View
220
Download
1
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
HR Technology Survey
April 2016
3Pulse survey HR technology April 2016 |
Table of content
1 Introduction 4
2 About this survey 5
3 Results 8
3.1 Today’s HR Technology landscape 8
3.2 Penetration of HR systems concepts 11
3.3 Initiatives and changes in HR systems 14
3.4 HR technology spending 16
4 Conclusion 17
5 Contact 18
6 About our services 19
| Pulse survey HR technology April 20164
1. Introduction
Every organization is special in its own way, facing unique
challenges and business drivers. Especially for complex global
companies this means that no single talent or people
management approach can be applied to all of them.
However, in terms of challenges they still share a lot of
common ground. Through our research and client work we
see global organizations struggle with the following generic
challenges while managing their international workforce:
► Stimulate employee engagement
► Keep people and HR costs at a competitive level
► Maintain legal and regulatory compliance
Nowadays technology plays a crucial part in addressing and
tackling these challenges. By using HR software and
applications, organizations are for instance able to influence
and increase the engagement of its (global) workforce, while
also providing a better view of the composition of their
organization’s talent pool. Furthermore, by using the right
technology, HR costs can be decreased while providing better
insights in terms of HR costs management. Moreover
technology can also facilitate regulatory compliancy, as it can
help organizations to navigate its workforce administration
through an array of (employment) laws and regulations
across the globe.
Only ten years ago, HR systems were mainly designed to
increase the data quality and the efficiency of transactional
HR tasks. The initial aim of these HR systems was to move
from the more error sensitive paper-based core
administration process to a smoother electronic process.
Ever since this move the focus within HR has been
continuously shifting from a more ‘administrative’ role to
being a more comprehensive business partner.
Since that time more processes have been added to the HR
systems landscape, such as learning, recruitment and
performance management. At the same time legacy HR
systems were largely situated on premise and maintained by
the internal IT department of the organization. Over time
many organizations have modified their HR system(s) by
adding specific functionality or by adjusting the software in
such a way that it has a better fit with the (changing) talent
processes and needs in the organization. For many
organizations this has resulted in a complex HR technology
landscape with systems that are often difficult to upgrade and
expensive to maintain. For many HR departments this means
that it is not easy to adopt to new circumstances.
From the perspective of the HR system(s) in place, this new
role demands an increasing amount of requirements from the
software, e.g. ESS / MSS functionality and having HR-related
information available at the fingertips anytime, anywhere and
on an device.
Furthermore disruptive technologies such as Cloud, Mobile
and Big Data have also emerged. With more new technology
entering the HR-systems landscape, this has resulted (and will
further result) in major changes in the landscape and the way
HR technology is being used.
With this survey we have investigated the relation between
specific characteristics of multinational organizations and
their changing needs with regard to the management of the
global workforce on one side. While taking into account the
strategic direction and initiatives they undertake with regard
to their global HR organization, processes, systems and
software on the other. Therefore, with this report we would
like to inform you about the current transformation that is
taking place in the (global) HR technology landcape by
shedding light on several trends in the field of HR technology,
while focusing on specific characteristics and initiatives of
multinational organizations.
5Pulse survey HR technology April 2016 |
2. About this survey
For this survey we asked a group of HR professionals
at large organizations with native presence in the Benelux for
their insights in the field of HR technology. We provided these
HR professionals with an invitation to an electronic survey
containing 23 questions. The answers were collected and
processed early 2016.
The majority of the HR professionals which participated in
this survey are employed by multinational/global
organizations and either had knowledge about, or were
responsible for their organization’s policy or strategy in terms
of HR technology. The typical respondent is at the
intersection of HR and IT and has oversight of HR
technologies which are currently used in their organization
and the HR technologies that are planned. The following
graph displays how the participating organizations are
distributed in terms of headcount.
Figure 1: Participants in terms of organization size
The majority of the participants work in a global/
multinational organization with 15,000 or more employees.
