Putting the HR into the HRIS: A study of the implementation of Human Resource Information Systems

15476

1

Putting the HR into the HRIS: A study of the implementation of Human

Resource Information Systems

Abstract

An estimated 90% of HR departments in organisations use some form of technology to manage

their data and processes. While these systems have gained traction over the last 10 years there is

significant evidence to suggest that most organisations have not moved beyond traditional and

transactional systems that automate existing HR processes, and that the promise of more

sophisticated analytics with strategic value has not materialised. This paper follows three large

organisations, using an interpretive case study approach, and investigates how they selected,

designed and implemented updated HR systems. Our findings suggest that when a system is

designed to engage with the complexity of people management, organisations experience additional

challenges from those identified in other functional or integrated IS implementations, Thus the HR

system typically becomes stalled at an impasse making it difficult to move beyond the automation –

transactional phase to the more strategic transformational phase. By taking a social constructivist

perspective we posit that there are four main challenges for management to consider when

implementing an HRIS: (1) maintaining both HR and organisational attention in a function that is

often attributed limited salience;(2) addressing the complexities associated with people management

particularly across global and multi-functional businesses; (3) meeting the challenges associated

with the creation and application of relevant HR metrics; (4) and managing user acceptance when

there is typically a perceived and realised loss of functionality experienced when people

management processes become automated.

Keywords Human Resource Information Systems, Human Resources, IS implementation, Social

Construction of Technology Technology in Practice, Interpretive case study research, HR metrics

15476

2

1. Introduction

Since the 1970s there has been a significant increase in the number of organisations gathering,

storing and analysing human resources data using Human Resource Information Systems (HRISs)

(Ball, 2001; Barron, Chhabra, Hanscome, & Henson, 2004; Hussain, Wallace, & Cornelius, 2007;

Ngai & Wat, 2006). More recently enterprise systems have enabled a more integrated approach to

HRIS’s and thus the potential for these systems to impact on the capacity for Human Resources

(HR) to play a more strategic role in the organisation (Becker, Huselid, & Ulrich, 2001; Hewitt

Associates, 2007; Huselid, 1995; E. Lawler & Mohrman, 2003; Sheehan, Holland, & De Cieri,

2006; Tansley, Newell, & Williams, 2001). Specifically, a body of work has emerged suggesting

that through its capacity to deliver accurate and timely metrics, an HRIS has the potential to assist

the HR function in developing business strategy and thus enhance an organisation’s performance

(Gueutal, 2003; E. E. Lawler, Levenson, & Boudreau, 2004; Lengnick-Hall & Moritz, 2003;

Strohmeier, 2009; Voermans & Van Veldhoven, 2007). Additionally there is potential for the

technology to re-engineer the delivery of HR services to gain efficiencies and a higher quality of

HR delivery. Models such as shared services and outsourcing require sophisticated systems to make

processes seamless and to facilitate accurate data exchange. However, empirical evidence suggests

that most organisations barely get beyond the automation of HR support functions and thus the

capacity for HRIS to enhance the strategic activities of the HR function are largely unrealised

(Tansley & Watson, 2009). We suggest that the implementation challenges of these HR systems are

largely underestimated by organisations and thus the ability to use the advanced functionality of the

systems is restricted as users grapple with the automation of more fundamental processes.

The study discussed in this paper was initiated after a preliminary survey (by the authors) of

the use of HRISs in 138 Australian Listed companies .The survey found that although 50% (n=69)

of the participant organisations were found to have an HRIS, the extent to which they were being

used in a strategic manner varied and for the most part the claimed potential of the information

15476

3

systems was not being realised. For example, while 91% of organisations with an HRIS used the

systems in order to process and record leave, only 34% used them in relation to staff planning. In

order to gain further insights into these results, the present study explores the consequences of

HRISs on the HR function in detail at three large Australian organisations using a qualitative case

study approach (Yin, 2003). Specifically, the project examines whether the claimed potential of the

HRIS to enhance the HR function’s contribution to the development of business strategy was being

realised and the factors that might be associated with the capacity of the HR function to use an

HRIS in this way.

We suggest that the potential of HRISs to deliver the promised strategic competencies

remains largely unrealised due, in part, to the complexity of transitioning to more integrated

systems from standalone administrative and compliance focussed systems. Specifically, we found

that the selection, implementation and use of HRISs are being hindered by four main challenges: (1)

maintaining organisational attention: (2) addressing the complexities associated with people

management: (3) the challenges for HR to effectively identify and apply HR metrics: and (4)

managing user acceptance of the under-estimated changes associated with the transition.

The paper is organised as follows: the following section reviews the HRIS literature paying

particular attention to previous studies which recognise challenges associated with the selection,

implementation and use of an HRIS. In section 3 we discuss social construction of technology

(SCOT) as a theoretical lens to analyse this topic. Section 4 presents our case study methodology

and profiles the three case study organisations. The fifth section focuses on the results of the study

and discusses the challenges identified as important to the management of HRISs .and finally we

provide some practical insights relevant for management and highlight areas for further analysis.

2. The Selection, Implementation and Use of HRISs

The current generation of HRISs automate and devolve routine administrative and compliance

functions traditionally performed by corporate HR departments which can change the nature of HR

15476

4

by facilitating, amongst other things, the outsourcing of HR (Barron, Chhabra, Hanscome, &

Henson, 2004; Morley, Gunnigle, O'Sullivan, & Collings, 2006; H. Ruël, T. Bondarouk, & J.

Looise, 2004), the outsourcing of other functions (Valverde, Ryan, & Soler, 2006), or the creation

of Human Resource Shared Service Centres (Farndale, Paauwe, & Hoeksema, 2009). In doing so,

HRISs not only make it possible for organisations to significantly reduce the costs associated with

HR delivery, but also to reassess the need for retaining internal HR capabilities. However, HRISs

also provide HR professionals with opportunities to enhance their contribution to the strategic

direction of the firm. First, by automating and devolving many routine HR tasks to line

management (Morley, Gunnigle, O'Sullivan, & Collings, 2006) an HRIS can provide HR

professionals with the time needed to direct their attention towards more business critical and

strategic level tasks, such as leadership development and talent management (E. Lawler &

Mohrman, 2003). Second, an HRIS provides an opportunity for HR to play a more strategic role, by

enabling the generation of real time metrics on HR issues, including activities such as workforce

planning and skills profiles, which can provide valuable reports to support strategic decision making

(Farndale, Paauwe, & Hoeksema, 2009; Hendrickson, 2003; E. E. Lawler, Levenson, & Boudreau,

2004). The use of an HRIS for strategic activities such as these may also enable organisations to use

their HRIS for the ‘modernization’ of HR departments (T. V. Bondarouk & Ruël, 2009) and for the

implementation of ‘transformational’ HR practices (T. Bondarouk, Ruël, & van der Heijden, 2009;

H. Ruël, T. Bondarouk, & J. Looise, 2004). While there is a reasonably extensive literature on the

implementation and characteristics of HRISs (see Florkowski & Olivas-Lujan, 2006; Strohmeier,

2007), there has been relatively little research published on the implementation and consequences of

these systems on the HR function. As such this paper aims to build on existing literature that

suggests there are different consequences of HRISs for HR across organisations by extending our

analysis to consider and reflect upon explanations for this variation.

