Chartered Institute
of Personnel and
Development
People and technology
Is HR getting the best out of IT?
Survey report
June 2004
People and technology
Contents
Summary of key findings
page 2
Introduction
page 4
HRIS strategies
page 5
Do HRIS live up to expectations?
page 11
Design, development and implementation of HRIS
page 16
What are respondents planning to do when they next change their system?
page 19
HR policies on Internet and email usage
page 20
Conclusions on introducing HRIS
page 22
Acknowledgements
page 23
1
2
People and technology
Summary of key findings
HR is changing the way it does business. Information Technology systems
are a key part of that transformation. By carrying out this survey the CIPD
sought to collect benchmarking information charting these changes, in order
to support HR professionals in their work and decision-making processes. HR
professionals in 488 organisations across public, voluntary and private
sectors were surveyed.
HRIS strategies
• A total of 356 respondents (73%) say their
organisation had a Human Resource Information
System (HRIS) in place. Larger organisations and
organisations in the public sector are more likely to
have an HRIS.
• Most (97%) organisations have had their system in
place for less than ten years; the average age of
systems is just over four years.
• Preference appears to be for single, stand-alone
systems. HRIS integration with other IT systems
within the organisation and multiple systems are
less common. The larger organisations are, the
more likely they are to have their HRIS integrated
with other IT systems.
• The most frequent reasons given for introducing
HRIS are the improvement of speed and quality of
information and the reduction of the administrative
burden on the HR department.
• In addition to staff in the HR department, non-HR
managers and others in the organisation, commonly
those in Finance, are end users of the HRIS.
• In 70% of cases HR departments choose the HRIS.
Their choices of provider are many and varied. The
qualitative evidence suggests their choice can often
be driven by the needs of Payroll, and involve a
search for ‘best fit’ between the capabilities of the
software and hardware available to them and the
functions they would like the HRIS to perform.
• Absence management, training and development
and reward are the HR activities most frequently
handled by the HRIS. These are also the functions
that are most frequently integrated within the HRIS.
Expenses, absence management and
communication are the HR activities that are most
frequently integrated with other organisation-wide
IT systems. Integration, or lack of it, appears to be
more a matter of practical consideration than a
direct policy decision.
• Different sectors have different patterns of HRIS
usage and integration.
• Only 3% of organisations outsource their HRIS.
There are no significant differences evident in the
effectiveness of systems between in-house and
outsourced provision.
• Forty-two per cent of those planning changes in the
future would bring more of their HRIS in-house,
compared to just 11% who plan to outsource more
of their HRIS.
HRIS performance
• The majority of HRIS are delivering what was
expected against the criteria that were considered
most important to HR departments at the start.
However, a substantial minority are dissatisfied. HRIS
deliver slightly better against information-related
criteria than economic criteria. The larger the
company, the more likely it is that their HRIS delivers
against economic criteria.
• Most users do not appear to have difficulty using
their systems, but consider that those outside the
HR department may encounter a little more
difficulty than those within. However, the likelihood
of HR departments finding their systems easy to use
increases with the size of company.
• Seventy per cent find their HRIS reliable or very
reliable.
• Speed, flexibility, functionality and report writing are
some of the issues raised concerning HRIS
performance.
People and technology
Design, development and implementation
of HRIS
• Fifteen per cent of respondents found their HRIS
development and implementation project ran over
budget and 33% of respondents found that the
implementation of HRIS did not come in on time,
the average delay being seven months.
• Only half of those charged with bringing in HRIS were
trained in project management and even fewer were
trained in contract/supplier management. Piloting of
the system and full evaluation after implementation
only took place in around 40% of cases.
• The adherence to effective change management
practices when introducing HRIS significantly
improves the likelihood of the subsequent HRIS
delivering against economic and information criteria
and being deemed easy to use.
• Around 40% of those who already have a system in
place are considering changing their system in the
next two years, with a budget increase averaging
47%. Nearly all of those anticipating change are
looking to increase their budget, but a minority
(8%) are looking for a cheaper alternative to their
present arrangements.
• Around 40% of those with bespoke and generic
off-the-shelf packages, and around 60% of those
who previously developed systems in-house, are
looking for alternatives when they upgrade.
• The most popular changes in approach next time a
new HRIS is introduced are being firmer with
providers, integrating more systems and organising
more training.
