Build and Test | Process and Technology

There are two main alternative approaches to this stage and it is important that you choose the right approach for your circumstances. The first approach is prototyping; that is, the incremental configuration of elements of the systems solution followed by testing with the users followed by further iterations of fine-tuning. This process is repeated for all elements of the systems solution. The second is a full build against a detailed specification or blueprint followed by full system testing.

One advantage with the first approach is that the HR and business users get the opportunity to see and feel HR self-service quite early in the build process. This serves to maintain momentum and enthusiasm and helps to match expectations against system delivery. The main disadvantage with this approach is that it can take longer unless it is tightly managed — the temptation can be to continue with minor refinements rather than to end that element of the solution and move on to the next.

In the case of the second approach, the main advantage is that you have better control of the costs and schedule and at the end of the build you have a more complete solution. But there is less possibility of making changes during the build and after it is delivered any changes will be more expensive. There is a heavy reliance on the quality of the detailed specification that the system configurers are using.

During this stage, there is a greater distinction between the technology- and the process-related activities than during the detailed design stage. Even with the prototyping approach, the system configurers are primarily focused on the technology build and system test activity. The HR and business users, however, should be primarily focused on operating procedure definition, training course preparation, development of user security profiles, test script development and user acceptance testing. The methodology and programme plan provide the means of linking the process and technology (and people) streams here. The interdependencies and 'touch points' are closely aligned through this even though the team members may be working on their own specific tasks.

The change management theme of course continues. The change leaders mobilised during detailed design perform the next iteration of impact and readiness assessments, often at the local functional or site level, and initiate the resulting actions. The change focus should not be restricted to the line areas; HR must be preparing for this change. There is an important link here with the capabilities work, as HR needs to get ready to let go of much of the transactional work and begin to focus on what the business partner role really means and how they will equip themselves for this. An excellent way of bringing this to life is the use of 'conference room pilots' where the business and HR users of Web-based HR technology adopt their new roles in a controlled environment, testing how the new roles, process and system fit together in a simulation of the new environment.

Conference room pilots provide a good example of how wider involvement in the programme activities can be achieved and there is greater opportunity during this stage to use involvement in the programme activities as an action to promote awareness and commitment. Typically, involvement from HR and the business in defining operating procedures, preparing training course material and particularly user acceptance testing, make the programme 'come alive' for many. One area that provides excellent opportunity for involvement but is often neglected is that of data cleansing and preparation. This involves checking the validity of existing data, mapping it to the data required in the new system and creating any additional data fields that are not present in the current systems. Involvement in this can be achieved across all employees in the organisation as they are requested to check and validate their own individual employee record data. This is a very powerful approach to moving the perception of the HR transformation programme from concept to reality.

Detailed Process and Technology Design

Through envisioning, defining the service-delivery approach and building the business case, the HR transformation solution will have become ever clearer. Careful consideration will have been given to the people, process and technology elements such that the overall solution is one that will deliver the vision and benefits targeted. The first stage of implementation, therefore, is to finalise the design at the detailed level.

Detailed design follows the principles of the systems mindset by considering the multiple linkages between elements of the solution, working from the whole solution to the details of the constituent parts. By utilising this and the target benefits, those charged with developing the detailed process and technology design can begin.

During business case definition, the technology solution that best fits your specific needs will have been identified. The task in detailed design is to specify the configuration of this technology solution right down to the level of the system screens on which the transactions are performed. The main decisions that need to be made at this stage are the following:

1. Which elements of the process will be performed by the system and which elements need to be performed outside of the system?
2. Which data fields must be completed in order for the process to work and which are optional?
3. Can the technology solution be configured to support the new processes without needing to modify the underlying code or programming of the system? Often this is termed the 'vanilla' system. Modification over and above the 'vanilla' system means that additional implementation and maintenance costs will be incurred. If thebusiness benefits can be delivered with the 'vanilla' system then clearly this is the ideal route. If this is not the case then the costs (including maintenance costs) of making the modifications need to be weighed against the reduction in benefits if the modifications are not made.
4. In the case of global or multinational implementations, are there local country or regional differences that need to be addressed? Ideally these should only be local statutory differences as these should already be 'pre-configured' in the technology solution. Any additional differences will need to be developed and maintained separately. In a similar way to the 'vanilla' system debate above, modifying the system for local requirements adds to both the initial implementation and the ongoing maintenance costs.