One of the first major studies of HRISs in the US (DeSanctis, 1986) noted that the majority

of HRISs used modules for payroll, benefits administration and EEO reporting, rather than modules

15476

5

for HR planning and the generation of performance metrics. Consistent with this, the study noted

that HRISs were more commonly used for standard reporting and ‘administration’ than for the more

strategic functions of HR planning, policy evaluation or productivity analysis. Other early surveys

suggested that HRISs were used predominantly to automate routine tasks and “to replace filing

cabinets” (Martinsons, 1994). Ball (2001) reported similar results for small and medium sized

enterprises in the UK and concluded that HR had missed the strategic opportunity provided by

HRISs. More recent research shows greater use of HRISs in support of strategic decision making by

HR (Hussain, Wallace, & Cornelius, 2007). However, the extent to which an HRIS is used in a

strategic fashion differs across organisations, with the vast majority of organisations continuing to

use an HRIS simply to replace manual processing and to reduce costs (Bee & Bee, 2002; Brown,

2002; Haines & Lafleur, 2008; Strohmeier, 2007).

The research literature concerning the perceived benefits of HRISs also tends to reinforce

the impression that administrative efficiencies, rather than enhanced strategic HRM tend to be the

primary advantages of HRISs. The literature review provided by Ngai and Wat (2006) concluded

that the key benefits of HRISs are normally thought to be improved data accuracy, more timely

information access and lower costs. Indeed previous papers have corroborated these conclusions

empirically (Hendrickson, 2003; Kavanagh, Gueutal, & Tannenbaum, 1990; Kovach & Cathcart,

1999). Nevertheless, studies continue to advocate HRISs for their capacity to enhance the HR

function’s strategic contribution (Kavanagh & Thite, 2009; Ruta, 2009; Strohmeier, 2009; Towers

Perrin, 2008).

Empirical research to date, suggests that while an HRIS may well have the potential to

enhance HR’s strategic role, it is more commonly used to improve administrative and transactional

efficiency of HR processes. The reasons why some organisations may be more adept at realising

this strategic potential remains unclear, however, the limited research on HRISs and decades of

research on the implementation of IT systems in organisations generally point to the possibility that

human, social and organisational factors are likely to be relevant. The barriers to the successful

15476

6

implementation of HRISs identified by, for example, Kovach and Cathcart (1999) and Ngai and

Wat (2006) include a range of organisational factors: insufficient budget, lack of top management

support, lack of support for HR users and coordination problems. A recent study by Burbach and

Royale (2010) which focuses on the integration of talent management practices with an HRIS at a

case study organisation supports these observations. These authors conclude that the success of this

project was contingent on a combination of factors, including stakeholder involvement and senior

management support. In contrast to focusing on organisational factors, others have emphasised the

relevance of social factors. Wilson-Evered and Hartel’s (2009) study of line managers and HR use

of an HRIS in five hospital districts identified organisational climate and culture as central to the

success of HRIS implementations and stressed the need for system implementers to consult and

understand the ‘needs, concerns and opinions’ of staff groups. This finding underscores their

general point that the ‘human element’ is the most critical determinant of the success of an

information system. (2009:375).

3. Theoretical Perspective

Recent debates about technology and organisations have highlighted the importance of

social context and sought to develop frameworks which acknowledge both the material and social

character of technologies (Dery, Hall, & Wailes, 2006). Accordingly, theories which can be

considered as ‘social constructionist’ can play an important role in the study of technology as they

explicitly recognise that technologies, such as HRIS, cannot be evaluated and analysed without

having an explicit understanding of the context in which individuals and groups comprehend,

interpret, use and engage with the technology (Grint & Woolgar, 1997; Orlikowski & Barley, 2001;

H. Ruël, T. Bondarouk, & J. K. Looise, 2004; Williams & Edge, 1996).

For the purposes of this study, social constructionist views offer insights into the

implementation and use of HRISs in a number of ways and, as such .we draw on literature that

highlights the social construction of technology (SCOT) and the use of ‘technologies-in-practice’

15476

7

(Orlikowski, 2000). The SCOT approach challenges the idea that technologies and technological

artefacts have a pre-defined and fixed meaning and in its place argues that the process, design and

selection of technologies are open and can be subjected to contestation (Pinch & Bijker, 1984;

Strohmeier, 2009). This means that a technology such as an HRIS is subject to differing, and

competing, meanings among the various ‘social groups’ who have an interest in its use. For

example, senior management may envisage that an HRIS upgrade or implementation will lead to

the technology being used in ways that enhance the HR function’s ability to contribute to strategic

decision-making. However, other groups within the organisation may have competing

interpretations of the technology in terms of its importance and its capabilities and these may come

to influence the way in which it is implemented and used (Dery, Hall, & Wailes, 2006; Strohmeier,

2009; Thomas, 1994).

The ‘technologies-in-practice’ approach contends that the technology itself cannot be

separated from the social relations that condition or structure its use. Orlikowski (2000) conceives

of technologies-in-practice as the structures that are enacted by users as they use the technology in

recurrent ways. The important implication of this idea for the purposes of this research is the

realisation that when individuals use the HRIS the associated social practices that develop through

this practice serve to shape the value attributed to the technology. Hence the process of using a

technology involves users interacting with ‘facilities’ (such as the properties of the technology

artefact), ‘norms’ (such as the protocols of using the technology), and ‘interpretative schemes’

(such as the skills, knowledge and the assumptions about the technology held by users) (Dery, Hall,

& Wailes, 2006).

Both of these approaches are important and useful as they recognise that when considering

relationships and experiences with technology, it is essential that social factors and previous

experiences be considered. Therefore the opinions of respondents can only be understood in the

context of individuals and groups comprehending, interpreting, using and engaging with the

technologies (Dery, Hall, & Wailes, 2006).

15476

8

4. Methodology

The findings described in this paper form part of a larger longitudinal research project funded by the

Australian Research Council (ARC). All three case organisations discussed in this paper are

members of the project’s industry partner, the Australian Senior Human Resources Round-table

(ASHRR) and were selected on this basis. In 2008 when the project commenced, each organisation

had an HRIS in place and was in the process of either replacing or upgrading their existing system.

While the motivation for the upgrade or implementation varied, all of the organisations viewed this

as an opportunity to extend the strategic contribution of their HRIS. At the start of the study each

organisation had a standalone HRIS (e.g. CHRIS) in place and were, for differing reasons,

upgrading to more integrated systems..

Our study is both qualitative and longitudinal and our data collection phase has involved us

taking an exploratory, comparative, collective case study approach (Stake, 1994), whereby all three

organisations have been studied simultaneously. This approach has enabled us to develop greater

levels of understanding about the management of HRISs within and across organisations (Yin,

2003). Specifically, and as we undertook to address our research questions, our research design

provided us with the opportunity to gather an array of data (see table 1) pertaining to the plans and

activities of each organisation in relation to their HRIS implementations and to examine the way

meaning was created regarding the implementation and use of the HRIS (Creswell, 2009).

Table 1: Overview of Data

Organisation # Interviews Secondary Data HRIS Observation

BuildOrg 17 Annual reports, organisational reports and

presentations on HRIS implementation,

technical and operational manuals, HRIS

generated reports, public information on

the HRIS provided by software vendor.

Observation of HRIS in use within

HR area only.

Observation of hardware supplied

to HR and employees for HRIS

delivery.

ManuOrg 18 Staff brochures and posters, annual reports,

technical and operational manuals, HRIS

generated reports, public information on

the HRIS provided by software vendor.

Observation of HRIS in use with

users in HR and other areas of the

organisation.

15476

9

TechOrg 5 Press articles, annual reports, technical and

operational manuals, public information on

the HRIS provided by software vendor.

Observation of hardware supplied

to HR and employees for HRIS

delivery.

