1.Introduction
Human resource management(HRM)is relatively new.Indeed,Storey observed that prior to the 1990s,the term HRM was rarely used outside the US.The subsequent process of convergence of traditiona personnel management in the UK into the US based human resource(HR)practice has been rapid.Storey and Legge have both described this migration.Of recent,the increasing pressure to support strategic objectives and the greater focus on shareholder value has led to changes in both job content and expectations of HR professionals.One of the major changes has been the contemporary use of IS in support of the HR process.Increased use of human resource information systems(HRIS)allows professionals to achieve improved performance and thus facilitate participation in internal consultancy activities.Moreover,it is argued that HR professionals both provide value to the organisation and improve their own standing in the organisation by using HRIS.
Ulrich and Brockbank argue the need for HR to become a strategic partner.HRIS is seen to facilitate the provision of quality information to management for informed decision making.Most notably,it supports the provision of executive reports and summaries for senior management and is crucial for learning organisations that see their human resource as providing a major competitive advantage.HRIS are therefore a medium that helps HR professionals perform their job roles more effectively and to support strategic decision making.
In 1992,Kinnie and Arthurs reported their findings of HRIS usage based on a national survey and four indepth case studies of UK organisations.They analysed the responses of 231 personnel directors and itemised typical routine and non-strategic usage.Whilst they did observe a difference in the level of HRIS use, they found that the nature of usage had not changed appreciably since the 1980s.They therefore argued that this was evidence of considerable"lost opportunities". The comparative benchmarking study by Martinsons further suggests similar patterns of usage,also at that stage,in Canada.Later,Ball undertook a survey in the UK of small and medium sized private and public sector organisation(her analysis was based on 127 usable returns,a 24.4%response rate from organisations with up to 1500 employees).Approximately 54% of her respondents worked in personnel or HRM and of these,36%were personnel or HRM managers:the remainder,including the 10.4%of respondents who were directors,were from non-HRM functions but used HRIS systems.She found that HRIS was primarily used for"filing cabinet replication"of administrative tasks. Thus,she argued,most HRIS use was in support of routine administrative HR tasks,a conclusion broadly consistent with that of Kinnie and Arthurs.
In contrast,Lawler and Mohrman's 2001 US study created a different picture.It built on the work of Ulrich and surveyed HR directors of large commercial companies(the average number of employees was 21,023)in order to assess the degree to which HR was a strategic partner;they defined this to be a role related to the development and implementation of business strategy for the organisation.Their analysis of 130 returns,a 15.5% response rate,found that 41.1%of respondents were full strategic partners with only 3.4% with no role in the strategic process.Furthermore,they found that the use of HRIS had consistently increased over the previous 5–7 years,irrespective of the degree of strategic partnership held by the HR function.Indeed, HRIS usage had increased substantially even in firms where HR had no strategic role.They cautioned, however,that the use of HRIS and,in particular,fully integrated HRIS systems,did not necessarily ensure that HR would become a full strategic partner.
The role being played by HRIS in support of strategic decision making is important as this enables organisations to achieve competitive advantage.However, little is known about use of HRIS by small-to-medium and large sized companies for strategic decision making.Furthermore,the impact that this has had on the HR professionals is also relatively unknown.
2.Research method
Our research used two techniques to investigate the impact of IS on HRM:a questionnaire survey to obtain responses from HR professionals in UK organisations,and interviews with a small number of senior executives,such as directors,to gain deeper insights into the emerging issues and as a source of corroboration of the research hypotheses deduced from analyses of the survey responses.
In our analyses,the convention of treating routine usage as having an associated probability of 0.5,was employed.Then usage at a significantly higher level would be considered evidence of substantial use throughout HRM whilst the lower level demonstrated only sporadic use.
2.1.Questionnaire
A questionnaire was first developed by the authors.It was then piloted with ambiguous questions and those with poor response rates being reworded for clarity, accordingly.The revised version was then sent to HR managers at 450 organisations situated around the UK. These were in diverse sectors of the economy and were selected by stratified random sampling from the UK Business Directory. As we were only concerned with HR professionals,the seniority of the responder was confirmed and confidentiality assured.Of the questionnaires received,101 were from suitably senior HR professionals(a 22%return);these were used in the subsequent analyses.