The decisions around detailed design are usually made in workshops with HR and the line, or by the HR and line representatives on the programme team. Involvement of HR and the line is crucial in this process as it provides both a check that what is being designed is pragmatic and workable and that those who will need to operate the new processes and systems are engaged to promote commitment.

As the detailed design proceeds, where resolution on particular design issues cannot be achieved through the workshops or the programme team, it may be necessary to take some of these decisions to the steering board for direction. This 'design authority' role is one that the steering board should play by exception but it can be critical particularly in providing guidance and direction on the degree of customisation or local variation.

From a process design perspective, the main task at this stage is to map the processes onto a diagram that shows what the system will do and what the responsibility of HR, managers, employees or external agencies will be.

What Do We Mean by Web 2.0?

Although at an early stage, a family of powerful Web-based technologies are being adopted by some organisations to:

• encourage greater collaboration among employees, customers, suppliers and partners;
• give customers, business partners and employees greater opportunity for more authentic forms of 'voice' on issues that matter to them;
• help organisations, employees and potential employees learn about each other, and share their knowledge and experiences to create organisational learning.

These 'social and sociable' media technologies have come to be known as Web 2.0, following the introduction of the term in 2004 by Tim O'Reilly, a media guru. The most highly publicised of these technologies among HR professionals are blogs, social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace and LinkedIn and virtual worlds such as Second Life.

This is perhaps even more important than normal to be clear on our use of terms and our understanding of the key features of Web 2.0, why it is different from earlier, Web-based applications and what its potential is forecast to be. So, we begin by setting out a working definition in Box 1 below, culled from a number of sources.

Box 1: Web 2.0, a working definition for HR professionals

---

Web 2.0 is different from the earlier Web 1.0, which focused on the one-way generation and publication of online content. Web 2.0 is a 'read—write' Web providing a democraticarchitecture for participation, encouraging people to share ideas, promoting discussion and fostering a greater sense of community. In this sense it is a 'people-focused' Web, embracing core elements of the philosophy and practice of modern human resource and people management — conversations, interpersonal networking, personalisation, authentic voice and individualism.

---

The important points to take away from this definition are the differences with earlier non-interactive, Web-based technologies and the people-centred, rather than organisation-centred, nature of these new technologies. To elaborate a little, experts in the field have identified five characteristics of Web 2.0 that have enormous importance for HR. These are described in Box 2.

Box 2: The characteristics of Web 2.0

---

Participation and collaboration

Web 2.0 is driven by increased participation and collaboration among users, most obviously apparent in social networking, social bookmarking, blogging, wikis and multimedia online gaming. Indeed, it is these so-called 'network effects' that define Web 2.0 and make it so valuable — see case illustrations later.

Openness

Web 2.0 has come about because of a spirit of openness as developers and companies increasingly provide open access to their content and applications. Good examples include the emergence of open source course material, online encyclopaedias such as Wikipedia and Web browsers such as Firefox and Google's 'Chrome'. For some writers, it is this open source element that is the most important feature of Web 2.0, differentiating it from in-company attempts to deploy social media behind their firewalls — so-called Enterprise 2.0.

User control

Web 2.0 users control the content they create, the data captured about their Web activities, and even their identities — they can choose to be anonymous, create virtual identities or present their real selves. In the case of the latter, Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister and Barack Obama, the newly installed President of the United States of America, have done broadcasts on YouTube which have been viewed around the world.

Decentralisation and democratisation

Web 2.0 is also a decentralised 'architecture', relying on distributed content, applications and computers rather than a centralised system controlled by managers or IT departments. While decentralisation is necessary for wider participation, openness and positive network effects, it is also the most worrying aspect of Web 2.0 among many HR professionals because of the potentially damaging effects of brands through the organisational misbehaviour of 'ranting' bloggers and because they are not able to control corporate messaging.

Standards

Universal standards provide the basis for Web 2.0. Common interfaces and creating and accessing content are the things that allow the decentralised system to be created. This includes technologies such as XML, Java and media streaming to MP3 players and mobile phones to help create content available to everyone, as is the case with e-learning.

Modularity

Web 2.0 is built from many components from the bottom-up rather than top-down, which gives it greater flexibility. For example,traditional programmes of learning through university degrees are built top-down, with a 'programme, course and module' structure designed in that hierarchical order. However, it is equally possible and desirable to build from the bottom-up, creating highly flexible e-learning courses from standard 'chunks' of learning (so-called learning objects) to create modules and then courses, according to the individual needs of learners. In the same way, different Web 2.0 applications and mechanisms can be aggregated and re-mixed to create flexible outcomes that suit user needs. Personalised Google home pages are good illustrations of this characteristic.

