Sections

The Real Revolution In Performance Management

Steven Hunt

After years spent complaining about performance management, companies are finally redesigning this critical, yet much maligned, part of human capital management. Here’s a quick snapshot of what the real revolution in performance management is about based on my experience working with hundreds of companies.  And it is not about ratings.

Performance management refers to processes used to communicate job expectations, provide ongoing support to help employees achieve those expectations, and make decisions about pay, promotions, and other scarce resources based on employee performance against expectations.  The revolution taking place in performance management is a result of companies realizing that performance management is not a single activity.  It is two distinct activities that must be kept separate to be effective but must be linked to be impactful.

Performance coaching: maintaining ongoing discussions about performance expectations.

Performance investment: accurately assessing employee performance and using this data to make decisions related to pay, staffing, and development.

Thinking of these two areas as separate but linked allows companies to make major advances in how they engage employees throughout the year while ensuring the company also invests its resources in a manner that reflects the level of contributions different employees make to the company.

The performance coaching revolution. Managers and employees should discuss performance throughout the year so there are no surprises at the end-of-year review.  But managers and employees inevitably fail to hold these ongoing discussions.  They either forget to have regular check-in meetings or they use the meetings for tactical problem solving instead of engaging in coaching conversations about goal alignment and performance expectations. Happily this is starting to change.

Companies are starting to seriously address managers whose behaviors, intentional or not, suggest they have little interest in the career success of their direct reports.  It has long been said that employees don’t quit companies, they quit lousy managers.  In a scarce labor market companies cannot afford to lose talent due to poor management practices.

To address this issue, companies are making use of innovative, continuous performance management technology that helps managers and employees schedule and hold productive ongoing one-on-one coaching sessions.  It reminds them to have the meetings, helps guide session agendas, and tracks data from the meetings that can be referred to over time.  It also allows companies to measure whether managers are performing the core tasks required to be an effective manager (i.e., talking with direct reports about their jobs and careers).  This technology might be likened to a “health app” for employee-manager dialogue.  Instead of reminding you to eat right and exercise regularly, it reminds you and your manager to have clear goals and discuss them regularly.

The performance investment revolution.  Despite claims about companies “getting rid of ratings”, all companies rate their employees in the sense that they place them in different categories based on perceived performance contributions. I have yet to meet a business leader who didn’t want to know who the high performers are in their company and who didn’t believe there should be some link between pay and performance. Consequently, I have yet to see a company that doesn’t rate its employees in some manner.  The question is whether those ratings are accurate and impactful.

Historically, most companies had managers provide an annual overall rating of the performance of their direct reports.  The problem is these ratings were often inaccurate, failed to differentiate between employees, and/or had limited influence on decisions related to compensation and staffing.  People often viewed the rating process as an exercise in stress, futility, and bad data. Rather than continue using a flawed rating process, many companies have decided to eliminate ratings made by individual managers operating in isolation. The old annual ratings are being replaced by calibration sessions that stress collaborative discussion between managers and other stakeholders to determine which employees provide the greatest impact on company success.

Note that calibration is not the same as forced ranking. Calibration is about coming together to discuss and agree on the performance levels of employees. This may include placing employees into a predefined performance distribution, but forced distributions are not a necessary component of effective calibration sessions.

The shift to calibration is fueled by three things:

  1. Companies are recognizing that the only way to develop a consistent definition of performance across managers and employees is to discuss what defines high performance in their group.
  2. Second, companies are recognizing that how you evaluate someone’s performance is heavily influenced by your perspective.  When a manager evaluates their direct reports, they are primarily evaluating them based on their interactions with that person. To get a true picture of a person’s performance you need input from multiple people who interact with them in different situations and settings.
  3. Third, technology is making it easier to conduct calibration reviews.  It used to take weeks to assemble the performance records and employee profiles necessary to hold a calibration session.  The data was often out of date by the time the session was conducted.  Companies can now access employee data in real time, enabling more frequent and focused use of calibration to gain insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the workforce.

Performance management is both difficult and necessary.  Performance management is difficult because it addresses the reality of performance differences.  Employees do not all perform at the same level and most people believe employees who contribute more to the organization should receive more in return.  But addressing performance differences requires managing issues that can quickly blow up if not dealt with appropriately. Performance management is necessary because it impacts business-critical and legally sensitive decisions around pay, job assignments, and employment.  Leaving managers to make these sorts of high stakes decisions based on intuition is not a good formula for long-term success.  When you consider the sorts of activities and decisions involved in performance management it is not surprising that companies have struggled to do it well.

The good news is there’s a revolution going on in performance management. This revolution is about creating continuous performance conversations between employees and managers and using calibration sessions to gain accurate insight into employee contributions.  Annual ratings are not going away due to this revolution.  But they are playing an increasingly minor role as companies shift their emphasis from collecting performance ratings to creating more effective ongoing performance dialogue between employees, managers, and leaders.

It is my privilege to work with many companies who are on the forefront of the performance management revolution. These companies are demonstrating how technology enables us to rethink this important but historically troublesome HCM practice.  For videos with tips on how to improve one-on-one meetings, please visit these links for employees, managers, and HR professionals.

For more insight on performance management strategies, see How To Get Better At Receiving Feedback.

This story also appeared in the SAP Business Trends community.

