Where we're going wrong with HR analytics - assessing the evidence...

Seems you cant move on LinkedIn without articles of HR analytics filling up the news-feed. This is of course expected, an exciting and emerging discipline has rightly so sparked interest across the HR profession. There are now expert conferences, round-tables, and thought-leadership events a-plenty (CIPD HR Analytics & Workshop included, which comes back later in 2017). Many offer considerable opportunity to learn and network. But, whilst all of this is hugely exciting, much the space is dominated by background noise which can both disorientate and distract from what is really exciting about analytics and its relationship to important business outcomes.

April's People Management looked more closely at the expert perspective on HR analytics. In their interview with Alec Levenson, of USC Marshall School of Business, and Peter Howes of SAP SuccessFactors who were both keynotes at People Analytics World conference. The excellent article included a useful exploration of seven areas where we're going wrong with analytics, but on reading how many of these topics are actually criticisms of broader human resources management? "Focusing on the wrong skills", "arguing about Return on Investment (ROI)", "idolizing the models of other businesses?" They're of course important to HR analytics management, but I'd suggest that we need a deeper interrogation of where analytics risks going astray, and what we can do about it.

Looking to academic publications for clarity

A number of important academic publications have been produced recently exploring HR analytics theory and practice. A step away from the PM article, they point to issues around definitions (too many analytics terms in use, no accepted terminology or clear construct of analytics) (Marler & Boudreau 2017), unclear theory and practice, and considerable vendor-driven "evidence" which requires deeper critique (Angrave et al 2016). These assessments, driven by academic intrigue in to how analytics has become more standard (but not standardised) over 10+ years, show continuing interest from scholars on the topic. Of course, these publications don't say that analytics does not add value - there are many important publications which describe analytics and its potential, however not enough are critically examined, as with other HR concepts.

These articles illustrate some important technical questions for the academic community to answer; including how analytics theory and practice is conceptualised in different circumstances, the roles of people professionals and their colleagues in operationalising analytics with value outcomes in mind, and value creation models linking knowledge, intellectual and human capital through analytics and reporting. These are big questions that require the people profession and its thought leaders to examine exactly what they mean when they talk about value and people data.

Whats the evidence? Our new CIPD reports

We recently asked experts at the University of Loughborough and University of Leeds to explore HR analytics and reporting, and experts at Ulster University to consider the broader concepts of human capital theory (the knowledge, skills and abilities of the workforce). We're soon to publish their Technical Reviews, which do a deep-dive in to published academic literature to try and make sense of perspectives on these important topics, and to illustrate ways forward for HR strategists, managers, academics and the vendors of analytics services. Their reviews highlight some important issues that face not just the HR profession, but those functions HR partners with and influences. HR's links with finance, risk and audit come to mind when considering how to measure and report human capital value. And for those wanting to maximise the impact of HR analytics, relationships with strategic functions, operations and again finance, are key.

To compliment these deep technical assessments, we've produced a synthesis and positioning paper to prompt debate and action on improving the analytics function. Our forthcoming review looks specifically at some of the key issues the evidence reviews highlight, and ask questions of the profession on how to evolve and build debate, namely:

• Developing empirical evidence of both the process and outcomes of HR analytics. which are published and peer-reviewed.
• Building and integrating analytics practice into the future professional standard; and with this understanding the value of analytics as a part of evidence-based practice.
• Becoming more acquainted with the academic concepts of human, social and intellectual capital in HR practice; using this language to articulate value, and demonstrating it through quality evidence.

Keep an eye for these reports as they emerge over the coming weeks - as ever we'll be discussing them in detail via @CIPD on Twitter, and debating them across our various networks.