It may not always be the news businesses like to hear, but the man dubbed a housetrained maverick by one business writer has some blunt, sober advice for those implementing new technology in HR.

Otto Pretorius, MD of newly-named QBIT, formerly known as SBS, says, “It’s vital that businesses do some clear thinking before acquiring new HR systems, especially if they have any hopes of turning their HR operation into a strategic arm of the business.

Pretorius points out that many businesses first buy new technology in the hopes that it’ll be a panacea for any flaws in their business architecture. Only when lamentable costs have been incurred do many CEOs do what they should have done first: Ask what exactly it is that the company needs.
 
He refrains from naming the companies involved, but quotes several case studies where “tens of millions of rands” were been spent on a new system that’s only 30 percent effective.

Pretorius notes that some of the most spectacular losses were incurred in companies where IT systems were not a core aspect of business – in one case, a transport utility lost millions of rands, only to discard the system shortly before it was due to be made live.

He emphasises though, that this is a business issue and a technology one: “Technology can only mirror what you already have in place and make it faster and more efficient. It can’t implement things we want but which aren’t in place. It’s not the technology that’s at fault, so the CEO can’t cry, ‘I was misled and I want my money back.’”

And as stunning as the losses are that Pretorius has enumerated are, he maintains they’re far more widespread that a lot of corporations would like to admit.

He’s quick adds that fiascos of this sort – and the resulting disruption of operations and chagrin of shareholders – are by no means inevitable. What’s required, he maintains, is a willingness to challenge conventional thinking on the role of HR in business.
Pretorius asserts that HR practitioners have traditionally acted as clerks and gatekeepers, rather than people who’re prepared to operate the HR division like a business and a strategic tool.

In this scenario, an HR operation may be either reluctant to accept a new system, or willing, but genuinely hard-pressed to accept its new role in an organisation.

Here the role of corporate culture shouldn’t be underestimated, he adds: “Simply shoehorning new technology into an HR operation that’s in stasis won’t increase its operating efficiency or its potential. “Similarly, if an HR operation’s administrative processes have become the end, rather than the means to an end, implementing new technology won’t remedy that. It’ll simply embed that thinking.”

In a situation like this, Pretorius likens the situation for businesses hoping to change their HR systems to a game of Battleships, where “You basically take shots in the dark, hoping to hit something – very expensive, very demotivating, very poor business practice.” He adds though, that with the right planning and a willingness to “ask the hard questions before implementing a system,” these paradigms can be overcome.
 
What’s certain, says Pretorius, is that HR will increasingly be required to justify its existence and its costs, just like other departments of any organization: “And it can. HR destiny is to be the hub of diagnostics for an organization and the place where trends are first detected. “It’s where people’s costs are tracked while constantly mapping the right people to the right job.

“Technology can help make that happen, but only if the will exists among the HR practitioners to make that leap. When the will exists and the right technology is at hand, it’s attainable. “A lot of HR people haven’t yet realised that they’re the interface between a business and its people. Once they start seeing themselves in that context, and start demanding that their systems facilitate that interface, things suddenly become clearer.”

Pretorius adds that without major shifts in the role of HR in business, a point is reached where a business questions the need for an HR operation department at all: “You’ll get some devil’s advocate saying, ‘The executives can do the recruitment, the line managers can handle the admin and accounts can handle the pay role; we can get consultants in to handle the IR stuff – what exactly is it we need these guys for?’ “Ultimately everyone in a business has to ask ‘What value do I bring? In the case of HR, am I a clerk or do I provide hard people intelligence? Is my job to ask whether everyone’s leave stats are up to date? Or is to be able to look at stats and ask myself why the performance or salary bell-curves are shaped like this, then to know I have a system that can help me find a trend?”

Pretorius says businesses often benefit from a bit of free thinking where new systems are concerned. He says it requires a special group of people to do this: “You’re talking about a difficult period in an organisation’s history. It’s a watershed, with plenty of conflicts and uncertainties. People worry about legacy systems talking to new systems and they worry about their bit of turf being protected.

“A lot of businesspeople can bulls**t, but not many have an intense understanding of HR, a vision of the value it must bring to an organization, or the ability to combine human skills with technology. But that’s what’s required to enable HR to operate on business decisions.”

Pretorius says it’s worrying that so many companies lose fortunes before getting help: “The ones who’re willing to talk are the ones who’ve already been through the pain. That has to change. If your organisation’s looks to its HR operation just to fulfil its compliance to legislation, it’s not going to realise its potential.”