Benefits Realisation

The realisation of the envisaged benefits is vital, and benefits that will be delivered 2, 3 or 12 months after implementation can be lost or are often not tracked and measured properly. This can lead to negative perceptions that the transformation programme has failed. This chapter therefore explains how to:

• Ensure that the HR transformation benefits become an integral part of business as usual by embedding the benefits into operational scorecards and making their achievement an integral part of the business plans and objectives.
• Set targets and implement measures that rigorously assess the delivery of benefits and ensure that they are managed and realised.
• Develop plans that detail the timing and delivery of benefits and a process for monitoring progress against this plan.

The key to sustainable benefits delivery is in three key areas, these are:

1. Measuring benefits
2. Managing benefits
3. Sustaining benefits

Cutover and the Transition to Business as Usual

With the system and processes now tested and accepted by the HR and business user communities, the attention turns to the planning and execution of the cutover to the new system and processes. Whilst there are distinct technology and process facets to this stage, they are more closely interdependent than those in the build and test stage. Indeed, the interdependency with the capabilities work is also critical as these streams of work need to cut over as a coordinated whole rather than as separate entities. Clearly, the technology and processes need to be in place for the transactional responsibility to shift but the new capabilities within the HR function must also be in place if HR is to vacate its transactional role.

From a technology perspective, the main activities are the following:

• to ensure that the live technical environment (hardware, software and network) is ready for the HR system;
• to ensure that the data are ready to be loaded and the mechanism for performing the load, often a combination of automated and manual approaches, is also ready;
• to ensure all users have the means to access the new system;
• to develop the technical cutover plans.

From a process perspective, the main activities are the following:

• The scheduling and delivery of the system and process training. Often the change leaders take a role in this either as trainers themselves or in a 'train the trainer' role.
• Business cutover planning, including planning data reconciliations, system down-time and any parallel running of the old system and new.

Before the live cutover is performed, many programmes opt for an integrated cutover rehearsal that coordinates the whole technology and process cutover and determines how long and in what precise order each element is addressed.

Throughout this stage and towards the latter part of the build and test stage, the hub of the change shifts from something that the programme is 'pushing out' to the organisation to something that the organisation is embracing and 'pulling in'. The increased involvement of the line areas and HR in the programme is a major catalyst in this. This is then consolidated during this stage, as the transition from the programme team to those responsible for supporting the new system and processes is effected. This is an important symbol in the transition to the new 'business as usual' and begins to draw to a close the 'implement change' phase of the change cycle model. How to embed the targets and benefits from the transformation programme into business as usual to ensure that these benefits are realised. However, successfully hitting the transformation targets and delivering benefits is not only dependent on getting these targets incorporated into business plans and business as usual but is also dependent on embedding the technology and processes.

The change readiness and impact assessments will have identified where there is resistance to the new technology and processes and the reasons for this resistance. It is important that during the cutover phase, the programme targets this resistance and produces communications, training and briefings that specifically address the reasons why different groups are resistant to change. For example, managers may resist self-service because they regard capturing and managing sickness absence and leave as an additional overhead and 'HR's job'. The communications should emphasise that self-service will make entering this information easier, as it will go straight into a system rather than on a paper form and once it is entered into the system, managers will be able to view reports that provide quick and instant data on staff attendance, thereby enabling the managers to more easily manage and balance staffing across the different working shifts. The advantages of the self-service system will mean that managers are more likely to adopt the new technology and ways of working.

A useful tool to support adoption and embedding of new technology and ways of working can be the 'Day In the Life Of' tool. This tool involves shadowing key managers for a period of time to understand the pressures they face and what they have to deliver on a day-to-day basis. The data collected during this exercise is then analysed and used to identify how self-service and new ways of working will improve managers' jobs. These improvements can be placed into communications, on the Intranet or presented as scenarios in workshops. This enables managers to better understand how the new processes and technology will work and gives them a reason and incentive to adopt and embed the new ways of working. How to ensure that managers not only adopt the new technology and processes but also continue to work differently and deliver benefits after the programme has been disbanded.