Informing the People and Technology Debate

There is a rich seam of literature which addresses 'people and technology' and in broad terms the themes which arise are set out diagrammatically in Figure 1. The appearance or promise of liberation, empowerment and decentralisation is shown with its contrast of control, domination and centralization.

 

Figure 1: Contrasting impacts of technology.

Different forms of technology and technological change have been at the heart of many of the issues concerning the management of people and the work of human resource professionals for many years. In more recent times, however, these issues emanate from the role of newer technologies in transforming societies, transforming economic progress and in how we work in such societies. Excellent overviews on different aspects of the role of information and communication technologies (ICT), the 'new' economy. This has resulted in a renewed interest in the relationship between these new technologies and the management of people.

These more macro and intellectual concerns have been accompanied by the actual influence of technologies on the practice of human resource management. For example,technology as a transforming force, especially in the e-enablement of HR and its impact on the creation and transfer of knowledge.

As we have explained in earlier chapters, signs have been mounting for some time that previously accepted concepts of organisation and strategy have come to an end. The fundamentally Newtonian paradigm of organisations as machines and strategy by numbers has given way to structural change that shifts the emphasis from physical inputs and outputs to intangible ones such as knowledge, learning, creativity and initiative. The old paradigm of top-down control and hierarchical organisation appears to have exhausted its capacity to generate innovative responses to turbulent business conditions and intensifying global competition — indeed, far from fostering innovation, many managers feel it is holding them back.

The preliminary analysis of the literature — old and new — helps to inform the debate about the impact of, and relationship between, new technologies and people management. It suggests that these technologies are a moving target, which is likely to pose new problems and new contexts for organisations, especially as they move into newer stages of technological development.

With the new knowledge-based technologies advancing at a rapid pace, people management becomes an important mechanism for challenging the 'forces of conservatism', whether found in management or the workforce, and hence enabling organisations to more rapidly translate investments into better performance. This implies that in a knowledge-based economy, organisations certainly need to invest more in research and development, technology and capital equipment and skills, but these are not sufficient in themselves to make a step change in performance. Therefore to work, they need to be knit together in a truly people-centred business model, working as a system to learn and improve the offering to customers.

How the business models of organisations exert an array of competing pressures on HR functions, which create ambiguities and tensions in what it delivers, how it delivers, how effectively it delivers and to whom it delivers.

To deliver HR strategy, organisations typically respond to the competing pressures with a mix of re-organisation of the HR function itself and new ICT approaches. The re-organisation of the HR function involves new HR service delivery approaches models, often based on a tri-partite model of shared services, centres of excellence and strategic or business partnering along the lines  with outsourcing and, in some cases, off-shoring of key services, especially shared service centres. The introduction of ICT, often in combination with new HR delivery models can then rationalise or transform HR's internal operations.

It should be emphasised at the outset that these organisational, process re-engineering and ICT solutions are interdependent. Without progressively sophisticated ICT, new HR delivery models would not be as effective: indeed it is the increased reach and richness of technology-enabled information and organisational learning that have facilitated simultaneous centralisation and delegation of decision-making in HR, cited by academics, observers and practitioners as the single most important claimed distinctive capability of new HR delivery models. One of the logical consequences of these developments is the potential 'virtualisation' or, at least, significant 'leaning' of HR which results from simultaneously reducing the numbers of specialists required to deliver HR services internally while improving the quality of these same services and developing new HR business models.

The introduction of technology, therefore, offers the potential to transform HR's role. It promises to do this by:

• increasing the HR function's influence as consultants focused on the needs of managers and employees;
• enabling new flexible and responsive methods of delivering HR services, such as self-service via the Internet or Intranet;
• expanding HR's reach as the experts of the organisation's people processes and the developers of value propositions for different employee groups.

Thus, the 'bandwagon' of technology-enabled HR solutions seems to be growing at a rapid rate driven by some evidence of promising practices and positive evaluations of technology and outsourcing projects. However, this bandwagon in support of technology adoption is also fuelled by some 'dangerous half-truths' or 'total nonsense'.

To address the various challenges set out earlier, we now offer advice, supported by theoretical frameworks which are based on recent research and case study evidence. Our collective experience gained through working with a variety of companies to transform their HR functions through the design and implementation of technology shows that technology investments are frequently under-used and do not release the full benefit to the organisations concerned.