The participating organizations represent seven different
industries, ranging from consumer goods and retail
organizations (e.g. supermarkets and department stores) to
transportation and automotive organizations (e.g. postal and
courier services). In this study the largest representation of
organizations is in the energy and/or oil and gas industry (e.g.
utility providers of electricity and or gas; 24%) or financial
services (e.g. banks or insurance companies; 24%).
Figure 2: Participants per industry
In order to get a more comprehensive view of the
participating organizations, we wanted to know more about
the structure of the organization. As globally operating
organizations are often complex across many dimensions, we
characterized the participating organizations using an
approach that recognizes the differences in:
1) Organization/HR structure (Global, Multinational,
International, National)
2) Strategy focus (ranging from Global to Local)
3) HR technology landscape (from Enterprise
technology to custom in-house built tooling)
4%
12%
18%
6%
24%
24%
12%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Other
Transportation and automotive
Professional and Business Services
HighTechnology/Telecommunications
Financial Services
Energy and/or Oil and Gas
Consumer Goods/Retail
58%
6%
18%
18%
0% 20% 40% 60%
15,000 + employees
10,000 - 15,000 employees
5,000 - 10,000 employees
0 - 5,000 employees
| Pulse survey HR technology April 20166
Although the majority of the respondents described their
organization as being global (figure 3), only 5% of the
participants characterized the structure of their HR function
as one single integrated function for the entire (global)
organization. This discrepancy shows that although the
majority characterizes their organization as global, the HR
function of many of the participating organizations is still
decentralized. Since we found that the majority of the
participants has a separate HR function (either by business
unit or geography) with a reporting line to the corporate HR
function (47%) or as a separate HR function with a reporting
line to the management of the business unit/geography (47%).
Figure 4: HR system and vendor strategy
We asked our respondents to characterize their organization
in terms of the geographic focus of their operations. Of the
respondents, 53% characterized their organization as being
global, with one global HQ and multiple sites/operations
around the world. 29% characterized their organization as
multinational, having their operations primarily on one
continent.
Figure 3: Geographic characterization
53 %
Global — Organization with multiple
sites/operations around the world
29 %
Multinational —Organization
sites/operations primarily on one continent
12 %
International —Organization with
sites/operations on 2-3 continents
6 %
National —Operations are
primarily located in just one country
47%
47%
5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Separate HR function with areporting line to the corporate HR
function
Separate HR function with areporting line to the management
of the business unit/geography
Single integrated HR function forentire organization
| Pulse survey HR technology April 2016 7
| Pulse survey HR technology April 20168
3. Results
The key results of the survey will be discussed and analyzed in
this section. Additionally we will compare the results from this
survey with research which has been done by others and look
for similarities or discrepancies.
3.1 Today’s HR Technology landscape
The results of our survey indicate that based upon the survey
we provided there is no real majority in terms of how the
participating organizations have currently set up their
technology landscape.
Figure 5: HR Technology landscape
The results show that 25% of the organizations have a single
solution approach by incorporating HR solutions in business
wide enterprise technology. On the other hand 20% of the
respondents indicated a different focus by automating their
HR processes in multiple systems which each have the best
functionalities in the market (best-of-breed). Think of
separate technology such as mobile Apps for declaring
expenses, performance management or specifically developed
tools for strategic workforce planning and workforce
analytics.
30%
20%
25%
25%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Custom / in-house developedtools
Best functionalities in the market(Best-of-breed technology)
One HR system (HR Enterprisetechnology)
One system used for entireorganization (Business wide
Enterprise technology)
9Pulse survey HR technology April 2016 |
30% of the participating organizations develop custom/in-
house HR tools. In our practice we experience that
organizations which have custom/in-house developed
applications sometimes struggle to keep up with the rapid
changes in processes and technology. In case of changing
needs, the IT solution needs to be updated in order to support
these changes.
On the other hand the environment itself is also changing, e.g.
HR departments are now looking for options to provide data to
the organization via mobile devices and it may be difficult and
costly for the IT department to keep up with these constant
changes. This could be a driver for organizations to shift to
commercially available HR software, because the vendors will
take care for these changes in both processes and technology.
