Global HR 2010 Transformation

An ongoing journey

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

table of contents

introduction about the survey executive summary introduction ............................................................................ 4 research findings about the survey...................................................................... 5

4 5 6 8 8 12 18 28 30 32

executive summary.................................................................. 6 HR transformation status research findings ..................................................................... 8

HR transformation outcomes HR transformation status .................................................. 8

HR transformation outcomes .......................................... 12 outsourcing and shared services outsourcing and shared services ..................................... 18 HR management practices HR management practices .............................................. 28
about the survey participants about the survey participants ................................................ 30

about the research research .................................................. 32 about the sponsors sponsors

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

[3]

introduction

one glass, two ways to see it

There are many ways to look at things, but a situation can usually be analysed by viewing it from one of two angles: the glass is half full or its half empty. In other words, look on the bright side of the story or let your less optimistic side take control. In fact the real choice is between the intent to get better at something or just maintain a situation as is. What do you think we chose for ADP, a company that has been in business for over 60 years? What could have led us to support the Global HR Transformation Report for so many years, if not the will to understand where room for improvement exists? What does this years report tell us? First of all, things are heading in the right direction. No revolution here but a movement that has been steadily gathering momentum. Companies around the world that embarked on HR Transformation years ago now reap the rewards of their efforts. Regional variances still exist but those of you who have been reading the report for several years will find concepts that were previously unfamiliar are now conventional wisdom. So, is HR Transformation over? It would be foolish to think so. There are in fact many aspects yet to be examined; ideas and actions to be carefully considered that could lead to fantastic opportunities. I am confident the HR Transformation journey is far from over. More than ever, companies have to deal with uncertainty and new forms of competition, and I invite you to listen carefully to how other HR professionals identify new challenges and bring innovations. Any component of a business has the potential to play a significant role in the changes that must be made for a company not just to survive, but to thrive. HR plays an important role in reaching this goal. It is in our interest, as solution providers and HR professionals, to strive to move forward together toward the goal of making HR more agile. We may then accurately assess the resources needed to manage change, deal with cultural differences, and define the appropriate breakout of processes to manage at the local, regional and global levels. These are but a few examples of how to solve the equation. This is how HR and, more specifically HR Transformation, should be viewed: a sophisticated equation. No one said it would be easy to figure out, nor that its components would remain the same, but mathematics is all about defining new possibilities and transforming them into real opportunities. New challenges lie ahead. It is up to us to leverage this report to find innovative ways to meet them. I wish you a rewarding read, Doug Cummings Senior Vice President, Global MNC Sales ADP Employer Services

[4]

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

about the survey

Our survey, now in its seventh year, examines trends in human resources (HR) transformation practices (which we define as any concerted effort to change and improve HR operations, whether through outsourcing, shared services, internal reengineering, or a combination of these strategies) in organisations around the globe. The 2010 report offers a view of market trends and changes in HR transformation, as well as a perspective on future plans. In addition to discussing transformation status and strategy, our report addresses:

Reasons organisations transform, and the barriers that limit their transformation Transformation timing, cost and satisfaction Engagement of external resources and experience Current and future transformation scope HR outsourcing and shared services strategy, budget and provider selection

The survey received responses from 225 executives around the globe in varying stages of HR transformation. For a full breakdown of respondent demographics, please visit the About the Survey Participants section of the report.

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

[5]

executive summary
summary of 2010 findings
Transformation is on the rise again. After a dip in 2009, HR transformation appears to be on the rise again with 85% of all respondents saying they are considering, in the process of, or finished with HR transformation. In fact, although the recent economic recession does appear to have had some impact on HR transformation activity (many indicators were down in 2009 over 2008) there are signs of increased transformation activity improvement in 2010 (though generally not back to 2008 levels):

HR transformation continues to take longer than anticipated. Organisations in all regions take slightly longer to transform than they originally anticipate, a finding that has been consistent throughout the seven years of our research. On average, HR leaders say HR transformation requires two to three years; more than a quarter of organisations take more than four years to transform HR. The top reasons transformation is delayed are: management/leadership/ organisational changes impacted transformation progress; and, timing and transformation is/was more complex than expected. And continues to generate less in savings than anticipated. At the same time, organisations often miss their transformation savings targets by a slim margin: whilst 62% of all respondents anticipate savings of 6% 25%, 57% actually achieve those savings; another 14% anticipate the lowest level of savings (less than 5% savings), but 20% say they actually achieve savings in that range. Respondents in EMEA are more aggressive than those in other regions in both their cost savings expectations and results. Organisations achieve the best transformation results in organisational management areas. Survey respondents say they perform best in aligning the organisation around common objectives (79% of respondents say they exceed or meet expectations in this area) and responding to organisational changes (73% of all respondents exceed or meet expectations). Respondents rate themselves worst at leveraging HR transformation to free internal HR staff to focus on strategic issues (46% say the fall below expectations in this area) and benefiting from a new technology to empower line management (42% say they fall below expectations in this area). Organisations do a good job of matching areas of importance to performance. Generally, organisations are performing best in the areas that they deem important, with the single exception being the objective of freeing internal HR staff to focus on strategic issues, which has the lowest reported performance of all key performance areas. HR transformation hurdles are becoming entrenched. Across all seven years weve been conducting this research, the main hurdles to HR transformation have remained unchanged, with skills of existing HR staff at the top of the list every year. Other top hurdles continue to include underestimation of resources needed (52%), lack of adequate technology (41%), and internal bureaucracy (40%). HR outsourcing appears to be declining. Across the past three years, the proportion of respondents who say they are currently outsourcing or considering outsourcing HR processes has slowly declined, from 65% in 2008 to 59% in 2009, and 54% in 2010.

Transformation efforts overall were down in 2009, reversing a years-long trend of growth, but on the rise again in 2010. The proportion of respondents who say they are not transforming due to cost pressures increased significantly from 2008 to 2009,but declined from 2009 to 2010. Internal reengineering (versus engaging outsourcing, shared services or some kind of hybrid approach) was up significantly in 2009 over 2008, but it stayed virtually the same in 2010.

