Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS): An Unrealised Potential*

David Grant**

Kristine Dery

Work and Organisational Studies

The Institute Building (H03)
The University of Sydney
NSW 2006
Australia
Email d.grant@econ.usyd.edu.au
Tel: +61 (0)2 9351 7871
Fax: +61 (0)2 9351 5283

Work and Organisational Studies

The Institute Building (H03)
The University of Sydney
NSW 2006
Australia
Email k.dery@econ.usyd.edu.au
Tel: +61 (0)2 9036 6410

Richard Hall

Nick Wailes

Work and Organisational Studies

The Institute Building (H03)
The University of Sydney
NSW 2006
Australia
Email r.hall@econ.usyd.edu.au
Tel: +61 (0)2 9351 5621

Work and Organisational Studies

The Institute Building (H03)
The University of Sydney
NSW 2006
Australia
Email n.wailes@econ.usyd.edu.au
Tel: +61 (0)2 9351 7870

Sharna Wiblen
Work and Organisational Studies
The Institute Building (H03)
The University of Sydney
NSW 2006
Australia
Email s.wiblen@econ.usyd.edu.au
Tel: +61 (0)2 9036 7603

Abstract:
Over the last decade there has been a considerable increase in the number of organisations
gathering, storing and analysing information regarding their human resources through the use of
Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS) software or other types of software which include
HRIS functionality (Ball, 2001; Barron, Chhabra, Hanscome, & Henson, 2004; Hussain, Wallace,
& Cornelius, 2007; Ngai & Wat, 2006). The growing adoption of HRIS by organisations combined
with the increasing sophistication of this software, presents the Human Resource function with the
opportunity to enhance its contribution to organisation strategy. In this study we examine the ways
in which HRIS might be used in order to achieve this. Our analysis of four Australian case study
organisations finds that the claimed potential of HRIS to contribute to business strategy is
contingent on its overcoming one or more of three key challenges.
* This research is funded by an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant (LPLP0882247) in
collaboration with the Australian Senior Human Resources Roundtable (ASHRR).
** Corresponding Author.

Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS): An Unrealised Potential

The last decade has seen a significant increase in the number of organisations gathering, storing and
analysing human resources data using Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS) (Ball, 2001;
Barron et al., 2004; Hussain et al., 2007; Ngai et al., 2006). In this paper we show that the study of
the impact of HRIS is of direct significance to the ongoing debate about the extent to which Human
Resources (HR) can play a strategic role in the organisation (Becker, Huselid, & Ulrich, 2001;
Hewitt Associates, 2007; Huselid, 1995; Lawler & Mohrman, 2003; Sheehan, Holland, & De Cieri,
2006). Specifically, we examine the argument that through its capacity to deliver accurate and
timely metrics, HRIS has the potential to assist the HR function in developing business strategy and
thus enhancing organisation performance (Barney & Wright, 1998; Broderick & Boudreau, 1992;
Gueutal, 2003; Lawler, Levenson, & Boudreau, 2004; Lengnick-Hall & Moritz, 2003).
Our initial findings from the first phase of interviews with four organisations based in
Australia, suggest that the potential of HRIS to deliver the strategic competencies promised remains
largely unrealised and that instead HRIS is used to increase administrative efficiency and/or obtain
compliance support. Specifically, we find that the implementation and use of HRIS is being
hindered by three main challenges: maintaining organisational attention, addressing the
complexities associated with people management, and managing user acceptance of the change
associated with the system.
The paper comprises four main sections. In the first section we review the literature on
HRIS paying particular attention to previous studies which recognise challenges associated with the
selection and implementation of HRIS as well as the importance of social constructionism as a
theoretical lens to analyse this topic. In the second section we discuss our case study methodology
and profile our four case study organisations. In the third section we discuss our results by
identifying and discussing the three challenges which we identify as important to the study of HRIS
and HR. The final section summarises the findings and provides recommendations for management.

