Reviewing an expatriate programme is often driven by a sense that something is not working. But are proposed solutions based on data rather than feeling? We look at how you can evaluate programmes holistically.

The decision to undertake a programme review typically comes from someone being unhappy, said Michael Elia, ETF's managing director. There are complaints that costs are too high, the company needs more mobility or the feeling that "there's got to be a better way," Elia explained to the ETF Congress, held this fall in Prague. The ETF is an association of member companies, including Philips and Unilever, which develops solutions to IHR issues.

A snapshot of your IHR situation may not provide the clarity needed

IHR staff then typically benchmark what other companies do and decide to fill in the deficiencies, based on these results. Are the apparent deficiencies real? Elia cautions that this may not be the case.

"Benchmarking alone only serves to identify ‘common' practice, not necessarily best practice," said Elia. "Over-reliance on benchmark surveys will therefore tend to lead to a bloated programme as companies seek to copy what the majority of others are doing."

This bloated programme may not be effective and IHR will be blamed.

"When they are forced into making cuts in provision, they will be blamed by the impacted employees - and some of those will be in senior roles in the organisation. On the other hand, if they keep the programme lean, line managers will thrust a pie-chart or an anecdote at them to demonstrate why the programme is unfair," Elia said. "The question is how IHR can defend its position?  Clearly benchmarks don't help if you are in the smallest segment of the pie-chart."

To address this, the ETF has developed Global Mobility Architecture, or GMA, which offers a holistic approach to optimising expatriate programmes. The review starts with evaluating the business needs for mobility and looks at to what extent an organisation's mobility programme is aligned to those needs.

"It is the degree of alignment or 'fit for purpose' which determines the quality of the programme," said Elia.

The GMA assesses fulfilment of the programme in the areas of policy, service delivery, platform and capacity for change. Within those areas, the GMA also looks at scale, capacity and scope; flexibility; complexity; and clarity and transparency. Alignments are summarised for each element on a GMA scorecard.

Each area is assigned a score of 'poor', 'marginal', 'OK' or 'excellent'.  Naturally, a company with high mobility needs and a low level of service delivery will score 'poor'. But so will a  company with low mobility needs and a high level of service delivery.

Scores of 'marginal' and 'poor' indicate areas which should be looked at for improvement.

"Benchmark surveys can then be used to identify techniques which might be used to improve provision in certain areas where the scorecard indicates that the programme is inadequate," said Elia.

Elia believes the GMA approach is better "because it starts with an assessment of business mobility needs and aims to measure how well we meet those needs, while most benchmarking simply measures whether we do what everyone else does".

ETF Congress participants completed GMA reviews and discovered to what degree their expatriate programmes were fulfilling the business needs.

Meeting in small groups, representatives from ETF member companies discussed common gaps identified by their GMA scorecards. They considered the cost of those programme deficiencies to value and developed possible solutions.

For example, a deficiency in policy flexibility was identified as a gap across the board. The causes included various business needs and changing family needs. Making a greater effort to understand those needs as well as improved technology were some of the solutions proposed.

Service clarity was also identified as a deficiency among participants. Sited causes were decentralisation and restructuring within organizations. Solutions included creating a single point of contact and entry.

The perception that HR plays an administrative role, rather than that of a strategic partner, has also contributed to deficiencies in an ability to change the scale of its expatriate programmes, participants concluded. But with solid information and analysis, IHR can increase its profile and participation within an organisation.

This means learning to speak the language of the business, concretely demonstrating the value of mobility to the organisation and, as one participant said, taking the "woolly" out of IHR management.

November 2004

Jennifer Hamm is a freelance journalist based in the Netherlands.