In part one of this two part article, we heard from construction consultancy, Cyril Sweett, about the merits of taking a ‘big bang’, ‘all-in-one-go’ approach to introducing a new human capital management system.
This second part looks at the pros and cons of taking an alternative tack, however – that of phasing in a deployment over time as happened at the
University of Wolverhampton.
Martin Taylor, the University’s assistant head of finance, explains: “We took a much more phased approach. We wanted to have better integration between the admin systems and reduce the number of systems as well as improve our management information and reduce cost.”
Change was deemed necessary because the organisation’s existing HCM applications were ageing.
“We’d been a
MidlandHR customer from the early 1990s and the systems had changed very little,” says Taylor. “HR and payroll were virtually separate systems with dual data entry needed. They provided limited and poor quality management information and data for our 3,500 employees.”
As a result, the University decided to move to UNIT4’s Agresso packages, but preferred it to be rolled out in chunks.
“Phase one was to start by doing basic HR and payroll and we wanted self-service and helpdesk functionality in place,” Taylor recalls. “Phase two would see further development of the HR function and we would look at recruitment. The third phase would be the financial element.”
Phases one and two of the implementation are now almost complete. Staff self-service has been rolled out to all employees with an IT account so that they can view and update elements of their own personal information.
Payslips are issued electronically where possible and limited reports are now available for line managers and budget holders. There has also been a phased roll out of the expenses module, with two thirds of the workforce currently using it.
Pros and cons
Taylor is content that the phased approach was the right choice for the University.
“The benefits of a phased approach is that users are able to adapt to change gradually so that change management is less problematic,” he argues. “Our old systems were so archaic that if we had gone for a ‘big bang’, we’d have alienated a lot of users who would have struggled to cope with the changes.”
There were also budgetary constraints to be taken into account. “We were not given a great budget so we needed to keep our additional resource requirements to a minimum. As a team of four, we were doing all this on top of our day jobs,” Taylor explains.
The University also wanted to ensure it kept its expertise in-house.
“We didn’t want to bring in people who’d take their knowledge away with them at the end of the project. This meant a consistent approach to the ‘build tasks’ and our resources were easier to co-ordinate and focus on our main priorities,” Taylor says.
But there can also be downsides to taking a phased approach, of course. A key one is that the benefits of introducing the system are “realised more slowly”, he admits.
“Our benefits have been on a drip feed. That is a problem in some respects because you get a perception among users that we’ve spent a lot of money in buying software, but the pace of change is too slow. There is also an on-going training burden,” Taylor says.
So what is the best approach? Big bang or bit-by-bit? The answer is, of course, neither. Or both. It’s entirely up to each organisation to determine which approach best suits their needs and which will deliver the greatest benefits and fewest downsides.
But do bear in mind one crucial thought: HCM systems are there to support your people. This means that whatever approach you choose, it should always help you to achieve that goal in the most effective way possible without causing major organisational disruption.
