14
A Process Assessment Model for Human Resource Skill Development Enabling Digital Transformation
1 Department of Computer Engineering, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
2 Institute for Manufacturing, Cambridge University, Cambridge, England Email: [email protected], [email protected]
Abstract
Human resource skill development plays a critical role in the success of digital transformation (DX) in organizations. As a result of the literature review, it is seen that there is a lack of systematic guidance on how to improve the quality of the process of DX human resource skill development for the organizations. ISO 330xx, the set of standards, provides a process assessment framework that can also be used as a baseline to generate process capability models for different specific domains. We utilized this approach by developing process definitions of DX human resource skill development based on the standard to assess the current process capability level and generate a road-map for process improvement. To observe the benefits and usability of the approach, we have performed a case study, including assessing an organizations’ DX human resource skill development process capability level and developing an action plan for process improvement. The findings show that the proposed approach is applicable for identifying the current capability level and can provide a roadmap for moving to the next level.
Keywords: Process assessment, digital transformation, maturity model, human resource skill development
14.1 Introduction
The utilization of emergent technologies in the business environment is ushering in a new era known as digital transformation (DX). Although organizations are aware of the potential advantages of this transformation, they have faced problems creating a clear path to reshape their existing human resource skills in line with these emergent technologies. Empirical evidence shows that investment in new technologies provides the expected benefits if, and only if, the investment is integrated with adequate upskilling of the workforce [1-3]. The literature review [4], survey results [5,6], and interviews with practitioners show that organizations that face the most significant challenges in their DX journey are insufficient internal skills and resistance to change. DX is not just about technology: successful DX initiatives should include gearing up and aligning the strategy, culture, workforce, and processes to embrace this rapidly changing environment. Cultural change should be implemented before the process transformation begins. Thus, it is necessary to improve the process of DX human resource skill development as part of a successful DX initiative. Correspondingly, DX initiatives should cover assessing and improving DX human resource skill development process enabling DX in the organizations.
There are various well-accepted process capability and maturity models, such as software process improvement and capability determination (SPICE) [7-10], and capability maturity model integration (CMMI) [11] for the software industry. These models are an evaluative and comparative basis for process improvement and assessment, assuming that higher process capability is associated with better performance. They are developed to perform assessments of software and systems processes. As a result of the practical benefits of these models, including cost savings, increased involvement of employees, improved and predictable quality as well as productivity, generating consistency regarding process capture and use [12], customizing them to different domains other than software development is the subject of increasing interest in the literature. Accordingly, many initiatives have been proposed for various domains such as the automotive sector [13], knowledge management [14], internal financial control [15], industrial processes [16], medical devices [17], government [18-24], and industry 4.0 [25].
We have utilized a similar approach to assess and improve DX human resource skill development process. It pursues a structured and standardized approach by assessing this process to perform quality improvement initiatives consistently and repeatably. The approach enables organizations to determine the capability level of their DX human resource skill development practices against a benchmark that other organizations also use. Furthermore, it helps them establish a continuous human resource development program, set priorities for DX human resource skill development improvement actions, integrate DX human resource skill development with process improvement and obtain a culture of excellence.
This study aims to develop a process assessment model for DX human resource skill development enabling digital transformation of a maturity model to assist organizations by providing current DX human resource skill development capability/maturity determination, derivation of a gap analysis, and creating a comprehensive roadmap for improvement in a comprehensive, structured, objective, complete, and standardized way. In order to satisfy this necessity, the approach aims to fulfill four high-level requirements: enabling the organization to evaluate its process of DX human resource skill development in detail; identifying the current state of the process capability; comparing itself against other organizations evaluated with the same model; generating a roadmap for improving the process capability level of the organization. This paper is organized into six sections. A literature review is provided in the second section, followed by a high-level description of the developed process assessment model for DX human resource skill development. After this, the case study results are analyzed, and the roadmap derived for improvement in the organization is presented. Finally, the conclusion is given.
14.2 Literature Review
14.2.1 Human Resource Skill Development
Several well-known studies in the literature [26-29] emphasize the importance of an effective DX human resource skill development process. It is also suggested that process improvement within the human resource department is fundamental to an organization-wide structured quality improvement approach [30-32]. Evidence from an increased amount of literature on failure indicates that quality programs’ human resource development aspect is generally ignored. Many experts assert that entirely successful and self-sustainable quality management requires a comprehensive refashioning of DX human resource skill development practices because cultural change should be implemented before the process transformation begins. Human resources skills development, organizational structure management, sustainable learning management, and organizational change management are essential for organizations’ DX journey.
