A survey of reader attitudes toward their HRIS systems by HR consultant James G. Meade, author of the leading text on HR software selection - The Human Resources Software Handbook with John Wiley Publishing

There are days I want to throw it through the window, says Elizabeth Acevedo, HR Director at the Houston Zoo, of her HRIS system. "But I would never go back to what we had before.
Formal surveys and interviews with users suggest that Acevedo speaks for most HRIS users. On the one hand, to hear vendors tell it, an automated HRIS is easy to learn, cost-justified, and key to becoming a strategic contributor. On the other hand, for actual users, installing and using the HRIS can be frustrating, few HR folks ever get around to doing a formal cost justification, and an HR person who was not strategic before the HRIS may not become strategic after it. Yet, in the final analysis, almost no one who has a system would give up an automated HRIS in favor of a manual system.

Dissatisfaction Easy to Find
You do not have to look hard to find dissatisfaction. A 2005 SHRM HR Technology Survey Report found that 29% of respondents indicated their systems have been extremely successful, 68% found them to be somewhat successful, and 3% reported that the systems have not been successful at all.
Scott Cecil, HR Systems Manager with Google Inc. of Mountainview, CA, and a veteran of several HRIS systems at various companies, says that his company surveyed the offerings for a company his size (more than 300 employees) and concluded, "We believed that none of the vendor solutions would provide the user experience we wanted to deliver. So his company is building its own HRIS.
Courtney Kreutzer, Director of Human Resources at Magan Medical Clinic in Covina, CA, says. "I really don't like ours, of her Microsoft Access automated system. "It's really frustrating. I would have to take a course to figure out how to run stuff.

Even those having a good experience have reservations. "I think there will always be issues for several reasons, says Michelle Morgan, Benefits Director with the Boy Scouts of America in Irving, Texas. "There are assumptions on both sides during the selection process. The client may assume their way is standard when it actually isn't. The vendor may not think to ask, assuming everyone does it the same.

Kathy Kroop, who has been an HR consultant as well as HR director at companies of varying sizes, says that the problem has its root in the selection process. "A lot of times companies don't know what they don't know and don't ask the right questions, she says. "A lot of companies fail to understand what their needs are before they buy the HRIS. Then companies end up disappointed. For example, she says, a company may simply say that it wants to "track employees instead of specifying that it wants to gather and analyze data about compensation, equity, and benefits.

Hal Gueutal, Associate Professor of Management at SUNY Albany, says, "Often I think they don't do the level of due diligence I think they should and later on wonder why the product isn't doing what they thought it would do.

John A. Ryder, Vice President of HR at Champion, Technologies, Inc. in Houston cautions against unrealistic expectations. "Many HRIS professionals think going into an HRIS implementation that you get it all initially. And you don't. Over a three- to four-year period of time you put in additional functionality, in phases.

Cecil explains how those wrong expectations lead to disappointment. -- "My experience has been (both at Google and prior companies) that it takes quite a bit of time and effort (and dollars) to get the system working properly. When the system is working, typically only the core functionality has been implemented. None of the 'cool' or 'helpful' functionality has been delivered, and the project runs out of money or steam. This is why I have seen people get frustrated: 'we spent all this time and money on this thing, and this is all we got?'

Consultant Sid Simon, Director, Product Strategy, Enrollment Service at Unumprovident in Chattanooga, places blame squarely on the vendors, not the users. HR folks, he says, "just may not know how to use their HRIS systems. In that case, he says, "I consider that a vendor issue. I'm not sure the vendors are supplying the level of customer support that some of these people really need.

Selection Process is Key
If the needs analysis and selection process are so important, how thoroughly is HR actually doing that process? Acevedo, for instance, wanted something that IT said would be compatible with the company's platform. "There were only a couple of options, she said. Another person saw a product at a show and thought it would be a good choice. One heard about her product by word of mouth.
Many had no say in the system they would use, particularly at larger companies where one provider like SAP or Oracle served the whole enterprise. Some, though, (often those burned by an earlier experience with an HRIS . . . or by a payroll system posing as an HRIS), set up a rigorous needs analysis and made sure to avoid their mistakes the next time.

Danika Davis, Executive Director/CEO of the Northern California Human Resource Association in San Francisco, chose a system at her recent, previous position with Delta Health Systems in Stockton, CA. She required that the provider have strong customer service, an Internet-based "rental offering, and a product that could be installed in modules.

Michael Bork, Corporate HR Manager for ICL Performance Products LP in St. Louis, says, "We had done an ugly, time-consuming, major conversion just three years prior. "[This time] it took roughly just three months to load, test, and roll-out the system. What made he difference? "You really have to test all of your company's transactions, needs, and processes as best you can before you commit.
Mixed Results on Making HR More Strategic

However they're selected, how well do these systems live up to the vendor promise of freeing up HR for more strategic activity? The SHRM study found that 38% of those responding reported that HR staff members have not been able to spend more time on strategic resource planning.

Asked if an HRIS made HR more strategic of if that was just a line fed by vendors, Ryder responded, "That's by and large a line fed by vendors. Just having better data doesn't make you strategic. It simply makes you automated.

