Human Resource Information Systems: A Current Assessment · PDF fileHuman Resource Information Systems: A Current Assessment By: ... Year the HRIS Function was Formed ... HRIS Users

Human ResourceInformation Systems:A Current AssessmentBy: Gerardlne DeSanctis

Management Sciences DepartmentUniversity of Minnesota271 19th Avenue SouthMinneapolis, Minnesota

AbstractHuman resource information systems (HRIS) havebecome a major MIS subfunction within the per-sonnel areas of many large corporations. This ar-ticle traces the development of HRIS as an entityindependent of centralized MIS, assesses its cur-rent operation and technological base, and consid-ers its future role in the firm, especially its relation-ship to the centralized MIS function. The resultsof a survey of HRIS professionals from 171 U.S.corporations are described in order to provide anoverview of the current design, operation, and ef-fectiveness of HRIS. The findings of the survey arediscussed in terms of their implications for man-agement of human resource information systems.Keywords:Human resource information systems,

personnelACM Categories: A.0, H.4.2, J.0

IntroductionA key issue in the management of informa-tion systems in the 1980s is the growingsophistication of specialized information sys-tems within the traditional functional areas ofthe organization. The human resource infor-mation system (HRIS) is one such system,which in recent years has become critical tothe operation of the personnel departmentsof large companies, information systems inpersonnel have evolved from the automatedemployee recordkeeping of the 1960s intocomplex reporting and decision systems to-day. Although these systems may rely on cen-tralized hardware resources for their opera-tion, they increasingly are being managed,supported, and maintained by a small groupof IS specialists who [eside within the person-nel department and operate, in many ways, asa microcosmic MIS area.

The HRIS is designed to support the planning,administration, decision-making, and controlactivities of human resources management.Applications such as employee selection andplacement, payroll, pension and benefitsmanagement, intake and training projections,career pathing, equity monitoring, and pro-ductivity evaluation are supported by this in-formation system. The purpose of this articleis to present the status of HRiS, to trace itsdevelopment as an entity independent of cen-tralized MIS, to assess its current operation(budget, staffing, etc.) and technological base(hardware, software, etc.), and to project itsfuture role in the firm, especially its relation-ship to the centralized MIS function and tothe human resource department.

Historical OverviewThe earliest mechanized employee informa-tion systems appeared in the 1940s, andthrough the 1950s were run on sorting andtabulating equipment. In those days the com-puter system had a very limited purpose, con-cerned only with monitoring employee recordsand payroll activities. During the 1960s, per-sonnel departments took little part in thetechnological advances in computing thatwere occurring in the accounting and finan-

MIS Quarterly~March 1986 15

Human Resource Systems

cial areas. With the exception of some skillsinventory and screen testing applicationsdeveloped in the aerospace and defense in-dustries, payroll and basic employee record-keeping continued to be the only computer-based applications. These operations typical-ly were managed in a centralized DP depart-ment, and very few organizations had any sortof information system operated by the person-nel department. By 1971, however, approxi-mately 60% of the nation’s 150 largest banks,life insurance, and retailing companies hadoperational computer systems for human re-sources. And 40% of all Fortune 500 firmshad implemented such systems [1]. During the1970s, most organizations of more than a fewthousand employees developed some form ofpersonnel data system. The expansion ofcomputing in personnel was spurred by theJohnson and Nixon administrations’ legisla-tion on equal employment, benefits, and work-place conditions, and the resulting demandsfrom government agencies for information.Rapidly declining computer costs further en-couraged establishment of these systems.

