Employee Performance Management Results: Overview
Recommendation, 2007 April 15
Editor:
Chuck Allen, HR-XML Consortium, Inc.
Contributors:
Adam Amato, Data Solutions, Inc.; Kim Bartkus, HR-XML Consortium, Inc.; Dawn MacKay, Halogen Software; Sreenivasa Ampavati, Kenexa; Pramod Mathur, Lawson; Mark Weber, PDI; Paul Storfer, PDI; Peg Jermyn, Microsoft ; Romuald Restout, Talent Technology Corp.; David B Turetsky, Workscape
Copyright © 2007 HR-XML Consortium, Inc.
Abstract
HR-XML Consortium’s Employee Performance Management (EPM) Results Specification defines a flexible set of web services operations and related XML schemas that can be used in integrating EPM result data with various talent management systems. This document provides an overview of requirements behind the HR-XML Consortium’s Employee Performance Management (EPM) Results Specification and identifies the related documentation and XML assets.
1.3.5 Multi-Rater Assessments / 360 Degree Reviews
1.3.7 Position Competency Model
1.3.8 Remuneration Recommendation
2 Business Process Actors / Use Cases
2.1 Design Requirement: Message Granularity Suited to Use Case
3 How This Specification is Organized
1 Appendix A - Document Version History
2 Appendix B – Related Documents
1 Overview
1.1 Domain Overview
Many enterprises recognize that the value of their employee performance management processes increases significantly when supporting EPM systems are well integrated with other talent management components.
In the current market for talent management solutions, more EPM systems being offered as part of integrated talent management suites. Talent management suites with “out-of-the-box” integration will be increasingly prominent within the marketplace and will be useful in meeting many business requirements. Nevertheless, the need for agile methodologies for integrating EPM and other talent management components at arms-length can also be expected to persist. The need for agile methodologies for arms-length EPM integration isn’t likely to disappear (and may well increase!) simply due to the great variety of enterprise requirements, the great diversity of providers and specialties within the talent-management ecosphere, and because “change” is the only long-established constant within the human capital management domain.
Broadly speaking, these domain and market characteristics helped shape interest within the HR-XML community in the development of a set of flexible, industry-endorsed integration standards for employee performance management.
1.2 Objective
The goal of this specification is to define a flexible set of web services operations that can be used in integrating result data (and other associated outputs) from employee performance management (EPM) systems with arms-length talent management systems. Among the common talent management components with which EPM systems may integrate are compensation management, learning management, internal-hire management, succession planning, competency management, assessment, expertise location and knowledge management, as well as business performance management systems.
1.3 Terminology / Concepts
This section introduces key terms and concepts used within this specification.
1.3.1 Objective Plan
Part of a performance management process usually involves the setting of objectives or development of an objective plan. Objectives may have specific metrics associated with them will be used in determining whether the objective is obtained. Objectives can be logically grouped with a broad objective containing sub-objectives.
1.3.2 Objective Result
Objective results or ratings set against the objective targets are a key output of an appraisal process.
1.3.3 Competency Ratings
Employees are usually rated with respect to competencies required for the effective performance of the positions/roles they hold. Competencies (and ratings thereof) can be grouped so that some competencies are referenced as a component of a broader competency group or category. Rather than rate competencies directly, raters sometimes are asked to evaluate “behavioral indicators” of a competency – the observable activities/behavior of an employee that evidence a competency. There also may be different categories of competency ratings. For instance, one section of an appraisal may pertain to “skills” whereas another may pertain to “mission and values”.
1.3.4 Development Plan
A development plan/goal may be set when appraisal identifies a gap between the employee’s competencies and position requirements or when new competencies or increased proficiency is required for a new role.
1.3.5 Multi-Rater Assessments / 360 Degree Reviews
A multi-rater review is a process under which an employee is evaluated by more than one person.
An example of a multi-rater review approach is “360 degree” review. Under a 360 degree review, an employee receives feedback from a range of stakeholders, including peers, subordinates, supervisors, and customers. Note that 360 degree reviews are more commonly used for developmental and feedback purposes than for performance appraisal. HR-XML’s EPM Results specification is sufficiently flexible so that it might be used to support a variety of multi-rater reviews.
1.3.6 Overall Rating
For compensation purposes, for ranking performers within their job categories, and to provide a boiled-down indicator of an employee’s effectiveness, an overall rating (a numeric or descriptive rating) usually is an output of a performance management process. In some cases, the overall rating is a mathematic computation based on a rollup of ratings for objectives.