In-depth and exploratory data were collected over a three year period, commencing in early

2008. Overall a total of 40 semi-structured interviews, lasting between one to two hours were

conducted. Interview data was triangulated by site visits and an array of secondary data through

consideration of sources that were deemed informative and relevant (Neuman, 2000). Prior to data

collection, we recognised that our interviewees would use and view their respective organisation’s

HRIS in different ways (Strohmeier, 2009) and therefore we conducted site visits and consultations

with a range of stakeholders in order to identify consistencies and divergences of opinion.

Interviewees were selected on the basis of their involvement with the selection, planning and

implementation of the HRIS at their organization, or their ability to provide an informed evaluation

of the consequences of the HRIS post-implementation. The interviewees thus included: the HR

Director or equivalent, the IT director or equivalent, senior management, , IT and HR

executives,,,and line managers. Interviews were conducted by at least two investigators, recorded

both manually and electronically with digital recordings subsequently transcribed.

During our site visits were able to observe the functionality and operation of the HRIS by

observing the technology being used by HR executives. Furthermore in two of the organisations,

we were able to observe a number of “end-users” of HRISs – those who perform tasks that in some

way require them to use the system (Calisir & Calisir, 2004). These end-users were reliant on the

software in some operational sense, regardless of their seniority within the organisation. In some

cases users were entering data, while in others they were reliant on the system in order to generate

data to make or inform operational decisions. At least two researchers observed the activities and

engaged with operators to clarify actions and inputs. These observations were recorded using

manual notes and were then discussed at length by the researchers to look for any contestations of

meaning. Such observation enabled the researchers to better understand the functionality and the

use of the technology.

15476

10

Finally the interviewees were invited to attend annual participant workshops where the ideas

developed in the research were discussed and contested by all participants in semi-structured

forums. This enabled the data to be validated and ideas to be further developed in association with

the industry partners. All three organisations were represented at these workshops together with

associated consultants and the funding body. Discussions were recorded, transcribed and manual

notes taken and compared by all of the researchers.

Organisational and HRIS contextual data are summarized in Table 2. Each organisation has

been given an assumed name. TechOrg is a private organisation involved in the Information,

Communications and Technology industry. Over the last three years, TechOrg has undertaken to

upgrade its SAP HRIS module as part of its overall ERP upgrade and system development.

BuildOrg is a large construction company which is also privately owned. Its workforce comprises

both permanent and contracted employees. The organisation was previously operating an HRIS that

was considered outdated and sought to upgrade the existing system to primarily manage past and

current employees. ManuOrg is a global manufacturing organization with a range of business units

specializing in a wide range of activities all concerned with the extraction and processing of raw

materials across a diverse range of industries.. The current HRIS was implemented 23 years ago

with an increasingly modified CHRIS system that, at the time of this study, was being replaced by

an SAP HRIS module.

Table 2: Summary of Organisations

Organisation # of

employees

Ownership

structure

Industry Legacy

HRIS

Upgrading /

replacing

Reason(s) for change

BuildOrg Over 1400

(varies)

Private Construction Tailored

Preceda

9.1 by

CHRIS.

Upgrade to

CHRIS

Preceda 11.

Other HR

focused

systems to

remain.

Desire to enhance ability to

comply with industry and

legislative requirements.

Minimise risk of litigation.

15476

11

ManuOrg 6700 Private Manufacturing Highly

customised

proprietary

system

based on

CHRIS

source

code.

Replace

legacy HRIS

system with

SAP HRIS

module.

Seeking to integrate HRIS

with organisations SAP

ERP.

Enhance knowledge

management.

TechOrg 400 Private

Owned by

MNC

based in

Europe.

Information

and

Communication

Technology

Services

SAP Upgrade to

new version

of SAP

HRIS

module.

Seeking expansion and

upgrade of established SAP

ERP system across

organisation.

5. Findings

Despite the HR director of all three organisations stating that the implementation or upgrade of their

HRIS had been undertaken to enhance the strategic contribution of the HR function (Beatty, 2001;

Ulrich, 1997; Walker, 2001), the data suggested that progress towards achieving this aim was

hindered by technological, managerial and organisational challenges. These challenges were

specific to the implementation and use of an HRIS in that they reflected the complex nature of the

management of people, the role of HR in the organisation, the allocation of resources to the HRIS,

and technological issues related to the management of HR practice. Specifically, the data across all

three organisations indicated that each of them had experienced one or more of four challenges

(which are summarised in Table 3). The challenges were:

The relative salience attached to the replacement or upgrade of the HRIS.

The complexity of the HRIS upgrade or replacement and consequences for the behaviour and

processes of the organisation.

HR recognising and developing metrics and business analytics that were critical to the strategic

objectives of the organisations

Barriers to user acceptance of the upgraded or replacement HRIS and recognition of the

importance of change management in helping overcome these.

15476

12

Despite the significance of these challenges, it is important to note that during the period of

data collection we discovered that each of the organisations was dealing with other organisational

issues simultaneously including changes of ownership, changes in organisational structure and/ or

changes in government policy and regulation. We sought to take these changes into account as we

report and discuss the study results as they added to the complexity of using and implementing an

effective HRIS. They also serve to emphasise that the evaluation of any HRIS implementation must

be cognisant of the broader organisational context in which the technological change is introduced.

Each organisation is analysed and data compared across all cases in the context of each identified

theme.

15476

13

Table 3: Organisational Context and the Challenges to Replacing or Upgrading an HRIS

Organisation Organisational Context Salience Complexity HR Metrics Change Management

BuildOrg Requirement to manage an increase in

the size of the contracted workforce

as a result of a significant growth in

the number of infrastructure projects.

Lack of sustained support and commitment from

organisations executive team.

HRIS project reprioritised after acknowledgment of the

need to manage contract based workforce.

HRIS project reprioritised to become part of a risk

mitigation strategy.

Complexity of functionality underestimated.

Additional system customisation required to

integrate with existing processes.

Additional time and financial resources

required to complete data migration.

Traditional HR metrics such as

turnover, sick leave etc used to

benchmark HR practices

A series of sophisticated Occupational

Health and safety metrics analysed and

reported to meet organisational

strategic objectives.

Ownership of new HRIS required.

Timely and tailored education and

training required to ensure user

acceptance.

User acceptance essential to minimise

potential unintended uses and

workarounds.

ManuOrg Imminent retirement of HR Manager

with knowledge of the proprietary

system.

Reorganisation of organisation creating

an urgent need for a new enterprise

wide IT system able to cope with the

new structure.

Strategic imperatives focussed on

creating a series of standalone

businesses with standardised systems

for centralised control but with

opportunities for demerger to potential

buyers

Retirement of HRIS manager providing opportunity to

consider alternative options to the current standalone

system.

HRIS system providing the catalyst for restructuring of

HR to meet corporate strategic objectives

Risk mitigation strategy used to drive IS changes and

ownership of the HRIS

The need to introduce and launch payroll

module complicated by the inconsistent

HR practices undertaken by different

functions and businesses in the Group.

Existing data from legacy system not

compatible with new HRIS.

Significant time and financial resources

required to rewrite source codes and data

migration.

Replaced and relocated entire payroll team

from Brisbane to Sydney.

Sought to recruit for SAP skills at the

expense of organisational knowledge.

HR metrics used on an adhoc basis in

accordance with the specific needs of

each business unit

Deisre for more sophistacted use of

strategic HR analytics but currently

focussed on transactional activities and

compliance reporting

Lack of support from senior

management which hindered

implementation.

Management of employee expectations

and experiences as new HRIS

represented a significant break with the

past.

Employees fearful and/or resistant to

change and hence limited user

acceptance.

Change management processes

perceived to be limited in their ability

to proactively deal with resistance to

change.

