Practical implications

The overall findings of the research can be concluded into several practical rec-ommendations and proposals. As Rüel et. al. (2004, 372-379) point out, e-HRM is not a technological change, but first and foremost a change in the mindset and the acceptance that it is a permanent development. Also at KC, the full benefits have not yet been taken into use; there is still room for developing the technical possibili-ties. Potentially, more dynamic models, such as implementing e-HRM in cycles might be more effective, as Marin and Reddington (2010) have observed. As Bon-darouk and Sikkel (2005) have proposed, the adoption of e-HRM could be more systematic ifseen as a learning process in which systematic and facilitated group interactional processes could advance the organizational learning and benefit dif-ferent groups, such as managers, HR professionals, employees etc. As Huang and Martin-Taylor (2013) have suggested, HR professionals could take a more proac-tive role on reshaping the perceptions of managers on e-HRM through interacproac-tive interventions. In order to empower managers to adopt e.g. HR self-service tech-nology, they should be allowed time to understand and articulate the requirements set for them.

As Whittaker and Marchington (2003, 245-261) observe, managers are the ones who put HRM (and e-HRM, if applicable) into practice and, accordingly, attention should be paid to this group. This should be taken into consideration in the whole manager lifecycle, from recruitment to exit, and in ensuring that their induction and training, development in general, as well as targets and rewards support these HR aspects belonging to their work. As was noticed in this research, the mid-management was not very familiar with the company’s human resource manage-ment’s aims and main initiatives.

Managers play a significant role in the organization and its success. Managers wished for more clarity in the HR services and support available, and one might assume that there is some un-clarity about the role of managers since HR matters are often done in close co-operation with the HR professionals. The clarification of the responsibilities leads to the next question of how to ensure the managers’ ca-pability. Could e-HRM be (an alternative) way to support and facilitate the devel-opment of capability and, in that sense, renew the organization through learning?

Or, in the worst case scenario, could e-HRM make it more rigid by harmonizing the ways of working and reducing creativity? Considering such questions can provide access to new data which has not been available previously or which has been ig-nored. It is also important that the clarification of responsibilities is done also with regard to the company’s HRM and e-HRM decisions.

It seems that there might have been a need for informing the organization better about the e-HRM project and its purpose which could have led to greater apprecia-tion of the content and better design of the e-HRM applicaapprecia-tion, as Rüel et. al.

(2006, 280-291) have stated. This study gives similar signals as the one by Parry and Tyson (2011, 349-350), regarding the factors which affecting the realization of the goals of e-HRM. Training in the use of e-HRM, the design of the e-HRM

sys-tem, general acceptance, familiarity with technology in the organization, HR skills in the HR function (e.g. project management, process engineering, communica-tion), and especially the managers’ engagement to e-HRM could have been taken into consideration better in the case study company. Similarly to Fisher and Ho-well’s study (2004) observations, the wider engagement of the line management in the early phases would probably have affected the design decisions and thus, in-fluenced the success of the system implementation also at KC. Another possibility is that the company has failed to communicate about the design process and deci-sions in which case the communication could have been the main research topic.

As Foster (2009, 9-19) points out, managers and HR professionals can have very different views on technology in terms of its day-to-day use, capability and strategic value. It might be worthwhile to analyze the angles of different stakeholders, such as employees and HR professionals, in addition to different managerial levels at KC which has adopted e-HRM fairly recently. These probably polarized attitudes could help to navigate the future path of e-HRM in the company. Several recom-mendations and proposals including practical examples for the case company are listed in table 11 to be considered.

Table 11. Practical proposals for KC regarding e-HRM.

Development item Practical examples of methods and tools Strengthening & further

planning e-HRM utiliza-tion

Review of different stakeholder’s e-HRM usage and perceptions on it e.g. through interventions and other interactive methods

Regular processes on place to collect and review feedback and devel-opment ideas for e-HRM

Interactive forums among managers to support e-HRM learning

HR function’s role and support & services communication e.g. through service catalog in intra pages

Facilitated virtual networks for problem solving, benchmarking, best practices sharing, and troubleshooting

Development program on change management & implementation skills Site visits to learn the business and train the managers

Performance of manag-ers in e-HRM mattmanag-ers

Leadership & KC’s way of conducting HR matters, related targets in annual target setting and their follow-up

Review and clarification of e-HRM responsibilities

Common forum with different stakeholder representatives to clarify roles regarding processes and People system data input