Studies conducted since 1980 indicate that40% of all business firms have human re-source information systems. Interest in thesesystems is strong, with over 80% of thosewithout an HRIS reporting that they need one[7]. According to Zientara [16], nearly 80% ofall U.S. corporations with over 5000 employ-ees have a formally established HRIS with atleast one manager designated to oversee it.Most medium and large firms have data inputand retrieval specialists for HRIS. And in verylarge organizations the personnel area has itsown programmers and systems analysts. Bythe year 2000 nearly all major corporationsare expected to have an established HRISwith associated management and technicalstaffs [16]. Forces creating pressure for aspecialized IS within personnel today include:increased organizational size and complexity,continued physical dispersion of firms acrossgeographical areas, government regulationand reporting requirements for employees,and the overall increase in white collar workwhich demand a greater variety of skills forany given job [3, 13]. As in other functionalareas, the development of HRIS as a unitseparate from MIS has been made possible

by the availability of advanced mainframesoftware technology (such as packaged ap-plications, database management systems,query systems, and report generators), thedevelopment of fourth generation languagesand microcomputer systems, and ever-increasing sophistication with regard to com-puting on the part of functional area staff.

The Current StudyA 48-item survey, consisting of forced choiceand open-ended questions, was distributed to360 members of the Association of HumanResource System Professionals (HRSP, Inc.).All members were from different companieslocated throughout the U.S. One hundred andseventy-one usable forms were returned, a47.5% response rate. One hundred and sixty-one of the respondents had operational HRISsystems, while 10 were in the process ofdeveloping a system. All major industrieswere represented in the sample, includingmanufacturing, banking, insurance, trans-portation, communications, construction, re-tailing, education, and services. All of thefirms had sales volumes in excess of $2million, with the average sales level being$2.23 billion. The responding organizationsemployed an average of 16,884 people, withapproximately 144 employees in the person-nel or human resources area. The personnelareas within these firms were fairly sophis-ticated with regard to MIS. For example, theytypically were fairly heavy users of micro-computers, graphical and statistical soft-ware, and the corporate information center.

The typical respondent to the survey was a"manager of HRIS," but vice presidents,directors, and supervisors within personnel,and those in charge of compensation andbenefits, also completed the survey. Eightythree percent of the respondents wereresponsible for HRIS at the corporate level,while the remainder were at the divisionallevel of a larger corporation.

The survey focused on five areas related toHRIS: (1) management and organization the HRIS area, (2) functions and applications,(3) HRIS operations, (4) interface with corpor-ate MIS, and (5) system effectiveness. Each

16 MIS Quarterly~March 1986


Table 1. Year the HRIS Function was Formed

Year Number of Firms Percent1963-1969 5 3.31970-1975 26 17.4197~1979 48 32.21980-1981 39 26.2

1982-present 31 20.9149 100.0

these topics is now considered in light of thecurrent study as well as prior research results.

Management and OrganizationHRIS as a function is rather new, with very fewfirms developing systems prior to 1975. Theaverage date for initiating system develop-ment in the firms surveyed was 1978, but manydid not develop systems until after 1980 (seeTable 1). In the overwhelming majority of com-panies the HRIS function is located within thepersonnel department. The survey results in-dicate a total of only 10 firms with the func-tion located in MIS or splitting support be-tween the two areas.

The maturity of HRIS as an organizational unitis reflected, at least to some extent, in the sizeof its staff, the level of its management, andthe nature and extent of its responsibilities. Inthe firms surveyed, an average of 8.74 staff arededicated to the HRIS function, including onemanager, four programmers, and three special-ists or technicians. HRIS employees constitute1.4% of the total corporate workforce, and11% of all employees within the personnel

Table 2. Where Does

function. As shown in Table 2, the person incharge of HRIS typically reports to the head ofthe personnel area, although in over half of theresponding firms the function is housed undersome unit within, human resources, such ascompensation and benefits, labor relations,recruitment, or training. In 51.5% of the re-sponding firms the HRIS is responsible for allpersonnel data, not just that which is auto-mated; and in 21.6% of the firms the HRIS isresponsible for all payroll data as well.

The HRIS primarily services sub-areas withinthe personnel department, with compensation,benefits, and equal employment opportunities/affirmative action (EEO/AA) being the most fre-quent users of the system (see Figure 1).Human resource planning, recruiting, andtraining are less frequent users within person-nel -- perhaps reflecting greater use of thesystem for routine reporting than for decisionsupport. Of particular importance is the pres-ence of a sizable user group from outside ofthe functional area. In over 13% of the firmssurveyed, top management, line management,and staff management from outside of the per-sonnel department were ranked as the primary

the Head of HRIS Report?

