Who should manage the change process? Employees or consultants?

I have already touched on my opinion regarding the need to manage change processes associated with a new or upgraded HRIS and my surprise regarding the number of organisations that appear to underestimate challenges in this area. If you agree with me that organisations need to in fact allocate significant time and monetary resources to manage the change then the next decision for HR to make concerns who is best equipped to manage the change?

It appears that many vendors, including SAP believe that organisational change is most effective when it is lead and managed internally and such organisations should educate themselves about change management and the activities that could be undertaken. In contrast, the number of available consultancy organisations that can be contracted to assist with this area appears to be increasing.

As always there are advantages and disadvantages associated with both of this approaches. I would be interested in hearing more about your opinions regarding who is best suited to manage change- employees or consultants- and also some of the advantages or disadvantages which you think are associated.

The Importance of Change Management

As we all know, the world and more specifically the world of work undergoes continuous change. Some of the changes that organisations experience are part of the external environment and to a large extent outside the control of the organisation and its management. In contrast, internal changes experienced by the organisation can be managed and controlled to a greater extent. Regardless of the source of the change, organisations need to manage change.

The need to manage change is seen by many members of organisations as an essential part of an organisation. Overall, HR professionals are even more aware of the need to manage change as it tends to form part of their job description. Given the accepted importance of change management I am always surprised to read and hear about organisations that fail to proactively address and account for change management processes when implementing or upgrading the HRIS in their organisations. As more and more academics, practitioners and consultants present information regarding HRIS projects, those of us who are interested in this area appear to be presented with one of two stories. The story of the successful HRIS (and I use that term loosely) or the story of the HRIS project that went terribly wrong. For the projects that experienced difficulties, a common theme is shared, that of the need to manage the associated change processes.

Even if your organisation purchases and implements 'best practice' HRIS software, your organisation should not expect to achieve the most value add from the system if they fail to inform and manage the changes to be experienced by the workforce. People that are involved in your organisation need to be aware that they will experience change, how and why. Without this education and communication it is believed that your HRIS project will be limited in its success. Many of you would agree with this approach and observation which then begs the question: given the importance of change management, why is it that so many organisations appear to invest too little time and resources into managing this area?

Data: The most important part of a HRIS

There is some strong rhetoric surrounding HRIS and their ability to address and/or solve many of the problems that HR and their organisations are experiencing. We are familiar with the ideas that: HRIS can automate many routine functions; they can free up time for the HR function to conduct more strategic activities; and that it can also enable the HR function to transform into a strategic business partner. Despite the power of these ideas and arguments, the picture painted by many organisations is one that differs from this greatly. More and more horror stories of IT implementation projects are being shared as the reality of strategic uses of the HRIS fail to be realised.

Processes associated with obtaining and inputting data is seen as one of the primary reasons why the dreams associated with the HRIS are not being realised. A recent article in WorkForce Management titled "When HR IT Goes Bad" shares the story of the Los Angeles Unified School District who are presented as a case to learn from. It is stated that almost everything that could go wrong with the organisations human resources payroll upgrade did. The story presented resonates with other articles of this nature, however one important point is made that I want to share. The author argues that 'Computer systems are only as good as the data they have to work with, so if a public agency or company starts out with bad information, there's not much a new system can do about it.'

This again raises issues regarding the limitations of HRIS. The system in and of itself can not address and solve issues within an organisation. Individuals, as the human capital assets of the organisation are responsible for the collection, input and then use of the data. Does this mean then that data is one of the most important components of the HRIS, or the most important component?

HRIS: Easy to use?

I recently had my first, first hand experience with using the set up pages of a HRIS. This HRIS formed part of a larger ERP system and is well known in the marketplace. Having spent a number of years now researching and analysing the use of HRIS in organisations based in Australia I am aware of the perceived complexity associated with a HRIS and its implementation. What I was personally surpised about however was the complexity I experienced with trying to utilise some of the most basic functions that these systems provide. Now I am the first to admit that I am far from an expert with IT, however I would consider myself as a fast learner. Even with a detailed and prescriptive manual beside me, I still struggled to complete the exercises which were to form part of my education process.

This experience has led me to reflect upon the research that I have been undertaking as well as some of the existing literature that discusses the 'challenges' associated with HRIS projects. When I hear of a complex HRIS, I tend to think about a complex project rather than also considering the complexity that is associated with creating and establishing accurate data and information.

This short lived experience with a HRIS has now given me a much greater appreciation for the time, effort and skills that are required to utilise the functions available through a HRIS. This has led me to conclude that a HRIS (different from the ESS) may be for many, considered not to be user friendly. This was especially the case for me.

Lessons to be learnt

The ability of HR to play a more strategic role in the business can be enhanced through technology. With new technological innovations, especially HRIS's, HR now has access to real time and accurate (or at least one hopes) data which reflects the business, its operations and also its human capital assets. The potential of HRIS, some authors even argue can be the mechanism and driver of change for HR and the HR function. The evolution of HR can become a reality through HRIS.

With such a strong view of the potential relationship between HR and HRIS, and recognising other debates about SHRM, what lessons can we learn as individuals interested in HR, that can be implemented in the workplace? What specific actions, or assumptions can we change now in order to enhance the reputation and role of HR in our organisations?