In many organizations the IT department plays an important
role in the HR technology landscape and system strategy,
leaving the choice for a certain HR solution not only up to HR.
The IT department may have other or additional requirements
which also influence the HR (system) strategy more or less
directly. These requirements can for example be the ‘fit’ of the
HR solution with other business applications (including non
HR) or security or maintenance aspects of the solution. Next
to this there is also a financial aspect which influences the
choice for a certain solution. A traditional on premise solution
requires an investment in both hardware and in software
licenses which has an impact on the organization’s capital
expenditures. A SaaS solution, which primarily requires
recurring fees based on a usage, is considered as an
operational expenditure and minimizes the cost for initial
investment.
| Pulse survey HR technology April 201610
Another important dimension of the HR technology landscape
is the ‘global’ versus ‘local’ aspect. Therefore we wanted to
know what HR system and vendor strategy each organization
pursued.
Of the participating organizations 35% is currently running or
implementing a global HR system and only use HR technology
from other vendors by exception. This is for example the case
when the global HR system does not support certain local
specific regulation.
Figure 6: HR system and vendor strategy
35 %
Run a global system/vendor and only use other systems
on exception
24 %
Makes an effort to use a single system/vendor
within a region
24 %
Makes an effort to use a single system/vendor
within a country
6 %
Allow each location to determine its system/
vendor sourcing strategy
Nearly 50% makes an effort to use a single system/vendor
within a region or country, whereas 6% of the participants
indicate that each location is able to independently determine
its system/vendor strategy. The remaining 12% of the
participants indicate that they have a different HR system and
vendor strategy.
These findings correspond with the findings on the structure
of the HR function. The majority of the participants described
their organization as one with a separate HR function (either
by business unit or by geography). Due to this decentralized
approach and separate HR function, 54% of the organizations
are able to decentrally determine which HR systems they want
to use.
11Pulse survey HR technology April 2016 |
Next to the systems HR is using to support their core
processes, they also use specific technology such as portals
and other self-service tools to manage their HR operations and
communications. Although functionalities may vary, these
often include ticketing systems for HR help desks, knowledge
management, lifecycle tools and content delivery via manager
and employee self-service portals. This area of service delivery
tools and manager/ employee self-service will continue to
evolve over the next few years. Where expansion is triggered
even more by the use of mobile technology and the increasing
need to keep up with the employees’ expectations with regard
to constant access to information. Organizations with the right
focus and technology adoption are able to achieve a higher
level of service delivery and are generally able to realize a
reduction of HR administrative roles2.
Of the participating organizations 75% utilize a self-service
portal for both employees and managers. Several reasons
were given for deploying a self-service portal: promoting
employee/manager self-service (30%), one stop shop for
access to all HR systems (23%), cost reduction (23%),
information sharing and knowledge management (17%). ‘Other
reasons’ such as enabling and empowering both managers and
employees and improving efficiency accounted for 7% of the
answers. Of those organizations that do not have an employee
and management self-service portal in place yet, 19% is
currently working to develop one and 6% of the organizations
has no plans to develop a self-service portal.
Alike SaaS, a large part of the reasons for not implementing a
portal is that the organization is not ready for it yet, as some
participants indicated being preoccupied with other HR
technology transformations (e.g. implementation of global
SaaS platform or setting up an HR SSC). We however believe
that self-service concepts should be integrated into these
initiatives too.
3.2 Penetration of HR systems concepts
In the past couple of years we have seen that the concept of
Software as a Service (SaaS) has become quite common
within HR systems. Contrary to on premise, in a full SaaS
solution the HR system is hosted centrally in the cloud by the
vendor. It is also possible that vendors offer their solution
both in a SaaS concept as well as in an on premise solution, a
so-called hybrid Cloud.
The adoption of SaaS within HR is quite high, as 76% of the
participating organizations already utilize some form of an HR
SaaS solution. But although the Cloud is the strategic
direction for the majority of the organizations, 24% of the
participants’ HR software also remains on premise.
