Climate to support technology change: An empirical study of an HRIS

implementation
E. Wilson-Evered1 , C. E. J. Hrtel,1 N. J Hingston,2 P. Whitman and J. Laing,3
1
Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
2
N.J. Hingston Contracting, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
3
University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Abstract
Despite their widespread application over many years, the implementation of human resource information
systems continues to be fraught with problems. Failures and complications are frequent with estimates
ranging between 40% and 70%. Costs of failed technology projects are immeasurable but some estimates are
in excess of US$12.6 million per project. Even when implemented, there is evidence that the management
information systems are used strategically. There is limited recent empirical research conducted during HRIS
implementation and in particular few studies have explored the climate of the organization within which the
project operates. Integrating project implementation methodologies within a change management and
innovation framework offers alternative direction for research and new insights to improved implementation
methodologies. In this paper, we report a study of an HRIS implementation of 6500 employees during a
period of major organizational change. The study tests a model of predictors of support for innovation and
change. In accordance with our propositions, we find that transformational leadership, information about
technology change, emotional satisfaction and participative decision making account for 46% of the variance
in support for new ideas. This study is distinguished by the direct application of the findings to inform the
implementation methodology.
Acknowledgments
Funding support for this research was partially provided by an ARC SPIRT Grant awarded to Professor
Debbie Terry, University of Queensland. The authors acknowledge the contribution of Professor Terry, Dr
Blake McKimmie, Ms Katie Wilson, Mr Cameron Newton and Ms Nicole Doherty of the University of
Queensland, Brisbane, Australia and the support of Mr Graeme Carswell (Chair) and the Project
Management Group of the Royal Brisbane and Womens Hospitals, Brisbane, Australia.

Introduction
Businesses cannot afford the write offs associated with information technology project failures not to
mention secondary effects such as lost opportunities, reputations and staff morale. Katzen, 2001:
p.48.
Increasingly complex human resource information systems (HRISs) are required for contemporary
strategic HR planning and management to enable effective workforce analysis, forecasting, trend analysis and
decision making (Caldas & Wood, 2000). Although, the trend for multinationals is for enterprise-wide
resource planning systems (ERPs), the less complex HRIS features in many Australian businesses. Though
commonplace, the implementation of a new HRIS often occurs in organizations where managers and staff
are unprepared for the scale of change looming before them. Consequently, people resist or distance
themselves and many HRIS projects fail to realise projected benefits and deliverables and experience overrun
budgets. A report published in November 2002 by KPMG (Harvey, 2002) found that 56% businesses
suffered a failed IT project in the preceding year with an average cost of US$12.6 per project. Australias
spending on IT continues to rise with the government sectors (ABS, 2001) total expenditure on information
technology and telecommunications (IT&T) for 2000 being estimated at $4.3 billion or 5% of total government