Simon pretty well ruled out strategic contributions from most SHRM members, saying, "Fifty percent of the members are from companies of less than 1000 people. For them to do anything strategic is wishful thinking. They have too broad a range of responsibility, whereas in larger companies HR people with specialized skills in areas like technology and hiring might be able to become strategic contributors.

Asked if her HR software made her more strategic, Sheri Jablonsky, Comptroller at the Nebraska State Education Association in Lincoln, said, "It did not at this point.

However, if 38% do not feel their HRIS helps them become strategic, that leaves a majority who feel the other way. Morgan, for instance, takes a middle ground. "We're able to supply management more 'what if' reports, decrease the amount of paperwork, provide more accurate data ,and provide reports a lot quicker. This ultimately helps support the strategic plan.

A study titled "Strategic HR vs. Transactional HR - Defining the Difference,
sponsored by Employease and conducted by TwentyTen Research, stops short of saying that technology makes HR strategic but does say, "Strategic HR departments are much more likely to utilize employee self-service, manager self-service, hosted web-based HR systems, and have connectivity to insurers and payroll providers. Conversely, strategic groups are much less likely to have manual processes.

Some users quite clearly insist that their technology has helped them become strategic. "I believe that [our HRIS] made me more strategic, says Davis. "It freed up my time from collecting data to analyzing data.

Bork says, "A good, comprehensive HRIS allows you to make better decisions, because all the information is easily accessible to analyze data. Analysis of compensation, payroll, overhead cost, AAP/EEO reports, etc. are all made extremely easy.

And Acevedo says, "I can provide data that has an impact on the organization, where before I probably would not have done that on my own.

Cost Justification Rare in HR
Another notion from vendors that receives lukewarm endorsement from real users is the idea that the HRIS is readily cost justified. Simon, first of all, says that, "If you go back historically, one thing HR cannot do is measure anything. The only way for HR to tell if it made any gains is if the HR person can say, 'I'm not working as many weekends or not staying as late at night as I used to.'

The SHRM survey report affirmed such thinking, finding that "two-thirds of respondents indicated their organizations are not measuring the return on investment for the HR technology systems.

Ryder outright doubts the value of HR Return on Investment (ROI) calculations. "Those types of calculations are voodoo economics, he says. "There is not in today's HR environment a real return-on-investment calculation for putting in an HRIS. Numbers on time savings are simply too soft to be used as cost justification, he is suggesting.

A prominent technology survey, the CedarCrestone 2005 HCM Survey, does conclude that "Workforce technologies show transaction and compliance cost reductions of 25-75%. However, the report also notes the singular lack of reliable ROI studies, saying, "The inability to prove payback, for all but early adopters, is even stronger in 2005 than in 2004.

As with the question of becoming a strategic contributor, though, HR is divided on the ROI question. Bork says "In fact, we were able to reduce our costs in total by over $200,000, and we can provide better service to our employees and managers.
Gueutal says, "Any more there's generally little discussion on the question. The cost savings are pretty clear. Kreutzer has no time to do the ROI study but does say, "If you dig down and find out exactly what these manual tasks are costing you, wouldn't this thing pay for itself in the first year?

Most Would Do It Again
If the promises of vendors fall short of reality, HRIS users nevertheless tend to stand by their HRIS systems. Put off by the cost, many smaller companies are not automating. Wayne Reynolds, CEO of Trigon Road software in Madison, WI, has been contacting smaller companies. "Almost none have a system in place now, he says. "And we've talked to a couple hundred.

With those who have systems, though, a single word comes up when they are asked if they would choose their HRIS system again. "Absolutely.

Bork says that his HRIS, Ultipro from Ultimate Software, "was one of the best pieces of software I had ever seen. Their innovative billing philosophy and hosting capabilities made this decision very easy for us. You always have concerns moving to a new system, but this turned out great for us.

Davis says her Employease system "accomplished all of our goals. It was easy to use, and it was quickly implemented. Jablonsky, using Fort software from Trigon Road, says, "I am very happy with our system. Says Acevedo of her Abra HRIS system, "I could not live without an HRIS. I don't think I would ever go back to an organization that did not have one.

Even those who are less enthusiastic, like Simon, in the final analysis come down in favor of installing an HRIS. Deciding not to use an HRIS "is like saying 'Gee, I don't need word processing software, or I don't need e-mail.'

The surveys likewise indicate that the trend to technology is going to continue. "Overall, with improvements in technology and, in many cases, reduction in costs, a growth in the implementation and utilization of these applications seems inevitable, concludes the SHRM study.

Says the CedarCrestone report, "Usage continues to grow in all categories of workforce technologies tracked. Use of measure/plan talent applications has increased - often over 50% from 2004 levels. The cluster of development and compensation management applications has grown over 50%.
Gueutal, who deals mainly with the mid-market and larger companies, goes so far as to say, "It's not a debate any more really. It's not a question of whether to do it. You have to do it.

Says Ryder, "You reach a point where you cannot effectively manage data or supply the data that the company needs around employee issues unless you're automated. It's kind of the ante in the poker game. It's simply what you need to do to play at the table.

Bio: James G. Meade, Ph.D., based in Fairfield, IA has written more than 100 reviews of HR software for HR Magazine as well as frequent feature stories and Internet columns. He has helped numerous companies conduct HR software selection. Contact him at words@lisco.com.