In line with findings of other recent research1 the top
concerns of switching to SaaS are related to service and
support (25%). And with the press regularly reporting on data
leaks and Cloud hacking, the results also show an increase in
concerns about security and data privacy (14%). For this
research specifically, multiple respondents report
organization readiness as a main factor for not switching
(yet) from their current on premise solutions to SaaS.
Figure 7: Utilization of HR systems
Figure 8: Portal utilization and rationale
1Sierra-Cedar HR Systems Survey White Paper (2014–2015)2CedarCrestone Going Global with HR Technologies (2014)
Cloudsolution
76%
On premise
24%
7%
23%
17%
23%
30%
Reason deployment
6%
19%75%
Self-service portal
Yes, we have a self-service portal for employees and managers
No, and we have no plans to develop a self-service portal
No, but we are working to develop a self-service portal
Promote employee / manager self-service
One-stop shop for access to all HR systems
Information sharing / knowledge mgt
Cost reduction
Other
40%
20%
40%
Reason not to implement yet
Readiness organization
Our primary processes
Other
| Pulse survey HR technology April 201612
Figure 9: Setup primary delivery system
Talent management software helps organizations manage key
HR processes ranging from planning to sourcing, acquiring to
onboarding, learning, performing to rewarding and assessing
to developing. An integrated talent management suite often
includes all of these functionalities. Due to the integration, the
(same) data is used in different modules of the application.
When looking at the full spectrum of talent management
solutions in terms of functional areas, we asked our
respondents to identify their primary delivery system as being
manual/paper based, a custom/in-house developed tool, an
integrated talent management suite (enterprise technology)
or a best-of-breed application. In this survey we have
considered payroll and expat management as part of the
talent management spectrum.
Ever since integrated talent management suites emerged 5–6
years ago we have seen an adoption climb. The market for
talent management solutions continues to mature3 and the
adoption of both suites and best-of-breed solutions is growing.
We continue to see slight increases in adoption for all talent
management applications, with on average 79% of our
respondents indicating that they use some sort of technology
solution (custom, best-of-breed, or enterprise) for their talent
management processes. This result corresponds with other
research and predictions on integrated talent management
solutions4 with a 71% adoption rate.
27%
13%
20%
21%
7%
20%
21%
7%
27%
20%
40%
20%
14%
43%
20%
27%
29%
20%
7%
40%
13%
27%
29%
21%
40%
27%
29%
33%
13%
40%
13%
27%
21%
36%
33%
20%
21%
40%
27%
20%
7%
14%
7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Expat management
Payroll
Workforce planning / analytics
Succession planning and retention
Career development / planning
Learning management and training
Performance management (goalsetting, assessment)
Compensation & Benefits
Onboarding/Joiner administration
Recruiting/Staffing
Manual / paper based Custom / In-house developed tool Enterprise technology Best-of-breed technology Not applicable
Looking at the general results in terms of how the primary
delivery system of the participating organizations is set up, on
average 56% of the tools used for each functional area are
either best-of-breed or enterprise technology. Similar to the
Sierra-Cedar’s results in their 2015 HR systems survey5, we
also observed that performance management is the number
one talent management component adopted as part of
enterprise technology (40%), followed by recruitment (33%).
For organizations that don’t want to replace their core HR
management systems, talent management suites are also
offered as an add-on. In the market we see a slow shift from
specific talent management solutions to broader HR suites,
with vendors that could originally be characterized as best-of-
breed systems shifting towards models offering more broader
services.
Does this mean that the market for ‘best-of-breed’ talent
management solutions is diminishing? According to our
research this does not necessarily seem to be the case. Best-
of-breed solutions are still strongly represented in the market,
especially for specialist talent management solutions such as
recruiting/staffing (40%), learning (36%) and in the payroll
market (40%). Additionally new vendors continue to surface.
These vendors generally offer specific talent management
solutions which have ‘disruptive technologies’, like mobile,
social and data analytics incorporated.