Build and Test | Process and Technology

There are two main alternative approaches to this stage and it is important that you choose the right approach for your circumstances. The first approach is prototyping; that is, the incremental configuration of elements of the systems solution followed by testing with the users followed by further iterations of fine-tuning. This process is repeated for all elements of the systems solution. The second is a full build against a detailed specification or blueprint followed by full system testing.

One advantage with the first approach is that the HR and business users get the opportunity to see and feel HR self-service quite early in the build process. This serves to maintain momentum and enthusiasm and helps to match expectations against system delivery. The main disadvantage with this approach is that it can take longer unless it is tightly managed — the temptation can be to continue with minor refinements rather than to end that element of the solution and move on to the next.

In the case of the second approach, the main advantage is that you have better control of the costs and schedule and at the end of the build you have a more complete solution. But there is less possibility of making changes during the build and after it is delivered any changes will be more expensive. There is a heavy reliance on the quality of the detailed specification that the system configurers are using.

During this stage, there is a greater distinction between the technology- and the process-related activities than during the detailed design stage. Even with the prototyping approach, the system configurers are primarily focused on the technology build and system test activity. The HR and business users, however, should be primarily focused on operating procedure definition, training course preparation, development of user security profiles, test script development and user acceptance testing. The methodology and programme plan provide the means of linking the process and technology (and people) streams here. The interdependencies and 'touch points' are closely aligned through this even though the team members may be working on their own specific tasks.

The change management theme of course continues. The change leaders mobilised during detailed design perform the next iteration of impact and readiness assessments, often at the local functional or site level, and initiate the resulting actions. The change focus should not be restricted to the line areas; HR must be preparing for this change. There is an important link here with the capabilities work, as HR needs to get ready to let go of much of the transactional work and begin to focus on what the business partner role really means and how they will equip themselves for this. An excellent way of bringing this to life is the use of 'conference room pilots' where the business and HR users of Web-based HR technology adopt their new roles in a controlled environment, testing how the new roles, process and system fit together in a simulation of the new environment.

Conference room pilots provide a good example of how wider involvement in the programme activities can be achieved and there is greater opportunity during this stage to use involvement in the programme activities as an action to promote awareness and commitment. Typically, involvement from HR and the business in defining operating procedures, preparing training course material and particularly user acceptance testing, make the programme 'come alive' for many. One area that provides excellent opportunity for involvement but is often neglected is that of data cleansing and preparation. This involves checking the validity of existing data, mapping it to the data required in the new system and creating any additional data fields that are not present in the current systems. Involvement in this can be achieved across all employees in the organisation as they are requested to check and validate their own individual employee record data. This is a very powerful approach to moving the perception of the HR transformation programme from concept to reality.

Impact and Readiness Assessment

The starting point for assessing impact and readiness is that the stakeholder identification and initial impact and assessment have already been completed. The task at this stage is to take the initial analysis down to the next level of detail both in terms of the stakeholder groups themselves, the understanding of the impact on those groups and the levels of resistance-commitment. For example, during initial stakeholder analysis all employees may have been treated as a homogeneous group. This would now be too broad for the differing impacts that they may experience. Therefore, the employee stakeholder group may, in this case, be subdivided into office-based employees and shop floor—based employees in order to take account of the differing impacts of HR self-service technology in their respective areas. The key here is to balance the degree to which stakeholder groups are subdivided. As a rule of thumb, the level of department on a particular site is usually the lowest level of subdivision necessary.

Then for each of the detailed stakeholder groups, the impacts are recorded for each relevant process in terms of change from the 'as is' way of working to the 'to be' way. Clearly, not every process impacts every stakeholder group and the degree of impact differs in each case. From this, a picture of relative impact emerges. Those groups with the greatest impact are often those where most attention must be paid in the change planning that follows.

At this stage, it is also useful to assess the readiness to change for each detailed stakeholder group. This readiness assessment concentrates on the attitude that the detailed stakeholder groups have towards the new processes and systems. There are a number of factors listed here:

1. History of change within the organisation: Has change been managed effectively previously?
2. What is the capacity for change in the organisation? Have major change initiatives been recently completed or are under way?
3. What is the level of awareness of the detailed stakeholder group as to the nature of the change for them?
4. And finally, 'what's in it for me?' On balance, will the detailed stakeholder group view this as a positive or negative change, bearing in mind the nature of the impact on them?