Literature Review and Theory

The current generation of HRIS automate and devolve routine administrative and compliance
functions traditionally performed by corporate HR departments and can facilitate the outsourcing of
HR (Barron et al., 2004). In doing so, HRIS 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, HRIS 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, HRIS 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 (Lawler et al., 2003). Second HRIS provides an opportunity
for HR to play a more strategic role, through their ability to generate real time reports on HR issues,
including workforce planning and skills profiles, which can be used to support strategic decision
making (Hendrickson, 2003; Lawler et al., 2004; Lengnick-Hall et al., 2003).
The existing literature on HRIS suggests that they have different impacts on HR across
organisations, but provides little explanation for this variation. Early surveys suggested that HRIS
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 HRIS. More recent research
shows greater use of HRIS in support of strategic decision making by HR (Hussain et al., 2007).
However, the extent to which HRIS is used in a strategic fashion differs across organisations, with
the vast majority of organisations continuing to use HRIS simply to replace manual processing and
to reduce costs (Bee & Bee, 2002; Brown, 2002).
Recent debates about technology and organisation have highlighted the importance of social
context and sought to develop frameworks which acknowledge both the material and social
character of technologies including HRIS (Dery, Hall, & Wailes, 2006). Accordingly, theories
which can be considered as social constructivist can play an important role in the study of

technology as they explicitly recognise that technologies, such as HRIS, can not be evaluated and
analysed without having an explicit understanding of the context of individuals and groups which
consequently comprehend, interpret, use and engage with the technology (Grint & Woolgar, 1997;
Orlikowski & Barley, 2001; Williams & Edge, 1996).
Social constructionist views offer insights into the implementation and use of HRIS in a
number of ways. In this study we draw on the social construction of technology and technologiesin-practice literature. The social construction of technology (SCOT) approach challenges the idea
that technologies and technological artefacts have a pre-given 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). Thus a technology is seen to be characterised by interpretative
flexibility and various relevant social groups who articulate and promote particular
interpretations of it. This meaning, over time tends to become accepted and the interpretation of the
technology stabilised (Dery et al., 2006).
In similar tradition to SCOT approaches, the technologies-in-practice approach endeavours
to recognise the inability to separate the technology from surrounding social relations. Orlikowski
(2000) conceives of technologies-in-practice as the structure that is enacted by users of a technology
as they use the technology in recurrent ways. The important implications of this idea for the
purposes of this research is the realisation that it is only when individuals use the HRIS that the
associated social practices will frame and determine the value that they attribute to it. 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 as might be
positioned by the user) (Dery et al., 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 et al., 2006).
The study discussed in this paper was initiated after a preliminary survey of the use of HRIS
in 138 Australian Listed companies (Grant, Dery, Hall, & Wailes, 2007). 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 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 impact of
HRIS on the HR function in detail over a three year period at four large Australian organisations
using a multiple case study approach (Yin, 2003). Specifically, the project examines whether HRIS
enhances the strategic contribution of HR by exploring the ways in which HR professionals might
make more effective use of these systems. The project is informed by four research questions:
1. Is there evidence to suggest that HR is using opportunities provided by the HRIS to enhance its
contribution to firm strategic direction?
2. Do HRISs which are a module of enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems have different
impacts on the HR function than standalone HRISs?
3. How do different organisational characteristics affect the ability of HR to use the opportunities
provided by HRIS to act as strategic partners?
4. What strategies can HR professionals adopt to ensure that the use of HRIS in their
organisations supports the strategic contribution of HR?
Methodology and Background
The four case study organisations each volunteered to participate in this study which is funded by
an Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage grant. Each organisation is a member of the
Australian Senior Human Resources Round-table (ASHRR) the main industry partner in the
project. Each of the case studies has either a standalone HRIS (e.g. CHRIS) or an enterprise

resource planning (ERP) system module of HRIS (e.g. SAP) in place and all are in the process of
either replacing or upgrading their existing system. Each company views the HRIS replacement or
upgrade as a commitment to further extending the strategic contribution of the system. This
provides us with a unique opportunity to gather rich empirical data related to our key research
questions.
The nature of the research questions required that the plans and activities of each case study
be studied through the gathering of an array of data (table 1). This enabled the researchers to
develop greater levels of understanding about the management of HRIS in each organisation and
across organisations (Yin, 2003).
Table 1: Data gathering across the case studies
Case Study
TechOrg

