls made, the number and types of employees required or customers served.

Integrating the various business planning activities across a company benefits the senior leadership team, as I have written by enabling them to understand both the operational vr_NGBP_02_integrated_planning_works_betterand the financial consequences of their actions. There are multiple planning efforts under way at any time in a company. These plans typically are stand-alone efforts only indirectly linked to others. To be most effective, however, an individual business unit plan requires direct inputs from other planning efforts. A decade ago I coined the term “integrated business planning” to emphasize the need to use technology to better coordinate the multiple planning efforts of the individual parts of the company. There are good reasons to do this, one of which is accuracy. Our new research reveals that to be accurate, most (77%) planning processes depend to some degree on having access to accurate and timely data from other parts of the organization. For this reason, integrating the various planning processes produces business benefits: In our research two-thirds of companies in which plans are directly linked said that their planning process works well or very well. This compares favorably to 40 percent in those that copy planning data from individual plans to an integrated plan (such as the company budget) and just 25 percent of those that have little or no connection between plans.

Technology has been a major barrier preventing companies from integrating their planning efforts. Until relatively recently, joining the individual detailed plans of various departments and functions into an overall view was difficult because the available software, data and network capabilities were not sufficient to make it feasible and attractive to take this approach. To be sure, over the past decades there has been steady progress in making enterprise systems more accessible to ordinary users. But while dedicated planning software has become easier to use, evidently it’s still not easy enough. The research reveals that across the spectrum of corporate planning activities, three-fourths of organizations use spreadsheets to manage the process. We expect this to change over the next several years as the evolution in information technologies makes dedicated planning software a more compelling choice. One factor will be enhanced ease of use, which will be evident in at least two respects. Software vendors are recognizing that a better user experience can differentiate their product in a market where features and functions are a commodity. Ease of use also will extend to analytics and reporting, making it easier for business users to harness the power of advanced analytics and providing self-service reporting, including support for mobile devices. The other factor will be the ability to make the planning process far more interactive by utilizing in-memory processing to speed calculations. When even complex planning models with large data sets can be run in seconds or less, senior executives and managers will be able to quickly assess the impact of alternative courses of action in terms of their impact on key operating metrics, not just revenue and income. Having the means to engage in a structured conversation with direct reports will help executives be more effective in implementing strategy and managing their organization.

Technology is not the only barrier to better planning. The research demonstrates the importance of management in the process, correlating how well a planning process is managed with its accuracy. The large majority (80%) of companies that manage a planning process well or very well wind up with a plan that is accurate or very accurate. By contrast, just one-fourth of companies that do an adequate job achieve that degree of accuracy and almost none (5%) of those that do it poorly have accurate or very accurate results. Additionally, managing a planning process well requires clear communications. More than three-fourths (76%) of companies in which strategy and objectives related to plans are communicated very well have a process that works very well, while more than half (53%) with poor executive communication wind up with a planning process that performs poorly. And collaboration is essential to a well-functioning planning process. Most (85%) companies that collaborate effectively or very effectively said that their planning process is managed well, while just 11 percent of companies that collaborate only somewhat effectively expressed that opinion.

vr_ngbp_03_collaboration_is_important_for_planningCollaboration is essential because the process of planning in corporations ought to get everyone onto the same page to ensure that activities are coordinated. Companies have multiple objectives for their planning processes. Chief among these is accuracy. But since things don’t always go to plan, companies need to have agility in responding to changes in a timely and coordinated fashion. In a small business, planning can be informal because of the ease of communications between all members and the ease with which plans can be modified in response to changing conditions In larger organizations the planning process becomes increasingly difficult because communications become compartmentalized locally and diffused across the entire enterprise. Setting and to a greater degree changing the company’s course requires coordination to ensure that the actions of one part of the organization complement (or at least don’t impede) the actions of others. Coordination enables understanding of the impact of policies and actions in one part of the company on the rest. Yet only 14 percent of companies are able to accurately measure that impact, and fewer than half (47%) have even a general idea. Integrated business planning address that issue.

In most organizations budgeting and operational planning efforts are only loosely connected. In contrast, next-generation business planning closely integrates unit-level operational plans with financial planning. At the corporate level, it shifts the emphasis from financial budgeting to planning and to performance reviews that integrate operational and financial measures. It uses available information technology to help companies plan faster with less effort while achieving greater accuracy and agility.

For companies to improve competitiveness, their business planning must acquire four characteristics. First, planning must focus on performance, measuring results against both business and financial objectives. Second, it must help executives and managers quickly and intelligently assess all relevant contingencies and trade-offs to support their decisions. Third, it must enable each individual business planning group to work in one central system; this simplifies the integration of their plans into a single view of the company and makes it easy for planners in one part of the business to see what others are projecting. Fourth, it must be efficient in its use of people’s time. Success in business stems more from doing than planning. Efficient use of time enables agility, especially in larger organizations.

Today’s business planning doesn’t completely lack these features, but in practice it falls short – often considerably. Senior executives ought to demand more from the considerable amount of time their organization devotes to creating, reviewing and revising plans. They should have easy access to the full range of plans in their company. They must be able to engage in a structured dialog with direct reports about business plans, contingency plans and business unit performance. Information technology alone will not improve the effectiveness of business planning, but it can facilitate their efforts to realize more value from their planning.

Regards,

Robert Kugel – SVP Research

A company’s enterprise resource planning (ERP) system is one of the pillars of its record-keeping and process management architecture and is central to many of its critical functions. It is the heart of its accounting and financial record-keeping processes. In manufacturing and distribution, ERP manages inventory and some elements of logistics. Companies also may use it to handle core human resources record-keeping and to store product and customer master data. Often, companies bolt other functionality onto the core ERP system or extensively modify it to address limitations in the system. Because of the breadth of its functionality, those unfamiliar with the details of information technology may perceive ERP as a black box that controls just about everything. So it’s not surprising that when a company’s information technology becomes more of an issue than a solution, many assume that the ERP system needs replacing. This may or may not be true, so it’s important for a company to assess its existing ERP system in the context of its business requirements (as they are now and will be in the immediate future) and evaluate options for it.

