By Linden Wolfe, Vice President of Excelsior MS3P
Yes, I just made up a word; a combination of redundancy and automation. I have a copyright attorney frantically trying to protect this term in hopes that it will bring as much fanfare and residual income as “Threepeat”. A contradiction? Think again. I see too many technology applications that do just the opposite of what they are intended to do. We often talk about technology being simple, scalable, and smart, but it must also streamline. When technology increases human capital needs, the original, more manual process might actually be better. When application after application is layered on top of each other and tool manipulation, as opposed to true integration, occurs the problems often outweigh the benefits. Cosmetic changes instead of actual, streamlined automation and platform consolidation usually create a negative impact.
As a general rule, 1 of 4 things should happen when you introduce technology with the intention of streamlining:
- Maintain the same human capital resources and increase productivity. In other words, the technology allows the same amount of resources to do more work on the same function, thus eliminating the need for additional hiring.
- Reallocation of human capital resources. The automation allows the worker(s) to take on additional tasks because the technology makes a function more efficient.
- Relocation of human capital resources. With automation, it could very well be that human capital resources can be used elsewhere in the organization without having to increase headcount in those areas.
- Elimination of human capital resources. Although there is much debate around the overall effect of automation on the general employment landscape, in some cases an organizational goal might indeed be to reduce overall reduction in number FTEs in order to be more competitive.
Unfortunately, too often I see the introduction of technology that doesn’t streamline. Instead, it creates redundancy by using multiple systems, additional manual work to offset the system’s poor design or limitations, or even additional headcount that is disingenuously justified by “We get so much benefit from the new technology we can afford to add workers to manage it.” This is why I coined the term redundomation.
If your technology is not saving you time or money by simply making your life easier, your business better, or quantitatively making you more money, then you need to do some analysis. Eliminate emotion as much as possible. Take off the rose-colored glasses and see what your applications are really doing, or not doing, for you. Eliminate any hubris and be frighteningly candid and circumspect. Are you adding, using, or keeping this technology for all the right reasons? Is it making you better and your customers happier?
This is particularly true in the world of talent acquisition and workforce solutions, where the human element is more critical than some technology applications (banking, investing, shopping, etc.). No matter the application, I’m drawn to simplicity. I believe that is a description that fits most people, employers, workers, and potential workers in the talent acquisition spectrum. Although the term “user-friendly” is almost as abused as the term “love,” is it people-centric in that it interacts with people as, well, people? Cold, sterile, cumbersome technology is counterintuitive in the people business.
Have you ever applied for a job using an online job portal and left the process in frustration over the amount of manual entry, as opposed to file uploads that actually populate accurately? As a hiring manager, have you ever reviewed the candidates who are submitting their credentials into your portal and noticed that your system does a horrendous job of filtering out those obviously unqualified? Have you ever managed a contingent labor program and had to do more than click a few buttons to get clear, concise visibility into your program enterprise wide? In each of these cases, technology and automation can actually create more work and frustration than it was intended to save.
So, maybe it’s time to step back, look objectively, and listen to the feedback of those who not only use the technology, but those who are intended to benefit from it. Or are our ears and minds closed to what should be, as opposed to what is, when it comes to automation…or lack thereof? If not, beware of redundomation.