The survey questions were designed to provide demographic information about the responder and their organisation;to elicit beliefs on the role of HRIS in supporting professional activities;to determine the extent to which HRIS were used,particularly for strategic decision making;the current reliance on HRIS by HR professionals;the level of intervention afforded by HRIS and the perceived impact that current or expected future HRIS usage was having on the professional standing of HR professionals.A copy of the relevant questions is given in Appendix A.
2.2.Interviews
In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 senior organisational executives to whom the HR professionals reported.These were intended to determine whether the professional standing of the HR professional had been elevated as a result of using HRIS.Comparisons were made with other non-HR professionals.In each case,the executives were randomly selected from companies in the survey who used HRIS,with selection being based on company size,approximately in proportion to those responding to the full survey.In order to select senior executives,it was therefore necessary to receive the questionnaires ahead of the interviews,which were subsequently undertaken on the telephone.
A copy of the question template is presented in Appendix B.
2.3.SME and large companies
In our research,company size was grouped as small-and-medium sized or large.The former,termed SME, had a workforce that did not exceed 500 workers,with the remainder being categorised as large companies, these being in accordance with the guidelines of a recent Commission of the European Community report.
2.4.Strategic and non-strategic HR usage
HRIS are used to support a variety of HR tasks.Here, strategic tasks are those that have a direct impact on,or are used in support of,an implicit or explicit strategic objective.Kinnie and Arthurs and Ball itemised specific HR non-strategic tasks that were undertaken using HRIS;Lawler and Mohrman similarly introduced an array of tasks that related to strategic usage.In all instances,a large number of disparate categories were present.As a consequence we have introduced a taxonomy consisting of a broader categorisation with fewer entries;it provides focus and facilitates meaningful comparisons.The strategic and non-strategic functions identified in these major studies were mapped onto this taxonomy.All routine activities that were typically performed by less senior,non-professional personnel were excluded.This made it possible to make a qualitative comparison between previous and current non-strategic uses of HRIS,strictly by HR professionals.
We also assessed the degree to which companies were currently employing HRIS in support of non-strategic HR,from the surveyed companies.This was contrasted with previous levels of usage,as reported by Ball. Tests for a difference in the respective proportion of users were undertaken for current and future HRIS use.The proportion of current users of HRIS for non-strategic functions was compared to the proportion of previous users,as identified by Ball.A similar comparison was also made for future use,which was estimated from reported HRIS planned usage from our survey.These comparisons were made for both SME and large companies.An additional test for proportional usage was also made,regardless of company size,and the previous user levels.In all cases,it was assumed that non-strategic HRIS use was likely to have increased and so one-sided Fisher's Exact tests were conducted. We also identified the current profile of SME versus large company non-strategic HRIS usage and planned usage.
Finally,the extent of usage of HRIS for strategic tasks over those that were still performed manually was determined.This degree of computerisation of strategic tasks was also computed to see if it differed according to company sizes.A descriptive summary was provided for the former,and a Fisher's Exact test conducted to quantify the latter.
2.5.The research hypotheses
Six research hypotheses were investigated in our study.The corresponding questions(see Appendix C), and the associated investigations were as follows:
Hypothesis 1.HRIS are used by HR professionals in support of strategic tasks.
Strategic tasks included strategic decision making and providing crucial information in support of this,in the areas of:HR Planning,Salary Advice,Employee Benefits and Industrial Relations. Operational level activities were considered to be background tasks, typically performed by junior personnel.Data for this hypothesis were obtained from responses to survey question 8:"At which level can/do HRIS support you in your emerging roles,such as HR consultancy and strategic decision making?"The appropriateness of the response was gauged by qualifying questions 2,9 and 10.
Fisher's Exact test for HRIS use by HR professionals was conducted to assess whether the proportion of users to non-users differed between SME and large compa- nies.Additional binomial tests were undertaken for these two groupings to assess the level of advanced task use against a routine level of use(H0:p=0.5,H1: p !=0.5).
Hypothesis 2.HRIS will be used differentially by small and medium sized companies in support of strategic decision making relative to large sized companies.
