Keynote: 2012 Case Study Contest...Overall Program Thought Leadership 23% 6.075.37 5.60 6.53 4.43...

transcript

Keynote: 2012 Case Study Contest

Speaker:

Bryan Peña, VP, Contingent WorkforceStrategies and Research,Staffing Industry Analysts

Thursday, Sept. 20 | 10:30 am | Sapphire Ballroom ABEF

If I have seen furtherit is by standing on the

shoulders of giants.

~ Isaac Newton

Many of you are specializing …

Many have good ideas…

ExecuteMaintain

Optimize

Communicate

When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one individual who perceives a solution and is willing to take command.

~ Dave Barry

Very often, that person is crazy.

How do we honor those who moved our industry forward? Where are our Heroes?

Case Study Competition Purpose

In keeping with year’s theme of “Collaborative Intelligence the case study contest was created to provide opportunities to celebrate buyers who move the discipline of contingent workforce management forward while elevating and educating the market aboutCW trends and ideas.

What were we looking for? ANYTHING THAT SETS THE PROGRAM OR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT APART

Evaluation ProcessSIA project team evaluated responses based on: Innovation Difficulty/Risk Scale of Change/Result Overall Program Thought Leadership

CriteriaDescription Wgt. Total Total Total Total Total Total Total TotInnovation/Creativity 28% 6.33 8.25 6.88 7.70 4.95 6.33 7.43 Difficulty 28% 5.78 8.53 7.43 6.33 5.50 6.88 7.98 Scale of Change/Result 22% 4.98 5.20 6.28 6.28 4.98 5.42 6.28 Overall Program Thought Leadership 23% 5.37 6.07 5.60 6.53 4.43 5.13 6.53 Totals 100% 22 45 28 04 26 18 26 84 19 87 23 75 28 22

F G HA B C D E

Finalists are:

John Heigl, Consultant, Global Flexible Staffing Services, Eli Lilly Roger Hendry, Head of Indirect Sourcing Switzerland,

Novartis Lesa Sayer, Global Talent Acquisition Programs Manager,

Freescale Semiconductor Trey Austin, Director, Global Contingent Staffing Program,

United Parcel Service (UPS) Lexi Elliot, Sr. Director, Recruiting Services, K12 Ed Hidalgo, Sr. Director, Staffing, Qualcomm Inc.

Session Process

How to Vote

How to Vote: What to Consider

Innovation Difficulty/Risk Scale of Change/Result Overall Program Thought Leadership

Winners Will be Announced

Closing Panel:Making the CWS Summit Stick

Friday, 2:15 pm - 3:00 pm | Room 306AB

Lets Dig in!

Eli LillyBalancing Quality and Speed

Case Study Category: Process ImprovementJohn Heigl

Consultant, Global Flexible Staffing Services

Case Study Finalist: Eli Lilly

Program Overview

Run by HR in partnership with procurement

2,500 staff augmentation workers globally

- Clinical, IT, Light Industrial, Office Clerical, Scientific

9 years in U.S. with an MSP/VMS

Measuring to Improve Worker Quality Why worker quality matters to Lilly

- “without the right talent the patient waits”- Lilly sponsor’s #1 criteria for program success

Why measurement- “If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it” ~ Lord Kelvin

- Worker quality is least measured of 20 key metricsby suppliers

Why you probably care about worker quality- top priority for U.S. buyers and U.S. suppliers- top complaint of U.S. buyers

Improving Worker Quality –Problem and Solution

PROBLEM SOLUTIONResults not meaningful with low survey response rates

Sponsor survey built into VMS prior to timecard approval resulting in 100% response rate

When to measure - end of assignmentevaluation too late

Sponsor surveys done 1 month after assignment start and twice a year (same dates for all)

Standard measure “would you reuse” does not differentiate good from great quality

