HRMS Implementation: 2 Dangerous Project Myths You Need To Quell
HRMS Implementation is often a ‘love it or hate it’ exercise. It’s a chance to start afresh without the legacy HRMS workarounds and an opportunity to design the best solution based on current business requirements. However, such projects usually cause a lot of excitement and upheaval before they complete, not to mention the increased workload and change management implications. So lets set the record straight. What can you really expect from your HRMS implementation and what are the disruptive myths which can endanger the process?
HRMS Will Meet All Requirements Overnight
While every HRMS implementation starts out with this golden ideal, it doesn’t always come to fruition, either through incomplete or incorrect design, limited system functionality or configuration, or via general system limitations. While many things improve when you implement a new system, it’s always wise to remember that some processes will now take longer or involve more steps.
For example, I recently looked at a situation where a company was implementing a best of breed SaaS HRMS, and it was publicized around the organization as the cure of all ills. Previously one part of the business had cobbled together a homegrown solution to analyze and calculate sales commission bonuses, based on a feed from the old HRMS plus other data such as sales and finance data. The new HRMS system did not deliver new functionality to replace this bonus system, and even worse, the new system was not able to deliver the core data like the old HRMS. Rumors and negativity then started to spread, as the new system was not able to deliver more, and in fact broke current established processes.
HRMS Implementations Can’t Succeed Without Consultancy
I’ve seen HRMS implementations that are solely employee driven, others that are run completely by an army of consultants, as well as a mix of in between, never mind the whole debate of nearshore vs offshore consultants! It is helpful to consider your normal operating model on projects when deciding on consulting expertise and to balance that against the topic of using consultants as a means to reduce risk. While consultants can bring HRMS application expertise, if your HR or IT organizations do not use them or only sparingly, then there is no reason for an HRMS implementation to function any differently.
HRMS implementation is a necessary evil as HRMS applications are retired or your business requirements change. If you’re considering a new HRMS, be sure to check out the HRMS Software Guide.
How to tell if a standalone HRMS would suit your company
Signs that a standalone HRMS may be a better choice for you than one integrated into a larger system
How to make your case for new HR technology
Tips and best practices for constructing a business case for new HR software
Planning face to face HRMS training: three steps to success
Face-to-face HRMS training is more logistically challenging than e-learning. Here’s how to plan f...