HRIS Implementation

operating expenditure. This study takes place in the health care industry which has unique characteristics.
New technology in health care differs from other sectors as costs are viewed as an investment that will lead
to improved service quality to patients and the community (Kern & Jaron, 2003). Further, technology change
is driven by clinicians without the normal laws of supply and demand. Spending on health care related
technology is currently projected at a massive US$1.3 trillion (Kern & Jaron, 2003). Nevertheless, health care
organizations do not make the most effective strategic use of information systems (Orr, Sohal, Gray &
Harbrow, 2001) and this contributes to the lack of benefits realisation.
Implementation problems stem from lack of attention, the organizational climate, and organizational
change strategy so that although the system in the organisation continues to have problems (Jones, 1999).
Despite the wealth investment in people, time, software and hardware, organisations choose to use
homegrown methodologies to manage IT projects (Harvey, 2002), often with costly results. As Katzen (2001)
notes, the cost of technology failures is immeasurable but the reasons for projects failing could help pave the
way for success.
In terms of the context, problems are inherent on the organisational systems and organisational
climate in which the HRIS is imposed. It is important, therefore, to have a project group outside; the
organization to lead the implementation initially as these people are not bound by cultural norms and fears that
can cloud decision making. This situation is a delicate blend of tensions. All other things being equal, such as
the software being reliable and appropriate IT success, is dependent on the opposing pull of at least two
competing forces; the organisational context and the implementation methodology. Lewins (1947) force field
analysis to this tension is illustrative. On the one hand, we identify the project teams drive for a speedy
efficient implementation, and on the other, is the organisations drive for more time, information and
acceptance often manifesting in panic and resistance (Castle & Sir, 2001). Acceptance of new initiatives in
general (West, 2001) and new technologies in particular (Szajna, 1996) is contingent on the degree to which
the climate is open to and supportive of new ideas and innovation. Conversely, the implementation
methodology by many professional project teams is often one size fits all and does not adapt to the unique
climate of each organization, resulting in a clash of values and priorities (Goodman, Zammuto & Gifford,
2001).
In this paper, we report a study of the organisational context (climate) and the way in which the
implementation methodology was adapted to fit through collaboration between project and organisational
constituencies. Space limitation prevents a complete exposition of the implementation methodology. Rather
we report an empirical study embedded in a range of initiatives designed to promote openness to new ideas,
acceptance of the new technology and effective use of HRISs. We begin by describing the empirical and
theoretical basis for the study, from which we explicate a model of support for change and innovation. This is
followed with a report of the findings and the way in which they informed project management. Finally, we
offer recommendations for practice and directions for future research.

Theoretical and Empirical Basis for Propositions

Despite refinements to present day IT designs and implementation methodologies, and implementation
programs often exceed projected budgets or they may be aborted prior to full implementation (Martinsons &
Chong, 1999). In the health context, IT and organisational change literature cite the lack of support from the
workforce as the primary cause of unsuccessful IT implementation programs (Martinsons, 1997; Martinsons
& Chong, 1999; Schnitt, 1993). This widespread phenomenon has led to the studies conducted by scholars
and practitioners from diverse range of disciplines from organizational development (eg, Caldas & Wood,
2001) to engineering (eg Kern & Jaron, 2003). The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is a cognitivebased model investigating factors responsible for low user involvement in IT (Szajna, 1995). Empirical studies
of the model have reported consistently that people are more likely to use IT if they perceive the system is
easy to use, and useful (e.g., faster completion of tasks). Perceived usefulness is the most important
determinant (Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1989; Ibgaria & Iivari, 1995; Karahanna & Straub, 1999), Recent
studies have reported further that computer experience and organisational support impact on self-efficacy,
which, in turn, effects perceived usefulness and ease of use (Davis, 1989; Igbaria & Iivara, 1995). People
develop efficacy through access to training and learning supports that enable their professional development,
growth and confidence (Pasmore & Fagan, 1992).
Wilson-Evered, Hrtel, Hingston, Whitman & Laing, 2003