Several types of HR strategic use were categorised: HR Planning,Salary Advice,Employee Benefits, Industrial Relations,Assessment and Training Needs, Recruitment and Performance Management. Data for this hypothesis were obtained from responses to question 14:"What strategic HR tasks are you performing that are supported by HRIS?"The appropriateness of the response was gauged by the qualifying questions 2 and 9.
A separate Fisher's Exact test was conducted for each category of use to determine whether the proportion of users to non-users differed between SME and large companies.Additional binomial tests were conducted for the two size groupings,to further compare each type of advanced task use against a routine level of use(H0:p=0.5,H1:p !=0.5).
Hypothesis 3.HRIS will be used more in support of strategic decision making in organisations in the future.
Data for this hypothesis were obtained from responses to question 12:"What is your view of (further) deployment of HRIS in your organisation for work and decision making?:More strategic use of HRIS for long term planning".The appropriateness of the response was gauged by the qualifying questions 2 and 9.
A binomial test was performed to see whether HR professionals will use HRIS more in support of strategic decision making in the future.Two separate binomial tests were also undertaken for each of the company size groupings in our survey.A Fisher's Exact test was also conducted to look at the proportion of companies claiming there will be an increase,to those not anticipating one,for company size grouping.As we were trying to determine whether there was likely to be an increase in usage and that a reduction was not anticipated,the test was one-sided.
Hypothesis 4.HRIS are used differentially by small and medium sized companies for strategic decision making relative to large sized companies.
HRIS facilitated strategic decision making was appraised both for its support in decision making per se,and for information provision.Data for this hypothesis were obtained from responses to question 15:"If you are now using HRIS in support of strategic decision making, what is your role(s)?"The appropriateness of the response was gauged by the qualifying questions 2 and 9.
In both cases,separate binomial tests were conducted to assess whether usage was routine for SME and large companies.Fisher's Exact tests were also conducted to appraise whether the proportion of companies using HRIS in both categories of strategic decision making were likely to depend on company size.
Hypothesis 5.HRIS are seen as an enabling technology by HR professionals.
Data for this hypothesis were obtained from responses to question 5:"At which level can/do HRIS support you in your normal HRM duties(advice, service,functional support to the organisation)?"The appropriateness of the response was gauged by the qualifying questions 1,2,9 and 11.Here enabling technology was seen as supporting advanced tasks.
We looked at whether HRIS were believed to be an enabling technology by selected HR professional groupings using binomial tests.A test was carried out for HR managers,HR directors and personnel managers,respectively.An additional binomial test was also conducted with no distinction made for the job title of the responder.A Fisher's Exact test was also used to see if the views were dependent on company size.
Hypothesis 6.HRIS usage for strategic decision making leads to enhanced professional standing.
To assess possible enhancement in professional standing due to the increased use of HRIS,responders who used HRIS in support of strategic decision making were asked to make a self-assessment and to judge if their organisation recognised any enhancement.Those who did not use HRIS,were asked whether they expected that if they did use it in support of strategic decision making,this would enhance their professional status.Data for this hypothesis were obtained from responses to questions 16 and 17.The appropriateness of the response was gauged by the qualifying question 9.
To confirm that there was consistency between the responses for self-assessed enhancement and perceived acceptance of enhanced status by the organisation,we obtained a measure of correlation between the two responses.To take ties into account,Kendall's t–b coefficient was calculated.
We considered that those who were not currently using HRIS for strategic decision making,and responded as neutral when assessing enhancement of professional standing,did so due to a lack of practical exposure.This category was therefore excluded and the overall responses for self-assessment,perceived organisational recognition and potential enhancement were assessed individually using binomial tests.Fisher's tests were also conducted to see if company size grouping had any influence,both for self-assessed enhancement and perceived enhancement.The three categories were finally compared using a one-way ANOVA,treating the Likert scale data as interval data,and with a Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric test where no such assumption was made.For all responses:1=Strongly Agree,2= Agree,3=Neutral,4=Disagree,5=Strongly Disagree.
