A few days ago, I wrote about the why and how IT organizations like Cognizant, Infosys and others need to relook at their talent supply strategy and completely revamp it. I wrote about how we need to move away from linear process to a marketplace model. So if you missed the prequel to this blog, go ahead and read it here before you continue.
Now we all know that every model needs a way to measure its relevance.
How do we know that this new model actually works
I did not find any new or radical thoughts in the existing space (IT Industry, talent management Industry or the learning Industry). Then I started looking at markets. Then I started looking for answers at places outside my core.
In the new world of talent marketplace, I would like to measure 3 key indicators.
In this category, the metrics should address questions like, 'How many jobs got posted? How many got filled? What kind of jobs and skills get posted? Is the canvas large or narrow?' Such questions help understand the basics of how active the model is.
How fast or slow are the jobs posted or fulfilled? Is the rate healthy? Does it meet the demand in the required time frame? This is straight and simple. The rate at which these jobs get posted and filled, give us an indication of the trust or confidence that both buyers and suppliers have on the platform.
This is a tricky one. Value can be measured in two perspectives: financial and productivity. Financial is a straight answer. What is the price that buyers are willing to pay for a skill versus what are the suppliers demanding for it? We can also track the skills that have high demand, yet paid low, or low demand and yet paid high.
I will confess at this point, I do not know how to track or measure productivity. My definition of productivity in this context is how many of the jobs pick up by buyers confirm to the skill they originally required. This may also extend to 'how productive these selected associates perform on their actual jobs and has it reduced their learning cycle or improved productivity?' So for now, I will assume that if a buyer picks a candidate for a skill, that is good to assume that the buyer is confident of the productivity value the candidate brings. Sometime in future, I may have a better answer to it.
Adding up all these into an Index
A combination of these metrics clubbed under each category can add up into an overall index. This index can lead as a major indicator of the talent market performance. The breakdown of these metrics and their trend over a period of time can provide us with insights and analytics that will help us understand the market and predict its future in a data-driven manner.
This index can be a weighted average or a composite aggregate or any other statistical method that makes sense.
The thought process
My theory is that this model and the metrics or measures help us with holistic and correlated data to understand and predict skill demand and supply. Understand the true value of a skill, and help employees with enough lead time to up skill themselves when the market dynamics take effect.
This also shifts the focus from supplier driven process to a buyer-driven market. Placing the buyer in the center of decision making.
This does not mean we stop tracking other talent metrics related to employee engagement etc. I only propose that we start archive all the old metrics of a talent supply chain and think of fresh ones.
Again like I said in my previous blog, I may not know the answers to all the questions or challenges that this model brings up. If the leaders of the industry put their heads together and decide to do something about it, we would have changed the way the world thinks about talent supply.
I now am thinking of the kind of roles and skills the talent supply professionals will need in this new environment? I can think of two and will write about it soon.
What do you think? How or what other metrics can we add? Do you have a different model or perspective? What are the potential challenges you foresee?