Keeping the system running efficiently is more a job for HR than for the IT department
What is an HR system? It can be a specialty system, such as an applicant-tracking software, a complete HR system or an integrated payroll, time and attendance management system.
Selecting (and paying for) a new HR system is hard work, but exciting. The next step, implementation, is usually a frustrating grind, especially if you have to do your regular job at the same time. Then the payback — the time you’ve been waiting (and praying) for. The system is up and everyone is excited.
Often lost in this process is the new and ongoing task of operating and maintaining the system. Revised business processes and new systems require revised or new organization structures with new roles and most importantly, budgets. In other words, a new activity that requires attention. And life will never be the same again.
Let’s assume the right system was acquired, the right choices made about outsourcing and alternate service provision, and the system implementation went well. Even after all of that you will discover that some people in the organization had unrealistic expectations. They thought that a new system would solve undefined problems, resolve bad processes, resolve conflicts and fix bad data. That is unfortunately not the case.
What group is responsible for managing the HR system? Experience shows that most of the system management issues are functional, not technical. That suggests that functional staff — HR and payroll — should be custodians of the system. IT specialists can and should participate as part of the team (but not necessarily reporting full-time to HR).
The ongoing tasks of HR system staff
The HR system staff should manage:
The help desk: Most help desk inquiries focus on functional issues. A best practice is to have an HR system help desk that co-ordinates with the IT technical help desk when required.
Most new HR system implementations today include self-service — for managers and employees. While studies often show very good return on investment for self-service based on the reduction of HR and payroll staff by putting the tools in the hands of the users, these studies usually ignore the quality of service issues, and the fact that new users need help.
In most organizations user help means IT staff doing things for the user — usually creating reports. But that help is much more effective using the coaching model. Why don’t more organizations do this? It tends to be resource heavy.
Security: All information, computerized and paper-based, needs to be kept secure. That includes having policies and procedures regarding personal digital assistants (PDAs), laptops, taking work home and telecommuting. And, importantly, it requires an audit process to assure compliance.
Privacy and personal information: The primary focus of an HR system requires more than security; it needs to be kept private. The “need to know” can change with time and circumstances, with the security access being modified as required.
This impacts the nature of the interfaces with all third parties (benefits carriers, consultants) and the ongoing co-ordination of these relationships and systems.
Above and beyond compliance with federal and provincial privacy legislation, any organization with United States connections now has to worry about compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley legislation.
Process revisions: Time erodes even the best system implementations. Business requirements change, and either or both the system and processes need revision.
As the organization’s resource for organization and role/job/position design, HR should have a regular program in place to audit, review and reconsider business processes. What better place to start, and to set an example, than with the human resource management practices that HR, payroll and line management use to interact with the HR system?
System changes: In addition to bug fixes, functional updates and major version changes, HR/payroll systems have regular legislative updates. Annual system maintenance fees are normally 20 to 25 per cent of the purchase price, so pay attention. A best practice is to load all updates in a test database for thorough testing before taking them live.
And on top of all that are user-requested changes. Many systems require changes of any significance to be performed by the software vendor. Tracking those change requests (and their costs) can be an important task.
Reports: The purpose of an information system is information. Most people think that means reports. But information can be presented in many different ways. Not just paper reports, but multiple screen presentations, including metrics and executive analytics. Graphics, statistics and lists all have a place.
Most systems are sold with a large set of standard reports. But almost no organizations use those reports unchanged. Modifying standard reports should not be an implementation process (although it may begin then) but an ongoing one.
Perhaps more important is the creation of ad hoc reports. Whatever tool(s) are used to create ad hoc reports, most organizations make the mistake of too little training for the users and little or no support. Standard reports, modified standard reports and ad hoc reports all need to be managed.
Utilization: Monitoring system access and utilization is particularly important as more employees and line managers use the system directly. This review should include active system audit procedures to ensure that access protocols are being followed.
Review the list above and it’s easy to see that the support of a system can require a significant investment. It should come as no surprise that the support of most HR systems is under-resourced.
An investment in a new HR system should be made with an expectation of it lasting a minimum of five or preferably seven years. Investing in ongoing maintenance and support will make that expectation a reality.
Ian Turnbull is managing partner of Laird & Greer Management Consultants, specializing in HR, payroll and time system selection and management. He is co-author of two books on HRMS, the latter being HRMS: A Practical Approach (Carswell, 1999). He can be contacted at [email protected] or (416) 618-0052.