There are a number of approaches to undertaking a readiness assessment, and they are summarised in Figure 1.

Tool	What is it?	How & when to use it?
Questionnaires	A set of questions usually in a tick box format They can be done as paper exercises, by e-mail or via the intranet	They can be sent out to a variety of stakeholders They can be used to gather a lot of information quickly from a large number of people They are often used as the first vehicle to identify areas that need to be probed in more detail
Focus Groups	A workshop with a group of people (5–15) to elicit more detail about why particular issues have been raised	They are usually run either as natural work groups, or as representatives from various stakeholder groups Format and content are changed to suit group characteristics and issue(s) to be discussed They allow the 'why' to be explored in more depth
One-to-One Interviews	A structured interview where individuals are asked a number of questions and answers are recorded and analysed	These are either used to elicit information around sensitive areas or to ascertain how aligned a particular group is around each stage of the project They are often used with leadership and managerial groups

Figure 1: Approaches to readiness assessment.

When using questionnaires or working with focus groups or conducting one-to-one interviews, examples of questions to assess change readiness can include the following:

	Disagree			Agree
Are you aware of which self-service tools will be rolled out to your business unit and which ones you will need to use?	1	2	3	4	5
Do you understand how the self-service tools will work?	1	2	3	4	5
Do you understand your role and responsibilities for using the tools as a manager?	1	2	3	4	5

Useful tool for mapping and redesigning process

A useful tool for mapping and redesigning process is 'brown paper'. An overview is developed in the 'As Is' processes, these are sketched onto large pieces of brown paper, as demonstrated in Figure 1.\

 
Figure 1: Example brown paper.

A workshop is then convened with HR and, where appropriate, representatives from the line where the process is debated and challenged. This also involves identifying for participants the extent to which the proposed HR technology can automate and change different tasks. Attendees at the workshop then redraw the existing process, identifying strengths that they wish to retain and sketching out improvements to the way that participants interact and the way the information flows through the process. A new brown paper is produced from the workshop as demonstrated in Figure 2.

 
Figure 2: Example brown paper.

There are a number of issues that need to be taken into account when building a brown paper:

• Disagreement about how the process is performed is OK. It is probable that different people perform the same process differently; that is, a significant finding. Try to capture both and get agreement on future processes.
• Not knowing the answer to every question is OK. In the process of asking questions needed to identify the flow, it almost always happens that a question will be asked that no one can answer and people can be tasked to get an answer.
• Have specialists on hand who can answer questions about what can and cannot be achieved using the HR system. Participants may come up with solutions that cannot be delivered by technology. It is best that these issues are addressed in the workshop so that participants can design processes that can be delivered and you do not have to ask participants to keep redesigning processes in later workshops. If this is not done, having lots of unanswered questions about what the system can and cannot do, will result in a process that is so high level and has so many questions that it needs more design work after the workshop or further workshops have to be convened.
• Ask for hard copy and complete examples. All key documents should be obtained with 'live' information, if possible. Ask for a printed copy of significant computer screens if the function is 'online' or interactive between the user and system.
• No value judgements (yet). The process of creating the initial brown paper should be a fact-gathering exercise. The evaluation of the information comes later. At this point, all ideas are good ideas.
• Identify one stream of activity and do it start to finish: then integrate other streams with it. Experience has shown that participants may become confused when trying to understand and document several different flows simultaneously. By choosing one and taking it start to finish, similarities and differences can more readily be identified, and the meeting more easily controlled.
• Write explanations directly on the brown paper. The only paper attached to the brown paper should be 'live' documents and their adhesive note critiques.
• Be challenging, do not fall into the trap of merely refining existing processes and responsibilities and essentially promoting the status quo. HR transformation is about shifting from today to tomorrow. Therefore, when reviewing processes, question whether HR should be involved in a task and how that involvement adds value.
• Capture the impact on the line and employees. Where HR is removed from tasks and where the line will use self-service, it is important that this information is captured and detailed. This understanding of how responsibility for process changes is vital for moving to the next stage in the change process, that of determining the impact of the new processes and systems on the organisation and the readiness of the organisation to adopt them.