3Gartner Magic Quadrant for Talent Management Suites (2015)4Sierra-Cedar HR Systems Survey White Paper (2014–2015)5Sierra-Cedar HR Systems Survey White Paper (2014–2015)
13Pulse survey HR technology April 2016 |
Another remarkable result is the absence of tooling for
workforce planning/analytics and career
development/planning with respectively 20% and 14% of the
participants indicating that they do not have something in
place for these processes. Workforce planning/analytics
tooling makes it considerably easier to answer the question:
“What are my organization’s business goals over the next
several years and what kind of workforce do we need to reach
those goals?” Without using specifically designed tooling or
technology, it can be really difficult to identify the type and
number of talent an organization needs to achieve the
business goals. Moreover, the absence of a career
development/planning system may also make it more difficult
to provide insight in the career paths of employees or whether
the organization currently has people with the right skills to
execute the business strategy effectively.
When looking at the geographical focus of our respondents’
current primary delivery system we see a big difference per
functional area (figure 10). Payroll (79%), compensation and
benefits (67%) and onboarding / joiner administration (67%)
scored high on local focus. These findings were expected, as
payroll and compensation are often very country specific due
to (tax) legislation. The results in terms of onboarding and
new joiner administration also show a high local focus (67%).
Our experience in practice is that global organizations are
looking into more uniform ways to recruit and onboard
employees. These uniform processes supported by global
systems are more effective and efficient from a cost
perspective.
The majority of the solutions these vendors offer are built
specifically for the Cloud. These Apps and systems have
modern interfaces and mobile is part of the DNA of these
systems. These are products which are easy to use and are
less expensive both in terms of buying and operating cost.
Looking at figure 9, only a minor percentage of the
participating organizations currently still manage some HR
processes manually/paper based (13%). This percentage
excludes data from learning management and training and
payroll, as all organizations have incorporated these areas of
HR in some form of technology.
The results show that 27% of the multinationals are still
processing their expat management manually, which can be
caused by the level of complexity of expat management (e.g.
complex regulations, different tax systems) or by the use of
external service providers. Another 27% indicated that they
do not have any dedicated system or tooling in place for their
expat management.
This result corresponds with the previous results on
geographic characterization, in which 29% answered to be
operating primarily on one continent, and 6% operating
primarily in one country. It is likely these organizations do not
have (or just a few) expats in their organization. A possible
explanation for the low penetration of HR systems in the area
of international mobility support is the complexity and
diversity of the benefit packages and local tax regulations
which are associated with administration around expats. This
makes it difficult to support this process with a (standard) HR
system.
Figure 10: Geographical focus of primary delivery system
14%
79%
36%
36%
36%
46%
27%
67%
67%
40%
21%
14%
21%
14%
21%
23%
13%
7%
13%
13%
43%
7%
29%
50%
43%
31%
53%
20%
20%
47%
21%
14%
7%
7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Expat management
Payroll
Workforce planning / analytics
Succession planning and retention
Career development / planning
Learning management and training
Performance management (goal setting, assessment)
Compensation & Benefits
Onboarding /Joiner administration
Recruiting/Staffing
Local Regional Global Not applicable
| Pulse survey HR technology April 201614
The biggest changes are expected in the areas of recruitment
(60%), compensation & benefits (57%) and learning
management and training (53%). Only 8% of the respondents
indicated that no changes are planned in any of the listed
functional areas, so the vast majority is planning for changes
in the HR systems landscape.
A number of different reasons were given why organizations
have planned for interventions. The most frequent reason was
a shift in focus from local to a more global approach (22%).
Organizations shifting in focus from local to global still seem
to rely often on (local) best-of-breed systems, which may not
accommodate usage in multiple countries. So this might entail
that organizations that currently use multiple single system(s)
and vendor(s) within a region (24%) or country (24%) are
preparing for the transition to use a single global system
where possible, still taking into account local exceptions
where needed. We expect that part of this transition will also
affect the portion of organizations that still run best-of-breed
systems on a local/regional basis in the future.
A significant part of the expected changes seem technology
driven as 19% of the respondents indicate that they face
changes as a result of changes in the IT landscape.
Organizations want to explore the opportunities new
technologies such as mobile, big data and social media are
providing.
