Friday, August 21, 2009
The use of HRIS for transformational activities
Human Resource Information Systems, for vendors and some organisation's, are seen as being a mechanism, or a driver of change in an organisation. We hear lots about the ability for HRIS to generate timely and accurate information that can then be used to direct the talent and activities of the business towards achieving the organisation's objectives and sustaining competitive advantage. Despite the strength of an organisations desire for change and pursuit of strategic activities, many empirical studies find that amount of time that HR professionals spend on transformation activities, that is, activities that are strategic in nature, is limited. HR still appears to be entrenched in activities that are of a transactional nature. As we continue to campaign for a more strategic human resource function, the introduction and adoption of technologies such as HRIS can assist in strengthening this agenda. In order for this to occur however, other social factors, such as an organisations culture need to be addressed. Technologies in and of themselves can not change an organisation. Until more organisations, their management and HR functions realise this, the potential for HR to play a more strategic role in the organisation will remain limited. Should the focus of HR then be on technology or the change management processes associated with their introduction? Does that then imply that responsibility for the HRIS rests more with IT rather than HR?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The focus of HR is to put decision-making purpose first through HR process reengineering. The administrative purposes through automation of basic process is a tool and second objective.Technoloy serves as a building block and strong evidence for HR to drive the change process resulted from the business process reegnineering.
ReplyDeleteIt should never label the HRIS project as simply a technology initiative. Rather it is an opportunity to take a fresh look at the company strategy and organization from an organizational total systems point of view. Off-loading the responsibility to technologists is particularly dangerous. HR can work with management to mediate between the imperatives of the business and imperatives of the technology.
One of the critical issues debated by management is whether the management of the HRIS should rest within the HR department (ie IT people dedicated to the HRIS with accountability to the HR manager, or within IT with accountability to the CIO). There are good arguments for both ways of managing the HRIS. On one hand the system should be managed like any other module of the ERP and thus embedded within IT with a dedicated HR business analyst. This ensures that the system is effectively integrated and that the technological needs of HR are considered within the larger organisational framework. On the other hand it is argued that the HR needs are so specialised that it is critical for the system to be based within HR to ensure that these requirements are embedded into the system by people who really understand the HR requirements of the organisation. While there are good arguements for both positions there are implications for the business and the need to implement differing systems for decison making to ensure that both the technological and business requirements are being met. Effective communication systems are critical to an effective outcome.
ReplyDeleteWhen deciding on where the HRIS should be hosted, that is, within the HR or IT department, I believe it is vital that the decision is made with a view as to what is expected from the HRIS.
ReplyDeleteIf the intent of an organisation is to use the HRIS solely as a mechanism that will enable transactional or traditional HR processing then possibly, the HRIS could be maintained within the IT department, in much the same way as payroll processing can be outsourced.
However, for the HR department to be transformational in nature, it will need to be a provider of HR related knowledge and metrics that will enable the executive management of a company to use its human capital to achieve a sustaibable competitive advantage. The achievement of this scenario would be difficult if the management and hence, the direction of the HRIS development was at the sole discretion of the IT department.
In summary, I do not believe there is a right answer in relation to who manages the HRIS as companies have different skill sets which will influence what structure should be adopted. I believe that the successful implementation and ongoing development of the HRIS can only occur if the HR subject matter expert, HR Business Analyst, and the IT representative work together as a team.
More important than to discuss where an HRIS would be hosted, is critical to understand that any technology tool is just that, a tool. What can be critical in the implementation of such an information system, is that all actors that have interaction with it know how to use it, and understand how does the tool adds value or eliminates cost.
ReplyDeleteThe system itself cannot input data, so the change manegement process that is required takes precedence over where to locate it.
In the end, the host of the system may be selected taking into account organisational structure variables (such as, are other systems like the ones of Finance and operations hosted within those departments, or hosted in IT), whereas HR critical task is to get everyone aligned and ready to use the new tools.
These are great comments and reflect my experiences with numerous companies who have implemented their HRIS.
ReplyDeleteThe ownership certainly should reflect the initial intent of the implementation, but I think that a heavily weighted ownership one way or the other will result in a set of outcomes that may not give the business as a whole the benefits it could achieve. As an extreme example if lowering the Total Cost of Ownership is a mantra of the CIO, then the cheapest solution in the short and medium term will be sought out, both in terms of initial and ongoing costs - functionality and processes, etc. will be a distant second place in terms of priority - so the business may get a good tier 2 hosted solution, reduce internal support costs, etc. and go backwards in terms of HCM standards during the life of the product.
The reverse is also true - a landscape of 'best of breed' solutions with all the bells and whistles for individual specialisations of HCM (this happens a lot!) may give excellent HCM processes (but only within that area of focus), little integration of processes from acquire to retire and a completely unreliable data set and system landscape that is always on the fritz!
It has to be jointly owned and the blend of that ownership must be monitored and adjusted as the business changes.