Reporting LocationHead of PersonnelCompensation/BenefitsEmployee/Labor RelationsHuman Resource PlanningRecruitment and SelectionTraining and DevelopmentMISOther

* Four firms did not respond

Number of Firms Percent76 45.544 26.3

4 2.43 1.82 1.22 1.26 3.6

30 18.0167" 100.0

MIS Quarter/y/March 1986 17


Compensation

Benefits

EEO/AA

Line Management

Staff Management

Top Management

Labor Relations

HR Planning

Recruiting

Training

"~///////////~////////////////////////,~/////,J////~9.29

"///////////////////////,~,k’////////////~6.73

"~////////////////////,~,;’///////’,///j~ 6.24

~/////////.///////.~//~ 5.96¯ ,~ 5.96

,, , / / 5.84

~///////////~Y////////~/,~2"///~ 5.68

~ 5.41

Average Rank

Figure 1. HRIS Users by Rank

10 = Most Frequent1 = Least Frequent

users of the HRIS. Major responsibilities of theHRIS area included report production and dis-tribution, data accuracy, data security, andnew application development (see Table 3).

Several points are noteworthy in these results.First, although the HRIS has established in-dependence from corporate MIS, it has not yetmatured to be an independent entity within thepersonnel area in a large number of firms. Sec-ond, the HRIS has many of the same concernsas corporate MIS and, as such, takes on therole of an MIS subsystem located within hu-man resources. Finally, the presence of an in-

ternal technical staff and an external usergroup suggests that career pathing and usersupport are important HRIS managementissues.

Applications and FunctionsThe typical HRIS of today supports an hier-archy of managerial activities, ranging fromroutine reporting to unstructured decisionmaking (see Figure 2). The lowest applicationlevel supports internal and external reportingfunctions and relies on data relating to corn-

Teble 3. Responsibilities of the HRIS Function(171 Responding Firms)

ResponsibilityProduction and distribution of reportsAccuracy of dataSecurity of dataDevelopment of new applicationsCurrency/timeliness of dataData-entryPresentation of data to top managementOverall system designAcquisition of computer resourcesOther

Number of1401321311311179997884111

Firms Percent81.977.276.676.668.457.956.751.524.06.4

18 MIS Quarterly/March 1986


Figure 2. Example Data and Applications for Three Levels of HRIS

Data Applications

Planning

ManagerialDecisionSupport

Operations/RecordKeeping

Economic trendsIndustry forecastsManpower demand forecasts

Training ProjectsManpower planningPension fund investments

Employee background andexperiences

Performance evaluationand rewards

Skills inventory

RecruitingEmployee selectionEmployee placementEmployee promotionAssignments matching

Benefits programsCompensation programsInsurance programsEmployee demographicsPosition descriptions

Internal ReportingAbsentee ratesHuman resources accountingProductivity assessments

External ReportingEquity monitoringVacancy reportingHealth & safety reporting

pensation, benefits, and insurance programs,as well as employee records and position in-formation. At the next level, employee back-ground data, performance evaluations andskills inventories are used to support deci-sion making activities relating to employeeselection, placement, and promotion. Finally,economic and industry data, as well as man-power demand forecasts, can be used to sup-port decision making related to training, pen-sion fund investment, and other manpowerplanning applications.

As the data in Figure 3 indicate, the standardreporting function is the most frequently usedHRIS facility, followed by ad hoc database re-trieval, personnel administration, and govern-ment reporting. Historical data analysis, plan-ning, forecasting, and productivity measure-ment are used less frequently, but neverthe-less are important functions. These resultsare consistent with several prior studies ofpersonnel information systems [5, 7], as wellas with patterns of usage noted for MIS sys-terns in general [2].

The typical HRIS system contains between 4and 5 application modules. Compensation

and equity monitoring (EEO/AA) are the mostfrequently available applications, followed bybenefits administration, applicant flow, andhuman resource control. Applications whichsupport training and development, recruitingand selection, and monitoring of employee at-tendance are present in approximately 25 to30 percent of all firms. HRIS applicationswhich support workers compensation, andcollective bargaining are present in relativelyfew firms (see Table 4).