Overview of the key steps in mapping HR processes

Overview of the key steps in mapping HR processes, summarising key actions and outputs.

Step	Activity	Tools	Output
Define the Target Process	Define key HR activities as processes Prioritise key processes Break processes into manageable chunks Identify and document key process variations Involve subject matter experts	Brainstorming, customer focus groups	Prioritise reengineering efforts
Develop 'As Is' Models	Conduct workflow analysis (who does what when, where, how) and identify handoffs Audit existing constraints in systems (e.g., compatibility, integrity, and consistency of data) Determine problems in current process from customer's and administrator's perspectives Identify key measurement related to process (e.g., cost, quality, time, rework, etc)	Workflow analysis, activity analysis, systems audit, focus groups, interviews	Flow map of existing processes and their performance in terms of cost and quality
Challenge underlying assumptions	Challenge each activity in the current process (why is it done, why is it done there, why is it done then, why does that person do it, why is it done this way etc) Challenge current policies, practices and philosophy Explore alternative delivery methods Cut across functional silos Incorporate and leverage information technology	Visioning, scenario building, brainstorming, critical thinking	Identify opportunities for radical improvement
Develop 'To be' Models — Identifying where and how technology will impact the process	Solicit information from broad base about alternatives Benchmark other companies Integrate separate processes Take detailed design of new information systems Draft new process flow Assess potential impact of new process (cost/benefit, risk etc)	Benchmarking, conflict resolution, issues resolution, simulation, consensus building	Design new processes, select best information technology to support process, determine impact of new processes
Implement, Roll out, Market	Implement incremental approach Conduct pilot testing Implement systems integration Market the programme, create curiosity, implement trial use Offer training to support users Manage resistance Anticipate and address morale problems	Marketing, communication, training, coaching, experimentation	Facilitate the smooth migration to new system and user's acceptance of the new processes
Measure BusinessImpact	Capture business impact of HR processes before and after reengineering Measure business impact, not just budget and milestones in programmes and activities Separate short- from long-term impact	Activity analysis, cost analysis, customer service survey, focus groups	Monitor progress and impact

Figure 1: Source— based on recognised models from a variety of consulting firms. 

Detailed Process and Technology Design

Through envisioning, defining the service-delivery approach and building the business case, the HR transformation solution will have become ever clearer. Careful consideration will have been given to the people, process and technology elements such that the overall solution is one that will deliver the vision and benefits targeted. The first stage of implementation, therefore, is to finalise the design at the detailed level.

Detailed design follows the principles of the systems mindset by considering the multiple linkages between elements of the solution, working from the whole solution to the details of the constituent parts. By utilising this and the target benefits, those charged with developing the detailed process and technology design can begin.

During business case definition, the technology solution that best fits your specific needs will have been identified. The task in detailed design is to specify the configuration of this technology solution right down to the level of the system screens on which the transactions are performed. The main decisions that need to be made at this stage are the following:

1. Which elements of the process will be performed by the system and which elements need to be performed outside of the system?
2. Which data fields must be completed in order for the process to work and which are optional?
3. Can the technology solution be configured to support the new processes without needing to modify the underlying code or programming of the system? Often this is termed the 'vanilla' system. Modification over and above the 'vanilla' system means that additional implementation and maintenance costs will be incurred. If thebusiness benefits can be delivered with the 'vanilla' system then clearly this is the ideal route. If this is not the case then the costs (including maintenance costs) of making the modifications need to be weighed against the reduction in benefits if the modifications are not made.
4. In the case of global or multinational implementations, are there local country or regional differences that need to be addressed? Ideally these should only be local statutory differences as these should already be 'pre-configured' in the technology solution. Any additional differences will need to be developed and maintained separately. In a similar way to the 'vanilla' system debate above, modifying the system for local requirements adds to both the initial implementation and the ongoing maintenance costs.

The decisions around detailed design are usually made in workshops with HR and the line, or by the HR and line representatives on the programme team. Involvement of HR and the line is crucial in this process as it provides both a check that what is being designed is pragmatic and workable and that those who will need to operate the new processes and systems are engaged to promote commitment.