Performance management (53%), succession planning (50%),
recruitment (47%) and career development (43%) scored high
on global focus. These processes require relatively less
national customization and are therefore easier to manage
from a centralized approach.
The expat management strategy (43%) is also often deployed
from a global perspective. However, expat management does
require local/regional knowledge in terms of national tax
regulations and policies.
On average, 45% of the participating organizations maintained
a local approach for each of the functional areas6. When
including the regional focus as well, the average is 59% per
functional area. An average of 34% of the participating
organizations has a truly global focus for each of the
functional areas. This percentage corresponds with the
previous findings on system/vendor strategy (see Figure 6)
where 35% indicated that they have selected a global system
or vendor and only use other systems on exception.
3.3 Initiatives and changes in HR systems
We asked our respondents to indicate the main areas where
they expect changes in their HR landscape for 2016. We have
highlighted a number of HR processes and asked if the
respondents plan to make changes in their current approach
on these processes.
Figure 11: Planned changes per functional area
43%
36%
43%
40%
40%
53%
47%
57%
53%
60%
57%
64%
57%
60%
60%
47%
53%
43%
47%
40%
0% 50% 100%
Expat management
Payroll
Workforce planning / analytics
Succession planning and retention
Career development / planning
Learning management and training
Performance management (goalsetting, assessment)
Compensation & Benefits
Onboarding/Joiner administration
Recruiting/Staffing
Planned changes in 2016
Yes No3%
19%
14%
3%
22%
14%
11%
8%
8%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Other
Changes in IT landscape
Major changes in organization / HRstructure
Shift in focus from global to local
Shift in focus from local to global
Automation / digitalization ofmanual processes
Not satisfied with current vendor /solution
Expiration of contract(s)
No changes planned
Reason for changing approach
6Including the 79% score on local focus for payroll. Without payroll the average result is 41%.
15Pulse survey HR technology April 2016 |
These systems are often integrated with social platforms such
as LinkedIn and Facebook. They allow applicants to apply for
jobs via mobile devices, and to have interviews through online
video. A trend we see in the market is that organizations use
and combine both recruitment systems and candidate
relationship management systems (CRM). This enables
recruiters to follow talent even before they apply. The CRM
systems are aimed to maintain a warm relationship with
persons of interest and inform them about job opportunities
when they arise. In many cases the target group of these
systems are students, but also other people can be ‘followed’
by a CRM system.
Similar percentages can be seen in other functional areas
such as applications for compensation and benefits (C&B)
(57%). An area in which technology has to adapt to a
continuing need for flexibility in terms of compensating
employees, whilst improving usability. In the past, tasks
related to C&B were specifically reserved for employees
working within HR. Now we see that (line) managers become
more involved in this process as compensation proposals are
done in the systems by the manager via MSS. The manager
receives an overall budget which can be divided in the system
across his team based (for example) on the performance of
each of the team members.
For learning management and training (53%), once intended
to solely manage administration of learning, there are
changes too. Nowadays these applications have transformed
into “learning experience platforms” specifically designed to
help employees to explore opportunities, earn certifications
and collaborate with experts; usually in an online
environment. Taking into account that 43% of the
respondents indicated to have a custom/in-house tool in place
for learning management and training (figure 9), we expect a
significant change in 2016 and beyond for this functional
area.
Looking back at the current HR technology landscape of the
participating organizations (figure 5), 30% still describe their
HR technology landscape as a range of custom or in-house
developed tools. With 19% of the participants indicating that
they are planning to change their approach or vendor due to
changes in the IT landscape. For 2016 we expect to see the
most changes in this area. The continuing rise and adoption of
HR SaaS solutions is likely one of the reasons that
organizations are expecting and getting ready for changes in
their IT landscape. Moreover, in terms of the continuing rise
of, and demand for mobile technology7, it will proof to be
difficult for organizations to continue using using custom/in-
house developed tools to make the move to these types of
technology.
An additional issue with best-of-breed systems in combination
with mobile is the risk of fragmentation in mobile applications
which are used within the mobile eco system of the
organization. If every system has its own App, the employee
(via ESS/MSS) is facing multiple HR apps, which could all have
a different layout or user interface and may require different
logon ID’s and passwords. All in all leading to a lowered user
experience.