Regional shifts in HR transformation may be appearing on the horizon. On a regional basis, organisations in the Americas are slightly more likely than their counterparts in other regions to be engaged in HR transformation, but longitudinal research indicates there may be changes. Our results show an increase in HR transformation activity in Europe/Middle East/Africa (EMEA) (75% transforming in 2008 versus 87% in 2010), and a decline in activity in Asia Pacific (93% transforming in 2008 versus 81% in 2010), whilst the Americas remain fairly steady at 89%. Transformation approaches vary by region. Americas-based organisations are most likely to employ a hybrid approach, Asia Pacific oranisations focus on internal reengineering, and EMEA organisations are the most varied with nearly equal portions engaging hybrid, internal reengineering and shared services approaches. Top reasons organisations engage in HR transformation also vary by region. In a departure from prior years, our 2010 research indicates different top reasons for transformation by region:

Americas: to align the organisation on common objectives and to free internal HR staff to focus on strategic issues (both selected by 56% of respondents) Asia Pacific: to add and/or improve service for line management and employees or to respond to organisational changes (both are selected by 65% of respondents) EMEA: to reduce/better manage costs (62% of respondents)

[6]

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

executive summary
Even with changes across time, HR outsourcing continues to be focused on transactional activities. Organisations in all regions are most likely to outsource/consider outsourcing payroll, and least likely to outsource/consider outsourcing the entire HR function. With HR outsourcing as a whole down, few individual processes experience an increase in outsourcing between 2009 and 2010. The highest increase in outsourcing is in assessment/performance appraisal, which, although uncommon, rose from 19% to 26% between 2009 and 2010. Payroll, the most commonly outsourced HR process, also saw an increase, from 80% in 2009 to 84% in 2010. Most buyers develop their own processes for identifying and selecting their provider(s). Nearly three quarters of all respondents say they develop and/or use their own process to identify and select their provider(s), down from a high of 87% in 2009, but nearly equally to 2008s 70%. 2010 saw a decline in the use of consultants or sourcing advisors, with 36% of respondents saying they engage a consultant or sourcing advisor versus 51% in 2009. The issuing of requests for information (RFIs) and requests for proposals (RFPs) is also down. The top four provider selection criteria remain ever constant. The top four provider selection criteria remain unchanged over the previous four years, although they regularly change positions. In 2010, the top provider selection criterion is proven ability to meet service levels, followed by functional coverage and expertise, then price followed by multi-country capabilities. There are limited differences in the top criteria amongst the different regions. Organisations most often budget less than US$1M annually for HR outsourcing. The highest percentage of respondents (41%) budget less than US$1M annually for HR outsourcing; another 30% budget US$1M US$10M, and the remaining 29% budget more than US$10M. Analysis of year-over-year HR outsourcing budgets indicates growth at both ends of the budget scale, with an expanding proportion budgeting either less than US$1M or more than US$11M. Although HR outsourcing appears to be declining, respondents say budgets are rising. In spite of the fact that a declining percentage of respondents say they are currently outsourcing or considering doing so, the percentage of respondents who say their HR budgets are increasing is up: 48% of respondents say they anticipate their HR outsourcing budgets to increase over the next three years versus 42% in 2009 (although not up to the 2008 level of 55%). Most often, organisations say they expect budgets to increase by 10% 24% (20% of all respondents); 17% say they anticipate an increase of less than 10%. The use of shared services for some transactional services remains common. Just about two-thirds of all respondents say they manage one or more HR process(es) through a shared services model. As with outsourcing, organisations are more likely to manage transactional processes such as payroll and HR information systems (HRIS) in a shared services environment than they are strategic processes. Respondents from the Americas are more likely than are their counterparts in other regions to manage at least one HR process through a shared services model (71% of Americas respondents versus 56% of Asia Pacific respondents and 63% of EMEA respondents). HR functional management may be becoming increasingly global. The HR function is most often centralised at a global level, with 42% of all respondents selecting that option, versus domestic and regional centralisation, each selected by 29% of respondents. This finding represents a change over 2009 when the split was fairly equal amongst the three options (35% domestic, 33% regional and 32% global). Whilst HR functions are most often centralised on a global level, individual HR processes are most often managed on a local level. Nearly all HR processes are most likely to be managed locally, versus regionally or globally. Only stock option management is just slightly more likely to be managed on a global level than a local level. Most organisations have a common HR information system (HRIS). Amongst those organisations that have a common HRIS (80% of all respondents), over a third (35%) say it is managed at a global level; nearly as many (32%), though, say their HRIS is managed at a domestic level. Least likely amongst those that have a common HRIS is management at the regional level (14% of all respondents).

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

[7]

research findings
HR transformation status
headlines

HR transformation is on the rise again following a dip in 2009; 85% of all respondents say they are engaged in HR transformation in some form, whether reengineering, outsourcing, shared services, or hybrid approach. Just over a third say they have been engaged in HR transformation over a year. Whilst organisations in the Americas are still more likely to be transforming HR than are those in other regions, the most significant year-over-year change has taken place in the Europe/Middle East/Africa (EMEA) region, with a 16-point increase in organisations saying they are engaged in HR transformation in 2010 over 2009. Those that are transforming HR most often engage a hybrid approach (41%), combining internal reengineering, shared services, and possibly outsourcing. Next most common is internal reengineering, with nearly a third engaging that strategy. Transformation strategies vary by region: organisations in the Americas are most likely to engage a hybrid approach; those in the Asia Pacific region most often employ internal reengineering, and EMEA organisations are the most diverse, employing a variety of approaches The reasons organisations engage in HR transformation has remained constant over years of research, the most common being to reduce or better manage costs. However, there are variations by region: those in the Americas most often say their focus is to align the organisation on common objectives and to free internal HR staff to focus on strategic issues; Asia Pacificbased respondents most often say it is to add and/or improve service for line management and employees or to respond to organisational changes; EMEA headquartered organisations most often say they are engaged in HR transformation to reduce/ better manage costs. Amongst those respondents who say they are not engaged in HR transformation, most say the reason is that they are satisfied with their current organisation or strategy.

findings
who is transforming HR
After a dip in 2009, HR transformation appears to be on the rise again with 85% of all respondents saying they are considering, in the process of, or finished with HR organisations transformation. HR transformation activity remains transforming HR down from its highest (90% in 2008). Amongst those organisations that have chosen not to engage in HR transformation, most often it is because they are satisfied with their current organisation or solution (53%), HR is not a priority (26%) or transformation is considered too costly (24%). The order and magnitude of these reasons are largely unchanged between 2009 and 2010, although cost was significantly up in 2009 over 2008, and appears to be waning in 2010. (Cost was selected as a reason not to transform by 0% in 2008, 40% in 2009, and 24% in 2010).

85%

On a regional basis, organisations in the Americas are slightly more likely than are their counterparts in other regions to be engaged HR transformation. However, survey results indicate activity is shifting by region. The most significant change has been in been in the Europe/ Middle East/Africa (EMEA) region, which has seen an increase in HR transformation activity: 87% of EMEA respondents say they are engaged in HR transformation, up from a low in 2009 of 71%. On the other hand, the Asia Pacific region has experienced a decline in HR transformation activity, from 93% in 2008 to 81% in 2010. HR transformation activity in the Americas is virtually unchanged at 89% of all respondents.

where organisations are in HR transformation

The highest percentage of respondents (40%) have been transforming HR for one to two years, and 64% have been transforming HR for a year or more. Predictably, generally the larger the company, the longer they have been transforming HR.
organisations with more than 1 year of experience in transforming HR

64%

[8]

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

research findings
figure 1: where organisations are in their transformation process, all respondents figure 2: organisations engaged in HR transformation, 2006 2010

15% 7%

21%

Planning to transform In transformation Completed transformation No plans to transform

% engaged in transformation

85% 75%

90% 81%

85%

57%

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

figure 3: organisations engaged in HR transformation, by region, 2008 2010

Americas

Asia Pacific

EMEA

% engaged in transformation

% engaged in transformation

89%

87%

89%

93% 83% 81%

% engaged in transformation

87% 75% 71%

2008 2009 2010

2008 2009 2010

2008 2009 2010

figure 4: reasons organisations are not transforming HR, all respondents

Satisfied with current organisation/solution HR is not a priority Cost Company currently under re-organisation Company policy 3%
% who select