Use of IT in the wider organisation
• Almost all (92%) respondents have a clearly visible
policy on email and Internet access, with 59%
limiting IT use to work purposes only.
• From telephone interview evidence, policies with
regard to private usage of company IT facilities
seem to be driven by four things: the management
of risk if IT facilities are misused; the impact on the
organisation if IT facilities are misused; the ability to
catch misusers; and organisational culture.
• The most frequent reaction to misuse is informal
and falls short of formal disciplinary proceedings.
• The numbers involved in misuse are very small.
Cases of warnings and dismissals are reserved for
very serious breaches involving potentially criminal
or offensive use of IT facilities.
3
4
People and technology
Introduction
Why?
Significant changes are being made to the role of HR
professionals and the ways in which they work. HRIS
are a key part of that transformation, helping to
improve the efficiency of HR administration and
enabling a greater focus on making a strategic
contribution to the organisation. But much debate
surrounds these changes in areas such as the
introduction of HR service and call centres, and the
outsourcing and offshoring of activities. Our second
annual survey of trends and practices in the area of
HRIS aims to provide benchmark data to help
understand the nature, extent and implications of
these changes in order to help and support our
members in their work.
How?
Some 5,000 HR professionals (one per organisation
from a sample of the public, voluntary and private
sectors, stratified by size and sector) were surveyed
using a paper questionnaire. The survey was later
augmented by a series of telephone interviews with
a small sub-sample of the questionnaire respondents.
Who replied?
A total of 488 replies (9.8%) were received. Of these:
• Twenty-nine per cent were from smaller
organisations (< 250 staff), 46% were mediumsized organisations (251–1,500) and 24% were
from large organisations (>1,500).
• Thirty-one per cent were public sector, 27% private
sector (manufacturing and production), 32% private
sector (service), and 9% voluntary sector
organisations.
Note: The percentages reported throughout this document relate only
to those who responded to the survey and replied to the particular
question at issue. Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole
number.
People and technology
HRIS strategies
What is the extent of implementation of HRIS?
In all, 356 respondents (73%) say their organisation
has an HRIS in place. HRIS are more likely to be
found in larger organisations and organisations in
the public sector.
For example, 100% of respondents whose
organisations operate in central government, utilities,
call centres and communications say they have an
HRIS in place, whereas HRIS use in textiles (33%),
construction (40%), and food, drink and tobacco
(48%) is much lower.
Large differences in HRIS implementation were
observed across a more detailed sector classification.
Figure 1: Organisations with HRIS, by major sector
Public sector
85%
Manufacturing and production
62%
Service sector
71%
Voluntary sector
74%
0
20
40
60
Percentage with HRIS
How long have HRIS been in place?
HRIS have been in use in respondents’ organisations
from under a year, in some cases to over 25 years at
the other extreme. The majority (97%) of
organisations have had their system in place for ten
years or less; the average age of systems is just over
four years.
80
100
5
6
People and technology
What types of system are in use?
Respondents were asked which of the following types
of HRIS they had:
• a single HRIS covering several HR functions
integrated within itself but not with any other
system within the wider organisation
• a single HRIS covering several HR functions
integrated within itself and with other IT systems
within the wider organisation
• a multiple system with two or more stand-alone
HRIS covering different HR functions, not integrated
with each other or other organisational IT systems
• a multiple system with two or more stand-alone
systems covering different HR functions, integrated
with other IT systems within the wider organisation.
As illustrated by Figure 2, the current predominant
approach is to have single, stand-alone systems. HRIS
integration with other IT systems within the
organisation and multiple systems are less common.
Figure 2: Organisations using each type of HRIS
Single HRIS
59%
Single integrated HRIS
21%
Multiple HRIS
14%
Multiple integrated HRIS
6%
0
20
40
Percentage with HRIS
The type of HRIS used does not vary significantly
between organisational sectors but is related to
organisational size. Larger organisations are more
likely to have their HRIS integrated with other IT
systems (see Figure 3).
60
People and technology
Figure 3: Relationship between company size and type of HRIS
Single HRIS
1,800
Single integrated HRIS
1,200
Multiple HRIS
630
Multiple integrated HRIS
500
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
Median number of employees
(Median is arrived at by ranking organisations in order of size and reporting on the size of
organisation at the mid-point on the scale)
What reasons were given for introducing
the system?
The most frequent reasons given for introducing an
HRIS are to improve the speed and quality of
information, and to reduce the administrative burden
on the HR department.
