Get­ting To Know Sig­nif­i­cant Busi­ness Out­comes By Bridg­ing Pre­dic­tive Work­force An­a­lyt­ics

Get­ting To Know Sig­nif­i­cant Busi­ness Out­comes By Bridg­ing Pre­dic­tive Work­force An­a­lyt­ics

The HR Digest - - Content Features -

Busi­ness lead­ers to­day are in­creas­ingly ap­ply­ing pres­sure to their Hu­man Re­sources de­part­ments to use pre­dic­tive work­force an­a­lyt­ics (PAW). The same busi­ness lead­ers want Hu­man Re­sources to un­cover pre­dic­tive an­a­lyt­ics projects that some­how af­fect the bottom line, i.e. in­crease cus­tomers, in­crease rev­enue, de­creases er­rors, et al.

Hu­man Re­sources face a dif­fer­ent and some­what unique chal­lenge in this line of busi­ness. Un­less the unique chal­lenge is un­der­stood, it can re­scind an HR team for quite a while, cause them to lose valu­able an­a­lyt­ics project re­sources as well as fund­ing, and keep them con­fused for as long as they don’t have a clue on how they missed the ob­jec­tive so badly. Work­force An­a­lyt­ics’ ex­pe­ri­ence has been that (like every sin­gle other line of busi­ness) when Hu­man Re­sources fo­cuses on pre­scient an­a­lyt­ics projects, they look around for more in­ter­est­ing HR is­sues to solve; that is, is­sues within the Hu­man Re­sources di­vi­sions. They’d like to know whether em­ployee en­gage­ment pre­dicts any­thing, or if they can uti­lize rev­e­la­tory work some way or an­other with their as­sorted qual­i­ties and chal­lenges, or fore­see a flight risk score that is tied to the amount of train­ing or pro­mo­tions some­body has, or check the type of on­board­ing some­body has, re­lates with to what ex­tent they last in a role. In spite of the fact that these un­der­tak­ings have spec­u­la­tive ties to dif­fer­ent lines of busi­ness, these tasks are driven from an HR need or in­ter­est.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.