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.