Limited communication with wider

workforce regarding the importance of

the HRIS project.

TechOrg Acquired by Australian company

which required the redesign of

business processes and organisational

structure in line with requirements of

new owner.

HRIS project not recognised as a priority by the

organisation.

HRIS project less salient than comparative financial and

engineering IT system projects.

HRIS project reprioritised during organisational

restructure.

Original HRIS project required amendment

due to changes in ownership structure.

Priorities and direction of the organisation

undergoing significant changes

simultaneously.

Required to adopt a HRIS that was

compatible with new owner.

Design phase of HRIS undertaken twice.

Data in legacy system potentially inaccurate

or outdated.

HR metrics used on an adhoc basis in

accordance with the specific needs of

each business unit

Need for more sophisticated HR

metrics overridden by more functional

and compliance based requirements

Need to ensure user acceptance seen as

less of a challenge.

Obtain user buy-in regarding certain

functionalities of the system.

Underestimated impact of changes in

employee remuneration which resulted

in employee resistance.

15476

14

5.1 Creating and Maintaining a High Degree of Salience

Our cases demonstrate the importance of attaching a high degree of salience to the

replacement or upgrade of an HRIS. The challenge was to create and sustain such salience. The

experiences of all three organisations suggested that they enjoyed mixed fortunes in this respect and

that their ability to attach a relatively high degree of salience to their HRIS project had significant

impact on the ultimate strategic capabilities of the HRIS.

TechOrg constantly faced challenges in maintaining momentum and senior management

commitment to enhance their existing SAP system, include an upgrade of the HRIS module. The

project, which was run and owned by the Human Resource department, was not internally

recognised as being a high organisational priority. Thus attempts to progress and complete it had,

over the last three years, been overtaken by what were perceived as other more pressing projects

such as financial and engineering management systems upgrades:

The core will always be financial management systems and the things that allow our

engineers and our program managers to run the calls, take the customer complaints, send

them to the technician. We will certainly come a distant third to that… So if we come third

then we will do something, but we don’t know whether we’re coming third yet do we? (HR

Director, TechOrg).

The diminution of salience attached to the HRIS upgrade at TechOrg was further

compounded when, in late 2008 the organisation was de-merged by their parent MNC and acquired

by an Australia company. All existing business processes therefore needed to be changed to ensure

separation from the parent company. As a result, their HR Director commented in May 2009 that

“…The project (now) has been stopped pretty much…”

BuildOrg had a series of attempts at implementing an integrated HRIS from the late 1990’s.

However, a lack of senior management commitment resulted in inadequate funding, a divided

perspective on the requirements of the system, and priority being assigned to more pressing

operational requirements.

15476

15

In 2007, the most recent attempt to improve the HRIS at BuildOrg gained traction with

senior management. The increase in salience was driven, in part, by changes to the composition of

the workforce that resulted in considerable increases in contract labour, and also by the need to

address and fulfil new government regulatory requirements. Their existing HRIS was unable to

cope with these increased demands and so approval was given for an upgrade, rather than a

replacement, of the existing stand alone Preceda system.

Because there’s been an awful lot of water under the bridge to get to this point. We’ve had –

this is the third go at actually having a crack at getting Preceda as the HR system and getting

the organisational structure in. Now there was one completely failed attempt. One almost

got there but then failed and now this is the (final) go at it. (IT team member, BuildOrg).

ManuOrg had a longer history of HR systems than the other two organisations and first

introduced a proprietry system (CHRIS) in the 1970’s. A range of progressive changes and add-ons

to the legacy system, combined with the in-house maintenance of the system, had produced an

HRIS that while highly valued by HR and business unit management, was complex and highly

dependent on proprietary IS knowledge. Although the HRIS had been accorded reasonable salience

with HR management and had attracted sufficient resources over the past 30 years, the HR Director

acknowledged that the need to standardise IT systems across all operating companies had

strengthened arguments in favour of a new HRIS from within both the HR function and the senior

management team. With the retirement of the HRIS manager the risks associated with proprietry

knowledge became more transparent and consequently ManuOrg embarked on a migration to SAP,

the re-positioning of HRIS management under the IT department, and the re-organisation of the HR

activities. During this process the focus of management shifted from HR functionality to the HR

structural reforms required to meet broader organisational strategic priorities.

Thus in all three cases the degree to which the HRIS maintained the organisational attention

of management appeared to depend on the perceived role for HR in the strategic objectives of the

organisation. The role of the HRIS in both compliance and risk management appeared to dominate

15476

16

the management discourse in each of the cases and thus the salience of the HRIS was dependent on

the perceived contribution of the technology to these critical management issues rather than HR

functionality itself. Distinct from other functions in the organisation, management attention on the

HRIS tended to ebb and flow depending on broader organisational and industry issues rather than

specific HR concerns.

5.2 Addressing the Complexity of an HRIS

The complexity of an HRIS and its associated functionality appears to have been underestimated at

all three organisations as a consequence of both technological and managerial factors (Hannon, Jelf,

& Brandes, 1996). One of the first decisions that organisations must make when replacing or

upgrading an HRIS is whether to adopt a ‘vanilla’ system configured according to a limited range of

operating options, or whether to customize the software by manipulating code to create a system to

meet unique organisational requirements.. The former option typically requires significant changes

to HR and organisational practices in order to adapt to the requirements of the software, while the

latter option typically carries high maintenance and development costs and the risk of a a

dependence on proprietary IT knowledge. In each of the organisations studied proprietary systems

were replaced by configured vanilla systems resulting in significant change management

challenges.

ManuOrg had long maintained a number of legacy add-ons and proprietary upgrades to their

CHRIS system. Thus the adoption of an SAP HRIS module offered opportunities for increased

integration and standardization. The implementation initially focussed on Payroll. The HR Manager

argued that: “There are too many interdependent processes and we really have to make the entire

change of payroll for Australia and New Zealand at the one time”. However, meeting this initial

objective proved to be more difficult than expected with each division of the organisation requiring

distinct functionality to meet vastly different employment conditions and remuneration

requirements. . Aligning these processes with the new SAP HRIS was complicated and the change

15476

17

management issues of transitioning payroll staff, who were very comfortable with the existing

HRIS system, was more challenging than anticipated. There was also considerable compatibility

issues associated with the migration of data from the proprietary legacy system to the new vanilla

SAP system. Consequently, the modification of existing data and associated codes in preparation

for the migration took longer and proved to be more costly than originally anticipated. During an

interview conducted with the three most senior members of the HR team, they reflected upon the

degree that challenges associated presented with one stating:

So you combine all those facts together and I think you probably do come up with teething

problems. Some of those have been molars rather than baby teeth, and we continue to work

through those.

Eventually ManuOrg took the dramatic step of closing their existing payroll department (located in

a separate State from Head Office), making all staff redundant and re-establishing the new payroll

department in Head Office. While new payroll recruits were SAP trained and experienced, they had

no organisational experience with ManuOrg. HR Management considered that SAP expertise was

of more value to the organisation as they transitioned to the new technological platform.

I think whether you go with an SAP versus business knowledge, its like anything, it’s like

when you recruit for any role. Do you go with someone who has got subject matter

expertise, which one can you learn the quickest to actually get you over the line. (HR

Director)

The complexity of the new HRIS at ManuOrg was also believed to have affected the value

that could be extracted from the system in the short term. While it was anticipated that SAP would

deliver a standardised, efficient source of real-time data that would assist line and senior managers

across all divisions and functions in planning and decision making, the HR Manager recognised that

in the short term the provision of strategic HR metrics would take second place to the more urgent

requirements for transactional functionality.

