the use and impact of human resource information...

www.elsevier.com/locate/im

Information & Management 44 (2007) 74–89

The use and impact of human resource information systems

on human resource management professionals

Zahid Hussain a, James Wallace a,*, Nelarine E. Cornelius b,1

a School of Management, University of Bradford, Emm Lane, Bradford BD9 4JL, UKb Faculty of Management, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 1G5, Canada

Received 22 January 2005; received in revised form 19 September 2006; accepted 27 October 2006

Available online 6 December 2006

Abstract

Human resource information systems (HRIS) usage allows the human resource (HR) professional to become a strategic player.

With both increasing functionality and affordability, HRIS are being used extensively in organisations of all sizes. Despite this,

surprisingly little is know about the current usage, whether disparities exist between companies of different sizes, or about the

impact HRIS has on the general professional standing of the HR professional.

We developed and administered a survey and gave structured interviews to assess and compare the specific areas of use and to

introduce a taxonomy that provides a framework for academic discussion and comparison. We further determined whether HRIS

usage was strategic, a perceived value-add for the organisation, and its impact on professional standing for HR professionals. These

findings were compared to those for other professions that also use MIS. Our results showed that, on average, few differences exist

between SME and large company usage. Moreover, we found that the professional standing of HR professionals has been enhanced

by the specific use of HRIS for strategic partnering but that this is not as pronounced as that experienced by those from other

professions.

# 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Human resource information systems (HRIS); HRIS taxonomy; Non-strategic and strategic HRIS usage; Strategic partnership;

Professional standing

1. Introduction

Human resource management (HRM) is relatively

new. Indeed, Storey [26] observed that prior to the

1990s, the term HRM was rarely used outside the US.

The subsequent process of convergence of traditional

personnel management in the UK into the US based

human resource (HR) practice has been rapid. Storey

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1274 234335;

fax: +44 1274 546866.

E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Wallace).1 Permanent address: Brunel Business School, Brunel University,

Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH, UK.

0378-7206/$ – see front matter # 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.10.006

[25] and Legge [16] 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 [24,1,5,18]. One of the major

changes has been the contemporary use of IS in support

of the HR process [30,23,8,20]. Increased use of human

resource information systems (HRIS) allows profes-

sionals to achieve improved performance and thus

facilitate participation in internal consultancy activities

[27,28]. Moreover, it is argued that HR professionals

both provide value to the organisation and improve

their own standing in the organisation by using HRIS

[12,15].

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.10.006

Z. Hussain et al. / Information & Management 44 (2007) 74–89 75

Ulrich [31] and Brockbank [2] 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 [6,3,17] and to support strategic decision

making.

In 1992, Kinnie and Arthurs [14] reported their

findings of HRIS usage based on a national survey and

four in-depth 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

[19] 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 organisa-

tions 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 organisa-

tions to achieve competitive advantage [7,13]. 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 ques-

tionnaires 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

Z. Hussain et al. / Information & Management 44 (2007) 74–8976

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 [32].

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 mean-

ingful 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 profes-

sionals.

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 6¼ 0.5).

Hypothesis 2. HRIS will be used differentially by

small and medium sized companies in support of stra-

tegic 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 6¼ 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 con-

ducted 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 technol-

ogy 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 mak-

ing 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

Table 1

Categories of use of HRIS by senior HR personnel

Categories of HRIS use Previous non-strategic HRIS use

(Kinnie and Arthurs)

P

u

HR Planning Succession planning; relocation;

human resource planning; labour

turnover; HR budgeting; wage modelling

M

c

c

Salary Advice Performance appraisal; wage modelling S

(

Employment Benefits Pensions; car schemes; health schemes A

Industrial Relations None N

Assessment and Training

Needs

Training; management development;

performance appraisal

A

(

n

t

Recruitment Recruitment R

(

Performance Management Performance appraisal A

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

revious non-strategic HRIS

se (Ball)

Current strategic use

(Lawler and Mohrman)

anpower planning; budget

ontrol (recruitment); budget

ontrol (training)

HR planning; organisational

development; organisational

design; strategic planning

alary information; recruitment

organisation salary structure)

Compensation

ppraisal Benefits

one Union Relations

ppraisal; training; training

course evaluation); training

eeds analysis; skills monitoring;

raining evaluation; skills matching

Performance appraisal;

competency/talent assessment;

employee training/education;

management development

ecruitment; budget control

recruitment)

Recruitment; selection

ppraisal Performance appraisal;

competency/talent assessment


Table 2

Tests for proportions for current and planned HRIS use against previous use

Company size Proportions p-Value Degree of take-up

HRIS Previous HRIS

Overall (current use) 0.77 0.64 0.01* Significant increase in recent usage regardless of company size

Overall (planned future use) 0.86 0.64 <0.0005*** Highly significant increase in planned usage regardless of company size

SME (current use) 0.65 0.64 0.42 No evidence of increase in recent usage by SME

SME (planned future use) 0.77 0.64 0.03* Significant increase in planned usage by SME

* Significant at 0.05 level.*** Significant at 0.001 level.

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.

Fig. 1. Frequencies of current and pla

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.

nned HRIS non-strategic usage.


Table 3

Number of non-computerised strategic HR tasks

Number of tasks Frequency

None 40

One-to-three 32

Greater than three 18

Table 4

Statistical tests for Hypothesis 1

Null hypothesis p-Value

Overall routine usage, regardless of company size <0.0001***

No difference in proportional usage and company size 0.45

*** Significant at 0.001 level. Table 6

Statistical tests for HRIS use in support of strategic decision making

HR tasks


HR Planning

No difference in proportional usage and

company size

0.39

Routine usage by SME 0.50

Routine usage by large companies 0.62

Salary Advice


company size

0.03*



Employment Benefits


company size

0.03*



Industrial Relations


company size

0.12

Routine usage by SME 0.00001***

Routine usage by large companies 0.04*

Assessment and Training Needs


company size

0.11

Routine usage by SME <0.0005***


Recruitment


company size

<0.0006***

Hypothesis 2. HRIS will be used differentially by

small and medium sized companies in support of stra-

tegic 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

Table 5




company size

1.000


Routine usage by large companies <0.00001***

*** Significant at 0.001 level.

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



Performance Management


company size

1.000

Routine usage by SME <0.004**

Routine usage by large companies <0.008**

* Significant at 0.05 level.** Significant at 0.01 level.



Table 7



No difference in proportional increase

in usage and company size

<0.01** [one-sided

test for increased

usage]

Increase in usage regardless of

company size

<0.0001***


Routine usage by large companies <0.00001***

** Significant at 0.01 level.*** Significant at 0.001 level.

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 differ-

ences 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, demonstrat-

ing 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 of

strategic 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


Table 8



Strategic decision making—decision maker role




Strategic decision making—information provider role



Routine usage by large companies 0.029*

* Significant at 0.05 level.

Table 9



HRIS are not an enabling technology <0.0001***

Proportion of users considering HRIS

as an enabling technology: SME

vs. large companies

0.66

HRIS are not an enabling technology—

HR managers

<0.0001***


HR directors

0.013*


personnel managers

0.23

* Significant at 0.05 level.*** Significant at 0.001 level.
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 technol-

ogy 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 [10]. Their analysis of data from the UK

Workplace Employment Relations Survey 1998 [34]

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 mak-

ing 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 affirma-

tive 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 organisa-

tion, again even when excluding neutrals and treating

neutral responders as disagreers.

The counts for the relationship between self-

evaluated and perceived enhanced professional stand-

ing 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.


Table 10

Self-assessed and perceived enhanced professional standing

Recognised enhanced Self-evaluated enhancement

Strongly

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly

Disagree

Strongly Agree 16 1 0 0

Agree 0 22 0 0

Disagree 1 3 11 0

Strongly Disagree 0 3 2 2

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 confirm-

ing 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.

Table 11

Statistical tests for Hypothesis 6 from questionnaires

Null hypothesis

No enhanced professional standing due to HRIS usage for strategic

decision making (self-assessment)


decision making—SME vs. large companies (self-assessment)


decision making ( perceived)


decision making—SME vs. large companies ( perceived)


decision making ( potential)


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 [4,21]. 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.

p-Value

<0.00001***—neutrals excluded

<0.0001***—neutrals included as disagreers

1.000—neutrals excluded

0.38—neutrals included as disagreers


<0.0001***—neutrals included as disagreers

1.000—neutrals excluded





Table 12

Statistical tests for Hypothesis 6 from data from interviews with senior executives

Null hypothesis p-Value (t-test) p-Value (binomial test)


decision making within company

0.22 0.23

No enhanced professional standing within the professions due to HRIS usage 0.03* 0.06

HRIS usage has not provided a value-add to the company 0.008** 0.04*

Increased use of MIS by HR professionals is consistent with that for other

professionals

0.20 0.29 [two-tailed test]

No enhanced professional standing for non-HR professionals due to MIS usage <0.001*** <0.001***

No enhanced professional standing of non-HR professionals relative to HR

professionals, due to MIS usage

0.02* <0.001***

* Significant at 0.05 level.** Significant at 0.01 level.


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.

Table 13

Summary of usage profile of HRIS supported strategic HR activities

HR activity Usage comparison—SME vs. large size

Planning No difference

Salary Advice Difference

Employment Benefits Difference

Industrial Relations No difference

Training and Assessment No difference

Recruitment Difference

Performance Management No difference

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 [22] and efficiency gains [11]. In

addition, it is likely that increased functionality and

flexibility in HRIS coupled with decreased costs [33], 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

d companies Company size Level of use

SME Medium level of use

Large Medium level of use

SME Medium level of use

Large Overall high level of use

SME Overall low level of use



Large Overall low level of use






Large Overall low level of use


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 [9] and Thaler-Carter [29],

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. Notwith-

standing 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 profes-

sionals, 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.


Appendix A. The role of human resource information systems (HRIS) in supporting senior HR

management


Appendix B. Interview questions

Appendix C. Relationship between research

hypotheses and questions from questionnaire

Hypothesis Relevant questions Qualifying questions

Hypothesis 1
8 2, 9, 10
Hypothesis 2
14 2, 9
Hypothesis 3
12 2, 9
Hypothesis 4
15 2, 9
Hypothesis 5
5 1, 2, 9, 11
Hypothesis 6
16, 17 9
References

[1] K. Ball, The use of human resource management systems: a

survey, Personnel Review 30 (6), 2000, pp. 677–693.

[2] W. Brockbank, If HR were really strategically proactive: present

and future directions in HR’s contribution to competitive advan-

tage, Human Resource Management 38 (4), 1999, pp. 337–

352.

[3] R. Broderick, J.W. Boudreau, Human resource management,

information technology and the competitive advantage, Acad-

emy of Management Executive 6 (2), 1992, pp. 7–17.


[4] R. Caldwell, Champions, adaptors, consultants and synergists:

the new change agents in HRM, Human Resource Management

Journal 11 (3), 2001, pp. 39–52.

[5] N.E. Cornelius, Human Resource Management: A Managerial

Perspective, second ed., Int. Thomson Business Press, London,

2000.

[6] M. Gallagher, Computers in Personnel Management, Heine-

mann, UK, 1986.

[7] C.R. Greer, Strategy and Human Resources: A General Manage-

rial Perspective, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1995.

[8] W.O. Hagood, L. Friedman, Using the balanced scorecard to

measure the performance of your HR information system,

Personnel Management 31 (4), 2002, pp. 543–557.

[9] V. Haines, A. Petit, Conditions for successful human resource

management information systems, Human Resource Manage-

ment 36 (2), 1997, pp. 261–275.

[10] K. Hoque, M. Noon, Counting angels: a comparison of personnel

and HR specialists, Human Resource Management Journal 11

(3), 2001, pp. 5–22.

[11] HR Focus, How two organisations are achieving HR value, HR

Focus 80 (12), 2003, pp. 7–11.

[12] HR Focus, How HRIS is transforming the workplace—and HR’s

role, HR Focus 81 (3), 2004, pp. 10–13.

[13] M.A. Huselid, The impact of HRM practices on turnover,

productivity and corporate performance, Academy of Manage-

ment Journal 38 (3), 1995, pp. 635–672.

[14] N.J. Kinnie, A.J. Arthurs, Personnel specialists’ advanced use of

information technology: evidence and explanations, Personnel

Review 25 (3), 1996, pp. 3–19.

[15] E.E. Lawler, S.A. Mohrman, HR as a strategic partner: what does

it take to make it happen? Human Resource Planning 26 (3),

2003, pp. 15–29.

[16] K. Legge, HRM: rhetoric, reality and hidden agendas, in: J.

Storey (Ed.), Human Resource Management: A Critical Text,

Routledge, London, 1995.

[17] S. Liff, Constructing HR information systems, Human Resource

Management Journal 7 (2), 1997, pp. 18–31.

[18] C. Mabey, G. Salaman, J. Storey, Human Resource Management:

A Strategic Introduction, second ed., Blackwell Business, USA,

2000.

[19] M.G. Martinsons, Benchmarking human resource information

systems in Canada and Hong Kong, Information & Management

26, 1994, pp. 305–316.

[20] M. Mayfield, J. Mayfield, S. Lunce, Human resource information

systems: a review and model development, Advances in Com-

petitiveness Research 11, 2003, pp. 139–151.

[21] J. Purcell, Personnel and human resource managers: power,

prestige and potential, Human Resource Management Journal

11 (3), 2001, pp. 3–4.

[22] B. Roberts, Calculating return on investment for HRIS, HR

Magazine 44 (13), 1999, pp. 122–128.

[23] R.S. Schuler, S.E. Jackson, J.J. Storey, HRM and its link with

strategic management, in: J. Storey (Ed.), Human Resource

Management: A Critical Text, second ed., Thomson Learning,

London, 2001.

[24] J. Storey, Developments in the Management of Human

Resources: An Analytical Review, Blackwell, Oxford, 1992.

[25] J. Storey, Human Resource Management: A Critical Text,

Routledge, London, 1995.

[26] J. Storey, Human resource management today: an assessment, in:

J. Storey (Ed.), Human Resource Management: A Critical Text,

second ed., Thomson Learning, London, 2001.

[27] Softworld Report, Human Resource Management Software,

Conspectus, PMP (UK) Ltd., 1996.

[28] Softworld Report, Human Resource Management Software,

Conspectus, PMP (UK) Ltd., 1997.

[29] R.E. Thaler-Carter, The HRIS in small companies: tips for

weighing the options, HR Magazine 43 (8), 1998, pp. 30–35.

[30] D. Ulrich, A. Geller, G. DeSouza, A strategy, structure, human

resource data base: OASIS, Human Resource Management 23

(1), 1984, pp. 77–90.

[31] D. Ulrich, Human Resource Champions: The Next Agenda for

Adding Value to HR Practices, Harvard Business School Press,

Boston, MA, 1997.

[32] Commission Recommendation Concerning the Definition of

Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, Commission of the Eur-

opean Community (C.E.C.), 1996.

[33] People and technology: is HR getting the best out of IT? Survey

Report, Chartered Institute of Personnel Development, 2004.

[34] The 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey: First Find-

ings, Routledge, 1999.

Zahid Hussain has a BA in management,

MSc in HRM, MSc in IS, MA in learning

and teaching and a PhD in MIS. He has a

research background in information sys-

tems development in the UK National

Health Service and has worked for several

private organisations as a technical consul-

tant. Currently, he is a lecturer in Informa-

tion Systems at the University of Bradford

where his research interests include the

application and development of MIS.

James Wallace has a BSc in theoretical

physics and mathematics, MSc in engineer-

ing, a PhD in statistics and is a Fellow of the

Royal Statistical Society (FRSS). He has

considerable experience of statistical and

mathematical modelling gained over sev-

eral years in the UK utilities sector and in

H.E. He is currently a lecturer in Quanti-

tative Methods at the University of Brad-

ford where his interests include, applying

statistical and mathematical approaches to IS, operational and general

management problems.

Nelarine E. Cornelius has a BSc in psy-

chology and zoology, an MBA and a PhD in

medical sciences. She is a Fellow of the

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Devel-

opment and a Fellow of the Royal Society

of Arts. She is also a chartered psychologist

with research and consultancy experience

in the areas of human resource management

and organisational psychology. Nelarine is

reader in human resource management and

organisational behaviour, and director of both the Centre for Research

in Emotion Work (CREW) and the Human Resource Management and

Organisational Behaviour and Employment Relations Research Group

at Brunel University. Her current research interests include: the career

paths of HRM executives, organisational change, and learning stra-

tegies and fairness and ethics at work.

the use and impact of human resource information...

Documents