HRIS Implementation

As mentioned previously, the organizational context or the climate has an impact on the
implementation of new technologies. Climate represents shared perceptions about the way in which the
organization works across a number of dimensions (James & McIntyre, 1996). Important elements of climate
that influence the way in which change is perceived and embraced by employees (Rogg, Schmidt, Shull,
Schmidt, 2001). Next, we explore facets of climate that have been implicated in effecting change.
Communication has been identified by a many scholars and practitioners as a significant determinant
of effective organisational change (Lewis, & Seibold, 1996). Similarly, we argue that specific information is
required during HRIS implementation that makes explicit the impact, the timeframes and the value of the
implementation for each employee. Employee perceptions of communication (conversations about the
change) influence the course of a change - and by extrapolation technology acceptance (Ford & Ford, 1995).
Extensive research on innovation has found that climate processes encourage experimentation with new ideas
is associa ted with a change (West & Anderson, 1996). Further, change is more effective where participation
is encouraged, enabled and supported by colleagues and leaders (Cohen, 2000). Similarly, previous research
has demonstrated the effectiveness of the transformational leadership style in stimulating innovation and
change among followers (Bass, Avolio, Jung & Berson, 2003; Eisenbach, Watson & Pillia, 1999; WilsonEvered, Hartel & Rowe, 2003; Wilson-Evered, Hartel & Neale, 2001a, 2001b). A neglected but increasingly
important area of study is the effect of the affective experiences of the workplace to encourage acceptance
of new ideas and change. However, recent work by Perola -Marlo and colleagues (2002) has demonstrated
the importance of affective events on team climate and innovative performance on research and development
(R&D) teams.
Contemporary research on an Australian health care networks implementing new technologies found that
strategic use of technology was constrained by: lack of understanding of IT investments and potential
outcomes; little awareness by managers of the competitive gains of IT; and competing fiscal demands (Orr
et. al, 2001). Further, a previous study on hospitals implementing the same systems found that support for
innovation was contingent upon employee job satisfaction, high morale, low distress, confidence in technology
and change leadership. However, different groups revealed distinct patterns of predictors (Wilson-Evered,
Hartel & Rowe, 2003). From the foregoing review, specific facets of the organisational appear important for
HRIS project effectiveness. As an indicator of acceptance of new technologies we propose that that an
organisational climate embracing change and openness to new ideas is one in which change will flourish.
Below, we summarise these facets predictive of support for innovation and change:
1. Information and Communication: the amount of information and communication about the IT project will
predict the degree to which the organization is open to new ideas and change.
2. Participation in decision-making: end-users and key stakeholders involved at all stages will potentate and
change embracing climate
3. Professional development: the amount and opportunities for training and professional development will
influence directly the climate for change and innovation
4. Leadership: is vital to support of technology change and specifically the transformational leadership with
facilitate climate that is receptive to major change and innovation;
5. Emotional satisfaction: the degree to which employees experience high morale, energy, enthusiasm and
feel good about feedback, support and other organisational systems will influence their innovative
potential.
Background and Organisational Context
In July 2001, Royal Brisbane and Womens (RBWH) were schedule to begin the simultaneous
implementation of the Queensland Healths (QH) standard package Human Resource Management
information systems of LATTICE and ESP (Environment for Scheduling Personnel). Though a superseded
HRIS, LATTICE replaces PRISM/Caspay, which had been implemented 20 years previously. ESP is an
automated rostering system to replace the paper and pencil or EXCEL based systems. The two packages
were linked with middle ware to enable pays to be calculated directly from the roster. This project
represented a massive change to business processes and work practices affecting everyone in the
organisation. At an organisational level, the new systems created organisational links between staffing
practices, management and HR issues, payroll processing and financial management. At the individual level,
Wilson-Evered, Hrtel, Hingston, Whitman & Laing, 2003