2.6.Semi-structure interviews with senior executives from responding companies
To corroborate several of these later results,the responses to the follow-up semi-structured interviews and survey from selected senior executives were analysed.The responses were considered to represent their company's view.In all cases,HR professionals were using HRIS for strategic decision making.Several t-tests were conducted.In all cases,H0:m>=3,where 3 was the neutral value(from 1=Strongly Agree to 5=Strongly Disagree).Furthermore,all tests were one-sided(H1: m<3)unless stated.The tests determined whether professional status had been enhanced as a result of using HRIS in support of strategic decision making in the company and,more generally,within the professions. Furthermore,we tested to see if it was felt that this usage was valuable to the company. t-Tests were undertaken to establish whether increased usage of MIS within the company by other non-HR professionals was consistent with that for the HR function,and if the professional standing of these professionals had been enhanced. Finally,a t-test was conducted to determine whether any enhanced status of these non-HR professionals was greater than any increase for senior HR personnel.
Corresponding binomial tests were conducted,with “Strongly Agree" and "Agree" responses being treated as affirmations,"Neutral"responses were ignored,and the remaining "Disagree" and"Strongly Disagree" responses as disagreements with the proposition.As all “Neutral" responses were associated with the executive not feeling able to give a considered or measured response,this test and the expedient were deemed appropriate.
3.Results
3.1.Strategic and non-strategic HR usage
Our taxonomy,as shown in Table 1,comprised seven categories.We believe they adequately covered all previous and current areas of HRIS use by senior HR personnel.
From this we can see that a new development is the use of HRIS for strategically related Industrial Relations issues.It is currently being used to support strategic Union Relations(Industrial Relations)in large US organisations.Furthermore,HRIS is supporting Industrial Relations per se in UK companies,albeit marginally.This is true for both non-strategic and strategic purposes,regardless of company size.There is no evidence of this being so prior to 1999.
The non-strategic use of HRIS,regardless of company size,increased substantially over that by smaller companies since the survey of Ball in 1998. This is evident from the results of the tests between the previous level of usage by smaller companies and that from our surveyed companies.Moreover,this trend is expected to continue.Interestingly,there is no evidence, from our data,that the level of use has increased significantly since 1999.However,when comparing current and planned use for SME,we observe a significant increase.These results suggest that there has been substantial adoption of HRIS for non-strategic work by large companies with SME following this trend in the near future.These results are presented in Table 2 and are shown graphically in Fig.1.
It was found that substantial use of HRIS was still made in supporting HR Planning,Salary Advice, Employment Benefits and Training for non-strategic purposes.Usage rates continue to be in excess of 40% in all cases.
Whilst it was found that a large number of strategic HR tasks were supported by HRIS there were still several that were performed manually.An indication of the extent of this is provided in Table 3.Approximately 44.5%of all companies use HRIS exclusively in support of strategic tasks.
When comparing the degree of computerisation of strategic tasks to company size grouping,the relative increase of HRIS usage for advanced functions appears to be slightly more pronounced for large companies than for SME.However,a Fisher's Exact test showed that the proportion of advanced usage,to manual usage,for company size was not significant at the 5%level(p=0.40),so we have no evidence that an overall difference in relative usage was present between the two company size groups for those using HRIS.
3.2.The research hypotheses
Hypothesis 1.HRIS are used by HR professionals in support of strategic tasks.
There is strong evidence that HRIS were used in support of strategic tasks.The findings are consistent with organisations being increasingly more reliant on the use of HRIS in support of advanced strategic business tasks,irrespective of company size.The results are presented in Table 4.
Hypothesis 2.HRIS will be used differentially by small and medium sized companies in support of strategic decision making relative to large sized companies.
The overall use of HRIS in support of strategic decision making was highly consistent for SME and large companies.Furthermore,this overall use was seen to be substantially greater than routine for both company size groups.These findings demonstrated that most companies that have HRIS,used them extensively in support of strategic decision making, regardless of company size.The results from the associated statistical tests are presented in Table 5.
The results from testing the specific strategic decision making uses are present in Table 6 and demonstrate that differences exist in specific usage however.
3.2.1.HR Planning
There was no difference in the proportion of users from SME and large companies who use HRIS in support of HR Planning. Use here was also shown to be no different from routine.
