HR Technology Survey - EY - United · PDF fileHR Technology Survey April 2016. Pulse survey HR technology April 2016 | 3 Table of content 1 Introduction 4 2 About this survey 5 3 Results

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.


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


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


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)


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.


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.


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


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)


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





Performance management (goal setting, assessment)


Onboarding /Joiner administration

Recruiting/Staffing

Local Regional Global Not applicable


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





Performance management (goalsetting, assessment)



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%.


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)


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





Performance management (goal setting, assessment)



Recruiting/Staffing

No anticipated investments in 2016

Technology area of anticipated investment

Figure 12: Expected spending on technology and area of investment


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.


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

[email protected]

Jolanda Hidding

[email protected]

Martijn Oosterhoff

[email protected]

Hans Groothuis

[email protected]

https://nl.linkedin.com/in/marco-droogendijk-9894355

https://nl.linkedin.com/in/jolanda-hidding-8175a117

https://nl.linkedin.com/in/martijnoosterhoff

https://nl.linkedin.com/in/hansgroothuis


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.

Documents

HR Technology Survey - EY - United · PDF fileHR Technology Survey April 2016. Pulse survey HR technology April 2016 | 3 Table of content 1 Introduction 4 2 About this survey 5 3 Results