A Case for Best of Breed FMLA, Absence & Leave Software

While the monolithic vendors promote their one-solution-does-all philosophy, a strong case exists that best of breed is the smart choice for absence, leave and FMLA management software.

Since 1993 the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) has had a major impact on corporate leave practices. Federal law requires most employers to administer FMLA in conjunction with other leave benefits authorized by state laws and corporate policies. Failure to meet the letter of the law has resulted in the filing of over 16,000 complaints, costing millions in damages.

It's not surprising that companies are looking for help complying with the proliferation of leave policies, and their impact on absence control programs. A recent CCH survey concludes unscheduled absenteeism averages $660 per employee per year, increasing the urgency to control costs while avoiding litigation. Corporations are weighing FMLA liability, along with the growing cost of absenteeism, and recognizing the need for a solution. But, selecting the solution provider raises a familiar question: suite or best of breed? Before choosing, buyers should consider the very compelling case for selecting a niche supplier for absence and leave management software.

No Manager Ever Got Fired….
Large enterprise players have always been providers of comfort. As technology got hairier and scarier, buyers felt safer choosing the biggest. As the adage went: No manager ever got fired for buying IBM – a comforting idea in a world where obsolescence could arrive before the ink was dry on the contract. However, the promise of single-source security soon faded into the reality of massive implementations. These never-ending projects became living nightmares for many who were promised "seamless" integrations. Once past the implementation, forced upgrades, feature compromise, and a sense that control had been lost caused serious buyer remorse.

Scores of consulting firms emerged promising to help navigate the choppy technical waters for those who were too busy running their businesses. The '90's brought predictions of doom and gloom for the best of breed vendors whose lunch could be eaten by any one of the growing enterprise giants looking to expand their girth. What surprises many is that these smaller suppliers still exist and are thriving despite the goliath ERP threat. The endurance of the "Davids" may seem counter-intuitive, but it's worth examining the strengths that have enabled them to thrive.

Will They Be Around Tomorrow?
Vendor viability is a real concern, and not to be trivialized. But, so is application viability. A burgeoning portfolio of products can quickly become a resource drain for a suite vendor trying to support them, often resulting in client frustration when they have more product knowledge than the vendor’s support reps. Functionality that isn’t part of the core offering is often left to languish while resources struggle to keep primary features ahead of the market.

It’s tempting to go for the comfort of size; after all, thousands of customers can't be wrong, can they? No, but relying on the number of customers to gauge expertise in a specific functional area also misses the mark. A smaller number of happy customers productively using an application, for a purpose similar to yours, is a much better gauge of your future satisfaction. Bigger isn’t always better when it comes to stability, and it’s rarely better when it comes to specialization.

Can It Do What You Need It To?
For providers of specialized solutions such as FMLA and Absence Control, new entrants cannot easily replicate domain knowledge. It is an asset that is formed one experience at a time by grappling with the rules and requirements specific to a company, geographic location, or governing body. As with many solutions that deal with regulatory compliance issues, absence and leave management applications are solving surprisingly complex problems. Coordinating multiple sets of rules relating to employee attendance, leave, and calculated accruals (vacation, PTO, etc.) for diverse company cultures requires experience and continued focus to get it right, every time. When everyone in the vendor organization is an expert in this one area of proficiency, the solution engine is going to be broad enough to handle whatever your particular set of rules requires.
Clearly, smaller vendors who win against larger, well-financed competitors have more than luck going for them. In general, they have mature applications that have richer functionality than a recently added module from an ERP vendor. These suite modules often become "shelfware" because they are not robust enough to handle the customer’s needs.

What about integration?
One of the most appealing ideas of choosing a suite of products is the premise that a set of applications from a single provider has a better chance of working seamlessly together. In reality, many suites are comprised of distinct modules that look like one product, but are actually loosely related under the hood. Buyers must sort out functional areas that require best of breed solutions to get highly specialized tasks done, and enlist suites where the benefits of using a single supplier outweigh the potential for acquiring functionality that falls short.

Case in Point
For years, Technicolor Services in Camarillo, CA relied on a manual system to manage their absence control policies. But when the employee population increased by a whopping 80% in a two-year period, an overwhelming burden was placed on supervisors and Technicolor knew they had to automate.

Likewise, Campbell’s Soup Company faced the challenge of automating both absence control and leave policies in order to drive down absenteeism and increase productivity.

But when both of these billion dollar companies searched for an absence and leave management system, rather than add a module to one of their existing suite solutions, they chose NexTrak, a specialty software solution developed by Intellisys Corporation. Since 1991, Intellisys has been developing absence and leave management software exclusively, with over 4000 customers and 50,000 policies automated to date.

For Technicolor, employee attendance programs are an integral part of their superior workplace culture, and the needs of the business require strict and consistent enforcement of their attendance standards. “NexTrak [Intellisys] are experts in policy automation”, says Pete Holton Senior System Analyst “It’s robust. I’ve come to know that they can handle any policy.” The ability to automate the most exacting details of Technicolor’s varied and complex attendance programs was key in choosing NexTrak.

For Campbell’s, it was Intellisys’ expertise and ability to quickly enhance the product that drove the decision to choose NexTrak. Overlapping absence control policies with mandatory FMLA requirements made the decision easy, according to Flemming Scott, manager of Human Resources, “Once we went to the experts, our problems were solved. Because they are experts, they can move quickly. They listen to us, take our feedback and actually put it into the product.

For those companies starting the search, Flemming advises “Honestly? Anybody can sell you anything. Number one is to find a vendor that understands your needs. Don’t settle! For [absence and leave], the product has to do what you want it to do. Just keep looking until you find a product that does what you need it to do.”

Going Beyond Labels - Essential Questions You Need To Ask
Categorizing vendors can be difficult, and labels – Best of Breed, Product Suite, Single Source, – can often be misleading. The key is to know exactly what your requirements are, and devise a plan that will identify the solution.

Start with a scripted demonstration process. Provide components of your Absence & Leave Policy rules to select vendors and require them to a) demonstrate how your staff would administer your rules with the product, and b) require the vendor to demonstrate how (and where) your rules are configured in the product.

1. Investigate the product’s ability to configure intelligent awareness between multiple, concurrent and perhaps overlapping policy rules that may apply to a single employee, type of employee, or group of employees. Remember, whatever the product cannot do automatically, you will be forced to do manually.
2. What experience does the vendor have in absence and leave automation? How many customers are using the specific solution? How many policies have they automated? How long have they been automating Absence and Leave management policies? How long has the vendor developed these solutions, as opposed to reselling a product that was developed and supported by a specialty vendor?
3. Does the vendor follow a proven methodology when conducting a needs analysis and functional specification that allows you to see how your data will look with your policies - prior to implementation?
4. Will the vendor ask you to simplify your company policies to fit the product’s limited capabilities? This is a strong indication that the software is not robust enough and will leave you doing a lot of the work manually.

Summary
Smaller can often mean better. It’s important to balance the depth of vendor expertise, product functionality and service quality. By carefully considering your requirements and evaluating solutions against realistic benefits, you may ultimately find the solution that meets your needs isn’t from the biggest vendor.