# Interviews
4

BuildOrg

10

ManuOrg

GovtOrg

Additional Data
Organisational
information available in
the public domain, press
articles
Annual reports, Previous
organisational
presentations.
OHS staff brochures and
posters, Annual reports
and promotional material
Press clippings, web sites,
office observations

Observation of System in Use

No observation of the system due to
interviewee time constraints

Observation of HRIS in use within HR

area; observation of OHS system in
use
Observation of HRIS in use with
differing users.
No observation of the system in use
due to the sensitivity of data

Over a 16 month period initiated early 2008, interview data was combined with other
empirical evidence gathered through access to secondary sources and during site visits. The
interview data comprised semi-structured interviews conducted with executives across a range of
roles in the organisations including: HR, IT, and Operations. Each interview was between one to
two hours, and was conducted by two investigators, recorded and transcribed. Interviewees were
selected on the basis of their involvement in the decision to implement or upgrade the HRIS at their
organisation, or their high levels of use of the HRIS. In addition, and where possible, the
researchers observed the HRIS at each organisation in use, so as to understand how the system was
searched, reports were run, and the availability of data.

The Case Studies

Each of the four case studies discussed in this paper have been allocated an assumed name. Details
concerning size of the organization, its current HRIS system and whether this was being renewed or
upgraded and the reasons for the renewal or upgrade are summarized in table 2. 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. Their workforce comprises both permanent and contracted employees.

The

organisation was previously operating a HRIS that was considered as outdated and sought to
upgrade their existing system to primarily manage past and current employees. ManuOrg
manufactures building products and metals and has a food processing division. The current HRIS
was implemented 21 years ago with an increasingly modified CHRIS system that is currently in the
process of being replaced with SAP. Lastly, GovtOrg is a public organisation responsible for
security management. The organisation first implemented a proprietary HRIS in 1998 and had
undertaken an upgrade in 2000 before initiating the current move to SAP in 2008.
Table 2: Summary of Case Studies
Case
#
Current system
employees
TechOrg 350
SAP

BuildOrg

Up to 1400
(varies)

Tailored Preceda
9.1 by CHRIS,
Mercury for
payroll.

ManuOrg

7000+

CHRIS

GovtOrg

5500

Proprietary
system

Upgrading /
replacing
Replace with
lighter version
of SAP with
more local
functionality
Upgrade to
CHRIS
Preceda 11
Mercury to
remain
SAP

SAP

Reason(s) for change

Change in ownership of organisation
and requirement to severe links with
previous owner and associated
legacy systems.
Increased requirement to meet
compliance standards and to
minimize risk of litigation.

HR director retiring with knowledge

of the proprietary system. Need for a
system consistent with the rest of the
IT platform. Desire for IT rather than
HR to manage HRIS.
Moving to SAP so as to integrate
with the organisations SAP ERP
system and other govt. departments

Results
The initial research findings support the results of studies by those such as Towers Perrin (2008)
and Bussler and Davis (2001). Despite all four case studies stating that the implementation or
upgrade of their HRIS has been undertaken with the aim of utilising functions that are of a strategic
nature thereby enhancing the strategic contribution of the HR function (Beatty, 2001; LengnickHall et al., 2003; Ulrich, 1997; Walker, 2001), the data suggests that progress towards making these
changes is being hindered by a range of technological, managerial and organisational challenges.
While some of these challenges could be attributed to the management of new technologies in
general, our findings demonstrate that several are in fact specific to HR and reflect 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.
It was never the intention of the project to select organisations that were undergoing major
organisational change, rather we sought to gain access to organisations that were endeavouring to
implement or upgrade their HRIS. The associated organisational changes which are discussed in
this paper added to the complexity of the stories and experiences that these organisations have been
able to share. The data across all the cases indicated the following three challenges for the
organisations and each of these is discussed in the following section using cross-case analysis (Yin,
2003; Youndt, Snell, Dean, & Lepak, 1996). The challenges were:

An inconsistency in the importance attributed to HRIS resulting in difficulties in sustaining

management commitment to the project and in obtaining the resources necessary to fully
develop the new or upgraded HRIS.

