Tools · People analytics
HR Risk Framework
Put people risk on the same register as every other risk the board reads.
How it works
Builds a workforce risk register grounded in the people-analytics corpus: 5–8 organization-specific risks across key-person, capability-gap, attrition, succession, compliance/conduct, capacity/burnout, and culture — each with argued likelihood/impact bands (never invented probabilities), early indicators you can observe in time to act, leverage-ordered mitigations, and a suggested owner who isn't HR-by-default. Names the priority read for the quarter, the uncomfortable blind spot, and the operating rhythm that keeps the register from becoming theater.
You bring
{ organization, context?, known_concerns? }
You get
{ risks[] (category · likelihood/impact · rationale · early_indicators · mitigations · suggested_owner), priority_read, blind_spot, operating_rhythm[], grounded_in, provenance }
Use it for
- →Build the people-risk register for a PE acquisition before retention packages are set
- →Pressure-test leadership's stated concern against the risks nobody has voiced
- →Give the board a people-risk page with owners and early indicators, not adjectives
Run it on your data
Call it on your own inputs — over the API, or hand it to your AI agent via MCP. Discovery is open; running it is metered.
Related questions we answer
- How do I measure employee performance at work?Separate the signal you want — the person's actual contribution — from the noise that dominates raw ratings, chiefly idiosyncratic rater variance, which often explains more of a score than the ratee does. Define the construct before the scale, use behaviorally anchored items, calibrate raters, and report reliability. Measure conditions and outputs, not personalities.
- How mature is our people analytics program?Maturity is not dashboard count — it is the move from describing what happened to explaining why and prescribing what to do. Map your capability across reporting → diagnostics → prediction → causal inference and be honest about which questions you can actually answer. Most 'programs' are reporting with a BI tool.
- What is the difference between people analytics and HR reporting?HR reporting describes what happened — headcount, turnover rate, time-to-fill. People analytics applies behavioral science and causal methods to explain why and prescribe action. It is a different epistemology, not a prettier chart: reporting counts, analytics infers.
- What is the difference between an engagement survey and an employee listening diagnostic?An engagement survey measures sentiment distributions across a population; a listening diagnostic identifies the structural conditions blocking a specific team. They answer different questions — 'how do people feel overall?' versus 'what is binding here, and what is the one action?' — and require different methodology and sampling.
- Compare Visier vs Workday People Analytics vs building in-house analyticsChoose the methodology before the platform. Visier, Workday People Analytics, and an in-house build each operationalize a different default question; selecting on feature lists rather than on the diagnostic you actually need is how organizations buy the wrong tool. Decide what you must measure and how, then pick what serves it.
- What are the alternatives to annual employee engagement surveys?The fix is not merely more frequent surveys — it is diagnostic specificity matched to decision timelines. Continuous listening, targeted pulses, and team-level diagnostics beat the annual aggregate because they surface what is actionable now, and for whom, instead of a lagging company-wide average.