ideal vendor relationship report

KEY INTERVALF I I I S L A l l E l l

The IdealVendor Relationship

© KeyInterval Research | keyinterval.com | Page 1

Ideal Tech Vendor Relationship

About KeyInterval Research

KeyInterval is a practitioner centric market research firm. We survey practitioners in HR and Recruiting to discover what their work with technology is like. We work at the intersection of HR and Technology. We use a blend of quantitative and qualitative research to see beyond the more traditional vendor centric view.

The company is driven by the curiosities of its founders, William Tincup and John Sumser. Our goal is to provide practitioners with a clear view of what actually happens when their peers and colleagues go to work.

We help practitioners understand what is working in the day to day business of HR. We do this by investigating the realities of work in the HR practitioners’ world. We make maps that help practitioners to work more effectively and vendors to supply better technology.

As long term participants in the HR ecosystem, we’ve heard a lot of stories about how things work or don’t. We’ve originated, repeated, recycled, learned and catalogued much of the folk wisdom that passes for rational thought in HR. We are pretty sure that the realities of HR work are substantially different from the ways they are portrayed.

We want to discover what is true and accurate. We want to separate that from wishful thinking. We are mapping the realities of our industry. We will have better questions and better answers as time goes on.

The explosion of technology makes it possible to replace anecdote with fact. Our work combines quantitative research (surveys) with qualitative (interviews and focus groups). The big vision is to replace fiction with fact and to sharpen the things that are true.

How to Contact Us

Web: keyinterval.com Phone: 415.683.0775 Twitter: @keyintervalR

William Tincup: Principal Analyst @williamtincup [email protected] +1.469.371.7050

John Sumser: Principal Analyst @johnsumser [email protected] +1.415.683.0775

Copyright 2015 by KeyInterval Research, all rights reserved. You many not copy, duplicate, or share this report with anyone, ever. No, not even a teensy-weensy part of it. If you do, bad things will happen and all your hair will fall out. Well, maybe not that last bit. Really, this is proprietary and protected by copyright. So don’t copy or share. Love, Legal.


About Keyinterval Research

Keyinterval is a practitioner centric market research firm. We survey practitioners in HR and Recruiting todiscover what their work with technology is like. We work at the intersection of HR and Technology. We use ablend of quantitative and qualitative research to see beyond the more traditional vendor centric view.The company is driven by the curiosities of its founders, William Tincup and John Sumser. Our goal is toprovide practitioners with a clear view of what actually happens when their peers and colleagues go to work.We help practitioners understand what is working in the day to day business of HR. We do this byinvestigating the realities of work in the HR practitioners' world. We make maps that help practitioners to workmore effectively and vendors to supply better technology.As long term participants in the HR ecosystem, we've heard a lot of stories about how things work or don't.We've originated, repeated, recycled, learned and catalogued much of the folk wisdom that passes for rationalthought in HR. We are pretty sure that the realities of HR work are substantially different from the ways theyare portrayed.We want to discover what is true and accurate. We want to separate that from wishful thinking. We aremapping the realities of our industry. We will have better questions and better answers as time goes on.The explosion of technology makes it possible to replace anecdote with fact. Our work combines quantitativeresearch (surveys) with qualitative (interviews and focus groups). The big vision is to replace fiction with factand to sharpen the things that are true.

0 © Keyinterval Research I keyinterval.com I Page 1

H o w to Contact Us

Web: keyintervaLcomPhone: 415.683.0775Twitter: @keyintervaIRWilliam Tincup: Principal Analyst

wiffiamtincupwiffiamOkeyintervaLcom+1.469.371.7050

John Sumser: Principal AnalystOjohnsumserjohnOkeyintervaLcom+1.415.683.0775

Copyright 2015 by Keyinterval Research, all rightsreserved. You many not copy, duplicate, or sharethis report with anyone, ever. No, not even a teensy-weensy part of it. If you do, bad things will happenand all your hair will fall out. Well, maybe not thatlast bit. Really, this is proprietary and protected bycopyright. So don't copy or share. Love, Legal.

http://keyinterval.com

http://www.keyinterval.com/practitioners/

http://www.keyinterval.com/vendors/

https://twitter.com/keyintervalR

https://twitter.com/williamtincup

mailto:william%40keyinterval.com?subject=

https://twitter.com/JohnSumser

mailto:john%40keyinterval.com?subject=



Table of Contents

About KeyInterval Research 1

How to Contact Us 1

Introduction 3

Pocket Guide 7

The Software LifeCycle 9

Discoveries 12

Survey Factoids 12Myth: Everyone Hates Their HR Software (and the People Who Provide it) 15Myth: Software Doesn’t Do What It is Supposed to Do 17Myth: What Matters Most to the Customer is Schedule and Budget 18

Findings 19

Types of Relationships 19The Evaluation Process 22The Administrative Layer 25Relationships and Contracts: The SaaS Era Has Arrived 29Communication is the Key to Success 32

Cases: The Leading Edge 35

Overview 35Chris Salles: Reimagining Human Capital at Guitar Center 37Shawn Wiora: Vendor Integration as Developer Retention Strategy 41Marvin Smith Building Talent Communities Over Time 44A Cautionary Tale 47

Notable Vendors 49

Overview 49Notable for Their Role in Evaluation 50Notable for Quality Relationships 51Notable for Integrity: Software Delivers as Advertised 52Notable for Their Administrative Layer 53Notable for Their Training 54Notable for Implementation 55

Conclusion 56

Acknowledgements 56

Methodology 57

What We Mapped 57Our Curiosities 60Survey Demographics 62Research Calendar 64


About KeyInterval Research 1 Notable Vendors 49How to Contact Us 1 Overview 49Introduction 3 Notable for Their Role in Evaluation 50Pocket Guide 7 Notable for Quality Relationships 51

The Software LifeCycle 9 Notable for Integrity: Software Delivers as Advertised 52Notable for Their Administrative Layer 53Discoveries 12Notable for Their Training 54

Survey Factoids 12Notable for Implementation 55

Myth: Everyone Hates Their HR Software (and the People Who Provide it) 15 Conclusion 56Myth: Software Doesn't Do What It is Supposed to Do 17Myth: What Matters Most to the Customer is Schedule and Budget 18 Acknowledgements 56Findings 19 Methodology 57Types of Reiationships 19 What We Mapped 57The Evaluation Process 22 Our Curiosities 60The Administrative Layer 25 Survey Demographics 62Relationships and Contracts: The SaaS Era Has Arrived 29 Research Calendar 64Communication is the Key to Success 32Cases: The Leading Edge 35Overview 35Chris Salles: Reimagining Human Capital at Guitar Center 37Shawn Wiora: Vendor Integration as Developer Retention Strategy 41Marvin Smith Building Talent Communities Over Time 44A Cautionary Tale 47

Table of Contents





Introduction

In his legendary Ted video, author, psychologist and Harvard professor Shawn Achor says,

“Sooneoftheveryfirstthingsweteachpeopleineconomicsandstatisticsandbusinessandpsychologycoursesishow,inastatisticallyvalidway,doweeliminatetheweirdos.Howdoweeliminatetheoutlierssowecanfindthelineofbestfit?WhichisfantasticifI’mtryingtofindouthowmanyAdviltheaveragepersonshouldbetaking--two.ButifI’minterestedinpotential,ifI’minterestedinyourpotential,orforhappinessorproductivityorenergyorcreativity,whatwe’redoingiswe’recreatingthecultoftheaveragewithscience.”

While we are interested in average and best fit, the real objective is to illuminate possibility: to increase choices for HR practitioners. Doing so requires that we blend quantitative and qualitative research methods. This report provides both.

We begin with an exploration of the issues and dynamics that affect and drive the relationship between vendor and practitioner in HRTechnology. Generally, we are examining relationships that center on software technology. We are trying to keep room for hardware, hardware related concerns, communications technologies, and organizations that straddle the definition of service and service provider.

This is the start of a large project that tries to define optimal relationship forms. In other words, we think that there are at least three ways to optimize the relationship. Less clear, but important to understand, are the ways to have the relationship run very ineffectively. We hope to be able to identify those circumstances in a way that allows a practitioner to recognize and correct.

It’s a complex arena that feels both simple and unfamiliar to the human beings who inhabit it.

While it seems easy to separate individuals from the organizations they belong to on both the customer and vendor sides, it is not always an accurate reflection of reality. On one level, a vendor’s sales and support teams are composed of unique individuals who act on their own volition. On another (and simultaneous) level, they are simply representatives of their home organization. The same is true of practitioners. They are at once individuals and representatives of their home culture. In both cases, ‘representatives of their home organization’ is a term of art that understates the importance of membership within groups inside of home territory.

Each organization, vendor and customer alike, are dynamic settings with internal and external motivations that have nothing to do with the relationship, but drive it nonetheless.

“Our real objective is to illuminate possibility and increase the spectrum of choice for the HR practitioners of the world.”

Ideal Tech Vendor RelationshipIntroductionIn his legendary Ted video, author, psychologist and Harvard professor Shawn Achor says,

"So one of the very first things we teach people in economics and statistics and business and psychologycourses is how, in a statistically valid way, do we eliminate the weirdos. How do we eliminate the outliers sowe can find the line of best fit? Which is fantastic if I'm trying to find out how many Advil the average personshould be taking -- two. But if I'm interested in potential, if I'm interested in your potential, or for happiness orproductivity or energy or creativity what we're doing is we're creating the cult of the average with science."

While we are interested in average and best fit, the real objective is to illuminate possibility: to increasechoices for HR practitioners. Doing so requires that we blend quantitative and qualitative research methods.This report provides both.We begin with an exploration of the issues and dynamics that affect and drive the relationship betweenvendor and practitioner in HRTechnology. Generally, we are examining relationships that center on softwaretechnology. We are trying to keep room for hardware, hardware related concerns, communicationstechnologies, and organizations that straddle the definition of service and service provider.This is the start of a large project that tries to define optimal relationship forms. In other words, we think thatthere are at least three ways to optimize the relationship. Less clear, but important to understand, are the waysto have the relationship run very ineffectively. We hope to be able to identify those circumstances in a way thatallows a practitioner to recognize and correct.It's a complex arena that feels both simple and unfamiliar to the human beings who inhabit it.While it seems easy to separate individuals from the organizations they belong to on both the customer andvendor sides, it is not always an accurate reflection of reality. On one level, a vendor's sales and supportteams are composed of unique individuals who act on their own volition. On another (and simultaneous)level, they are simply representatives of their home organization. The same is true of practitioners. They areat once individuals and representatives of their home culture. In both cases, 'representatives of their homeorganization' is a term of art that understates the importance of membership within groups inside of hometerritory.Each organization, vendor and customer alike, are dynamic settings with internal and external motivations thathave nothing to do with the relationship, but drive it nonetheless.

0 © Keyinterval Research I keyinterval.com I Pa g 3

• to Our real objectiveis to Illuminate possiblillyand Increase thespectrum of choice forthe HR practitioners ofthe world, 11


http://www.ted.com/talks/shawn_achor_the_happy_secret_to_better_work



The vendor sits in the midst of ecosystems of partners, suppliers, and support organizations. The simple act of making something happen often involves elaborate choreography among competing parts of the vendor system.

The customer, in all of its complexity, is also enmeshed in a sea of mission-centric relationships. Practitioners may seem aligned from the vendors’ perspective, while in fact, they are at odds with each other over internal questions. With so much complexity, it is delightful when something actually gets done.

Yet, there is still more fundamental complexity.

The product itself is some sort of technology that helps the customer execute some of the HR workload. We decided to use the word product to describe the core deliverable in the vendor practitioner relationship. The term suggests something more finite than software. We will take a closer look at the nature of the product (software) in further research.

Each technology has a series of Life-Cycle Elements that require differing expertise on both sides of the relationship. The Evaluation (purchasing/selling) team is rarely the same group responsible for Implementation. Neither of those two groups does the long term Operations/Support for the Implementation. While some of support is concerned with refining the delivery of new customer requirements, the support teams are rarely the people who renegotiate the contract.

There is a chapter that describes the elements of a technology product Life-Cycle. As our research expands, we are going to examine the various ways that practitioners and their organizations manage and fund those elements. We look at the meanings and boundaries of Evaluation, Administration, Implementation, Training, Adoption, Operations/Support, Product, and the Overall Relationship. Each element has cost, schedule, quality, integration and execution implications.

Scale is also an important aspect to consider.

Our research covers HR entities regardless of size. The respondents come from all imaginable kinds and sizes of HR operations. That gives us the ability to distill insight about practitioner behavior based on organization size. We’ve included that data where it is interesting or appropriate.

“Each organization, vendor and customer alike, are dynamic settings with internal and external motivations that have nothing to do with the relationship but drive it nonetheless.”


The vendor sits in the midst of ecosystems of partners, suppliers, and support organizations. The simple actof making something happen often involves elaborate choreography among competing parts of the vendorsystem.The customer, in all of its complexity, is also enmeshed in a sea of mission-centric relationships. Practitionersmay seem aligned from the vendors' perspective, while in fact, they are at odds with each other over internalquestions. With so much complexity, it is delightful when something actually gets done.Yet, there is still more fundamental complexity.The product itself is some sort of technology that helps the customer execute some of the HR workload. Wedecided to use the word product to describe the core deliverable in the vendor practitioner relationship. Theterm suggests something more finite than software. We will take a closer look at the nature of the product(software) in further research.Each technology has a series of Life-Cycle Elements that require differing expertise on both sides of therelationship. The Evaluation (purchasing/selling) team is rarely the same group responsible for Implementation.Neither of those two groups does the long term Operations/Support for the Implementation. While some ofsupport is concerned with refining the delivery of new customer requirements, the support teams are rarely thepeople who renegotiate the contract.There is a chapter that describes the elements of a technology product Life-Cycle. As our research expands,we are going to examine the various ways that practitioners and their organizations manage and fund thoseelements. We look at the meanings and boundaries of Evaluation, Administration, Implementation, Training,Adoption, Operations/Support, Product, and the Overall Relationship. Each element has cost, schedule, quality,integration and execution implications.Scale is also an important aspect to consider.Our research covers HR entities regardless of size. The respondents come from all imaginable kinds and sizesof HR operations. That gives us the ability to distill insight about practitioner behavior based on organizationsize. We've included that data where it is interesting or appropriate.


61 ach organization)vendor and customeralike) are dynamicsellings with internal and Iexternal motivations thathave nothing to do withthe relationship but driveit nonetheless,: I




Size matters. The HR and HR Technology practices of a 10 person Silicon Valley startup do not have much to do with those of a 100,000 person retail operation. Our approach is to ask them all the same questions and see where the responses fall. We want to see differences and similarities along the scale dimension.

Also, there is no standard form of HR. In an organization, HR is always an expression of the values and requirements of that organization. Only in the case of legislative and regulatory mandates is HR somehow distinct from the company.

There are few HR operational imperatives and even fewer HR elements that are absolutely necessary for a functioning organization. Each organizational need can be met with a variety of alternatives that range from outsourcing to crowdsourcing within the company.

Practitioners routinely navigate the distance between what other companies do and what is right for their company. Further, the HR practitioner operates without the benefit of engineering or accounting standards.

That makes it very difficult to develop technology that fits any particular client like a glove. Much of HR Technology is like a rack suit from a generic men’s store. The expense of tailored solutions makes it impossible to deliver perfect solutions.

The HR Practitioner routinely makes up the difference between the capacity of the technology and the needs of the organization. This is one of the principles that define the various forms of optimal relationship that a practitioner and her team can have with a vendor and its team.

As the 21st century opens, HR departments are dealing with a new reality. In order to accomplish their missions, they have to engage in a complex web of relationships. Using a combination of insourcing and outsourcing is the only way to get the actual work done.

That means the HR Department increasingly looks like a purchasing department with a specific set of subject matter expertise. No HR Department will ever hang on to methods and practices that can be better executed elsewhere for less. So, HR is getting increasingly good at managing vendors and other relationships that cause work to be done by people who are not direct members of the HR Team (Employees).

While this is particularly true in HR Technology (no HR Department is going to spend much time generating its own operational software), it is also the case in the non-technical aspects of the department. Outsourced

“The HR practitioner routinely makes up the difference between the capacity of the technology and the needs of the organization.”


Size matters. The HR and HR Technology practices of a 10 person Silicon Valley startup do not have much todo with those of a 100,000 person retail operation. Our approach is to ask them all the same questions and seewhere the responses fall. We want to see differences and similarities along the scale dimension.Also, there is no standard form of HR. In an organization, HR is always an expression of the values andrequirements of that organization. Only in the case of legislative and regulatory mandates is HR somehowdistinct from the company.There are few HR operational imperatives and even fewer HR elements that are absolutely necessary for afunctioning organization. Each organizational need can be met with a variety of alternatives that range fromoutsourcing to crowdsourcing within the company.Practitioners routinely navigate the distance between what other companies do and what is right for theircompany. Further, the HR practitioner operates without the benefit of engineering or accounting standards.That makes it very difficult to develop technology that fits any particular client like a glove. Much of HRTechnology is like a rack suit from a generic men's store. The expense of tailored solutions makes it impossibleto deliver perfect solutions.The HR Practitioner routinely makes up the difference between the capacity of the technology andthe needs of the organization. This is one of the principles that define the various forms of optimalrelationship that a practitioner and her team can have with a vendor and its team.As the 21st century opens, HR departments are dealing with a new reality. In order to accomplish theirmissions, they have to engage in a complex web of relationships. Using a combination of insourcing andoutsourcing is the only way to get the actual work done.That means the HR Department increasingly looks like a purchasing department with a specific set of subjectmatter expertise. No HR Department will ever hang on to methods and practices that can be better executedelsewhere for less. So, HR is getting increasingly good at managing vendors and other relationships that causework to be done by people who are not direct members of the HR Team (Employees).While this is particularly true in HR Technology (no HR Department is going to spend much time generatingits own operational software), it is also the case in the non-technical aspects of the department. Outsourced

0 © Keyinterval Research I keyinterval.com I Pay 5

• I he HR practitionerroutinely makesup the differencebetween the capacilyof the technologyand the needs of theorganization,




call centers, benefits support, workforce support, training, recruiting, staffing, assessments and contingent workforce management schemes are all a part of the day to day world of HR. Today’s HR Department manages a range of entities from complex technical vendors to individual contract workers.

The phenomena is hardly the exclusive property of the Human Resources Department. Enterprise management in the 21st century is less and less about managing the insides of an organization. The story that is emerging is one in which the job of the enterprise is to manage the ecosystem of entities that make up its supply chain, workforce, prospective workforce, customers, investors, and community.

In each case, the relationships vary widely at the structural level of things. Disparate relationship forms range from direct employees and vendors to crowdsourced contingent workers that replace a department. Outsourcing can be done through a specialized vendor or as a crowdsourced activity through a bulk provider of contractors. The ultimate alignment of these complex interests results in growth, profitability, and sustainability for everyone.

The HR professional associations have done little to prepare their members for this reality. Yet, that future is here. Today’s work world requires that HR Departments accomplish their work through outside people and tools. It is particularly the case in HRTechnology.

In this piece of research, we have begun our investigation into the range of possible relationships an HR Department can have with its technical vendors. Each relationship requires the Department to make a decision about how and whether to optimize. In some cases, it’s useful to have a passive relationship that simply trusts results. In others, a heavy investment of time and energy is required to build and maintain strategic advantage.

These ideas are useful and transferrable to the non-technical segment of HR’s work. The art and science of managing non-employee entities (suppliers, contingent workers, on-demand workforces) might vary in complexity between technical and non-technical environments. We doubt that the variance is substantial enough to make it a separate issue.

