It is quite startling that every corner you turn, every page you flip and every other business call you take, some company or some product has become e-enabled. This left me wondering whether the human resources (HR) fraternity had been caught napping, or if it had in fact pondered and debated this fast-growing reality.
There is a fair amount of e-HR around, especially from the software vendors. It would appear that software vendors have adopted the e-focus out of necessity to sell their products, but I am less convinced that they have the insight into HR specifics that are impacted by the proverbial "e". Noticeably, there is no differentiation made between e-lectronic, I-nternet or m-obile-enablement.
Is it a matter of time before other forms of interaction replace the direct human interaction of HR?
Rob Scott, manager, Deloitte Consulting
If one would separate the HR function into two broad components, namely transactional and non-transactional activities, then it is easy to envisage the transactional components being e-enabled.
In fact, the enterprise resource planning systems have prospered off the atomisation of HR and payroll transactions - and the introduction of employee self-service and workflow tools has provided huge opportunity to enhance how the transactional activities could be carried out and managed.
But what about the non-transactional HR activities - are they impacted by e-concepts, is it practical, ethical or needed, and will it provide organisations with a competitive-edge over those who don`t have e-HR services?
Counting e-possibilities
In most of the non-transactional HR activities, a continuum of e-possibilities exists. The conservative point on the continuum would suggest that no electronic mechanisms should be used to replace "people" activities, while the radical view on the continuum would suggest that technology could replace all direct human interaction with the HR customer.
The most public response to this dilemma is that people cannot be removed from the equation unless you want to create a cold and uninviting work environment. But this is the same argument used when computer-based training (CBT) was rearing its head as an alternative to traditional classroom-based training. Screams of horror were heard from trainers who argued that people could not learn via a computer screen.
In reality, CBT has proven itself a very suitable and cost-effective e-method, and as modern software development tools emerge, so more types of training will be conducted via CBT. Technology is available today in the form of virtual reality that will allow practical training such as mechanics and engineering to be done without a human trainer. So did the workplace become the hell predicted by the training prophets of doom? Clearly the answer is no. CBT has offered the flexibility, control, safety and savings without losing the end result.
Is it a matter of time before other forms of interaction replace the direct human interaction of HR? If we think beyond our personal perspectives and confront our fears around the perceived inability of technology to replace the human being, is it conceivable that most HR activities can be done without any direct human interface?
I say direct because a job applicant or an employee may "interact" with an HR person via a technology medium such as the Internet. It is conceivable that employee recruitment could be done without seeing an applicant in person until the individual meets the respective line manager electronically or in person - application forms, psychometric evaluations, medicals, interview questionnaires and the likes, can all be done electronically and at a time that is convenient to all involved. Sound a bit over the top? No, think back to the CBT scenario.
Human interaction
The debate is not around whether the non-transactional activities can be e-enabled or not - clearly it can be done, and as technologies such as neuro-networks improve, it will enable more "human" activities to be done via electronic, Internet or mobile technologies.
The debate for HR is whether the human interaction role currently played by HR staff adds any value to the employee, the organisation or the work environment, which could not be done by technology.
The bottom line is that services such as employee counselling and legal issues, which are definite outsourcing opportunities for organisations, and are likely to remain mainly human-intensive activities, are not currently suitable to be e-enabled. It would be a sad day to see a colleague sending an e-mail request to the "performance management computer" system for a review on a proposed demotion!
The e-HR possibilities around non-transactional activities need to be considered with the organisational goals in mind, the cultural implications and the value that it adds. HR people should, however, understand the implications of e-enabling their services, and ensure that the transition and support mechanisms are in place.
Fundamental to any organisation e-enabling their processes, whether it is HR or other, is the re-alignment of HR processes and activities to support the e-business. The type of employee recruited, the manner of interaction, training, measurement and development methods, cultural issues and remuneration are all impacted to a greater degree.
It would appear that there are many opportunities for HR to become e-enabled, and in retrospect they have been leaders in areas such as training. Whether it is correct or not is dependent on the organisation, its intended direction for HR and of course, the vision developed by the HR executive. SA cannot afford to continually be ranked last on the HR index in the Global Competitive Report - HR executives need to take bold steps forward rather that waiting for next month`s proverbial flavour.
Share