Marsela Giovani Husen and Jon Maes
Introduction
For nearly half a century, the use of information technology (IT) in higher education has become increasingly prevalent. From student records and digital classrooms to email servers and financial reporting, it is safe to say that IT has become an inseparable part of campus operations at modern higher education institutions (HEIs).
In particular, this includes IT solution for personnel-related administrative tasks that colleges and universities perform on a daily basis. Originating in the corporate sector, these Electronic Human Resource Management (e-HRM) tools are progressively replacing conventional HRM processes that are reliant on paper-based and face-to-face interactions. One of the central drivers for why organizations make the switch to e-HRM is to improve the effectiveness of their HR system with various goals and performance indicators used as metrics for evaluation.
While there are many studies that analyze the impact of e-HRM in corporate and government settings, research is comparatively limited concerning the use of e-HRM at colleges and universities. As such, what considerations and measurements should HEIs use to determine the effectiveness of their e-HRM systems? This is a question that senior leadership must ask if they are to gauge the successful implementation of e-HRM on their campuses. Attempting to provide some answers, this chapter will discuss the topic of e-HRM effectiveness in higher education contexts including recommendations for future research.
Background Information
Before going into further detail about e-HRM effectiveness as it applies to HEIs, it is practical to first give some background information as an initial point of reference. Namely, to define e-HRM and provide a short history of its development including the study of e-HRM effectiveness.
Definitions
Simply put, Strohmeier (2007, p.20) describes e-HRM as “the application of information technology for both networking and supporting at least two individual or collective actors in their shared performing of HR activities”. Bondarouk and Ruël (2009) also added that e-HRM is “an umbrella term covering all possible integration mechanism and contents between HRM and Information Technologies aiming at creating value within and across organizations for targeted employees and management” (p. 507).
These two definition indicate four fundamental aspects of e-HRM. First is the use of IT solutions (e.g. software programs, databases, cloud servers, etc.) to support all HRM activities. Second, implementation of e-HRM is an interdepartmental process that requires participation by all ranks of the organization from entry-level staff and line managers to the upper reaches of executive officers. Third, value creation means that the purpose of investing in e-HRM is for improving HR operations towards achieving the firm’s overall strategic objectives. Fourth, e-HRM has a spatial dimension in seeking to connect personnel units located either in the same workplace or that are geographically separated as is the case for international organizations.
Furthermore, it is important to note that there are other terms in the industry that have been used interchangeably with e-HRM such as HR Information System (HRIS), virtual HR(M), web-based HR(M), business-to employee (B2E), and intranet-based HRM (Strohmeier, 2007; Bondarouk & Ruël, 2009). The imagery depicted by these characterizations highlight the online and relational nature of e-HRM methods with these expression having its own merits. However, this chapter solely uses “e-HRM” for consistency and because it appears to be the most widely-used term in this contemporary field of scholarship.
Brief History of e-HRM and e-HRM Studies
E-HRM research and development during the mid-1990s is closely related to the rapid technological advances brought on by multinational corporations responding the challenges of globalization (Bondarouk & Ruël, 2013; Ruël, Bondarouk & Looise, 2004). Regarding studies into e-HRM effectiveness, Bondarouk, Ruël, and van der Heijden (2007) pay respect to Huselid’s research on High Performance Work Systems in 1995 as the first presentation of empirical evidence showing e-HRM’s positive outcomes in corporate settings. Following these results, other experts joined Huselid in assessing the relationship between HR practices and firm performance (Kane et al., 1999; Delery & Doty, 1996; Ostroff & Bowen, 2000; Boselie et al., 2001; Wright et al., 2005; as cited in Bondarouk et al., 2007).
Meanwhile, vendors of e-HRM applications did not take long to see the opportunity in adapting their IT business solutions for higher education purposes. As of 2011, there are now at least 47 providers in the United States alone with five of them owning 79% of the market share (Grajek, Lang, & Trevvett, 2012). Of these top five, Oracle remains the industrial leader in supplying approximately 30% of U.S. colleges and universities with its PeopleSoft Human Capital Management platform (2012). Other major e-HRM software companies include SunGard Higher Education, Datatel Colleague, Jenzabar, and SAP Human Capital Management. Amidst such a diverse field of players, experts such as The Tambellini Group project that Oracle is likely to lose some of its market share as other companies capture larger pieces of the proverbial e-HRM pie (Tambellini, 2014).