3.2.2.Salary Advice
From our survey,there was a significant difference in the proportion of SME and large companies who use HRIS in support of Salary Advice. There was no evidence that the level of use by SME were any different from routine,although the observed number was below average usage.There was,however,weak evidence that usage for Salary Advice by large companies was significantly above the routine level.Although this result was marginal(B(36,23),p=0.07),this was a two-tailed test and the Fisher's Exact test for the proportions was significant.
3.2.3.Employment Benefits
From our survey data,there was a significant difference in the proportion of users between SME and large companies who use HRIS to support Employment Benefits. There was weak evidence that usage of HRIS in support of Employment Benefits by SME was significantly below the routine level. Although,similar to that for Salary Advice by large companies,this result was only marginal (B(54,20), p=0.08);this was a two-tailed test and Fisher's Exact test for the proportions was also significant.There was no evidence of the level of use by large companies being any different from routine,although the observed number was below average usage.
3.2.4.Industrial Relations
There was no evidence of an overall difference in the proportion of users between SME and large companies using HRIS for Industrial Relations. Both SME and large companies,however,showed significant differences from routine usage.We therefore conclude that use of HRIS for Industrial Relations was significantly smaller than we would expect by chance alone although there is no evidence of a difference in relative usage.
3.2.5.Assessment and Training Needs
There was no evidence of an overall difference in the proportion of users between SME and large companies using HRIS in support of Assessment and Training Needs. SME usage was highly significant,demonstrating limited use of HRIS in support of this.There was, however,no evidence of the level of use by large companies being any different from routine.
3.2.6.Recruitment
There was strong evidence of an overall difference in the proportion of users between SME and large companies using HRIS in support of Recruitment. The use here by SME showed a significant difference from routine usage with the reported number of companies being lower.We therefore have evidence that use of HRIS for Recruitment by SME was significantly smaller than we would have expected by chance alone.The use by large companies in support of Recruitment was not found to be any different than routine,however.
3.2.7.Performance Management
There was strong evidence of no overall difference in the proportion of users between SME and large companies using HRIS in support of Performance Management. The use by SME showed a significant difference from routine usage,however,with the reported number of companies being low.Similarly, and consistent with the proportions test,the use by large companies for Performance Management was found to be significantly lower than routine.
Hypothesis 3.HRIS will be used more in support ofstrategic decision making in organisations in the future.
HR professionals anticipate using HRIS increasingly in support of strategic based decision making in their organisations,regardless of the size of the company. However,the test to see if a difference in the degree of future take-up for company size suggested a significant difference.This showed there was a difference between the size of company and predicted increased relative use of strategic decision making.These results were consistent with organisations being increasingly more reliant on the use of a MIS to maintain competitive advantage,perhaps by supporting flat organisational structures and being more responsive.In the case of future HRIS usage,this was more pronounced for large sized companies.The results from the associated statistical tests are presented in Table 7.
Hypothesis 4.HRIS are used differentially by small and medium sized companies for strategic decision making relative to large sized companies.
3.3.Decision maker role
SME and large companies do not use HRIS for strategic decision making per se differently.Indeed,the data suggested that in both cases,usage was no more than at the routine level.
3.4.Information provider role
The relative use of HRIS by SME and large companies for information provision in strategic decision making was similar.However,as the test used was two-tailed,we do have weak evidence at the 8.3% level of a difference due to company size.Information providing appeared to be used substantially greater than by chance for large companies.This has to be contrasted with typically routine usage by SME.These results further reinforced the view that a difference did exist between the relative provision of information in strategic decision making.
It would appear that the profile of usage for HRIS supported strategic decision making between the company size groupings,did prove to be different. Overall,we have evidence that a reasonable number of companies were using HRIS to facilitate or enable a strategic business partnership role within their organi- sation but with a different emphasis,regardless of the size of the company.
The results from the associated statistical tests are presented in Table 8.
Hypothesis 5.HRIS are seen as an enabling technology by HR professionals.
