Angelo van Stijn on how organisations can turn HR technology into lasting value
The rapid evolution of HR technology is shifting the focus from simply digitising processes to creating measurable business value and improving the employee experience. In this interview, Angelo van Stijn – the leader of HR Path in the Netherlands – discusses how organisations can turn HR technology implementations into lasting value beyond go-live.
To start with, the digitisation of the HR function has been high on the agenda for several years. What shifts are you seeing in the HR technology landscape today?
We’re moving beyond simply digitising HR processes. Most larger organisations already have HR technology in place, so the focus now is really on getting more value from what they already have. AI is obviously a major development, but at the same time, clients are looking much more critically at their existing technology landscape. They’re asking questions like, “Do we really need all these systems, integrations and manual steps?”
There’s also much more focus on the employee and manager experience, simplifying HR processes, and making better use of the data organisations already have, rather than simply adding more technology.
HR transformation programmes have had mixed success in practice. What can CHROs do from the outset to establish a clear link between the transformation and measurable business value?
It really starts with understanding what the organisation wants to improve, rather than starting with the technology. That could be reducing administrative work, improving data quality, giving managers better information, speeding up recruitment, or improving the employee experience.
It’s important to define these outcomes from the start and then measure them before and after the transformation. For example, if the goal is to reduce the administrative burden on HR, you should be able to see whether HR is actually spending less time on those activities afterwards. The same applies to things like recruitment cycle time or payroll corrections.
I also think it’s important to keep the wider business involved, so HR transformation doesn’t just become an HR IT project that’s disconnected from managers and employees.
Why is implementing an HR technology platform not the same as achieving a successful HR transformation?
Because you can implement a new system and still work in basically the same way as before. Technology is an enabler, but real transformation is also about processes, roles, responsibilities, data and how people work.
For example, we sometimes see organisations go live with Workday successfully, but managers still end up emailing HR with requests, and HR continues to handle those tasks manually. The system is live, but the way of working hasn’t really changed.
So I wouldn’t define success simply as, “Workday is live.” The real question is whether HR and the business are actually working differently and, ultimately, better.
During the design phase, how can organisations ensure that new HR technology actually improves processes rather than simply digitising existing ways of working?
You need to avoid starting with, “How do we put our current process into Workday?” Instead, first look at why the process exists and whether all the steps are still necessary.
For example, you might find that a fairly simple request is going through several approval stages simply because that’s how it has always been done. That’s a good opportunity to ask whether all those steps are really adding value, rather than just recreating them in Workday.
Standardisation is also important, because not every local difference necessarily needs to remain. At the same time, you need to involve local HR and payroll teams early enough to understand which differences are genuinely necessary. The implementation should really be an opportunity to challenge the way things are done and simplify processes.
Many challenges emerge during data migration and the transition to the new system. What are the most common pitfalls, and what lessons have you learned?
Data is often underestimated. Organisations sometimes discover quite late that their data is incomplete or inconsistent, or that different countries have different definitions for the same information.
Data ownership can also be an issue. You might have different systems containing different information, so who actually decides which source is correct? That needs to be clear early in the migration process.
Testing with realistic data is also very important, especially when payroll and integrations are involved. From my experience, starting the cleansing process early can make a big difference. It shouldn’t be something you leave until shortly before go live.
Once a new HR system is live, what are the biggest barriers to user adoption, and how can organisations address them?
Often, the system is technically working, but employees and managers don’t immediately understand what has changed for them or why. Training alone doesn’t solve that. The processes themselves need to be intuitive and easy to use.
Managers are particularly important because if they find a process difficult, they can quickly go back to emailing HR, and HR ends up doing the work for them.
For example, if support tickets after go live show that managers are repeatedly struggling with the same task, the answer isn’t necessarily to provide more training. It’s worth looking at the process and configuration to understand where the problem is and whether it can be made simpler.
What can HR leaders do to keep employees and managers engaged with a new platform once the initial excitement around the implementation has faded?
I don’t think people necessarily need to be “excited” about an HR platform. They mainly want it to make their work easier. So the focus should be on continuously improving the processes people use most often and listening to recurring feedback and support tickets. It’s also important to communicate those improvements, so users can see that their feedback is actually leading to changes.
Managers should also understand what they can do themselves, rather than automatically going back to HR. If the platform makes things easier for them, they’re much more likely to keep using it.
How should organisations measure the success of an HR transformation beyond traditional metrics such as system usage, implementation milestones or project completion?
I would look beyond whether the implementation was delivered on time or whether people are logging into the system. The more important question is whether the transformation is actually improving the way HR and the business operate.
You can look at things like recruitment cycle time, payroll corrections, how often managers can complete processes without HR intervention, the amount of manual work, or how much time HR spends on administration compared with more valuable activities.
The important thing is to establish those measures before the transformation starts, so you have something to compare against afterwards. Ultimately, the measures should link back to why the transformation was started in the first place.
In your experience, do organisations sometimes overestimate what technology alone can solve in HR? If so, where do you see this happening most often?
Yes, sometimes. AI is a good example. There is a lot of interest in what AI can do for HR, but if the underlying processes and data aren’t in good shape, technology alone isn’t going to fix that. Organisations still need clear governance, responsibilities and ownership to make technology work effectively.
Finally, HR transformation is often treated as a project with a defined start and end date. In reality, it needs to become part of the organisation’s continuous development. What advice do you have for making that shift?
I think the key is not to treat go live as the finish line. In many ways, that’s when you really start learning how the solution works in practice.
You need a clear roadmap after go live and should regularly review processes, user feedback, support tickets and new business requirements. Workday also continues to develop, so organisations should look at new functionality and decide what actually adds value for them, rather than automatically enabling every new feature.
There also needs to be clear ownership and budget for continuous improvement. Otherwise, the system can gradually become more complex and workarounds can start appearing again.