Selecting (and paying for) a new HR system is hard work, but exciting. The next step, implementation, is usually a frustrating grind, especially if you have to do your regular job at the same time. Then the payback — the time you’ve been waiting (and praying) for. The system is up and everyone is excited.
Often lost in this process is the new and ongoing task of operating and maintaining the system. Revised business processes and new systems require revised or new organization structures with new roles and most importantly, budgets. In other words, a new activity that requires attention. And life will never be the same again.
Let’s assume the right system was acquired, the right choices made about outsourcing and alternate service provision, and the system implementation went well. Even after all of that you will discover that some people in the organization had unrealistic expectations. They thought that a new system would solve undefined problems, resolve bad processes, resolve conflicts and fix bad data. That is unfortunately not the case.
What group is responsible for managing the HR system? Experience shows that most of the system management issues are functional, not technical. That suggests that functional staff — HR and payroll — should be custodians of the system. IT specialists can and should participate as part of the team (but not necessarily reporting full-time to HR).
The ongoing tasks of HR system staff
The HR system staff should manage:
The help desk: Most help desk inquiries focus on functional issues. A best practice is to have an HR system help desk that co-ordinates with the IT technical help desk when required.
Most new HR system implementations today include self-service — for managers and employees. While studies often show very good return on investment for self-service based on the reduction of HR and payroll staff by putting the tools in the hands of the users, these studies usually ignore the quality of service issues, and the fact that new users need help.
In most organizations user help means IT staff doing things for the user — usually creating reports. But that help is much more effective using the coaching model. Why don’t more organizations do this? It tends to be resource heavy.
Security: All information, computerized and paper-based, needs to be kept secure. That includes having policies and procedures regarding personal digital assistants (PDAs), laptops, taking work home and telecommuting. And, importantly, it requires an audit process to assure compliance.
Privacy and personal information: The primary focus of an HR system requires more than security; it needs to be kept private. The “need to know” can change with time and circumstances, with the security access being modified as required.
This impacts the nature of the interfaces with all third parties (benefits carriers, consultants) and the ongoing co-ordination of these relationships and systems.
Above and beyond compliance with federal and provincial privacy legislation, any organization with United States connections now has to worry about compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley legislation.
Process revisions: Time erodes even the best system implementations. Business requirements change, and either or both the system and processes need revision.
As the organization’s resource for organization and role/job/position design, HR should have a regular program in place to audit, review and reconsider business processes. What better place to start, and to set an example, than with the human resource management practices that HR, payroll and line management use to interact with the HR system?
System changes: In addition to bug fixes, functional updates and major version changes, HR/payroll systems have regular legislative updates. Annual system maintenance fees are normally 20 to 25 per cent of the purchase price, so pay attention. A best practice is to load all updates in a test database for thorough testing before taking them live.
And on top of all that are user-requested changes. Many systems require changes of any significance to be performed by the software vendor. Tracking those change requests (and their costs) can be an important task.
Reports: The purpose of an information system is information. Most people think that means reports. But information can be presented in many different ways. Not just paper reports, but multiple screen presentations, including metrics and executive analytics. Graphics, statistics and lists all have a place.
Most systems are sold with a large set of standard reports. But almost no organizations use those reports unchanged. Modifying standard reports should not be an implementation process (although it may begin then) but an ongoing one.
Perhaps more important is the creation of ad hoc reports. Whatever tool(s) are used to create ad hoc reports, most organizations make the mistake of too little training for the users and little or no support. Standard reports, modified standard reports and ad hoc reports all need to be managed.
Utilization: Monitoring system access and utilization is particularly important as more employees and line managers use the system directly. This review should include active system audit procedures to ensure that access protocols are being followed.
Review the list above and it’s easy to see that the support of a system can require a significant investment. It should come as no surprise that the support of most HR systems is under-resourced.
An investment in a new HR system should be made with an expectation of it lasting a minimum of five or preferably seven years. Investing in ongoing maintenance and support will make that expectation a reality.
Ian Turnbull is managing partner of Laird & Greer Management Consultants, specializing in HR, payroll and time system selection and management. He is co-author of two books on HRMS, the latter being HRMS: A Practical Approach (Carswell, 1999). He can be contacted at [email protected] or (416) 618-0052.