Similar to ManuOrg, the nature of the structure and work at BuildOrg was complex and

diverse with a wide range of employment contract further complicated by a significant reliance on

contract workers. The organisational structure was based more on projects and individuals than on

15476

18

positions, thus many of the reporting functions associated with integrated HRIS systems were

deemed less germane or even superfluous for the organisation. Thus BuildOrg faced difficulty in

trying to establish one central system which could be considered as a ‘single source of truth’ from a

series of legacy systems which, while functionally effective, did not interface. This resulted in

significant challenges for the compatibility and integration of data, mainintaining functionality for a

range of diverse business units, and meeting the wide range and numerous compliance and

regulatory requirements..

Thus some of the critical HR functionality was often shelved due to the complexity of

dealing with it in a vanilla system. . The issue of leave management was a good example of this

complexity in BuildOrg and finally proved to be so problematic in the upgrade process that the

organisation decided not to utilize this function initially. The Corporate HR Advisor remarked this

was why: “we’ve decided to not go forward with the [leave submissions] online; that’s a little bit in

the too hard basket at the moment as to how it’s going to work”. Furthermore, and as the Payroll

Manager observed, a number of other functions of the HRIS required considerable adjustment in

order to meet organisational requirements before the system went live: “You need a lot of tweaking

at that point and we won’t be spot-on when we get it there; it’ll be close. That tweaking will take a

while; it’ll take months and months”. This “tweaking” was a process of configuration that

consumed significantly more time and financial resources than anticipated, stalling the further

development of the HRIS at more functional levels.

Similar levels of complexity were associated with the implementation of a new system at

TechOrg. However, in this organisation the complexity experienced was enhanced by the changes

in ownership which prompted the organisation to consider a number of new principles and

uncertainties as they upgraded to a new version of SAP HRIS. One may have expected that the

change in ownership would have resulted in the ability to implement a simpler and more effective

HRIS, without the constraints of having to use the global SAP standard. However, the opportunity

for simplicity was not realised. Severing TechOrg’s HRIS from that of their previous parent

15476

19

company, combined with the need for it to service only TechOrg’s local operations and, if

necessary, be able to interface with its new Australian owner’s HRIS, added to the project’s

complexity. The organisation was thus forced to start afresh and completely redesign the HRIS - a

more time consuming process than the original project due to reduced IT resources and SAP in-

house expertise. When asked to reflect upon this change the HR Director referred to the role of the

previous ownership structure on their HRIS:

Because I think one of the big things that project reveals was just how lucky we were with it

being on a global organisation in terms of the amount of people and resources that gave us

and obviously the dollar value as well. Whereas now we have to run and manage and

maintain everything on our own and so that’s I guess what changes all of it.

It was literally, I mean I can honestly say I really under - completely underestimated the

impact that would have as did the whole senior management team.

The complexities of the HRIS reflected the challenges of managing HR in each of the organisations

studied. Changes to corporate ownership, structures, compliance requirements and diverse

workforce characteristics further compounded the challenges of implementing a system that met

both local operational requirements, and the need for corporate reporting and meaningful metrics.

Typically the challenges were such that functions were either compromised, deleted or IT

departments incurred unanticipated costs of customisation that stalled the HRIS at a functional

level. All three organisations worked to manage the multiple exceptions required of vanilla systems,

or addressed the necessary changes to HR practice required to meet the parameters of the software.

5.3 HR recognising and developing metrics and business analytics that were critical to the

strategic objectives of the organisations

Each of cases had HR functions that were largely transactional in their focus and while they all

expressed a desire to move to more strategic HR practices, and in fact had justified the upgrade of

the HRIS with this in mind, all were relatively unsophisticated in their use of HR metrics and

business analytics . It would appear that this was significant, particularly when the upgrade was to

an integrated system such as SAP that is dependent on data modelling frameworks for more

15476

20

sophisticated analysis and predictive capabilities. ManuOrg had a range of reporting functions but

the ability for the legacy system to generate more strategic data was limited by the lack of

integration with the SAP system used in other areas of the business. The HR Director described the

HR function as “largely transactional” and “ while most people were very happy with the CHRIS

system that drove that functionality, others were getting increasingly frustrated by the lack of

integration with other systems”. Thus the opportunities to apply HR metrics to strategic thinking

around people management was not supported by the legacy HRIS. The complexities of the new

SAP system had stalled the system at a functional level and more advanced analytics were yet to be

explored. BuildOrg by contrast had a highly sophisticated Organisational Health and Safety system

that had proven very effective at gathering and disseminating valuable data . A range of analytic

tools were used in both historic and predictive capacities to enable wide-ranging changes in

practices that had driven considerable bottom line strategic benefits to the organisation. Despite the

effectiveness of these IT capabilites, the rest of the HR systems remained at transactional levels due

largely to a lack of compliance and problematic development of integrated functionality.

The degree to which each of the organisations or functions was naturally driven by metrics

appeared to have significant influence over the application of more advanced strategic functionality

of the HRIS. This was typically impacted by the degree of integration of the system and thus the

ability to gather data from a “single source of truth” in an accurate and timely manner. Where the

HRIS was more functionally driven , this impeded the use of more complex and strategic analytical

functions.

5.4 Barriers to the Acceptance of an HRIS and the Importance of Change Management

The third challenge which hindered the ability of our organisations to realise the potential of their

HRISs arose from barriers associated with the acceptance of the new or upgraded HRIS among key

end-users of the system and the importance attached to managing the change processes associated

with its implementation. Further, obtaining organisational ‘buy-in’ regarding the strategic

15476

21

contribution of the HRIS had, in some cases, been hindered by scepticism, a lack of understanding,

insufficient management commitment, and fears that existing modes of work would be changed and

result in, for example, job loss or altered leave entitlements and shift arrangements.

A lack of organisation and management buy-in around the move to a new HRIS was a

significant challenge for ManuOrg. They were moving from a system that most people in the

organisation valued for over 21 years and that provided a very useful set of HR management tools.

The HR Manager felt that the change management required to implement the new system lacked

support from senior managers which hampered the implementation: “I’m not sure that it’s got the

necessary buy-in from the business leaders that we’re going to need to have.” This problem was

reinforced later in the same interview:

[…] from talking with the business heads, concept-wise, no one is saying this is a load of

rubbish, but I don’t think they’ve quite got their heads into the space and are saying, ‘Yes,

we’re 100% behind that.

Wider acceptance of the system and its changes at ManuOrg were seen to differ between those that

were associated with the project, versus existing employees who were comfortable with the

organisation’s previous legacy HRIS, or alternatively fearful of new technology. For most

employees the changes to information access and approval processes within SAP were significant

and for the most part more cumbersome and less intuitive that then CHRIS system. The HR

Director was concerned that due to the speed of implementation the change management process

itself was not being managed in a way that sufficiently prepared employees for the pending

changes. He noted, for example, that there were no plans to conduct wider testing of the new HRIS

system and that there had been insufficient organisation-wide communication of the rationale

behind its selection and implementation. He went on to suggest that this would be likely to affect

user acceptance:

The biggest issue I believe is going to be the change management… Most [ManuOrg]

employees are going to notice that and more than notice. They’re going to see a significant

change in the way that they supply information, get information, gain approvals.

15476

22

It’s a big challenge for us at the moment to try and get people in the business into this online

environment. Some people really love it, other people really hate it. There’s like that sort of

– and there’s nothing really in between at the moment - lack of understanding of the change

needed but also an explicit concern for the need to manage change.