Where do companies obtain their HRIS?
The two main ways of obtaining an HRIS are to buy
generic off-the-shelf packages (65%) or a tailor-made
bespoke system (25%). Outsourcing (3%) and the
development of a system in-house (7%) are less
common. It is interesting to note that those
organisations with a performance management
element in their HRIS are more likely to have a
bespoke system.
Issues concerning suitable packages were explored in
the telephone interviews. Generic off-the-shelf
packages are seen in the first instance to be cheaper
than bespoke systems, but interviewees had found it
difficult to find a generic software package suitable for
their needs. Not all HR departments work the same
way – the packages are not seen to take account of
the diverse HR working practices to be found in
different operational sectors. Modifications are
possible, but interviewees had found them costly and
time-consuming.
Table 1: Objectives for introducing HRIS, in order of popularity
Objective
%
Improve the quality of information available
88
Improve the speed at which information is
available to the organisation
83
Reduce the administrative burden on the
HR department
80
Improve flexibility of information to
support business planning
60
Improve services to employees
45
Improve productivity
28
Reduce operational costs
24
Manage people's working time more effectively
18
Enable employees to access HR information
15
Improve profitability
8
Other reasons
6
Reduce head count
5
Gain preferred bidder status for
external customers
>1
No key reasons
>1
7
8
People and technology
Table 2: End users of the HRIS once it was installed
‘Customising off-the-shelf packages is a
nightmare. Providers don’t make packages with
any distinction between public and private,
manufacturing or service.’
Two strategies that have been tried and found to
work are: firstly, making enquires at other similar
organisations to find out what they had and whether
they were happy with it, and secondly, having an
agreed checklist of essential and desirable
requirements for the system against which possible
packages can be measured.
Who chooses the HRIS?
Given the most frequent reasons for introducing an
HRIS (see page 7), and the fact that the HR
department is more than likely to operate the system,
it is understandable that in 70% of cases HR
departments choose the system to be installed.
Sometimes the choice is made by a committee of
stakeholders. To judge by the evidence of the
telephone interviews, those who do not use a
committee of stakeholders are less happy with the
resulting system and intend to use a ‘choosing
committee’ when they upgrade to a new system. The
inclusion of an IT specialist on the committee is also
seen to be helpful.
Who uses the system once it is installed?
Beyond the HR department itself the HRIS is being
used to some extent by the wider organisation (see
Table 2). Non-HR use of the HRIS was more likely to
occur in large organisations.
The expectation that employees will use the system is
significantly related to the sector in which they
operate. Some 40% of organisations in the public
sector intend employee use, compared with only 29%
in the voluntary sector, 28% in the services sector and
17% in the manufacturing sector.
%
HR department
99
Other individuals (often specified as Finance)
56
Line managers (non-HR)
50
Employees
29
What are HRIS used for and how well are these
functions integrated within other IT systems?
Tables 3–5 illustrate an interesting pattern of usage
with absence management, training and development
and reward being the most frequently mentioned HR
functions for which HRIS are used. An HR strategy,
expenses or communication are mentioned least often.
Expenses, absence management and communication
are the HRIS functions most frequently integrated with
other organisational IT systems.
People and technology
Table 3: Organisations where this function is part of HRIS
Table 5: Organisations where this function is integrated with
organisation-wide IT system
%
Absence management
90
Training and development
83
Reward
72
Recruitment and selection
63
Managing diversity
63
Appraisal/performance management
61
HR planning
47
Other*
37
Knowledge management
32
HR strategy
28
Expenses
20
Communication
19
*Usually payroll, but also pensions, accidents, work and medical history
Table 4: Organisations where this function is integrated within
the wider HRIS
%
Absence management
79
Training and development
72
Reward
68
Managing diversity
57
Appraisal/performance management
53
Recruitment and selection
52
HR planning
37
Other*
31
Expenses
29
Knowledge management
28
HR strategy
22
Communication
20
*Usually payroll, but also pensions, accidents, work and medical history
%
Expenses
36
Absence management
34
Communication
30
Reward
29
Training and development
28
Recruitment and selection
26
Appraisal/performance management
26
Knowledge management
19
HR planning
17
Managing diversity
16
Other*
15
HR strategy
11
*Usually payroll, but also pensions, accidents, work and medical history
What variations are evident in the use and
integration of HRIS?