As the detailed design proceeds, where resolution on particular design issues cannot be achieved through the workshops or the programme team, it may be necessary to take some of these decisions to the steering board for direction. This 'design authority' role is one that the steering board should play by exception but it can be critical particularly in providing guidance and direction on the degree of customisation or local variation.

From a process design perspective, the main task at this stage is to map the processes onto a diagram that shows what the system will do and what the responsibility of HR, managers, employees or external agencies will be.

HR Culture

HR transformation requires HR to change its own culture. In this section, we present a model of culture our clients have found helpful (Figure 1) and set out three cultural challenges for HR to address.

 
Figure 1: Culture model. 

We know that you cannot change culture easily and you cannot change culture by running culture change programmes. You need to be clear about the kind of culture you would like to create and how distant this is from your current culture. You also need to be clear about the values and behaviours that will create the desired culture. But you will not achieve culture change by just focusing on behaviour. Culture is the product of the way the organisational system works and therefore we shape culture by focusing on many different levers.

Figure 1 can be broken down into three components.

1. At the right of the model is the experience of culture which ultimately results in performance. A key task here is for HR to define its target culture which should be aligned to the overall business culture; reflect how the HR function will deliver value and which will drive high levels of discretionary effort and engagement from within HR. This task should be addressed at the envisioning phase so that by implementation there are some clarity and commitment to the culture HR is seeking to shape.
2. The middle section sets out how culture is expressed. We hope that this work will build on foundations already laid. For example, we anticipate that HR will be able to work through how organisational values are brought to life through the work of HR. We also expect the HR capability frameworks will reflect the skills and behaviours needed to drive high performance. The areas that may need particular attention are decision-making processes and, what Ed Schein calls, the artefacts — the stories, rules, symbols, climate, etc. that communicate culture. Good examples of work in this area are where:
   • HR teams have communicated the transformation story and the kinds of stories they would like colleagues in the organisation to be telling about HR at work;
   • HR teams have used symbols (like the National Grid capability framework) in order to get the message across;
   • HR teams have changed the rules to make decision making more effective.
   These are just some examples but we hope they illustrate the need for you to be very intentional about how culture is communicated verbally and nonverbally.
3. The left of the model lists the shapers of culture. These reflect the different parts of the organisational system and each of these needs to be aligned with the target culture. So, for example, if the HR leadership does not refer to a new HR capability framework when reviewing performance, identifying development needs or providing coaching, it is unlikely that this capability framework will be embedded.

This is a lot to get right and align and it is unlikely that this will be achieved in one attempt. However, if HR teams are clear about the kind of culture they are seeking to create and take intentional actions to bring this culture to life, the outcome is likely to be a period of fine tuning rather than regular remodelling.

In our discussions with senior practitioners three particular cultural challenges have been highlighted for HR:

• Challenge 1 — To become more client-focused

Client relationship management is one of the core capability areas for HR — this is about working as a trusted advisor: developing and implementing the strategic agenda whilst securing client buy-in and commitment. But there is a dilemma here. Does client-focused mean giving clients exactly what they want? We do not think so. HR functions must learn lessons from external providers and develop a consulting mindset. As consultants we have yet to come across clients who only want us to agree with them. What they really value is opinion, challenge, research, fresh thinking and an approach that gets to grips with their real problems, not just presenting issues. We do not think HR professionals are any different if they are performing effectively. So, this will mean more HR professionals will need to learn to question and challenge what clients are asking for. Although difficult at times, partnership must be built on a relationship where support and challenge are expressed in equal measure.

• Challenge 2 — To articulate a clear value proposition

Linked to the need to be more client-focused, HR professionals must be able to articulate how HR adds value. This means getting better at measuring outcomes and estimating inputs. It means being able to have a sensible discussion about the use of resources and priorities. It also means being able to articulate what will be delivered, by whom, at what cost and when. In this way, the organisation will be able to make better choices and will see the amount of perceived low-value work diminishing.