HRIS were seen as a crucial and enabling technology by HR professionals.This was the case,regardless of the size of the company.The tests across the various categories of HR job titles for the HR professionals in our survey were consistent for two of the three main categories of HR professionals:HR managers and HR directors.These demonstrated that they attached much importance to HRIS as an enabling technology. However,this was not shared by the personnel directors in our survey.This is consistent with Hoque and Noon's 2001 study.Their analysis of data from the UK Workplace Employment Relations Survey 1998 established that respondents with the title"human resource manager"were more likely to be profession- ally qualified and develop more sophisticated business policies and practices than those with the title "personnel manager".
Finally,no difference was seen in the proportions of users who believed that HRIS was enabling for all categories of job title when compared by company size. This showed that there was evidence that the importance of HRIS by several main groups of HR professionals was consistent across companies,regardless of size.The results from the associated statistical tests are presented in Table 9.
Hypothesis 6.HRIS usage for strategic decision making leads to enhanced professional standing.
The number of neutral responses for the two questions for HRIS users who used HRIS for strategic decision making was high.For self-assessment of enhancement to professional standing,we combined the "Strongly Agree"and"Agree"responses as affirmative and tested against those who disagreed; no responders registered that they strongly disagreed that professional standing had been enhanced.
There was very strong evidence that those using HRIS for strategic decision making believed that undertaking this strategic partnering role enhanced their standing.This was the case when neutral responses were excluded and similarly when neutral responses were treated as disagrees.These results were consistent for HR professionals working either in SME or large companies,when including neutrals as disagrees or excluding them from the test.
Similar results were obtained regarding perceived enhancement to professional standing by the organisation,again even when excluding neutrals and treating neutral responders as disagreers.
The counts for the relationship between self- evaluated and perceived enhanced professional standing are given in Table 10. In each case,the strong recognition of enhanced status,and concomitant acceptance by the company of this,is apparent.The correlation between these using Kendall's t–b, r=0.61,thus further demonstrated consistency in responses for self-assessed enhanced professional standing and the belief that this was duly recognised by the company.
The responses for potential enhancement to profes- sional status from those not currently using HRIS were more difficult to analyse unambiguously due to the large number of neutral responses.When these were excluded,we again obtained strong evidence confirming the belief that professional standing would be enhanced by using HRIS.When including the neutrals as disagrees however,the test was not significant, demonstrating perhaps that a neutral response was based on a lack of experience and it is too extreme to consider this as disagreement with the proposition.
The one-way ANOVA with all neutrals removed was not significant at the 5%significance level (F2,158=1.012,p=0.37). Levene's test on the residuals however(p=0.007)indicated that there was violation of the homogeneity of the variances assumption and so a Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric test was also obtained. This confirmed the ANOVA result(K=1.71,p=0.43 (adjusted for ties))that we have no evidence from these data of any overall average difference between self- assessed enhancement,perceived recognition and potential enhancement if strategic decision making usage was undertaken.
The results from the associated statistical tests are presented in Table 11.
3.5.Interviews
The semi-structured follow-up interviews with organisational executives revealed that HRIS use had not enhanced professional standing within the organisa- tion,but had done so in the profession at large.They did see the use of HRIS within the organisation as substantially benefiting it,however.The increased use of HRIS was considered to be,on average,equivalent to that for MIS by other professions within the companies but there was a strong feeling that the professional standing of these professionals was enhanced more. This seeming contradiction may well be a consequence of a persistent pejorative view of the relative worth of HRM per se.The results of the t-tests and corresponding confirmatory binomial tests,are given in Table 12.
The results were consistent for the two tests in all cases,with the binomial test for enhancement of professional standing within the profession due to HRIS usage being significant at the 6%level.As this is a substantially underpowered test,it can be seen as providing confirmatory evidence.
4.Discussion
We have introduced a parsimonious,high level, advanced HR usage taxonomy to facilitate comparisons with other studies and to provide a focus when investigating the direction in which HRIS usage is changing.Our taxonomy proved to be sufficient to categorise all advanced usage by HR professionals in the companies in our survey.
Strategic decision making allows HR professionals to participate at the organisational level and to work closely with strategic management,potentially enabling and facilitating the formation of strategic partnerships. The corroborating views of senior executives based in several of the companies participating in the study were obtained to further assess the impact of HRIS use in enhancing professional standing of HR professionals, both absolutely and relatively.