Ask sponsor if contractor “does not meet”, “meets”, or “exceeds” expectations

Lack of incentive for suppliers to focus on quality as top priority

Risk/reward adjusts suppliers’ bill rates for a talent type (ex Office Clerical, Scientific) based on quality of worker performance. Extra credit is provided for workers who “exceed” expectations

Focus on metric uncovered that sourcing process incented quickest candidate not best candidate

All resumes held until end of SLA period and sent together to sponsor (important because # submittals per supplier is capped)

Worker Quality Results

MetricYear Prior

to ChangesYear AfterChanges

% Exceeds Expectations 11% 26%

% Does Not Meet Expectations 2% 0%

Measuring Worker Quality Next Steps

Measuring quality of interviewed candidate slates

Measuring time to productivity for each worker

Measuring worker quality in a way that allows for comparison between employees and contingent workers

Tailoring metrics, SLA targets, and business processes based on what each Lilly requestor indicates is most important to them quality, cost, speed (rather than assuming quality is top priority of all requestors)

Measuring to Improve On Time Request Fulfillment Using “% Date Hit Actual Start Time vs. Contracted Start Time” not

“Time to Fill/Start” to focus on customer satisfaction

Goals set and communicated for each process step

Improvements based on misses

- Require requestors to provide interview times and wrap up meeting time before MSP will distribute requisition to suppliers

- Fail fast business processes adopted

- Skills testing moved to beginning of process

- SLA requiring 95% candidate acceptance results in unavailable and uninterested candidates withdrawing quickly

- Auto trigger for more submittals if <3 candidates anytime in process

% Date Hit 72% to 91%

What’s Next?

Replicating the U.S. best practice metrics in all geographies as the program moves from U.S. to global

Continuing to monitor metric misses to inform improvement efforts for quality, cost, efficiency (includes speed), and compliance

NovartisMSP in the Swiss Alps

Novartis Pharma AG

Case Study Category: Process/PolicyRoger Hendry

Head of Indirect Sourcing | Switzerland

Program Overview: Former State

Decentralizeddecision makingNo obvious governance

In-house programNo technologyVery low adoptionNo ownership of subject

700 contractors195 suppliers

400 hiring managers

Ease of use Transparency

Cost-efectivenessIntegrated systems

SIZE COMPLEXITY

NEEDS CHALLENGES

What makes this unique?

addressing multiple program

objectives

Operating in Switzerland

High organizational and supply market

complexity

Building an effective program in a highlycomplex environment in Switzerland

Full system integration within four months

Custom Processes Drove Program Success

Eased administrative burden for hiring managers

Drove higherprogram compliance

Yieldedbetter data

Custom Processes Drove Program Success

Ease of use for hiring managers

Performance Management & Informed Decision-Making

The Results!

33%cycle time reduced

7.6%hiring manager satisfaction (10 pt scale)

cost savings (in 1 year)

65%end users rate program 8 or higher

99%compliance

< 4 mosend-to-end integration

100%data

accuracy

Create proactive talent supply chain strategies

What’s Next? Program evolution Optimize supplier base within existing programDifferentiate supply base within existing program

Pull in SOW spend

Integrate labor data into Clarity

Bring HR to the table

Identify key markets forlabor poolsDevelop workforce planning process

Freescale SemiconductorSavings that make sense

Case Study Category: Change ManagementLesa Sayer

Global Talent Acquisition Program Manager

Case Study Finalist:Freescale Semiconductor Inc.

Freescale Program Overview

Scope- $12 million annual spend- Contingent professional labor in US

Challenges- Cost pressures associated with low volume- Difficult-to-fill highly technical engineer positions- Program leakage and risk exposure

Business Need- No business disruption- Cost savings

Freescale Program Evolution is Unique

Through collaboration and innovation, transformed an underperforming supplier into a highly effective partner.

Leveraged the combined experience of a MSP and theflexibility of smaller partners to address Freescale’sbusiness needs.