BuildOrg’s faced similar challenges but with the added challenges of a legacy of

problematic HRIS implementations and upgrades. The resources allocated to the maintenance of the

legacy HRIS system had waxed and waned throughout the life of the system and ownership of and

responsibility for the system had been transferred back and forth among IT, HR and Payroll. As the

IT Manager noted: “We’ve had a lot of problems actually trying to get people to take ownership of

the systems and maintain them”. This had resulted in the potential for information generated by the

legacy system to be inaccurate or outdated. Drawing on these past experiences, together with the

complexities of a more flexible workforce had resulted in the organisation delaying the

implementation of the new HRIS. According to the HR Director, training and education was

essential to an effective implementation and it needed to be timely:

It’s about educating and marketing, I think at the induction piece, the new joiners they get

some sort of training on how to use it and then when we roll out self service and I was

talking to [Manager X] about this the other day and said anything we do it has to have a

really good marketing push so that people take notice and then quickly follow it up with the

training.

The organisation also realised that training in the new HRIS needed to be ‘hands on’ in order to

secure user acceptance and avoid the proliferation of ‘work-arounds’ that had compromised the

effectiveness of the legacy system.

Acceptance of the HRIS also presented problems for TechOrg, however user resistance was

not as significant as evidenced in the other organisations due to the composition and location of

their workforce. Employees largely worked in distributed teams located in client organisations for

the duration of their projects and were working in a high- tech environment and thus comfortable

with a more virtual relationship with the organisation and with using the HRIS to manage most of

their HR requirements. Despite the HR department struggling to ensure that the new HRIS project

retained salience in the organisation, the lack of organisational buy-in tended to surround specific

15476

23

functions rather than the HRIS system as a whole. The HR Director spoke of limited success with

the time sheeting function and the need to incorporate additional flexibility to meet the increasingly

complex customer requirements, which had implications for their employees in different work sites.

Change was constant in this organisation, so, together with the technical nature of most roles in the

organisation, this seemed to create a more receptive environment for the new system.

The last 12 months, probably a bit more, 18 months, actually coming up to two years now,

has just been phenomenal in terms of change and the amount of change. Being an IT

services company you go through massive amounts of change anyway (HR Director,

TechOrg).

However, despite this environment, recent changes around pay cycles generated significant

unanticipated management resistance signalling that changes to the HRIS, particularly those that

directly impacted on employees’ pay, required TechOrg to pay significantly more attention to

change management processes. The HR Director admitted that the impact of the changes to the pay

cycle on employees had been underestimated:

So we have moved from fortnightly to monthly pay recently…Well interesting. You know

it’s not one - given everything else that we’ve been through I don’t think we really thought it

would be as big as it was, let’s just put it that way and it turned out to be bigger than Ben

Hur. It was a very interesting time and very interesting feedback and once again just

surprised me because you know out of everything that we’ve gone through in the past year I

thought that would like, oh yeah, whatever. But no.

The change management processes around each of our case studies required the organisation to

focus on specific issues relevant to current embedded practice, past experiences, levels of comfort

with change and technical competencies. In each of the cases the recognition of the degree of

change and the management of those processes fell short of what was required. However, it would

appear that familiarity with technology played a significant role across all cases and that this is

particularly significant in the implementation of HRIS’s where issues have previously been

addressed with more “people” contact or with systems that are more user friendly. Problems with

HR functionality such as payroll, leave or rostering have a personal impact on employees and thus

15476

24

have more extreme consequences when they go wrong. Thus change management would appear to

be more critical to HR systems and the impact of problems more severe.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

Those such as Bondarouk et al. (2009) and Farndale et al (2009) have observed that organisations

are becoming increasingly adept at using HRISs and that a correspondingly more strategic role for

HR may be emerging. The initial findings from our three organisations find very little support for

these claims. Rather, they suggest that although new or upgraded HRIS systems are being used to

automate and devolve routine administrative and compliance functions traditionally performed by

the HR function, the potential for this technology to be used in ways that contribute to the strategic

direction of the organisation and HR is not being realised. In this respect, our findings complement

the findings of several previous studies regarding the impact of the introduction of information

technology on the HR function (Kinnie & Arthurs, 1996; Tansley, Newell, & Williams, 2001).

Specifically, our results contribute to, and extend, this literature illustrating that the ability to move

beyond using HRISs as a transaction engine, and to use it in ways that enhance HR’s role as

strategic partner, is being hindered by four main challenges that are specific to the HR function.; (1)

difficulties for HR to maintain the focus of senior management in the context of broader , and often

more pressing , operational demands; (2) the complexities associated with the management of

people particularly across diverse and global business units; (3) the variation of technological and

metrics based skills in HR itself; and (4) user acceptance of systematised approaches to people

related issues.

By applying a social constructivist lens we were able to examine each of these challenges in the

context of these three cases to understand more about the implementation and use of HRIS’s. The

interaction between the actors and the technology established practices that attributed different

meaning to the technology in different environments (Orlikowski, 2001). Quattrone and Hopper

(2006) in their study on SAP accounting systems, however would also argue that IT systems “are

15476

25

not stable black-boxed technological artifacts” (p242) but rather both the actors and the technology

itself have agency. This was particularly evident in our cases as HR and line management wrestled

with the boundaries imposed by the technology and the redefining of existing practices. Orlikowski

(2000) noted that while the practices that resulted from the implementation of IT systems were

constructed based on the interaction of the user and the technology the “physical properties of

artifacts ensure that there are always boundary conditions on how we use them”.(p409). The more

standardised processes found in vendor-supplied HRIS’s proved to be particularly challenging in all

of our cases as users began interacting with the systems. Existing practices, shared understanding of

the role of the HRIS and the variable focus of management attention impacted the users individual

and shared understanding of the systems in use. ManuOrg and BuildOrg , in particular, experienced

the added challenges of new systems that imposed more restrictions on HR capabilities and thus , at

least initially, provided users with less functionality than they had using the previous system. In

both cases the organisations responded by either eliminating the problematic functions of the new

system and adopting add-on specialist systems or, in the case of ManuOrg, addressed the changing

requirement for HR skills prioritising SAP technology skills over business skills. Thus the

interaction between users and the technological artifact shaped and developed the artifact itself

(Orlikowski, 2000; Orlikowski and Iacono,2001). This dualism in development of the HRIS as

changing practices were shaped and in turn shaped the technology was complex and time

consuming and thus had implications for the degree to which the HRIS delivered the anticipated

strategic capabilities.

While management in all cases recognised the potential value in investing in HR systems this was

not typically based around operational enhancements as evidenced in It implementations in other

areas of the business such as sales or finance, but rather broader organisational requirements for

standardisation and, more particularly risk and compliance concerns. Thus all three organisations

were found to have experienced, either at some point prior to or during the implementation of their

HRIS, relatively low levels of salience attached to the development of the HRIS due to management

15476

26

attention being diverted to what were perceived to be more immediate and pressing operational

issues. This in turn resulted in the allocation of insufficient resources to the HRIS upgrade or

replacement, rushed decisions with insufficient critique and attention to meet deadlines, and

underestimation of the change management requirements to effectively implement the new system.

The combination of these factors hindered the implementation of the HRIS, stalling it at a

transactional level..

The complexities and uncertainties surrounding HR functions appeared to have been often

underestimated, which can be attributed to both technological and managerial factors. There are

challenges for HR and management to manage the tension between the need to adapt practice so

that it matches the functionality of the HRIS, versus customizing the technology to fit the existing,

often-complicated practices involved in people management (Ruël et al, 2004). Associated with this

challenge is the decision of where to locate the management of the HRIS i.e. within the IT function

or as an HR technology group within HR. The organisations offered varied responses to this

challenge, but in all three organisations the design and management of the system had significant

implications for the capacity of the HRIS to deliver strategic value.

