Evaluating Technology Options Using the Project Diamond

The Cost-Time-Quality triangle can be a helpful tool when comparing various technology options. This framework is commonly called the “Project Triangle,” but we have modified it here to break out Flexibility as a critical fourth element — creating a diamond shape.

The rationale for extending the triangle to include Flexibility is that analytics in all domains is full of unknowns. A rigid design could never anticipate all the future use cases and content demands of an ever-changing world. Doing a meaningful comparison of solutions requires an understanding of the relative flexibility of the various options being considered. And so our suggested framework for comparing people analytics technology options is the Project Diamond.

Comparing the three options

Below you’ll find a generalised comparison of each option using the Project Diamond framework. These findings are based on our direct experiences and discussions with customers and other people analytics experts, so consider it illustrative.

Cost

To build a solution from scratch, you’ll still need to buy a bunch of technology (eg, BI tools, data warehouses, and hardware). And there are often many hidden costs associated with that approach. In a buy option, the cost is typically the technology license/service fee, which has a two or three year commitment, as well as any initial implementation services. In a build option, the cost represents the IT and PA resources that are needed to create the data model and metrics definitions, the warehouse and visualisation tool costs, and any required maintenance and change order costs. Opting for a platform that offers the best of both buy and build generally has the same initial entry cost as the buy option, but is less expensive overall since access to the skilled data engineers and an experienced customer success team augments your resources, supports additional requests, and reduces rework throughout your people analytics journey. Depending on the vendor you select, that type of support will cost you extra red tape, extra dollars, and potentially even extra resources towards manual work.

Time

Internal build projects nearly always run slower than planned, and they often fail altogether. There are countless stories and statistics on failed business intelligence projects. Buy options leverage pre-built assets to deliver a “turnkey” people analytics experience that can get you up and running relatively quickly. But for some vendors, implementation can be a long and drawn-out process. Instead, you could opt for the best of both buy and build. So you get a fast implementation experience with a proven and pre-built starting point, and you also get the ability to enhance and build upon that starting point over time — either on your own or alongside the vendor’s knowledgeable customer success team and skilled data engineers.

Quality

This element has more potential for overlap. There is wide variation in what may be built internally since internal IT teams have considerably less experience working with data from HR systems in an analytics context. While high quality builds can exist, they require superb internal IT resources and incredible amounts of time and money. A common downfall here is that the initial implementation team declares success and rolls off to another project, leaving a knowledge and capability gap. Buy could be better quality than a build since you get a pre-built starting point, but that depends on the vendor. Choosing a PA platform that can deliver the best of both buy and build will ensure the highest quality solution. This option allows teams to get the full value out of all their HR data — by centralising it into a single source of truth, transforming it into an integrated dataset purpose-built for people analytics, and configuring the platform and analyses to their organisation’s exact requirements. And if the vendor has a highly-skilled team of data engineers available to support, PA teams gain a partnership with talented individuals who can ensure the quality of the data assets they create.

Flexibility

The most significant gap is in flexibility. Internal build solutions usually involve multiple teams, and the data and analytics needs of HR must compete for resources with the business’ core product and customer data needs. Meaning the HR function often needs to wait in line for basic changes to their data warehouse and visualisations, and their simple request could be very challenging to execute. In a buy scenario, there is ongoing innovation from the provider as they need to remain relevant and competitive in the marketplace. But that vendor may not make the enhancements your team needs or allow for configuration within the tool they’re selling. If you’re looking for the best of both worlds, you’ll want to purchase a flexible PA platform that allows teams to either build their own data assets within the purchased solution, or partner with the vendor to support that build. The ideal vendor will focus on transparency, flexibility, and customisation — enabling people analytics teams to access the backend of the platform to configure their instance to fit their exact needs.

Ready to learn more?

As you use Project Diamond to assess your people analytics technology options, you may want to download our whitepaper The Evolution of the Buy vs. Build Conversation in People Analytics, which can help you use Project Diamond to determine if buying an out-of-the-box solution, building an in-house solution, or choosing a path that delivers the best of both worlds is right for you.