OperationsDevelopment and operation of the HRIS con-stitutes a significant corporate investment.The current survey indicates an average of15.3 months devoted to system development,with a nonhardware installation cost of$411,000 for the system. The average annualbudget is approximately $271,000.

The vast majority of systems and operate onmainframes, although minicomputers andmicrocomputers are used as well (see Figure4). Consistent with prior results, the current

MIS Quarterly/March 1986 19

HumanResource Systems

Standard Reporting

Database Retrieval

HR Administration

Government Reporting

Planning

Assessing HR Policies

Assessing HR Productivity

~ 6.32

~ 5.87

~ 5.5

~ 4.78

~ 3.74

~ 3.36

3.04

Average Rank

Figure 3. HRIS User by Rank

study found 60% of HRIS to be package-based [4, 12]. The remaining 40% have beendeveloped in-house or combine packaged pro-gramming with in-house development. Theredoes not appear to be an industry standard.Although one package was reported to beused by 32 of the firms surveyed, 23 otherpackages were mentioned by at least onefirm in the sample. Nearly all companies havesome sort of retrieval language in the HRISsystem. However, databases and fourth gen-eration languages are just beginning to beused and there are no standards across syso

7 = Most Frequent1 = Least Frequent

tems. Among respondent organizations in thecurrent study, 42.2% have no database forHRIS, and only 11.6% have a fourth genera-tion language.

In 25% of all firms the HRIS is a stand-alonesystem. However, in most companies theHRIS is linked to at least one other informa-tion system, with payroll being the most fre-quently interfaced application. The HRIS up-dates payroll in 25.5% of firms; in 19.6% offirms the payroll system updates HRIS; and in19.3% of all companies the HRIS and payroll

Table 4. Application Modules in the HRIS(171 Responding Firms)

ApplicationCompensation administrationEquity monitoring (EEO/AA)Benefits administrationApplicant flowHuman resource controlPosition controlTraining and developmentRecruiting and selectionEmployee attendanceSafety/workers compensationCollective bargaining