There was little evidence in our case studies of a sophisticated use of HR metrics for

decision making. While each of the cases expressed a desire to generate more strategic thinking

around HR practices they was little clarity around how that might look in the context of their

organisations. The need for and the value of metrics, however, was more clearly articulated and yet

remained problematic generally across the cases. Tansley and Watson (2000) refer to a process of

strategic exchange in their work on the strategic development of the HRIS and argue that the

process of mutual creation is likely to lead to the development of more strategic HR systems. In all

cases the initial design and implementation of the HR system was focussed on transactional

activities such as payroll, leave management and compliance, with little discussion around the need

for HR metrics and reporting for strategic decision-making other then the potential capabilites

15476

27

embedded in the system itself. These capabilities thus typically remained dormant opportunities

while more pressing operational issues were addressed.

The final challenge which hindered the three organisations’ ability to realise the potential of

their HRISs, arose from barriers associated with the acceptance of the new or upgraded HRIS

among key end-users and the importance attached to managing the change processes associated

with its implementation and introduction. Ruta (2009) describes the need for organisations to ensure

that when implementing any form of technology associated with the HR function they adopt a top-

down strategy in co-existence with a bottom-up approach. This practice was not universally

apparent at our organisations. The ability to gain organisational ‘buy-in’ for the HRIS had, in some

cases, been hampered by insufficient senior management commitment. It had also been hampered

by an inability to use the change process as a means to address user scepticism and lack of

understanding about the new technology, and in particular, about the integration of the resulting

new capabilities into the overall organisational context. In fact, in some cases, HR functionality had

been lost with the transition to the new system, resulting in significant resistance as users reacted to

the reduced capabilities with little understanding of the broader implications of the system and the

potential strategic benefits.

The HRIS promises to deliver strategic capabilities through both technologically enhanced

reporting and analytics, and by enhancing the opportunities for changes to practice in HR. Firstly,

the automation of the transactional and compliance functions of HR has the potential to liberate HR

executives from the administrative load to focus on structural and behavioural aspects of the human

resources to add value. Secondly, the reporting, analytic and predictive capabilities of the

technology are designed to facilitate more informed decision-making and input into critical HR

activities. Our findings confirm that HRIS implementations are often difficult owing in part to the

complexity of the various HR functions which contemporary HRISs typically attempt to

accommodate and integrate, including employee details, payroll, leave administration, training data,

health and safety and performance management information. Decisions to undertake ‘vanilla’

15476

28

implementations of HRIS applications inevitably require the systemisation of HR processes and

practices that are, by necessity, nuanced. Alternatively, extensive customisation of HRIS

applications adds to implementation and maintenance costs and complexity. At the same time,

however, and in line with a social constructionist approach to the study of technology, each of the

challenges illustrates that how and when a technology is used is also determined by the social

context within which it is adopted (Orlikowski & Barley, 2001). In sum, only through an

appreciation of both the material and the social can a more informed understanding of the problems

that surround HRIS implementation and operation be obtained. In this respect, our findings are in

contrast to more technological deterministic views of earlier studies of HRISs that suggest that it is

simply the technology itself which has implications for the changing role of HR (Strohmeier, 2009).

In line with Orlikowski (2000) observations, it can be seen then that our study shows how

the social context that frame HRIS implementations played an important role in shaping user

perceptions and behaviour. The tools and instruments provided by the HRIS still need to be

operationalised by many stakeholders within the organisation, including HR, employees and line

managers (T. Bondarouk, Ruël, & van der Heijden, 2009). From a technologies-in-practice

perspective (Dery et al, 2006) user interactions with the ‘facilities’, ‘norms’, and ‘interpretative

schemes’ associated with an HRIS are affected not only by its technological complexity, but also by

problems concerning the management of, and commitment to, its implementation and operation.

The social context in which technology is introduced leads to considerations of how various

social groups, or key actors involved in the implementation and use of this technology bring to bear

their own interests and thus interpretations of the technology and what it does. Our paper highlights

the significance of these behaviours. The design, selection and use of HRISs were shown to be

subject to contestation as a range of meanings are attached to the technology that either undermine

or highlight its perceived value and significance, and thus impact on the extent to which it is to be

used in a strategic or more administrative fashion.

15476

29

In addition to underlining the value of recognising both the material characteristics of the

technology as well as the social context of its implementation and use, this study emphasises the

relevance of organisational context to understanding HRIS implementations. To elaborate, in our

case study organisations changes in ownership, organisational strategy and structure, workforce size

and composition created delay and uncertainty in the development of HRISs in some cases, while in

others changes related to increased government regulation and compliance issues gave added

impetus to these projects. This leads us to argue that changes that are seemingly not directly

associated with the technological and social factors that are believed to determine HRIS

implementations are, in fact, highly significant and are especially relevant to the challenges we had

identified. These organisational changes invariably impact on the salience of HRIS projects, often

add to the complexity of the HRIS and also heighten user concerns about the technology thereby

accentuating the need for highly effective change management strategies. In sum, changes in the

broader organisational context can add impetus to, divert attention from, or even derail an HRIS

implementation and in so doing undermine any capacity of the HR function to use the HRIS in

order to develop a more strategic role.

In conclusion, our findings suggest some of the reasons for the failure of HRISs to realise

their strategic potential for HR and organisations more generally. In our cases at least, these reasons

include difficulties with maintaining the salience of HRIS implementations in the context of broader

organisational change, the complexity of operationalising HR functions and processes in the forms

required by new or upgraded HRIS applications, the understanding and use of HR metrics, and the

failure to adequately manage user resistance according to an effective change management process.

We suggest that unless organisations are able to recognise these four sets of potential challenges,

the potential of HRISs to enhance the strategic role of the HR function is likely to remain

unrealised.

Role of the Funding Source

15476

30

This research is funded by an Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Grant (LP0882247) in

collaboration with the Australian Senior Human Resources Roundtable (ASHRR). The ARC selects

research using a competitive application process that ensure that the outcomes will contribute to

issues that are listed as of importance to the National interests. This funding was a Linkage Grant

which required the applicant(s) to collaborate in cash and kind with an industry partner(s) to match

the ARC funding for the project. In this case the research was conducted in collaboration with the

ASHRR , an organisation that represents the interests of senior human resource manager in

Australia. Members are all HR Directors or equivalent and most major organisations in Australia

are represented. For the purposes of this research, ASHRR provided the project with a cash

contribution over the three years of the project, access to three member organisations to conduct the

research and the opportunity to report and receive feedback from their members at regular intervals

as the research unfolded. Neither ASHRR nor the ARC had any further involvement in the

collection, analysis or publication of the research and none of the researchers have any involvement

with either organisation other than for the purposes of this project.

References

Ball, K. S. (2001). The use of human resource information systems: a survey. Personnel Review,

30(5/6), 677-693.

Barron, M., Chhabra, D., Hanscome, R., & Henson, R. (2004). Exclusive Panel Discussion: Tips

and Trends in HRIS. HR Focus, 81(5), 6-7.

Beatty, B. D. (2001). A Framework for Transforming Your HR Function. In A. J. Walker & T.

Perrin (Eds.), Web-Based Human Resources: the technologies and trends that are

transforming HR (pp. 150-172). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., & Ulrich, D. (2001). The HR scorecard: linking people, strategy, and

performance Boston: Harvard Business School Press

Bee, F., & Bee, R. (2002). Managing Information and Statistics London: Chartered Institute of

Personnel and Development

Bondarouk, T., Ruël, H., & van der Heijden, B. (2009). e-HRM effectiveness in a public sector

organization: a multi-stakeholder perspective. International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 20(3), 578-590.