The following are some of the key variations in usage
of HRIS across different sectors:
• reward – 88% of private sector service companies
use their HRIS to help them manage reward but this
is only the case for 60% of public sector
organisations.
• recruitment and selection – 76% of public sector
organisations use their HRIS to support recruitment
and selection, compared to only 53% of private
sector service companies.
• managing diversity – 79% of public sector
organisations use their HRIS to help them manage
diversity, compared to only 46% of private sector
manufacturing and production companies.
• expenses – 30% of public sector organisations use
their HRIS to deal with expenses, compared with
17% of private sector manufacturing and
9
10
People and technology
production companies and 10% of private sector
service companies.
The extent to which different functions are integrated
within the HRIS is also related to sector (see Tables 4
and 5). For example, the management of diversity is
integrated within the HRIS in 72% of public
organisations compared with this function’s
integration in 41% of private manufacturing and
production organisations.
Do organisations have different patterns of use
and integration?
The larger the organisation, the more likely it is that
the following functions are integrated into the
organisation-wide IT system:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
absence management
training and development
recruitment and selection
expenses
HR planning
other functions
knowledge management
HR strategy.
Why this piecemeal approach and lack of
integration with other systems?
There would appear to be three simple answers to this
question: money, power and timing.
Telephone interviews suggest that lack of integration
with other systems is driven more by practical
considerations than by policy. Other departments in
organisations choose their system to meet their needs
from the many different suppliers – usually in different
financial years due to cost. These disparate systems
will simply not interface with each other.
‘It is too expensive to get new systems for all
departments in one go, so we buy systems
piecemeal and try to integrate them later.’
The most common desire for integration of systems is
between HR and payroll. Some achieve integration at
a price – the price being time spent in cumbersome IT
procedures, time-consuming reconciliation, or
deciding on a system that meets the needs of payroll
but not the needs of HR.
‘The needs of HR will always be different from
the needs of payroll.’
Payroll tends to be the driver if there has to be a
compromise on which system is chosen.
‘It is essential that people are paid; everything
else is secondary.’
Responsibility for the payroll function in an
organisation may migrate back and forth over time
between Finance and HR. In such cases the power of
HR to decide on an IT system that would link both
functions will fluctuate.
Even those in a position to choose their HRIS are
limited by the systems available and must settle for
‘best fit’ to the functions it will serve. A system chosen
to run most of the functions required might not be
considered good enough to cope with other necessary
functions thought desirable for it to perform.
People and technology
Do HRIS live up to expectations?
It appears that the majority of systems are delivering
what is expected against the criteria that are most
frequently considered to be important to HR
departments when they introduce their HRIS.
However, a substantial minority of respondents are
dissatisfied.
How do they perform?
Table 6 shows an assessment of the success of
existing systems. It is arranged in order of the most
frequently expressed reasons for HR professionals
introducing those systems.
Table 6: Success of HRIS introduction
Percentage of respondents commenting
Not at
all
Not as well
as expected
As
expected
Better than
expected
Improves the quality of information available
2
23
52
23
Improves the speed at which information is
available to the organisation
2
21
57
21
Reduces the administrative burden on the
HR department
4
32
53
11
Improves the flexibility of information
5
26
55
14
Improves services to employees
5
20
66
10
Improves productivity
12
20
59
9
Reduces operational cost
14
25
57
4
Reasons for introduction
Manages employees working time more effectively
15
29
49
7
Enables employees to access HR information
44
13
35
8
Improves profitability
27
15
56
2
Facilitates achievement of external standards,
eg Investors in People
35
12
48
5
Reduces the head count
39
11
48
1
Gains preferred bidder status for external customers
65
5
23
7
In order to break down the performance against
economic criteria and information-provision criteria
separately, the comments in response to the reasons
provided were scored as follows:
The scores were then aggregated across all reasons,
providing statistically reliable and valid mean-scale
scores for each respondent.
Items included in the economic scale were:
‘Not at all’ = 1
‘Not as well as expected’ = 2
‘As expected’ = 3
‘Better than expected’ = 4.
• The HRIS manages people’s working time more
effectively.
• The HRIS reduces operational cost.
• The HRIS improves productivity.
• The HRIS improves profitability.
• The HRIS reduces the head count.
11
12
People and technology
Items included in the information scale were:
• The HRIS reduces the administrative burden on the
HR department.
• The HRIS improves the quality of information
available.