Switching to a SaaS based solution may therefore be one of
the solutions, as the (further) development of mobile
technology will be taken care of by the vendor. Other reasons
to change HR systems are the further automation/
digitalization of manual processes (14%) and undergoing
major changes in organization/HR structure such as
anticipated large HR transformation projects. This also
amounts to 14% of the reasons for change.
60% of the respondents considers changing their
recruiting/staffing application in 2016. These findings are
consistent with findings of other research and their outlook
for 2016.
Traditional recruitment systems were mostly used to solely
manage resumes and track applicants. Today’s talent
acquisition systems are often called “recruitment success
platforms” and are specifically designed to enable recruiters
to do their job better and more efficient.
7Sierra-Cedar HR Systems Survey White Paper (2014–2015)
| Pulse survey HR technology April 201616
Nowadays organizations start to realize that such a process is
too complex and too time consuming and they prefer to move
to a more agile and flexible process.
Examples of changes in the performance management
process are that organizations shift to a model of continuous
real-time feedback, rather than having just one or two
moments per year where feedback is being provided. Also
there is a shift towards 360 degrees feedback rather than just
getting performance feedback from the direct manager. In the
market we see a number of new players which offer easy to
use mobile Apps which can cater for the new approach in
performance management.
3.4 HR technology spending
Expected HR technology spending remains strong, and
continues to be positive in 2016. Nearly half of the
respondents plan to increase spending on HR technology in
2016, in spite of cost reductions in some other areas of HR.
These investments can mostly be directed toward
implementing or switching technology or adding new
functionalities.
Our data shows that most of the expected technology
spending in 2016 will be in the area of performance
management and goal setting. We and other researchers see
that traditional performance management software is no
longer aligned with the contemporary performance
management process. In the past these processes were quite
complex and contained workflow and approvals of multiple
(management) levels in the organization.
13%
33%
33%
7%
13%
0% 20% 40%
Much higher (more than a 20%increase in 2016)
Higher (up to a 20% increase in2016)
About the same
Lower (less than a 20%reduction in 2016)
Much lower (more than a 20%reduction in 2016)
Expected spending on technology in 2016
2%
5%
7%
7%
7%
10%
19%
14%
7%
12%
10%
0% 10% 20%
Expat management
Payroll
Workforce planning / analytics
Succession planning and retention
Career development / planning
Learning management and training
Performance management (goal setting, assessment)
Compensation & Benefits
Onboarding/Joiner administration
Recruiting/Staffing
No anticipated investments in 2016
Technology area of anticipated investment
Figure 12: Expected spending on technology and area of investment
17Pulse survey HR technology April 2016 |
Even though our targeted group of HR professionals had a
major presence in the Benelux, the majority of the findings of
this survey are very much in line with other (global) research
on HR technology. This proves the already much apparent
global focus and presence of large organizations that have
either originated or settled in the Benelux.
With such a vast majority of the participants anticipating
changes in their HR technology, to a great extent caused by
shifts in geographical focus, we would like to address two
takeaways. Based upon our survey’s findings and previous
research.
► In our view only part of the talent challenges that global
companies are facing are addressed by a centralized
global HR infrastructure, consisting of a set of global HR
systems, processes and shared services (centers). Leading
companies should develop their HR structure and
operating models in such a way that they are flexible
enough to allow for global implementations, while being
agile enough to adapt to the local markets and/or business
needs. However our survey suggests that organizations
are still stuck in the middle, not yet fully developing a true
global HR systems strategy that is part of their global
overall strategy. We believe global organizations could
benefit even more from a deliberate HR systems strategy
that allows for both standardization and agility
simultaneously.
► Preparing the organization for SaaS is probably even more
important than the deployment of SaaS itself. The interest
in SaaS solutions is high, as more and more (global)
organizations make the switch to it thanks to the potential
business benefits that come with a Cloud solution.
