One of the most interesting sessions at the HR Technology Conference this year was the 2007 HCM “battle” – or “shootout” – among Lawson, Oracle, and Workday. As I watched the vendors all flawlessly perform their well-scripted demos, I was impressed with how well all three met and exceeded the requirements Bill Kutik laid before them. When you think back to the fact that Oracle’s takeover of PeopleSoft was just three years ago and that Workday’s inception was a little over two years ago, you have to be in awe at how quickly and how far along the vendors have come – particularly Workday! To be able to effectively compete on stage, feature-function by feature-function, with vendors who have been around for decades, definitely says something about the architecture and toolset of the Workday product. The object-oriented database, the “no code” development platform, the service-oriented architecture (SOA), and the software-as-a-service (SaaS) delivery model of the Workday application are clearly changing the game for software development – indeed every vendor on the market today is talking about SOA and SaaS (of course, the “no code” platform and the OO database is not something so easily adopted within legacy architectures).

What’s great about these sorts for “battles” or “shootouts” is that the vendors get to showcase their products before a large audience. However, I have to say that what troubles me about this sort of approach is that it fails to address what I consider the most crucial aspects of any vendor selection process – that is, the vision and cultural fit between the vendor and the client. Selecting the right vendor should not be centered on feature-function analysis – an excruciating comparison feature-by-feature, function-by-function – because, frankly, most of the top tier vendors these days can meet most client requirements. Some vendors will meet some requirements better (or just differently) than others, while they may fall short in other areas. In the end, there will always be trade-offs. As HCM technology vendors continue to evolve, we’re seeing a clear convergence of functionality. For example, most vendors now provide pay-for-performance, goals linked to compensation and rewards, full on-boarding processes, self-service and configurable workflows and approvals – functionality that was not universally available three to five years ago.

When selecting a vendor for your enterprise HCM architecture, it’s important to keep in mind that you are most likely selecting a vendor who will be with you for the next 10-15 years. Therefore, your focus HAS TO BE on vision and cultural fit if you want the relationship to be truly successful:

Is the vendor’s vision for the future, and hence product direction – both technology vision and business process vision – in line with yours?

• How does the vendor’s product roadmap align with your own HR strategy and HR technology roadmap?
• Does the vendor’s approach to business process management meet your own approach and business process orientation?

What is the cultural fit between your leadership and the vendor’s leadership?

• Is there a focus on customer service, product innovation, and/or operational efficiency? (a reference to Michael Treacy and Fred Wiersema’s fantastic 1992 HBR article, “Customer Intimacy and Other Value Disciplines,” and 1997 book, The Discipline of Market Leaders).
• Is there a sense of partnership between your leaders and the vendor’s leaders? How well do they communicate and feel they can work together?

To me, these are the crucial questions to be answered in evaluating vendors and their applications.

I believe that “battles” and “shootouts” – along with the antiquated RFI/RFP (request for information/proposal) process – are artifacts of the past. Vendor / product selection is like a marriage – it should be made with the expectation that you will live with this partner, working side-by-side for the next 10-15 years. With real partnership, everything can be worked out.