53% 26% 24% 15%

figure 5: how long organisations have been engaged in HR transformation, all respondents

14%

24%

<1 yea r 1 2 years

22% 3 4 years 5+ yea rs 40%

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

[9]

research findings
HR transformation status, continued
findings
how organisations are transforming HR
Organisations are most often transforming HR through a hybrid approach of outsourcing, centralised services and internal reengineering (40% selected this option). Next most common is internal reengineering (31%), followed by a predominantly shared services approach (23%), then by a predominantly outsourcing approach (6%). This pattern is somewhat similar to the approach organisations noted in our 2009 research, when, likely due to the global economic recession, internal reengineering jumped from 19% of all respondents to 33%. Whilst down slightly, to 31%, in 2010, that approach remains strong. At the same time, outsourcing rose in 2009 over 2008, but is off again in 2010. Transformation approaches vary somewhat by region. Organisations in the Americas are the most likely to engage in a hybrid approach (45%), whilst those in the Asia Pacific region are most likely to engage in internal reengineering (44%). Organisations headquartered in EMEA are much more diverse in their approach, with nearly equal portions engaging in hybrid (32%), internal reengineering (31%) and shared services (29%) approaches. In all regions, a transformation approach based predominantly on outsourcing is uncommon.

why organisations are transforming HR

The main reasons organisations transform HR have remained fairly constant over the past several years, with reducing/ better managing costs the top reason (56% select this option on 2010), as it has been for all but one year. (2008, when cost reduction/management dropped to number three, appears to have been an anomaly.) Other top reasons to transform HR (also consistent across the years) are adding/improving service for line managers and employees (52%), responding to organisational changes (52%), aligning the organisation on common objectives (51%), and freeing internal HR staff to focus on strategic issues (51%). Unlike in years past, this years results indicate some variation in response by region. Respondents from organisations based in the Americas most often say they are engaged in HR transformation to align the organisation on common objectives and to free internal HR staff to focus on strategic issues (both are selected by 56% of respondents). Asia Pacificbased respondents most often say they are engaged in HR transformation to add and/or improve service for line
management and employees or to respond to organisational changes (both are selected by 65% of Asia Pacific respondents). EMEA headquartered organisations most often

say they are engaged in HR transformation to reduce/better manage costs (62% of EMEA respondents).

[10]

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

research findings
figure 6: approaches organisations are taking to transform HR, all respondents figure 7: approaches organisations are taking to transform HR, 2008 2010

6% 23% 40%

2008 2009 2010

44% 35% 40%

19% 33% 31%

30% 20% 23%

7% 12% 5%

31%

Figure x: approaches organisations are taking to transform HR, by region Hybrid Internal reengineering Predominantly shared services Predominantly outsourcing

Americas Asia Pacific EMEA

45% 36% 32% 31%

27% 44%

23%

5%

16% 4% 29% 7%

figure 8: reasons organisations engage in HR transformation, all respondents and by region

all respondents

To reduce cost or better manage the cost of internal processes To add and/or improve service for line management and employees To respond to organisational changes To align the organisation on common objectives To free internal HR staff to focus on strategic issues To concentrate resources on core business To benefit from a new technology to empower line management To facilitate reporting To access external sources of talent, expertise or technology

56% 52% 52% 51% 51% 35% 33% 25% 17%

% who select

americas

To align the organisation on common objectives To free internal HR staff to focus on strategic issues To reduce cost or better manage the cost of internal processes To respond to organisational changes To add and/or improve service for line management and employees To benefit from a new technology to empower line management To concentrate resources on core business To facilitate reporting To access external sources of talent, expertise or technology

56% 56% 53% 52% 51% 33% 33% 25% 18%

% who select

To add and/or improve service for line management and employees To respond to organisational changes To free internal HR staff to focus on strategic issues To align the organisation on common objectives 58% 55% 52% 48% 42% 42% 32%
% who select

65% 65%

asia pacific

To concentrate resources on core business To reduce cost or better manage the cost of internal processes To benefit from a new technology to empower line management To facilitate reporting To access external sources of talent, expertise or technology

To reduce cost or better manage the cost of internal processes To add and/or improve service for line management and employees To respond to organisational changes To align the organisation on common objectives 44% 42% 30% 28% 19% 9%
% who select

62% 49% 47%

emea

To free internal HR staff to focus on strategic issues To concentrate resources on core business To benefit from a new technology to empower line management To facilitate reporting To access external sources of talent, expertise or technology

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

[11]

research findings
HR transformation outcomes
headlines

HR transformation takes slightly longer and generates slightly less savings than first anticipated, a finding that has remained unchanged across seven years of research. Organisations cite management/leadership/organisational changes as the top reason for slower-than-expected results. Organisations realise the best results from HR transformation in organisational management areas, and the worst results in leveraging HR staff into more strategic areas. On the whole, respondents do not appear terribly happy with their HR transformation performance overall. On a 5-point scale, the highest performing area (adding and/or improving service for line management and employees) achieves only a 2.89 score. That said, organisations generally report performing better in areas that they deem important and less well in areas they deem unimportant, so it appears focus and resourcing are being thoughtfully applied. The main hurdles to successful HR transformation remain unchanged over the years, with skills of existing HR staff perpetually topping the list. In the 2010 research the next most common hurdle is underestimating the resources needed to transform.

findings
time and savings
HR transformation takes slightly longer than anticipated to achieve, a result we have found throughout the seven years we have conducted this research. Across all average number of respondents, those responsible for HR years to transform transformation most often anticipate transformation taking one to two years (42% of respondents), whilst 32% actually achieve that result. Another quarter (25%) expect transformation to require three to four years, whilst 31% actually take that amount of time; and only 10% anticipate taking more than four years, whilst more than a quarter (27%) actually require that amount of time. The remaining 23% anticipate transformation taking a year or less; only 11% actually achieve transformation in the timeframe. As with time-to-transform results, organisations often miss their cost savings expectations by a slim margin. A majority of respondents (62%) anticipate savings of 6% 25% (the highest portion anticipating savings of 16% 25%), but 57% actually achieve those savings. Whilst 14% anticipate the lowest level of savings (less than 5% savings), 20% say they actually achieve savings in that range. On the other end of the scale, however, virtually the same proportion of respondents anticipate and achieve savings of more than 35% (8% anticipate those savings; 7% achieve them). Again here, whilst organisations in different regions generally follow similar patterns, there are regional differences. EMEA organisations tend to be most aggressive in their planning, with just over a third (35%) anticipating savings of more than 25% (versus 19% and 14% of Asia Pacific and Americas respondents, respectively, anticipating this level of savings).
average cost savings

2-3

Organisations in different regions tend to follow similar patterns as the overall response, although Asia Pacific organisations appear to be more aggressive in both anticipated and actual transformation timing. The most common reasons respondents cite for taking longer than anticipated to achieve HR transformation include:

16%25%

Management/leadership/organisational changes impacted transformation progress and timing. Transformation is/was more complex than expected. Staff turnover impacts(ed) transformation progress and timing. The staff is/was too stretched to focus on transformation Competing priorities impacts(ed) transformation progress and timing.