Number of1341281186461565045432315

Firms Percent78.474.869.037.435.732.729.226.325.113.48.8

20 MIS Quarterly/March 1986


Mainframe

~~~/ Microcomputer 9.9%

Minicomputer 7.8%

Figure 4. Primary Hardware Environment for HRIS

systems are "fully integrated." The HRIS islinked to a computerized benefits system in24% of firms, to the general ledger in 20% ofcompanies, and to external databases in9.3% of firms.

An important characteristic of HRIS opera-tions is their dynamic nature. Updates aremade continuously in 25% of all companies;in over 42% of firms the system is updateddaily or weekly; and updates occur at leastmonthly in nearly all firms. Employee turnover,changes in compensation programs, changesin government reporting requirements andthe like all operate to make the HRIS a highlydynamic system in need of frequent updating,maintenance, and enhancement. Sixty-twopercent of the survey respondents indicatedthat they were considering or were in the pro-cess of a sizeable upgrade of the HRIS.

The managerial concerns of HRIS appear tobe similar to those of management informa-tion systems in general. When asked in open-ended questions to indicate the "long-termdirection for HRIS" in their companies,respondents indicated that resources wouldbe directed toward maintaining and enhanc-

ing software, improving organization andmanagement of the HRIS area, developingnew applications, improving data manage-ment, and purchasing new hardware (seeTable 5).

Interface With Corporate MISIn the past the HRIS was highly dependent onthe MIS area to meet its responsibilities; forexample, MIS technical staff frequentlydeveloped and maintained the HRIS. However,in recent years the personnel department hastaken on greater responsibility for traditionaldata processing activities, including systemsdevelopment and enhancement, and manage-ment of hardware and software. At the sametime a shift is occurring in the background ofthe HRIS manager. In the past most HRISmanagers had DP training. Today greaternumbers of HRIS managers come from per-sonnel backgrounds [16].

As indicated earlier, the HRIS has little or noformal relationship to the MIS area in mostfirms. However, the HRIS must continue tocoordinate with MIS and other functional-

Table 5. Future Resource Allocation Within HRIS(161" Responding Firms)

Area of EmphasisMaintaining and enhancing softwareImproving management of the HRIS areaDeveloping new applicationsImproving data managementPurchasing new hardwareImproving user service and support

*Ten firms did not respond

Number of Firms Percent83 51.570 43.552 32.320 12.417 10.616 9.9

MIS Quarterly/March 1986 21


area information systems. For example, theHRIS manager is expected to serve as a liai-son between the personnel and MIS depart-ments and to be responsible for education ofuser management throughout the company[16]. In addition, the MIS area plays an ad-visory role in HRIS and must coordinate plan-ning of systems design and enhancementsacross all functional areas.

Although not addressed in the current survey,prior research indicates that accomplishingsmooth relationships between human resour-ces and MIS can be difficult, with as many as82% of firms characterizing relations be-tween the two groups as "poor" [11, 12]. Onestudy found that the DP area was not evenviewed as a "valuable resource" by HRISmanagers [12]. Part of the problem has beenlack of agreement between MIS and the humanresource area about what the objectives of apersonnel information system should be.Specific plans for the system have frequentlydiffered between these two departments.

A related issue is that planning for informa-tion systems within the personnel depart-ment has often been weak or nonexistent,with application development (includingpackage selection) occurring in a haphazard,disjointed manner [8, 12]. The current surveyindicated that 33% of firms do not coordinatepersonnel department plans with corporatestrategic plans. Lack of planning from theoverall organizational level to the departmentlevel makes coordination of plans betweenMIS and the HRIS area difficult to achieve.

System EffectivenessVery little research has been devoted to ex-amining the effectiveness of information sys-tems within the human resources function.Consequently, overall satisfaction with thesesystems and their impact on personnel-related decision making is not clear. A 1971survey of 233 personnel executives found that32% did not perceive any improvement in thequality of service of the department followinginstallation of a computer-based informationsystem [6]. A later study reported that develop-ment of a computer-based system within thepersonnel department led to fewer decision

errors and greater perceived status of thehuman resource area by organizational man-agers [15]. Other survey-based research hasfound HRIS success to be unrelated to thedollar amount of the initial investment in thesystem [8, 9, 10] and positively related to thetotal number of employees in the firm [6, 15].

