It is not possible to have a 'standard' integrated human resource system that can meet all HR requirements through the use of end-user parameters, as it has been done for payroll systems.
So says Ron Warren, executive chairman of payroll software company NuQ, who says this is because HR requirements differ so widely from practitioner to practitioner.
He cites the example of where a supplier of packaged programs attempts to supply both a payroll and integrated HR system: “The end result has not been successful, with one ending up with an excellent payroll system, but a mediocre HR system using the same techniques, or vice versa.”
Warren says some might argue the challenge with an interfaced option is the difficulty in getting the two systems to talk to each other. But he adds this has changed with the everyday use of sophisticated databases and equally advanced programming languages to use them efficiently.
“Nowadays it is a comparatively easy task for two systems using the same database to freely and easily pass data between themselves without human intervention, so that they are truly integrated with each other,” says Warren.
Whereas the payroll requires comparatively little customisation, achieved mostly through changing 'parameter' values, Warren notes the HR system has an extensive library of program modules, which are 'stitched' together by programmers to achieve what the HR practitioners want.
“In other words, the HR customisation is a technical task which is done by programmers, whereas the payroll customisation is done by payroll experts tailoring parameter specifications,” he explains.
Warren points out that because both systems use the same database and programming language, the interface between them is simple to achieve. Data is entered once only (in the HR system mainly), and is automatically passed to the payroll system where required.
“In achieving this integration, the many differences between HR and payroll system requirements became even more apparent.”
For example, he explains that an HR system must never be 'locked', but rather open for data entry and enquiry at all times. A payroll system, however, must be 'locked' when all input for the payroll period has been completed, and resulting payslips checked for accuracy before payslips can be issued and financial reports created.
According to Warren, this apparent conflict between systems can be removed by allowing the HR system to be kept open and running without any 'locking' being implemented.
In this case, when the payroll is 'locked', the HR system automatically senses this and instead of passing data to the payroll, it will put all updated data in a queue. When the payroll is unlocked, the queued data is automatically passed to the payroll in the normal way, he explains.
Warren says this example supports the theory that payrolls and HR systems are different animals, requiring their owners to treat them differently, but they can be taught to 'play' together without great difficulty.
He concludes that there is no doubt payroll and HR systems need to share information. “However, having separate payroll and HR systems and creating an interface between the two systems to link and share information is the best 'integrated' option,” he points out.
In Warren's opinion, over the years, the best results have been achieved by those who used the payroll system which best suited their needs, together with a separate HR system that best met their HR needs.
Share