Comments

Steven Hunt

About Steven Hunt

Steven Hunt is the Senior Vice President of Customer Value at SAP. He is responsible for guiding the strategy and deployment of knowledge, tools and process improvements that increase the value customers receive from SuccessFactors & SAP Cloud software as a service solutions.

How To Design Your Company’s Digital Transformation

Sam Yen

The September issue of the Harvard Business Review features a cover story on design thinking’s coming of age. We have been applying design thinking within SAP for the past 10 years, and I’ve witnessed the growth of this human-centered approach to innovation first hand.

Design thinking is, as the HBR piece points out, “the best tool we have for … developing a responsive, flexible organizational culture.”

This means businesses are doing more to learn about their customers by interacting directly with them. We’re seeing this change in our work on d.forum — a community of design thinking champions and “disruptors” from across industries.

Meanwhile, technology is making it possible to know exponentially more about a customer. Businesses can now make increasingly accurate predictions about customers’ needs well into the future. The businesses best able to access and pull insights from this growing volume of data will win. That requires a fundamental change for our own industry; it necessitates a digital transformation.

So, how do we design this digital transformation?

It starts with the customer and an application of design thinking throughout an organization – blending business, technology and human values to generate innovation. Business is already incorporating design thinking, as the HBR cover story shows. We in technology need to do the same.

SCN SY.png

Design thinking plays an important role because it helps articulate what the end customer’s experience is going to be like. It helps focus all aspects of the business on understanding and articulating that future experience.

Once an organization is able to do that, the insights from that consumer experience need to be drawn down into the business, with the central question becoming: What does this future customer experience mean for us as an organization? What barriers do we need to remove? Do we need to organize ourselves differently? Does our process need to change – if it does, how? What kind of new technology do we need?

Then an organization must look carefully at roles within itself. What does this knowledge of the end customer’s future experience mean for an individual in human resources, for example, or finance? Those roles can then be viewed as end experiences unto themselves, with organizations applying design thinking to learn about the needs inherent to those roles. They can then change roles to better meet the end customer’s future needs. This end customer-centered approach is what drives change.

This also means design thinking is more important than ever for IT organizations.

We, in the IT industry, have been charged with being responsive to business, using technology to solve the problems business presents. Unfortunately, business sometimes views IT as the organization keeping the lights on. If we make the analogy of a store: business is responsible for the front office, focused on growing the business where consumers directly interact with products and marketing; while the perception is that IT focuses on the back office, keeping servers running and the distribution system humming. The key is to have business and IT align to meet the needs of the front office together.

Remember what I said about the growing availability of consumer data? The business best able to access and learn from that data will win. Those of us in IT organizations have the technology to make that win possible, but the way we are seen and our very nature needs to change if we want to remain relevant to business and participate in crafting the winning strategy.

We need to become more front office and less back office, proving to business that we are innovation partners in technology.

This means, in order to communicate with businesses today, we need to take a design thinking approach. We in IT need to show we have an understanding of the end consumer’s needs and experience, and we must align that knowledge and understanding with technological solutions. When this works — when the front office and back office come together in this way — it can lead to solutions that a company could otherwise never have realized.

There’s different qualities, of course, between front office and back office requirements. The back office is the foundation of a company and requires robustness, stability, and reliability. The front office, on the other hand, moves much more quickly. It is always changing with new product offerings and marketing campaigns. Technology must also show agility, flexibility, and speed. The business needs both functions to survive. This is a challenge for IT organizations, but it is not an impossible shift for us to make.

Here’s the breakdown of our challenge.

1. We need to better understand the real needs of the business.

This means learning more about the experience and needs of the end customer and then translating that information into technological solutions.

2. We need to be involved in more of the strategic discussions of the business.

Use the regular invitations to meetings with business as an opportunity to surface the deeper learning about the end consumer and the technology solutions that business may otherwise not know to ask for or how to implement.

The IT industry overall may not have a track record of operating in this way, but if we are not involved in the strategic direction of companies and shedding light on the future path, we risk not being considered innovation partners for the business.

We must collaborate with business, understand the strategic direction and highlight the technical challenges and opportunities. When we do, IT will become a hybrid organization – able to maintain the back office while capitalizing on the front office’s growing technical needs. We will highlight solutions that business could otherwise have missed, ushering in a digital transformation.

Digital transformation goes beyond just technology; it requires a mindset. See What It Really Means To Be A Digital Organization.

This story originally appeared on SAP Business Trends.

Top image via Shutterstock

Comments

Sam Yen

About Sam Yen

Sam Yen is the Chief Design Officer for SAP and the Managing Director of SAP Labs Silicon Valley. He is focused on driving a renewed commitment to design and user experience at SAP. Under his leadership, SAP further strengthens its mission of listening to customers´ needs leading to tangible results, including SAP Fiori, SAP Screen Personas and SAP´s UX design services.

How Productive Could You Be With 45 Minutes More Per Day?

Michael Rander

Chances are that you are already feeling your fair share of organizational complexity when navigating your current company, but have you ever considered just how much time is spent across all companies on managing complexity? According to a recent study by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), the global impact of complexity is mind-blowing – and not in a good way.

The study revealed that 38% of respondents spent 16%-25% of their time just dealing with organizational complexity, and 17% spent a staggering 26%-50% of their time doing so. To put that into more concrete numbers, in the US alone, if executives could cut their time spent managing complexity in half, an estimated 8.6 million hours could be saved a week. That corresponds to 45 minutes per executive per day.