Bondarouk, T. V., & Ruël, H. J. M. (2009). Electronic Human Resource Management: challenges in

the digital era. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(3), 505-514.

Boudreau,

Brown, D. (2002). eHR - victim of unrealistic expectations. Canadian HR Reporter, 15(5), 1.

Burbach, R., & Royle, T. (2010). Talent on demand?: Talent management in the German and Irish

subsidiaries of a US multinational corporation. Personnel Review, 39(4), 414-431.

15476

31

Calisir, F., & Calisir, F. (2004). The relation of interface usability characteristics, perceived

usefulness, and perceived easy of use to end-user satisfaction with enterprise resource

planning (ERP) systems Computers in Human Behavior 20(4), 505-515.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method

Approaches: Sage Publications

Dery, K., Hall, R., & Wailes, N. (2006). ERPs as 'technologies-in-practice': social construction,

materiality and the role of organisational factors. New Technology, Work and Employment,

21(3), 229-241.

DeSanctis, G. (1986). Human Resource Information Systems: A Current Assessment. MIS

Quarterly, 10(1), 15-27.

Farndale, E., Paauwe, J., & Hoeksema, L. (2009). In-sourcing HR: shared service centres in the

Netherlands. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(3), 544-561.

Florkowski, G. W., & Olivas-Lujan, M. R. (2006). The diffusion of human-resource information-

technology innovations in US and non-US firms. Personnel Review, 35(6), 684-710.

Grant, D., Dery, K., Hall, R., & Wailes, N. (2007). Human Resource Information Systems Usage in

Australian Firms: a survey Mimeo: University of Sydney

Grint, K., & Woolgar, S. (1997). The Machine at Work: Technology, Work and Organisation

Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gueutal, H. G. (2003). The Brave New World of E-HR. Advances in Human Performance and

Cognitive Engineering Research 3, 13-36.

Haines, V. Y., & Lafleur, G. (2008). Information technology usage and human resource roles and

effectiveness. Human Resource Management, 47(3), 525-540.

Hannon, J., Jelf, G., & Brandes, D. (1996). Human resource information systems: operational issues

and strategic considerations in a global environment. International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 7(1), 245-269.

Hendrickson, A. R. (2003). Human Resource Information Systems: Backbone Technology of

Contemporary Human Resources. Journal of Labor Research, 24(3), 381-394.

Hewitt Associates. (2007). 2nd European HR Barometer: Trends and Perspectives on the Human

Resource Function in Europe 2006/07 [Electronic Version].

Huselid, M. A. (1995). The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover,

Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance Academy of Management Journal,

38(3), 635-672.

Hussain, Z., Wallace, J., & Cornelius, N. E. (2007). The use and impact of human resource

information systems on human resource management professionals. Information &

Management, 44(1), 74-89.

Kavanagh, M. J., Gueutal, H. G., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1990). Human resource information

systems: development and application. Boston, Mass: PWS-Kent Publications Co.

Kavanagh, M. J., & Thite, M. (2009). The Future of HRIS: Emerging Trends in HRM and IT. In M.

J. Kavanagh & M. Thite (Eds.), Human Resource Information Systems: Basics,

Applications, and Future Directions (pp. 409-418). California: SAGE Publications Inc.

Kinnie, N. J., & Arthurs, A. J. (1996). Personnel specialists' advanced use of information

technology. Personnel Review, 25(3), 3- 19.

Kovach, K. A., & Cathcart, J. C. E. (1999). Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS):

Providing Business with Rapid Data Access, Information Exchange and Strategic

Advantage. Public Personnel Management, 28(2), 275.

Lawler, E., & Mohrman, S. (2003). HR as a Strategic Partner: What Does It Take to Make It

Happen? Human Resource Planning, 26(3), 15-29.

Lawler, E. E., Levenson, A., & Boudreau, J. W. (2004). HR Metrics and Analytics: Use and Impact.

Human Resource Planning, 27(4), 27-35.

Lengnick-Hall, M., & Moritz, S. (2003). The Impact of e-HR on the Human Resource Management

Function. Journal of Labor Research, 24(3), 365-379.

15476

32

Martinsons, M. G. (1994). Benchmarking human resource information systems in Canada and Hong

Kong. Information & Management, 26(6), 305-316.

Morley, M. J., Gunnigle, P., O'Sullivan, M., & Collings, D. G. (2006). New directions in the roles

and responsibilities of the HRM function. Personnel Review, 35(6), 609-617.

Neuman, W. L. (2000). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (4th

ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon

Ngai, E. W. T., & Wat, F. K. T. (2006). Human resource information systems: a review and

empirical analysis. Personnel Review, 35(3), 297-314.

Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for

Studying Technology in Organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404-428.

Orlikowski, W. J., & Barley, S. R. (2001). Technology and Institutions: What Can Research on

Information Technology and Research On Organizations learn From Each Other? . MIS

Quarterly, 25(2), 145-165.

Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: or How the

Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology might Benefit Each Other. Social

Studies of Science (Sage), 14(3), 399-441.

Ruël, H., Bondarouk, T., & Looise, J. (2004). E-HRM: Innovation or Irritation. An Explorative

Empirical Study in Five Large Companies on Web-based HRM Management Revue, 15(3),

364-380.

Ruël, H., Bondarouk, T., & Looise, J. K. (2004). E-HRM: Innovation or Irritation? An Exploration

of Web-Based Human Resource Management in Large Companies Utrecht: Lemma

Publishers

Ruta, C. D. (2009). HR portal alignment for the creation and development of intellectual capital.

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(3), 562-577.

Sheehan, C., Holland, P., & De Cieri, H. (2006). Current Developments in HRM in Australian

Organisations Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 44(2), 132- 152.

Stake. (1994). Case Studies In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research

Thousand Oaks Sage Publications

Strohmeier, S. (2007). Research in e-HRM: Review and implications Human Resource

Management Review, 17, 19-37.

Strohmeier, S. (2009). Concepts of e-HRM consequences: a categorisation, review and suggestion.

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(3), 528-543.

Tansley, C., Newell, S., & Williams, H. (2001). Effecting HRM-style practices through an

integrated human resource information system: An e-greenfield site? Personnel Review,

30(3), 351- 370.

Thomas, R. J. (1994). What machines can't do: politics and technology in the industrial enterprise

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Towers Perrin. (2008). Staying Ahead of Change: Evolving Realities and Expectations in HR

Outsourcing. Study of HRO Effectiveness [Electronic Version].

Ulrich, D. (1997). Human resource champions: the next agenda for adding value and delivering

results Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Valverde, M., Ryan, G., & Soler, C. (2006). Distributing HRM responsibilities: a classification of

organisations. Personnel Review, 35(6), 618-636.

Voermans, M., & Van Veldhoven, M. (2007). Attitude towards E-HRM: an empirical study at

Philips. Personnel Review, 36(6), 887-902.

Walker, A. J. (2001). How the web and other key trends are changing human resources. In A. J.

Walker & T. Perrin (Eds.), Web-based human resources: the technologies and trends that

are transforming HR (pp. xiii-xxviii). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Williams, R., & Edge, D. (1996). The Social Shaping of Technology. Policy Research, 25(1), 865-

899.

15476

33

Wilson-Evered, E., & Hartel, C. E. J. (2009). Measuring attitudes to HRIS implementation: A field

study to inform implementation methodology. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources,

47(3), 374-384.

Yin, R. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.