• Challenge 3 — To market and sell HR better

This challenge is, of course, linked to the previous two. Lawler and Mohrman (2003), in their survey of trends and directions in HR, point out that perceptions of the contribution made by HR are not changing as fast as the actual change on the ground. This is clearly a cause for concern. Part of the problem is that HR professionals have not traditionally thought about how they market and sell themselves. For example, during our client relationship workshops we spend time thinking about HR's value proposition and about the way HR sells itself to the organisation. Generally speaking, this is often the first time HR professionals have thought about themselves from a selling perspective. They are not very good at thinking about their experiences and packaging them in a way that enables clients to see what they are capable of contributing.

The point we make on all HR transformations is that whatever cultural attributes the function wishes to develop, they need to be hard-wired into the other organisational levers — the way you organise, use technology, manage your work processes, lead, develop people and so on.

We want to emphasise the important role that the HR leadership team needs to play throughout the process of HR transformation and have set out below a few of the things that we have found effective HR leadership teams have done well:

• worked collaboratively to create a vision;
• provided strong and visible personal commitment to a transformed HR;
• engaged actively with the implementation process (they have not just delegated and walked away) and put at risk their own personal credibility around delivery;
• seen HR transformation as a process, impacting the whole HR terrain, and been prepared to work through the process with the HR transformation programme team;
• led from the front, taking an active role in influencing and communicating with key business stakeholders and the HR function;
• given time to regular workshops and other interventions throughout the process;
• remained patient — things do not always go to plan — and been prepared to address unexpected challenges;
• used external facilitation and consultancy well — consultants have supported the internal team and have not replaced them;
• acknowledged that members of each team need to work through the implications of change and transition for themselves;
• recognised that they are, themselves, part of the transformation process.

We would like to amplify the last two of the points above. The first point is around the way individuals are supported through transition. We make quite a big deal of this in our capability workshops, and draw heavily on the excellent work of William Bridges (1993) in this area. In providing good change leadership there is a need to help people with endings: to help them to come to terms with the fact that the way things were has gone for good. Some of the things that have been done to help with this include practical actions like changing job titles, working environments and reporting lines. But they also include things like 'end of era' celebrations or the symbolic binning of old material. In helping people with beginnings, things like the capability framework, conferences and symbols (a visual representing the HR capabilities was used very effectively by National Grid) help people to understand the purpose of transformation; engage with the plan to implement it; see a picture of the new world of HR and the part they will play in it. Good change leaders make this happen.

The last bullet point above is really important. A huge amount of credibility is gained when the leadership group themselves acknowledge their need to change and then do something about it. Particularly good examples of this have been when the leadership group has participated in the capability development work-shop and is seen to be working through the issues of behavioural change as much as the rest of the HR team.

We have also seen some very poor things happening during implementation — and often outside the direct control of HR. We hope that you will not identify with these, but some examples are set out as follows:

• The capability development programme was split so that senior people participated in learning groups and the remainder of the function in capability workshops.
• A travel ban was imposed just after learning groups had been set up on a multinational basis — which prevented non-UK participants from attending.
• Participants were made redundant during a workshop.
• An outsourcing solution for transactional and advisory activities was adopted against the will of the broader leadership group.

The reality is that HR leadership matters. If the HR leadership group does not step out with enthusiasm and keep the drumbeat of change pounding, then your best plans will flounder. It can often be a cliché to talk about the need for senior commitment to a change programme. With respect to HR transformation, we can say with a high degree of confidence that this is true, and we hope that in this section we have set out some of the things for the leadership team to focus on.

Review Learning and Build into on Going HR Capability Development

We have already noted how one of our case study organisations has engaged in HR capability development over some years now and has used the experience of each wave to focus development on new requirements that will help the organisation achieve its strategic goals.

Review can take a number of forms and the following have been beneficial:

• Review after each learning intervention — although this is essentially 'in the moment feedback' it allows you to change design to make the learning experience more appropriate to participants.
• More formal review after a phase of development activity — conducting a short review to identify how participants have used the new knowledge in their work and to gather more considered reflections on the learning experience.
• Use of the capability framework to assess shift in capability — typically as part of a more formal development discussion.
• Customer survey — to assess how colleagues in the organisation have experienced HR and whether they are working with HR professionals in different ways.