The potential productivity impact of every executive having 45 minutes more to work every single day is clearly significant, and considering that 55% say that their organization is either very or extremely complex, why are we then not making the reduction of complexity one or our top of mind issues?

The problem is that identifying the sources of complexity is complex in of itself. Key sources of complexity include organizational size, executive priorities, pace of innovation, decision-making processes, vastly increasing amounts of data to manage, organizational structures, and the pure culture of the company. As a consequence, answers are not universal by any means.

That being said, the negative productivity impact of complexity, regardless of the specific source, is felt similarly across a very large segment of the respondents, with 55% stating that complexity has taken a direct toll on profitability over the past three years.  This is such a serious problem that 8% of respondents actually slowed down their company growth in order to deal with complexity.

So, if complexity oftentimes impacts productivity and subsequently profitability, what are some of the more successful initiatives that companies are taking to combat these effects? Among the answers from the EIU survey, the following were highlighted among the most likely initiatives to reduce complexity and ultimately increase productivity:

  • Making it a company-wide goal to reduce complexity means that the executive level has to live and breathe simplification in order for the rest of the organization to get behind it. Changing behaviors across the organization requires strong leadership, commitment, and change management, and these initiatives ultimately lead to improved decision-making processes, which was reported by respondents as the top benefit of reducing complexity. From a leadership perspective this also requires setting appropriate metrics for measuring outcomes, and for metrics, productivity and efficiency were by far the most popular choices amongst respondents though strangely collaboration related metrics where not ranking high in spite of collaboration being a high level priority.
  • Promoting a culture of collaboration means enabling employees and management alike to collaborate not only within their teams but also across the organization, with partners, and with customers. Creating cross-functional roles to facilitate collaboration was cited by 56% as the most helpful strategy in achieving this goal.
  • More than half (54%) of respondents found the implementation of new technology and tools to be a successful step towards reducing complexity and improving productivity. Enabling collaboration, reducing information overload, building scenarios and prognoses, and enabling real-time decision-making are all key issues that technology can help to reduce complexity at all levels of the organization.

While these initiatives won’t help everyone, it is interesting to see that more than half of companies believe that if they could cut complexity in half they could be at least 11%-25% more productive. That nearly one in five respondents indicated that they could be 26%-50% more productive is a massive improvement.

The question then becomes whether we can make complexity and its impact on productivity not only more visible as a key issue for companies to address, but (even more importantly) also something that every company and every employee should be actively working to reduce. The potential productivity gains listed by respondents certainly provide food for thought, and few other corporate activities are likely to gain that level of ROI.

Just imagine having 45 minutes each and every day for actively pursuing new projects, getting innovative, collaborating, mentoring, learning, reducing stress, etc. What would you do? The vision is certainly compelling, and the question is are we as companies, leaders, and employees going to do something about it?

To read more about the EIU study, please see:

Feel free to follow me on Twitter: @michaelrander

Comments

Michael Rander

About Michael Rander

Michael Rander is the Global Research Director for Future Of Work at SAP. He is an experienced project manager, strategic and competitive market researcher, operations manager as well as an avid photographer, athlete, traveler and entrepreneur. Share your thoughts with Michael on Twitter @michaelrander.

How AI Can End Bias

Yvonne Baur, Brenda Reid, Steve Hunt, and Fawn Fitter

We humans make sense of the world by looking for patterns, filtering them through what we think we already know, and making decisions accordingly. When we talk about handing decisions off to artificial intelligence (AI), we expect it to do the same, only better.

Machine learning does, in fact, have the potential to be a tremendous force for good. Humans are hindered by both their unconscious assumptions and their simple inability to process huge amounts of information. AI, on the other hand, can be taught to filter irrelevancies out of the decision-making process, pluck the most suitable candidates from a haystack of résumés, and guide us based on what it calculates is objectively best rather than simply what we’ve done in the past.

In other words, AI has the potential to help us avoid bias in hiring, operations, customer service, and the broader business and social communities—and doing so makes good business sense. For one thing, even the most unintentional discrimination can cost a company significantly, in both money and brand equity. The mere fact of having to defend against an accusation of bias can linger long after the issue itself is settled.

Beyond managing risk related to legal and regulatory issues, though, there’s a broader argument for tackling bias: in a relentlessly competitive and global economy, no organization can afford to shut itself off from broader input, more varied experiences, a wider range of talent, and larger potential markets.

That said, the algorithms that drive AI don’t reveal pure, objective truth just because they’re mathematical. Humans must tell AI what they consider suitable, teach it which information is relevant, and indicate that the outcomes they consider best—ethically, legally, and, of course, financially—are those that are free from bias, conscious or otherwise. That’s the only way AI can help us create systems that are fair, more productive, and ultimately better for both business and the broader society.

Bias: Bad for Business

When people talk about AI and machine learning, they usually mean algorithms that learn over time as they process large data sets. Organizations that have gathered vast amounts of data can use these algorithms to apply sophisticated mathematical modeling techniques to see if the results can predict future outcomes, such as fluctuations in the price of materials or traffic flows around a port facility. Computers are ideally suited to processing these massive data volumes to reveal patterns and interactions that might help organizations get ahead of their competitors. As we gather more types and sources of data with which to train increasingly complex algorithms, interest in AI will become even more intense.