As a result of the literature review, it is observed that studies related to improving quality in the DX ignore the importance of the process aspect of human resource skill development and do not focus on improving human resource quality through the use of a standardized approach for assessment and improvement purposes. Accordingly, this study aims to satisfy this need by developing a process assessment model for DX human resource skill development to help organizations improve the capabilities related to their DX human resource skill development practices for a successful digital transformation initiative.
14.2.2 Theoretical Background
Process capability assessment is the systematic process of identifying gaps in organizational performance between what is and what could/should be. High process capability can be achieved by applying an iterative procedure of process capability assessments and improvement. The output of the assessment is a list of improvement opportunities for increasing effectiveness and efficiency.
SPICE, also known as ISO/IEC 330xx [33-35], a revised version of ISO/IEC 15504 [7-10], provides a structured process assessment framework, facilitating a basis for process capability and maturity level improvement. It assumes that a higher level of process capability or organizational maturity is associated with better performance. It consists of technical standards documents for process improvement and capability determination; it is a reference model for the maturity models. SPICE comprises two dimensions, process, and capability. The process dimension in SPICE includes software-development process definitions; and the capability dimension consists of process capability levels, which are, in turn, composed of process attributes (PA), including base practices (BPs) for Level 1 and generic practices (GPs) covering Level 2 to Level 5. Process Attributes (PA) represent measurable characteristics which are required to manage the corresponding process and improve its capability. BPs refer to the unique functional activities of the process.
The process assessment model for human resource skill development enabling DX was developed based on the family of standards ISO/IEC 3300xx [33-35]. The primary reasons for selecting it as a benchmark are its well-established and widely recognized structure. It presents a process viewpoint of process assessment, providing a clear set of requirements for the process assessment process and the resources required to implement it effectively. It consists of technical standards, including the requirements for MM design [34], process definition [35], planning and execution of process capability/maturity assessments [36], and the application of process improvement based on the process assessment [37-40]. The developed process assessment model for DX human resource skill development is given in the next section.
14.3 Process Assessment Model for Human Resource Skill Development
The developed process assessment model for DX-HRSD provides a basis for the process improvement in a structured manner. It provides to perform the DX-HRSD process quality improvements in a consistent and repeatable manner. It is established based on ISO/IEC 330xx [33-35], also has two dimensions, process, and capability, as explained below.
14.3.1 Process Dimension
The process dimension includes the process definition for the DX-HRSD process defined by following the requirements defined in ISO/IEC 33004 [35]. The process definition of the DX-HRSD process is given in Table 14.1.
14.3.2 Capability Dimension
The capability dimension, which is applicable to any process, was adapted from SPICE [7]. It includes the same capability levels, PAs, BPs, and GPs defined in ISO/IEC 3300xx [33-35]. It includes six levels, from Level 0: Incomplete to Level 5: Innovating, as seen in Figure 14.1.
Figure 14.1: The measurement framework (adapted from ISO/IEC 330xx).
Table 14.1: The process definition of DX-HRSD.
Level-1 assessment is performed to check if the BPs, defined in the process definition in Table 14.1, are conducted according to the corresponding PA 1.1. The rating of PAs is performed based on the gathered evidence, as shown in Table 14.2.
Table 14.2: Scale definitions.
The process capability level ratings, adapted from ISO/IEC 33002, are given in Table 14.3.
Table 14.3: Process capability level ratings (adapted from ISO/IEC 33002).
14.4 Application of the Process Assessment Model for DX-HRSD
An exploratory case study was conducted to observe if the proposed approach is applicable and usable for the process capability level assessment of DX-HRSD and the achievement of roadmaps for improvement. The process capability level of the DX-HRSD process performed in an organization was determined, and a guideline for process capability improvement was generated due to the assessment. A qualitative case study was performed by following the protocol template proposed by Yin [38], as described below:
- The research question of the case study is: How can an organization improve its DXHRSD process by assessing its process capability?
- The measure used is the process capability level of the DX-HRSD process.
- Field procedure, data collection, and limitations of the case study: The assessment is conducted by following the requirement defined in ISO/IEC 33020, which is provided to ensure planning, performing, data collecting, and report the assessment in a structured manner.
- The objectivity of the judgment: The measurement framework, adapted from ISO/IEC 33020, yields to the theory of measure related requirement. Additionally, the requirement of data collection includes evidence reducing subjectivity.
The assessment was conducted in the organization to gather evidence. The semi-structured interviews with the DX and human resource department heads were conducted through online meetings because of the pandemic circumstances.