We believe that irrespective of how you articulate and build HR capability, the most important thing is that developing HR professionals is not ignored or cut short. HR professionals need to know what is expected of them in their transformed roles and they need to be given support to acquire and apply new capabilities.

Invest in HR Capability Development | Excellent Business Partnering

Without investment in ongoing capability development many HR professionals will be left knowing what they need to do differently but without the knowledge and skills to contribute differently.

Where possible, we strongly recommend that HR professionals achieve professional qualifications and accreditation through their relevant professional institute or governing body. This is important in building the credibility of HR, in ensuring professional standards and in developing a community of influential HR professionals. However, the acquisition of a formal professional qualification does not always address sufficiently the full range of capabilities that HR professionals need to acquire to operate as effectivebusiness partners.

A pre requisite must be to include a cost line for capability development in any business case for HR transformation or in the HR budget. There will be a one-off investment needed (particularly in the new capability areas). There will also be an on-going need to invest — to keep stretching people and to bring new joiners up to speed.

So, what are the approaches to capability development? In addition to the 'on-the-job' forms for development there are five main strands to consider:

1. Mandatory workshops
2. Optional workshops
3. Action learning groups
4. Coaching
5. Mentoring
6. Self-managed learning/on-the-job development

We have used combinations of each where we have supported capability development. Below we set out things to consider in broad terms for each strand followed by three case studies showing how organisations have blended these strands.

Mandatory Workshops

Typically workshops are offered to address the three new capability areas — although one of the case study organisations also made organisational design mandatory. These workshops are intended not just to deliver knowledge and skills, but also to deliver three additional benefits to HR:

• Create a common language
• Deliver a consistent approach and tool kit
• Create a network and community amongst HR professionals

In this way, even if some HR professionals have already acquired the requisite capabilities, there are benefits in their participating in mandatory workshops so that the additional benefits set out above are realised across the HR professional community. Additionally, more experienced members of the HR team should be encouraged to share their knowledge and experience.

Optional Workshops

Here, the workshops described above (or slight variations of these) are offered to HR professionals but are not mandatory. In addition, optional workshops have also been offered in areas such as 'Becoming a trusted advisor', 'Influencing skills', 'Facilitation skills' and 'Managing Conflict'.

The main advantage in this approach is that those HR professionals considered to be competent in a capability area need not repeat the training. The benefits of this approach are:

• Training is focused on identified need.
• Overall development costs are reduced (or spent on areas of identified need).
• Individuals considered competent in a particular capability area are motivated to address development gaps rather than attend workshops where they consider themselves skilled.

Action Learning Groups

Action learning groups typically comprise around 6-8 members, supported by an external facilitator, with the aim over time for the group to become self-managing. The approach is based on the group working on real business issues. Learning is achieved at two levels — applying the knowledge and experience of the group to the issue under discussion. Reflecting on the way the group works together as a learning experience in its own right.

This approach to HR capability development is used in two main ways:

1. Each participant brings his or her own 'live' issue or project to address with the group.
2. The group works on a 'live' business issue together over a period of meetings.

The first of these approaches places the onus on the individual to identify an issue and bring it to the group. In our experience, this approach has not always been successful with the main challenges being that people do not prepare sufficiently and they are not skilled in framing a problem or issue in a way the group can engage with quickly. However, where this approach has succeeded it has enabled participants to apply knowledge in the new capability areas very quickly and there is early pay back to the organisation on the investment made in development.

The second approach is more thematic. Some of the learning groups we have supported have tackled more strategic themes, examples being how to increase levels of engagement; the employee of the future; increasing line manager capability in people skills. With this approach, the learning groups decide how to approach the task and, with the support of the facilitator, take 'time outs' to reflect on how the group is working and to think about how to use tools and techniques related to the new capability areas. This approach builds deep bonds between group members and by the end of the process, groups are also self-managing.

In our experience this is a powerful way of learning as it not only engages theory and practice, but also gives organisations an immediate return on their investment. We anticipate that this approach to learning will gain ground in coming years linked also with virtual learning environments.