A tendency to underestimate the complexity of the HRIS and its impact on the behaviour and
processes of the organisation.

The barriers to user acceptance of the HRIS and the consequent underestimation of the
importance of change management.

Inconsistent Salience Attributed to the Organisations HRIS Project

The case study organisations have variously experienced significant changes in structure, size,
ownership and government (summarised table 3). This has resulted in a shift of senior management
attention away from development of the HRIS to more immediately pressing organisational issues.
One consequence of this is the allocation of insufficient resources to the HRIS and, in some cases,
the increased delegation of responsibilities to vendors and consultants.
Table 3: Changes in Case Studies
Case Study
Organisational
Change Process
TechOrg
Acquired by local
company and required
to adopt more localised
processes
BuildOrg
Large growth in
infrastructure projects

ManuOrg

GovtOrg

Knowledge
Management and
establishment of
sustainability practices
Change of government
resulting in increased
demands and
complexity of role.
Desire for efficiencies
in work practices.

Implication for the

Business
Reassessment and
realignment of
business processes
Requirement to
manage large
contracted workforce.
Significant increase in
compliance
requirements
Need to align systems
across range of standalone businesses

Implication for the HRIS

Enforced selection of more
localised platform which
aims to address more direct
organisational needs
Upgrade required for
existing Preceda system

Migration to SAP and

restructuring of the
management of the HRIS
away from HR and under IT
Increased requirements Move to SAP platform to
for reporting and
comply with other
standardised IT
government departments

TechOrg, a company based in the ICT sector, is a company that has constantly faced issues
in maintaining the momentum and commitment of expanding their existing SAP system. Such
challenges regarding salience have continued for the past three years as financial and engineering
management systems upgrades have engulfed continual attempts to progress and complete the
desired upgrade. The project, run and owned by the Human Resource department, is internally
recognised as having low organisational priority:
However 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 dont know whether were coming third yet do we?
(Director of People and Culture, TechOrg).
The desire for the HRIS upgrade was later impeded in 2008 because the organisation was acquired
by a domestic company and consequently all existing business processes needed to be changed to
ensure separation from the previous owners. As a result the project (now) has been stopped
pretty much (Director of People and Culture, TechOrg). The experiences of this organisation
demonstrates that despite the best of intentions of HR, such projects as this, which are deemed as
HR centric, can lose momentum as a result of factors beyond its control.
BuildOrg started to investigate HRIS more than 10 years ago. The introduction of a new
senior manager with existing ERP and HRIS knowledge combined with the perceived need to
replace an outdated system instigated the desire to upgrade their original Mercury system, based on
Lotus Notes. During these initial stages, several HRIS were considered, however, the project was
abandoned when the costs associated with any new HRIS were deemed prohibitive. The project
and operational requirements of the organisation were re-examined in 2005 and the organisation
again considered implementing a new payroll system, but IT did not find any of the systems that
they viewed appropriate for the organisational needs. The lack of executive support also played a
significant role during this time. So we sort of parked it at that stage. Because the other thing was,
I think in an organisational sense with a new CEO, that wasnt really a priority for us. (General
Manager HR, Safety and Corporate Relations).
Finally in 2007 the latest attempt gained traction with senior management and the approval
was given for an upgrade. Nevertheless the current progress on this project for BuildOrg has been
met with caution.
Because theres been an awful lot of water under the bridge to get to this point. Weve 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. (Applications Services Manager,
IT).