Interestingly, whilst a higher proportion of EMEA respondents actually achieve savings of more than 25% (25% of EMEA respondents say they achieve that level of savings, versus 20% of Asia Pacific and 19% of Americas respondents), that means EMEA respondents are generally underperforming their expectations, whilst Americas and Asia Pacific respondents are outperforming their expectations, even if only slightly.

[12]

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

research findings
figure 9: actual versus expected time to transform, all respondents

Less than 6 months Anticipated 4% 19% 42% 25% 10% 6 12 months 1 2 years 2% Actual 9% 32% 31% 27% 3 4 years More than 4 years

figure 10: actual versus expected time to transform , by region

Anticipated

Americas Asia Pacific EMEA

5% 8% 3%

16% 24% 19%

41% 44% 45%

29% 24%

9% Less than 6 months

20%

13%

6 12 months 1 2 years 3 4 years

Actual

Americas 3% 9% Asia Pacific EMEA 4% 5% 21%

30% 29% 34%

26% 38% 33%

32% 8% 28%

More than 4 years

figure 11: actual versus expected cost savings resulting from HR transformation, all respondents

Up to 5% 6% 15% Anticipated 14% 29% 33% 15% 6% 1% Actual 20% 30% 27% 16% 5% 1% 2% 16% 25% 26% 35% 36% 45% 46% 55% More than 55%

figure 12: actual versus expected cost savings resulting from HR transformation, by region

Anticipated

Americas Asia Pacific EMEA

16% 9% 13% 23%

30% 45% 30%

41% 27% 27% 5%

8% 3% 9% 5% 6%

3% Up to 5% 6% 15% 2% 16% 25% 26% 35%

Actual

Americas Asia Pacific EMEA

21% 14% 20% 29%

32%

28% 38%

12% 5% 10% 23%

7% 5% 2%

36% 45% 46% 55% More than 55%

28%

27%

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

[13]

research findings
HR transformation outcomes, continued
findings
outcomes versus expectations
Similar to prior years, respondents report best results from their HR transformation efforts in organisational management areas, including aligning the organisation around common objectives (79% of respondents say they exceed or meet expectations in this area) and responding to organisational changes (73% meet or exceed expectations in this area). Respondents say they most often exceed expectations in adding or improving service for best results in HR transformation line management and employees; 22% of all respondents say they have exceeded expectations in that area. On the other hand, respondents rate themselves worst at leveraging HR transformation to free internal HR staff to focus on strategic issues (46% say the fall below expectations in this area) and benefiting from a new technology to empower line management (42% say they fall below expectations in this area); 40% of respondents also say they are failing to access external sources of talent, expertise or technology. Applying a 5-point scale to respondents performance (where performance that is far below expectations=1, and performance that far exceeds expectations=5), on the whole respondents are not terribly happy with their performance. The highest performing reported area, adding and/or improving service for line management and employees, achieves only 2.89 points on the 5-point scale. The performance band is fairly narrow, though, as the lowest performing area, freeing internal HR staff to focus on strategic issues, scores 2.62 points on the 5-point scale. That said, organisations appear to be doing a reasonably good job of matching areas of importance (see the why organisations are transforming section) to performance. Generally, organisations are performing best in the areas that they deem important, with the single exception being the objective of freeing internal HR staff to focus on strategic issues, which has the lowest reported performance of all key performance areas.

organisational management

worst results in HR transformation

freeing HR staff to focus on strategic issues

[14]

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

research findings
figure 13: performance versus expectations in key HR transformation performance areas, all respondents

To align the organisation on common objectives To respond to organisational changes To add and/or improve service for line management and employees To reduce cost or better manage the cost of internal processes To facilitate reporting To concentrate resources on core business To access external sources of talent, expertise or technology To benefit from a new technology to empower line management To free internal HR staff to focus on strategic issues

8% 12% 22% 18% 17% 16% 9% 10% 11% 51% 48% 43%

71% 61% 50% 51% 52% 53%

21% 27% 29% 31% 31% 31% 40% 42% 46%

exceeds

meets

falls below

figure 14: importance of and performance in key HR transformation performance areas

A B D C

performance

G H

importance
Importance Key A B C D E F G H I Performance area To add and/or improve service for line management and employees To align the organisation on common objectives To reduce cost or better manage the cost of internal processes To facilitate reporting To respond to organisational changes To concentrate resources on core business To access external sources of talent, expertise or technology To benefit from a new technology to empower line management To free internal HR staff to focus on strategic issues
(% of respondents selecting as important)

Performance
(how organisations perform on a 5-point scale)

60% 59% 63% 29% 59% 39% 19% 38% 59%

2.89 2.87 2.86 2.86 2.85 2.83 2.66 2.63 2.62

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

[15]

research findings
HR transformation outcomes, continued
findings
hurdles to HR transformation
Across all seven years weve been conducting this research, the main hurdles to HR transformation have remained unchanged, with skills of existing HR staff at the top of the list every year. Other top hurdles continue to include underestimation of resources needed (52% selected this hurdle), lack of adequate technology (41% selected this hurdle), and internal bureaucracy (40% selected this hurdle). In 2009, we noted a reversal of a trend that we had seen in prior years: for the first time it appeared that some hurdles were declining. In 2008 we noted that 7 of the 10 identified hurdles received higher responses between 2006 and 2008. In 2009, all but one (opposition from workers councils and that had only a very slight increase) experienced a decrease (meaning fewer respondents selected almost every hurdle in 2009 versus what they noted in prior years). The 2010 results do not carry forward that trend; instead, we see a mixed bag, with some hurdles declining whilst others are increasing. Overall, the proportion of respondents who selected skills of existing HR staff is virtually unchanged (62% in 2010; 63% in 2009). Underestimation of resources needed grew the most, with 52% selecting this hurdle in 2010 versus 40% in 2009. Difficulty in dealing with national/cultural differences grew by 9 percentage points, from 20% in 2009 to 29% in 2010. Opposition from workers councils, never selected by many respondents from the start, dropped the most, from 13% in 2009 to 6% in 2010. Internal bureaucracy dropped by 6 points, from 46% in 2009 to 40% in 2010. Regional differences in hurdles to HR transformation are fairly limited, with all three regions selecting the same two top hurdles: skills of existing HR staff as the number one (55% of Americas respondents; 84% of Asia Pacific respondents; 64% of EMEA respondents), and underestimation of the resources needed as number two (49% of Americas respondents; 56% of Asia Pacific respondents; 58% of EMEA respondents).