HRIS Implementation

benefits include up-to-date payment (including overtime, recall, shift penalties), consistent interpretation of QH
awards, improved effectiveness and utilization of staff resources, reduction in time spent developing staff
schedules, and greater perception of consistency and equity through the improvement of staff scheduling
work practices.
These two systems, both together and separately, had been implemented in other QH facilities.
However, unlike these other hospitals, the size of the RBH and RWH (6,500 employees) necessitated a
staggered implementation to reduce risk factors associated with the big bang approach. Consequently,
employees were grouped according to the existing six Payroll (1100 employees each). The implementation
process therefore involved six sub-projects each with its own project staff, plan and schedule. Each grouping
(employees with corresponding HR/Payroll Team (Lattice user) and Rostering officer (ESP User)
commenced implementation on the two systems at six weekly intervals. The implementation from July 2001 to
November 2002 was implemented during a 5-year period of major structural change and rebuilding.
The RBWH were at the time two major tertiary teaching hospitals, collocated on the same campus as
the Royal Childrens Hospital and the Queensland Institute of Medical Research. For 60 years, the RBH and
RWH were separate entities with independent operating budgets, management teams and clinical services.
However, both hospitals were to occupy a single building by the end of 2002. As part of the integration
initiative, divisions/departments common to both hospitals had been merged under a single management. This
progressive merging provided additional challenges for the implementation as new structures, work groups
were formed, and others disbanded each week. Some divisions were already merged; other integrations
occurred under varied circumstances, resulting in an unstable organisational structure and disrupted staff. The
challenges of establishing and accurately maintaining the employee databases and administrative structures
required by the systems were considerable.
Project Preparation
In the period leading up the Staff Opinion Survey, RBH and RWH employees were informed about
the implementation of the two information systems. The number of employees precluded direct contact with
each person. However, senior QH project managers conducted regular meetings with senior members of
each division/department. These meetings served the dual purpose of senior divisional members distributing
information to their employees as well as enabling employee input into the decision making process.
Furthermore, information was disseminated in other media, such as workshops, hospital newsletters,
brochures, Intranet and notice boards. The information provided encompassed the nature, rationale and
employee benefits (e.g., more accurate pay, better workforce planning) of LATTICE-ESP, and the
implementation time-line (i.e. when each of the six teams would begin implementation). In addition, various
staff members were approached (or volunteered) to train as Client Service Officers (HR staff) or ESP Users
(Staffers/Schedulers). Two systems administrators were employed for ESP and one for the LATTICE was in
place for managing the database on the LATTICE system. The Corporate IS group allocated a project
member to the team and participated in the project steering committee and other decision making groups.
Training was conducted by experts in both information systems and is considered an on-going
process. Finally, all user groups met with multidisciplinary organisational and design representatives to ensure
that the work practices and database configurations were both user-friendly and tailored as far as possible to
specific departmental requirements.
Method
The overall aim of the Staff Opinion Survey was to assess staff attitudes towards a variety of aspects
in their work environment, such as leadership, organisational climate, redevelopment and integration, and the
implementation of LATTICE and ESP. Survey scales supplied on request from the first author. We report
analysis of a subset of the dataset in order to test specifically our proposed model.
The survey was developed through research, experience in organisational research (Griffin, Hart &
Wilson-Evered, 2000) and in consultation with academics from a number of university departments, principally
from the University of Queensland. The survey was distributed to all staff between December 2001 and
January 2002. Respondents were advised that that the purpose of survey was to assess staff opinions
regarding the integration and redevelopment of the RBH and RWH hospitals. A letter from the District
Manager was included that encouraged completion in work time organisational surveys were conducted 1-2
Wilson-Evered, Hrtel, Hingston, Whitman & Laing, 2003