ManuOrg introduced its first HRIS in the 1970s. Since then the organisation has undertaken
a number of upgrades driven largely by organisational change which has required an expansion of
the existing systems. Progressive changes and add-ons to the legacy system, has created for
ManuOrg a HRIS that is complex and inconsistent. Although the HRIS has been accorded salience
and sufficient resources over the past 30 years, the HR manager acknowledged that the rationale for
change and selection of the replacement HRIS has tended to emphasise financial, rather than
strategic human resource issues. The retirement of the HR Director, who has been central to
developing the current HRIS, together with the need to standardise IT systems across all the
operating companies has resulted in a call for migration to SAP and the re-positioning of HRIS
management under the IT department.
GovtOrg has been using PeopleSoft as the vendor for their HRIS since 1998, with an
upgrade which introduced web based self service in 2000. With the aims of establishing a single
source of truth, creating uniformity, gaining efficiencies and enabling data transfer and integration
with other government organisations, GovtOrg has decided to replace PeopleSoft with SAP.
Despite resounding confidence in the HRIS project, GovtOrg still believes that the project can be
delayed by other organisational activities which are deemed more essential to the business and its
performance.
Probably the only issue is that will be a timing issue, as we and were still debating with
our plan get a live date for SAPs views in October. So although it looks, at this point in
time, like it may be delayed. If it gets delayed, itll actually push back into about March next
year, because weve got some other peak periods in respect to processing and so forth.
(National Manager of Infrastructure).
The experiences of the four case study organisations suggests that their HRIS projects tend
to face a number of challenges in the allocation of resources and the securing of ongoing support
from senior management. Often finance, marketing and other operational functions are being given
greater priority. In sum, based on the empirical research to date, it could be argued that all of the
organisations, and specifically the HR function within them, have faced challenges regarding their
ability to maintain momentum towards the selection and implementation of an upgraded HRIS.

The Complexity of HRIS Underestimated

The complexity of HRIS and its associated functionality appears to have been underestimated at the
four case studies (Hannon, Jelf, & Brandes, 1996) and can be attributed to both technological and
managerial factors. The challenge for HR management is how to manage the tension between the
need to adapt practice to meet the needs of the HRIS versus customizing the technology to fit
existing practices and the unpredictability involved in the management of people. Associated with
this challenge is the decision of where to locate the management of the HRIS i.e. within Information
Technology or as an HR technology group within HR. Our case organisations have varied responses
to this dilemma, but all suggest that management of the system has significant implications for
knowledge transfer between IT and HR and thus the ability to realise value from the HRIS .
Previous studies have reiterated the claims made by HRIS vendors that there are two
compelling benefits arising from the implementation or upgrading of HRIS (Hendrickson, 2003;
Kavanagh, Gueutal, & Tannenbaum, 1990; Kovach & Cathcart, 1999). One is an increase in
efficiencies through reduced costs and increased data accuracy, and the other is the improvements
in the speed at which information can be produced. Such improvements in business processes have
not yet been fully realised in our case study organisations as the implementation and functionality
of the HRIS has proven to be more complex than anticipated.
ManuOrg has maintained a number of legacy add-ons and proprietary upgrades to their
CHRIS system. The current project is attempting to simplify and standardise systems into a
standard IT platform that can be more easily supported but is finding it difficult to align the needs
associated with its range of operating companies within one HRIS. The organisation realises that
with its selection of a new and alternative HRIS vendor (SAP), there will be considerable
compatibility issues with data migration. Accordingly, the transactional and menial activities for
HR will increase prior to implementation, as existing data and codes are modified, and therefore the
time required for data migration is expected to be significant. The complexity associated with the
new system has compelled the organisation to implement it in a big bang manner. There are too

many interdependent processes and that we really have to make the entire change of payroll for
Australia and New Zealand at the one time (Manager HR and Payroll Services).
The complexity of the new system will also affect the value that the organisation can extract
from the HRIS in the short term. Although the organisation has the explicit desire to establish a
single source of truth via its new HRIS, it is recognised that such goals and aspirations will take
second place, at least in the short-term, to the more urgent need to address issues surrounding
change management and acceptance.
The project based nature of the work that BuildOrg undertakes adds complications to the
selection, use and implementation of any vanilla HRIS. As the organisational structure is based
more on projects and individuals rather than positions (typical of most organisations), particular
reporting functionalities associated with HRIS may be deemed less germane or even superfluous for
the organisation. In addition, similar to ManuOrg, this organisation is faced with the difficulty of
trying to establish one central system which can be considered as a single source of truth from
legacy systems which currently do not interface well. This has resulted in significant challenges
around the compatibility and integration of data.
BuildOrg has also experienced challenges with some of the functionality within the new
system, particularly in relation to online leave applications. The issue of leave has proven to be
problematic throughout the upgrade process, to the extent that the organisation has decided not to
utilize this function initially, which is probably why weve decided to not go forward with the
(leave submissions) online; thats a little bit in the too hard basket at the moment as to how its
going to work (Corporate HR Advisor). Furthermore, a number of other functionalities of the
HRIS have needed to be adjusted in order to meet the organisational requirements before the system
goes live: You need a lot of tweaking at that point and we wont be spot-on when we get it there;
itll be close. That tweaking will take a while; itll take months and months (Payroll Manager).
This is a process that has consumed unexpected additional time and resources.

Similar levels of complexity are associated with the implementation of a new system at
TechOrg. This complexity can however be attributed to the changes in ownership that the
organisation has experienced over the past 2 years. The new system and its implementation has
experienced additional technical difficulties which have largely been driven by established business
processes that could manage differences in European and Australian legislation.
Being a publicly owned organisation presents its own range of issues for GovtOrg regarding
the use and implementation of a HRIS. Comprising a highly structured workforce, GovtOrg faces
challenges with the management of rosters, schedules and allowances. In contrast to ManuOrg and
TechOrg, GovtOrg needs an HRIS capable of processing, administering and managing a variety of
employee rosters and allowances. More specifically, for this particular organisation, the activities of
workforce planning, the management of staff hours, associated policy issues and ensuring that its
operations are conducted in accordance with the relevant collective agreements, results in additional
complexity and has led to demands for additional functionality from the HRIS. Furthermore, the
National Manager of Infrastructure recognised that existing contractual arrangements with their
HRIS vendor has exposed the organisation to possible potential risks that may lead to delays.
Such potential risks and possible delays are believed to stem from concerns that the vendor may be
unable to address the added demands for additional functionality that GovtOrg has put forward
under present contractual arrangements. These contractual concerns along with workforce planning
issues, have added to the complexity of the selection, implementation and use of GovtOrgs HRIS.
Barriers to Acceptance of New or Upgraded HRIS and the Importance of Change
Management
The third challenge which has hindered the ability of our case study organisations to realise the
potential of their HRIS arises 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 and introduction. Further, obtaining organisational
buy-in regarding the strategic contribution of the HRIS has, in some cases, been hindered by

scepticism, a lack of understanding, insufficient management commitment, and fears that existing
modes of work will be changed and result in, for example, job loss or altered leave entitlements and
shift arrangements (Kavanagh et al., 1990; Kinnie & Arthurs, 1996; Tansley & Watson, 2000).
The lack of organisation and management buy-in has also been a significant challenge for
ManuOrg. Despite the HRIS project acquiring renewed salience and again being placed on the
organisations strategic agenda, the Manager of HR and Payroll Services recognised that the system
and its importance for the organisation was yet to be acknowledged and wholly accepted: Im not
sure that its got the necessary buy-in from the business leaders that were 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 dont think theyve quite got their
heads into the space and are saying, Yes, were 100% behind that To try and counter this lack
of buy-in, the HR department is working on an ongoing basis to promote the HRIS promise.
ManuOrg, acknowledges that the upgrade of the existing system, that has been in place for
21 years will generate significant change for the way that information is managed. As the Manager
of HR and Payroll Services observed:
The biggest issue I believe is going to be the change management Most [ManuOrg]
employees are going to notice that and more than notice. Theyre going to see a significant
change in the way that they supply information, get information, gain approvals.
Its 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. Theres like that sort of
and theres 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.
Discussions about this challenge and concerns about the required change management process have
been extensive and the wider acceptance of the system and its changes are seen to differ between
those that are associated with the project, versus existing employees who are comfortable with the
organisations current policy and procedures, or alternatively fearful of technology.
For me it works well, but Im very adaptable to change. So being able to move to a system
where we can have everything in the one place I think is going to be a much better thing for
us. (HR Manager of Corporate and Shared Services).