Coaching

Coaching has its place in the development repertoire and, in our work with organisations, has been used in two ways:

1. In its more conventional sense of an external coach working on a number of coaching objectives with an individual. Typically, this approach has been used with more senior members of the HR leadership team.
2. As part of the action learning group process — where individual coaching sessions are held between learning group meetings with two objectives: First, to help the individual reflect on the experience of the learning group and their contribution. Second, to address individual development goals that are inappropriate to be tackled at a learning group meeting.

This latter approach has been particularly powerful and has enabled individuals to accelerate the application of new capabilities.

Mentoring

Mentoring has been used in two different ways:

• Linking HR professionals with other HR professionals. For example, people who are at 'Mastery' in a given capability area with those who are developing that capability;
• Linking HR professionals with colleagues outside of HR primarily to build their knowledge of the business and to improve the way they influence the organisation.

Where possible, HR mentoring should be integrated into any organisational approach to mentoring.

Self-Managed Learning/On-the-Job Development

Individuals clearly need to take ownership for their development too. Most self-managed learning can be linked to general resources available to the wider management population — whether e-learning resources from business schools, library resources or links to external Web sites such as the CIPD.

On-the-job development can include work shadowing, work placements, project roles, temporary assignments, meeting/workshop facilitation, project team leadership.

In terms of HR partner capability, there is also a challenge to HR professionals to read more broadly — including publications like Financial Times, McKinsey Quarterly, HarvardBusiness Review, Sloan Management Review and The Economist. Each of these brings interesting insights from the world of Consultancy and Academia which HR professionals should be using with internal clients to change the conversations they hold and bring fresh thinking to the table.

In the following we set out three examples of how different organisations have tackled capability development.

---

Case Study — AXA UK

AXA has combined mandatory workshops, optional workshops and self-managed learning.

Mandatory workshops include (but are not limited to) consulting skills and organisational design. These were chosen because organisational design was considered to be a significant gap across the HR community and a strategic skill set. Consulting skills were also a significant gap and there was a strong need to build a common approach in the way HR professionals engaged with business colleagues.

A suite of optional workshops is available to HR professionals to sup-plement the mandatory workshops and to address areas such as project management.

E-learning and other learning resources are available through the organisation's Intranet to address specific individual development needs.

Development plans are agreed and monitored as part of the performance review process.

---

---

Case Study — National Grid

National Grid has engaged in HR capability development over some years now and has completed a number of 'waves' of development. Development has focused mainly on mandatory workshops, action learning groups, coaching and mentoring.

The first wave was to put all HR professionals (irrespective of organisational level) through mandatory workshops in the areas of strategy and change management, client relationship management and project management.

The second wave established action learning groups supported by coaching of learning group participants. These learning groups were thematic and coaching reinforced the learning group experience and addressed individual development needs that were inappropriate to address in a learning group context.

A third wave of development is in progress — partly to bring new joiners up to speed on new capabilities and partly to build HR capability in internally developed change management methodology.

As capability development covered all HR professionals, including the HR leadership team, it proved to be very effective:

• HR leaders were able to contribute their experience to more junior members of the team.
• A common language and tool kit were developed which could be reinforced through the line management structure.

---

---

Case Study — Global Telecoms Business

This organisation decided to roll out mandatory workshops for the bulk of the HR professional community and run learning groups supported by coaching for the HR leadership group.

The mandatory workshops in all three new capability areas (strategy & change management, consulting skills and project management) were extremely successful and went a long way to creating a common language and toolkit. Although the HR leadership team thought they already had the capability covered by mandatory workshops, this was not the case.

In this instance the approach taken to learning groups was for each person to bring along his or her own 'live' issue. We experienced two problems — first, people did not prepare adequately for the learning group, and second, they did not have the requisite knowledge in the new capability areas and more time was spent in covering ground addressed in workshops than on the 'live' issues.

The main learning here was that adopting a dual approach for the HR leadership team/the rest of HR was ineffective as the HR leadership did not have the foundation tools and techniques they thought they had which meant they played 'catch up' and were unable to provide the coaching and support to team members that would have been beneficial.

Whilst aspects of this capability development approach were successful, the dual approach adopted falls into the 'How not to' category and we do not recommend it.