HRIS Implementation

yearly to evaluate a range of variables targeted to improve staff satisfaction and organisational climate. A
number of strategies were employed to ensure confidentiality: coding all surveys; maintaining code numbers
so that they were not accessible to any member of the hospital or project staff; ensuring that no personal
identification was possible in the feedback process; and securing all surveys at the University of Queensland
where data entry took place.
Measures
Subscales measuring participative decision-making, and professional growth were derived from the
Organizational Climate from the QPASS instrument (Hart, Griffin, Wearing & Cooper, 1996).
Transformational leadership was evaluated using the Carless et. al (2000) brief measure developed in the
Australian context. Support for new ideas was extracted from Anderson and Wests (1998) Team Climate
Inventory. All scales used Likert type response formats. Six questions were developed in house to evaluate
the HRIS and Rostering software Implementation. For each question, respondents rated the extent of their
knowledge of the new systems on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Example
items are; I have been informed about the new information systems and I am aware of the changes
involved in implementing the new systems. Finally, emotional satisfaction was constructed by deriving items
from a number of subscales that indicated positive affective experiences in the work pla ce (eg. There is good
team spirit in this place and I am encouraged in my work by praise, thanks, or other recognition. Cronbachs
alphas for all scales were in the range .80-.90.
Results
Respondents
The 444 employees who responded to the survey (RBH = 188; RWH = 130; RBH and RWH = 126)
were from 14 separate hospital divisions/departments.
Response Rate
A total of 2250 surveys were distributed (adjusting for surveys returned unopened) and 444
completed surveys were returned for an overall response rate of 19.7%. Whilst the overall response rate is
low, the level is acceptable for organisational research especially during a period of total reconstruction,
reorganisation and reengineering. Two areas produced a good response rate (40%) and other areas delivered
low returns (7-10%). However, these groups were particularly affected by the merging of their departments.
Analyses
The results of the analyses identified that all divisions require more knowledge about the new
systems. Areas with scores lower than the mean were especially identified, in some cases their lower
knowledge is most likely related to implementation beginning later than the majority of other departments.
However, two teams had not yet begun their implementation but showed good knowledge of the information
systems and were superior to other groups. The higher level of knowledge may be a product of greater
enthusiasm in general and a positive climate among the group. These two departments also recorded the
highest survey response rate across all divisions/departments. The majority of work areas were aware of
their sub-optimal level of knowledge. Consequently, most requested more information, an indicator of at least
modest interest in and possibly enthusiasm towards the change process.
Data were analysed by application of frequencies, correlations and simple multiple regression. Table
1 provides the results of the Pearsons correlation of the variables in the model; all variables in the study were
significantly correlated. In Table 2, we present the results of the multiple regression.

Wilson-Evered, Hrtel, Hingston, Whitman & Laing, 2003

HRIS Implementation

Table 1. Correlations among variables in the study.

Variables
1
2
1. Emotional
Satisfaction
2. Informed about
.225**
IT
3. Transformational
.611**
.181*
Leadership
4. Open to new
.560**
.289**
ideas
5. Participative
.755**
.296**
decision making
6. Professional
.723**
.263**
Growth

.580**
.575**

.585**

.573**

.436**

.697**

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 2. Standard multiple regression of organisational outcome measures on the acceptance of new ideas.
Trans Accept
Emot
PDM Prof
New

R2
Adjust
Leader Tech
Satis
growth ideas
ed
R2
Transformational 1
.580**
.357**
Leadership
Acceptance
of .181** 1
.289**
.132*
technology
Emotional
.611** .225**
1
.560**
.206*
satisfaction
Particip. decision .575** .296**
.755** 1
.585**
.323**
making (PDM)
Professional
.573** .263**
.723** .697** 1
.436**
-.209*
Growth
.461
.446**

A standard multiple regression was conducted between support given for new ideas as the dependant
variable and transformational leadership, acceptance of technology, emotional satisfaction, participative
decision making and professional growth as the independent variables. This analysis was run to evaluate
which organisational climate measure has a predictive influence over support for new ideas. Figure 1 presents
the results of model testing.

Wilson-Evered, Hrtel, Hingston, Whitman & Laing, 2003

HRIS Implementation

Figure 1. Model of predictors of support for new ideas

Transformational
Leadership

0.38 *
Accepting new
technology
0.13 *

Emotional
Satisfaction

0.21 *

Support for new ideas

and change

0.32 *

Participative
Decision
Making

-0.21

Predictors in Model Accounts for 46% of variance

in Support for new ideas

Professional
Growth

As predicted, the climate variables we proposed contributed significantly to the prediction of support
for new ideas. Transformational leadership (=.36)p>.001, and participative decision-making (=.32)p>.001.
were the strongest predictors followed by emotional satisfaction (=.21)p>.05 and acceptance of technology
(=.13)p>.05. Professional growth was also seen to be a significant predictor however there appeared a
negative relationship (=-.21)p>.05. The likely explanation of this artefact given the positive value found in the
correlations is that of professional growth is acting as a suppressor variable (Tabachnik & Fiddell, 2001). The
model accounts for 46% (44% adjusted) of the variability in acceptance of new ideas. Therefore, the study
confirms that professional growth, emotional satisfaction, transformational leadership, participative decision
making and being well informed about the process of implementation and value of new technology all play a
significant role in generating an climate open to new ideas during major change.
Discussion
This study presents a rare attempt to conduct research during the implementation of two human
resource information systems in a large organization undergoing a merger and rebuilding program. The
findings provide strong support for the contention that a climate supportive of innovation and change is shaped
by the presence of a transformational leader who ensure opportunities exist for professional development and
growth and active involvement in decision-making. Employees are more open to change where there is
effective communication and information about the systems and the emotional experience of employees is
predicated on high workplace morale, enthusiasm and positive feelings about the workplace. Further research
is needed in a number of areas; first to link climate data with project outcome data and in particular, to
evaluations of changes in end user and line manages use of new practices, knowledge of systems and
leadership skills. Second, future studies might question the relationship between leadership, climate, user and
line manager effectiveness and increased access to and use of management information. Third, researching
the degree to which managers use and access to timely accurate data predicts improved organizational
decision making. Finally, a program of research including both qualitative and quantitative measures should be
established to developed enhance theoretical models of technology change and innovation.

Wilson-Evered, Hrtel, Hingston, Whitman & Laing, 2003

HRIS Implementation

Implications for practice

The analysis of the HRIS Scale revealed results below the mean on several of the items. These
findings were folded into the communication and change management strategy of all project teams.
Information was reiterated about the nature and rationale of the new systems, the implemented timeline for
each division/department, the changes to work practices and business processes, and how the systems will
assist workforce planning. A subproject team was allocated to make explicit and communicate employee
benefits expected from the new technologies because awareness of the benefits was particularly low across
all hospital divisions/departments apart from two. Information was succinct and free of technical jargon to
facilitate a clearer understanding of the implications of the new systems and disseminated to line managers in
ace-to-face as far as possible. A clearer understanding of the new systems was provided by the use of flow
charts demonstrating changes to job content, work practices and business information flows.
In line with our finding about the importance of professional growth, user-involvement and training was
targeted as an integral change strategy. Group user session with expert, one to one on the job support, and
numerous modes of training were incorporated into the training and education strategy. Such sessions allowed
staff to voice concerns enabled employees to take of their learning and development, thereby increase
technology competency and self-efficacy. Space limitations preclude description of the implementation
methodology however in line with the findings of the survey crucial areas were the focus of intense
interventions. Below we summarise some of the strategies used.
1. Information deployment and project ownership via extensive communication strategy
supported by data enabled environment for monitoring and decision-making and operationalised
through:
a)
Systems tests; i) data download from HR system interfaced to excel format; ii) on-demand
data management to capture preliminary and test results before go-live; iii) analysis of end user performance
and ability to follow up problem areas before go-live resulted in a sense of positive competitiveness within
teams so that scores could be improved as implementation proceeded; iv) reports translated numerically and
graphically for both HR/Payroll and senior management interpretation and project monitoring; v) tracking
testing results over time across the teams;
b)
Training assessments such as i) assessment form completed by trainees at the end of each
training session; ii) objective measurement of trainer performance; iii) trainee evaluation of the course
contents - allowed for subsequent follow up with both trainer and trainee;
c)
Diverse and deep interventions within the established change management strategy that
emphasised participation, collaboration, facilitation, learning and empowerment of client groups and project
staff. Examples of enabling tactics include: i) line manager interviews and consultations; ii) focus groups; iii)
multimodal multilevel surveys followed by feedback, discussion and action planning; iv) user readiness
assessments; v) line manager and user meetings, evaluation and improvement groups vi) coaching and
mentoring project staff, senior managers and frequent briefings with project Sponsor and Director, especially
as risks were spotted on the horizon.
2. Project Team structure:
a)
Teamworking strategies introduced to support a participative management approach. Teams
comprising of hospital and project staff were integrated but not necessarily co-located although this was
promoted. Where this was not possible, the computer network arrangement assisted the necessary
communication and co-ordination of their work however, face-to-face meetings were frequent.
b)
Teams within teams - project & district developed a complimentary approach; combined
project teams aligned to HR/Payroll groups; small implementation project teams that were responsible for
undertaking the completion of certain activities for their team; multidisciplinary user teams representative of
the HR/Payroll groups; project approach promoted, facilitated and nurtured team development and growth.
c)
Team support systems included: i) information and communication systems (eg. meetings
such as sponsor, multidisciplinary user, internal project management, HR/Payroll and team; development and
dissemination of informative brochures, checklists and progress reports); ii) measurement systems (eg. test
reports, training assessments, system data integrity checks) training systems, reward systems (eg. promoting
successes); iii) human resource systems and management policies; iv) team management structure
Wilson-Evered, Hrtel, Hingston, Whitman & Laing, 2003