14.5 Findings and Discussions
During the assessment, it was observed that the DX had been initiated in the company. There is a DX roadmap for the short-term. Moreover, the DX department has been established in the organization, although the number of employees working in there is small. On the other side, there is a long DX journey waiting for the company department to achieve the highest DX human resource skill development process capability level. As a starting point, the organization should focus on the acquisition of DX-related training; enterprise culture and current challenges can be considered as beginning steps.
Capability Level 1 assessment of DX human resource skill development process is given in Table 14.1. During the Capability Level 1 assessment, the BPs defined in the process definition were assessed and the rate of PA 1.1, Process Performance was determined as largely achieved, as given in Table 14.5. Then, the Level 2 assessment was carried out. The GPs defined in ISO 15504-Part-5 were used for the assessment and PA 2.1, Performance Management and PA 2.2, Work Product Management were rated as largely achieved, as given in Table 14.4. As defined in ISO 33002, the capability level of the process will be determined as Level X if all PAs below Level X are rated as fully achieved, and the PAs at Level X are rated as fully achieved or largely achieved. Since PA 1.1. was not rated as fully achieved, the requirements of being Capability Level 2 were not satisfied, and it was concluded that the process capability level of DX human resource skill development process is Level 1 based on the collected and validated evidence, according to ISO 33020.
Table 14.4: Capability Level 1 assessment of DX-HRSD process.
Table 14.5: Capability level assessment of DX-HRSD process.
Based on the assessment results, a guideline for increasing the process capability level of the process to the next level, Level 2, was generated. The roadmap aims to move the capability level to Level 2 by achieving all BPs as fully achieved and all GPs in PA 2.1 and PA 2.2, as largely or fully achieved, as described in Table 14.5.
The main drivers of the roadmap include: generating, publishing and dynamically managing the DX-HRSD plan, acquiring training, mentoring, or other services for skill development, developing an Employee Performance Management System by identifying knowledge, skills and experience to perform the DX-related processes; managing key performance indicators for employee performance; evaluating employee performance; providing feedback for the existing performance; identifying and giving rewards to employees having highest performance; providing a lessons learned database by publishing skill-based experience and information; document job definitions; manage performance management.
A meeting with the assessment team and the process owners in the company occurred to present these assessment results, explaining the rating mechanism and sharing the generated roadmap for process improvement. They gave feedback as they realized the need for process assessment and improvement due to this assessment.
14.6 Conclusion
Although the process improvement models are customized for the different domains rather than software development, their application to the DX domain, and specifically the DXHRSD process, has not been extensively studied in the literature. Correspondingly, A process assessment model for DX-HRSD was developed and validated with an exploratory case study to check the applicability and usability of the model in this study to fulfill this gap in the literature. As a result of the assessment, the process capability level of the DX-HRSD process performed in the organization was acquired, and a roadmap for improving the process capability level to the next level was generated. The case study findings show that the proposed model can identify the capability level and provide a road-map for improving the DX-HRSD process.
There is a limitation of the study, which is the number of case studies. That restricts the generalizability of the proposed model. As a future study, additional case studies in different organizations with different sizes, sectors, and DX adoption levels are planned to generalize the results.
References
1. Autor, D. H., Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2003). The skill content of recent technological change: An empirical exploration. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1279-1333.
2. Morrison, A., Pietrobelli, C., & Rabellotti, R. (2008). Global value chains and technological capabilities: a framework to study learning and innovation in developing countries. Oxford Development Studies, 36(1), 39-58.
3. Fu, X., Pietrobelli, C., & Soete, L. (2011). The role of foreign technology and indigenous innovation in the emerging economies: technological change and catching-up. World Development, 39(7), 1204-1212.
4. Kagermann, H., Helbig, J., Hellinger, A., & Wahlster, W. (2013). Recommendations for implementing the strategic initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0: Securing the future of German manufacturing industry; Final Report of the Industrie 4.0 Working Group. Forschungsunion.
5. Koch, V., Kuge, S., Geissbauer, R., & Schrauf, S. (2014). Industry 4.0: Opportunities and challenges of the industrial internet. Strategy & PwC, 5-50.
6. Leaders, C. (2018) Digital Transformation Readiness Survey Summary.
7. ISO (2012) ISO/IEC 15504-5: Information technology - Process assessment - Part 5: An exemplar Process Assessment Model.
8. ISO (2003) ISO/IEC 15504-2: Information technology - Process assessment - Part 2: Performing an assessment.
9. ISO (2004) ISO/IEC 15504-4: Information technology – Process assessment - Part 4: Guidance on use for process improvement and process capability determination.