Using AI for automated decision making is becoming more common, at least for simple tasks, such as recommending additional products at the point of sale based on a customer’s current and past purchases. The hope is that AI will be able to take on the process of making increasingly sophisticated decisions, such as suggesting entirely new markets where a company could be profitable, or finding the most qualified candidates for jobs by helping HR look beyond the expected demographics.

As AI takes on these increasingly complex decisions, it can help reduce bias, conscious or otherwise. By exposing a bias, algorithms allow us to lessen the impact of that bias on our decisions and actions. They enable us to make decisions that reflect objective data instead of untested assumptions; they reveal imbalances; and they alert people to their cognitive blind spots so they can make more accurate, unbiased decisions.

Imagine, for example, a major company that realizes that its past hiring practices were biased against women and that would benefit from having more women in its management pipeline. AI can help the company analyze its past job postings for gender-biased language, which might have discouraged some applicants. Future postings could be more gender neutral, increasing the number of female applicants who get past the initial screenings.

AI can also support people in making less-biased decisions. For example, a company is considering two candidates for an influential management position: one man and one woman. The final hiring decision lies with a hiring manager who, when they learn that the female candidate has a small child at home, assumes that she would prefer a part-time schedule.

That assumption may be well intentioned, but it runs counter to the outcome the company is looking for. An AI could apply corrective pressure by reminding the hiring manager that all qualifications being equal, the female candidate is an objectively good choice who meets the company’s criteria. The hope is that the hiring manager will realize their unfounded assumption and remove it from their decision-making process.

At the same time, by tracking the pattern of hiring decisions this manager makes, the AI could alert them—and other people in HR—that the company still has some remaining hidden biases against female candidates to address.

Look for Where Bias Already Exists

In other words, if we want AI to counter the effects of a biased world, we have to begin by acknowledging that the world is biased. And that starts in a surprisingly low-tech spot: identifying any biases baked into your own organization’s current processes. From there, you can determine how to address those biases and improve outcomes.

There are many scenarios where humans can collaborate with AI to prevent or even reverse bias, says Jason Baldridge, a former associate professor of computational linguistics at the University of Texas at Austin and now co-founder of People Pattern, a startup for predictive demographics using social media analytics. In the highly regulated financial services industry, for example, Baldridge says banks are required to ensure that their algorithmic choices are not based on input variables that correlate with protected demographic variables (like race and gender). The banks also have to prove to regulators that their mathematical models don’t focus on patterns that disfavor specific demographic groups, he says. What’s more, they have to allow outside data scientists to assess their models for code or data that might have a discriminatory effect. As a result, banks are more evenhanded in their lending.

Code Is Only Human

The reason for these checks and balances is clear: the algorithms that drive AI are built by humans, and humans choose the data with which to shape and train the resulting models. Because humans are prone to bias, we have to be careful that we are neither simply confirming existing biases nor introducing new ones when we develop AI models and feed them data.

“From the perspective of a business leader who wants to do the right thing, it’s a design question,” says Cathy O’Neil, whose best-selling book Weapons of Math Destruction was long-listed for the 2016 National Book Award. “You wouldn’t let your company design a car and send it out in the world without knowing whether it’s safe. You have to design it with safety standards in mind,” she says. “By the same token, algorithms have to be designed with fairness and legality in mind, with standards that are understandable to everyone, from the business leader to the people being scored.” (To learn more from O’Neil about transparency in algorithms, read Thinkers in this issue.)

Don’t Do What You’ve Always Done

To eliminate bias, you must first make sure that the data you’re using to train the algorithm is itself free of bias, or, rather, that the algorithm can recognize bias in that data and bring the bias to a human’s attention.

SAP has been working on an initiative that tackles this issue directly by spotting and categorizing gendered terminology in old job postings. Nothing as overt as No women need apply, which everyone knows is discriminatory, but phrases like outspoken and aggressively pursuing opportunities, which are proven to attract male job applicants and repel female applicants, and words like caring and flexible, which do the opposite.

Once humans categorize this language and feed it into an algorithm, the AI can learn to flag words that imply bias and suggest gender-neutral alternatives. Unfortunately, this de-biasing process currently requires too much human intervention to scale easily, but as the amount of available de-biased data grows, this will become far less of a limitation in developing AI for HR.

Similarly, companies should look for specificity in how their algorithms search for new talent. According to O’Neil, there’s no one-size-fits-all definition of the best engineer; there’s only the best engineer for a particular role or project at a particular time. That’s the needle in the haystack that AI is well suited to find.

Look Beyond the Obvious

AI could be invaluable in radically reducing deliberate and unconscious discrimination in the workplace. However, the more data your company analyzes, the more likely it is that you will deal with stereotypes, O’Neil says. If you’re looking for math professors, for example, and you load your hiring algorithm with all the data you can find about math professors, your algorithm may give a lower score to a black female candidate living in Harlem simply because there are fewer black female mathematicians in your data set. But if that candidate has a PhD in math from Cornell, and if you’ve trained your AI to prioritize that criterion, the algorithm will bump her up the list of candidates rather than summarily ruling out a potentially high-value hire on the spurious basis of race and gender.

To further improve the odds that AI will be useful, companies have to go beyond spotting relationships between data and the outcomes they care about. It doesn’t take sophisticated predictive modeling to determine, for example, that women are disproportionately likely to jump off the corporate ladder at the halfway point because they’re struggling with work/life balance.