In addition, there are some U.S. HEIs that create e-HRM applications in house through their own IT department resources. These homegrown tools make up 8% of the market (Grajek, Lang, & Trevvett, 2012). e-HRM has also become a part of the open-source movement in higher education over the past two decades. One example that has gained significant media attention is the Kuali Foundation. Priding themselves as “an open-source, comprehensive HR/Payroll System built by higher education for higher education” (Kuali, 2014), Kuali was first launched in 2004 by Indiana University and University of Hawaii in challenging mainstream business software companies by offering a free alternative with no licensing fees (Young, 2004). This can be an enormous cost savings for HEIs with commercial ERP system expenditures in the tens of millions of dollars (O’Neil, 2014). Such financial incentives have helped increased Kuali’s gathering of partner institutions since its inception; however, the project’s future is still unclear with skeptics questioning if open-source will be able to perform such a grand scale of campus operations and processes (2014).
These days, the academic community studying e-HRM continues to grow. Since 2004, Bondarouk (2014) informs that “60 master students have graduated with research topics about e-HRM… and more than half of those theses have inspired academic publications” (p. 8). This is at the University of Twente, Netherlands alone, which is certainly an accomplishment worth of praise. In reviewing the literature on e-HRM, Strohmeier (2007) even noted that the amount of scholarship is substantial enough to have produced “an initial body of research” (p. 19). Nonetheless, there is still work to be done before it can be considered its own field of study (Heikkilä, 2014; Bondarouk, 2014).
Theoretical Framework
Referencing empirical research on e-HRM that has spanned three decades, Maatman (2006) proposes a theoretical framework for measuring the effectiveness of e-HRM within the Dutch Ministry of Interior Affairs that can used as an initial guide for higher education contexts. Specifically, his research construct follows the directional influence of how e-HRM goals and the uses of e-HRM impact the effectiveness that e-HRM has on an HR system. This section will briefly summarize these facets within Maatman’s theoretical framework.
e-HRM goals
One major selling point for e-HRM tools is the claim that they improve HR activities. For example, e-HRM automation is capable of simplifying administrative tasks and reducing HR transaction times for processes such as record tracking, payroll, and employment benefit programs (Maatman, 2006). Bondarouk (2014) expands this list to include 115 positive outcomes that e-HRM has had on companies since the 1970s. While this is an impressive inventory, it would be difficult for an organization to examine the full spectrum of potential consequences when deciding whether or not to adopt an e-HRM system. Subsequently, the four main categories provided by Ruël et al. (2004) assists with consolidating this vast range of e-HRM goals. They are: (1) cost reduction / efficiency gains, (2) client service improvement / facilitating management and employees, (3) improving the strategic orientation of HRM, and (4) allowing integration of a dispersed HR function (adapted from Maatman, 2006).
Maatman (2006) also elaborates on each of these four e-HRM goals. In short, cost reduction / efficiency gains involves the amount of financial savings and work productivity that the organization achieves versus the amount of money, time, and effort spent on implementing and maintaining the e-HRM system. Client service improvement / facilitating management and employees deals with the interaction between personnel and the HR department including features such as availability, accessibility, timeliness, and IT interface design. Improving the strategic orientation of HRM encompasses numerous activities from the development of coping mechanisms for market changes to better forecasting of HR needs like task assignments and employee coordination. Lastly, integration of a dispersed HR function is the better management of multiple units—often across organizations—by standardizing and/or harmonizing HR processes.
Uses of e-HRM
This influential factor considers the function of IT within the application of e-HRM for HR processes in a given organization. Maatman (2006) divides the use of e-HRM into three subsets (p. 71). First is the e-HRM activities themselves, which includes their strategic value and the time spent on conducting each operation. Second is the type of technical support that e-HRM offers from the intended impact of the technology to the actual roles of IT in reinforcing and sustaining HR activities. Third is user acceptance of the technology, which Maatman bases on the work of Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis’s in 2003. These four experts assembled a unified theory for determining the influences that affect personnel’s attitudes towards the technology and their usage behaviors. Much of this is based on employees’ expectations for how e-HRM will either positively or negatively impact their job duties and the amount of effort they will have to exert for using the technology. Also, the impacts that social influences and perceptions of the organization’s support mechanisms have on levels of technology usage.
Effectiveness of the HRM System
In this subcategory Maatman (2006) delineates between HR performance indicators and the job of HR professionals. In regards to the former, he makes a distinction between efficiency and effectiveness; however, both performance indicators remain relevant to this discussion.
Efficiency being the internal workings of the organization as they affect the money, time, and effort spent on e-HRM. This is in terms of financial return on investment, work productivity, and the degree of outputs needed for completing HR activities. Effectiveness is about the organization’s goals, strategies, and structures as they relate to the best possible functionality of HR policies and services. For HR policies, e-HRM should strive to be distinct, consistent, and create consensus among personnel with HR services aspiring for the highest level of responsiveness, quality and helpfulness.
