I had a meeting recently with a forward-looking specialist NHS Trust. We started talking about their long term needs around HR/L&D systems. If you’re thinking about a complete overhaul of your systems then it seemed to us that there were a few key questions and observations.
Firstly, what is the scope of your needs? Are you looking for an Enterprise-wide system (e.g. to include all non-clinical processing – so this would include finance, logistics, facilities as well as HR)? This was wider than the discussion I had, but I make the point so that we can see that any line drawn at less than “enterprise” level may be arbitrary. So if we look at HR, do you include payroll? HR ticket management? Intranet? Are you including e-learning? Virtual learning environments? Assessment? And so on.
Let’s assume for now that you’re looking at a complete HR management system to support all the work of HR (and this includes payroll and Learning & Development). The next main strategic decision – which we spent a lot of time talking about at my recent meeting – revolves around your system strategy. By this I mean, have you considered the pros and cons of:
- A single system approach, the likes of Northgate, Midland or Oracle. Disclaimer: there are many others and I’m not necessarily recommending one of these!
- A “stitching together best of breed” approach, where you find a small number of systems, each specialising in a different function, and link them together. Not as daunting a task as it may have been 3 years ago!
- A “platform” approach, where you start with an underlying workflow management platform (like Sharepoint or Drupal) and then add or build small modules that suit your specific needs.
Briefly, the benefits, risks and challenges as we see them are here:
| Benefits | Risks and challenges | Examples | |
|---|---|---|---|
| One size fits all | You have a single supplier accountable for everything. Data integration should not be a problem. Easier procurement processes because you only need to appoint a single supplier. | Parts of the system may be of compromised quality (for example, many one size fits all suppliers started as payroll/HR data organistations, so tend to be weaker at L&D and e-learning processes. Or they have purchased learning systems companies and integrated them - this integration may not have been done in the way you would have done it!) You tend to be tied to a supplier as well as a system. For example, if you are unhappy with the performance of the company supporting your system, you generally can't change supplier without changing the system too. You should be careful that a "single price" contract doesn't force you to pay for functionality or services that you won't use. | Northgate Midland iTrent Oracle |
| Stitch together best of breed | Each part of your system is provided by specialists in their field (you don't have talent management people trying to do payroll, for example!) You can select exactly what you need from the market, and don't pay for functionality you don't need. | Some work involved to make sure that data can flow between the systems, and that any self-service elements are coherent and easy to use for managers and staff. (with increasing availability of HR data standards and single sign on, this isn't an insurmountable challenge) You need to be clear on accountabilities to avoid the risk of suppliers pointing fingers at each other when something doesn't work. We'd recommend you look at appointing a master vendor which then subcontracts to each of the system suppliers. You may need to work to keep communication lines open between suppliers, to avoid overlaps in functionality. Have a plan for what you would do if, for example, your recruitment system supplier launches an e-learning platform that does the same sort of thing as your learning system supplier. | Integrate off the shelf HR core data/payroll system, a SharePoint content management system, and an Open Source (e.g. Moodle-based) learning and performance system. |
| Platform-based approach | You end up with a system that supports your specific organisational needs ,because you design the system by starting with your own processes. Useful if you have unusual and unique needs. Costs can be low in the long term, because platform licence fees tend to be lower than HR system licence fees (and with Microsoft, you can take advantage of those licences that are still available to you after the end of the Enterprise Wide Agreement) Flexibility in what level of support you procure from external suppliers (for example, you may decide to design workflows in house, have an external supplier build the workflows into the online system, but then engage your internal IT team to support the resulting tools). Engagement of managers, staff and HR team is often better, because they can have an input into how the system works, and can see that it's there to support their way of working. | Needs very tight scoping and project management to avoid scope creep. Risk of over-engineering. Are your needs really unique, or could you actually do just as well with an off the shelf solution? Risks simply automating existing sub-optimal processes, so it's important to spend time on process mapping and improvement before specifying the system. May require more internal resource to set up than the "one size fits all" and "stitch together" approaches. Although these other approaches should also include significant stakeholder engagement and consultation, so the differences may not be as large as first appear. | Microsoft Sharepoint (content management and workflow) and Dynamics AX (enterprise and employee data), on which you purchase or build tools to support your specific workflows |
What do you think? Have we missed any major categories? What is your view of the pros and cons? We’d love to hear from you.
About Tim Newham
Tim is the founder and Managing Director at Think Associates Ltd. He takes an active role in helping clients and has specialist interests in organisation development, process improvement and knowledge management. Tim has over 10 years’ experience of managing large-scale performance and learning processes in the public sector, and focuses on building the bridges between HR policy/process, line management requirements, and IT systems to make life easier for staff. Tim has a First Degree in Engineering Systems and a Masters Degree in Management.
Mail | Web | LinkedIn | More Posts (26)