A common scenario for a company to replace its ERP system is because the business has outgrown (or will soon outgrow) its capacity to handle transaction volumes. Replacement also becomes necessary when the system no long meets business requirements, as, for example, when it is too difficult to configure to specific requirements. This issue might have developed because the company’s business model has changed significantly since purchasing the system or because it had to adjust its go-to-market strategy, added a new product line, expanded geographically or made an acquisition. Another reason to change may be that for a company with an adequate on-premises ERP system migrating to the cloud can eliminate a substantial portion of work done by its IT staff, enabling the department to focus on more strategic efforts, reduce headcount or both. A shift to the cloud also may improve the performance of an ERP system, especially if it’s an on-premises system running on aging hardware and the organization does not have the resources to maintain the system well.

Then, too, there are less obvious reasons that necessitate replacement. ERP systems are inherently complex, as I have noted, because they cross multiple business functions in many types of business, each of which has its own requirements. Seemingly trivial elements, such as the particular sequencing of tasks in a process by an ERP system, may be irrelevant for many businesses but have a negative impact on some. For example, when customer orders are almost always infrequent, it doesn’t matter when in the sequencing of the sales order process the system records the use of credit to confirm that the order can go through. An order must be rejected if adding it to the customer’s outstanding balance will bring the account over its limit. However, if orders occur frequently, the ERP system must execute the credit check at the first step or customers routinely will exceed their credit limits. It’s easy to overlook a detail such as this in the software selection process and even in the initial implementation. If that happens, dealing with the credit limit may require software customization or a process workaround if the root cause is the application itself. However, replacing the existing ERP system often is necessary if there are multiple issues such as these and the overall impact of them is severe enough to be measured by a combination of monetary losses, wasted time, lax controls, an inability to measure performance or limited visibility of information and processes.

At the same time, replacing the ERP system may not be the most cost-effective solution to business issues. To gauge that aspect, an important first step is determining whether the process or data issues identified by users are the result of a poorly executed implementation. Midsize companies in particular don’t always get the most competent consultants to set up their software, especially if the consultant (or the individual running the project) is not familiar with the peculiarities of the company’s industry or its specific operating requirements. Checking in with user group members in a similar business is an easy way to confirm if the issue is systemic or simply a poor job of setting up the software. If, based on feedback from other users, the situation appears dire enough, it may be worthwhile to engage a new consultant to fix the mistakes of the first one.

vr_nextgenworkforce_are_new_applications_neededIn some instances a “bolt-on” application (that is, software designed for easy integration with another, specific application) may be the most cost-effective way of addressing existing shortcomings. This is especially true for companies using a cloud-based system. Most ERP systems have rich functionality for handling core tasks such as accounting, human resources and inventory management. Yet the package a company is using may not have sufficient functionality for a specific process needed to run the business. For example, companies (particularly growing midsize ones) may find that their human resources department needs software to automate recruiting and onboarding of employees and that these capabilities are absent or insufficient in their ERP package. In our benchmark research on workforce management almost half (45%) of companies said they need new applications to address the full range of their human resources management requirements. In other cases, functionality necessary to manage the business may be missing. Companies that have a recurring revenue or subscription business usually find that the ERP system falls short of their requirements for invoicing. Bolt-on applications usually replace spreadsheets, ensuring that data is captured and available in a single controlled system where it can be accessed in an extended process (such as order-to-cash). Replacing desktop spreadsheets can save considerable time by automating tasks and eliminating the need to re-enter data into one or more systems. Having accurate and controlled data makes reports and metrics more reliable. It saves the finance and accounting departments time by eliminating the need to perform periodic reconciliations to ensure the accuracy of the data. Of course, the challenge with any bolt-on is that it is one more piece of software that requires attention, and integration with the core ERP system can pose challenges, especially over the long run.

vr_Office_of_Finance_01_ERP_replacementA company also may believe that it needs a new ERP system in order to consolidate data in a single system to facilitate analysis and reporting. In this instance, however, it may find that an operational data store, which integrates data from multiple sources for additional processing,  will address all or most of its issues, especially if the company uses custom software or some niche application that supports its operations but is unavailable in an ERP system that otherwise meet its needs. A data store may prove to be a more practical choice because it’s much less costly and disruptive than replacing an otherwise well-functioning system. It also can provide flexibility in the longer term. As the company adds new applications, data from this new source can be fed into the operational data store. But be aware of challenges in setting up an operational data store or adding new system data feeds to it, using one usually requires an IT organization with the skills to maintain it over time.

Many companies are loath to replace an otherwise well-functioning ERP system because doing so is expensive and usually disruptive to operations. Also, implementing a new system almost always requires retraining and some adjustments in operating procedures. Our research on the Office of Finance finds that on average companies are keeping their ERP systems one year longer today than they did a decade ago. Deciding whether to replace an ERP system is not always straightforward. The process is made more difficult because today organizations have many more software and data options than they used to. Few companies have the expertise in-house that will enable them to decide the best course of action. There may even be vested interests within the organization that will prevent them from making the best choice. Finding a truly independent advisor that understands both information technology and the specific business requirements can be the best way to sort out the options and help make the difficult technology decisions.

Regards,

Robert Kugel – SVP Research

Twitter Updates

Stats

  • 88,240 hits
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 72 other followers

%d bloggers like this: