Preparing for the SAP HCM Implementation Project
This note is addressed to businesses, customers who are starting to think about introducing a new system, whether SAP or non-SAP. I managed to work on the part of the customer, on the part of consulting (not only SAP), which gives a slightly broader understanding of the problems on both sides. I also want to note that the problems, or, let's call it tasks, are the same for any country. I can judge by work on projects in the USA, Norway, Hungary, Russia. Exclusively my experience.
Almost all customers declare the main task of introducing a system of unification of processes, workflow and methodology. The implementation of the system should solve the problem of unification, since external incentives appear in the framework of the project in the form of consultants and a limited project budget, when you need to quickly change and get uniform. By default, the customer expects the best practices that do not exist from the consultant. Let's be honest - best practices are how a business has grown to its current state. You can’t transfer the practices of one company to another; these will not be the best practices, but the practices of that or the other company. But this is convenient, because it allows you to see, or rather to peek, but how is it done by others. Human curiosity, when you can’t come up with it yourself, so you go to the neighbor for ideas and improve them for yourself.
In the framework of the project, consultants rely on the objectives of the project and require the business to be unified. It turns out that a business is asking itself to settle down on its own and give money to strangers for it. I also at one time motivated myself to go to the gym - once I paid, then "noona to go." Unification itself is also not a very clear process. Imagine a big business with many companies, different functions, different management hierarchies. A simple example: a large plant with tens of thousands of personnel and a tiny company with sellers of products for export. And this is all within the framework of one project volume, where there should be unified processes, documents and techniques. For some, the smallest change will come back in numbers, funds, the effectiveness of closing the period, while others will not notice at all. And the abolition of one of the prizes for the former will take place simply with a different type of accrual, while the latter may bury sellers' motivation. Because unification.
Reporting, especially internal reporting, is another stone in the garden on both sides. The business says that reports are needed, usually in established forms, and consultants offer "some strange downloads from the system in a crooked format." There is a conflict of foundations and progress, in which the prevailing practice at the enterprise for document management usually wins. If the certificate on physical volumes should lie every morning at the head of the workshop on the table, then no system will help until the head starts to open the system in the morning. In the West, this practice is less common when the customer requires the formation of paper reports. People work with modern technologies longer and longer, therefore paperless workflow is developed and projects are launched easier. Of course, this does not apply to legislative reporting.
Methodology is the largest amount of work on a project. I will tell you a secret that they often talk about the need to unify processes, and in practice, processes take up 10 percent of the real work on unification. The main thing is pieces of paper and calculations, and often this is connected with the requirements of the law, while the processes are practically not regulated by laws. By methodology, I understand the algorithms for calculating various quantities, the rules for filling out reports and output forms. At the entrance to the project, the customer likes to operate with the numbers 80/20, 70/30 or other specific quantities measuring the result of unification. On the one hand, what is the difference how many types of payment will be, because this is just a guide? On the other hand, it is necessary at all levels to understand what a payroll is, what are personnel costs (this concept is usually wider, than payroll). In my understanding, ideal unification tends to zero, to simplification to the maximum level that does not contradict the law and business goals.
Within the framework of the project, when it comes to unifying the methodology, a lot of HR-related issues arise from the areas of tax accounting, enterprise economics, accounting, and legal. Often these areas do not have a single holder who can decide on uniformity from their height. Each unit is brewed in its own juice, which is revealed in discussions of the same catalog of wage types (I apologize for the banal example, but this is the most painful place in all SAP HCM projects).
In Western practice, I have come across this approach. There is a major part of wages - salary or tariff. Its formation is established by a single algorithm for all categories of employees, regardless of the accounting method and nature of work. All departments understand this basic part in the same way. The motivational part (bonuses, allowances, surcharges) is formed from several main types of charges, which are called by common words (for example, “Bonus for the result”, “Bonus for the quality”, “Bonus for the working conditions”, etc.), and what is inside these accruals are left to each unit. So the “Prize for the Result" among sellers contains one meaning, among workers another, among TOPs a third. And no matter how this value is considered. In terms of personnel management, this is one amount that must be calculated and provided by the responsible unit. How this unit calculates and manages this accrual does not bother anyone, since this is the direct responsibility of the head of the same unit. Such a solution fits perfectly into the concept of unification: the number of algorithms in the HR attention area is minimal, the motivation of each group of personnel is defined in the zone of the respective enterprise or unit, the understanding of the fund is the same for everyone, the HR headache tends to zero, since the function is decentralized. Lack of automation? Not at all. Since each unit or enterprise lives at its own pace (its own motivation system, its own indicators, its own speed of work and evaluation of results), each unit is independently preoccupied with the tools for the effective implementation of this function. Excel is enough for someone once a year, while others need online integration with production systems.
SAP HCM
Implementation Preparation Plan Break down to build.This approach is often used in tasks of building integration between systems. Turn off one system and see what happens. If nothing happens, then this system or connection is not needed. In practice, this means a systematic shutdown (disposal) of steps for transferring reports from one unit to another, reducing the use of certain directories (types of payment, schedules, temporary data, NSI). Very often, with a new implementation of the system, a business wants to transfer everything that is. But no one can say why. Many analytics were implemented for one reason or another years ago for a specific case that is no longer relevant, but this analytics is still being filled by inertia. What management decisions are made today based on this analytics?
Formation of reports and documents is often associated with the fact that people who receive these documents are not equipped with workstations . The most typical examples are the pass office and security service. Eternal applications on paper signed by the responsible official. Maybe you should give them the opportunity to sometimes play solitaire on a PC? The cost of a workstation may be cheaper than paper workflow.
The processes. Perhaps this is the most popular word in the implementation. Everyone wants to simplify, unify processes. If you look at the processes after the introduction of SAP and before, there will not be as many differences as there was noise around it. Unifying processes without being tied to a system is very simple. We take the simplest version of the process and the most complex (as above in the example with the plant and sellers). We look at how they differ (with a high degree of probability the differences will be in the number of communications and output forms), we bring the processes to the most difficult for all enterprises. And then we bite off the steps according to the first principle of “break to build.” No need to build beautiful diagrams and poems - in real everyday life no one looks into these multi-volumes. A simple plate in Excel will help.
Papers. The second sore point after the methodology. Papers are all that the law does not need. One company conducted an experiment with the removal of printers. People physically could not print documents. Six months later, the number of documents by e-mail was reduced significantly. Instead of “where is the report?” The question “where to look?” Began to arise. I believe that there are documents that cannot be unified. For example, additional agreements to employment contracts. It is enough to process the documents for the most widespread cases and unify and automate them. Take the rest out of the scope of the project and unification as in the situation with a bonus for the result. With mass selection and hiring in the retail business, documents are easily unified and automated, but why do this for industrial giants?
People and project. This is the most sensitive topic. Any manager knows that people are sensitive to change. Even the rearrangement of the table in the office can be considered a declaration of war, disrespect for the best years of life given to the enterprise. Starting a project to introduce such a system, and this is a large project, each of its participants from the business side feels morally that this is temporary and against it. Even the project manager has concerns that after the project his role will end and he will become unnecessary for the enterprise. Before starting a project, people should have a clear understanding of what will happen to them after the project is completed. Any project is stress, it is an additional work that differs from the usual one. Many project participants see this as additional load, which is not compensated in any way. It’s worthwhile to think in advance about the motivation of people to work effectively in the project,
Коммуникации или «а поговорить». Many leaders became leaders because they started or were able to talk. Correctly formulate and convey their thoughts to the interlocutor. When the project begins, they forget about it. The project involves involving more people than we used to see daily. A new barrier appears that needs to be overcome in order to achieve a result. But bad luck - no motivation. Why go and talk with someone if this doesn’t give me anything personally. With your supervisor or subordinates - always welcome, as the incentives are clear. And here are completely different people (both in business and external consultants), the results of communication with which do not foresee any motivation. As a result, we see a constant lack of information from all project participants at all levels. To reduce potential risks due to communications, even before the project, you need to build communication rules. Not formal regulations who, where, why and when, but something else. In practice, this may be the organization of project initiatives that, in a strategic plan, will lead the participants themselves to understand the need for a new system. Previously, enterprises had such things as “ratsuhs” - rationalization proposals, the implementation of which would make the enterprise or process better in something. This is a project initiative that can involve a large number of people without announcing a project, thereby preparing both the team and the business for change. which in a strategic plan will lead the participants themselves to an understanding of the need to introduce a new system. Previously, enterprises had such things as “ratsuhs” - rationalization proposals, the implementation of which would make the enterprise or process better in something. This is a project initiative that can involve a large number of people without announcing a project, thereby preparing both the team and the business for change. which in a strategic plan will lead the participants themselves to an understanding of the need to introduce a new system. Previously, enterprises had such things as “ratsuhs” - rationalization proposals, the implementation of which would make the enterprise or process better in something. This is a project initiative that can involve a large number of people without announcing a project, thereby preparing both the team and the business for change.
The most important thing , from my point of view, as has been repeatedly noted in other articles, is to convey the goal of implementation to the largest number of people in the company as accurately as possible.
Almost all customers declare the main task of introducing a system of unification of processes, workflow and methodology. The implementation of the system should solve the problem of unification, since external incentives appear in the framework of the project in the form of consultants and a limited project budget, when you need to quickly change and get uniform. By default, the customer expects the best practices that do not exist from the consultant. Let's be honest - best practices are how a business has grown to its current state. You can’t transfer the practices of one company to another; these will not be the best practices, but the practices of that or the other company. But this is convenient, because it allows you to see, or rather to peek, but how is it done by others. Human curiosity, when you can’t come up with it yourself, so you go to the neighbor for ideas and improve them for yourself.
In the framework of the project, consultants rely on the objectives of the project and require the business to be unified. It turns out that a business is asking itself to settle down on its own and give money to strangers for it. I also at one time motivated myself to go to the gym - once I paid, then "noona to go." Unification itself is also not a very clear process. Imagine a big business with many companies, different functions, different management hierarchies. A simple example: a large plant with tens of thousands of personnel and a tiny company with sellers of products for export. And this is all within the framework of one project volume, where there should be unified processes, documents and techniques. For some, the smallest change will come back in numbers, funds, the effectiveness of closing the period, while others will not notice at all. And the abolition of one of the prizes for the former will take place simply with a different type of accrual, while the latter may bury sellers' motivation. Because unification.
Reporting, especially internal reporting, is another stone in the garden on both sides. The business says that reports are needed, usually in established forms, and consultants offer "some strange downloads from the system in a crooked format." There is a conflict of foundations and progress, in which the prevailing practice at the enterprise for document management usually wins. If the certificate on physical volumes should lie every morning at the head of the workshop on the table, then no system will help until the head starts to open the system in the morning. In the West, this practice is less common when the customer requires the formation of paper reports. People work with modern technologies longer and longer, therefore paperless workflow is developed and projects are launched easier. Of course, this does not apply to legislative reporting.
Methodology is the largest amount of work on a project. I will tell you a secret that they often talk about the need to unify processes, and in practice, processes take up 10 percent of the real work on unification. The main thing is pieces of paper and calculations, and often this is connected with the requirements of the law, while the processes are practically not regulated by laws. By methodology, I understand the algorithms for calculating various quantities, the rules for filling out reports and output forms. At the entrance to the project, the customer likes to operate with the numbers 80/20, 70/30 or other specific quantities measuring the result of unification. On the one hand, what is the difference how many types of payment will be, because this is just a guide? On the other hand, it is necessary at all levels to understand what a payroll is, what are personnel costs (this concept is usually wider, than payroll). In my understanding, ideal unification tends to zero, to simplification to the maximum level that does not contradict the law and business goals.
Within the framework of the project, when it comes to unifying the methodology, a lot of HR-related issues arise from the areas of tax accounting, enterprise economics, accounting, and legal. Often these areas do not have a single holder who can decide on uniformity from their height. Each unit is brewed in its own juice, which is revealed in discussions of the same catalog of wage types (I apologize for the banal example, but this is the most painful place in all SAP HCM projects).
In Western practice, I have come across this approach. There is a major part of wages - salary or tariff. Its formation is established by a single algorithm for all categories of employees, regardless of the accounting method and nature of work. All departments understand this basic part in the same way. The motivational part (bonuses, allowances, surcharges) is formed from several main types of charges, which are called by common words (for example, “Bonus for the result”, “Bonus for the quality”, “Bonus for the working conditions”, etc.), and what is inside these accruals are left to each unit. So the “Prize for the Result" among sellers contains one meaning, among workers another, among TOPs a third. And no matter how this value is considered. In terms of personnel management, this is one amount that must be calculated and provided by the responsible unit. How this unit calculates and manages this accrual does not bother anyone, since this is the direct responsibility of the head of the same unit. Such a solution fits perfectly into the concept of unification: the number of algorithms in the HR attention area is minimal, the motivation of each group of personnel is defined in the zone of the respective enterprise or unit, the understanding of the fund is the same for everyone, the HR headache tends to zero, since the function is decentralized. Lack of automation? Not at all. Since each unit or enterprise lives at its own pace (its own motivation system, its own indicators, its own speed of work and evaluation of results), each unit is independently preoccupied with the tools for the effective implementation of this function. Excel is enough for someone once a year, while others need online integration with production systems.
SAP HCM
Implementation Preparation Plan Break down to build.This approach is often used in tasks of building integration between systems. Turn off one system and see what happens. If nothing happens, then this system or connection is not needed. In practice, this means a systematic shutdown (disposal) of steps for transferring reports from one unit to another, reducing the use of certain directories (types of payment, schedules, temporary data, NSI). Very often, with a new implementation of the system, a business wants to transfer everything that is. But no one can say why. Many analytics were implemented for one reason or another years ago for a specific case that is no longer relevant, but this analytics is still being filled by inertia. What management decisions are made today based on this analytics?
Formation of reports and documents is often associated with the fact that people who receive these documents are not equipped with workstations . The most typical examples are the pass office and security service. Eternal applications on paper signed by the responsible official. Maybe you should give them the opportunity to sometimes play solitaire on a PC? The cost of a workstation may be cheaper than paper workflow.
The processes. Perhaps this is the most popular word in the implementation. Everyone wants to simplify, unify processes. If you look at the processes after the introduction of SAP and before, there will not be as many differences as there was noise around it. Unifying processes without being tied to a system is very simple. We take the simplest version of the process and the most complex (as above in the example with the plant and sellers). We look at how they differ (with a high degree of probability the differences will be in the number of communications and output forms), we bring the processes to the most difficult for all enterprises. And then we bite off the steps according to the first principle of “break to build.” No need to build beautiful diagrams and poems - in real everyday life no one looks into these multi-volumes. A simple plate in Excel will help.
Papers. The second sore point after the methodology. Papers are all that the law does not need. One company conducted an experiment with the removal of printers. People physically could not print documents. Six months later, the number of documents by e-mail was reduced significantly. Instead of “where is the report?” The question “where to look?” Began to arise. I believe that there are documents that cannot be unified. For example, additional agreements to employment contracts. It is enough to process the documents for the most widespread cases and unify and automate them. Take the rest out of the scope of the project and unification as in the situation with a bonus for the result. With mass selection and hiring in the retail business, documents are easily unified and automated, but why do this for industrial giants?
People and project. This is the most sensitive topic. Any manager knows that people are sensitive to change. Even the rearrangement of the table in the office can be considered a declaration of war, disrespect for the best years of life given to the enterprise. Starting a project to introduce such a system, and this is a large project, each of its participants from the business side feels morally that this is temporary and against it. Even the project manager has concerns that after the project his role will end and he will become unnecessary for the enterprise. Before starting a project, people should have a clear understanding of what will happen to them after the project is completed. Any project is stress, it is an additional work that differs from the usual one. Many project participants see this as additional load, which is not compensated in any way. It’s worthwhile to think in advance about the motivation of people to work effectively in the project,
Коммуникации или «а поговорить». Many leaders became leaders because they started or were able to talk. Correctly formulate and convey their thoughts to the interlocutor. When the project begins, they forget about it. The project involves involving more people than we used to see daily. A new barrier appears that needs to be overcome in order to achieve a result. But bad luck - no motivation. Why go and talk with someone if this doesn’t give me anything personally. With your supervisor or subordinates - always welcome, as the incentives are clear. And here are completely different people (both in business and external consultants), the results of communication with which do not foresee any motivation. As a result, we see a constant lack of information from all project participants at all levels. To reduce potential risks due to communications, even before the project, you need to build communication rules. Not formal regulations who, where, why and when, but something else. In practice, this may be the organization of project initiatives that, in a strategic plan, will lead the participants themselves to understand the need for a new system. Previously, enterprises had such things as “ratsuhs” - rationalization proposals, the implementation of which would make the enterprise or process better in something. This is a project initiative that can involve a large number of people without announcing a project, thereby preparing both the team and the business for change. which in a strategic plan will lead the participants themselves to an understanding of the need to introduce a new system. Previously, enterprises had such things as “ratsuhs” - rationalization proposals, the implementation of which would make the enterprise or process better in something. This is a project initiative that can involve a large number of people without announcing a project, thereby preparing both the team and the business for change. which in a strategic plan will lead the participants themselves to an understanding of the need to introduce a new system. Previously, enterprises had such things as “ratsuhs” - rationalization proposals, the implementation of which would make the enterprise or process better in something. This is a project initiative that can involve a large number of people without announcing a project, thereby preparing both the team and the business for change.
The most important thing , from my point of view, as has been repeatedly noted in other articles, is to convey the goal of implementation to the largest number of people in the company as accurately as possible.