Is HR equipped to deal with e-HR technology and delivery? What does this mean for HR Reputation Issues? How does this stop HR moving forward with Technology?
Untitled Document
A useful model to explain the assimilation of e-HR in organisations is shown below in Figure 1: 
Figure 1: A model of the assimilation of e-HR (based on Shrivastava and Shaw, 2004; Martin, Reddington and Alexander, 2008) The model is based on three stages, described below:
- Adoption, which considers the drivers underlying the decision to use technology, needs (or requirements) analysis and the technology constraints e.g. whether to buy or build the technology;
- Implementation, which includes expectation setting, the systems implementation process and associated change management; and
- Integration, referring to the embedding of technology and how it has changed working practices and liberated HR for value-added contributions
The main factors on which organisations are likely to experience different rates and trajectories of innovation of e-HR are sevenfold - see Table 1.
|
|
The drivers behind the implementation of e-HR technology |
|
- Operational, i.e. about cost reduction, automation, productivity.
- Relational, i.e. about improving the delivery of HR services and improving managers’ ability to make informed decisions.
- Transformational, i.e. about creating cultural or organisation change, releasing HR professionals to focus on value-added activities.
|
|
| The approach to needs/requirements analysis |
|
Time made available and the quality & experience of the analysts. The extent and variety of stakeholders included (e.g. senior management, IT professionals, employee reps., etc). The nature of analysis: whether the analysis was process-driven (i.e. buy technology that fits the existing processes) or technology-driven (i.e. adapt the processes to fit the chosen technology).
|
|
The approach adopted to technology & suppliers |
|
- The number of vendors approached and how they were assessed.
- Building technology in-house vs. buying technology.
- Whether a single HR system is procured or different modules from different suppliers are sourced (the “best of breed” approach).
- The extent to which the organisation is willing to change or adapt its process to accomodate the technology.
|
|
| The degree to which expectations were accurately set by the technology supplier(s) to HR, and by HR to the wider business |
|
|
| The approach to implementation |
|
- If the decision is to buy off-the-shelf technology, the extent to which it is customised (changed) vs. configured (“vanilla”).
- Whether deployment is phased/incremental or “big bang”.
|
|
|
-
Change within the HR department(s), including job losses, job changes, re-skilling. - The need for and provision of training to both HR people and other users, e.g. managers and employees.
- The use of senior and/or local champions to promote adoption.
- Whether or not a pilot system is deployed initially.
|
|
| Whether broader cultural or organisational change is attempted as part of the implementation, or left until the technology is embedded in operational practice |
|
|
Table 1 - Factors influencing the adoption, implementation and
integration of e-HR (based on Shrivastava & Shaw, 2004; Martin,
Reddington and Alexander, forthcoming) It is clear that in order for the investments in e-HR to be effective, the key steps set out in the model need to be managed professionally. Many issues derive from a failure to develop a detailed case for ‘adoption’ that takes sufficient account of cultural considerations. The resulting implementation fails, at best, to inspire the end users and at worst, creates outrage or sabotage.
Directly addressing the questions posed at the beginning of this paper, traditionally HR has been less than excellent at most, if not all, of the stages in the assimilation model. This derives largely from insufficient capability: the capability within the HR function itself but also an inability for HR to assemble and manage a team or pool of talent that may consist of internal IT specialists and external consultants with the relevant expertise. Also, if an organization’s HR function has a poor reputation for project delivery, then this reputation is ‘imported’ into new projects. It is important for HR to correct this by addressing the weaknesses identified earlier, by up-skilling and enhancing its capabilities.
Implications of Rolling out e-HR on a Global scale The implications examined above and in the other short paper apply to global e-HR programmes. However, some things are emphasised, compared with projects implemented at National level.
These aspects are largely to do with:
- ‘Glocalization’ – to what extent will the e-HR solution be founded on global standards and how will this impact upon local cultural sensitivities? An example might be that an organization in ‘country A’ prides itself on high levels of personal interaction in dealing with HR matters, such that e-HR is seen as a harbinger of alienation and destruction of those elemental practices.
- Data Protection – the notion that a British manager based in the in the UK can see the personal details of a German employee working in Germany, might cause significant issues.
- Scope and Complexity – the need to manage the assimilation of e-HR across multiple boundaries increases the challenges from a governance perspective.
- Cost vs benefit realization – The problems raised above may result in increased costs and a delay in benefit realization.
|