Many companies find it all too easy to conclude that women simply aren’t qualified for middle management. However, a company committed to smart talent management will instead ask what it is about these positions that makes them incompatible with women’s lives. It will then explore what it can change so that it doesn’t lose talent and institutional knowledge that will cost the company far more to replace than to retain.

That company may even apply a second layer of machine learning that looks at its own suggestions and makes further recommendations: “It looks like you’re trying to do X, so consider doing Y,” where X might be promoting more women, making the workforce more ethnically diverse, or improving retention statistics, and Y is redefining job responsibilities with greater flexibility, hosting recruiting events in communities of color, or redesigning benefits packages based on what similar companies offer.

Context Matters—and Context Changes

Even though AI learns—and maybe because it learns—it can never be considered “set it and forget it” technology. To remain both accurate and relevant, it has to be continually trained to account for changes in the market, your company’s needs, and the data itself.

Sources for language analysis, for example, tend to be biased toward standard American English, so if you’re building models to analyze social media posts or conversational language input, Baldridge says, you have to make a deliberate effort to include and correct for slang and nonstandard dialects. Standard English applies the word sick to someone having health problems, but it’s also a popular slang term for something good or impressive, which could lead to an awkward experience if someone confuses the two meanings, to say the least. Correcting for that, or adding more rules to the algorithm, such as “The word sick appears in proximity to positive emoji,” takes human oversight.

Moving Forward with AI

Today, AI excels at making biased data obvious, but that isn’t the same as eliminating it. It’s up to human beings to pay attention to the existence of bias and enlist AI to help avoid it. That goes beyond simply implementing AI to insisting that it meet benchmarks for positive impact. The business benefits of taking this step are—or soon will be—obvious.

In IDC FutureScapes’ webcast “Worldwide Big Data, Business Analytics, and Cognitive Software 2017 Predictions,” research director David Schubmehl predicted that by 2020 perceived bias and lack of evidentiary transparency in cognitive/AI solutions will create an activist backlash movement, with up to 10% of users backing away from the technology. However, Schubmehl also speculated that consumer and enterprise users of machine learning will be far more likely to trust AI’s recommendations and decisions if they understand how those recommendations and decisions are made. That means knowing what goes into the algorithms, how they arrive at their conclusions, and whether they deliver desired outcomes that are also legally and ethically fair.

Clearly, organizations that can address this concern explicitly will have a competitive advantage, but simply stating their commitment to using AI for good may not be enough. They also may wish to support academic efforts to research AI and bias, such as the annual Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency in Machine Learning (FATML) workshop, which was held for the third time in November 2016.

O’Neil, who blogs about data science and founded the Lede Program for Data Journalism, an intensive certification program at Columbia University, is going one step further. She is attempting to create an entirely new industry dedicated to auditing and monitoring algorithms to ensure that they not only reveal bias but actively eliminate it. She proposes the formation of groups of data scientists that evaluate supply chains for signs of forced labor, connect children at risk of abuse with resources to support their families, or alert people through a smartphone app when their credit scores are used to evaluate eligibility for something other than a loan.

As we begin to entrust AI with more complex and consequential decisions, organizations may also want to be proactive about ensuring that their algorithms do good—so that their companies can use AI to do well. D!

Read more thought provoking articles in the latest issue of the Digitalist Magazine, Executive Quarterly.


About the Authors:

Yvonne Baur is Head of Predictive Analytics for Sap SuccessFactors solutions.

Brenda Reid is Vice President of Product Management for Sap SuccessFactors solutions.

Steve Hunt is Senior Vice President of Human Capital Management Research for Sap SuccessFactors solutions.

Fawn Fitter is a freelance writer specializing in business and technology.

Comments

Tags:

Donuts, Content Management and Information Governance

Ina Felsheim

I was on vacation for two weeks, which was awesome, and my girls mainly wanted to do two things:

I had my own list of projects, too. The big one was installing glass tile on the kitchen backsplash. (Grout everywhere. That’s all I’m saying.)

After two weeks of glorious holiday, I sat down to take stock. The old technical writer in me came creeping out, and I began to count how many sets of instructions we followed over the course of the two weeks—more than 15, definitely. And the amazing thing? They were all right. Every. Last. One. From proper application of fabric paint to proper frying temperature for homemade donuts, to putting together a shoe rack that came in 20 pieces.

I’m pretty sure this wouldn’t have happened five years ago. The difference comes from an increased awareness in the importance of great user assistance. Without successful “use,” who’s going to evangelize your product?

Information Governance: Part of a Larger Food Pyramid

In EIM, we have a well-seasoned group of information developers. They apply information governance principles every day:

  • Create a single source of master information (in this case, product step-by-step instructions)
  • Manage versioning of master information (as product updates happen)
  • Survey end-users of the information to gauge quality, freshness, and applicability of master information
  • Establish master information Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, or Informed (RACI) models for owners, reviewers, and informed stakeholders.

Sometimes, we group this knowledge management work into other categories, like content management. However, information governance needs to also be inclusive of these activities; otherwise, how can we be successful? No one can live on donuts alone!

Does your information governance program include content management? Do you have comments about the quality of EIM user assistance (online help, PDFs, printed documentation, etc.)?

Comments

Jacqueline Prause

About Jacqueline Prause

Jacqueline Prause is the Senior Managing Editor of Media Channels at SAP. She writes, edits, and coordinates journalistic content for SAP.info, SAP's global online news magazine for customers, partners, and business influencers .