10. ISO (2004) ISO/IEC 15504-3: Information technology – Process assessment - Part 3: Guidance on performing an assessment.
11. Team, C. P. (2010). CMMI for Development, Version 1.3, Improving processes for developing better products and services. Software Engineering Institute, 433-454.
12. Goldenson, D., & Gibson, D. L. (2003). Demonstrating the impact and benefits of CMMI: an update and preliminary results.
13. Automotive, S.I.G. (2010) Automotive SPICE Process Assessment Model. Final Release, v4, 4, 46.
14. Barafort, B., Renault, A., Picard, M., and Cortina, S. (2008) A transformation process for building PRMs and PAMs based on a collection of requirements-Example with ISO/IEC 20000. SPICE, Nuremberg, Ger.
15. Ivanyos, J. (2007). Implementing process assessment model of internal financial control. The International SPICE Days, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
16. Coletta, A. (2007). An industrial experience in assessing the capability of non-software processes using ISO/IEC 15504. Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 12(4), 315-319.
17. Mc Caffery, F., & Dorling, A. (2010). Medi SPICE development. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice, 22(4), 255-268.
18. Gökalp, E., & Demirörs, O. (2014, November). Government process capability model: an exploratory case study. In International Conference on Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination (pp. 94-105). Springer, Cham.
19. Gökalp, E., & Demirörs, O. (2015, June). Proposing an ISO/IEC 15504 based process improvement method for the government domain. In International Conference on Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination (pp. 100-113). Springer, Cham.
20. Gökalp, E., & Demirörs, O. (2016, June). Developing process definition for financial and physical resource management process in government domain. In International Conference on Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination (pp. 169-180). Springer, Cham.
21. Gökalp, E., & Demirörs, O. (2014). Kamu Kurumları için Süreç Yetenek Modeli Gelis¸tirilmesi. UYMS.
22. Gökalp, E., & Demirörs, O. (2016) Towards a Process Capability Assessment Model for Government Domain, in Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination: 16th International Conference, SPICE 2016, Dublin, Ireland, June 9-10, 2016, Proceedings (eds.Clarke, M.P., O’Connor, V.R., Rout, T., and Dorling, A.), Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 210-224.
23. Gökalp, E., and Demirörs, O. (2015) ISO/IEC 15504 Standardının Devlet Kurumları için Uyarlanması.
24. Gökalp, E., & Demirörs, O. (2017). Model based process assessment for public financial and physical resource management processes. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 54, 186-193.
25. Gökalp, E., S¸ener, U., & Eren, P. E. (2017, October). Development of an assessment model for industry 4.0: industry 4.0-MM. In International Conference on Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination (pp. 128-142). Springer, Cham.
26. Crosby, P.B. (1980). Quality is free: The art of making quality certain, Signet Book.
27. Deming, W.E. (1986) Out of the crisis: Quality. Product. Compet. Position, Massachusetts, USA.
28. Ishikawa, K. (1985) What is total quality control? The Japanese way, Prentice Hall.
29. Juran, J.M. (1989) Leadership for quality: An executive handbook. Free.
30. Blackburn, R., & Rosen, B. (1993). Total quality and human resources management: lessons learned from Baldrige Award-winning companies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 7(3), 49-66.
31. Bowen, D. E., & Lawler III, E. E. (1992). Total quality-oriented human resources management. Organizational Dynamics, 20(4), 29-41.
32. Vouzas, F. (2004). HR utilization and quality improvement: the reality and the rhetoric–the case of Greek industry. The TQM Magazine, 16(2), 125-135.
33. ISO (2015) ISO/IEC 33000: Information Technology - Process Assessment, International Organization for Standardization.
34. ISO (2015) ISO/IEC 33004: Information technology - Process assessment - Requirements for process reference, process assessment and maturity models.
35. ISO (2015) ISO/IEC 33020: Information technology - Process assessment - Process measurement framework for assessment of process capability.
36. ISO (2015) ISO/IEC 33002:2015, Information technology - Process assessment - Requirements for performing process assessments. 2015.
37. ISO (2013) ISO/IEC TR 33014 Information technology - Process assessment - Guide for process improvement.
38. Yin, R.K. (2013) Case study research: Design and methods, Sage publications.
39. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
40. Le, D. N., Nguyen, G. N., Garg, H., Huynh, Q. T., Bao, T. N., & Tuan, N. N. (2021). Optimizing Bidders Selection of Multi-Round Procurement Problem in Software Project Management Using Parallel Max-Min Ant System Algorithm. CMC-COMPUTERS MATERIALS & CONTINUA, 66(1), 993-1010.