1.3.7 Position Competency Model
Competency ratings, and to an extent objectives, stem from either a formal or implied profile or model of position requirements. For purposes of this specification, this profile for a position is referred to as a “position competency model.” A data model to support description of position competency models is not within the scope of this specification, but is a topic of on-going work by HR-XML’s Performance Management and Competency Workgroups.
1.3.8 Remuneration Recommendation
This is the communication of a recommended pay increase or adjustment on the based on the results of a performance management process. The remuneration recommendation contains the employee’s overall rating, ratings/results against objectives, plus a recommended pay increase or incentive payout. Typically, the supervisor of the employee being rated would generate the remuneration recommendation and that supervisor’s manager would be the one to act upon it (approve, amend, etc.). Note that while use of the remuneration recommendation may fit some patterns of integration between EPM and compensation systems, in others, the pay recommendation/approval process may be handled completely within the compensation system and may not require integration with the EPM system.
Remuneration is the preferred term used by the HR-XML Consortium in referring to monetary payment (e.g., salary) and related incentives or benefits (stock, deferred savings, etc.) tendered in exchange for services rendered. Remuneration is preferred over the term “compensation” because “compensation” in some countries and cultures is more closely associated with the concept of “restitution” or payment for damages. Note that in this document, the two terms are used interchangeably because in the context of HR information systems, the phrase “compensation system” has more specific meaning and is used more frequently than “remuneration system”.
1.3.9 Stack Rank
Some performance management processes incorporate “stack ranking”. A "stack rank" refers to a unique cardinal position for each person within an organization or designated comparison group. "Stack ranking" is also sometimes referred to as "forced ranking". Within HR-XML’s data model, a stack rank is an optional component within “Overall Rating” (see Section 1.3.5, Overall Rating).
1.4 High-Level Model
Figure 3: EPM Result Components illustrates how components of an EPM result (the concepts introduced in Section 1.3, Terminology / Concepts) relate to one another. At the top of the diagram is a “Position Competency Model”.
Figure 3: EPM Result Components
2 Business Process Actors / Use Cases
Table 1: System Actors and EPM Result Use Cases and Figure 1: EPM Result Use Cases catalog system actors and use cases related to results/outputs from EPM systems. Not all integrations will involve all of these system actors. In some cases, a single system may fulfill the role of more than one of the systems identified below.
Table 1: System Actors and EPM Result Use Cases
|
Actor |
Role / Use Case |
|
HRIS or “core” HR system |
|
|
Business Performance Management System |
Individual objective plans and achievements roll-up into organizational objectives and achievements – so some business performance management systems may receive outputs from employee performance management systems, including:
|
|
Compensation System |
|
|
Competency Management System |
|
|
Assessment Provider |
|
|
Learning Management System |
|
Figure 1: EPM Result Use Cases
2.1 Design Requirement: Message Granularity Suited to Use Case
Rather than taking a “one-size-fits-all” approach, a design requirement was to develop messages with the appropriate composition and granularity for use case and target system. Table 4: Analysis of Data Requirements by Target System shows the HR-XML Performance Management Workgroup’s high-level analysis of the requirements of each target system.
Table 4: Analysis of Data Requirements by Target System
|
|
Business Perform-ance Mgt. System |
HRIS |
Compensation Mgt. System |
Competency Mgt. System |
Assessment |
Learning Mgt. System |
|
Result Metadata (type appraisal, dates, prepared by) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Overall Performance Rating |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes – If compensation may be based on score |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Objective Results |
Yes |
No |
Yes – If compensation may be based on scores |
Yes |
Yes |
Not generally. |
|
Competency Ratings |
No |
No |
Less likely to be tied to compensation – generally not included. |
Yes. Useful for validating and refining job competency model and associated definitions. |
Yes. Useful for validating and refining test items. |
Yes. May illustrate learning achievements and gaps that development plans need to fill. |
|
Developmental Plans |
No |
No |
No |
Possibly |
Possibly |
Yes |
|
Objectives Plans |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
|
Interim Results Against Plan |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
|
Compensation Recommendation |
No |
Yes, in some instances |
Yes, in some instances |
No |
No |
No |
3 How This Specification is Organized
This document provides an overview of the HR-XML Employee Performance Management Result (HR-XML EPM Result) Specification and a guide to the separate documents and resources that comprise the specification. In this document, you will find background on the business domain, a high-level description of use cases considered, a description of terminology and key concepts, and a clarification of the design scope. The other documentation and resources that makes up this specification are described in the sections that follow.
3.1 Scenarios
The following scenarios documents address the use of the schemas and web services operations defined by the HR-XML EPM Results Specification in various business contexts:
- EPM Results: HRIS Scenarios
- EPM Results: Compensation System Scenarios
- EPM Results: Full Result Scenarios
- EPM Developmental Plans: LMS Scenarios
These scenarios are non-normative.