Tags:

awareness

Donuts, Content Management and Information Governance

Ina Felsheim

I was on vacation for two weeks, which was awesome, and my girls mainly wanted to do two things:

I had my own list of projects, too. The big one was installing glass tile on the kitchen backsplash. (Grout everywhere. That’s all I’m saying.)

After two weeks of glorious holiday, I sat down to take stock. The old technical writer in me came creeping out, and I began to count how many sets of instructions we followed over the course of the two weeks—more than 15, definitely. And the amazing thing? They were all right. Every. Last. One. From proper application of fabric paint to proper frying temperature for homemade donuts, to putting together a shoe rack that came in 20 pieces.

I’m pretty sure this wouldn’t have happened five years ago. The difference comes from an increased awareness in the importance of great user assistance. Without successful “use,” who’s going to evangelize your product?

Information Governance: Part of a Larger Food Pyramid

In EIM, we have a well-seasoned group of information developers. They apply information governance principles every day:

  • Create a single source of master information (in this case, product step-by-step instructions)
  • Manage versioning of master information (as product updates happen)
  • Survey end-users of the information to gauge quality, freshness, and applicability of master information
  • Establish master information Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, or Informed (RACI) models for owners, reviewers, and informed stakeholders.

Sometimes, we group this knowledge management work into other categories, like content management. However, information governance needs to also be inclusive of these activities; otherwise, how can we be successful? No one can live on donuts alone!

Does your information governance program include content management? Do you have comments about the quality of EIM user assistance (online help, PDFs, printed documentation, etc.)?

Comments

Andre Smith

About Andre Smith

An Internet, Marketing and E-Commerce specialist with several years of experience in the industry. He has watched as the world of online business has grown and adapted to new technologies, and he has made it his mission to help keep businesses informed and up to date.

Tags:

awareness

Donuts, Content Management and Information Governance

Ina Felsheim

I was on vacation for two weeks, which was awesome, and my girls mainly wanted to do two things:

I had my own list of projects, too. The big one was installing glass tile on the kitchen backsplash. (Grout everywhere. That’s all I’m saying.)

After two weeks of glorious holiday, I sat down to take stock. The old technical writer in me came creeping out, and I began to count how many sets of instructions we followed over the course of the two weeks—more than 15, definitely. And the amazing thing? They were all right. Every. Last. One. From proper application of fabric paint to proper frying temperature for homemade donuts, to putting together a shoe rack that came in 20 pieces.

I’m pretty sure this wouldn’t have happened five years ago. The difference comes from an increased awareness in the importance of great user assistance. Without successful “use,” who’s going to evangelize your product?

Information Governance: Part of a Larger Food Pyramid

In EIM, we have a well-seasoned group of information developers. They apply information governance principles every day:

  • Create a single source of master information (in this case, product step-by-step instructions)
  • Manage versioning of master information (as product updates happen)
  • Survey end-users of the information to gauge quality, freshness, and applicability of master information
  • Establish master information Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, or Informed (RACI) models for owners, reviewers, and informed stakeholders.

Sometimes, we group this knowledge management work into other categories, like content management. However, information governance needs to also be inclusive of these activities; otherwise, how can we be successful? No one can live on donuts alone!

Does your information governance program include content management? Do you have comments about the quality of EIM user assistance (online help, PDFs, printed documentation, etc.)?

Comments

Jay Tchakarov

About Jay Tchakarov

Jay Tchakarov is vice president of Product Management and Marketing at HighRadius Corporation. As part of HighRadius’ executive team, he is responsible for defining HighRadius’ Credit and A/R products and for educating the market about the value of automation and advanced technologies. He and his team work closely with sales, consultants, and customers to make sure the products address critical pain points and provide quantifiable, high-value solutions. Jay has more than 15 years of experience in software development, product management, and marketing, and numerous successful product launches. Jay graduated summa cum laude and received a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, a Master of Science in Computer Science from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and an MBA from Rice University.

Tags:

awareness

Donuts, Content Management and Information Governance

Ina Felsheim

I was on vacation for two weeks, which was awesome, and my girls mainly wanted to do two things:

I had my own list of projects, too. The big one was installing glass tile on the kitchen backsplash. (Grout everywhere. That’s all I’m saying.)

After two weeks of glorious holiday, I sat down to take stock. The old technical writer in me came creeping out, and I began to count how many sets of instructions we followed over the course of the two weeks—more than 15, definitely. And the amazing thing? They were all right. Every. Last. One. From proper application of fabric paint to proper frying temperature for homemade donuts, to putting together a shoe rack that came in 20 pieces.

I’m pretty sure this wouldn’t have happened five years ago. The difference comes from an increased awareness in the importance of great user assistance. Without successful “use,” who’s going to evangelize your product?

Information Governance: Part of a Larger Food Pyramid

In EIM, we have a well-seasoned group of information developers. They apply information governance principles every day:

  • Create a single source of master information (in this case, product step-by-step instructions)
  • Manage versioning of master information (as product updates happen)
  • Survey end-users of the information to gauge quality, freshness, and applicability of master information
  • Establish master information Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, or Informed (RACI) models for owners, reviewers, and informed stakeholders.

Sometimes, we group this knowledge management work into other categories, like content management. However, information governance needs to also be inclusive of these activities; otherwise, how can we be successful? No one can live on donuts alone!

Does your information governance program include content management? Do you have comments about the quality of EIM user assistance (online help, PDFs, printed documentation, etc.)?

Comments

Derek Klobucher

About Derek Klobucher

Derek Klobucher is a Brand Journalist, Content Marketer and Master Digital Storyteller at SAP. His responsibilities include conceiving, developing and conducting global, company-wide employee brand journalism training; managing content, promotion and strategy for social networks and online media; and mentoring SAP employees, contractors and interns to optimize blogging and social media efforts.

Tags:

awareness

Donuts, Content Management and Information Governance

Ina Felsheim

I was on vacation for two weeks, which was awesome, and my girls mainly wanted to do two things:

I had my own list of projects, too. The big one was installing glass tile on the kitchen backsplash. (Grout everywhere. That’s all I’m saying.)

After two weeks of glorious holiday, I sat down to take stock. The old technical writer in me came creeping out, and I began to count how many sets of instructions we followed over the course of the two weeks—more than 15, definitely. And the amazing thing? They were all right. Every. Last. One. From proper application of fabric paint to proper frying temperature for homemade donuts, to putting together a shoe rack that came in 20 pieces.

I’m pretty sure this wouldn’t have happened five years ago. The difference comes from an increased awareness in the importance of great user assistance. Without successful “use,” who’s going to evangelize your product?

Information Governance: Part of a Larger Food Pyramid

In EIM, we have a well-seasoned group of information developers. They apply information governance principles every day:

  • Create a single source of master information (in this case, product step-by-step instructions)
  • Manage versioning of master information (as product updates happen)
  • Survey end-users of the information to gauge quality, freshness, and applicability of master information
  • Establish master information Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, or Informed (RACI) models for owners, reviewers, and informed stakeholders.

Sometimes, we group this knowledge management work into other categories, like content management. However, information governance needs to also be inclusive of these activities; otherwise, how can we be successful? No one can live on donuts alone!

Does your information governance program include content management? Do you have comments about the quality of EIM user assistance (online help, PDFs, printed documentation, etc.)?

Comments

Tiffany Rowe

About Tiffany Rowe

Tiffany Rowe is a marketing administrator who assists in contributing resourceful content. Tiffany prides herself in her ability to provide high-quality content that readers will find valuable.

Tags:

awareness

Donuts, Content Management and Information Governance

Ina Felsheim

I was on vacation for two weeks, which was awesome, and my girls mainly wanted to do two things:

I had my own list of projects, too. The big one was installing glass tile on the kitchen backsplash. (Grout everywhere. That’s all I’m saying.)

After two weeks of glorious holiday, I sat down to take stock. The old technical writer in me came creeping out, and I began to count how many sets of instructions we followed over the course of the two weeks—more than 15, definitely. And the amazing thing? They were all right. Every. Last. One. From proper application of fabric paint to proper frying temperature for homemade donuts, to putting together a shoe rack that came in 20 pieces.

I’m pretty sure this wouldn’t have happened five years ago. The difference comes from an increased awareness in the importance of great user assistance. Without successful “use,” who’s going to evangelize your product?

Information Governance: Part of a Larger Food Pyramid

In EIM, we have a well-seasoned group of information developers. They apply information governance principles every day:

  • Create a single source of master information (in this case, product step-by-step instructions)
  • Manage versioning of master information (as product updates happen)
  • Survey end-users of the information to gauge quality, freshness, and applicability of master information
  • Establish master information Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, or Informed (RACI) models for owners, reviewers, and informed stakeholders.

Sometimes, we group this knowledge management work into other categories, like content management. However, information governance needs to also be inclusive of these activities; otherwise, how can we be successful? No one can live on donuts alone!

Does your information governance program include content management? Do you have comments about the quality of EIM user assistance (online help, PDFs, printed documentation, etc.)?

Comments

Tags:

awareness

Donuts, Content Management and Information Governance

Ina Felsheim

I was on vacation for two weeks, which was awesome, and my girls mainly wanted to do two things:

I had my own list of projects, too. The big one was installing glass tile on the kitchen backsplash. (Grout everywhere. That’s all I’m saying.)

After two weeks of glorious holiday, I sat down to take stock. The old technical writer in me came creeping out, and I began to count how many sets of instructions we followed over the course of the two weeks—more than 15, definitely. And the amazing thing? They were all right. Every. Last. One. From proper application of fabric paint to proper frying temperature for homemade donuts, to putting together a shoe rack that came in 20 pieces.

I’m pretty sure this wouldn’t have happened five years ago. The difference comes from an increased awareness in the importance of great user assistance. Without successful “use,” who’s going to evangelize your product?

Information Governance: Part of a Larger Food Pyramid

In EIM, we have a well-seasoned group of information developers. They apply information governance principles every day:

  • Create a single source of master information (in this case, product step-by-step instructions)
  • Manage versioning of master information (as product updates happen)
  • Survey end-users of the information to gauge quality, freshness, and applicability of master information
  • Establish master information Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, or Informed (RACI) models for owners, reviewers, and informed stakeholders.

Sometimes, we group this knowledge management work into other categories, like content management. However, information governance needs to also be inclusive of these activities; otherwise, how can we be successful? No one can live on donuts alone!

Does your information governance program include content management? Do you have comments about the quality of EIM user assistance (online help, PDFs, printed documentation, etc.)?