• The HRIS improves the speed at which information
is available to the organisation.
• The HRIS improves the flexibility of information.
The overall mean-scale scores relating to economic
and information criteria shows systems delivering
slightly better against information-related criteria
(mean = 2.86) than economic criteria (mean = 2.35).
Are HRIS user friendly?
Most users do not appear to have difficulty using their
systems, but think that those outside the HR
department may encounter a little more difficulty than
those within it. There was no significant difference in
responses on this subject in relation to where
organisations had obtained their system. However, the
likelihood of HR departments finding their systems
easy to use did increase with the size of company.
Are they reliable?
Some 27% find their systems to be fairly reliable and
70% find them mostly or very reliable. Opinions on
reliability did not vary significantly between major
operational sectors or according to company size.
The larger the company, the more likely it is that their
HRIS delivers against economic criteria.
Table 7: Ease of use
Respondents who ticked answers in each of these three categories (%)
User
Easy to use
Neither easy
nor difficult
Difficult to use
HR department
47
37
16
Non-HR department
30
45
25
People and technology
There is a strong correlation between those who rate
highly their organisation’s management of the
contractor and those who rate highly their outsourced
contractor in terms of performance and value for
money.
Is outsourcing a good idea?
Table 8 shows a fairly even split of opinion on the
benefits of outsourcing HRIS to external suppliers and
the effects on performance and value for money for
those respondents who have outsourced.
Table 8: How respondents who had an HRIS rated their contractor, and their organisation’s abilities to deal with that outsoured contractor
Percentage of respondents who ticked each of these four categories (1 = Very poor; 4 = Excellent)
Criterion
1
2
3
4
Performance of IT contractor
outsourced for the HRIS
17
43
33
7
Value for money of
outsourcing HRIS
10
44
35
11
7
41
45
7
Your organisation’s management
of the contractor for the
outsourced HRIS
There is no significant difference in the delivery of
respondents’ HRIS against either information- or
economic-criteria scales between those who outsource
their HRIS and those who obtain their HRIS in other
ways.
There is also no significant difference in reliability
rating between those who outsource their HRIS and
those who obtain their HRIS in other ways.
This quotation from one ‘outsourcer’ interviewed by
telephone illustrates that outsourcing can be an
attempt to buy peace of mind, especially when
maintaining a very large database:
‘Outsourcing transfers the risk of major IT
breakdown to a company with the IT resources
and knowledge to ensure no data is lost.’
13
14
People and technology
What are the key issues that affect performance?
To answer this, the qualitative data from the survey
was analysed to identify themes within the answers.
The numbers in brackets indicate the number of
respondents commenting on each issue.
Data obtained (20)
Respondents are concerned about the integrity,
reliability and consistency of data in the systems.
Reasons for concern cover both system failure and
human error.
Skill of users (42)
Related to ‘Training’ and ‘Data obtained’ below, many
respondents are concerned about the skills of users.
Systems rely on the accuracy of data entry. This is
often a devolved responsibility to staff and locations
that are not directly controlled by HR.
Internet (20)
Technical problems associated with systems that rely
on the Internet are a major issue for some, especially
for geographically dispersed organisations.
Appropriateness of the system installed (30)
Those who feel that the HRIS they have is
inappropriate for their needs think this is due
to one of the following reasons:
• the system being badly set up in the first place
• a rushed set-up
• the supplier not understanding their needs
• the choice of system being driven by some other
department (usually Payroll)
• the organisation lacking the money to spend on a
decent system that would meet their needs.
Report writing (21)
Related to ‘Functionality’ below, many respondents
have issues concerning report writing. The reporting
tools in their systems do not allow them to easily
manipulate data in the way that they want to
illustrate what is happening in their organisation.
Furthermore, after going through complex processes
to obtain the data, they are unable to paste their
results into standard word-processing packages such
as Microsoft Word. One organisation has to send their
queries to the software provider in order to obtain
their reports! Another has had to buy additional
interface software to allow translation of data from
one system to another.
Out of date software (19)
Some respondents are struggling with out-of-date
software that is difficult to upgrade or which crashes
on upgrade.
Underperformance of suppliers (17)
A common complaint is lack of support from
suppliers, but two respondents did not think the
supplier developed their software fast enough.
Company IT infrastructure (16)
Office IT networked systems are also seen to be a
problem, sometimes owing to elderly hardware or
poor set-up. The problems caused range from the
inability to gain remote access for multiple-site
operations, to the stability and capability of the
system when handling large databases.