Then, for the latter, Maatman (2006) outlines the roles of the HR professional and the ideal areas of additional skills and training they obtain. Referring to Ulrich in 2007, he advises that HR professionals have four responsibilities of being strategic, administrative, employee champions (counselor and/or advocate), and change agents. In this way, they are seen as business partners, especially for the e-HRM goal of “improving the strategic orientation of the HRM” as mentioned previously in this section.
Discussion: Towards e-HRM Effectiveness in Higher Education
There are two main themes for this discussion on e-HRM effectiveness in higher education contexts. The first is reverence for the initial body of e-HRM research in support of its continual growth. Second is noticing the similarities and differences of e-HRM effectiveness in higher education, corporate, and government contexts. This is based on the understanding that HEIs can learn much from the depth and breadth of e-HRM research currently available including Maatman’s theoretical framework, Bondarouk’s ongoing research, and the contributions of various other scholars. Concurrently, the field of e-HRM can also benefit from more HEIs sharing their viewpoints on the subject. To an extent, this form of codependency is in line with Etzkowitz’s (2003) Triple Helix Model of university-industry-government relations. Through the collaborative interaction of these three spheres—in this case, for expanding the combined knowledge on how e-HRM impacts different types of organizations—all sides will prosper from the discoveries that result.
Another consideration for researchers and decision-makers is to avoid completely “reinventing the wheel” when evaluating e-HRM effectiveness in higher education settings. For instance, the interrelated categories of e-HRM goals, uses of e-HRM, and performance indicators for measuring e-HRM effectiveness are widely applicable concepts across public and private sectors. Additionally, there is what Bondarouk (2014) describes as “contradictory organizational realities”. Returning again to Strohmeier (2007), e-HRM has the capacity to bring advantages to certain HR activities while creating difficulties for others. There are also instances where research designs were unable to replicate previous results, which means that e-HRM findings cannot be generalized (Strohmeier, 2007; Heikkilä, 2013). HEIs should be mindful of these circumstances when proceeding with comparative studies into their e-HRM effectiveness.
On the topic of commonalities, there are e-HRM aspects that are mutual among higher education, business, and governmental organizations. One is how cost reduction/efficiency gains is often the e-HRM goal that is given top priority. Over the years, studies have shown that the expectation of financial benefits is the most cited motivation for why companies implement e-HRM systems (Ruël et al., 2004; Bondarouk & Ruël, 2013). This should not come as an enormous surprise when considering corporate responsibility to maximize profits for shareholders. Meanwhile, empirical evidence for why government offices adopt e-HRM systems are not as readily apparent; however, European Commission campaigns such as the “eGovernment Action Plan 2011-2015” and “Pilot Projects towards an efficient E-Administration” do cite cost reduction, efficiency and effectiveness as targets. In respect to HEIs, the same appears to hold true. The international influences of neoliberal and New Public Management on higher education (Verger, Altinyelken, & Novelli, 2012) suggest that colleges and universities around the world would place cost reduction/efficiency gains high on their lists of e-HRM goals. Particularly, this is consistent with higher education trends in the U.S. where public funding is diminishing and market demands are pressuring HEIs to display greater accountability and transparency (Cohen & Kisker, 2011; Altbach, Gumport, & Berdahl, 2011).
Conversely, there are certain characteristics of HEIs that diverge with corporate and government organizations when comparing e-HRM effectiveness. An example is how employment policies in each sector differ and the effect that this has on HR performance indicators such as staff retention rates. At some colleges and universities, faculty mobility to work at other HEIs is highly encouraged. There is also the distinct higher education practice of offering professors sabbatical leave allowances. These two circumstances can cause fluctuations in employee turnover that do not directly translate with HR strategies in companies and government offices that do everything in their power to keep talent.
Institutional diversity in higher education is another essential factor that must be taken into account. To be more concise, centralized departments that oversee HR activities are a common feature in nearly all large companies and government offices. However, it is not necessarily a typical standard in higher education. An argument can be made that HEIs having their own internal HR operations is growing, especially with the number of universities assuming entrepreneurial models. Towards this end, many U.S. HEIs come to mind again. However, there are still higher education systems found in other corners of the globe where human resources are managed differently. For example, there are some universities that have traditions of high academic self-governance where each individual school within the university has authority over their HR functions. On the other hand, there are also nations where the state heavily regulates higher education and HR is controlled externally by the government. These differences have significant research implications for the study of e-HRM effectiveness in higher education.
Conclusion
The principle aim of this chapter was to join the conversation on e-HRM effectiveness from a higher education institutional perspective. In particular, the question was asked about what approaches should be taken when evaluating HEIs’ e-HRM systems. As shown in the glimpse at how complex the international higher education arena is, answers to this inquiry are not easy to come by. This also makes the application of corporate/government-based metrics to higher education settings somewhat of an inexact science.