We found that slightly less than 50%of the companies use HRIS or other software exclusively in support of strategic HR usage tasks.Furthermore,there are a substantially higher proportion of large sized companies with full computerisation of strategic HR tasks.There were also differences in the proportional HRIS usage of advanced tasks or in strategic decision making,between SME and large sized companies in three of the categories:Salary Advice,Employment Benefits and Recruitment. In each of these,the degree of usage was relatively greater for larger companies.
A summary of the usage profile of HRIS supported HR activities is given in Table 13.
The use of HRIS is mostly due to the improvements of HR related ROI and efficiency gains.In addition,it is likely that increased functionality and flexibility in HRIS coupled with decreased costs,in real terms,may also be contributing factors.However, our finding of the consistent use or planned use of HRIS across company size groupings is a recent phenomenon. The Cedar 2003 Workforce Technology Survey of 328 respondents identified an increase of approximately 260%in investment in IT budgets for companies with 500–1000 employees,whereas for large sized compa- nies the investment levels have remained roughly the same.This suggests that there was an initial lag in investment in HRIS technology by SME relative to large sized companies but that the gap is now narrowing.It therefore appears that the driving forces of ROI and increasing efficiency,functionality and flexibility are sufficient motivation for the take-up of HRIS,regardless of company size.Our study at least provides evidence of this trend.
Our findings also challenge Ball's view that company size is likely to be a key determinant,both for the adoption of HRIS and the degree of its use in decision making and strategic support,regardless of other factors.They are however,consistent with the views of Haines and Petit and Thaler-Carter, that lower cost,higher utility and flexibility are the determining factors for SME uptake of HRIS.Indeed, our survey suggested that HRIS are likely to be used even more for strategic decision making in the future; this was a strongly held belief by both SME and large sized companies.The responses from the large companies were,however,notably more positive in this belief than those from the SME.This reinforced the view that larger organisations use IT in support of responsive,flatter organisational structures.Notwithstanding this,most HR professionals viewed HRIS as enabling software,providing timely and accurate information to HR professionals and top management in support of strategic decisions making,regardless of organisation size.
Our findings reveal wholesale adoption of HRIS in support of a full strategic partnering role,regardless of company size.They also validate claims that such a role does provide value to the company.
Finally,our results show that HR professionals believed that the usage of HRIS for strategic decision making led to enhanced professional standing within and outside the organisation,regardless of company size.They also unilaterally believed that this elevation was recognised by the organisation,and this was shown to be consistent,irrespective of company size.This belief of elevated status was also shared by HR professionals who are not currently using HRIS or do not use it in support of strategic decision making.
The semi-structured follow-up interviews with organisational executives revealed that HRIS use has not enhanced their professional standing within the organisation.It has in the professions at large but they did see the use of HRIS as substantially benefiting the company.The increased use of HRIS was considered to be equivalent to that for MIS by other professions within the companies but there was a strong feeling that the professional standing of these professionals was more enhanced by their MIS use.We argue that this seeming contradiction may well be a consequence of a persistent pejorative view of the relative worth of HRM per se.
5.Conclusions
Our research suggested that for senior HR professionals,strategic use of HRIS is increasingly the norm, irrespective of company size.This has led to the HR profession providing a value-add for the company. Moreover,strategic use of HRIS enhances the perceived standing of HR professionals within their organisations, a view however,not shared by their more senior non-HR executives.Nonetheless,these executives acknowledge that HRIS has provided value-add and increased the status of the HR profession as a whole.
We also suggest that there may be more benefits in using HRIS for non-strategic purposes;companies may seek to gain efficiencies that allow them to reduce staffing levels of routine administrative tasks.
One question raised by our findings is why SME are adopting HRIS more readily.Maybe,in smaller companies,the increased legislative burden requiring accountability,from business activities through to equal opportunities monitoring,has increased the demand for HRIS as they are able to generate reliable quality data for audit purposes.Although there is empirical evidence that small companies in particular feel that the costs of such systems are too high,there is also evidence that HRIS are being better used by small companies.Thus, for the SME,there is an improving return on investment for such systems.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Professor Sibley and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments that have made this paper more readable and pertinent to a wider readership.
122
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