“Today’s work world requires that HR Departments accomplish their work through outside people and tools.”


call centers, benefits support, workforce support, training, recruiting, staffing, assessments and contingentworkforce management schemes are all a part of the day to day world of HR. Today's HR Department managesa range of entities from complex technical vendors to individual contract workers.The phenomena is hardly the exclusive property of the Human Resources Department. Enterprise managementin the 21st century is less and less about managing the insides of an organization. The story that is emergingis one in which the job of the enterprise is to manage the ecosystem of entities that make up its supply chain,workforce, prospective workforce, customers, investors, and community.In each case, the relationships vary widely at the structural level of things. Disparate relationship formsrange from direct employees and vendors to crowdsourced contingent workers that replace a department.Outsourcing can be done through a specialized vendor or as a crowdsourced activity through a bulk provider ofcontractors. The ultimate alignment of these complex interests results in growth, profitability, and sustainabilityfor everyone.The HR professional associations have done little to prepare their members for this reality. Yet, that future ishere. Today's work world requires that HR Departments accomplish their work through outside people andtools. It is particularly the case in HRTechnology.In this piece of research, we have begun our investigation into the range of possible relationships an HRDepartment can have with its technical vendors. Each relationship requires the Department to make a decisionabout how and whether to optimize. In some cases, it's useful to have a passive relationship that simply trustsresults. In others, a heavy investment of time and energy is required to build and maintain strategic advantage.These ideas are useful and transferrable to the non-technical segment of HR's work. The art and scienceof managing non-employee entities (suppliers, contingent workers, on-demand workforces) might vary incomplexity between technical and non-technical environments. We doubt that the variance is substantialenough to make it a separate issue.


• ( loday's workworld requires that / /RDepartments accomplishtheir work throughoutside people andtools, I I




Pocket Guide

At the heart of this report are ten ideas:

1. The Software LifeCycle Drives Relationships

Software is over 50 years old. Our proprietary model of the Software LifeCycle has eight elements. They are the outline for our examination the relationship between a vendor and a practitioner organization. We use the model to examine work styles and behavior as it applies to each element. HR Departments are sophisticated in the ways that they manage the differing elements of the Software LifeCycle.

2. We Are Already In The HR SaaS Economy

Software as a Service (SaaS) is the predominant model for HR software delivery. While there is a profound debate about whether SaaS is one thing or another, the commercial aspects of the SaaS world are already installed. 87% of software contracts are written for a three-year period or less. Some 60% of responding companies have terminated an HRTech vendor for cause. The SaaS world, which favors performance over an old boy network, is a new and permanent fixture.

3. The Administrative Layer Produces Significant ValueVendor and practitioner organizations intersect at each of the eight elements of the Software LifeCycle. Relationship continuity and value emerge from the Administrative layer more consistently than the others. This is somewhat counterintuitive. Most vendors make some form of claim about reducing the amount of Admin. Hyper-optimized, high performing relationships involve a kind of blending between the management teams of both organizations.

4. Well Executed Vendor-Practitioner Relationships Can Produce Better Results Than Either Party Could By ThemselvesA tiny fraction of vendor-practitioner relationships produce extraordinary levels of excellence and return. The practitioners who know how to use these models are setting standards for the next generation of management.

5. The HRTech Vendor-Practitioner Relationship is in Great ShapeThroughout this report, you will see that we were surprised, repeatedly, by the health of the vendor-practitioner relationship. Only a small fraction of practitioners are dissatisfied with their HRTech tools.

Ideal Tech Vendor RelationshipPocket GuideAt the heart of this report are ten ideas:1. The Software LifeCycle Drives Relationships

Software is over 50 years old. Our proprietary model of the Software LifeCycle has eight elements. Theyare the outline for our examination the relationship between a vendor and a practitioner organization. Weuse the model to examine work styles and behavior as it applies to each element. HR Departments aresophisticated in the ways that they manage the differing elements of the Software LifeCycle.

2. We Are Already In The HR SaaS EconomySoftware as a Service (SaaS) is the predominant model for HR software delivery. While there is a profounddebate about whether SaaS is one thing or another, the commercial aspects of the SaaS world are alreadyinstalled. 87% of software contracts are written for a three-year period or less. Some 60% of respondingcompanies have terminated an HRTech vendor for cause. The SaaS world, which favors performance overan old boy network, is a new and permanent fixture.

3. The Administrative Layer Produces Significant ValueVendor and practitioner organizations intersect at each of the eight elements of the Software LifeCycle.Relationship continuity and value emerge from the Administrative layer more consistently than the others.This is somewhat counterintuitive. Most vendors make some form of claim about reducing the amount ofAdmin. Hyper-optimized, high performing relationships involve a kind of blending between the managementteams of both organizations.

4. Well Executed Vendor-Practitioner Relationships Can Produce Better Results Than Either PartyCould By ThemselvesA tiny fraction of vendor-practitioner relationships produce extraordinary levels of excellence and return.The practitioners who know how to use these models are setting standards for the next generation ofmanagement.

5. The HRTech Vendor-Practitioner Relationship is in Great ShapeThroughout this report, you will see that we were surprised, repeatedly, by the health of the vendor-practitioner relationship. Only a small fraction of practitioners are dissatisfied with their HRTech tools.





6. Communications is the Key to Successful Long Term Vendor-Practitioner RelationshipsIn a variety of questions across the Software LifeCycle, we asked about the power of clear relationships. While we expected to discover acrimony, we found collegial relationships. The best single predictor of relationship health was how long one side took to answer the other’s questions.

7. Practitioners Believe That User Satisfaction Is The Name of The GameMore than cost, schedule, or completion of problem tickets, the practitioner is looking for an outcome that pleases the users of the system. This is somewhat opposed to the dynamics that drive valuation of vendor equities. While vendors are anxious to minimize deployment times, value for practitioners comes from the success of individual users.

8. There are Inconsistencies in the Goals and Realities of the RFP ProcessIn theory, the RFP Process levels the playing field and allows the practitioner to purchase by making a solid ‘apples to apples’ comparison. The data suggests that deep vendor involvement is required in the Evaluation process. Few companies have the resources to involve multiple vendors as deeply as required. This implies that the RFP process is usually biased towards a single vendor.

9. There is a Disconnect Between HR Leadership and PractitionersThe most glaring example is that 85% of senior management (CHRO, SVP, VP) believe that everyone involved in a contract should understand it. That same group believes that only a small percentage actually understand the contract.

10. There is a Deep Structural Need for Training and Certification in Vendor/Ecosystem Management

The business of effectively managing the activities of the various non-employee sources of value appears to have some standards. We were unable to unearth well defined strategies for managing these relationships.


6. Communications is the Key to Successful Long Term Vendor-Practitioner RelationshipsIn a variety of questions across the Software LifeCycle, we asked about the power of clear relationships.While we expected to discover acrimony, we found collegial relationships. The best single predictor ofrelationship health was how long one side took to answer the other's questions.

7. Practitioners Believe That User Satisfaction Is The Name of The GameMore than cost, schedule, or completion of problem tickets, the practitioner is looking for an outcome thatpleases the users of the system. This is somewhat opposed to the dynamics that drive valuation of vendorequities. While vendors are anxious to minimize deployment times, value for practitioners comes from thesuccess of individual users.

8. There are Inconsistencies in the Goals and Realities of the RFP ProcessIn theory, the RFP Process levels the playing field and allows the practitioner to purchase by making asolid 'apples to apples' comparison. The data suggests that deep vendor involvement is required in theEvaluation process. Few companies have the resources to involve multiple vendors as deeply as required.This implies that the RFP process is usually biased towards a single vendor.

9. There is a Disconnect Between HA Leadership and PractitionersThe most glaring example is that 85% of senior management (CHRO, SVP, VP) believe that everyoneinvolved in a contract should understand it. That same group believes that only a small percentage actuallyunderstand the contract.

10. There is a Deep Structural Need for Training and Certification in Vendor/EcosystemManagementThe business of effectively managing the activities of the various non-employee sources of valueappears to have some standards. We were unable to unearth well defined strategies for managing theserelationships.





The Software LifeCycle

The management and use of HR technology is a complex process that includes 8 clear and distinct elements.

In general, each element requires a different set of skills to manage and optimize. Think of these as the facets of the long term relationship between vendor and practitioner.

Relatively little attention has been paid to the overall implications of the intersection of technology and the organization. This is the beginning of a model that we intend to perfect throughout our research. In this first survey, the Software Life-Cycle is used to structure the survey questions.

We believe that the Software Life-Cycle will provide a solid foundation for richer Total Cost of Ownership calculations. It should also create a framework for a better understanding of the actual cost and value created by new technology.

In the long haul, coherent evaluation, implementation, use, and management of a technical product will be guided and informed by the model.

Ideal Tech Vendor RelationshipThe Software LifeCycle

Product

0

Operation/Support


Elements of the Software Life-Cycle

T h e management and use of HRtechnology is a complex process thatincludes 8 clear and distinct elements.

In general, each element requires a differentset of skills to manage and optimize. Thinkof these as the facets of the long termrelationship between vendor and practitioner.

Relatively little attention has been paid tothe overall implications of the intersectionof technology and the organization. This isthe beginning of a model that we intend toperfect throughout our research. In this firstsurvey, the Software Life-Cycle is used tostructure the survey questions.

We believe that the Software Life-Cycle willprovide a solid foundation for richer TotalCost of Ownership calculations. It should alsocreate a framework for a better understandingof the actual cost and value created by newtechnology.

In the long haul, coherent evaluation,implementation, use, and management of atechnical product will be guided and informedby the model.




These are the element definitions we used in this survey:

• EvaluationThe period an organization is considering alternative HR software solutions is called Evaluation. Evaluation can include identifying the need for HR software, trying the software, reviewing the software, making suggestions on software functions, recommending software, attending software demos, doing research on HR software, comparing software vendors, and socializing with prospective vendors. Evaluation also may include any of these elements as a part of considering to purchase more functionality from a current vendor.

• AdministrationThroughout the life of a relationship with an HR software vendor, there are a number of ongoing administrative tasks. Administration is any activity that is not directly related to the work performed with the software. It includes project management, planning, budgeting, purchasing, processing change orders, and progress reviews. Administration also includes all of the things required to own, rent and/or operate the software that do not result in actual productive output.

Administration is very important and facilitates the actual work. Once an HR software vendor is chosen, Administration begins. It includes all contracting activities from purchasing and negotiation, contract renewal, and termination.

• ImplementationOnce the initial purchasing process is completed and the contract is awarded, Implementation begins. Implementation is the process during which the software is installed, activated, and tailored to the organization’s needs. Implementation includes all of the activities associated with making the software usable by the organization.

• TrainingTraining includes all of the activities required to teach users of HR software how to use, operate, maintain, administer, or otherwise exercise the software. Training can be delivered in classrooms, through webinars, through manuals, on the phone, or on conference calls.

“Evaluation can include identifying the need for HR software, trying and reviewing it, recommending software, and socializing with prospective vendors.”


These are the element definitions we used in this survey:EvaluationThe period an organization is considering alternative HR software solutions is called Evaluation. Evaluationcan include identifying the need for HR software, trying the software, reviewing the software, makingsuggestions on software functions, recommending software, attending software demos, doing researchon HR software, comparing software vendors, and socializing with prospective vendors. Evaluation alsomay include any of these elements as a part of considering to purchase more functionality from a currentvendor.AdministrationThroughout the life of a relationship with an HR software vendor, there are a number of ongoingadministrative tasks. Administration is any activity that is not directly related to the work performed with thesoftware. It includes project management, planning, budgeting, purchasing, processing change orders, andprogress reviews. Administration also includes all of the things required to own, rent and/or operate thesoftware that do not result in actual productive output.Administration is very important and facilitates the actual work. Once an HR software vendor is chosen,Administration begins. It includes all contracting activities from purchasing and negotiation, contractrenewal, and termination.ImplementationOnce the initial purchasing process is completed and the contract is awarded, Implementation begins.Implementation is the process during which the software is installed, activated, and tailored to theorganization's needs. Implementation includes all of the activities associated with making the softwareusable by the organization.TrainingTraining includes all of the activities required to teach users of HR software how to use, operate, maintain,administer, or otherwise exercise the software. Training can be delivered in classrooms, through webinars,through manuals, on the phone, or on conference calls.


valuation caninclude identiMng theneed for / /R so are,trying and reviewing Itirecommending so are,and sodalizing withprospective vendors, I I




• AdoptionAdoption is the degree to which HR software is used by the workforce. It is the time period during which the software becomes fully operational. Adoption takes time beyond the formal stages of Implementation and Training. For a new tool or toolset to become tightly integrated into an organization’s operational culture, nuanced changes in workflow need to settle in.

• Operations (Support)Operation is the ongoing usage and maintenance of the software. This is where the relationship with the vendor meets its biggest test. Once the milestones of Implementation and Training are complete, articulating the proper level of support and interaction is a challenge that takes time to understand. This is complicated by the decreasing incentive for the vendor to be involved.

• Overall RelationshipThe Overall Relationship is the texture and tone of relations between vendor and practitioner throughout the Software Life-Cycle. The degree to which both the vendor and practitioner management teams are essential to the relationship health is hard to overstate.

• Product Product refers to the software and whatever data is required to make it work. For the purposes of this view, the Ecosystem that extends and completes the vendor’s product is also included in the term Product. The successful management of the vendor ecosystem is a challenge defined by the vendor that must be met by the practitioner.

One of the reasons we steered clear of specific product and/or supplier evaluations is that no two companies serve these eight elements in exactly the same way. Each vendor has a view of the perfect customer and organizes its services to meet that need.

This model demonstrates and reinforces the importance of having the right people with the right expertise managing specific intersections with the vendor (and vice versa). The smaller the customer and the smaller the vendor, the less likely that these functions are mature.

“For a new tool or toolset to become tightly integrated into an organization’s operational culture, nuanced workflow changes need to settle in.”


AdoptionAdoption is the degree to which HR software is used by the workforce. It is the time period during whichthe software becomes fully operational. Adoption takes time beyond the formal stages of Implementationand Training. For a new tool or toolset to become tightly integrated into an organization's operationalculture, nuanced changes in workflow need to settle in.Operations (Support)Operation is the ongoing usage and maintenance of the software. This is where the relationship withthe vendor meets its biggest test. Once the milestones of Implementation and Training are complete,articulating the proper level of support and interaction is a challenge that takes time to understand. This iscomplicated by the decreasing incentive for the vendor to be involved.Overall RelationshipThe Overall Relationship is the texture and tone of relations between vendor and practitioner throughoutthe Software Life-Cycle. The degree to which both the vendor and practitioner management teams areessential to the relationship health is hard to overstate.ProductProduct refers to the software and whatever data is required to make it work. For the purposes of this view,the Ecosystem that extends and completes the vendor's product is also included in the term Product. Thesuccessful management of the vendor ecosystem is a challenge defined by the vendor that must be met bythe practitioner.

One of the reasons we steered clear of specific product and/or supplier evaluations is that no two companiesserve these eight elements in exactly the same way. Each vendor has a view of the perfect customer andorganizes its services to meet that need.This model demonstrates and reinforces the importance of having the right people with the right expertisemanaging specific intersections with the vendor (and vice versa). The smaller the customer and the smaller thevendor, the less likely that these functions are mature.


• •For a new toolor too/set to becometightly integrated into anorganization's operationalculture, nuancedwor/qclow changes needto settle in




Discoveries

Survey Factoids � An effective Technology Evaluation requires more than a little vendor involvement (91%).

� Company has a specific process for evaluating HR Software vendors (63%).

� Evaluation is either very important or essential to a successful relationship (87%).

� Different people manage different aspects of the Software LifeCycle (76%).

� Company uses a single point of contact for vendor communications (53%).

� Software contracts have a mean length of 2.5 years. Vendor-client relationships last about a year longer.

� 77% believe that everyone involved in a contract should understand it. Only 26% believe that most or all actually do understand the contract.

� Company does not renew contracts with a vendor with whom they have a bad relationship (68%).

� Administration is very or extremely important to the success of the long term relationship (90%).

� 87% of Software contracts are 3 years long or less. Relationships are generally a year to 18 months older than the contract.

� Communication is the most important thing in Implementation. Change Management is second. Training is third.

� Vendor participation is very or extremely important in Implementation (87%).

� Company does not use vendor help during Implementation (24%).

� Software vendors should be involved in implementation a lot or constantly (51%).

� The most important metric in Implementation is User satisfaction (41%). Budget is second (27%). Schedule is third (17%).

Demographic Facts (About Responding Practitioners)

• Gender (53% Female, 47% Male)

• Under 40 (52%)

• Married (57%)

• Rough Median Income ($80K)

• Bachelors Degree or Higher (65%)

• Manager, Director, or Above (76%)

• Matrix Organization (27%)

• Attended the HRTechnology conference (35%)

• Does Not subscribe to any HR or Recruiting Publications (45%)

• Company has guidelines for vendor interactions (50%)

Ideal Tech Vendor RelationshipDiscoveriesSurvey Factoids• An effective Technology Evaluation requires more than a little vendor involvement (91%).• Company has a specific process for evaluating HR Software vendors (63%).• Evaluation is either very important or essential to a successful relationship (87%).• Different people manage different aspects of the Software LifeCycle (76%).• Company uses a single point of contact for vendor communications (53%).• Software contracts have a mean length of 2.5 years. Vendor-client relationships last about a year longer.• 77% believe that everyone involved in a contract should understand it. Only 26% believe that most or all

actually do understand the contract.• Company does not renew contracts with a vendor with whom they have a bad relationship (68%).• Administration is very or extremely important to the success of the long term relationship (90%).• 87% of Software contracts are 3 years long or less. Relationships are generally a year to 18 months older

than the contract.• Communication is the most important thing in Implementation. Change Management is second. Training is

third.

• Vendor participation is very or extremely important in Implementation (87%). • Does Not subscribe to any HR or RecruitingPublications (45%)• Company does not use vendor help during Implementation (24%).

• Software vendors should be involved in implementation a lot or constantly (51%).• The most important metric in Implementation is User satisfaction (41%). Budget is second (27%).

Schedule is third (17%).


Demographic Facts (AboutResponding Practitioners)

• Gender (53% Female, 47% Male)

Under 40 (52%)

Married (57%)

• Rough Median Income ($80K)

• Bachelors Degree or Higher (65%)

• Manager, Director, or Above (76%)

• Matrix Organization (27%)

• Attended the HRTechnology conference(35%)

• Company has guidelines for vendorinteractions (50%)




Demographics: Time Allocation at Work

• Time spent working with technology last week (25%)

• Time spent responding to inquiries last week (30%)

• Time spent in meetings last week (21%)

� Implementation is very or extremely important to the success of a long term relationship (88%).

� It matters if the vendor charges extra for training (63%).

� Company pays extra for training on the software they purchase (61%).

� Training is either very or extremely important to the success of a long term relationship with a vendor (77%).

� User adoption is complete when either everyone or the right people are using the software (82%).

� User adoption is either very or extremely important to the successful deployment of software (85%).

� User adoption is either very or extremely important to the long term success of a vendor relationship (76%).

� I have at least a little control over the HR software I use to do my job (76%).

� The most important factor in the long term relationship with a vendor is the time required to get an answer (81%).

� I get software support from Google (33%).

� I get software support by calling the vendor (64%).

� Premium support is a necessary part of a great relationship with a vendor (66%).

� Company measures user satisfaction by talking with users (62%).

� “Acknowledging the problem” and “clear communications” are the key to relationships that prosper when unforeseen things happen (72%).

� Operations (Ongoing Support) is very important to having a great long term relationship (68%).

� I am allowed to deal directly with the vendor. (66%)


• Implementation is very or extremely important to the success of a long term relationship (88%).• I t matters if the vendor charges extra for training (63%).• Company pays extra for training on the software they purchase (61%).• Training is either very or extremely important to the success of a long term relationship with a vendor

(77%).• User adoption is complete when either everyone or the right people are using the software (82%).• User adoption is either very or extremely important to the successful deployment of software (85%).• User adoption is either very or extremely important to the long term success of a vendor relationship

(76%).• I have at least a little control over the HR software I use to do my job (76%).• The most important factor in the long term relationship with a vendor is the time required to get an answer

(81%).• I get software support from Google (33%).• I get software support by calling the vendor (64%).• Premium support is a necessary part of a great relationship with a vendor (66%).• Company measures user satisfaction by talking with users (62%).

"Acknowledging the problem" and "clear communications" are the key to relationships that prosper whenunforeseen things happen (72%).

• Operations (Ongoing Support) is very important to having a great long term relationship (68%).• I am allowed to deal directly with the vendor. (66%)


Demographics: Time Allocation atWork

• Time spent working with technology last week(25%)

• Time spent responding to inquiries last week(30%)

• Time spent in meetings last week (21%)




� The sheer number of users in my company does not affect the quality of our relationship with the vendor (61%).

� I attend user conferences (48%).

� The factors that prevent user conference attendance are Budget (32%), no time (27%), and conference location (31%).

� User conferences are a big educational opportunity (57%).

� I enjoy my relationships with HR Technology Vendors (65%).

� My company has fired an HR Technology Vendor (58%).

� I belong to a Customer Advisory Board - CAB (16%).

� I belong to a CAB to ensure that my company is represented in vendor development plans (60%).

� Email, reminders, and help tickets are the primary tools used to manage vendor accountability.

� Vendor activity and the participation of other users are the most important parts of a successful user community.

� HR software delivers what the vendor promised often or all the time (66%).

� My company owns the data used and generated by our software (65%).

� None of my HR Software is crummy (78%).

� It is not possible to have a good relationship with a vendor who supplies crummy software (80%).

“Vendor activity and the participation of other users are the most important parts of a successful user community.”


✓ The sheer number of users in my company does not affect the quality of our relationship with the vendor(61%).

,/ I attend user conferences (48%).✓ The factors that prevent user conference attendance are Budget (32%), no time (27%), and conference

location (31%).✓ User conferences are a big educational opportunity (57%).✓ I enjoy my relationships with HR Technology Vendors (65%).✓ My company has fired an HR Technology Vendor (58%).✓ I belong to a Customer Advisory Board - CAB (16%).✓ I belong to a CAB to ensure that my company is represented in vendor development plans (60%).✓ Email, reminders, and help tickets are the primary tools used to manage vendor accountability.✓ Vendor activity and the participation of other users are the most important parts of a successful user

community.• HR software delivers what the vendor promised often or all the time (66%).✓ My company owns the data used and generated by our software (65%).✓ None of my HR Software is crummy (78%).✓ I t is not possible to have a good relationship with a vendor who supplies crummy software (80%).


) Vendor activilyand the participationof other users are themost Important partsof a successful usercommunity I I




Myth: Everyone Hates Their HR Software (and the People Who Provide it)

Most practitioners are simply not complaining about the quality of their tools and technologies. The vast majority use the software they are given to get their work accomplished.

We were surprised.

Our working hypothesis was that most HR practitioners disliked the technologies they use each day. Further, we expected harsh responses regarding the ethics and practices of vendors. It seemed perfectly reasonable to believe the folk wisdom: software is crummy and vendors are difficult to trust.

It turns out that neither theory is true.

The idea that software is awful, vendors are crooks, and expectations are never realized is misplaced. The HRTechnology Industry appears to be more than above board and routinely meeting expectations.

Even when people are unhappy with their technologies, they are rarely unhappy with all of them. Only 9% of practitioners believe that more than half their software is ‘crummy.’ The other 13%, who think any of their tools are disappointing or ineffective, limit their concerns to about 30% of what they use.


Myth: Everyone Hates Their HR Software (and the PeopleWho Provide it)

Is Your HR Software Crummy?

Most practitioners are simply not complaining about the quality of their tools and technologies. The vastmajority use the software they are given to get their work accomplished.


W e were surprised.

Our working hypothesis was that most HRpractitioners disliked the technologies theyuse each day. Further, we expected harshresponses regarding the ethics and practicesof vendors. It seemed perfectly reasonable tobelieve the folk wisdom: software is crummyand vendors are difficult to trust.

It turns out that neither theory is true.

The idea that software is awful, vendorsare crooks, and expectations are neverrealized is misplaced. The HRTechnologyIndustry appears to be more than aboveboard and routinely meeting expectations.

Even when people are unhappy with theirtechnologies, they are rarely unhappy withall of them. Only 9% of practitioners believethat more than half their software is 'crummy.'The other 13%, who think any of their toolsare disappointing or ineffective, limit theirconcerns to about 30% of what they use.




The industry analyst echo chamber may be colored by the fact that vendors believe this is what we want to hear. It is easier to discuss improvement than it is to say, “This stuff is kind of okay.”

The reasons for the dissonance between our expectations and the survey realities are not yet clear. We will be doing further research to understand this question.

This view transcends the role respondents play in the hierarchy of their company. CEOs have a slightly

higher belief in the quality of their software. Only 12% think their software is crummy.

Interestingly, 24% of practitioners say that they have no control over the software they use. There is some reason to believe that dissatisfaction is associated with a lack of control.

At the same time, 87% of practitioners say that they enjoy their relationships with HR Tech Vendors.

This is not the story we expected to hear.

As analysts, we spend much of our time in the company of vendors and their teams. Our endeavors to understand what actually happens in the working lives of practitioners feel like a glimpse of sunlight and refreshing cool air.

In the vendor world, the central premise is that software is always in need of improvement. There is so much improvement to do that our interactions are full of discussions of new features, schedules for improvements and repairs, and discussions about the failing of this or that tool.


Do You Enjoy Your Relationships With HR TechVendors?

The industry analyst echo chamber may be colored by the fact that vendors believe this is what we want tohear. It is easier to discuss improvement than it is to say, "This stuff is kind of okay."The reasons for the dissonance between our expectations and the survey realities are not yet clear. We will bedoing further research to understand this question.


T h i s view transcends the rolerespondents play in the hierarchy oftheir company. CEOs have a slightly

higher belief in the quality of their software.Only 12% think their software is crummy.

Interestingly, 24% of practitioners say thatthey have no control over the software theyuse. There is some reason to believe thatdissatisfaction is associated with a lack ofcontrol.

At the same time, 87% of practitioners saythat they enjoy their relationships with HRTech Vendors.

This is not the story we expected to hear.

As analysts, we spend much of our time inthe company of vendors and their teams.Our endeavors to understand what actuallyhappens in the working lives of practitionersfeel like a glimpse of sunlight and refreshingcool air.

In the vendor world, the central premiseis that software is always in need ofimprovement. There is so much improvementto do that our interactions are full ofdiscussions of new features, schedules forimprovements and repairs, and discussionsabout the failing of this or that tool.




Myth: Software Doesn’t Do What It is Supposed to Do

We asked, “ Does your HR Software

deliver what the vendor promised?”

Over 70% said “Often” or “Always,” especially in larger organizations. The disconnect seems to be in small businesses, where the positive response is just over 50%. The general satisfaction of Large and Enterprise sized businesses is especially interesting because that is where software complexity is greatest.

This finding is at odds with the common view that most (or all) customers are dissatisfied with their software purchases. The sense that there is widespread dissatisfaction with technology seems to be a reflection of the sales and development environments where both sellers and buyers are initially focused on problems. But once the software decision is made and the product is being used, companies are happy with their choices.


Nave/ Ortasinnally- • Sommimes alum10% 10% 28% 38%2% 9% 20% 51%1% 8% 21% 50%3% 8% 14% 54%

Myth: Software Doesn't Do What It is Supposed to Do

50'4

50%

40%

30%

10%

• p•50• 51 to 500• 501 to 10K10K+ I

Software Delivers As Promised


1 1Always

18%la%21%20%

W e asked, " Does your HR Softwaredeliver what the vendor promised?"

Over 70% said "Often" or "Always,"especially in larger organizations. Thedisconnect seems to be in small businesses,where the positive response is just over50%. The general satisfaction of Large andEnterprise sized businesses is especiallyinteresting because that is where softwarecomplexity is greatest.

This finding is at odds with the common viewthat most (or all) customers are dissatisfiedwith their software purchases. The sensethat there is widespread dissatisfaction withtechnology seems to be a reflection of thesales and development environments whereboth sellers and buyers are initially focusedon problems. But once the software decisionis made and the product is being used,companies are happy with their choices.




Myth: What Matters Most to the Customer is Schedule and Budget

We asked several questions about Implementation and User Satisfaction in order to determine

the core priorities of practitioners over the Software Life-Cycle. Although the level of sophistication varies wildly, we consistently see that User Satisfaction is the most important criteria for practitioners.

Here is what we learned about which metrics companies care about most and how companies assess user satisfaction.


Myth: What Matters Most to the Customer is Schedule and Budget

User Sol;s0actioo

Budget Actual vs Plan

S•c tuNdule Pallosteeles

Outstanding Ptobicens

Norm of the Above

Other I

Most important implementation Metric

S% 1 0 % I S % 20% 20% 30% 35% SO% 4.Sos


Mallon() WM (Hers

Number Of Conn,Mints

Mtesionfreers,

Interview,

Embetickst Artalytics

W e asked several questionsabout Implementation and UserSatisfaction in order to determine

the core priorities of practitioners over theSoftware Life-Cycle. Although the level ofsophistication varies wildly, we consistentlysee that User Satisfaction is the mostimportant criteria for practitioners.

Here is what we learned about which metricscompanies care about most and howcompanies assess user satisfaction.

Methods For Measuring User Satisfaction

Don't MOOSUP& It

Other 111

0% 1 0 % 2 0 %I

30% 4 0 % 5 0 % 7 0 %




Findings

Types of Relationships

There are three primary types of relationships that a practitioner and a vendor can have: Passive, Responsive,

and Creative. Each category is a spectrum of possibilities from less to more involvement. In many situations, the relationship moves between the types according to the needs of the relationship.

Both practitioner and vendor have a variety of additional interests besides the relationship. That means that each side prioritizes their relationship based on its importance (mission criticality), its risk, and its value. Because vendors depend on volumes of similar relationships, they are generally able to be more flexible in their choice of relationship style.

76% of our respondents tell us that their organization uses different people to manage different parts of the Software Life-Cycle.


FindingsTypes of Relationships

High

LowPassive

Low

Responsive

Possible Types of Relationship


Creative

Return H i g h

There are three primary types ofrelationships that a practitioner and avendor can have: Passive, Responsive,

and Creative. Each category is a spectrum ofpossibilities from less to more involvement.In many situations, the relationship movesbetween the types according to the needs ofthe relationship.

Both practitioner and vendor have a variety ofadditional interests besides the relationship.That means that each side prioritizes theirrelationship based on its importance (missioncriticality), its risk, and its value. Becausevendors depend on volumes of similarrelationships, they are generally able to bemore flexible in their choice of relationshipstyle.

76% of our respondents tell us that theirorganization uses different people to managedifferent parts of the Software Life-Cycle.

Involvem




� A Passive relationship is when the practitioner accepts the software with no requirement for personalization. The buyer accepts the product as is, and uses it without human support. This kind of relationship is more likely to be associated with lower cost, focused purpose technology. Smartphone apps fall easily into this category.

Many precision tools (sales compensation management or case management, for example) require little in the way of a relationship. The customer buys the software, uses it, and both sides live happily ever after with very limited additional interaction.

There are two complementary modes in passive relationships. The most passive mode boils down to never updating the software. It is good enough for the job as is. The more involved variant is when the customer systematically adopts every improvement without question.

The Passive customer model is at the heart of many SaaS company ambitions. Vendors tend to think of this as software that requires no support. Practitioners think of it as ‘software that does what it is supposed to do’. Passive relationships are relationships without much of a relationship.

� A Responsive relationship is rooted in a more contemporary view of what software is. On some level, really great software is a constantly evolving creature that adds capabilities, improvements, and nuance in a routine way. As the software vendor engages more customers in differing settings, its capacity to deliver value grows.

There is a way of thinking about software that views this constant refinement as a positive and powerful part of the relationship. Increased capabilities, generated by the vendor’s learning and design, provide constant fuel for practitioners to improve their work. Responsive relationships can operate in a way that creates anticipation and enthusiasm for upcoming changes.

There is a complimentary perspective as well. Constant change can produce constant irritation. When the vendor’s products are neither mission critical nor high value to a specific customer, an ongoing parade of improvements can seem like a heavy downpour of new work. In this subtype, the practitioner’s goal is to minimize the interruptions by anticipating the workload.

“Responsive relationships can operate in a way that creates anticipation and enthusiasm for upcoming changes.”


,/ A Passive relationship is when the practitioner accepts the software with no requirement forpersonalization. The buyer accepts the product as is, and uses it without human support. This kind ofrelationship is more likely to be associated with lower cost, focused purpose technology. Smartphone appsfall easily into this category.Many precision tools (sales compensation management or case management, for example) require little inthe way of a relationship. The customer buys the software, uses it, and both sides live happily ever afterwith very limited additional interaction.There are two complementary modes in passive relationships. The most passive mode boils down to neverupdating the software. It is good enough for the job as is. The more involved variant is when the customersystematically adopts every improvement without question.The Passive customer model is at the heart of many SaaS company ambitions. Vendors tend to think of thisas software that requires no support. Practitioners think of it as 'software that does what it is supposed todo'. Passive relationships are relationships without much of a relationship.A Responsive relationship is rooted in a more contemporary view of what software is. On some level,really great software is a constantly evolving creature that adds capabilities, improvements, and nuance ina routine way. As the software vendor engages more customers in differing settings, its capacity to delivervalue grows.There is a way of thinking about software that views this constant refinement as a positive and powerfulpart of the relationship. Increased capabilities, generated by the vendor's learning and design, provideconstant fuel for practitioners to improve their work. Responsive relationships can operate in a way thatcreates anticipation and enthusiasm for upcoming changes.There is a complimentary perspective as well. Constant change can produce constant irritation. When thevendor's products are neither mission critical nor high value to a specific customer, an ongoing parade ofimprovements can seem like a heavy downpour of new work. In this subtype, the practitioner's goal is tominimize the interruptions by anticipating the workload.


40 &Responsiverelationships canoperate in a way thatcreates anticipation andenthusiasm for upcomingchanges, I I




Responsive relationships are the required minimum level of engagement when the technology is mission critical, high risk, or high value.

� A Creative relationship requires deeper involvement still. At both ends of its spectrum, the practitioner and vendor have significantly expanded view of each other as individuals and enterprises. The amount of time and resources involved in this form is significantly higher than the other two.

At the least involved end of the Creative spectrum, vendor and practitioner get to know each other better in forums like Customer Advisory Boards. The vendor is searching for new frontiers and practitioner pain points. The practitioner is trying to influence the vendor’s direction in a way that creates value for the organization.

Deeper involvement is a universe of its own. In these relationships (which one vendor estimates as 0.2% of all customers), the two parties share risks in order to achieve an otherwise difficult objective. The practitioner’s organization acts as a testing ground. The vendor’s development resources end up with a specific focus on a specific client.

These more deeply involved relationships are often showcased in joint vendor-practitioner presentations at trade shows. Each of our case studies is an example. This is where most of the real innovation in the HR Technology industry happens.

Reflections:

� It can be useful to reappraise the kind and quality of relationship based on the element of the Software Life-Cycle.

� Much of the actual “Total Cost of Ownership” is determined by the style of the relationship. Greater returns always require more agility, higher levels of risk, and deeper involvement.

� The case studies show how high performance organizations harness their vision to the vendor’s ambition to generate extraordinary value.

“These more deeply involved relationships are where most of the real innovation in the HR Technology industry happens.”


Responsive relationships are the required minimum level of engagement when the technology is missioncritical, high risk, or high value.

• A Creative relationship requires deeper involvement still. At both ends of its spectrum, the practitioner andvendor have significantly expanded view of each other as individuals and enterprises. The amount of timeand resources involved in this form is significantly higher than the other two.At the least involved end of the Creative spectrum, vendor and practitioner get to know each other betterin forums like Customer Advisory Boards. The vendor is searching for new frontiers and practitioner painpoints. The practitioner is trying to influence the vendor's direction in a way that creates value for theorganization.Deeper involvement is a universe of its own. In these relationships (which one vendor estimates as 0.2%of all customers), the two parties share risks in order to achieve an otherwise difficult objective. Thepractitioner's organization acts as a testing ground. The vendor's development resources end up with aspecific focus on a specific client.These more deeply involved relationships are often showcased in joint vendor-practitioner presentations attrade shows. Each of our case studies is an example. This is where most of the real innovation in the HRTechnology industry happens.

Reflections:• I t can be useful to reappraise the kind and quality of relationship based on the element of the Software

Life-Cycle.,/ Much of the actual "Total Cost of Ownership" is determined by the style of the relationship. Greater returns

always require more agility, higher levels of risk, and deeper involvement.• The case studies show how high performance organizations harness their vision to the vendor's ambition

to generate extraordinary value.


01 I hese more deeplyinvolved relationshipsare where most of thereal Innovation in theHR lechnology Industryhappens, I I




The Evaluation ProcessP

urchasing HRTechnology is a complex process. Even the simplest transactions, like downloading smartphone apps,

involve mismatched expectations between buyer and seller. With most technology, it is difficult to determine what the offering actually does until after the purchase.

There is an additional layer of conflict caused by the fact that the HR Department knows its business and the specific problems it is trying to solve. The software suppliers (vendors) posses extraordinary expertise in the specific product area including practical applications, technical, and sometimes, legal requirements. This provides a great opportunity for everyone to benefit. For example, a company knows how to solve its particular payroll problem, while a payroll vendor will always have broader knowledge of the payroll subject matter. The company knows its circumstances and processes better than anyone else, while the vendor is exposed to vastly more cases.

Since the buyer’s goal is always to get the greatest possible value from the purchase, more interaction with the seller during the purchase should increase the value gained by the HR department.

Nearly 90% of respondents agreed that the Evaluation process was critical to great long term relationship with a vendor. Almost 95% said that some or a lot of interaction with the vendor was necessary during Evaluation. The larger the organization, the more net importance is placed on vendor involvement in Evaluation. There is strong agreement that deep vendor involvement is required to conduct an effective Evaluation.


tib 10 11 la Se 51 to 201 to 501 to 1,001 to 2•501 to 5,C01 to moat*2UU b l i t i LOU° 2•SOU b,UU0 11),U1k,7% • 1% 3% 1% 0 %

.[

g% 0%st4 2% I % 3% 1% 0 -4 e% 0%iS% I 3% 10%

•9% 59% IS I % 114% f idr i 155% 70% 44•38% 23% 2% 27% I29% 31% 77% 23% 17°.17

The Evaluation Process

50%

30% • —

201.1

rgalmtlot At All Important.E•tfic•-new hot t I I el mpnrta ni

mmlittellher Important Norunimportofit

'11c-r-li ImportantEt--tentiol

Importance of Evaluation


Nearly 90% of respondents agreed that the Evaluation process was critical to great long termrelationship with a vendor. Almost 95% said that some or a lot of interaction with the vendor was necessaryduring Evaluation. The larger the organization, the more net importance is placed on vendor involvement inEvaluation. There is strong agreement that deep vendor involvement is required to conduct an effectiveEvaluation.

purchasing HRTechnology is a complexprocess. Even the simplest transactions,like downloading smartphone apps,

involve mismatched expectations betweenbuyer and seller. With most technology, itis difficult to determine what the offeringactually does until after the purchase.

There is an additional layer of conflict causedby the fact that the HR Department knows itsbusiness and the specific problems it is tryingto solve. The software suppliers (vendors)posses extraordinary expertise in the specificproduct area including practical applications,technical, and sometimes, legal requirements.This provides a great opportunity foreveryone to benefit. For example, a companyknows how to solve its particular payrollproblem, while a payroll vendor will alwayshave broader knowledge of the payrollsubject matter. The company knows itscircumstances and processes better thananyone else, while the vendor is exposed tovastly more cases.

Since the buyer's goal is always to get thegreatest possible value from the purchase,more interaction with the seller during thepurchase should increase the value gained bythe HR department.




In theory, a competitive bidding process, using a formal Request For Proposal (RFP) ‘levels the playing field’. The idea is to use

competition to acquire the greatest value for the company. By detailing requirements and collecting competing bids, the goal is to find the best possible solution—the right intersection of price and value.

In reality, the purchase and product are complex enough that extensive vendor involvement is required in order to understand what and how to buy. Because practitioner time is limited, and not all vendors can provide deep involvement prior to purchase, the goals of a competitive procurement process and the realities of technology acquisition are at odds with each other.

A member of the HR Advisory Group noted that “there are two kinds of RFPs: those created by a vendor and then modified, and those created by analyst firms and then modified.” The data suggests that a near majority of practitioners believe that deep vendor involvement in the Evaluation is a part of long term success. The largest organizations give it the greatest emphasis. They are the very same organizations with the most stringent acquisition processes.

66% of all respondents told us that their company uses a formal Evaluation process for software vendors. Most practitioners believe that their company has an evaluation procedure for purchasing. While the likelihood that there is an evaluation process increases with the size of the organization, there are interesting variations for companies that have between 2,501 and 5,000 employees. “Using policy to manage complex decision making tends to be overemphasized by smaller operations,” says the CHRO of a very large operation.


To

60%

50%

40%

3071,

ZIT%

1 to 10 11 to 50 51 to 200.—6% 0 %.-9% 1 3 %

L_ A Lot 3514 - -

s-

34ro5014 s r t

I_-

—

Required Vendor Involvement In Evaluation

201 to500

55%

601 to1,0001%6%50%43%


1,00110 2,50110 6.001 to 10,001+2.500 5 .000 10.0000%

45 I 464 531.41514 I 4614 4 r i

3%

3114OCri

166% of all respondents told us that their company uses a formal Evaluation process for softwarevendors. Most practitioners believe that their company has an evaluation procedure for purchasing. While thelikelihood that there is an evaluation process increases with the size of the organization, there are interestingvariations for companies that have between 2,501 and 5,000 employees. "Using policy to manage complexdecision making tends to be overemphasized by smaller operations," says the CHRO of a very large operation.

I n theory, a competitive bidding process,using a formal Request For Proposal (REP)'levels the playing field'. The idea is to use

competition to acquire the greatest valuefor the company. By detailing requirementsand collecting competing bids, the goal isto find the best possible solution—the rightintersection of price and value.

In reality, the purchase and product arecomplex enough that extensive vendorinvolvement is required in order to understandwhat and how to buy. Because practitionertime is limited, and not all vendors canprovide deep involvement prior to purchase,the goals of a competitive procurementprocess and the realities of technologyacquisition are at odds with each other.

A member of the HR Advisory Group notedthat "there are two kinds of RFPs: thosecreated by a vendor and then modified,and those created by analyst firms andthen modified." The data suggests that anear majority of practitioners believe thatdeep vendor involvement in the Evaluationis a part of long term success. The largestorganizations give it the greatest emphasis.They are the very same organizations with themost stringent acquisition processes.




We were very surprised by the sophistication of the HR Technology purchasing process. Our bias emanates from the vendor world, where purchasing looks like the wild west. From that point of view, the most likely customer is someone who is interested in becoming the internal champion for a purchase. That individual should have access to the necessary resources to complete the deal.

The practitioners’ aggregate view is that there is a specific process for evaluating Software purchases. As a result, the interaction with vendors outside of that process seems risky. Practitioners are often stuck in a conundrum: while there is a formal process in place in most organizations, a less formal and deeper interaction is required for a great relationship to emerge.

Interestingly, awareness of the formal process appears to vary with organizational status. Only 41% of “other” (non-leadership) HR Practitioners believed that there was a specific Evaluation process in place.

The takeaway here is that the software procurement process doesn’t exactly work the way it is advertised. The conflict between the needs of a formal process and the need to extract real value from a vendor before the purchase is significant. Sometimes doing the right thing may be seen as a policy violation (see Case Study 4).

This ongoing tension between the people who deal directly with the vendor and the rest of the organization is similar to the tension between field operations and headquarters. The people who work at the edges of the organization often discover commonality with their counterparts in a vendors-customer relationship. Successful navigation of this cross-cultural boundary is a critical element in the development of a successful relationship.

Conclusion: The reality of vendor selection is more complex than a formal RFP process suggests. Balancing the need for insight with the need for decision making rigor requires more resources than the decision usually justifies. The realities are more subtle than a policy can articulate.

Policies that mandate pure rational evaluation and require ‘bias free’ assessments may not be possible or practical. Navigating this territory requires sophistication on the part of practitioners that is not trained, certified or emphasized anywhere in HR Curricula.

“Sometimes, doing the right thing may be seen as a policy violation”


We were very surprised by the sophistication of the HR Technology purchasing process. Our bias emanatesfrom the vendor world, where purchasing looks like the wild west. From that point of view, the most likelycustomer is someone who is interested in becoming the internal champion for a purchase. That individualshould have access to the necessary resources to complete the deal.The practitioners' aggregate view is that there is a specific process for evaluating Software purchases. Asa result, the interaction with vendors outside of that process seems risky. Practitioners are often stuck in aconundrum: while there is a formal process in place in most organizations, a less formal and deeper interactionis required for a great relationship to emerge.Interestingly, awareness of the formal process appears to vary with organizational status. Only 41% of "other"(non-leadership) HR Practitioners believed that there was a specific Evaluation process in place.The takeaway here is that the software procurement process doesn't exactly work the way it is advertised. Theconflict between the needs of a formal process and the need to extract real value from a vendor before thepurchase is significant. Sometimes doing the right thing may be seen as a policy violation (see Case Study 4).This ongoing tension between the people who deal directly with the vendor and the rest of the organizationis similar to the tension between field operations and headquarters. The people who work at the edges of theorganization often discover commonality with their counterparts in a vendors-customer relationship. Successfulnavigation of this cross-cultural boundary is a critical element in the development of a successful relationship.Conclusion: The reality of vendor selection is more complex than a formal RFP process suggests. Balancingthe need for insight with the need for decision making rigor requires more resources than the decision usuallyjustifies. The realities are more subtle than a policy can articulate.Policies that mandate pure rational evaluation and require 'bias free' assessments may not be possibleor practical. Navigating this territory requires sophistication on the part of practitioners that is nottrained, certified or emphasized anywhere in HR Curricula.


Sometimes, doingthe right thing may beseen as a policy violation"




The Administrative LayerA

dministration includes all of those things required to own, rent and/or operate the software that do not result

in actual productive output of the software. Throughout the life of a relationship with an HR software vendor, there are many ongoing administrative tasks including project management, planning, budgeting, purchasing, processing change orders, progress reviews, as well as all contracting activities of purchasing and negotiation, contract renewal, and termination.

Administration is very important and facilitates the actual work. Once an HR software vendor is chosen, Administration begins.

The Administration layer is neglected as a component of the cost of ownership and is rarely studied. But, even the smallest companies recognize that Administration is important to the successful deployment of software. While the administrative layer and its requirements are rarely factored into Evaluation discussions, it is where the real “workability” of any client-practitioner relationship has its home.

This chart examines the importance of administration by company size.


The Administrative LayerImportance of Administration

120%

100%

GO%

40%

20%

0%

•Fi1rurmIy impnitant• Very Irr portant• Less Important


Administration includes all of thosethings required to own, rent and/oroperate the software that do not result

in actual productive output of the software.Throughout the life of a relationship withan HR software vendor, there are manyongoing administrative tasks includingproject management, planning, budgeting,purchasing, processing change orders,progress reviews, as well as all contractingactivities of purchasing and negotiation,contract renewal, and termination.

Administration is very important andfacilitates the actual work. Once an HRsoftware vendor is chosen, Administrationbegins.

The Administration layer is neglected as acomponent of the cost of ownership andis rarely studied. But, even the smallestcompanies recognize that Administrationis important to the successful deploymentof software. While the administrative layerand its requirements are rarely factoredinto Evaluation discussions, it is where thereal "workability'' of any client-practitionerrelationship has its home.

This chart examines the importance ofadministration by company size.




The most obvious component of Administration is managing changes that are corrections, interpretations, improvements, or modifications to the contract. We expected the data to show that the relationship was an adversarial horse-trade. Again, the corridors of the vendor community are a great place to hear horror stories.

What we found instead was a strong emphasis on partnership and a profound willingness to trust the vendor to solve problems. We asked, “How do you handle changes that are not in the contract?”

In rank order, the respondents said:

1. Ask the vendor for an estimate of costs involved.

2. Embed the problem in the contract renewal process.

3. Call in a favor or two from the vendor.

4. Offer to participate in the Customer Advisory Board.

5. Organize other users to demand a change.

6. Use other forms of leverage.

7. Say "We thought we paid for that.”

The top 4 responses accounted for over 90% with a clear majority favoring working things out with the vendor. Each of those responses indicate a core desire to develop a partnership to solve problems. The data shows that HR practitioners treat vendors as partners in the process.

87% of software contracts are 3 years long or shorter. 80% are two years or less. Relationships are generally a year to 18 months older than the contract. There are no significant differences in contract length between various company sizes. It appears to be the case that software contract lengths are standardizing at SaaS durations.

“The data shows that HR practitioners treat vendors as partners in the process.”


The most obvious component of Administration is managing changes that are corrections, interpretations,improvements, or modifications to the contract. We expected the data to show that the relationship was anadversarial horse-trade. Again, the corridors of the vendor community are a great place to hear horror stories.What we found instead was a strong emphasis on partnership and a profound willingness to trust the vendor tosolve problems. We asked, "How do you handle changes that are not in the contract?"In rank order, the respondents said:1. A s k the vendor for an estimate of costs involved.2. Embed the problem in the contract renewal process.3. C a l l in a favor or two from the vendor.4. Offer to participate in the Customer Advisory Board.5. Organize other users to demand a change.6. U s e other forms of leverage.7. S a y "We thought we paid for that."The top 4 responses accounted for over 90% with a clear majority favoring working things out with the vendor.Each of those responses indicate a core desire to develop a partnership to solve problems. The data showsthat HR practitioners treat vendors as partners in the process.87% of software contracts are 3 years long or shorter. 80% are two years or less. Relationships are generallya year to 18 months older than the contract. There are no significant differences in contract length betweenvarious company sizes. It appears to be the case that software contract lengths are standardizing at SaaSdurations.


I he data showsthat HR practitioners treatvendors as partners Inthe process, 1




Software is not forever.

Practitioners operate in an environment where software contracts are short. That means that they are able to leave if their contract is working out, just as the SaaS proponents promised. HR is getting used to faster turnover in vendor relationships.

We asked, “Do you ever renew contracts with a vendor with whom you have a bad relationship?” The answer was a resounding “No,” although it appears that larger companies have a higher tolerance for those bad relationships.

This chart examines the question by company size.


1 oo-A,

00%

70%

6PJ'' a

540!-.3

40%

are

20%

1 Ira

0%

Likely To Renew A Bad Relationship

Ito 10 1 1 to SO 5 1 to 200 2 0 1 to 500 501 to 1,000 1.001 to 2 , 5 0 1 to 5 . 0 0 1 to

• Yes • No


2,500 5.000 1 0 . 0 0 0

Software is not forever.Practitioners operate in an environment wheresoftware contracts are short. That meansthat they are able to leave if their contractis working out, just as the SaaS proponentspromised. HR is getting used to fasterturnover in vendor relationships.

We asked, "Do you ever renew contractswith a vendor with whom you have a badrelationship?" The answer was a resounding"No," although it appears that largercompanies have a higher tolerance for thosebad relationships.

This chart examines the question by companysize.




Shorter contracts and improved data portability have given HR Practitioners the opportunity to assert control over their relationships with providers. This has the effect of increasing the importance and value of administration. Where longer terms contracts have room to maneuver, the shortened span of a SaaS contract makes every minute count.

In some ways, the Administrative layer is the relationship between the two companies. The communications that make things work happen in management meetings and support environments. It is simplest to say that

users access the relationship and not the technology. Whatever is delivered is delivered through the medium of the relationship.

Over the next several years, we are going to see the full emergence of ecosystem management. In cases like the relationship between a business company providing software to another business company, we see a new view emerging.

What a software vendor really manages is a network of relationships. Most companies are becoming like that. When companies manage their networks in a proactive way, new opportunities and circumstances are created.

The HR Department has to be able to move smoothly through software providers in order to navigate today’s HR Tech Software market. The issue is not whether keeping up with technology is a good idea. Instead, it is a question of choosing the areas you want to compete in.

“Shorter contracts and improved data portability have given HR Practitioners the opportunity to assert control over their relationships with providers.”


Shorter contracts and improved data portability have given HR Practitioners the opportunity to assertcontrol over their relationships with providers. This has the effect of increasing the importance and value ofadministration. Where longer terms contracts have room to maneuver, the shortened span of a SaaS contractmakes every minute count.In some ways, the Administrative layer is the relationship between the two companies. The communicationsthat make things work happen in management meetings and support environments. It is simplest to say thatusers access the relationship and not the technology. Whatever is delivered is delivered through the medium ofthe relationship.Over the next several years, we are going to see the full emergence of ecosystem management. In cases likethe relationship between a business company providing software to another business company, we see a newview emerging.What a software vendor really manages is a network of relationships. Most companies are becoming like that.When companies manage their networks in a proactive way, new opportunities and circumstances are created.The HR Department has to be able to move smoothly through software providers in order to navigate today'sHR Tech Software market. The issue is not whether keeping up with technology is a good idea. Instead, it is aquestion of choosing the areas you want to compete in.


Shorter contractsand improved dataportabilly have givenHR Practitioners theopportunily to assertcontrol over theirrelationships withproviders,




Relationships and Contracts: The SaaS Era Has Arrived

The data is stark:

71% of HRTechnology contracts last 2 years or less.

70% of HRTechnology client-vendor relationships are 3 years or less.

While there is a great deal of debate that continues amongst the HRTech intelligentsia about the meaning and merit of ‘true SaaS,’ the fundamental subscription model has taken root. At each step of the process, the relationship lasts longer than the contract by a period of time that looks suspiciously like the courtship (Evaluation) process.

The mean contract length is 2.56 years. The mean length of a relationship is 3.94 years.


Relationships and Contracts: The SaaS Era Has ArrivedRelationship Length vs Contract Length

35% [30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0111110nth tomonth 1 Yeof 3 Yews 3 Years


4105 Yews

1110YoarS

8 to 9Yeats

1001moreYsere

Corltract Length6% 3 3 % 1 32% 1 6 % 2 % 2 % O S — 1 %

I P—"lottelshonship Lenge, 7 % 1 7 % a m I 2os--I 17% 0% 1— 2% 111%

The mean contract length is 2.56 years. The mean length of a relationship is 3.94 years.

T h e data is stark:71% of HRTechnology contracts last 2years or less.

70% of HRTechnology client-vendorrelationships are 3 years or less.

While there is a great deal of debate thatcontinues amongst the HRTech intelligentsiaabout the meaning and merit of 'true SaaS,'the fundamental subscription model hastaken root. At each step of the process, therelationship lasts longer than the contract bya period of time that looks suspiciously likethe courtship (Evaluation) process.




The technical debates about what is and is not “true SaaS” boils down to a discussion of configuration

management. According to Naomi Bloom, veteran industry analyst, a “true SaaS” system is:

“Software is subscribed to customers by the vendor;

Software and data are hosted/operated/managed by the vendor; and — this is critical

Software architecture is multi-tenant with a single code base and data structures, including metadata structures, shared by all customers — a requirement of true SaaS; and

The vendor pushes out multiple, functionally rich, new releases per year on a mostly opt-in basis.”

—What’s True SaaS and Why the Hell

Should Customers Care? by Naomi Bloom, InFullBloom

The core benefit of this approach is a stable and predictable business model. Vendor longevity is secured through a disciplined approach that has as its goal the obliteration of uncontrollable variable costs.


Month tomonth 1 Year 2 Yeats 3 Years 4 to 5

Years6 to 7Years

to 9YCS rs

10 ormoreYear*

6% ; 39% 7 1 % 87% I 97% 9 6 % — 99% 100%7% 24% 5 1 % 1 71% 88% 9 4 % _ 95% 100%

m•Contrect Length

Cumulative Contract Length vs RelationshipLength

100%

90%

80%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

Cr%


Relationship Length

T h e technical debates about what isand is not "true SaaS" boils downto a discussion of configuration

management. According to Naomi Bloom,veteran industry analyst, a "true SaaS"system is:

"Software is subscribed to customers by thevendor;

Software and data are hosted/operated/managed by the vendor; and — this is critical

Software architecture is multi-tenant witha single code base and data structures,including metadata structures, shared by allcustomers — a requirement of true SaaS; and

The vendor pushes out multiple, functionallyrich, new releases per year on a mostly opt-inbasis."

—What's True SaaS and Why the HellShould Customers Care? by Naomi Bloom,InFullBloom

The core benefit of this approach is a stableand predictable business model. Vendorlongevity is secured through a disciplinedapproach that has as its goal the obliterationof uncontrollable variable costs.




In theory, solutions that are hosted and routinely customized create ‘single tenant’ (or one instance per customer)

solutions. Historically, maintaining multiple separate instances of a piece of software is a configuration management nightmare. Enterprises have been brought to their knees as software vendors tried to sort out the differences between various versions of the same piece of software.

The technical debate is highly intellectualized and may or may not have direct impact on operations.

That said, our survey data indicates very clearly that SaaS Subscription style business models have taken root in HRTechnology.

HR is getting used to rapid turnover in suppliers. Practitioners demonstrate the willingness and ability to change suppliers. 68% of respondents said that they will not renew a contract with a bad relationship. 60% of respondents say that their company has terminated an HRTechnology contract for cause. The survey data suggests that HR Practitioners have grasped and are using the software subscription model to create greater accountability in their relationships with vendors.

Conclusion:

Shorter, performance based relationship models are the norm. The benefit is a more rational exchange of value between vendor and customer. The downside is that collaborative development and other models of excellence require a somewhat more forgiving performance environment.


Conclusion:

Renew Contracts With Bad Relationships?

• Yet •No I Moll Know

Shorter, performance based relationship models are the norm. The benefit is a more rational exchange of valuebetween vendor and customer. The downside is that collaborative development and other models of excellencerequire a somewhat more forgiving performance environment.


I n theory, solutions that are hosted androutinely customized create 'singletenant' (or one instance per customer)

solutions. Historically, maintaining multipleseparate instances of a piece of softwareis a configuration management nightmare.Enterprises have been brought to their kneesas software vendors tried to sort out thedifferences between various versions of thesame piece of software.

The technical debate is highly intellectualizedand may or may not have direct impact onoperations.

That said, our survey data indicates veryclearly that SaaS Subscription stylebusiness models have taken root inHRTechnology.

HR is getting used to rapid turnover insuppliers. Practitioners demonstrate thewillingness and ability to change suppliers.68% of respondents said that they will notrenew a contract with a bad relationship.60% of respondents say that theircompany has terminated an HRTechnologycontract for cause. The survey datasuggests that HR Practitioners have graspedand are using the software subscriptionmodel to create greater accountability in theirrelationships with vendors.




Communication is the Key to SuccessW

e were surprised to discover that practitioners value clear communications with a vendor

as both a primary means of ensuring accountability and as an essential component of the entire Software Lifecycle. We expected that detailed accountability through action item lists, open problem tickets, and a clear approach to issue escalation would be the primary methods for managing and dealing with a vendor relationship.

Again, the bias stems from our involvement with the vendor community. What we hear about and witness in vendor interactions is less collegial than the survey data suggests. Our initial assumption was that vendor-practitioner relations are antagonistic. We rarely hear the stories of success in our analyst work.

There are three distinct patterns of communication used by organizations. We asked, “How does your company communicate with vendors? The majority of our respondents use a single point of contact (SPOC). But, 25% have a policy that allows all employees to talk to the vendor. 9% communicate through a third party.


Communication is the Key to SuccessHow Do You Communicate With Vendors?


W e were surprised to discoverthat practitioners value clearcommunications with a vendor

as both a primary means of ensuringaccountability and as an essential componentof the entire Software Lifecycle. We expectedthat detailed accountability through actionitem lists, open problem tickets, and a clearapproach to issue escalation would be theprimary methods for managing and dealingwith a vendor relationship.

Again, the bias stems from our involvementwith the vendor community. What we hearabout and witness in vendor interactions isless collegial than the survey data suggests.Our initial assumption was that vendor-practitioner relations are antagonistic. Werarely hear the stories of success in ouranalyst work.

There are three distinct patterns ofcommunication used by organizations.We asked, "How does your companycommunicate with vendors? The majority ofour respondents use a single point of contact(SPOC). But, 25% have a policy that allowsall employees to talk to the vendor. 9%communicate through a third party.




As company size increases, so does the likelihood that different people manage different aspects of the

software Lifecycle. In smaller companies, it is not uncommon to see the same contact arrangements throughout the life of the relationship. In larger companies, there are experts in each phase of the relationship.

We asked, “Do different people in your organization manage different parts of the software lifecycle?”

The relationship between an HR Technology Vendor and a client can be complex. When the tool transcends functional areas (like Talent Management or Core HRIS systems), the process of managing internal communications can be arduous. As the size of the practitioner’s organization grows, the only way to successfully manage some of the problem is to have multiple players communicating through the SPOC.


>50 51 - 500 501 - 10K 10K+40% 215. 15% 0%WA) tW.4 11,T14 VIII)VI

OD%

8Cr.;i) I

17D5'.

613'.4)

505•L

04.•''.

LTU

01•11• No• yes

Lifecycle Specialization


• A s company size increases, so doesthe likelihood that different peoplemanage different aspects of the

software Lifecycle. In smaller companies, itis not uncommon to see the same contactarrangements throughout the life of therelationship. In larger companies, there areexperts in each phase of the relationship.

We asked, "Do different people in yourorganization manage different parts of thesoftware lifecycle?"

The relationship between an HR TechnologyVendor and a client can be complex.When the tool transcends functional areas(like Talent Management or Core HRISsystems), the process of managing internalcommunications can be arduous. As thesize of the practitioner's organization grows,the only way to successfully manage someof the problem is to have multiple playerscommunicating through the SPOC.




If communications are the critical component in an effective relationship, then what happens when things go sideways is important to understand. We asked, “What makes a great relationship prosper when unforeseen things happen?”

The ranked responses were:

1. Acknowledge The Problem: 23%

2. Clear Communications: 22%

3. Willingness to Take Responsibility: 20%

4. Fix the Problem First, the Contract Second: 20%

5. Avoid Blaming: 14%

There was no interesting variation by company size.

The takeaway here is that great vendor relations have focused, experienced contact points and a collegial approach to problem solving.

Recommendations:

� Ensure that the people who interact with the vendor are trained for their roles.

� Establish target times for responses to questions.

� At routine management meetings, review the status of the communications process.

� Over communicate.

“Great vendor relations have focused, experienced contact points and a collegial approach to problem solving.”


If communications are the critical component in an effective relationship, then what happens when things gosideways is important to understand. We asked, "What makes a great relationship prosper when unforeseenthings happen?"The ranked responses were:1. Acknowledge The Problem: 23%2. Clear Communications: 22%3. Willingness to Take Responsibility: 20%4. F i x the Problem First, the Contract Second: 20%5. Avoid Blaming: 14%There was no interesting variation by company size.The takeaway here is that great vendor relations have focused, experienced contact points and a collegialapproach to problem solving.Recommendations:✓ Ensure that the people who interact with the vendor are trained for their roles.,/ Establish target times for responses to questions.,/ At routine management meetings, review the status of the communications process.✓ Over communicate.


Great vendorrelations have focused,experienced contactpoints and a collegialapproach to problemsolving, I I




Cases: The Leading Edge

OverviewWe do not believe in so called best practices. Standardizing an approach to HR Technology is an effective way to drive an organization away from excellence and towards mediocrity.

Our case studies explore a practitioner’s response to his or her particular organizational circumstances. What they did and how they did it is less important than what they were trying to do and what they learned. We think that the business outcomes are more important than the specific techniques and methods of the particular approach.

Our cases focus on people who do hard things in an innovative way without regard to what the rest of the industry is doing. This is how competitive advantage is created. Being first and leading is what moves the industry forward. Following a template simply generates template results.

Our cases show what it looks like to build a high performance Function that energizes the organization while helping it make more money. “Business outcomes” means “making more money”.

HR tends to focus on cost effectiveness and cost savings. While this is an appropriate strategy when the market is stagnant or collapsing, it is a failure in an up market. For HR and its Technology to be focused on saving money when the organization is expanding is to lose any semblance of strategic relevance.

In each case, a practitioner was focused on doing something that was larger than the vendor’s functionality in two ways. First, the specific tool functions (Payroll, Scheduling, Learning, Recruiting, Talent Community Management) were not quite up to the client’s requirements. Second, the overall project was broader than the vendor’s offering because of the scope of the practitioner’s ambition.

In each case, success requires the combination of vendor and practitioner curiosity and commitment. These are not stories of people who use a specific piece of software to achieve excellence. Instead, they are stories of great practitioners who were fortunate to find vendors who were willing to help them achieve an excellence that exceeded the scope of the vendors’ products.

“Being first and leading is what moves the industry forward; following a template simply generates template results.”

Ideal Tech Vendor RelationshipCases: The Leading EdgeOverviewWe do not believe in so called best practices. Standardizing an approach to HR Technology is an effective wayto drive an organization away from excellence and towards mediocrity.Our case studies explore a practitioner's response to his or her particular organizational circumstances. Whatthey did and how they did it is less important than what they were trying to do and what they learned. We thinkthat the business outcomes are more important than the specific techniques and methods of the particularapproach.Our cases focus on people who do hard things in an innovative way without regard to what the rest of theindustry is doing. This is how competitive advantage is created. Being first and leading is what moves theindustry forward. Following a template simply generates template results.Our cases show what it looks like to build a high performance Function that energizes the organization whilehelping it make more money. "Business outcomes" means "making more money".HR tends to focus on cost effectiveness and cost savings. While this is an appropriate strategy when themarket is stagnant or collapsing, it is a failure in an up market. For HR and its Technology to be focused onsaving money when the organization is expanding is to lose any semblance of strategic relevance.In each case, a practitioner was focused on doing something that was larger than the vendor's functionalityin two ways. First, the specific tool functions (Payroll, Scheduling, Learning, Recruiting, Talent CommunityManagement) were not quite up to the client's requirements. Second, the overall project was broader than thevendor's offering because of the scope of the practitioner's ambition.In each case, success requires the combination of vendor and practitioner curiosity and commitment. Theseare not stories of people who use a specific piece of software to achieve excellence. Instead, they are stories ofgreat practitioners who were fortunate to find vendors who were willing to help them achieve an excellence thatexceeded the scope of the vendors' products.


o &Being first andleading is what movesthe Indust13/ following a templatesimply generatestemplate results, 11




There are three cases and a cautionary tale in this section:

� Marvin Smith, a Recruiting Leader at Lockheed, and how he builds talent communities through deep integration with vendors.

� Chris Salles, the Head of Learning at the Guitar Center, and how he is building a development machine through serial vendor integrations.

� Shawn Wiora, the CIO and CISO at Creative Solutions In HealthCare, and how he builds his development team through deep integrations with HR Tech vendors.

� The cautionary tale describes a career tragedy. The anonymous HR Executive in a bio tech company was eventually fired for his attempts to innovate by integrating tightly with a number of HR Tech vendors.

Rather than providing a cookbook recipe for their accomplishments, we’ve asked these practitioners to offer clear advice on how to approach innovation that can only happen through deep collaboration between the client and the vendor.

The practitioner-vendor relationship approach described in these case studies is an extreme approach. One vendor executive says, “These are the top 0.2% of all customer relationships. People like this take more risk and derive more benefit for their companies than more passive approaches are able to deliver. They invest things that are more important than company funds: curiosity, passion, time, internal resources and the willingness to share risk.”

What’s important in these cases is the relationship that the practitioners are modeling. By tightly coupling their corporate interests with the vendors, they are able to deliver extraordinary value to their organization. The vendor derives similar value.

The cautionary tale shows that there is some risk for the practitioner. If the project is not thoroughly vetted and supported by the client’s management team, a practitioner can be easily damaged. Effective behavior in this arena can be threatening and mistaken for disloyalty.

For the successful practitioner, these sorts of deep involvements with vendors are often career accelerators.

“These practitioners offer clear advice on how to approach innovation that can only happen through deep collaboration between client and vendor.”


There are three cases and a cautionary tale in this section:• Marvin Smith, a Recruiting Leader at Lockheed, and how he builds talent communities through deep

integration with vendors.• Chris Salles, the Head of Learning at the Guitar Center, and how he is building a development machine

through serial vendor integrations.• Shawn Wiora, the CIO and CISO at Creative Solutions In HealthCare, and how he builds his development

team through deep integrations with HR Tech vendors.• The cautionary tale describes a career tragedy. The anonymous HR Executive in a bio tech company was

eventually fired for his attempts to innovate by integrating tightly with a number of HR Tech vendors.Rather than providing a cookbook recipe for their accomplishments, we've asked these practitioners to offerclear advice on how to approach innovation that can only happen through deep collaboration between theclient and the vendor.The practitioner-vendor relationship approach described in these case studies is an extreme approach. Onevendor executive says, "These are the top 0.2% of all customer relationships. People like this take more riskand derive more benefit for their companies than more passive approaches are able to deliver. They investthings that are more important than company funds: curiosity, passion, time, internal resources and thewillingness to share risk."What's important in these cases is the relationship that the practitioners are modeling. By tightly coupling theircorporate interests with the vendors, they are able to deliver extraordinary value to their organization. Thevendor derives similar value.The cautionary tale shows that there is some risk for the practitioner. If the project is not thoroughly vetted andsupported by the client's management team, a practitioner can be easily damaged. Effective behavior in thisarena can be threatening and mistaken for disloyalty.For the successful practitioner, these sorts of deep involvements with vendors are often career accelerators.


, Mese practitionersoiler clear advice onhow to approachInnovation that can onlyhappen through deepcollaboration betweenclient and vendor, f t




Chris Salles: Reimagining Human Capital at Guitar CenterHR Practitioner: Chris Salles Director, eLearning, Guitar Center University

Company: Guitar Center

Project: Building an Employee Development Machine That Drives Revenue

Chris helped integrate scheduling, payroll, and retail traffic data to produce a system that could put the right person in the right place at the right time. The vendor’s tools were important to the integration but the project created something greater than any individual vendor could provide. A large part of the solution involved something that can only be done from within the client. He cracked the motivation and compensation code for getting those right people to take the right shifts. With those pieces in place, it was possible to solve the problems elegantly.

Results:

There were two large elements of the results flow.

1. The changes helped drive profitability. Although it is a challenge to separate these improvements from other factors, the company’s increased sales were attributed in part to this system.

2. It turns out that when the right person is in the right place at the right time, any missed sale is evidence of a training requirement. By getting the staffing problem resolved, Chris laid the foundation for building a training program based on things that employees actually need to know.

Here is a look at the system Chris is building.

“A large part of the solution involved something that can only be done from within the client.”


Chris Sal/es: Reimagining Human Capital at Guitar CenterHR Practitioner: Chris Salles Director, eLearning, Guitar Center UniversityCompany: Guitar CenterProject: Building an Employee Development Machine That Drives RevenueChris helped integrate scheduling, payroll, and retail traffic data to produce a system that could put the rightperson in the right place at the right time. The vendor's tools were important to the integration but the projectcreated something greater than any individual vendor could provide. A large part of the solution involvedsomething that can only be done from within the client. He cracked the motivation and compensation codefor getting those right people to take the right shifts. With those pieces in place, it was possible to solve theproblems elegantly.Results:There were two large elements of the results flow.1. The changes helped drive profitability. Although it is a challenge to separate these improvements from

other factors, the company's increased sales were attributed in part to this system.2. I t turns out that when the right person is in the right place at the right time, any missed sale is evidence

of a training requirement. By getting the staffing problem resolved, Chris laid the foundation for building atraining program based on things that employees actually need to know.

Here is a look at the system Chris is building.


ilpA large part ofthe solution involvedsomething that can onlybe done from within theclient, 11




Next Steps:

Chris moved from a role in Payroll/Scheduling to become the head of eLearning. Capturing the training requirements gives him the capacity to create a fine-tuned set of courses and videos. Once the training function is complete, he plans to turn his attention to recruiting.

In this case, Guitar Center, under Chris’ leadership, is making the interesting claim that it is smarter to improve recruiting after you understand how employee development works. The idea is that you can not understand the raw material you need until you know how it will be harvested.



Recruiting 1Needs

r TrainingRequirements

N e x t Steps:

Chris moved from a role in Payroll/Schedulingto become the head of eLearning. Capturingthe training requirements gives him thecapacity to create a fine-tuned set of coursesand videos. Once the training function iscomplete, he plans to turn his attention torecruiting.

In this case, Guitar Center, under Chris'leadership, is making the interesting claimthat it is smarter to improve recruiting afteryou understand how employee developmentworks. The idea is that you can notunderstand the raw material you need untilyou know how it will be harvested.




Seven Questions:

1. What are the three things you'll never do again as a result of this experience?• I’ll never underestimate how helpful the vendor can be if you just simply ask. • I’ll never again discredit a potential vendor based on first impressions. Go with your gut, but patience is important. • I’ll never do something simply because that’s how it’s always been done. Technology (in HR and otherwise) inherently dictates that you evolve your processes and selection criteria.

2. What was the greatest thing you got from your relationship with vendors? My connections with fellow clients are invaluable. From meeting in-person at global user conferences and regional user groups to participating in the vendor’s online community, to acting as a reference on the vendor’s behalf to serving on the vendor’s advisory board. The people I’ve met help answer product questions, share industry insights, and trigger innovative strategic and futuristic ideas.

3. If you were to tell someone how to get started building a dynamic relationship with a vendor, what would you say? Join in the discussion from every angle. Interact on social platforms (Twitter, LinkedIn, the vendor’s proprietary site, etc.). Attend their user conferences and interact with as many people as possible, both vendor employees and fellow clients. Submit applications to speak at events on behalf of the vendor. If you’ve enjoyed your experience with the vendor, they’re obviously more than happy to have you tell others!

4. Will you try to have the same sort of edgy relationship with a vendor in your next job? I find the best relationships are formed on a foundation of honesty and truth. My tendency in all relationships is to be very candid. The vendors I work with appreciate that candor. And that goes for any vendors in the future too.

“The people I’ve met help answer product questions, share industry insights, and trigger innovative and futuristic ideas.”


Seven Questions:1. What are the three things you'll never do again as a result of this experience?

I'll never underestimate how helpful the vendor can be if you just simply ask.I'll never again discredit a potential vendor based on first impressions. Go with your gut, but patience isimportant.I'll never do something simply because that's how it's always been done. Technology (in HR andotherwise) inherently dictates that you evolve your processes and selection criteria.

2. What was the greatest thing you got from your relationship with vendors?My connections with fellow clients are invaluable. From meeting in-person at global user conferencesand regional user groups to participating in the vendor's online community, to acting as a reference onthe vendor's behalf to serving on the vendor's advisory board. The people I've met help answer productquestions, share industry insights, and trigger innovative strategic and futuristic ideas.

3. I f you were to tell someone how to get started building a dynamic relationship with a vendor, whatwould you say?Join in the discussion from every angle. Interact on social platforms (Twitter, LinkedIn, the vendor'sproprietary site, etc.). Attend their user conferences and interact with as many people as possible, bothvendor employees and fellow clients. Submit applications to speak at events on behalf of the vendor. Ifyou've enjoyed your experience with the vendor, they're obviously more than happy to have you tell others!

4. Will you try to have the same sort of edgy relationship with a vendor in your next job?I find the best relationships are formed on a foundation of honesty and truth. My tendency in allrelationships is to be very candid. The vendors I work with appreciate that candor. And that goes for anyvendors in the future too.


I he people I'vemet help answer productquestions, share IndustryInsights, and triggerInnovative and futuristicideas, 11




5. Why should companies encourage the kind of relationship you developed with the vendor? Every company will tell you that it values all their clients. While that’s true to a certain degree, companies should value its advocates that much more. They're willing not only to actively share their results and experiences with the company, but also take time out of their schedules to share their experiences with others (clients, prospects, etc.).

6. What's the downside in developing complex relationships with vendors? The downside is minimal. Both sides should understand that, in the end, it’s a business relationship. If decisions are made that require parting ways, it’s easier if the relationship is structured as business-first.

7. What's the principle (or two) that makes these sorts of relationships work? Don’t be afraid to speak your mind. Sometimes, it’s just the impetus that the vendor needs. However, remember the Road House rule: Be nice.

“Advocates are willing to actively share their results and experience with the company, and take time to share their experiences with others.”


5. Why should companies encourage the kind of relationship you developed with the vendor?Every company will tell you that it values all their clients. While that's true to a certain degree, companiesshould value its advocates that much more. They're willing not only to actively share their results andexperiences with the company, but also take time out of their schedules to share their experiences withothers (clients, prospects, etc.).

6. What's the downside in developing complex relationships with vendors?The downside is minimal. Both sides should understand that, in the end, it's a business relationship. Ifdecisions are made that require parting ways, it's easier if the relationship is structured as business-first.

7. What's the principle (or two) that makes these sorts of relationships work?Don't be afraid to speak your mind. Sometimes, it's just the impetus that the vendor needs. However,remember the Road House rule: Be nice.


‘Advocatesare willing to activelyshare their results andexperience with thecompany and take timeto share their experienceswith others, 11




Shawn Wiora: Vendor Integration as Developer Retention StrategyHR Practitioner: Shawn Wiora, CIO and CISO

Company: Creative Solutions In HealthCare (The Largest Nursing Home Company in Texas)

Project: Using Dynamic Vendor Integration to Build IT Department Effectiveness and Retention

Shawn runs a dynamic IT Department for a company that services and monitors over 100 nursing homes in Texas. Many of their projects involve HR and the management of employees.

Being an IT shop in a lower status industry, the company has a hard time acquiring and retaining technical talent. As Shawn likes to say, the great talent has already moved to Silicon Valley. We are left with people who can choose their work freely but may not come to us as rock stars.

He does several things to make sure that his team is able to deliver the service levels required by the company.

When any new employee comes onboard, he or she is required to establish a LinkedIn account with 100 connections. The idea is to have each new employee begin the creation of a network that extends into IT excellence around the country and world. Then, they are asked to participate in communities and groups with those connections. That way, when a project exceeds their capacity, they are able to reach out to experts beyond their walls.

Then, Shawn has his team get involved in vendor based projects. “I want my folks working with the best people out there. By integrating with the vendor, I am able to have them work with the best. That always makes them better.”

Part of Shawn’s criteria for developing a new contract is the notion that any vendor relationship should be a deep collaboration. His goal is to keep making his people better by expanding the scope and depth of their assignments.

“The idea is to have each new employee begin the creation of a network that extends into IT excellence around the country and world.”


Shawn Wiora: Vendor Integration as Developer RetentionStrategyHR Practitioner: Shawn Wiora, CIO and CISOCompany: Creative Solutions In HealthCare (The Largest Nursing Home Company in Texas)Project: Using Dynamic Vendor Integration to Build IT Department Effectiveness and RetentionShawn runs a dynamic IT Department for a company that services and monitors over 100 nursing homes inTexas. Many of their projects involve HR and the management of employees.Being an IT shop in a lower status industry, the company has a hard time acquiring and retaining technicaltalent. As Shawn likes to say, the great talent has already moved to Silicon Valley. We are left with people whocan choose their work freely but may not come to us as rock stars.He does several things to make sure that his team is able to deliver the service levels required by the company.When any new employee comes onboard, he or she is required to establish a Linkedln account with 100connections. The idea is to have each new employee begin the creation of a network that extends into ITexcellence around the country and world. Then, they are asked to participate in communities and groups withthose connections. That way, when a project exceeds their capacity, they are able to reach out to expertsbeyond their walls.Then, Shawn has his team get involved in vendor based projects. "I want my folks working with the best peopleout there. By integrating with the vendor, I am able to have them work with the best. That always makes thembetter."Part of Shawn's criteria for developing a new contract is the notion that any vendor relationship should be adeep collaboration. His goal is to keep making his people better by expanding the scope and depth of theirassignments.


11E I he idea is to haveeach new employeebegin the creation of anetwork that extends intoII excellence around thecountry and world, I I




Results:

Shawn is able to develop and motivate his team while involving them and the vendors in projects to do things that have never been done before.

Next Steps:

The executive team at Creative Solutions In HealthCare views itself as a high performance team. The next steps in this process boil down to continuing to drive real operational excellence by making innovation and collaboration central to the role of the developer.

Seven Questions:

1. What are the three things you'll never do again as a result of this experience? • We will always need to flesh out the vendor’s company culture. Speaks to underlying motivations, long term fit and how easy to do business. I will not try a project without a firm positive assessment that the vendor can stick with the rigors of tight integration and collaboration.

• In healthy vendor/customer relationships there are regularly scheduled meetings with the management team. If senior management is not showing up and participating at these meetings, the project has already failed.

• The best vendors keep proving up ROI. Being in a highly coupled dynamic relationship should produce better ROI from the base arrangement. We do not allow vendors to slack off because our relationship is more intense and productive. It is just the opposite.

2. What was the greatest thing you got from your relationship with vendors? If you were to tell someone how to get started building a dynamic relationship with a vendor, what would you say? First, the vendor must deliver the product, service and respective value (ROI) for their offering. Once that is clearly established, the ongoing benefits include product education, industry education, industry trends/awareness, new thinking and how to do things better. My team gets to work with people who are really great at what they do. We become industry influencers in the process.

“I will not try a project without a firm positive assessment that the vendor can stick with the rigors of tight integration and collaboration.”


Results:Shawn is able to develop and motivate his team while involving them and the vendors in projects to do thingsthat have never been done before.Next Steps:The executive team at Creative Solutions In HealthCare views itself as a high performance team. The nextsteps in this process boil down to continuing to drive real operational excellence by making innovation andcollaboration central to the role of the developer.Seven Questions:1. What are the three things you'll never do again as a result of this experience?

We will always need to flesh out the vendor's company culture. Speaks to underlying motivations, longterm fit and how easy to do business. I will not try a project without a firm positive assessment that thevendor can stick with the rigors of tight integration and collaboration.In healthy vendor/customer relationships there are regularly scheduled meetings with the managementteam. If senior management is not showing up and participating at these meetings, the projecthas already failed.

• The best vendors keep proving up ROI. Being in a highly coupled dynamic relationship should producebetter ROI from the base arrangement. We do not allow vendors to slack off because our relationship ismore intense and productive. It is just the opposite.

2. What was the greatest thing you got from your relationship with vendors? If you were to tellsomeone how to get started building a dynamic relationship with a vendor, what would you say?First, the vendor must deliver the product, service and respective value (ROI) for their offering. Once thatis clearly established, the ongoing benefits include product education, industry education, industry trends/awareness, new thinking and how to do things better. My team gets to work with people who are reallygreat at what they do. We become industry influencers in the process.


el will not try a projectwithout a firm positiveassessment that thevendor can stick with therigors of tight integrationand collaborations I I




3. If you were to tell someone how to get started building a dynamic relationship with a vendor, what would you say?Easy, there are three simple steps:

• Establish mutual win/win • Develop a joint strategy • Proactively promote each other and the project

4. Will you try to have the same sort of edgy relationship with a vendor in your next job? Constantly evaluate best approach for vendors on a case-by-case basis. Asking the question prompts the company to engage in enterprise software kind of thinking.

5. Why should companies encourage the kind of relationship you developed with the vendor? Not all customers see the value in this kind of relationship. The key is to find the champion within the client that makes the vendor-customer relationship more strategic to both parties. It is not for everyone. It takes more resources and attention than a simpler, less ambitious approach.

6. What's the downside in developing complex relationships with vendors? Since it’s a win/win with better ROI to both parties, there isn’t one.

7. What's the principle (or two) that makes these sorts of relationships work? It is the same as in personal relationships. Trust, respect, fun, value, etc…

“The key is to find the champion within the client that makes the vendor-customer relationship more strategic to both parties.”


3. If you were to tell someone how to get started building a dynamic relationship with a vendor, whatwould you say?Easy, there are three simple steps:• Establish mutual win/win• Develop a joint strategy• Proactively promote each other and the project

4. Will you try to have the same sort of edgy relationship with a vendor in your next job?Constantly evaluate best approach for vendors on a case-by-case basis. Asking the question prompts thecompany to engage in enterprise software kind of thinking.

5. Why should companies encourage the kind of relationship you developed with the vendor?Not all customers see the value in this kind of relationship. The key is to find the champion within the clientthat makes the vendor-customer relationship more strategic to both parties. It is not for everyone. It takesmore resources and attention than a simpler, less ambitious approach.

6. What's the downside in developing complex relationships with vendors?Since it's a win/win with better ROI to both parties, there isn't one.

7. What's the principle (or two) that makes these sorts of relationships work?It is the same as in personal relationships. Trust, respect, fun, value, etc...


I he key Is tofind the championwithin the client thatmakes the vendor-customer relationshipmore strategic to bothparties, I I




Marvin Smith Building Talent Communities Over TimeHR Practitioner: Marvin Smith, Strategic Talent Sourcing | Talent Community Strategist

Company: Lockheed Martin

Project: Building Talent Communities As Candidate Pipelines

Marvin is a long time student of the use of technology to drive candidates into the talent pipeline. As the core ideas of well positioned job notices and integrated talent communities came to prominence, he was at the forefront. In several organizational settings (all very large businesses), he navigated the politics to partner with vendors and help both sides break the state of the art.

He views his relationships as ‘always in beta.’ That means that he expects the inconveniences associated with new technology to be a part of his everyday life. It may be that his approach works best in very technical companies.

Today, he works closely with his talent community vendor to compare the theory with the real results and modify the software on the fly with the company’s development team.

Marvin says that curiosity drives his work. “I’ve been chasing recruitment automation most of my life. It is one of those things that changes as soon as you put it down. Recruiting as a discipline is constantly searching for the next competitive advantage. By partnering deeply with innovative tech providers, I continue to help my organization find the next great thing.”

Results:

Marvin underlines the importance of having a big question and being very curious. This approach (merging client and customer into a single unit) only works if you have a clear idea of what you want. Lockheed has a deep R&D culture. These projects have the feel of a lab experiment. What works stays and what doesn’t is rejected.

Next Steps:

The thing that makes Marvin’s work so contagious and successful is that he weaves the organizational

“Recruiting as a discipline is constantly searching for the next competitive advantage.”


Marvin Smith Building Talent Communities Over TimeHR Practitioner: Marvin Smith, Strategic Talent Sourcing Talent Community StrategistCompany: Lockheed MartinProject: Building Talent Communities As Candidate PipelinesMarvin is a long time student of the use of technology to drive candidates into the talent pipeline. As the coreideas of well positioned job notices and integrated talent communities came to prominence, he was at theforefront. In several organizational settings (all very large businesses), he navigated the politics to partner withvendors and help both sides break the state of the art.He views his relationships as 'always in beta.' That means that he expects the inconveniences associatedwith new technology to be a part of his everyday life. It may be that his approach works best in very technicalcompanies.Today, he works closely with his talent community vendor to compare the theory with the real results andmodify the software on the fly with the company's development team.Marvin says that curiosity drives his work. "I've been chasing recruitment automation most of my life. It is oneof those things that changes as soon as you put it down. Recruiting as a discipline is constantly searching forthe next competitive advantage. By partnering deeply with innovative tech providers, I continue to help myorganization find the next great thing."Results:Marvin underlines the importance of having a big question and being very curious. This approach (mergingclient and customer into a single unit) only works if you have a clear idea of what you want. Lockheed has adeep R&D culture. These projects have the feel of a lab experiment. What works stays and what doesn't isrejected.Next Steps:The thing that makes Marvin's work so contagious and successful is that he weaves the organizational


&Recruitingas a discipline isconstantly searchingfor the next competitiveadvantage, f t




stakeholders into the process while he is developing solutions with the vendor. The client/vendor integration paradigm is a standard way for Defense contractors to operate so the approach has a natural home.

Seven Questions:

1. What are the things you'll never do again as a result of this experience? • I strive never to ask 200+ questions on an RFP because as it turns out, I have to read and evaluate all of the responses.

• I will strive to reinforce the fact that “everything is in beta” or to set the expectations for ongoing vendor platform changes with the stakeholder ecosystem. This would help mitigate the complaint of “constant change” that typically comes up from platform users.

• I will strive not to throw my corporate weight around. As an enterprise sized organization, there can be tendency to throw one’s corporate weight around to ensure schedules are met and features are added. It is much better to agree to a mutually acceptable product roadmap in the beginning.

• I will strive never select a vendor that does not understand scalability and is ready to make the changes necessary and secure the funding to scale their operations.

2. What was the greatest thing you got from your relationship with vendors? Success: a feeling of shared accomplishment when the plan comes together. In many cases, we are building something together that has never been done before. It is very stratifying to create and innovate on a project/product; creating something “epic” is an amazing shared experience.

3. If you were to tell someone how to get started building a dynamic relationship with a vendor, what would you say? It begins with transparency, honesty, and the related elements that create a relationship of trust. It continues by developing a shared vision and granting mutual accountability. Finally, the principals in the relationship should anticipate that unanticipated issues will manifest themselves which require scrapping or altering significantly the original roadmap. There must be enough trust and shared vision & mission to weather that storm.

“The principals in the relationship should anticipate that unanticipated issues will manifest themselves which require scrapping or altering the original roadmap.”


stakeholders into the process while he is developing solutions with the vendor. The client/vendor integrationparadigm is a standard way for Defense contractors to operate so the approach has a natural home.Seven Questions:1. What are the things you'll never do again as a result of this experience?

I strive never to ask 200+ questions on an REP because as it turns out, I have to read and evaluate all ofthe responses.I will strive to reinforce the fact that "everything is in beta" or to set the expectations for ongoing vendorplatform changes with the stakeholder ecosystem. This would help mitigate the complaint of "constantchange" that typically comes up from platform users.I will strive not to throw my corporate weight around. As an enterprise sized organization, there can betendency to throw one's corporate weight around to ensure schedules are met and features are added. Itis much better to agree to a mutually acceptable product roadmap in the beginning.I will strive never select a vendor that does not understand scalability and is ready to make the changesnecessary and secure the funding to scale their operations.

2. What was the greatest thing you got from your relationship with vendors?Success: a feeling of shared accomplishment when the plan comes together. In many cases, we arebuilding something together that has never been done before. It is very stratifying to create and innovate ona project/product; creating something "epic" is an amazing shared experience.

3. If you were to tell someone how to get started building a dynamic relationship with a vendor, whatwould you say?It begins with transparency, honesty, and the related elements that create a relationship of trust. Itcontinues by developing a shared vision and granting mutual accountability. Finally, the principals in therelationship should anticipate that unanticipated issues will manifest themselves which require scrappingor altering significantly the original roadmap. There must be enough trust and shared vision & mission toweather that storm.


,I he principals

In the relationshipshould anticipate thatunanticipated issueswill manifest themselveswhich require scrappingor altering the originalroadmap,

A




4. Will you try to have the same sort of edgy relationship with a vendor in your next job? Yes, I have found this approach to be the most effective. It takes away the adversarial relationship that can develop between a vendor and customer. Not only that, I believe that it is unavoidable because most of the new ideas and technologies are being created by smaller organizations. Many of the larger vendors are not nimble or resourced to be on the leading edge. The current strategy of the large vendors seems to be to acquire the smaller companies and integrate their technologies into their existing product lines.

5. Why should companies encourage the kind of relationship you developed with the vendor? I believe that creating a strong e vendor partner/client relationship is the most effective method of creating epic work. Both sides are in the project together and both parties would enjoy the fruit of success if the vision is accomplished. If each party’s goals are defined, articulated and shared, then a shared commitment can be made and mutual accountability established.

6. What's the downside in developing complex relationships with vendors? The downside of a successful relationship is that we can become enthusiasts and advocates for their product/service. That leads to indirect/direct product endorsements that can be problematic for both the vendor partner and the customer. On the other hand, the organization that endorses a vendor has a set of expectations around the level of service they receive form the vendor. If your collaboration with a vendor is successful, others organizations will want to emulate that success. As the vendor adds more customers, your influence with the vendor will wane. You will become one of the best customers, instead of being treated like the “only customer.”

7. What's the principle (or two) that makes these sorts of relationships work? • Joining in a relationship with a vendor partner is like test driving a new car by traveling to Alaska with a casual acquaintance; it will be a long, scenic road trip filled with detours, boulders in the road, wild animals along the roadside and a few flat tires. As you arrive at your destination, both of you realize, that this is only a stop on the journey as things have changed while you were traveling this direction.

• You must create a thought partnership with the vendor partner because everything is in beta. In other words, an HR technology product needs to be continuing reinventing itself to meet the changing conditions in the environment. Think about it, most ATS systems did not anticipate the rise of the social era and ten years later, still have not adjusted their products accommodate those changes.

“The downside is that we can become enthusiasts and advocates for their product/service, which leads to product endorsements that can be problematic.”


4. Will you try to have the same sort of edgy relationship with a vendor in your next job?Yes, I have found this approach to be the most effective. It takes away the adversarial relationship that candevelop between a vendor and customer. Not only that, I believe that it is unavoidable because most of thenew ideas and technologies are being created by smaller organizations. Many of the larger vendors are notnimble or resourced to be on the leading edge. The current strategy of the large vendors seems to be toacquire the smaller companies and integrate their technologies into their existing product lines.

5. Why should companies encourage the kind of relationship you developed with the vendor?I believe that creating a strong e vendor partner/client relationship is the most effective method of creatingepic work. Both sides are in the project together and both parties would enjoy the fruit of success if thevision is accomplished. If each party's goals are defined, articulated and shared, then a shared commitmentcan be made and mutual accountability established.

6. What's the downside in developing complex relationships with vendors?The downside of a successful relationship is that we can become enthusiasts and advocates for theirproduct/service. That leads to indirect/direct product endorsements that can be problematic for both thevendor partner and the customer. On the other hand, the organization that endorses a vendor has a set ofexpectations around the level of service they receive form the vendor. If your collaboration with a vendor issuccessful, others organizations will want to emulate that success. As the vendor adds more customers,your influence with the vendor will wane. You will become one of the best customers, instead of beingtreated like the "only customer."

7. What's the principle (or two) that makes these sorts of relationships work?• Joining in a relationship with a vendor partner is like test driving a new car by traveling to Alaska with acasual acquaintance; it will be a long, scenic road trip filled with detours, boulders in the road, wild animalsalong the roadside and a few flat tires. As you arrive at your destination, both of you realize, that this is onlya stop on the journey as things have changed while you were traveling this direction.• You must create a thought partnership with the vendor partner because everything is in beta. In otherwords, an HR technology product needs to be continuing reinventing itself to meet the changing conditionsin the environment. Think about it, most ATS systems did not anticipate the rise of the social era and tenyears later, still have not adjusted their products accommodate those changes.


I he downside isthat we can becomeenthusiasts andadvocates for theirproduct/sen/lce, whichleads to productendorsements that canbe problematic, f t




A Cautionary TaleHR Practitioner: Evelyn Hollingshead1, Director of Recruiting Strategy

Company: Big Co Pharmaceuticals

Project: Transform Recruiting Strategy From Gut-Hunch To Data-Driven

Evelyn’s job was to build a system that allowed Big Co to monitor, control, and manage the elements of their recruiting process. The goal was to build a tool that helped her and her team manage both expense and results. They wanted to see where their money was going and how that drove the results they got.

By examining recruiting data from across the enterprise, the joint team of Evelyn and her vendor were able to deliver a tool that was significantly ahead of the state of the art.

Interestingly, the tool showed that several key contracts with significant organizational sponsorship were not producing real value.

Evelyn’s work with the vendor included travel to exotic settings to deliver presentations and a lot of media attention. The vendor was very proud of the work they did together. As commonly happens in these relationships, Evelyn became a minor celebrity in the small circle of people who follow recruiting technology.

Results:

What happened surprised everyone involved.

Rather than being rewarded for a job well done, Evelyn was subjected to intense financial audits. Some of her colleagues believed that the only way things could go as well as they did was if Evelyn was on the receiving end of compensation from the vendor.

The sponsors of those contracts that had little measurable merit were at the heart of a move to discredit Evelyn, the vendor, and the work.

1 The names, locations and topics have been changed to preserve the anonymity of the real practitioner and company.

“By examining recruiting data from across the enterprise, the joint team of Evelyn and her vendor were able to deliver a tool that was ahead of the state of the art.”


A Cautionary TaleHR Practitioner: Evelyn Hollingsheadl, Director of Recruiting StrategyCompany: Big Co PharmaceuticalsProject: Transform Recruiting Strategy From Gut-Hunch To Data-DrivenEvelyn's job was to build a system that allowed Big Co to monitor, control, and manage the elements of theirrecruiting process. The goal was to build a tool that helped her and her team manage both expense and results.They wanted to see where their money was going and how that drove the results they got.By examining recruiting data from across the enterprise, the joint team of Evelyn and her vendor were able todeliver a tool that was significantly ahead of the state of the art.Interestingly, the tool showed that several key contracts with significant organizational sponsorship were notproducing real value.Evelyn's work with the vendor included travel to exotic settings to deliver presentations and a lot of mediaattention. The vendor was very proud of the work they did together. As commonly happens in theserelationships, Evelyn became a minor celebrity in the small circle of people who follow recruiting technology.Results:What happened surprised everyone involved.Rather than being rewarded for a job well done, Evelyn was subjected to intense financial audits. Some of hercolleagues believed that the only way things could go as well as they did was if Evelyn was on the receiving endof compensation from the vendor.The sponsors of those contracts that had little measurable merit were at the heart of a move to discredit Evelyn,the vendor, and the work.

1 T h e names, locations and topics have been changed to preserve the anonymity of the real practitioner and company.


By examiningrecruiting data fromacross the enterprise, theljoint team of 1-velyn andher vendor were able todeliver a tool that was Iahead of the state of theart, I




For almost a year after the audits began, Evelyn and her vendor continued to dig into the company’s recruiting data. Their recommendations and discoveries provided significant insight into the things that could be changed easily. Still, the pressure and professional jealousy mounted.

In the spring of 2014, Evelyn was fired. A large severance check was accompanied by a severe set of Non Disclosure Agreements.

Lessons:

The basic story here is that tight integration with a vendor may not be as easy as it looks. Without a culture that is ready for the activity and deep support both above and around the project, these endeavors will always upset the apple cart. Sharing credit, building support, working around sacred cows, and showing concern for colleagues and peers are a part of a great vendor integration strategy.

That makes the job of integrating the two organizations significantly harder than it looks. For people who are naturally good at networking and credit sharing, it looks easy. There are significant career risks as this case shows.

“Without a culture that is ready for the activity and deep support both above and around the project, these endeavors will always upset the apple cart.”


For almost a year after the audits began, Evelyn and her vendor continued to dig into the company's recruitingdata. Their recommendations and discoveries provided significant insight into the things that could be changedeasily. Still, the pressure and professional jealousy mounted.In the spring of 2014, Evelyn was fired. A large severance check was accompanied by a severe set of NonDisclosure Agreements.Lessons:The basic story here is that tight integration with a vendor may not be as easy as it looks. Without a culturethat is ready for the activity and deep support both above and around the project, these endeavors will alwaysupset the apple cart. Sharing credit, building support, working around sacred cows, and showing concern forcolleagues and peers are a part of a great vendor integration strategy.That makes the job of integrating the two organizations significantly harder than it looks. For people who arenaturally good at networking and credit sharing, it looks easy. There are significant career risks as this caseshows.


Without a culturethat is ready for theactivily and deep supper-I-1both above and aroundthe project) theseendeavors will alwaysupset the apple cart. I I

411E1111111




“It’s well worth noting that the highest ranking term in each of the areas we surveyed was “No one”; we elimi nated those responses from our ranking.”

Notable Vendors

OverviewWe design our surveys to be vendor neutral in every possible respect. We avoid the use of vendor terminology and frameworks. We never mention vendors by name. We demonstrate no preference for one delivery method over another.

But, in each area we investigate, we ask the people who take the survey if they can recall the name of a vendor who is notable in the area.

In this survey, we collected responses about notable vendors in areas of the Software LifeCycle.

We also covered Product Integrity (Does The Software Do What The Vendor Promised?)

In the following pages, you will see the most interesting of those answers presented as word clouds with a Top 10 List. The best way to interpret the word clouds and lists is that they are the most notable vendors in the minds of the people who completed the survey.

It’s well worth noting that the highest ranking term in each of the areas we surveyed was “No one.” In each of the areas, the answer ‘No one” easily doubled the highest response naming a specific vendor. We eliminated those responses from our ranking, and in the word cloud.

A vendor whose performance transcends an industry norm of “No one does this well” is notable indeed.

Ideal Tech Vendor RelationshipNotable VendorsOverviewWe design our surveys to be vendor neutral in every possible respect. We avoid the use of vendor terminologyand frameworks. We never mention vendors by name. We demonstrate no preference for one delivery methodover another.But, in each area we investigate, we ask the people who take the survey if they can recall the name of a vendorwho is notable in the area.In this survey, we collected responses about notable vendors in areas of the Software LifeCycle.We also covered Product Integrity (Does The Software Do What The Vendor Promised?)In the following pages, you will see the most interesting of those answers presented as word clouds with a Top10 List. The best way to interpret the word clouds and lists is that they are the most notable vendors in theminds of the people who completed the survey.It's well worth noting that the highest ranking term in each of the areas we surveyed was "No one." In each ofthe areas, the answer 'No one" easily doubled the highest response naming a specific vendor. We eliminatedthose responses from our ranking, and in the word cloud.A vendor whose performance transcends an industry norm of "No one does this well" is notable indeed.


• It's well worthnoting that the highestranking term ineach of the areas wesurveyed was "No one";we eliminated thoseresponses from ourranking," I




Notable for Their Role in Evaluation

The Top 10 most notable companies for their role in Evaluation are:

1. BambooHR

2. HRMDirect

3. Oracle

4. Avature

5. Kin

6. Kronos

7. PeopleSoft

8. ADP

9. Ascentis

10. Workday


Notable for Their Role in Evaluation

MyStaffingProJobScience HRMSSolutionS TompworksPeoploTrakGreenhouse SuccessFactorsTribeHR ApplicantManager PaYchexIndeed SBrassRing Ascentis iCIMSwoop Workday HarvestHCMArchively PDI • ChecksteriRecrult OrTge(ale HIRMIDIrectSage Siikroad Kin Vibe Epicor AIN) Isight Sendouts

Optimum Bullhorn BMontage Z e n e f i t sam booNewton G l a s s d o o rBlackbookHR Kronos J(313vit° Avature HireSelectHireMojo CareerBuilder Monster PeopleSoftHireVue HRMSelectSki!logics HiveTechHR BondinternationalCompassHR Salestorce HealthcareSourceSmartRecruiters


T h e Top 10 most notable companies fortheir role in Evaluation are:

1. BambooHR

2. HRMDirect

3. Oracle

4. Avature

5. Kin

6. Kronos

7. PeopleSoft

8. ADP

9. Ascentis

10. Workday




Notable for Quality Relationships

The Top 10 most notable companies for the Overall Quality of the Vendor- Customer Relationship are:

1. BambooHR

2. Oracle

3. Kronos

4. ADP

5. IBM

6. HP

7. HRMDirect

8. Halogen

9. PeopleSoft

10. SAP


Notable for Quality Relationships

TritonHR 4IstaHRMS W e b H RSymplicIty Bondinternational Manpower Aon Hewitt HarvestHCMNewton T r i b e H REtbrtlessilli C o r n e r s t o n e Ascentis Ventyx

R KW I r e D c t H a l o g e n HRMatrixHRSolutions u rb i t t in p- 1HireSelect I I T M Pu4 Dm Sage Zenet i tsinfor Salestorce LeHive EpicorHR • xr6 0 ribs Kin racleKAne"Indeed

lirefRight S a b a O p t i m u m H R Paycnex HOC Archrvely

1-IRSoft iRecruit B a m b o o H R Bullhorn Daxko1-IRMSWorici Workday i n s p e r i t yMercer Resumator IBM Brews HID ADP PeopIeHR

OmnipriseHRM 0JobviteAvature r eopleSoft SAP icimSGrt louse CareerBuilder Hirernajo Ultimate InsperitySimpleHR Sentric Nomentus Hubspnt Benet,r ocus NmsultATempworksclaciorWorics O r a r V e H R M HeattheareSource

SuccessFactors Slikroad Pearson


TomeclockPlus

T h e Top 10 most notable companiesfor the Overall Quality of the Vendor-Customer Relationship are:

1. BambooHR

2. Oracle

3. Kronos

4. ADP

5. IBM

6. HP

7. HRMDirect

8. Halogen

9. PeopleSoft

10. SAP




Notable for Integrity: Software Delivers as Advertised

The Top 10 Companies that were Notable for Providing Software That Delivers as Advertised are:

1. BambooHR

2. HRMDirect

3. Oracle

4. ADP

5. Kronos

6. PeopleSoft

7. SAP

8. Intuit

9. IBM

10. Ascentis


Notable for Integrity: Software Delivers as Advertised

HeelthcareSource Mercer Greenhouse °rang()SumtotelBondIntemational HireTalent BenefitFocus Ca.gandeHR

Hubspot OmnipriseHRM inspedty Zenetits AonHewitt LawscinPeopleHREpicHR MckenzieScott TritonHR CornerstonepD1 HireRight Halogen Avature Salestorce riff Vue • EpicorHR

Jobvite Workday O r a c l e H R M t r e c tMeditech TribeHR K i n DDI

Insperity Rapid Hp BaWorkcom SAP Apex IBM Ultimate Intuit IntorEttortlessHR i C I M S • inh l Ascentis

Indeed Paychexv simpleHR Recruit ADP OptimumHireSelect " r o n o sSAC HRSoti Resumator Epath SageBullhorn PeopleSoftHarvestHCM !sightNetsuite T a t e oCastlightHeatth Cloud Pay Success FactorsSkillsoft Tempworks l t r i e IdeaIHR HeatthStream

cfactorWorks W e b H R PearsonSrnertRectuApplirantMnnager

0 © KeyInterval Research I keyinterval.com I Page 52

T h e Top 10 Companies that wereNotable for Providing Software ThatDelivers as Advertised are:

1. BambooHR

2. HRM Direct

3. Oracle

4. ADP

5. Kronos

6. PeopleSoft

7. SAP

8. Intuit

9. IBM

10. Ascentis




Notable for Their Administrative Layer

The Top 10 Vendors in Administration are:

1. HRMDirect

2. BambooHR

3. ADP

4. Kronos

5. Oracle

6. IBM

7. Halogen

8. SAP

9. iRecruit

10. PeopleSoft


Notable for Their Administrative Layer

OmnipriseHRM MyLoarningPlan CompansationnTritonHIR HRMSSolulions Manpower Jobvite Adecco NewtonLinkedin Ca reerBuilder Insight Resumator DynaRieCognizant OrangeHRM CascadeHR Halogen Cornerstone

%came& HP PeopleSoft TMP Optimum f;'eop1eHRKin Kronosicims BambooHRcATs TribeHRsaP Indeed E p l c o r H R DDI P D IHIRMDIrect9orra!em1s UltimateSumtotalDettek IBM 1 1

eoGoodHlre SAPWorkforce infor Sage CPI A D P Zeriefits Apex Ascentis HIRMatrix

Saleaforce HarvestHCM HireSelect G a t e w a y H R'Recruit WorkcomPaychex HRSoft AorlHewitt Saba RapidHRNetsuite Effortless C e r i d i a n BenefitFocus1111 HIRMSWorldSmanflecruilers HivelechHRGoived SuncnssFantors


T h e Top 10 Vendors in Administrationare:

1. HRMDirect

2. BambooHR

a ADP

4. Kronos

5. Oracle

6. IBM

7. Halogen

8. SAP

9. iRecruit

10. PeopleSoft




Notable for Their Training

The Top 10 Vendors who are great at the training stage are:

1. Oracle

2. Kronos

3. PeopleSoft

4. ADP

5. SAP

6. Cornerstone

7. HP

8. IBM

9. Halogen

10. Ascentis


Notable for Their Training

LexisNexisWorkeom HireVue Optimum cfactorWorksBenefitFocus PeopleHR . • NetsuiteBullhorn H R i v i D i r e c t Saba S a l e s f o r c eSumTotal Halogen TribeHREpicHR A s c e n t i sJobvite PeopleSoft IBmTriNet Avature

SA1CiCIMS AP" Kin Lawson DDIUltimate H P O r a c l e EPicor TaleoKronos

WorkDay'sighta iRecru it A D p ZerlefitSs eq S A P T r u e H RInd op% InforiSolved ede Bamboo HR uornegtone

OmnipriseHRM Replicon AonHewittKenexa


T h e Top 10 Vendors who are great atthe training stage are:

1. Oracle

2. Kronos

3. PeopleSoft

4. ADP

5. SAP

6. Cornerstone

7. HP

8. IBM

9. Halogen

10. Ascentis




Notable for Implementation

The Top 10 Vendors who are Great at Implementation are:

1. BambooHR

2. Oracle

3. ADP

4. Kronos

5. IBM

6. HRMDirect

7. Peoplesoft

8. Ascentis

9. iRecruit

10. iCims


Notable for Implementation

Tompworks O m n i p r i s c H R MExponentHR BenefitFocus CareerBuilder PerotSystemsPeopleHR Resumator Recrui EttortlessIiRtilleVue HarvestHCM Payehex

!Melo( Tale°H I R M D i r e c t NotsuiteHalogen AonHewittOptimum Manpower D D I Insperity WorkdaySaba Zenefits Kronos Ultimate Orac le Workcom

Avature HP id.: A p e x PDISumtotal m i n I B M Sage S A P H R M a t r i xR IndeedBambooHintr)r iCiMS A c c e n t u r eKenexa

Insight TribeHR Peoplesoft EPicc'r ADP SalestorceNewton Jobvite TritonHR HireSelectSkillsoft Delnitte T A M Ascent's informaticsBondinternational

PeopleAdmin OrangeHRM


simPleHR Cornerstone'Solved SuccessFactors

T h e Top 10 Vendors who are Great atImplementation are:

1. BambooHR

2. Oracle

a ADP

4. Kronos

5. IBM

6. H RMDirect

7. Peoplesoft

8. Ascentis

9. iRecruit

10. iCims




Conclusion

This report puts a small but significant dent in the data we collected in our surveys and interviews. We are building a treasure chest of data for deeper analysis.

As organizations become more focused on their real core competencies, competitive advantage will emerge from relationships with vendors of all sizes and shapes. In order to effectively deliver on their responsibilities, HR Departments will become more and more like purchasing operations. The difference will be that these purchased services will blur the lines between the inside and outside of the company.

We have built a baseline that shows the range of practice and how it varies by role and industry. We are always interested in deeper explorations. Let’s talk about your questions.

As you might guess, curiosity driven data collection always generates more questions than it answers. Next year, when we revisit the Ideal Vendor Relationship question, we are going to look deeper and wider. There are interesting questions to ask and answer about the things that affect experience, satisfaction and productivity.

In our next report, Successful Implementation, we will examine the assumptions and behaviors that drive implementations that work.

Acknowledgements

William Tincup: Principal Analyst and Provider of Seed Crystals of Insight

John Sumser: Principal Analyst

Heather Bussing: Copy Edits and Keeper of the Peace

Michal Grisset Tincup: Smoother and Keeper of the Peace

Anne Hill: Production

Julian Seery Gude: Web Tech and Focus Group

Reinhard Joelli: Market Research Counsel

Ray Sumser: Art

D. Mark Hornung: Advisory/Focus Group

Dwane Lay: Advisory/ Focus Group

Tim O’Shea: Advisory/ Focus Group

Marvin Smith: Case and Counsel

Chris Salles: Case and Counsel

Shawn Wiora: Case and Counsel

Chris Hoyt: Inspiration

And a host of others.

Ideal Tech Vendor RelationshipConclusionThis report puts a small but significant dent in the data we collected in our surveys and interviews. We arebuilding a treasure chest of data for deeper analysis.As organizations become more focused on their real core competencies, competitive advantage will emergefrom relationships with vendors of all sizes and shapes. In order to effectively deliver on their responsibilities,HR Departments will become more and more like purchasing operations. The difference will be that thesepurchased services will blur the lines between the inside and outside of the company.We have built a baseline that shows the range of practice and how it varies by role and industry. We are alwaysinterested in deeper explorations. Let's talk about your questions.As you might guess, curiosity driven data collection always generates more questions than it answers. Nextyear, when we revisit the Ideal Vendor Relationship question, we are going to look deeper and wider. There areinteresting questions to ask and answer about the things that affect experience, satisfaction and productivity.In our next report, Successful Implementation, we will examine the assumptions and behaviors that driveimplementations that work.


AcknowledgemeWilliam Tincup: Principal Analyst and Provider ofSeed Crystals of InsightJohn Sumser: Principal AnalystHeather Bussing: Copy Edits and Keeper of thePeace

Michal Grisset Tincup: Smoother and Keeper of thePeaceAnne Hill: ProductionJulian Seery Gude: Web Tech and Focus GroupReinhard JoeIli: Market Research CounselRay Sumser: ArtD. Mark Hornung: Advisory/Focus GroupDwane Lay: Advisory/ Focus GroupTim O'Shea: Advisory/ Focus GroupMarvin Smith: Case and CounselChris Salles: Case and CounselShawn Wiora: Case and Counsel

Chris Hoyt: InspirationAnd a host of others.




Methodology

What We MappedIn the earliest days of software, it was easy to tell where the service ended and where the service provider began. The software in the shrink-wrapped box had a finite set of functions and most users knew how to use more of them. The idea that the product is profoundly distinct from the company that provides it has been routinely challenged for nearly 25 years.

We still do not have great language that describes our primary tools and the ways in which we use them. Software companies appear to want to grow into sprawling ecosystems of related products, services, and systems. It is like the core tool is a seed crystal and everything grows around it because of it.

It is worth noting that small, young companies can become ecosystems in one of two ways. Sometimes they form alliances with like minded providers and products to present a single face to the buyer. In other scenarios, they either become the core (sometimes called a platform) of the ecosystem or a committed part of a larger universe created by a platform.

There are no particularly good definitions that address the boundary between the tool and the work, between the ecosystem and the application or of the system in its entirety. The language is generally used in a marketing sense to strengthen the argument of who ever is making the argument.

Meanwhile, pundits and other reporters with cloudy agendas try to insist on best practices and frameworks. Because good data is scarce, they try to wedge little bits of information into their predetermined worldview. Most so called best practices fall into this category. The best practices always look suspiciously like whatever that particular player is trying to sell.

In this, our first research report, we are trying to build a foundation with which to examine a very simple question: What is the ideal relationship to have with a technology vendor. We worked to ensure that our survey and qualitative interviews focused clearly on practitioner needs, desires, behavior and requirements.

What we have produced is a document that begins the process of describing the current state of affairs. With over 1100 responses, this is the largest survey ever conducted that focused on the day to day practices of HR in its relationships with its vendors.

The Ideal Vendor Management Report is based on a survey of 1106 HR and Recruiting professionals. The survey

was conducted in December 2014 and January 2015. The survey consisted of 85 subject matter questions and 35 demographic questions. Results were collected online using Qualtrics.

Ideal Tech Vendor RelationshipMethodologyWhat We MappedIn the earliest days of software, it was easy to tell where the service ended and where the service providerbegan. The software in the shrink-wrapped box had a finite set of functions and most users knew how to usemore of them. The idea that the product is profoundly distinct from the company that provides it has beenroutinely challenged for nearly 25 years.We still do not have great language that describes our primary tools and the ways in which we use them.Software companies appear to want to grow into sprawling ecosystems of related products, services, andsystems. It is like the core tool is a seed crystal and everything grows around it because of it.It is worth noting that small, young companies can become ecosystems in one of two ways. Sometimes theyform alliances with like minded providers and products to present a single face to the buyer. In other scenarios,they either become the core (sometimes called a platform) of the ecosystem or a committed part of a largeruniverse created by a platform.There are no particularly good definitions that address the boundary between the tool and the work, betweenthe ecosystem and the application or of the system in its entirety. The language is generally used in a marketingsense to strengthen the argument of who ever is making the argument.Meanwhile, pundits and other reporters with cloudy agendas try to insist on best practices and frameworks.Because good data is scarce, they try to wedge little bits of information into their predetermined worldview.Most so called best practices fall into this category. The best practices always look suspiciously like whateverthat particular player is trying to sell.In this, our first research report, we are trying to build a foundation with which to examine a very simplequestion: What is the ideal relationship to have with a technology vendor. We worked to ensure that our surveyand qualitative interviews focused clearly on practitioner needs, desires, behavior and requirements.What we have produced is a document that begins the process of describing the current state of affairs. Withover 1100 responses, this is the largest survey ever conducted that focused on the day to day practices of HRin its relationships with its vendors.


T h e Ideal Vendor Management Reportis based on a survey of 1106 HR andRecruiting professionals. The survey

was conducted in December 2014 andJanuary 2015. The survey consisted of 85subject matter questions and 35 demographicquestions. Results were collected onlineusing Qualtrics.




We were surprised by many of the things we found. It turns out that our years as industry consultants shape

our thinking and expectations. In this first survey, we discovered that our biases were large and resisted our attempts to remove them.

For example, we assumed that we would see a nearly universal perception that the software people use in their daily work was irritatingly unsatisfactory. Instead, 78% of the people we polled say that their software is perfectly OK. Of those who think their software is crummy, the majority believe that as much as 60% of their software is OK.

Let that sink in. Almost 80% of practitioners think that all of their software is OK. The other 20% think that some, not a majority, of their software is in need of improvement or replacement.

Living in the various vendor ecosystems creates the impression that all software is substandard and in need of improvement. In fact, the basic premise in software sales is ‘our software is better than the software you have today.” In the world of the vendor, improvement is a competitive necessity. That is not as true in the world of the practitioner.