Freescale and MSP partnered in a RFP, leveragingFreescale’s e-auction tools and MSP’s suppliers to findpayroll solution with an additional 30% mark-up reduction.

Used Freescale prior suppliers combined with the MSP expertise in managing them in a Vendor Neutral Model.

Leverages all tools in toolbox

Adopte-auction

30% savings

Innovation Yields Cost Improvement

Innovation HighLow

Cost Savings

Consider smaller players 30% savings

BenchmarkValidate 30%

savings

Leverage Consortium Buy 8.25% savings

Business Drivers & Results 2009: Severe cost pressure due to economic downturn

- Solution: Leverage consortium buy / RFP- Result: 8.25% total cost savings

2010: Payroll provider requirement to raise mark-up- Solution: Consider known small players and use of e-auction - Result: Avoided 15% mark-up increase; instead obtained

30% mark-up savings

2011: Difficulty to fill requirements andsubsequent program leakage- Solution: Transition to Outsourcing model with

Vendor Neutral Program- Result: Hiring manager satisfaction increased by 13%

Auction Results were illuminating …

Freescale Contractor Connection Program

Learnings- When faced with challenges, explore alternatives together- Don’t underestimate your existing suppliers- Do not be afraid to try new things – do your homework

before and after

Next Steps- Implement Rate Card - Branding the program- Supplier optimization

UPSChaos to Control …

Case Study Finalist: UPS

Case Study Category: Process ImprovementTrey Austin

Director Global Contingent Staffing

Program Overview - Current

- Go-live in US, April 2009, in phased approach completed by Oct 2009

- MSP and VMS rolled-out at same time- Spend categories include: temporary spend (light & heavy

industrial, administrative, professional) - Spend: light/heavy industrial 45%, admin 41% & prof 14%

- Program spend over $60M in US first full year, $61M in 2nd year (2011)

Transformation from Trenches of Decentralization toVictory of Savings, Visibility & Process Efficiencies

Previous State: Decentralization = Chaos

Suspect and Error-filled Data Total Lack of Control Completely DecentralizedInvoicing & Contract

Ultimate End State:Comprehensive Program Managing Contingent Workers

Improved Process Efficiencies Across the BoardGreater Program PerformanceGlobal Reporting Visibility Improved Supplier Management

Current State PROGRAM GOALS

- Cost Management- Risk Mitigation- Process Efficiency- CSL’s ($$) & KSL’s (performance)- Sourcing Strategy- Business Intelligence- Technology Optimization- Remove HR from tactical role- Ensure HR owns contingent staffing

from a SME/HR

If performance not at minimum acceptable level = monetary penalty

CRITICAL SERVICE LEVELS

- On-time fulfillment- Negative Turnover- Eligibility Requirements- Hiring Manager Satisfaction- Diversity Spend

Process Followed to Effect ChangeRolled out MSP and VMS togetherClarified Different ProcessesExtensive Change Management

Challenges and Lessons Learned: “Make it Personal” Challenges

- Engaged IT early & spent time evaluating internal VMS build- end result = no, it’s not feasible

- Decentralized culture & history yielded some resistance, especially outside of US and newer business units

- There is a very, very personal relationship to this spend Lessons Learned

- Executive Sponsorship & Engagement absolutely critical - Even when you tell business units you are saving money, they don’t buy

it, so you need to show it- Can’t let up on communication of value- Make sure the right players are at the table at the beginning, will make

adoption & expansion easier in the long run

Benefits from Change

Cost Savings (Hard dollar = $6.4M in 2 years)- 3-5% reduction in average mark-up ($5.7M program to-date)- Payment processing, data capturing, less resources required for

processing

The Big Three – Savings, Visibility & Auditable Compliance- Background checks run through UPS LexisNexis portal - Saved $600K program to-date in background checks ALONE

Supplier Rationalization- Reduced from 97 vendors to 37, 2/3 of them are diversity suppliers- Able to compare quality ,performance & rates

What’s next?