Nevertheless, the parallels that HEIs share with corporations and governments serve as a constructive starting point despite the variances between them. The significant amount of data collection required and assortment of variables should not discourage higher education researchers from espousing this scientific endeavor. Neither should the task of constructing theoretical frameworks for measuring e-HRM effectiveness that are tailored for the unique characteristics found in higher education contexts. At the same time, bearing in mind there are useful insights from e-HRM studies over the past three decades that HEIs would be wise to incorporate. Therefore, it is recommended that future investigations into e-HRM effectiveness work to enlarge the comparisons between HEIs, corporations, and government offices. The short list of similarities and differences presented here is anything but exhaustive, which is undoubtedly one limitation of this chapter. Deeper analysis from a HEI perspective into the various subsets within the three categories of Maatman’s theoretical framework is also an area that future research could improve on.
Finally, in keeping abreast with current e-HRM findings, higher education studies can lend support for tackling the theoretical challenges that the emerging field of research is facing. One observance is that e-HRM research has been described as “fragmented” (Heikkilä, 2013, 13-14) and “drifting” (Bondarouk, 2014, p. 49) in having a lack in focus. Bondraouk is also calling for a move away from the prevailing emphasis on case studies for “cost containment and return on investment” (2014, p. 47) towards asking other kinds of questions. She urges researchers to give more attention to how HRM frames and architectures effect the interpretation and value of e-HRM within individual organizations and across international environments (2014). Experts that undertake studies into e-HRM systems at HEIs could also offer their support for these causes.
Ultimately, the full extent of how higher education studies can assist with developing e-HRM research is left to be determined. Even still, it is safe to say that coordinated efforts within university-industry-government relations for studying e-HRM effectiveness in HEIs is to everyone’s advantage.
References
Altbach, P. G., Gumport, P. J., & Berdahl, R. O. (2011). Introduction. In P. G. Altbach, P. J. Gumport, & R. O. Berdahl (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (pp. 1-12). Baltimore: John Hopkins.
Bondarouk, T. (2014). Orchestrating the e-HRM symphony. Retrieved from http://doc.utwente.nl/93261/1/oratieboekje_Bondarouk.pdf
Bondarouk, T. & Ruёl, H. (2009). Electronic human resource management: Challenges in the digital era. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(3), 505–514.
Bondarouk, T., & Ruёl, H. (2013). The strategic value of e-HRM: Results from an exploratory study in a governmental organization. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(2), 391–414.
Bondarouk, T., Ruёl, H. & van der Heijden, B. (2007). The contribution of e-HRM to HRM effectiveness: Results from a quantitative study in a Dutch Ministry. Employee Relations, 29(3), 280-291.
Cohen, A. M. and Kisker, C. B. (2010). The shaping of American higher education: Emergence and growth of the contemporary system (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dubosc, F. & Kelo, M. (2012, June). Human resource management in public higher education in the Tempus partner countries. A Tempus study number 10. Brussels: EACEA.
Etzkowitz, H. (2003, September). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 294-337.
Grajek, S., Lang, L. & Trevvett, D. (2012). The 2011 enterprise application market in higher education. Retrieved from http:// http://net.educause.edu/
Heikkilä, J. (2013). Perspectives on e-HRM from multinational settings. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Vaasa. Vaasa, FN.
Kuali (2014). What is Kuali HR? Retrieved from http://www.kuali.org/kpme
Maatman, M. (2006). Measuring the effectiveness of e-HRM: The development of an analytical framework for the measurement of e-HRM and its application within a Dutch ministry (Doctoral dissertation). University of Twente. Twente, NL.
O’Neil, M. (2014, April 28). Open-source software for college administrators reaches ‘tipping point’ after 10 years. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com
Ruël, H. J. M., Bondarouk, T. V., & Looise, J. C. (2004). E-HRM: Innovation or irritation? An exploration of Web-based human resource management in large companies. Management Revue, 15(3), 364-380.
Smith, D. (2011). Chapter 17: The diversity imperative: Moving to the next generation. In P. G. Altbach, P. J. Gumport, & R. O. Berdahl (Eds.). American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (pp. 465-490). Baltimore: John Hopkins.
Strohmeier, S. (2007). Research in e-HRM: Review and implications. Human Resource Management Review, 17(1), 19–37.
Tambellini, V. (2014, June 30). Oracle PeopleSoft market share is significant but not what analysts think. Retrieved from http://www.thetambellinigroup.com/
Verger, A., Altinyelken, H. K., & Novelli, M. (2012). Global education policy and international development: New Agendas, issues and policies. London: Bloomberg Academic.
Young, J. (2004, August 30). 2 universities team up to create free, open-source financial software for campuses. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com
There has been error in communication with Booktype server. Not sure right now where is the problem.
You should refresh this page.