Quality of input (15)
Related to ‘Data obtained’ above, there are concerns
about the availability of accurate information to
input into the system and keeping that information
up to date.
Training (14)
Training for users – those who input data as well as
those who use the system to extract information –
create problems for some.
Ease of use (14)
Ease of use covers many of the previous issues.
Fourteen respondents cite this as their main issue
without elaboration.
People and technology
Flexibility (13)
Systems need to be adaptable and flexible to meet
the challenge of change in organisations throughout
the life of the system.
Speed (12)
Whatever the cause of slowness – be it software or
hardware, the way it is put together, or the time
taken to input data and extract information – the
speed of usage is of paramount importance to many,
and a problem for some.
Functionality (9)
Good functionality is also an important issue. What is
required is a system that adapts to different methods
of working, as opposed to working methods being
forced to adapt to the system. Specific requirements
mentioned are ‘a good match with the natural flow of
work’, data input to be structured in a logical fashion,
and accurate information provided in a meaningful,
relevant and useful format.
Lack of time (7)
Lack of time relates to under-usage in that, if
respondents have more time, they can work through
problems, update systems and find ways to use their
HRIS to the full.
Under-usage of system (6)
Some have systems with functions that they are rarely
or never able to use.
Customisation of generic packages (6)
Generic packages may seem like a cost-effective
solution, but some find it difficult to obtain one that
meets the needs of anything other than standard
operations. They generally need a great deal of
modification that can cost an HR department time as
well as money to organise.
Changing to a new system (5)
Concerns when introducing a new system include:
• quickly finding a suitable system
• excessive expectations in the wider organisation that
the change can be made ‘overnight’
• migrating from the old system to the new
• getting IT specialists in the organisation on board to
help the process.
15
16
People and technology
Design, development and
implementation of HRIS
How often do system changes cost more
time and money than intended?
However, one of the telephone interviewees
considered that speed was not always the best policy.
In all, 15% of respondents find their project to
implement their new HRIS runs over budget. In these
cases the overrun is anything between 5% and
100%, the average being 23% of cost. In only one
case was the HRIS brought in under budget.
How well do organisations manage the
design and implementation of an HRIS?
What’s the overall assessment?
More negative than their assessment of the
performance of their HRIS is the respondents’ rating
of their own organisation’s performance in managing
the introduction of their system. Figure 4 shows that
39% rate their organisation’s performance in this area
as less than acceptable.
Also, 33% of respondents find that the
implementation of their HRIS does not come in on
time. In these cases, implementation is anything
between 1 and 24 months behind schedule, the
average being 7 months. In only one case was the
HRIS brought in ahead of schedule.
‘Don’t be time pressured; get it right.’
Figure 4: Organisation’s ability to project manage the design and implementation of HRIS
Acceptable
49%
Not so good
33%
Excellent
12%
Very poor
6%
0
10
20
30
Percentage of organisations
40
50
People and technology
What practices were used?
Respondents were asked:
• to what extent they involved end users at each
stage of the change process
• to what extent they tested compatibility with other
IT systems at each stage of the change process
• to what extent they trained users during
implementation
• to what extent they used a formal framework to
evaluate each stage of the change process
• whether those who brought in the HRIS were
trained in contract/supplier management
• whether those who brought in the HRIS were
trained in project planning and management
• whether a pilot was run before full implementation
• whether a full evaluation took place after
implementation.
Only half of those charged with the responsibility for
bringing in HRIS are trained in project management
and even fewer are trained in contract/supplier
management. Piloting of the system and full
evaluation after implementation only takes place in
around 40% of cases.
Table 9 shows that there is some involvement of HRIS
users in the HR department at all stages of the
process, but little involvement of HRIS users elsewhere
in the organisation. The level of involvement of system
users not in HR departments during design,
development and implementation is less than half the
involvement of those in HR departments. The majority
of organisations test for compatibility with other IT
systems. Training in the use of the new system seems
to be a priority for most. Formal evaluation systems
still do not appear to be a standard part of such a
change process.