3.2 Schemas
HR-XML’s EPM Result Specification defines a number of “business document” or “wrapper” schemas. Each of these wrapper schemas is built from the same base of reusable data types. However, each has a composition and granularity intended to match a particular target system use case.
These schemas are briefly described in Table 1: HR-XML EPM Result Schemas. See Section 1.5.3, Data Requirements by Target System, for analysis behind the design of these schemas. Complete documentation of the schemas is provided in the separate scenario documents.
Table 2: HR-XML EPM Result Schemas
|
Wrapper Schema |
Description / Target System |
|
A set of reusable data types. The “wrapper” schemas below each include and constrain this broad set of data types applicable to EPM Results. |
|
|
This is a “full result” – a superset of result components intended for a target system requiring a full result -- typically competency management, assessment, and learning management systems. |
|
|
A summary, high-level result such as may be required by an HRIS or core HR system. |
|
|
Allows the specification of objectives, groups of objectives, and related metrics and metadata. Target systems include compensation management systems and business performance management systems. |
|
|
Is structured to correspond to EPMObjectivesPlan. Allows the reporting of individual objective results and groups of objectives. Can be used to provide interim or final results to a Business Performance Management System or Compensation Management System. |
|
|
Contains the same information as EPMObjectivesResult, with the addition of a recommendation for a pay change on the basis of the results. The principal target system is a compensation management system. |
|
|
Contains developmental items or goals set as part of a performance management process. Development items also may be specified along with competency ratings within a full result (EPMResult.xsd). |
3.3 Web Services Definitions
Figure 1, shows one possible application (with options and alternatives) of the range of web services operations encompassed by the specification. Figure 1 is useful in illustrating the scope of the operations defined by this specification, but is not intended to be normative.
Figure 2: EPM Results
The table below, describes the full set of Web services operations defined within this specification. The separate scenario documents (see Section 1, Scenarios, above) provide business context on how these may be applied.
Table 3: HR-XML EPM Web Services Operations
|
Operation Name |
Message Exchange Pattern |
WSDL File / Documentation |
|
CreateEPMDevelopmentPlan |
· Input: CreateEPMDevelopmentPlan · Output: Acknowledge · Fault: CreateEPMDevelopmentPlanFault |
|
|
UpdateEPMDevelopmentPlan |
· Input: UpdateEPMDevelopmentPlan · Output: Acknowledge · Fault: UpdateEPMDevelopmentPlanFault |
|
|
CancelEPMDevelopmentPlan |
· Input: CancelEPMDevelopmentPlan · Output: Acknowledge · Fault: CancelEPMDevelopmentPlanFault |
|
|
GetEPMDevelopmentPlan |
· Input: hrxml:GetEPMDevelopmentPlan · Output: hrxml:ShowEPMDevelopmentPlan · Fault: GetEPMDevelopmentPlanFault |
|
|
ProcessEPMFullResult |
· Input: ProcessEPMFullResult · Output: Acknowledge · Fault: ProcessEPMFullResultFault |
|
|
CreateEPMObjectivesPlan |
· Input: CreateEPMObjectivesPlan · Output: Acknowledge · Fault: CreateEPMObjectivesPlanFault |
|
|
UpdateEPMObjectivesPlan |
· Input: UpdateEPMObjectivesPlan · Output: Acknowledge · Fault: UpdateEPMObjectivesPlanFault |
|
|
CancelEPMObjectivesPlan |
· Input: CancelEPMObjectivesPlan · Output: Acknowledge · Fault: CancelEPMObjectivesPlanFault |
|
|
ProcessEPMObjectivesResult |
· Input: ProcessEPMObjectivesResult · Output: Acknowledge · Fault: ProcessEPMObjectivesResultFault |
|
|
ProcessEPMRemunerationResult |
· Input: ProcessEPMRemunerationResult · Output: Acknowledge · Fault: ProcessEPMRemunerationResultFault |
|
|
ProcessEPMSummaryResult |
· Input: ProcessEPMSummaryResult · Output: Acknowledge · Fault: ProcessEPMSummaryResultFault |
|
|
GetEPMObjectivesResult |
· Input: GetEPMObjectivesResult · Output: ShowEPMObjectivesResult · Fault: GetEPMObjectivesResultFault |
4 Appendix A - Document Version History
|
Date |
Description |
|
2007-Jan-22 |
First Draft |
|
2007-Feb-11 |
Revision |
|
2007-Feb-20 |
Updated to put in 2_5 release |
|
2007-April-15 |
Approved by Consortium |
5 Appendix B – Related Documents