[16]

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

research findings
figure 15: importance of and performance in key HR transformation performance areas, all respondents, 2009 2010

Skills of existing HR staff

40% 52% 40% 41% 46% 40% 36% 36% 20% 29% 23% 24% 17% 20% 15% 15% 13% 6%

63% 62%

Underestimation of the resources needed

Lack of adequate technology

Internal bureaucracy

Lack of employee and business line buy-in

2009 2010

Difficulty in dealing with national/cultural differences

Lack of senior management support

Difficulty in building a justifiable business case

Regulatory constraints

Opposition from workers councils

% who select

figure 16: importance of and performance in key HR transformation performance areas, all respondents, by region

55% Skills of existing HR staff 64% 49% Underestimation of the resources needed 41% 40% 41% 42% 40% 39% 41% 36% 32% 26% 28% 30% 25% 16% 25% 19% Difficulty in building a justifiable business case 14% Regulatory constraints 9% 7% 4% 3%
% who select

84%

56% 58%

Lack of adequate technology

Internal bureaucracy

Lack of employee and business line buy-in

Difficulty in dealing with national/cultural differences

Lack of senior management support

24% 22% 20%

Opposition from workers councils

Americas

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

[17]

research findings
outsourcing and shared services
headlines

Across the last three years, the proportion of respondents who say they are currently outsourcing HR services or plan to outsource them has declined, from 65% (in 2008) to 54% (in 2010). Whilst outsourcing remains more common in organisations in the Americas than in other regions, American organisations have experienced the greatest decline in percentage who say they are outsourcing or plan to outsource HR processes. Although HR outsourcing is down as a whole, a few individual processes experienced an increase in outsourcing between 2009 and 2010; the highest increase is in assessment/performance appraisal, rising from 19% in 2009 to 26% of respondents in 2010 saying they are/are considering outsourcing. Payroll also saw an increase, from 80% in 2009 to 84% in 2010. The greatest declines were in leave administration (52% in 2009; 34% in 2010) and recruitment/selection (47% in 2009; 37% in 2010). Health and welfare benefits show the greatest variation amongst regions, with 82% of Asia Pacific organisations outsourcing/ considering outsourcing the process, versus Americas organisations (62% of respondents) and EMEA orgnisations (50% of respondents). Nearly three quarters (73%) of all respondents say they develop and/or use their own process to identify and select their provider(s); the last three years has seen a decline in the use of consultants or sourcing advisors, from 49% in 2008 to 36% in 2010. The issuing of both requests for information (RFIs) and request for proposals (RFPs) is down in 2010 over 2009 (RFIs: 65% in 2009 to 51% in 2010; RFPs: 76% in 2009 to 65% in 2010). The top outsourcing provider selection criterion is proven ability to meet service levels, followed by functional coverage and expertise, then price followed by multi-country capabilities. Amongst the three regions, all rank the same criteria in the top three, although in different orders. Organisations most often budget less than US$1M annually for HR outsourcing (41% of all respondents), followed by US$1M US$10M (30% of all respondents). Analysis of year-over-year HR outsourcing budgets indicates growth at both ends of the budget scale, with an expanding proportion budgeting either less than US$1M or more than US$11M. Nearly half of all respondents (48%) say they expect to increase HR outsourcing budgets over the next three years, most often by up to 24%. That proportion of respondents shows an increase over 2009, when it was 42%, but still does not match 2008s 55%. In spite of the fact that a smaller percentage say they are currently outsourcing or anticipate outsourcing HR services, over the last two years we have seen a significant decline in the proportion of respondents who say they anticipate their HR outsourcing budgets to decrease, coupled with a significant increase in the proportion of organisations that anticipate their budgets to stay the same. Just about two-thirds of all respondents (66%) say they manage one or more HR process(es) through a shared services model, a proportion that is essentially unchanged from 2009s 68%.

[18]

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

research findings
outsourcing and shared services, continued
findings
outsourcing practices
Across the past three years, the proportion of respondents who say they are currently outsourcing or considering outsourcing HR processes has slowly declined, from 65% in 2008 to 59% in 2009, and 54% in 2010. These declines in outsourcing do not appear to be impacted by organisation size; various employee sizes experienced growth whilst others experienced decline, in no clear pattern. HR outsourcing remains more common in the Americas (60% of respondents say they outsource or plan to outsource HR processes) than in either EMEA (54% of respondents) or Asia Pacific (42% of all respondents). However, HR outsourcing has predominantly experienced a decline across all regions in recent years:

The Americas has seen a precipitous and steady decline from 83% saying they are/are considering outsourcing in 2008 to 60% in 2010; Asia Pacific experienced a sharp increase in 2009 over 2008, from 33% to 56% outsourcing/considering outsourcing, but then a fairly steep decline to 42% in 2010; EMEA has seen a steady but very slow decline from 60% saying they are/are considering outsourcing in 2008 to 56% in 2009, and 54% in 2010.

figure 17: outsourcing declining, all respondents and by region

year 2008
% outsourcing HR processes

all

americas

asia pacific

emea

65% 59% 54%

83% 64% 60%

33% 56% 42%

60% 56% 54%

2009
% outsourcing HR processes

2010
% outsourcing HR processes

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

[19]

research findings
outsourcing and shared services, continued
findings
outsourcing practices, continued
Transactional processes are more likely to be outsourced, whilst strategic processes are more often retained in house, a finding that has been consistent across all years we have conducted this research. With HR outsourcing as a whole down, a few individual processes experienced an increase in outsourcing between 2009 and 2010. The highest increase in outsourcing is in assessment/performance appraisal; although still uncommon, it rose from 19% in 2009 to 26% of respondents in 2010 saying they are/are considering outsourcing. Payroll, always the most commonly outsourced HR process, also saw an increase, from 80% in 2009 to 84% in 2010. Leave administration saw the greatest decline, falling from 52% in 2009 to 34% in 2010. Recruitment/selection also saw a decline, down from 47% in 2009 from 37% in 2010. Organisations in all regions are most likely to outsource/ consider outsourcing payroll, and least likely to outsource/ consider outsourcing the entire HR function. Health and welfare benefits show the greatest variation amongst regions, with 82% of Asia Pacific organisations outsourcing/ considering outsourcing the process, versus Americas organisations (62% of respondents) and EMEA orgnisations (50% of respondents). EMEA organisations are more likely to outsource/consider outsourcing expatriate and relocation administration (62% of respondents) than are their counterparts in the other regions (55% for Asia Pacific organisations; 35% for Americas organisations). And, Asia Pacific respondents are more likely to outsource/consider outsourcing performance appraisal (42% of respondents) than are their colleagues in EMEA (34% of respondents) and the Americas (14% of respondents).

provider selection
internal and external resources Nearly three quarters (73%) of all respondents say they develop and/or use your own process to identify and select their provider(s), down from 2009s 87%. (It appears now that 2009, during which there was a significant jump over 2008s 70% figure, may have been an anomaly.)These numbers do not vary significantly by region, although organisations in EMEA are more likely to develop and/or use your own process to identify and select their provider(s) than are their counterparts in other regions (78% for EMEA; 75% for Asia Pacific; 70% for Americas). The last three years has seen a decline in the use of consultants or sourcing advisors. A significantly smaller percentage of respondents in 2010 say they engage a consultant or sourcing advisor than did in 2009 down to 36% from 51% in 2009 (and a nearly equal 49% in 2008). There is very little difference across regions in the use of consultants and sourcing advisors; 38% of Americas respondents, 42% of Asia Pacific respondents, and 35% of EMEA respondents say they use consultants and sourcing advisors. RFIs and RFPs Just over half of companies (51%) issue requests for information (RFIs) as a part of their provider selection process, down from 2009s 65% and just about the same as 2008. Organisations in EMEA and the Americas are more likely to issue RFIs (56% and 51% respectively) than are their Asia Pacific counterparts (42% of respondents). As we have found over time, the issuing of requests for proposals (RFPs) is more common than the issuing of RFIs, with 65% of all respondents saying they do so. Here, too, the proportion is down from 2009, when 76% of all respondents indicated they issued RFPs. Again here, organisations in EMEA and the Americas are more likely to issue RFIs (68% of respondents from each region) than are their Asia Pacific counterparts (42% of respondents).