Table 9: Strategies used during the change processes
Organisations in each category (%)
Stage of the
change process
Did not carry
out or use
Not
extensively
used
Fairly
extensively
used
Extensively
used
Level of involvement of
Design
15
17
33
35
system users in the HR
Development
11
19
38
33
Implementation
4
6
31
59
Design
48
28
16
9
Development
49
25
16
10
Implementation
36
25
25
14
Design
24
19
32
26
Development
21
20
31
28
Implementation
17
18
32
33
Implementation
0
12
40
48
Design
39
27
19
14
Development
37
28
20
15
Implementation
33
26
26
15
department
Level of involvement of
system users not in the HR
department
Level of testing for
compatibility with existing
IT systems
Level of training for those
who were to use the HRIS
Use of framework for
evaluation of HRIS
17
18
People and technology
Does the way in which changes in the HRIS are
introduced make any difference to the outcomes?
The following strategies were found to make a
difference to the outcomes of HRIS introduction,
irrespective of organisation size.
Respondents are more likely to consider that their
system is successful in delivering against economic
success criteria if they:
• have pre-trained project managers responsible for
the introduction of the HRIS
• extensively involve HR department system users at
the development stage
• train users during implementation
• have a framework for evaluation at the
implementation stage.
Moreover, the more extensive the involvement of
users in the HR department at the implementation
stage, the more likely it is that a new HRIS is brought
in within budget.
Respondents are more likely to report success of
their system against the information performance
criteria if they:
• have pre-trained project managers responsible for
the introduction of the HRIS
• extensively test for compatibility with existing IT
systems at the design stage
• extensively involve HR department system users at
the design and development stage
• have a framework for evaluation of the system from
design through to implementation
• conduct a pilot before full implementation
• conduct a full evaluation of the HRIS after
implementation.
Respondents are less likely to report that their system
is difficult for their HR department to use if they:
• extensively involve HR department system users from
design through to implementation
• train users.
Respondents are less likely to report that their system
is difficult for those outside their HR department to
use if they:
• extensively test for compatibility with existing IT
systems at the design and development stage.
So good practice in change management does make a
difference. It is trite but true: you get out of a system
what you put into it. Time and trouble taken in the
design, development and implementation stages pays
dividends later on.
People and technology
What are respondents planning to do
when they next change their system?
Hindsight is a marvellous thing, and with information
technology advancing rapidly there is always the
opportunity to do things differently next time systems
are upgraded. Around 40% of those who already
have a system in place are considering changing their
system in the next two years. They are also expecting
their IT budget to increase by an average of 47%.
Nearly all of those expecting change were looking to
increase their budget, but a minority (8%) were
looking for a cheaper alternative to their present
arrangements, with proposed budget cuts of up to
80%.
Around 40% of those with bespoke and generic
off-the-shelf packages and around 60% of those who
had previously developed systems in-house are looking
for alternatives when they replace their system.
Respondents were asked to suggest improvements
they would make if they could implement their HRIS
again from scratch, whether or not they were expecting
imminent change. Table 10 shows the changes they
would like to make. The most popular improvements are
being clearer with providers, integrating more systems
and organising more training. It is also worth noting
that four times more respondents (42%) would bring
more of their HRIS in-house than would outsource more
of their HRIS in the future (11%).
Table 10: Things that would be done differently if the respondent’s
organisation was redeveloping an HRIS
Respondents
advocating
this (%)
Specify more clearly levels of
service with providers
72
Integrate more fully with
organisation-wide IT system
64
Organise more training for
users prior to implementation
59
Integrate more fully the
separate HR information systems
54
Organise more effective
training in project management
51
Negotiate more with
providers over price
50
Bring more of the HRIS in-house
42
Organise more effective training
in contract management
40
Establish more centralised
control of projects
36
Make greater use of
outsourced providers
21
Outsource more of HRIS
11
19
20
People and technology
HR policies on Internet and email usage
What policies do HR departments have in place?
In all, 92% of respondents have a clear policy on
email and Internet access. Organisational policies
allow the Internet/email to be used for one of the
following:
• work purposes, only in 59% of cases
• essential non-work purposes, 25% of cases.
What problems do HR departments face in
relation to IT usage within the wider
organisation?
The telephone interviews revealed a reasonably
relaxed approach to IT usage on the whole, backed by
clear guidance and training, with misuse not causing
HR departments too much of a problem. Here are the
survey results on the question of IT misuse. Excessive
personal use was the most frequent problem cited.
From telephone interview evidence, policies with
regard to private usage of company IT facilities seem
to be driven by four things:
• management of risk – organisations would be
heavily penalised if misuse of a criminal or
discriminatory nature came to public attention.