Comments

Andreas Heckmann

About Andreas Heckmann

Andreas Heckmann is head of Product Support at SAP. You can follow him on Twitter, LinkedIn, and WeChat at AndHeckmann.

Tags:

awareness

Donuts, Content Management and Information Governance

Ina Felsheim

I was on vacation for two weeks, which was awesome, and my girls mainly wanted to do two things:

I had my own list of projects, too. The big one was installing glass tile on the kitchen backsplash. (Grout everywhere. That’s all I’m saying.)

After two weeks of glorious holiday, I sat down to take stock. The old technical writer in me came creeping out, and I began to count how many sets of instructions we followed over the course of the two weeks—more than 15, definitely. And the amazing thing? They were all right. Every. Last. One. From proper application of fabric paint to proper frying temperature for homemade donuts, to putting together a shoe rack that came in 20 pieces.

I’m pretty sure this wouldn’t have happened five years ago. The difference comes from an increased awareness in the importance of great user assistance. Without successful “use,” who’s going to evangelize your product?

Information Governance: Part of a Larger Food Pyramid

In EIM, we have a well-seasoned group of information developers. They apply information governance principles every day:

  • Create a single source of master information (in this case, product step-by-step instructions)
  • Manage versioning of master information (as product updates happen)
  • Survey end-users of the information to gauge quality, freshness, and applicability of master information
  • Establish master information Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, or Informed (RACI) models for owners, reviewers, and informed stakeholders.

Sometimes, we group this knowledge management work into other categories, like content management. However, information governance needs to also be inclusive of these activities; otherwise, how can we be successful? No one can live on donuts alone!

Does your information governance program include content management? Do you have comments about the quality of EIM user assistance (online help, PDFs, printed documentation, etc.)?

Comments

Joerg Koesters

About Joerg Koesters

Joerg Koesters is the Head of Retail Marketing and Communication at SAP. He is a Technology Marketing executive with 20 years of experience in Marketing, Sales and Consulting, Joerg has deep knowledge in retail and consumer products having worked both in the industry and in the technology sector.

Tags:

awareness

Donuts, Content Management and Information Governance

Ina Felsheim

I was on vacation for two weeks, which was awesome, and my girls mainly wanted to do two things:

I had my own list of projects, too. The big one was installing glass tile on the kitchen backsplash. (Grout everywhere. That’s all I’m saying.)

After two weeks of glorious holiday, I sat down to take stock. The old technical writer in me came creeping out, and I began to count how many sets of instructions we followed over the course of the two weeks—more than 15, definitely. And the amazing thing? They were all right. Every. Last. One. From proper application of fabric paint to proper frying temperature for homemade donuts, to putting together a shoe rack that came in 20 pieces.

I’m pretty sure this wouldn’t have happened five years ago. The difference comes from an increased awareness in the importance of great user assistance. Without successful “use,” who’s going to evangelize your product?

Information Governance: Part of a Larger Food Pyramid

In EIM, we have a well-seasoned group of information developers. They apply information governance principles every day:

  • Create a single source of master information (in this case, product step-by-step instructions)
  • Manage versioning of master information (as product updates happen)
  • Survey end-users of the information to gauge quality, freshness, and applicability of master information
  • Establish master information Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, or Informed (RACI) models for owners, reviewers, and informed stakeholders.

Sometimes, we group this knowledge management work into other categories, like content management. However, information governance needs to also be inclusive of these activities; otherwise, how can we be successful? No one can live on donuts alone!

Does your information governance program include content management? Do you have comments about the quality of EIM user assistance (online help, PDFs, printed documentation, etc.)?

Comments

Henry Albrecht

About Henry Albrecht

Henry Albrecht is the CEO of Limeade, the corporate wellness technology company that measurably improves employee health, well-being and performance. Connect with Henry and the Limeade team on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn.

Tags:

awareness

Donuts, Content Management and Information Governance

Ina Felsheim

I was on vacation for two weeks, which was awesome, and my girls mainly wanted to do two things:

I had my own list of projects, too. The big one was installing glass tile on the kitchen backsplash. (Grout everywhere. That’s all I’m saying.)

After two weeks of glorious holiday, I sat down to take stock. The old technical writer in me came creeping out, and I began to count how many sets of instructions we followed over the course of the two weeks—more than 15, definitely. And the amazing thing? They were all right. Every. Last. One. From proper application of fabric paint to proper frying temperature for homemade donuts, to putting together a shoe rack that came in 20 pieces.

I’m pretty sure this wouldn’t have happened five years ago. The difference comes from an increased awareness in the importance of great user assistance. Without successful “use,” who’s going to evangelize your product?

Information Governance: Part of a Larger Food Pyramid

In EIM, we have a well-seasoned group of information developers. They apply information governance principles every day:

  • Create a single source of master information (in this case, product step-by-step instructions)
  • Manage versioning of master information (as product updates happen)
  • Survey end-users of the information to gauge quality, freshness, and applicability of master information
  • Establish master information Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, or Informed (RACI) models for owners, reviewers, and informed stakeholders.

Sometimes, we group this knowledge management work into other categories, like content management. However, information governance needs to also be inclusive of these activities; otherwise, how can we be successful? No one can live on donuts alone!

Does your information governance program include content management? Do you have comments about the quality of EIM user assistance (online help, PDFs, printed documentation, etc.)?

Comments

Tags:

awareness