Common questions and answers

Companies of several hundred people that have grown fast or are restructuring benefit the most. An audit is also useful for a smaller business: it's easier to bring order now than to untangle the consequences later.

Regular HR services improve a single process: hiring, training, documents. Transformation starts with the business: how the company makes money, where it loses money and control. Then the structure, payroll, KPIs, managers and the HR function itself are rebuilt around that.

Yes. The fractional HRD format suits companies that need HR Director-level decisions but can't yet justify a full-time position. It's part of the HR Function Transformation area.

Yes, but as parts of the HR function, not as separate products. Executive search, onboarding, personnel processes, 1C:ZUP and employer brand are set up within the HR Function Transformation area — that way they work for business results.

Analysis of the standard's people-management requirements, setting up training, competency assessment and record-keeping processes, policies and regulations, preparing the HR team for auditors' questions and support during the audit.

So that the system keeps working after the project ends. Training HR specialists and HR Directors locks in the result: the team hires and onboards better, understands the numbers and comes to managers with solutions rather than just paperwork.

A records audit checks documents for legal compliance. An HR audit looks at the whole organization: structure, headcount, payroll, KPIs, managers, hiring, retention and the HR function itself — and shows where the business loses money and control.

Not a report on "what's wrong", but a map of problems and risks, change priorities and a roadmap: what to fix immediately, what to do within 3–6 months and what to leave for the next stage.

With understanding the business: how the company makes money, where it's growing and which metrics need to change. Then — analysis of the current structure, functions, managers' workload and headcount. Only after that is the target model designed.

No. The goal is to remove duplication and extra levels, not people for the sake of a number. Sometimes headcount goes down, sometimes new roles appear that were missing. The decision is based on economics: what the change will give the business and what it will cost.

Not a presentation but a working model: the structure, job profiles, accountability matrices, redesigned processes and management practices that I help implement.

Cutting is one possible solution, and not always the right one. I look at payroll together with productivity, structure and results: sometimes it's better to redistribute pay, change the fixed-to-variable ratio or reassemble roles rather than cut staff.

In a retail chain, payroll dropped by 30% after the performance management model and KPI system were changed, while operational efficiency was preserved. In a call center, headcount fell by 20% after a function analysis with no loss of quality. Every case is calculated separately.

Yes, the work starts with numbers: staffing table, actual payments, output, headcount dynamics. If the data is missing or scattered, the first step is to assemble it into a clear picture.

If KPIs are not tied to business goals, don't affect pay and aren't discussed with people, they don't drive results. The revision starts with a check: what we measure, why and how it relates to the company's money.

From frontline staff to managers. In a retail chain, for example, end-to-end KPIs covered cashiers, baristas and area managers and were tied to sales, service, merchandising and discipline.

It depends on the scale and data readiness. Usually the system is launched in stages: key departments first, then the rest — so managers have time to master the tool rather than receive it from above.

Against a competency model built for the specific company's tasks, and against performance. I also use SHL tools. The outcome is not labels but an understanding of who is ready for the next level, who needs a development plan and where external candidates are needed.

That's one of the main findings of this work. Then either targeted development of an internal candidate starts, or a market search. Over years of executive search I have found more than 300 managers and key specialists, so I cover this part too.

Yes, in a reduced format: assessment of the management team and a succession plan for 5–10 key positions. The earlier it's done, the less a key person's departure costs.

Yes. The fractional HRD format suits companies that need HR Director-level decisions but can't yet justify a full-time position. I'm responsible for HR strategy and key decisions, while the company's team handles operations — and I strengthen it where needed.

Yes, but within a clear logic: recruitment, onboarding, personnel processes, 1C:ZUP and employer brand are parts of the HR function, not separate products. That way they work for business results instead of living on their own.

Then the function is built from scratch: first the minimum necessary processes and people for current tasks, then the rest as the company grows. In almost every company where I worked as HR Director, HR had to be built exactly this way.

It's hands-on work on your company's tasks, not lectures: we go through your processes, numbers and situations. The format and duration are agreed per task — from a short session to a program of ongoing support for the HR team.

HR specialists and HR leaders, as well as department heads who need to understand hiring, onboarding and KPIs. A separate track is support for a first-time HR Director.

Because the system has to work after I leave. Training the HR team is what makes a project's result last: in a manufacturing project, more than 2,000 employees went through the training system, and the in-house team ran it.

The standards require defining necessary competencies, providing training and evaluating its effectiveness, keeping records, maintaining employee awareness of the quality policy, and in IATF 16949 also onboarding, motivation and employee empowerment processes. ESG adds working conditions, safety, equal opportunities and social responsibility.

Processes first. Auditors immediately see documents that don't reflect real practice. So we first set up training, competency assessment and records so that they work, and then fix this in policies.

It depends on the standard and the starting point: from a few weeks if the processes largely exist and need to be aligned with the requirements, to several months if the training and assessment system has to be built. We start with a gap analysis, after which the timeline becomes clear.