In the only experimental field study reportedin the literature, Wilkens [14] compared em-ployee attitudes in two plants of a largemanufacturing firm, one of which had imple-mented a HRIS for compiling informationconcerning worker job satisfaction, humanresource investments (e.g., salaries, trainingcosts), and cost factors (e.g., absenteeism,turnover). Implementation of the system wasfound to have had a positive effect on em-ployee perceptions of job satisfaction, ad-vancement opportunities, and job recognition.

In the current survey we asked the respond-¯ ents to rate their perceptions of the extent towhich "top management values the HRIS,"and the extent to which "the personnel divi-sion collectively values the HRIS." Thesemeasures may be biased in the positive direc-tion, given that HRIS professionals were do-ing the ratings. Nevertheless, the results in-dicate that the systems are highly valued,especially within the personnel department(see Figure 5). In an effort to discover factorsrelating to HRIS success, the ratings of satis-faction for top management and the person-nel department were tested for the presenceof statistically significant relationships toother items on the survey. In the case of itemswhich were measured on a continuous scale(such as HRIS budget dollars or number ofemployees), a pearson correlation coefficientwas calculated. For items which were mea-sured in categories (such as presence vs.absence of HRIS planning, or high vs. low vs.no user involvement .during system develop-ment), a chi square statistic was calc(Jlated, ifthe probability associated with observing thecorrelation or chi square was less than 5 per-cent, the item was considered to be meaning-fully related to HRIS satisfaction.

The results of this analysis are summarized inTables 6a and 6b. Perceived satisfaction withthe HRIS on the part of the personnel depart-ment was found to be related to the total



Highly Valued

Somewhat Valued

indifferent

Negatively Valued

Unaware of HRIS

Top Management

Personnel Management

0 10 20 30 40Percent of Respondents

Figure 5. Perceived Value of the HRIS

number or HRIS responsibilities and user in-volvement during systems development. Thegreater the number of HRIS responsiblities,or the more users were involved in systemsdevelopment, the greater the satisfactionwith the HRIS. With regard to top manage-ment satisfaction, three factors related mean-ingfully to this variable: the length of timespent on HRIS development; the total numberof applications comprising the HRIS; andwhether or not the human resource plan wasintegrated with the corporate strategic plan.These findings suggest that the larger theorganizational investment in the HRIS (in

terms of time and involvement), and thegreater the extent of the system’s influence(in terms of responsibilities and applications),the more value it has to the organization.

Implications for Managementof HRISThe development of computer-based applica-tions which cater to the needs of human re-sources is not a new phenomenon. What isnew is the shift in responsibility for these sys-tems, away from the corporate MIS area and

Table 6a.Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Relationship Between

Predictor Variables and HRIS Satisfaction

VariableTotal corporate salesNumber of corporate employeesNumber of personnel employeesNumber of HRIS employeesNumber of employee records on the

HRIS systemMonths to develop the HRISHRIS budgetNumber of HRIS responsibilitiesNumber of HRIS applications

* p. < .05

HRIS SatisfactionPersonnel Management Top Management

.03 .06.08 .004.06 .14.004 ,11

.10 .10

.04 .19"

.005 .11

.19" .08

.09 .13"



Table 6b.Chl Square Values for Relationship Between

Predictor Variables end HRIS Satisfaction

VariablePackaged vs. in-house softwareType of retrievel languageLocation of HRIS functionHigh vs. low vs. no user involvement

during system developmentHRIS plan integrated vs. not integrated

with corporate plans

* p. < .05

HRIS SatisfactionPersonnel Management Top Management

,19 2.27,002 .64,013 .35

4.65* 1.28

.006 9.99*

toward the personnel department. Increasedresponsibility for HRIS on the part of the func-tional area is certainly a welcomed trend.However, several key issues regarding themanagement of HRIS are arising, which thepresent study has served to highlight.

Location of HRISThere is no established "best" way in whichto organize the HRIS within the personnelarea. However, the survey results do suggesta few guidelines. On the one hand, housingthe HRIS function within the compensation/benefits area seems appropriate; compensa-tion and benefits administration are heavyusers of the system, and application pro-grams in these areas are often linked to theHRIS. As a general rule, there appears to beno good reason to locate HRIS in any othersub-area of the personnel department. Fromanother perspective, treating HRIS as a separ-ate function within the functional area is themost appropriate alternative. HRIS applica-tions are gradually expanding to supportareas other than compensation and benefits,such as recruiting, placement, and training. IfHRIS is independent of any one sub-areawithin personnel, it will be better able to sup-port the activities of the entire department.