figure 18: provider selection trends

year

organisations that develop/use their own process to organisations that identify/select engage consultants/ organisations that issue RFIs advisors provider(s)

organisations that issue RFPs

2009 2010

87% 73%

51% 36%

65% 51%

76% 65%
Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

[20]

research findings

figure 19: outsourcing practices by process, 2008 2010

Payroll Pensions administration Health & welfare benefits HRIS Expatriate and relocation Stock options administration Training/development Recruitment/selection Leave Assessment/performance appraisal Compensation Career & succession planning Employee communications Entire HR function
14% 22% 24% 15% 10% 7% 4% 5% 6% 9% 2% 11% 10% 36% 30% 30%

61% 55% 47% 15% 18% 12% 23% 15% 10% 13% 13%

23%

Currently Outsource Plan to Outsource

0%

20%

40%

60%
% who select

80%

100%

figure 20: currently outsourcing/planning to outsource by process, by region

Payroll Pensions administration Health & welfare benefits HRIS Expatriate and relocation administration Stock options administration Recruitment/selection Training/development Leave Assessment/performance appraisal Compensation Employee communications Career & succession planning Entire HR function 0% 20% 40% 60%
% who select

Americas Asia Pacific EMEA

80%

100%

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

[21]

research findings
outsourcing and shared services, continued
findings
provider selection, continued
provider selection criteria The top four provider selection criteria remain unchanged over the previous four years, although, as we noted last year, they regularly change positions. In 2010, the top provider selection criterion is proven ability to meet service levels, followed by functional coverage and expertise (these two were in the reverse positions in 2009), then price followed by multi-country capabilities (each of which were in the same position in 2009). The only notable change between 2009 and 2010 is that size and market position has moved up in importance; whilst still not in the top of the list, that criterion moved from thirteenth position in 2009 to ninth in 2010. Amongst the three regions, all rank the same criteria in the top three, although in different orders. The Americas and Asia Pacific respondents rank the same top three as the overall rankings: proven ability to meet service levels ranks first, functional coverage and expertise ranks second, and price ranks third. EMEA respondents, however, rank price at the top, followed by functional coverage and expertise, then proven ability to meet service levels. Other significant variances amongst the three regions are that respondents in the Americas and EMEA rank size and market position in the middle of the criteria set (eighth and seventh respectively) whilst Asia Pacific respondents rank it near the bottom, thirteenth. Likewise, Asia Pacific and EMEA respondents rank cultural match in the middle of the criteria set (sixth and eighth respectively), whilst Americas respondents rank it closer to the bottom, in the twelfth position.

[22]

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

research findings
figure 21: provider selection criteria ranking, all respondents

CRITERION Proven ability to meet service levels Functional coverage and expertise Price Multi-country capabilities References/reputation Specialisation in the relevant functions Financial viability Guaranteed cost savings Size and market position Cultural match Flexible contract terms Existing relationship Unique provider (consulting, implementation, processing) One stop shop (functions other than HR)

2010 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

2009 2 1 3 4 6 5 9 7 13 8 10 11 12 14

2008 4 3 1 2 5 8 6 7 11 12 9 10 14 13

2007 1 2 3 4 5 7 9 6 12 8 10 14 13 11

2006 2 1 4 3 6 7 12 5 11 9 8 13 10 14

figure 22: provider selection criteria ranking, by region

CRITERION Proven ability to meet service levels Functional coverage and expertise Price Multi-country capabilities References/reputation Specialisation in the relevant functions Financial viability Guaranteed cost savings Size and market position Cultural match Flexible contract terms Existing relationship Unique provider (consulting, implementation, processing) One stop shop (functions other than HR)

Americas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 8 12 9 11 13 14

Asia Pacific 1 2 3 8 4 7 12 5 13 6 11 14 10 9

EMEA 3 2 1 4 5 11 9 6 7 8 10 13 14 12

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

[23]

research findings
outsourcing and shared services, continued
findings
budgeting for HR outsourcing
Organisations most often budget less than US$1M annually for HR outsourcing (41% of all respondents), followed by US$1M US$10M (30% of all respondents). Another 13% budget US$11M US$20M annually, and the remaining 16% budget US$21M or more annually. Predictably, annual budgets generally correlate to organisation size, with organisations with fewer employees budgeting less than those with more employees; organisations with 25,000+ employees make up virtually all of the respondents who say they budget US$21M or more annually. Analysis of year-over-year HR outsourcing budgets indicates growth at both ends of the budget scale, with an expanding proportion budgeting either less than US$1M or more than US$11M. (Employee sizes within our sample have remained fairly similar over time.) Organisations in the Americas are likely to budget on the lower end of the scale when compared to their counterparts in other regions, with nearly half (47%) saying their HR outsourcing budget is less than US$1M. Nearly half of all respondents (48%) say they expect to increase HR outsourcing budgets over the next three years. That percentage shows an increase over 2009, when it was 42%, but still does not match 2008s 55%. Most often, organisations say they expect budgets to increase by 10% 24% (20% of all respondents); 17% say they anticipate an increase of less than 10%, and another 11% expect their HR outsourcing budgets to increase by more than 25%. Just over a third, 35%, anticipate their HR outsourcing budgets to stay the same. The remainder of respondents anticipate a decrease, most often of less than 10% (10% of all respondents), followed by a decrease of 10% 24% (5% of respondents) and a decrease of 25% 50% (2% of all respondents). In spite of the fact that a smaller percentage say they are currently outsourcing or anticipate outsourcing HR services (see the outsourcing practices section), over the last two years, we have seen a significant decline in the proportion of respondents who say they anticipate their HR outsourcing budgets to decrease, coupled with a significant increase in the proportion of organisations that anticipate their budgets to stay the same. EMEA organisations are more likely than their counterparts in other regions to anticipate an increase in their HR outsourcing budget, with 56% saying they expect an increase, versus 46% and 45%, respectively, for Asia Pacific and Americas organisations. On the other hand, organisations in the Americas, where HR outsourcing is generally more common and more entrenched, are least likely to expect a decrease in budget (10% for Americas organisations; 23% for Asia Pacific organisations; 17% for EMEA organisations).

figure 23: organisations intending to increase annual HR outsourcing budgets, by year

2008
organisations that expect to increase their HR outsourcing budgets

2009

2010

55%

42%

48%

[24]