HRIS Implementation

characterised by whole of task ownership and autonomy within teams; v) team processes eg team building
sessions, project team training). Project teams had the autonomy to make crucial project decisions a skill
that continue to improved over the project time span; vi) project supports and processes enabled, encouraged
and embedded self-managed teams as the fundamental unit of project management.
3. Leadership: i) provided support, advocacy, and empowerment promoted through trust in project
staff and users and communication of firm their belief in competency and efficacy; ii) was visible and
accessible; iii) established processes to increase participation, autonomy, decision making and accountability;
iv) provided support for growth and learning, modelling the sharing of information and leadership, and
devolving decision making to those closest to the business; v) increased project and end-users understanding
of the business objectives of the implementation; vi) highlighted project alignment with organisational
strategies and goals; vii) enabled project and clients contribution to achieving strategic and operational
objectives; viii) delivered expert information sessions on a range of complex matters (eg. payroll error rates,
exception reporting, management reports, specialised system components and functionality to manage for
agency nurses rostering); ix) enabled personal growth through access to development opportunities, extension
of skill and feedback on performance.
Conclusion
Although the cost and consequences of failed HRIS implementations can be widespread and
bewildering for many organizations, opportunities exist for improvement. We report a combined empirical and
case study design that adopted an integrated approach aligning project management with promoting a climate
for innovation and change, leadership, team working and people development, and growth. From the
empirical component, we explicated a number of predictors of innovation and change. These findings were
folded into the projects change management strategy that emphasised participation, collaboration, facilitation,
learning and empowerment of client groups and project staff. The project delivered on time, on budget (with
some to spare) and exceeded standards and expectations, suggesting the effectiveness of the methodology.

References
Anderson, N. R. & West, M. A. 1998. Measuring climate for workgroup innovation: development
and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 19: 235-258.
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D. & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing
transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology.88(2), 207-218.
Caldas, M. P. & Wood Jr, T. (2000). The part and the whole: Reductionism and complex thinking in
ERP Systems implementation. Paper submitted to the ODC Division of the Annual Meeting of the Academy
of Management, Toronto.
Carless, S.A., Wearing, A.J., & Mann, L. (2000). A short measure of transformational leadership.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 14, (3), Spring 2000.
Castle, D.K. & Sir, M. (2001). Organizational development: a framework for successful information
technology assimilation. Organizational Development Journal. 19, (1), 59-72.
Cohen, S. A. (2000). A consultative and participative approach toward change management in a
large insurance company. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 52, 142-147.
Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS Quarterly. 319-340.
Eisenbach, R., Watson, K. & Pillia, R. (1999). Transformational leadership in the context of
organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management.12(2), 80-88.
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995). The role of conversations in producing intentional change in
organisations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 541-570.
Goodman, E.A., Zammuto, R.F. & Gifford, B.D. (2001). The competing values framework:
understanding the impact of organizational culture and quality of work life. Organizational Development
Wilson-Evered, Hrtel, Hingston, Whitman & Laing, 2003

HRIS Implementation

Journal. 19(3), 58-68.

Griffin, M.A., Hart P.M., & Wilson-Evered, E. (2000). Using employee opinion surveys to improve
organisational health. In L.R. Murphy & C.L. Cooper (Eds.), Healthy and Productive Work (pp 15-36).
London: Taylor & Francis.
Hart, P.M., Griffin, M.A., Wearing, A.J., & Cooper, C.L. (1996). QPASS: Manual for the
Queensland Public Agency Staff Survey. Brisbane: Public Sector Management Commission.
Hart, P.M., Wearing, A.J., Conn, M., Carter, N.L., & Dingle, R.K. (1999). Development of the
school organisational health questionnaire: A measure for assessing teacher morale and school organisational
climate. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, (2), 221-228.
Harvey, F. (2002) Study shows high rate of failed IT projects. Financial Times, London: November
26. pp 33.
Igbaria, M. & Iivari, J. (1995). The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage. Omega International
Journal of Management Science. 23(6), 587-605.
Karahanna, E. & Staub, D.W. (1999). The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and ease of
use. Information and Management. 35, 237-250.
Kern, S. E. & Jaron. D. (2003). Health care technology, economics and policy: an evolving balance.
IEEE Engineering and Biology. Jan/Feb., 16-19.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: concept, method and reality in social science; social
equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1,(1), 5-41.
Lewis, L. K., & Seibold, D. R. (1996). Communication during intraorganisational innovation adoption:
Predicting users behavioural coping responses to innovations. Communication Monographs, 63, 131-157.
Pasmore, W. A., & Fagans, M. R. (1992). Participation, individual development, and organisational
change: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 18, 375-397.
Perola -Merlo, A. Hrtel, C.E.J., Mann, L. & Hirst, G. (2002). How leaders influence the impact of
affective events on team climate and performance in R&D teams. The Leadership Quarterly. 13, 561-581.
Rogg, K.L., Schmidt, D.B., Shull, C., & Schmidt, N. (2001). Human resource practices,
organisational climate, and customer satisfaction. Journal of Management, 227, (4), 431-449.
Appendix C
Martinsons, M. G. (1997). Human resource management application of knowledge based systems.
International Journal of Information Management 17: 35-53.
Martinsons, M. G. and P. K. C. Chong (1999). The influence of human factors specialist involvement
on information systems success. Human Relations 52(1): 123-152.
Orr, S. Sohal, A.S., Gray, K., Harbrow, J. et. al. (2001). The impact of information technology on a
section of Australian health care. Benchmarking. 8(2), 108-119.
Schnitt, D. L. (1993). Reorganizing the organizing using information technology. Journal of Systems
Management. 44(1), 14-20
Szanja, B.(1996). Empirical evaluation of the revised Technology Acceptance Model. Management
Science. 42, (1)
Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics, 4th Ed. Allyn & Bacon: Needham
Heights, MA.
Wilson-Evered, E. Dall, P & Neale. M. (2001). The influence of leadership on innovation at work. In
K.W. Parry (Ed.), Leadership in the Antipodes: Findings, Implications, and Leadership Profiles. Sydney:
Institute of Policy Studies Centre for the Study of Leadership.
Wilson-Evered, E. Hrtel, C.E.J. & Rowe, M. (2003). Measuring attitudes to HRIS implementation:
a pilot field study to inform implementation methodology. Paper presented at the APS Industrial and
Organizational Conference, Melbourne.
Wilson-Evered, E. Dall, P & Neale. M. (2001). The influence of leadership on innovation at work. In
K.W. Parry (Ed.), Leadership in the Antipodes: Findings, Implications, and Leadership Profiles. Sydney:
Institute of Policy Studies Centre for the Study of Leadership.

Wilson-Evered, Hrtel, Hingston, Whitman & Laing, 2003

10