Planned & Future State Identity Management Independent Contractors Expanding to more international locations

K12CW for education

Case Study Category : Process ImprovementLexi Elliott

Sr. Director, Recruiting Services

Case Study Finalist: k12

Who We Are

Technology-based education

Founded in 1999

Virtual public schools and hybrid schools across the United States

Provide individual course and product sales directly to families

Rapid year-over-yearemployee growth

“What’s Pastis Prologue”

~ William Shakespeare

2010 2011 2012

EEsKTRs

Employee & Contractor Growth

So What Was Broken?

Scalability Flexibility Customer Service Efficiencies

What We Did

I really hope this works….

Solutions A thorough payrolling process was

developed from scratch

Focused on business requirements:- Efficiencies / Automation- Customer service - Scalability- Data quality - Visibility

Key factors included the ability to support unique requirements- Test proctors- Substitute teachers- Part-time, contingent teachers

I really hope this works….

Trust me I know about

this stuff

Part-Time (Contingent) Teacher Growth

100150200250300350400450500

2010 2011 2012

Teachers

VMS/MSP Hybrid Model- Suppliers to continue

contact with managers

- Vendor tiers allow for flexibility in conversion rates and placement fees

Solutions

VMS/MSP Adoption and Growth

Preserve manager/supplier relationships Vendor tiers allow for flexibility and cost savings

picture by Darcy McCarty

WINS“Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan.”

~ John F. Kennedy

Turnaround time

Scalability

Transparency(cost and process)

Customer satisfaction (internal and external)

Reporting and analytics

picture

Pre VMS Post VMS

Average Bill Rate

Avg. Bill Rate

Looking Ahead

Continued Growth K12 continues rapid growth in business Demand for contractors will rise Looking to expand internationally next year

More Automation SOW Processing Independent Contractors

Thank You!

QualcommGoing it Alone …

Case Study Category: Staffing Systems andVendor Management

Ed HidalgoSr. Director, Staffing

Case Study Finalist

Taking Risk & Challenging Assumptions

Program Overview- Self managed MSP- Team of 20

Size- 200M in spend- 3,000 temps non SOW

Complexity- Multiple Geographies- Multiple locations US

Challenges- 70% technology skill sets- Just-in-time hiring

Needs- Risk management- Speed and accuracy- Cultural relevancy

What Makes us Unique? …working towards an end-to-end program

Staffing Systems and Vendor Management

Previous Program State- Things were “ok”- Brand building- Managers wanted one system

Challenges- Changing direction- Relationship- Budget- Support

Stakeholders- HR- Legal- HRMS/HRIT- Finance- Managers

Needs Assessment- Access to talent- Minimize risk- Culturally relevant- International

Contingent worker button opens CW module

CW workflow buttons

Staffing button provides one click for Perm, University and Temp sourcing

Hiring Manager Dashboard

Req. Activity

Temps In process

Temps on assignment worldwide

Candidates preparing for onboard

Outcome 95% international adoption of

Mysource+ tool after 3 months &99% adoption in US = 600 Temp Hires

> 100 Suppliers in the tool

Investment recovery in < 3 years

Supplier activity increase of 10%

What’s Next? QlikView Dashboards for

CWF & Mysource+

CWF Generalists

QCM 2.0(consultant management system)

Supplier as extended family of CWF

CW engagement and satisfaction

Thanks to our Finalists!

John Heigl, Consultant, Global Flexible Staffing Services, Eli Lilly Roger Hendry, Head of Indirect Sourcing Switzerland, Novartis Lesa Sayer, Global Talent Acquisition Programs Manager,

Freescale Semiconductor Trey Austin, Director, Global Contingent Staffing Program,

United Parcel Service (UPS) Lexi Elliot, Sr. Director, Recruiting Services, K12 Ed Hidalgo, Sr. Director, Staffing, Qualcomm Inc.

What did we learn?

Introducing …

How You Vote: Where is Your Card?