The challenges for GovtOrg in managing change are centred on the need to re-focus
expectations. With the explicit desire to establish a single source of truth, the organisation has
commissioned the HRIS project The ability for the organisation to achieve this relies on the ability
to manage expectations:
But weve also got to manage the expectation that this is not the silver bullet to everything.
This is simply a system. A system, in and of itself, doesnt actually resolve issues or
processes or anything else. (National Director of People and Place)
This same manager further believed this process and challenge would greatly impact the overall
acceptance of the system and thus was focussed on the implementation process. If this process
experiences issues and additional complications, or just goes wrong [then] you can almost smell
the end of SAP or its user acceptance within customers. Without an effective implementation
process the ability of the organisation to gain potential strategic potential from their HRIS would be
significantly compromised.
Barriers to acceptance, ownership and maintenance have plagued BuildOrgs past, current
and planned HRIS. The resources allocated to the maintenance of the HRIS system have waned
throughout the life of the existing system and overall ownership of the system has largely been
transferred back and forth from IT, HR and Payroll: Weve had a lot of problems actually trying
to get people to take ownership of the systems and maintain them which has resulted in the
existing system and the information that it generates being inaccurate and outdated. Past
experiences of systems with limited use, combined with an appreciation of the needs of the current
workforce has ensured that the organisation has delayed the implementation of the new updated
system in an attempt to ensure that all problems and barriers have been addressed before the system
goes live.
According to the Corporate Human Resources Manager, training and education is essential
and needs to be timely:
Its 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.
This organisation and its current project manager also realises that the training needs to be hands on
in order to generate an acceptance and use of the system and avoid the work-arounds that have
compromised the effectiveness of the system in the past.
Acceptance of the HRIS has also presented problems for TechOrg however user resistance
has not been as significant as evidenced in the other cases. Employees largely work in distributed
teams located in client organisations for the duration of their projects. They are working in a hightech environment and thus are comfortable with a more virtual relationship with the organisation
and use the HRIS to manage their information and for most of their HR requirements. Despite the
HR department struggling to ensure that the new HRIS project retains salience in the organisation,
the lack of organisational buy-in tends to surround specific functions rather than the system as a
whole. The Director of People and Performance spoke of limited success with functionality
associated with time sheeting and the need to incorporate additional flexibility to meet the
increasingly complex customer requirements which have implications for their employees in
different work sites. Change is a constant in this organisation so together with the technical
requirements of the job, this seems to create a more accepting environment for new systems.
However, despite this environment, recent changes around pay cycles generated significant
resistance that was unanticipated by management signalling that changes to the HRIS that directly
impact employees such as pay may require significant more attention to change management than
TechCo has traditionally been used to.
Discussion and Conclusions
Initial findings from our four case studies 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 is not being realised. More specifically, our results suggest
that the opportunity to enhance HRs role as strategic partner as a result of the use of HRIS is being

hindered by three main challenges. The first challenge relates to the ability to maintain the levels of
senior management commitment and resources needed to implement and manage new or upgraded
HRIS. The second concerns managing the complexity of the HRIS and its associated functionality.
The third challenge stems from barriers associated with the acceptance of HRIS among key
managers and employees along with the importance attached to managing the change processes
associated with the implementation and introduction of the new or upgraded systems.
These challenges demonstrate that the material, functional characteristics of technologies
such as HRIS are complex and make them difficult to introduce and operate. At the same time, 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 agency of its users and
the social context within which it is adopted (Orlikowski et al., 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 the more technological deterministic view of earlier studies of HRIS that suggest that it
is simply the technology itself which has implications for the changing role of HR.
It can be seen then that the social context of HRIS plays an important role in shaping user
perceptions and behaviour (Orlikowski, 2000). From a technologies-in-practice perspective (Dery et
al, 2006) user interactions with the facilities, norms, and interpretative schemes associated with
HRIS are affected not only by its technological complexity, but also by problems concerning the
management of, and commitment to, its implementation. These socio-contextual factors are
compounded by the fact that each case study organisation has experienced significant change, for
example in ownership and structure.
Underlying the three challenges is the issue of how various social groups, or key actors
involved in the implementation and use of HRIS bring to bear their own interests and thus
interpretations of the system and what it does. As a result of this process, the design, selection and
use of HRIS are shown in this study 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 which impact on the extent to which it is to be used in a strategic or more administrative
fashion. Significantly, the study suggests that interpretations which run counter to HRIS being used
in ways that realise its strategic potential are currently winning the day. Overcoming these
interpretations of HRIS and replacing them with one that leads to its being used to inform business
strategy requires organisations to identify and systematically address the three challenges we have
identified. Until this takes place, the potential of HRIS to enhance the strategic role of the HR
function is likely to remain unrealised.

References
Ball, K. S. 2001. The use of human resource information systems: a survey. Personnel Review,
30(5/6): 677-693.
Barney, J. B., & Wright, P. M. 1998. On becoming a strategic partner: The role of human resources
in gaining competitive advantage. Human Resource Management, 37(1): 31-46.
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: 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
Broderick, R., & Boudreau, J. W. 1992. Human resource management, information technology, and
the competitive edge. Academy of Management Executive, 6(2): 7-17.
Brown, D. 2002. eHR - victim of unrealistic expectations. Canadian HR Reporter, 15(5): 1.
Bussler, L., & Davis, E. 2001. Information Systems: The Quiet Revolution in Human Resource
Management Journal of Computer Information Systems, 42(2): 17-20.
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.
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.
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: Hewitt Associates and European Club for Human
Resources,
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.
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, Vol. 28: 275: International Public Management Association for
Human Resources.
Lawler, E. E., Levenson, A., & Boudreau, J. W. 2004. HR Metrics and Analytics: Use and Impact.
Human Resource Planning, 27(4): 27-35.
Lawler, E. E., & Mohrman, S. A. 2003. HR as a Strategic Partner: What Does It Take to Make It
Happen? Human Resource Planning, 26(3): 15-29.
Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Moritz, S. 2003. The Impact of e-HR on the Human Resource
Management Function. Journal of Labor Research, 24(3): 365-379.
Martinsons, M. G. 1994. Benchmarking human resource information systems in Canada and Hong
Kong. Information & Management, 26(6): 305-316.
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.
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.
Tansley, C., & Watson, T. 2000. Strategic exchange in the development of Human Resource
Information Systems (HRIS). New Technology, Work & Employment, 15(2): 108- 122.
Towers Perrin. 2008. HR Technology: Demanding Change, Delivering Results. HR Service
Deleivery Research Report Vol. 2007: Towers Perrin.
Ulrich, D. 1997. Human resource champions: the next agenda for adding value and delivering
results Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
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 xiii-xxviii. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Williams, R., & Edge, D. 1996. The Social Shaping of Technology. Policy Research, 25(1): 865899.
Yin, R. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Youndt, M. A., Snell, S. A., Dean, J. J. W., & Lepak, D. P. 1996. Human Resource Management,
Manufacturing Strategy, and Firm Performance Academy of Management Journal, 39(4):
836-866.