HRIS responsibilitiesThe current study indicates that greateramounts of responsibility are associated witha more valued HRIS. However, an unresolvedissue is whether the personnel area should beresponsible for a//aspects of the information

system, including hardware, software, sys-tems development, services and support.There are the obvious problems of duplicationof effort associated with decentralization ofall DP responsibilities, as well as resultingcoordination and control problems betweenMIS and HRIS. Perhaps some responsibilitiesshould be retained by corporate MIS, orshared by MIS and human resources. HRISand MIS managers should consider the impli-cations of the trend toward increasing in-dependence of HRIS from MIS for their par-ticular organizations.

Skills of HRIS staffEffective management and operation of theHRIS requires knowledge of the applicationarea as well as DP skills. One potential prob-lem is the lack of technical training and ex-perience in information management on thepart of HRIS management. Finding managerswith competencies in both DP and the ap-plication area is difficult, particularly in thepersonnel area which does not have a longhistory of using computer-based systems.Training tends to lag need. Training programsin HRIS at universities are just now forming,yet the systems have been around for nearly 8years. As a result, human resource managerstypically have no training in data processing,and data processing managers have no knowl-edge of human resource applications. Develop-ment of staff who have a blending of skills inthese areas takes time. A commitment on thepart of organizations to develop the skills oftheir HRIS management is needed.

24 MIS Quarter/y/March 1986


Coordination of functional-areainformation systemsAs noted in this study, the HRIS may inter-face with one or more information systemslocated in other functional areas. For exam-ple, the HRIS is often linked to the payroll sys-tem, which in turn links to the general ledgeror other application programs located in theaccounting area of the firm. If each functionalarea becomes responsible for its own infor-mation system, how will smooth interfacingof systems be assured? An obvious alterna-tive is for corporate MIS to manage system in-tegration. However, determining which area(MIS or human resources) has primary re-sponsibility and authority when the system isupgraded or changed presents a difficultywhich has yet to be resolved in many organiza-tions. The problem becomes exacerbated ifrelationships between the MIS and personnelareas are not good. Policies and plans whichclearly address the overlap of systems acrossfunctional areas must be formulated.

User serviceRelated to the problem of coordination is theissue of servicing HRIS users who are locatedoutside of the personnel department. For ex-ample, the HRIS is used by line and staffmanagement throughout the organization.Yet these systems are often custom designedfor the personnel area -- where the manage-ment staff and largest group of users reside.Potential exists for the system to become iso-lated and unusable outside of the area if alldecision-making regarding enhancements andsupport occur within the personnel depart-ment. HRIS management must make an effortto assure good service to the user communi-ties which their information system supports.

HRIS planningThe process of planning for information sys-tems within organizations is becoming in-creasingly complex, and the development offunctional-area information systems such asHRIS, is one factor contributing to this trend.Planning is best conducted in a top-downmanner, with HRIS plans being coordinatedwith plans of the personnel department andthe organization’s strategic plans. Results ofthis study suggest that personnel planning is

not coordinated with corporate planning in alarge number of firms. Yet, where it does oc-cur, satisfaction with the HRIS at the topmanagement level appears to be high. The im-plication is that greater effort must bedevoted first to coordinating personnel de-partment plans with strategic plans; second,to coordinating HRIS plans with personneldepartment plans; and finally, to coordinatingHRIS plans with the overall MIS plans in thecompany.

ConclusionInformation systems within the personnelarea are reaching a critical point in theirevolution. Annual budgets for HRIS areestimated to be growing by 42.8% annually[4], and the HRIS is developing increasing in-dependence from the MIS area and otherunits within the personnel department. Asthese systems grow in technical sophistica-tion and expand their influence on human re-source decision making, critical issues con-cerning the management of HRIS must be ad-dressed. These issues include: definition ofHRIS objectives, developing effective strate-gies for servicing the needs of various usergroups, and coordination of planning with thepersonnel and MIS areas of the firm. Securityand privacy concerns associated with em-ployee record keeping, interfacing with infor-mation systems in other functional areas,career pathing for HRIS employees, and lackof cooperative relationships between humanresource and MIS staff are additional prob-lems confronting the organizations.