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

research findings
figure 24: HR outsourcing annual budgets, all respondents figure 25: HR outsourcing annual budgets 2010, by region

16% 41%

Less than $1 M $1 M $10 M $11 M $20 M

Americas Asia Pacific EMEA

47% 38% 36%

23% 31% 36%

17% 13% 15% 15%

Less than $1 M $1 M $10 M $11 M $20 M

13%

>$20 M 30%

10% 18%

>$20 M

figure 26: HR outsourcing annual budgets, 2008 2010

2008

27% 38% 41%

51% 35% 30%

6% 16% 16% 11%

Less than $1 M $1 M $10 M

2009

$11 M $20 M 2010

13% 16%

>$20 M

figure 27: anticipated change in HR outsourcing annual budgets, all respondents

figure 28: anticipated change in HR outsourcing annual budgets, by region

Increase Stay the same Decrease

0%

17% 35% 10% 5%

10%

20%

6% 5%

+/- by < 10% +/- by 10% 24% +/- by 25% 50%

Americas Asia Pacific EMEA

45% 46% 56%

45% 31% 27%

10%
Increase

23% 17%

Stay the same Decrease

2%
20% 30% % who select 40% 50%

+/- by > 50% Stay the same

figure 29: anticipated change in HR outsourcing annual budgets, 2006 2010

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

54% 58% 55% 42% 48%

14% 12% 13% 41% 35%

32% 30% 32% 16% 17%

Increase Stay the same Decrease

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

[25]

research findings
outsourcing and shared services, continued
findings
shared services
Just about two-thirds of all respondents (66%) say they manage one or more HR processes through a shared services model. (This proportion is essentially unchanged from 2009s 68%.) As with outsourcing, organisations are more likely to manage transactional processes such as payroll and HR information systems (HRIS) in a shared services environment than they are strategic processes. As such, processes like career/ succession planning and assessment/performance appraisal are considerably less likely to be managed through a shared services model. There have been no notable differences, by process, in likelihood to manage processes in a shared services model across the years of the research: whilst we may find that individual processes are more or less likely to managed through shared services year-over-year, those processes generally rank in the same place within the overall list of HR processes. Respondents from the Americas are more likely than are their counterparts in other regions to manage at least one HR process through a shared services model (71% of organisations Americas respondents versus 56% of Asia Pacific using a shared respondents and 63% of EMEA respondents). That services model represents a change from last year, as well as a significant drop for Asia Pacific respondents, when 74% of Asia Pacific respondents said they managed or more HR processes through a shared services centre.

66%

[26]

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

research findings
figure 30: outsourcing declining, all respondents and by region

year 2009
% engaging shared services model for HR processes

americas

asia pacific

emea

67% 71%

74% 56%

65% 63%

2010
% engaging shared services model for HR processes

figure 31: HR shared services, by process, all respondents

Payroll HRIS Pensions administration Expatriate and relocation administration Health & welfare benefits Stock options administration Leave Compensation Training/development Employee communications Recruitment/selection Assessment/performance appraisal Entire HR function Career & succession planning
29% 27%
% who select

55% 55% 47% 47% 46% 45% 41% 40% 39% 37% 35% 33%

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

[27]

research findings
HR management practices
headlines

The HR function is most often centralised at a global level (42% of all respondents), versus domestic (29%) or regional (29%) centralisation. Headquarters location appears to have some impact over where the HR function is centralised, with American and EMEA respondents most likely to centralise at a global level, and Asia Pacific respondents are most likely to centralise on a domestic level. Whilst HR functions are most often centralised on a global level (as noted above), individual HR processes are most often managed on a local level. The only process not most likely to be managed on a local basis is stock option management, which is just slightly more likely to be managed on a global level.

A majority of organisations (80%) have a common HR information system (HRIS). Of those organisations, over a third say it is managed at a global level; nearly as many say it is managed at a domestic level, and 14% say it is managed at the regional level. The remaining 20% of respondents do not have a common HRIS.

findings
centralisation of the HR function
The HR function is most often centralised at a global level, with 42% of all respondents selecting that option, versus domestic and regional centralisation, each selected by 29% of respondents. Headquarters location appears to have some impact over where the HR function is centralised. Respondents in the Americas are most likely to centralise at a global level (45% of respondents), followed by a domestic level (31% of all respondents), then a regional level (24%). EMEA respondents follow the same pattern, but in different proportions (42% at a global level; 40% at a regional level; 19% at a domestic level). Asia Pacific respondents, on the other hand, are most likely to centralise the HR function on a domestic level (46% of respondents) followed by a global level (31% of respondents), then a regional level (23% of respondents). There are no significant differences in centralisation of HR process management by region, either versus the overall figures or amongst regions.

Common HRIS
A majority of organisations (80%) have a common HR information system (HRIS). Amongst those organisations that have a common HRIS, over a third (35%) say it is managed at a global level; nearly as many (32%), though, say their HRIS is managed at a domestic level. Least likely amongst those that have a common HRIS is management at the regional level (13% of all respondents). The remaining 20% of respondents do not have a common HRIS. Asia Pacific organisations are slightly more likely than are their counterparts in other regions to have a common HRIS (87% of Asia Pacific respondents; 79% of Americas respondents; 82% of EMEA respondents). Asia Pacific respondents are also much more likely to centralise their HRIS at a domestic level than are their counterparts. At the same time, EMEA organisations are much more likely to centralise their HRIS at a global level.

Centralisation of HR process management

Whilst HR functions are most often centralised on a global level (as noted above), individual HR processes are most often managed on a local level; all HR processes are most likely to be managed on a local level, with the exception of stock option management, which is just slightly more likely to be managed on a global level.

figure 32: centralisation of the HR function, all respondents

figure 33: centralisation of the HR function, by region

Americas
29% 42%

31% 46% 19%

24% 23% 40%

45% 31% 42%

Asia Pacific EMEA

29%

Domestic level

Regional level

Global level

Domestic level

Regional level

Global level

[28]

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

research findings
figure 34: centralisation of the HR process management by process, all respondents

Assessment/performance appraisal Career & succession planning Compensation Employee communications Expatriate and relocation administration Health & welfare benefits HRIS Leave Payroll Pensions administration Recruitment/selection Stock options administration Training/development

50% 50% 45% 51% 42% 62% 45% 68% 64% 69% 57% 43% 53% 13% 20% 23%

20% 17% 23% 23%

30% 33% 33% 27% 35%

26%

12% 14% 15% 13% 18%

35%
19% 21% 18% 26%

Locally Regionally Globally

44%
22%

24%

figure 35: centralisation of HRIS, all respondents, and by region

Common HRIS

32%

13%

35%

Domestic level Regional level

all respondents

No common HRIS
0%

20%

Global level No common HRIS

20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % who select

Common HRIS

29%

18%

32%

Domestic level Regional level

americas

No common HRIS
0%

21%

Global level No common HRIS

20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % who select

Common HRIS

50%

4%

33%

Domestic level Regional level

asia pacific

No common HRIS
0%

13%

Global level No common HRIS

20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % who select

Common HRIS

26%

11%

45%

Domestic level Regional level

emea

No common HRIS
0%

18%

Global level No common HRIS

20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % who select

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

[29]

about the survey participants

total survey respondents

225
figure 36: headquarters location

Americas 38% 47% Asia Pacific Europe, Middle East, Africa (EMEA) 15%

figure 37: breadth of operation

12% 28% 15%

1 country 2-4 countries 5-9 countries 10-49 countries 13% 50-99 countries 100+ countries