For the practitioner, competitive advantage seems to come from repeatable processes. Having tools that ‘I know how to use’ appears to trump new tools with marginal additional value.


e were surprised by many of the• ocs t h i n g s we found. It turns out that our

'a. y e a r s as industry consultants shape..z..) • oCn0 •ty N . s s o u r thinking and expectations. In this first•Sb

0 C ' ' . ‘4•45 C ',,:? s u r v e y , we discovered that our biases werelarge and resisted our attempts to removet.iq•- N . ' ' them.0 \ s •

• e F o r example, we assumed that we would see•S' 4 a nearly universal perception that the softwarepeople use in their daily work was irritatinglyN.s unsatisfactory. Instead, 78% of the people we

polled say that their software is perfectly OK..;" O f those who think their software is crummy,k) the majority believe that as much as 60% of

0 •••zP . \cc> t h e i r software is OK.I L O C I

e . e L e t that sink in. Almost 80% of practitionersN.‘..c) t h i n k that all of their software is OK. The

--1 •••''''

••„3", other 20% think that some, not a majority, oftheir software is in need of improvement orreplacement.0

Living in the various vendor ecosystems

k136 c r e a t e s the impression that all software issubstandard and in need of improvement.In fact, the basic premise in software salesis 'our software is better than the softwareyou have today." In the world of the vendor,improvement is a competitive necessity. Thatis not as true in the world of the practitioner.For the practitioner, competitive advantage seems to come from repeatable processes. Having tools that

'I know how to use' appears to trump new tools with marginal additional value.





The finding is a first and needs to be reexamined for several years. We think there is an interesting subset of this discovery. If 5% to 6% of buyers believe that their software is in need of replacement, that might identify the core of the current year’s buyers. It might also suggest that incremental improvements are not enough of a reason for a practitioner to buy or upgrade.

With 20% of the market considering replacement based on the quality of their current solution and 1/3 of those being very dismayed, the software industry should be extremely viable. That does not mean that the average practitioner is unhappy with the tools of their work. It means exactly the opposite.

In another interesting set of discoveries, 60% of all respondents reported that their HR Department had fired a vendor for cause. Expectations are high. 60% of practitioners say they could not have a successful relationship with the vendor of ‘crummy’ software.

There are hints in the data that familiarity is an important factor in the retention of practitioners as customers.

A hard to quantify story is making the rounds of the consultants who serve HR Technology. A large group (perhaps as much as 40% of enterprise customers) do not upgrade their software for fear of a business disruption. The ‘devil we know’ appears to be preferred to the ‘devil we don’t.’

During our qualitative interviews, one Fortune 500 Vice President of Learning said, “You’ve gotten it backwards. It’s the organization that makes software great and not the other way around. We measure our need for new software in terms of the equipment it could buy for our productive employees. If the software will produce more value than an equivalent amount of new cameras (for example), we would rather have the new cameras.”

She went on to say, “You should be asking why great companies get more mileage from crummy software than mediocre companies get from supposedly great software. The software is just a tool. The results come from the organization, not the software.” We found this perception repeated pretty consistently.

Her point, that productivity and effectiveness are not inherent parts of the tool set is well worth understanding. Many HR software projects are undertaken with the goal of transforming the organization. It seems possible that that is not how things actually work.

In future research, we will investigate the relationship between customer culture and tool results. As we search for quantifiable answers, we will focus on qualitative research in this area.

“The software is just a tool; the results come from the organization, not the software.”


The finding is a first and needs to be reexamined for several years. We think there is an interesting subset ofthis discovery. If 5% to 6% of buyers believe that their software is in need of replacement, that might identifythe core of the current year's buyers. It might also suggest that incremental improvements are not enough of areason for a practitioner to buy or upgrade.With 20% of the market considering replacement based on the quality of their current solution and 1/3 of thosebeing very dismayed, the software industry should be extremely viable. That does not mean that the averagepractitioner is unhappy with the tools of their work. It means exactly the opposite.In another interesting set of discoveries, 60% of all respondents reported that their HR Department had fired avendor for cause. Expectations are high. 60% of practitioners say they could not have a successful relationshipwith the vendor of 'crummy' software.There are hints in the data that familiarity is an important factor in the retention of practitioners as customers.A hard to quantify story is making the rounds of the consultants who serve HR Technology. A large group(perhaps as much as 40% of enterprise customers) do not upgrade their software for fear of a businessdisruption. The 'devil we know' appears to be preferred to the 'devil we don't.'During our qualitative interviews, one Fortune 500 Vice President of Learning said, "You've gotten it backwards.It's the organization that makes software great and not the other way around. We measure our need for newsoftware in terms of the equipment it could buy for our productive employees. If the software will produce morevalue than an equivalent amount of new cameras (for example), we would rather have the new cameras."She went on to say, "You should be asking why great companies get more mileage from crummy software thanmediocre companies get from supposedly great software. The software is just a tool. The results come from theorganization, not the software." We found this perception repeated pretty consistently.Her point, that productivity and effectiveness are not inherent parts of the tool set is well worth understanding.Many HR software projects are undertaken with the goal of transforming the organization. It seems possiblethat that is not how things actually work.In future research, we will investigate the relationship between customer culture and tool results. As we searchfor quantifiable answers, we will focus on qualitative research in this area.

0 © Keyinterval Research I keyinterval.com I Pa g 59

, I he so are is justla tool,' the results comefrom the organization) notthe so are, i t




Our CuriositiesIn HR Enterprise Software, practitioner/vendor relationships are very important. Our research investigates how they work.

Everyone has spent time on the phone with customer service at a software vendor. We think that very few people enjoy the experience. We think that most of the interactions a company has with its vendors are similar transactions.

We want to understand whether or not it is important to have a good relationship with an enterprise software vendor. How much does the quality of the relationship determine the value of the software? Can you tell? Understanding the range of possible customer relationships will help practitioners plan their resources and schedules.

Are there phases to a relationship with an enterprise software vendor? Do things change at observable times? If there is a difference, what’s the best way to navigate the transition? Are the initial relationships built in one part or level of the practitioner organization and then passed off to others? Is that a good or bad thing?

Many vendors offer user conferences and other programs to engage and involve their customers. Are these useful events, boondoggles or both? What are the best ways to take advantage of these events?

Should everyone in the practitioner organization understand the contract? Who is the person responsible for contractual questions? Is that the only person who is allowed to interact with the vendor? Does the vendor respect this boundary?

Vendors also offer participation in Customer Advisory Boards (CAB). Is this a good thing or a bad thing? What ROI does the organization expect when a practitioner becomes involved in a CAB? What are the benefits from a practitioner’s perspective?

Sometimes vendors will do advanced development projects in collaboration with a customer. Is participation in this kind of a program useful? How do you get involved in such a thing? What sorts of projects are involved? Is the value that the company gets worth the time it costs? What is the benefit for the practitioner who participates?

“Understanding the range of possible customer relationships will help practitioners plan their resources and schedules.”


Our CuriositiesIn HR Enterprise Software, practitioner/vendor relationships are very important. Our research investigates howthey work.Everyone has spent time on the phone with customer service at a software vendor. We think that very fewpeople enjoy the experience. We think that most of the interactions a company has with its vendors are similartransactions.We want to understand whether or not it is important to have a good relationship with an enterprise softwarevendor. How much does the quality of the relationship determine the value of the software? Can you tell?Understanding the range of possible customer relationships will help practitioners plan their resources andschedules.Are there phases to a relationship with an enterprise software vendor? Do things change at observable times? Ifthere is a difference, what's the best way to navigate the transition? Are the initial relationships built in one partor level of the practitioner organization and then passed off to others? Is that a good or bad thing?Many vendors offer user conferences and other programs to engage and involve their customers. Are theseuseful events, boondoggles or both? What are the best ways to take advantage of these events?Should everyone in the practitioner organization understand the contract? Who is the person responsible forcontractual questions? Is that the only person who is allowed to interact with the vendor? Does the vendorrespect this boundary?Vendors also offer participation in Customer Advisory Boards (CAB). Is this a good thing or a bad thing? WhatROI does the organization expect when a practitioner becomes involved in a CAB? What are the benefits froma practitioner's perspective?Sometimes vendors will do advanced development projects in collaboration with a customer. Is participation inthis kind of a program useful? How do you get involved in such a thing? What sorts of projects are involved?Is the value that the company gets worth the time it costs? What is the benefit for the practitioner whoparticipates?


Understandingthe range of possiblecustomer relationshipswill help practitionersplan their resources andschedules, I I




What is the best way to influence a vendor to make changes that are important to your organization? How much is it worth to make that easier? Do any of the above activities make that process less expensive? Is that the point?

Simply, do complex well managed vendor relationships deliver a higher quantity and quality of return? Is the organization better off with deep, positive relationships? Or, is the actual return limited?

Is there a rule of thumb about how and where to make an investment of time and relationship energy in a vendor? Who should make the decision and how do you execute? How do you measure success? When is it time to abandon ship?

There is a rich and diverse range of possible ways to build a relationship with a vendor. We’re eager to discover what works and what doesn’t. As we map the area, we expect to find amazing success stories and examples.

“Do complex well-managed vendor relationships deliver a higher quantity and quality of return? We’re eager to discover what works and what doesn’t.”


What is the best way to influence a vendor to make changes that are important to your organization? Howmuch is it worth to make that easier? Do any of the above activities make that process less expensive? Is thatthe point?Simply, do complex well managed vendor relationships deliver a higher quantity and quality of return? Is theorganization better off with deep, positive relationships? Or, is the actual return limited?Is there a rule of thumb about how and where to make an investment of time and relationship energy in avendor? Who should make the decision and how do you execute? How do you measure success? When is ittime to abandon ship?There is a rich and diverse range of possible ways to build a relationship with a vendor. We're eager to discoverwhat works and what doesn't. As we map the area, we expect to find amazing success stories and examples.


Do complexwell-managed vendorrelatnships deliver ahigher quantily and qualllyof return? Were eager todiscover what works andwhat doesn't, 1 I




1 to 10 11 to 50 51 to 200 201 to 500 501 to 1,000

1,001 to 2,500

2,501 to 5,000

5,001 to 10,000

10,001+

Benefits 14% 13% 15% 17% 15% 9% 6% 4% 7%Business Partner 29% 15% 11% 7% 17% 8% 3% 4% 8%Compensation 19% 14% 15% 15% 15% 9% 2% 3% 8%

Compliance 15% 13% 16% 10% 16% 9% 5% 4% 12%Diversity 15% 15% 14% 13% 15% 13% 2% 4% 11%Employee Relations

13% 15% 14% 15% 16% 9% 5% 6% 8%

Generalist 22% 9% 17% 11% 13% 11% 2% 5% 11%Organizational Development

15% 13% 13% 14% 16% 11% 5% 5% 9%

Payroll 23% 15% 15% 14% 11% 8% 4% 4% 6%Recruitment 14% 12% 18% 13% 13% 11% 5% 4% 8%Safety 18% 13% 15% 13% 17% 8% 6% 4% 6%Talent Management

15% 13% 13% 12% 16% 9% 6% 5% 11%

Training and Development

15% 12% 15% 13% 16% 10% 5% 6% 8%

University Relations

23% 17% 13% 13% 13% 11% 0% 4% 6%

Other 38% 10% 10% 7% 7% 4% 5% 8% 11%

Total 17% 12% 14% 13% 14% 9% 5% 6% 10%

Survey Demographics

Survey Demographics by Silo and Company Size

We had a total of 1106 validated responses to the survey. Responses were collected online through a

variety of distribution methods, most often through various forms of social media and panels.


1 to 10 11 to 50 51 to 200 201 to 500 501 to1,000

1,001 to2,500

2,501 to5,000

5,001 to10,000

10,001+

Benefits 14% 13% 15% 17% 15% 9% 6% 4% 7%Business Partner 29% 15% 11% 7% 17% 8% 3% 4% 8%Compensation 19% 14% 15% 15% 15% 9% 2% 3% 8%Compliance 15% 13% 16% 10% 16% 9% 5% 4% 12%Diversity 15% 15% 14% 13% 15% 13% 2% 4% 11%EmployeeRelations

13% 15% 14% 15% 16% 9% 5% 6% 8%

Generalist 22% 9% 17% 11% 13% 11% 2% 5% 11%OrganizationalDevelopment

15% 13% 13% 14% 16% 11% 5% 5% 9%

Payroll 23% 15% 15% 14% 11% 8% 4% 4% 6%Recruitment 14% 12% 18% 13% 13% 11% 5% 4% 8%Safety 18% 13% 15% 13% 17% 8% 6% 4% 6%TalentManagement

15% 13% 13% 12% 16% 9% 6% 5% 11%

Training andDevelopment

15% 12% 15% 13% 16% 10% 5% 6% 8%

UniversityRelations

23% 17% 13% 13% 13% 11% 0% 4% 6%

Other 38% 10% 10% 7% 7% 4% 5% 8% 11%Total 17% 12% 14% 13% 14% 9% 5% 6% 1 0%

Survey Demographics

Survey Demographics by Silo and Company Size


W e had a total of 1106 validatedresponses to the survey. Responseswere collected online through a

variety of distribution methods, most oftenthrough various forms of social media andpanels.




1 to 10 11 to 50 51 to 200 201 to 500 501 to 1,000

1,001 to 2,500

2,501 to 5,000

5,001 to 10,000

10,001+

CHRO 38% 16% 0% 19% 16% 6% 0% 0% 6%SVP 5% 10% 24% 29% 14% 10% 0% 5% 5%VP 13% 8% 13% 18% 20% 5% 5% 8% 13%Director 7% 12% 17% 15% 16% 12% 7% 6% 7%Manager 12% 13% 14% 13% 16% 7% 6% 8% 11%Business Partner

38% 19% 11% 3% 10% 5% 6% 3% 5%

Recruiter 3% 11% 21% 13% 16% 15% 7% 7% 7%Other 30% 11% 13% 9% 10% 7% 3% 5% 13%Total 17% 12% 14% 13% 14% 9% 5% 6% 10%

Survey Demographics by Role and Company Size


1 to 10 11 to 50 51 to 200 201 to 500 501 to1,000

1,001 to2,500

2,501 to5,000

5,001 to10,000

10,001+

CHRO 38% 16% 0% 19% 16% 6% 0% 0% 6%SVP 5% 10% 24% 29% 14% 10% 0% 5% 5%VP 13% 8% 13% 18% 20% 5% 5% 8% 13%Director 7% 12% 17% 15% 16% 12% 7% 6% 7%Manager 12% 13% 14% 13% 16% 7% 6% 8% 11%BusinessPartner

38% 19% 11% 3% 10% 5% 6% 3% 5%

Recruiter 3% 11% 21% 13% 16% 15% 7% 7% 7%Other 30% 11% 13% 9% 10% 7% 3% 5% 13%Total 17')/0 12% 14% 13% 14% 9% 5% 6% 10')/0

Survey Demographics by Role and Company Size





Research CalendarKeyInterval Research is mapping the complexities of practitioner experience in the HR Tech universe. We help HR understand what’s possible and what fits best. We do disciplined, pragmatic research to help practitioners separate fact from anecdote.

Here is our 2015 research calendar.

January: What Is The Ideal Vendor Relationship?There is a diverse range of possible ways to build a relationship with a vendor. We’re eager to discover what works and what doesn’t. As we map the area, we expect to find amazing success stories and examples.

February: Why Do Implementations Succeed?We are going to seek and discover exemplary success stories. We are really curious about the factors that create memorable successes. What are those drivers? Is there a difference between a great success story and something merely adequate? What’s the difference?

March: What Is The Optimal Technology Stack?The HR Stack is all the software, data and apps in a company’s HR Department. No two are the same. Every instance is truly unique... like a cultural fingerprint. We will map what’s being purchased and by whom.

April: Is There a Best Data Strategy?The future of HR is anchored to its ability to harness data. We aim to map the optimal data model and its critical components. These are the early days of HR data mastery. We can't wait to report what we learn.

May: Do Users Love Your Software Purchases? (Software Engagement)Enterprise HR software users can LOVE the software you purchase. They can also hate those purchasing decisions. What makes an optimal environment for love of enterprise software? We are on it.


Research CalendarKeyInterval Research is mapping the complexities of practitioner experience in the HR Tech universe. We helpHR understand what's possible and what fits best. We do disciplined, pragmatic research to help practitionersseparate fact from anecdote.Here is our 2015 research calendar.January:

February: W h y Do Implementations Succeed?We are going to seek and discover exemplary success stories. We are really curious aboutthe factors that create memorable successes. What are those drivers? Is there a differencebetween a great success story and something merely adequate? What's the difference?

March:

April:

May:

What Is The Ideal Vendor Relationship?There is a diverse range of possible ways to build a relationship with a vendor. We're eagerto discover what works and what doesn't. As we map the area, we expect to find amazingsuccess stories and examples.

What Is The Optimal Technology Stack?The HR Stack is all the software, data and apps in a company's HR Department. No two arethe same. Every instance is truly unique... like a cultural fingerprint. We will map what's beingpurchased and by whom.Is There a Best Data Strategy?The future of HR is anchored to its ability to harness data. We aim to map the optimal datamodel and its critical components. These are the early days of HR data mastery. We can'twait to report what we learn.Do Users Love Your Software Purchases? (Software Engagement)Enterprise HR software users can LOVE the software you purchase. They can also hate thosepurchasing decisions. What makes an optimal environment for love of enterprise software?We are on it.





June: How Does This Go Together?We’ll summarize the data and try to understand and explain how each variable can make for a better HR department. We will also include M&A and Transaction data. We review new ideas and products.

July: What Is The Model Purchasing Process?Most companies have a sophisticated way to buy software. We want to understand the Purchasing Process. Changes are afoot. We’re excited about staying on top of the evolution as it happens.

August: What Is The Perfect HR Budget?The further we look into HR’s budget, the more we understand that this is the best way to explore the overall organization’s commitment to HR and its issues. The budget is a good way to understand what matters.

September: Do Employees Use The Software? (Adoption)We are researching how much, how often and why employees use HR Enterprise Software. We think that organizations that get optimal User Adoption also achieve the maximum ROI.

October: Which Metrics and Analytics Are Useful?We research which HR metrics and analytics are working under what conditions. We are fascinated with the emergence of HR as a quantified discipline. This area will grow significantly in the coming years.

November: Are HR Processes Effective?Exploring the relationship between HR and its customers has our attention. We’re pretty sure that increased accountability is a part of HR’s immediate future. We are excited to see it unfold.

December: What Happened This Year? What Did We Learn? What’s Coming?We hold ourselves accountable and examine the cumulative understanding for a year of research. Throughout the year, we will be soliciting questions to be answered in the year end research report.


June:

July:

August:

How Does This Go Together?We'll summarize the data and try to understand and explain how each variable can make fora better HR department. We will also include M&A and Transaction data. We review new ideasand products.What Is The Model Purchasing Process?Most companies have a sophisticated way to buy software. We want to understand thePurchasing Process. Changes are afoot. We're excited about staying on top of the evolutionas it happens.What Is The Perfect HR Budget?The further we look into HR's budget, the more we understand that this is the best way toexplore the overall organization's commitment to HR and its issues. The budget is a good wayto understand what matters.

September: D o Employees Use The Software? (Adoption)We are researching how much, how often and why employees use HR Enterprise Software.We think that organizations that get optimal User Adoption also achieve the maximum ROI.

October: W h i c h Metrics and Analytics Are Useful?We research which HR metrics and analytics are working under what conditions. Weare fascinated with the emergence of HR as a quantified discipline. This area will growsignificantly in the coming years.

November: A r e HR Processes Effective?Exploring the relationship between HR and its customers has our attention. We're prettysure that increased accountability is a part of HR's immediate future. We are excited to see itunfold.

December: W h a t Happened This Year? What Did We Learn? What's Coming?We hold ourselves accountable and examine the cumulative understanding for a year ofresearch. Throughout the year, we will be soliciting questions to be answered in the year endresearch report.



ideal vendor relationship report

Documents