Results of the current survey indicate thatorganizations are keenly interested in devot-ing resources to improving management ofHRIS. However, achieving "success" in thedevelopment and operation of the HRIS willbe a complex undertaking since not onlymust the issues listed above be resolved, buttop management, personnel managementand MIS management all differ in their viewsof the role of HRIS and the meaning of HRISeffectiveness. Perhaps this issue is one thatcannot be resolved, but there should be recog-nition of the problem prior to allocation ofresources.



The management issues, associated withHRIS may also be encountered in other func-tional areas of the organization where infor-mation systems are developing independencefrom the corporate MIS area. Management offunctional-area information systems in gen-eral may involved activities such as deter-mining where to locate the information sys-tem in the department, distinguishing the re-sponsibilities of MIS from the functional-areaIS, recruiting and promoting staff with skillsin DP and the application area, servicing usergroups from within and outside the particulardepartment, and developing methods to as-sure coordination of plans among strategicmanagement, the functional area, and theMIS department. We can anticipate that man-agement of information systems in organiza-tions will become increasingly complex asfunctional-area information systems such asHRIS continue to evolve.

AcknowledgementThis project was supported, in part, by DaytonHudson Corporation, Minneapolis, Minnesota.The contribution of Ms. Jill Akre is gratefullyacknowledged.

References[1] Cheek, L. "Personal Computer Systems:

Solutions in Search of a Problem," Busi-ness Horizons, Volume 14, Number 4,August 1971, pp. 69-76.

[2] Davis, G.B. and Olson, M. ManagementInformation Systems: Conceptual Foun-dations, 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York,New York, 1984.

[3] Hennessey, H.W., Jr. "Computer Applica-tions in Human Resource Information Sys-tems," Human Resource Planning, Vol-ume 2, Number 4, 1979, pp. 205-213.

[4] Magnus, M. and Grossman, M. "Compu-ters and the Personnel Department," Per-sonnel Journal, Volume 64, Number 4,March 1985, pp. 42-48.

[5] Mathys, N. and LaVan, H. "A Survey ofthe Human Resource Information Sys-tems (HRIS) of Major Companies,"Human Resource Planning, Volume 5,Number 2, 1982, pp. 83-90.

[6] Mayer, S.J. "EDP Personnel Systems:What Areas Are Being Automated," Per-sonnel, Volume 48, Number 4, July-August1971, pp. 29-36.

[7] Richards-Carpenter, C. "Computers inPersonnel -- New Needs, New Methods,New Opportunities," Personnel Manage-ment, Volume 14, Number 5, May 1982,pp. 26-30.

[8] Tomeski, E.A. and Lazarus, H. "Informa-tion Systems in Personnel: Part I," Jour-nal of Systems Management, Volume 24,Number 8, August 1973(a), pp. 18-21.

[9] Tomeski, E.A. and Lazarus, H. "lnforma-tion Systems in Personnel: Part I1," Jour.nal of Systems Management, Volume 24,Number 8, September 1973(b), pp. 39-42.

[10]Tomeski, E.A. and Lazarus, H. "Compu-terized Information Systems in Personnel-- A Comparative Analysis of the State ofthe Art in Government and Business,"Academy of Management Journal, Volume17, Number 1, March 1974, pp. 168-172.

[11]Tomeski, E.A., Yoon, B.M. and Stephen-son, G. "Computer-Related Challengesfor Personnel Administrators," PersonnelJournal Volume 55, Number 6, June1976, pp. 300-302.

[12]Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby, Inc."Summary: Human Resource InformationSystem User Survey," Unpublishedmanuscript, 1980.

[13]Walker, A.J. HRIS Development: A Pro-ject Guide to Building an Effective Per-sonnel Information System. Van NostrandReinhold Publishing Co., New York, NewYork, 1982.

[14]Wilkens, P.L. "An Analysis of the Attitu-dinal and Behavioral Impact of a HumanResource Information System," Unpub-lished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio StateUniversity, Columbus Ohio, 1971.

[15]Wolfe, M.N. "Computerization: It CanBring Sophistication Into Personnel,"Personnel Journal, Volume 57, Number 6,June 1978, pp. 325-326.

[16]Zientara, M. "New Job Links DP, Person-nel Management," Computerworld, Vol-ume 17, Number 9, February 28, 1983, p. 8.



About the AuthorGerardlne DeSanctis is Assistant Professorof Management Information Systems at theUniversity of Minnesota. She obtained a doc-torate in business administration from TexasTech University, Her research interests are inMiS implementation, decision support, andhuman resource issues related to informationsystems. Published work on these topics ap-pears in Communications of the ACM, Data-mation, Decision Sciences, Information andManagement, and the MIS Quarterly. She hasworked in the data processing departmentsof several firms and has served as an industryconsultant.


Documents

Human Resource Information Systems: A Current Assessment · PDF fileHuman Resource Information Systems: A Current Assessment By: ... Year the HRIS Function was Formed ... HRIS Users