23% 9%

figure 38: revenues (US$)

10% 27% 13% Less than $50 M $50 M $499 M $500 M $999 M $1 B $5 B $6 B $10 B $11 B $50 B More than $50 B

11% 17% 15% 7%

figure 39: number of employees

9% 11% 27%

Fewer than 500 500 2,999 3,000 9,999 10,000 24,999 13% 25,000 49,999 50,000 99,999 17% 100000+

13% 10%

[30]

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

about the survey participants

figure 40: industry

CRITERION Consulting/Professional/Legal Services IT, Technology, Software Manufacturing Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Health Care/Health Sciences/Pharmaceuticals Other services Public Sector/Nonprofit/Education Consumer Goods, Electronics Retail trade Media/Entertainment Telecommunications Construction/Engineering Travel & entertainment/Hospitality Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing Mining & metals Transportation, storage and delivery Automotive sales & service Aerospace/Aviation Biotech/Medical Equipment/Pharmaceuticals Chemicals Utilities/Power, Oil, Energy, & Water

% 20% 13% 11% 9% 8% 6% 6% 5% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

figure 41: function

HR General Strategic Planning HR Shared Services General management HR IT Executive management Consultant Finance and Treasury Procurement/Strategic Sourcing HR Ooperations Other, unspecified Compliance 5% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 1% 1% 0.5%
% who select

46% 18% 15%

figure 42: job title

Vice President/Director Manager If other, please specify Owner/Principal/Partner President/Managing Director General Manager Chairman/CEO Other, unspecified Consultant CHRO Senior manager Chief Administrative Officer COO 4% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1%
% who select

33% 26% 12% 8% 6%

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

[31]

about the research sponsors

ADP
Who We Are
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (Nasdaq: ADP), with nearly $9 billion in revenue and about 550,000 clients, is one of the worlds largest providers of business outsourcing solutions. Leveraging over 60 years of experience, ADP offers a wide range of HR, payroll, tax and benefits administration solutions from a single source. ADPs easy-to-use solutions for employers provide superior value to companies of all types and sizes. ADP is also a leading provider of integrated computing solutions to auto, truck, motorcycle, marine and recreational vehicle dealers throughout the world.

SharedXpertise
Who We Are
SharedXpertise is a leading provider of forums, media and summits that develop professional practices in corporate responsibility, HR and financial management. SharedXpertises goal is to provide its readers, attendees and members with data, industry trends, best practices and networking opportunities to excel in their professional endeavors, and to help expand knowledge, improve business practices and foster the responsible globalization of business.

What We Do What We Do
ADP Employer Services, part of ADP, Inc., serves clients in more than 60 countries worldwide. As a leading provider of HR services, ADP Employer Services offerings from basic payroll processing to being your payroll and personnel administration department are fully compliant with languages, currencies, social regulations, and adapt seamlessly to companies structural and business needs. With its suite of HRO solutions, ADP is well positioned to serve the needs of multinational companies that are looking for outsourcing services from one source. SharedXpertise produces a variety of strategic, highly interactive conferences and webinars for executives, managers and practitioners in the HR and financial services transformation and process outsourcing, and corporate responsibility communities. Through its research programs, SharedXpertise acts to improve the practice of HR, financial management and corporate responsibility by researching, overseeing and accelerating the development and adoption of effective industry standards and practices. As part of this process, the SharedXpertise gathers broad-based input from across industries and works to develop lasting industry consensus and to arrive at conclusions that balance the various commercial interests of all participants.

More Information
Additional information on ADP at: www.adp.com.

More Information
To learn more, please visit www.sharedxpertise.com.

[32]

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

notes about the survey participants

figure 40: industry

CRITERION Consulting/Professional/Legal Services IT, Technology, Software Manufacturing Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Health Care/Health Sciences/Pharmaceuticals Other services Public Sector/Nonprofit/Education Consumer Goods, Electronics Retail trade Media/Entertainment Telecommunications Construction/Engineering Travel & entertainment/Hospitality Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing Mining & metals Transportation, storage and delivery Automotive sales & service Aerospace/Aviation Biotech/Medical Equipment/Pharmaceuticals Chemicals Utilities/Power, Oil, Energy, & Water

% 20% 13% 11% 9% 8% 6% 6% 5% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

figure 41: function

HR General Strategic Planning HR Shared Services General management HR IT Executive management Consultant Finance and Treasury Procurement/Strategic Sourcing HR Ooperations Other, unspecified Compliance 5% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 1% 1% 0.5%
% who select

46% 18% 15%

figure 42: job title

Vice President/Director Manager If other, please specify Owner/Principal/Partner President/Managing Director General Manager Chairman/CEO Other, unspecified Consultant CHRO Senior manager Chief Administrative Officer COO 4% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1%
% who select

33% 26% 12% 8% 6%

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

[31] [33]

notes the research sponsors about

ADP
Who We Are
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (Nasdaq: ADP), with nearly $9 billion in revenue and about 550,000 clients, is one of the worlds largest providers of business outsourcing solutions. Leveraging over 60 years of experience, ADP offers a wide range of HR, payroll, tax and benefits administration solutions from a single source. ADPs easy-to-use solutions for employers provide superior value to companies of all types and sizes. ADP is also a leading provider of integrated computing solutions to auto, truck, motorcycle, marine and recreational vehicle dealers throughout the world.

SharedXpertise
Who We Are
SharedXpertise is a leading provider of forums, media and summits that develop professional practices in corporate responsibility, HR and financial management. SharedXpertises goal is to provide its readers, attendees and members with data, industry trends, best practices and networking opportunities to excel in their professional endeavors, and to help expand knowledge, improve business practices and foster the responsible globalization of business.

What We Do What We Do
ADP Employer Services, part of ADP, Inc., serves clients in more than 60 countries worldwide. As a leading provider of HR services, ADP Employer Services offerings from basic payroll processing to being your payroll and personnel administration department are fully compliant with languages, currencies, social regulations, and adapt seamlessly to companies structural and business needs. With its suite of HRO solutions, ADP is well positioned to serve the needs of multinational companies that are looking for outsourcing services from one source. SharedXpertise produces a variety of strategic, highly interactive conferences and webinars for executives, managers and practitioners in the HR and financial services transformation and process outsourcing, and corporate responsibility communities. Through its research programs, SharedXpertise acts to improve the practice of HR, financial management and corporate responsibility by researching, overseeing and accelerating the development and adoption of effective industry standards and practices. As part of this process, the SharedXpertise gathers broad-based input from across industries and works to develop lasting industry consensus and to arrive at conclusions that balance the various commercial interests of all participants.

More Information
Additional information on ADP at: www.adp.com.

More Information
To learn more, please visit www.sharedxpertise.com.

[32] [34]

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP