Angelo van Stijn on the shift to Digital HR: What works and what doesn’t

Angelo van Stijn – the leader of HR Path in the Netherlands – has been active in the field of HR for two decades and operates at the forefront of HR technology. We sat down with him to discuss the growing impact of digital HR, the rise of new HR IT technologies such as AI, and how HR leaders can ensure their investments deliver value.

You’ve spent 20 years in HR technology. What has changed the most and what has not changed at all? 

If I look back over the past 20 years, the biggest shift is how HR technology is positioned within organisations.

Twenty years ago, HR tech was mainly about payroll and record-keeping. Today, it is about decision-making, workforce planning, and employee experience. For example, where HR used to report on headcount quarterly, organisations now expect real-time insights on skills, attrition risk, and productivity.

What hasn’t changed is actually more interesting. The fundamental people challenges are still the same. Organisations are still trying to attract the right talent, retain them, and help them grow.

One thing I’ve learned over the years is that technology is rarely the limiting factor. Adoption is. You can implement the best system in the world, but if people don’t trust it or don’t use it properly, you won’t see the value.

From your perspective, what’s distinctive about the Dutch HR-tech market compared with the wider European landscape?

What stands out to me in the Dutch market is the combination of digital maturity and pragmatism.

If we compare the Dutch market to other European countries, we will see that Dutch organisations adopt HR tech relatively quickly, but they are also very ROI-driven and practical. For example, I have seen Dutch companies reject “global best practice” solutions if they don’t fit local processes or add clear value.

Another thing I notice is that Dutch companies often prefer simplicity over complexity. Even when they have the capability to implement very advanced solutions, they tend to ask: do we really need this, or can we keep it lean and effective? That mindset makes a big difference in how successful implementations are.

HR-IT has moved up the agenda in recent years. What are the top three drivers behind that shift in the Netherlands?

From what I see in the field, three things are really driving this. The first is talent scarcity. Organisations need better data and tools to attract and retain people.

The second is increasing complexity, especially around regulation and compliance. Whether it’s GDPR or reporting requirements, organisations are forced to get their systems and data in order.

And the third is the shift towards more strategic workforce planning. Leadership teams want to make decisions based on skills, not just job titles, and that requires a completely different level of data and system maturity.

A concrete example: I worked with a client recently who reduced their time-to-hire by around 30% simply by connecting recruitment data with workforce planning. That kind of impact is what’s putting HR-IT higher on the agenda.

When organisations say they want modern HR, what outcomes do they actually mean? Where do you see the biggest gap between expectations and reality?

When organisations talk about “modern HR”, they usually mean a combination of better employee experience, more data-driven decisions, and less manual work. The challenge is that many expect those outcomes just by implementing new technology.

In reality, I see a gap between expectations and reality. The biggest one is that companies invest in tools, but don’t fundamentally rethink how HR operates. They keep the same processes and just digitise them. That’s where things fall short.

One of the most common lessons I’ve seen is that if you don’t redesign your processes and clarify roles and responsibilities, you’re not transforming HR, you’re just making inefficiencies faster.

Many see HR-IT as enabling the HR function. You argue the value goes further, can you share some examples?

In my experience, the real value of HR technology often shows up outside of HR. In finance, for example, better workforce data leads to more accurate forecasting. I’ve seen organisations reduce forecasting errors significantly just by improving how workforce data is structured and integrated.

In compliance, automation plays a big role. Instead of manually tracking requirements, systems can ensure everything is documented and auditable, which reduces risk quite substantially.

And for leadership teams, the biggest change is speed. Having access to real-time dashboards means they can act earlier, whether that’s on attrition trends or emerging skill gaps.

So, the impact is not just efficiency within HR, it’s better decisions across the business.

If you could choose one KPI that best shows HR technology value, what would it be and why?

If I had to choose one KPI, it would be time-to-decision. Not just time-to-hire or cost per employee, but how fast leaders can make informed decisions. The reason is that this KPI reflects multiple things at once. It tells you something about your data quality, your system integration, and how usable your tools are.

And ultimately, better decisions drive business outcomes.

Implementing HR-IT systems often comes with challenges. From your experience, what are the most common pitfalls and what’s the simplest way to prevent them early?

There are a few patterns I see again and again. One is underestimating change management. Organisations focus heavily on the system, but not enough on how people will actually use it. Another is data quality. It’s often treated as a technical detail, but it has a huge impact on the success of the project. And a third is overcomplicating the solution.

The simplest way to prevent them is to start with clear business outcomes, not system features

For example: I’ve seen a project with more than 50 integrations struggle because the organisation did not align on what success looked like.

Data quality, integrations, security, change management: which one is the silent killer most teams underestimate and why?

If I had to pick one, I would say data quality, because it is less visible than change management, but more damaging. Bad data leads to wrong decisions, loss of trust in the system and low adoption.

What I often notice is that even the best-designed system won’t deliver value if the underlying data is flawed. In that sense, data quality can quietly undermine an entire implementation.

Generative AI is everywhere. In HR-IT, where do you see real value already today and where is it mostly hype?

There is definitely real value already, particularly in automating repetitive tasks. Things like screening candidates, handling documentation, or supporting basic queries can be done much more efficiently with AI. It’s also starting to add value in decision support, by identifying patterns or highlighting risks that might otherwise be missed.

Where I think there’s still a lot of hype is around fully autonomous HR processes. The idea that AI can replace human judgment in areas like hiring or performance management is, in my view, unrealistic.

AI can support decisions, but context, culture, and nuance still require a human perspective.

Looking 3 to 5 years ahead, what capabilities will become “table stakes” in HR platforms and HR operating models?

I expect a few things to become standard over the next few years. AI-supported decision-making will become more embedded in daily workflows. We’ll also see a stronger change towards skills-based workforce management, where organisations focus less on roles and more on capabilities. Seamless integration between systems will be expected rather than a differentiator, and real-time analytics will become the norm.

Organisations that lack these key capabilities will simply fall behind.

If you could give Dutch HR and IT leaders one piece of advice for 2026 planning, what would it be?

Start with your workforce strategy, not your technology roadmap. Technology should enable your strategy, not define it. The biggest mistake I see is that companies invest in systems before they define what skills they need and how they want to operate.

Take the time to really understand your workforce, where the gaps are, and what capabilities you’ll need in the next few years. That clarity makes every technology decision more focused and ultimately more effective.

Finally, you lead HR Path in the Netherlands. What value does the firm bring to the table?

We bring an independent and expert perspective. Clients typically ask us to implement a system or improve efficiency. What we tend to challenge them on is the underlying question: what problem are you actually trying to solve? In many cases, the challenge is not technology. It’s about how HR is organised, how decisions are made, or who owns the data. This is where advisory adds real value.

Additionally, HR Path is less about theory and more about making solutions that actually work in practice. We bring a combination of deep HR expertise, strong technology focus and practical delivery approach.

Ultimately, we help our client link their business priorities to a clear HR strategy and translating that into processes and solutions that work in practice.