• impact on the business – a more relaxed view was
taken where private IT usage has little or no impact
on the operation of the business. It can even be
seen to have a positive impact on the business.
Private Internet use can cut down on the more
costly misuse of the telephone, and extended lunch
breaks spent at the bank or supermarket. Where a
more relaxed approach is taken, line managers
tackle overuse by discipline on the grounds of
employees not doing their job or reaching their
targets.
• ability to catch abusers – organisations with more
sophisticated IT systems can better monitor the
situation.
• political/cultural scenarios – bans have to be seen as
fair and equitable and fit in with the overall business
culture of the organisation.
Table 11: Most frequent inappropriate use of Internet/email in
organisations
%
Excessive email for non-work purposes
45
Inappropriate email attachments
25
Downloading pornographic material
15
Excessive time non-work surfing Internet
13
Other
2
People and technology
Some 64% of organisations had experienced problems
in the last two years with staff misuse of the Internet
or email facilities.
Of those who had experienced problems with Internet
misuse in the last two years:
• Eighty-six per cent had issued verbal or written
warnings in some instances.
• Sixty-three per cent had dismissed misusers in some
instances.
• Fifty-one per cent had taken no action in some
instances.
• Forty-two per cent had suspended misusers in some
instances.
• Thirty-seven per cent had taken alternative forms of
disciplinary action in some instances.
From the evidence of the telephone interviews a
frequent reaction to staff misusing the IT facilities is
action that falls outside the formal disciplinary
procedure, eg ‘a private word’, withdrawal of Internet
access, or a department memo that does not target
one individual. However, the numbers of individuals
involved are very small. Warnings and dismissals are
reserved for very serious breaches involving criminal or
offensive use of IT communications facilities.
For those writing Internet and email policies, we
recommend our fact sheet on this subject, which can
be found at
www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/hrpract/general/webepolicy.htm
21
22
People and technology
Conclusions on introducing HRIS
The survey data and telephone interviews suggest
some steps that organisations can take to improve the
effectiveness of their implementation, and use, of
HRIS. We recommend you consider the following
points:
• Give yourself plenty of time.
• Draw up a list of things your new system must be
capable of doing, what is of secondary importance,
and what you might like it to do, so you can be
really clear what you want from your system, where
you can compromise, and where you should not.
• Appoint a dedicated project manager with the
authority, training and resources to see the job
through.
• Ask similar organisations what systems they have,
and what their experiences of them have been, both
positive and negative.
• Use it as an opportunity to expand the system to
integrate more functions so that more people find it
valuable.
• Sell the new system to other department heads who
may have to lose their current ‘pet’ system in favour
of one that allows for more cross-organisational
integration. Work with them at the design and
development stages to increase utility and cut out
duplication of effort and records.
• Involve end users in the design, development and
implementation.
• Be clear with your provider.
• Test for compatibility with other IT systems at the
design and development stages.
• Make sure end users are trained and their
performance monitored.
• Conduct a pilot before full implementation.
• Form a user-group committee with as wide a range
of stakeholders as possible, including an IT specialist
if you have one.
• Design a framework for evaluation at the design
stage and fully evaluate the effect of the new system
once installed.
People and technology
Acknowledgements
This survey was written for the CIPD by Linda Hall,
Christine Turgoose, Dr Chris Stride and Jennifer Warr,
Institute of Work Psychology, University of Sheffield.
The CIPD is very grateful to all those organisations and
individuals who took the trouble to complete the
questionnaire for the CIPD people and technology
survey.
23
24
People and technology
Notes
The CIPD explores leading-edge people management and development issues at a strategic level.
Our aim is to share knowledge to increase learning and understanding. Our purpose is to make
people more effective in their jobs and enhance their contribution to the business.
We produce annual survey reports on:
• employee absence
• recruitment, retention and turnover
• reward management
• training and development.
They can be downloaded free from www.cipd.co.uk/surveys
Issued: June 2004 Reference: 3081
Topical survey reports are also produced on key people management and development issues.
Chartered Institute
of Personnel and
Development
CIPD House Camp Road London SW19 4UX
Tel: 020 8971 9000 Fax: 020 8263 3333
Email: cipd@cipd.co.uk Website: www.cipd.co.uk
Incorporated by Royal Charter Registered charity no.1079797
© Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development 2004