However, we often see organizations struggling with an
important aspect we call ‘SaaS readiness’. Where getting
ready for SaaS sometimes seems to be more time
consuming than the actual implementation. As further
developments in IT will impact HR and the way HR will
operate in the future, HR departments have to prepare
themselves to cope with (constant) change and learn to
embrace it. For a large part this means that while
transforming itself, HR creates a culture in which change
and transition are part of the normal routine. So that they
are able to prepare and adapt themselves and the rest of
the organization for the adoption of the new technologies.
4. Conclusion
HR technology is definitely on the 2016 agenda of large
multinational organizations. The vast majority of the
participants plan for changes in their HR technology
landscape. Additionally, almost half of the organizations
expect to increase their spending on HR technology.
The expected changes are triggered due to a number
of reasons. On the one hand the larger multinational
organizations continue to shift towards more globalized
operating models. This is creating certain requirements for
HR systems which can support multi country or even global
processes. Multiple single country based HR systems no
longer fit in this approach. At the same time local needs and
regulations have to be accommodated.
On the other hand there is a technology push. SaaS
and Cloud based solutions often offer a better fit to the ever
changing HR processes and provide a more future proof
solution with regards to mobile enablement and other
disruptive technologies like social media and big data.
Additionally SaaS makes the HR department in some ways less
dependent on the existing IT infrastructure and architecture,
as SaaS allows for more flexibility and can be adopted with
less fixed costs.
So one side of the changes HR departments are facing are a
derivative from the overall strategy. Due to the emphasis on
further globalization managing the workforce becomes more
complex can not be dealt with using multiple local HR
systems.
The other part of the changes to be taken into account by the
HR department is driven by technology factors. Specifically
this technology part has a high pace and given these
circumstances HR departments should prepare themselves to
be in a constant state of transition. This constant transition
does not only affect their processes but also the HR system
landscape.
| Pulse survey HR technology April 201618
5. ContactFor more information regarding this survey you can contact one of the following EY People Advisory Services professionals by calling: +31 88 407 1049 or by email.
Marco Droogendijk
marco.droogendijk@nl.ey.com
Jolanda Hidding
jolanda.hidding@nl.ey.com
Martijn Oosterhoff
martijn.oosterhoff@nl.ey.com
Hans Groothuis
hans.groothuis@nl.ey.com
19Pulse survey HR technology April 2016 |
6. About our servicesThe world continues to change as a result of globalization, demographical shifts, technological changes and regulation. These disruptive forces require organizations to change rapidly — and they need their people to be agile and adaptable to that change.
At the same time it’s getting harder to source, manage, motivate and retain talent while controlling costs. By focusing on how they manage and engage their people, leading organizations are not only managing these global disruptions, but in fact are improving margins and running more efficiently.
Looking at people as part of an integrated business strategy, organizations are able to gain a competitive people advantage. Our People Advisory Services is an end-to-end offering dedicated to solving big, complex people, organizational and compliance issues.
Backed by a global ecosystem of consultants and industry professionals, we specialize in Performance, Talent, Systems, Reward, Mobility and Analytics — all with a shared sense of purpose and values.
The diversity of our talent, global connectivity and collaborative philosophy means we’re inspired to ask better questions to help organizations design better outcomes, deliver long-lasting results and achieve a competitive advantage.
Sta
nd
ard
m
eth
od
olo
gie
s
Design
Insight Delivery
Change management & readiness
Project management
Process redesign
System implementation
Solution architecture
Product & vendor selection
Business case
development
Project health-check
Data architecture and quality
Leading practices
Requirements definition
Roadmap development
As-is analysis
HR technology vision and strategyBusiness, IT and
People strategy
Market intelligence and latest
developments
EY | Assurance | Tax | Transactions | Advisory
About EYEY is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services. The insights and quality services we deliver help build trust and confidence in the capital markets and in economies the world over. We develop outstanding leaders who team to deliver on our promises to all of our stakeholders. In so doing, we play a critical role in building a better working world for our people, for our clients and for our communities.
EY refers to the global organization and may refer to one or more of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organization, please visit ey.com.
© 2016 EYGM Limited.All Rights Reserved.
Recommended