Linking HR Strategy with e-HR Outcomes

The model (see Figure 3) draws upon the prominent literature for e-HR adoption and shows four central elements – HR strategies, e-HR goals, e-HR architectures and e-HR outcomes. In effect, this creates a ‘line of sight’ between the adopted HR strategies of an organization and the e-HR outcomes. The moderating elements reflect the changing and dynamic nature of e-HR in its varying organizational contexts. Consequently, every organisation enters the e-HR journey at a different point. Some may already have advanced applications or tools in place (see case studies), whereas other organizations may be engaging with more advanced technologies for the first time, as HR seeks to move from a traditional support function to a more strategic partner. These latter characteristics tend to be associated with smaller organizations, which do not have the financial resources or scale of operations to make the necessary investments. The way forward in those cases, and which may represent a sensible approach for smaller local authorities, is through collaborative enterprise (See Dr Sarah Pass’s Guide).

Strategic Drivers (Goals) of e-HR

The strategic drivers or goals of e-HR flow from the HR strategies discussed earlier (Relationship 1). These drivers can address HR’s transactional or transformational goals (Snell, Stueber & Lepak, 2001). The former focus on reducing the costs of HR services or improving its productivity, and improving service delivery to managers and employees; the latter focus on freeing up time for HR staff to address more strategic issues rather than basic administration, and by transforming the contributions that HR can provide to the organization (its ‘business model’). The transformational goals involve extending HR’s reach to more remote parts of the organization to create a sense of ‘corporateness’ or internal integration in extended enterprises ( e.g. through HR portals); enabling more sophisticated recruitment searches (e.g. through widely available social media to uncover people not actively seeking jobs) and (self) selection through online tools; creating new forms of organizational community and methods of communications through new applications of Web 2.0, e.g. interactive employee engagement surveys, virtual communities of practice, ‘blogging’ and ‘wikis’ (Martin, Reddington & Kneafsey, 2008).

e-HR Architectures

The extent to which an organization focuses on any or all of these goals should, in theory, influence the types of e-HR architecture it adopts (Relationship 2). The architecture refers to the HR data, systems and technologies but also how these are sourced and the choices made over the human resources organization. For example, some organizations have set up in-house shared services centres and applied e-HR solutions to them but simultaneously outsourced major applications such as pay and pensions (CIPD, 2007).

It follows, therefore, that an organization which places an emphasis on transactional goals, such as cost reduction, would seek to design and build an e-HR architecture which streamlined HR processes and deployed self-service tools for manager and employees to access them.

Similarly, e-HR architectures concerned with addressing transformational goals would involve elements such as sophisticated search technologies, career development tools, human capital management systems, social software, e-learning and knowledge management platforms and virtual meetings software.

The sourcing of these systems (in-house vs outsource) and the implications for the skills and capabilities of the HR function are also important considerations.

Absorptive Capacity of HR

As the model shows, e-HR adoption will be moderated by the absorptive capacity of HR (Relationship 3) to seek out knowledge and exploit these architectures to the full. Absorptive capacity in this context can be defined as the potential for the HR function to seek out and assimilate knowledge about e-HR technologies and incorporate these into their vision for a changed HR function (Jansen et al., 2005). It can also be defined in terms of the capacity of the HR function to realize e-HR potential by good implementation practices and ongoing support.

One of the major debates in the practitioner world is whether e-HR technologies should be adapted to existing or revised HR processes (customization) or whether HR processes should be adapted to fit usually bought-in technologies (the ‘vanilla’ solution). Evidence to date suggests that the vanilla solution is winning out because of the difficulties in changing existing e-HR technologies at reasonable cost (Shrivastava & Shaw, 2004). This realization phase is also marked by the ability of the HR function to combine face-to-face and technology-mediated HR approaches to produce a new business model for HR previously discussed; that is, e-HR’s ability to transform what it can currently do with available knowledge and technology into a more strategically oriented function that addresses the key strategic drivers of the organization (Huselid, et al, 2005).

Organization and Resources of HR Function

The Organization and Resourcing of the HR Function (Relationship 4) refers to the different configurations of organizational structures used by organizations to deliver their human resources strategy, including decisions on centralization of decisions, outsourcing and specialization among HR professionals. Different models are currently being adopted, all of which involve choices on the development of shared services, centres of HR expertise, managerial and employee self-service and HR business partnering (Caldwell, 2008). These developments are often associated with the research and prescriptions of Ulrich (tripartite model) though as Reilly and Williams (2003) and others have pointed out, there are many variations on this theme, with large HR departments still being organized along functional lines.

e-HR Outcomes

Finally, the adoption of specific e-HR architectures should lead to specific e-HR outcomes (Relationship 5). Note that e-HR outcomes can be both intended or unintended, and also positive or negative (Fisher & Howell, 2004). It should also be noted that the positive/negative classifications will sometimes depend on where one stands. For example, the headcount reduction of HR is often used as a justification (positive outcome) by the organization for e-HR but it also has potentially damaging consequences for organizational knowledge, as well as those HR staff displaced by the reduction (negative outcome).

HR Change Model

Again it should be noted that these outcomes will be moderated by the change models (Relationship 6) and approaches adopted. The change management literature is extensive, analyzing how different approaches to change produce better or worse results; controversy still exists over the merits of ‘top-down’ versus ‘bottom-up’ change, incrementalist approaches versus ‘big-bang’ and the pace at which change should be driven, including the competence of HR to manage such change effectively.

User Acceptance

One of the most important factors shaping the success of technological change is user acceptance (Relationship 7). Thus important moderating factors that need to be considered are architectural system design decisions and reactions to the e-HR technologies (Stone, Romero and Lukaszewski, 2006).

Given the above framework, with its supporting justifications derived from the HR professional and academic literature, a number of important points emerge:

• Consider carefully the specific e-HR goals that define the purpose of the of the investment in the project
• Design an e-HR architecture which is appropriate for the defined e-HR goals
• Implement the solution with a determination to achieve positive, intended outcomes which reflect the defined project goals
• Check carefully that a ‘line of sight’ has been established between HR strategy, e-HR goals, e-HR architectures and intended e-HR outcomes

These aspects are examined in some detail through case study illustrations later but it is helpful at this point to elaborate the thinking behind possible e-HR architectures, as these are often a source of anxiety and confusion for HR professional.