Information & Management 44 (2007) 74–89

www.elsevier.com/locate/im

The use and impact of human resource information systems

on human resource management professionals
Zahid Hussain a, James Wallace a,*, Nelarine E. Cornelius b,1
a
School of Management, University of Bradford, Emm Lane, Bradford BD9 4JL, UK
b
Faculty of Management, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 1G5, Canada
Received 22 January 2005; received in revised form 19 September 2006; accepted 27 October 2006
Available online 6 December 2006

Abstract
Human resource information systems (HRIS) usage allows the human resource (HR) professional to become a strategic player.
With both increasing functionality and affordability, HRIS are being used extensively in organisations of all sizes. Despite this,
surprisingly little is know about the current usage, whether disparities exist between companies of different sizes, or about the
impact HRIS has on the general professional standing of the HR professional.
We developed and administered a survey and gave structured interviews to assess and compare the specific areas of use and to
introduce a taxonomy that provides a framework for academic discussion and comparison. We further determined whether HRIS
usage was strategic, a perceived value-add for the organisation, and its impact on professional standing for HR professionals. These
findings were compared to those for other professions that also use MIS. Our results showed that, on average, few differences exist
between SME and large company usage. Moreover, we found that the professional standing of HR professionals has been enhanced
by the specific use of HRIS for strategic partnering but that this is not as pronounced as that experienced by those from other
professions.
# 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Human resource information systems (HRIS); HRIS taxonomy; Non-strategic and strategic HRIS usage; Strategic partnership;
Professional standing

1. Introduction
Human resource management (HRM) is relatively
new. Indeed, Storey [26] observed that prior to the
1990s, the term HRM was rarely used outside the US.
The subsequent process of convergence of traditional
personnel management in the UK into the US based
human resource (HR) practice has been rapid. Storey
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1274 234335;
fax: +44 1274 546866.
E-mail address: j.wallace1@bradford.ac.uk (J. Wallace).
1
Permanent address: Brunel Business School, Brunel University,
Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH, UK.
[25] and Legge [16] have both described this migration.
Of recent, the increasing pressure to support strategic
objectives and the greater focus on shareholder value
has led to changes in both job content and expectations
of HR professionals [24,1,5,18]. One of the major
changes has been the contemporary use of IS in support
of the HR process [30,23,8,20]. Increased use of human
resource information systems (HRIS) allows profes-
sionals to achieve improved performance and thus
facilitate participation in internal consultancy activities
[27,28]. Moreover, it is argued that HR professionals
both provide value to the organisation and improve
their own standing in the organisation by using HRIS
[12,15].

0378-7206/$ – see front matter # 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.10.006
 Z. Hussain et al. / Information & Management 44 (2007) 74–89
Ulrich [31] and Brockbank [2] argue the need for HR
to become a strategic partner. HRIS is seen to facilitate
the provision of quality information to management for
informed decision making. Most notably, it supports the
provision of executive reports and summaries for senior
management and is crucial for learning organisations
that see their human resource as providing a major
competitive advantage. HRIS are therefore a medium
that helps HR professionals perform their job roles more
effectively [6,3,17] and to support strategic decision
making.
In 1992, Kinnie and Arthurs [14] reported their
findings of HRIS usage based on a national survey and
four in-depth case studies of UK organisations. They
analysed the responses of 231 personnel directors and
itemised typical routine and non-strategic usage. Whilst
they did observe a difference in the level of HRIS use,
they found that the nature of usage had not changed
appreciably since the 1980s. They therefore argued that
this was evidence of considerable ‘‘lost opportunities’’.
The comparative benchmarking study by Martinsons
[19] further suggests similar patterns of usage, also at
that stage, in Canada. Later, Ball undertook a survey in
the UK of small and medium sized private and public
sector organisation (her analysis was based on 127
usable returns, a 24.4% response rate from organisa-
tions with up to 1500 employees). Approximately 54%
of her respondents worked in personnel or HRM and of
these, 36% were personnel or HRM managers: the
remainder, including the 10.4% of respondents who
were directors, were from non-HRM functions but used
HRIS systems. She found that HRIS was primarily used
for ‘‘filing cabinet replication’’ of administrative tasks.
Thus, she argued, most HRIS use was in support of
routine administrative HR tasks, a conclusion broadly
consistent with that of Kinnie and Arthurs.
In contrast, Lawler and Mohrman’s 2001 US study
created a different picture. It built on the work of Ulrich
and surveyed HR directors of large commercial
companies (the average number of employees was
21,023) in order to assess the degree to which HR was a
strategic partner; they defined this to be a role related to
the development and implementation of business
strategy for the organisation. Their analysis of 130
returns, a 15.5% response rate, found that 41.1% of
respondents were full strategic partners with only 3.4%
with no role in the strategic process. Furthermore, they
found that the use of HRIS had consistently increased
over the previous 5–7 years, irrespective of the degree of
strategic partnership held by the HR function. Indeed,
HRIS usage had increased substantially even in firms
where HR had no strategic role. They cautioned,
75
however, that the use of HRIS and, in particular, fully
integrated HRIS systems, did not necessarily ensure that
HR would become a full strategic partner.
The role being played by HRIS in support of strategic
decision making is important as this enables organisa-
tions to achieve competitive advantage [7,13]. However,
little is known about use of HRIS by small-to-medium
and large sized companies for strategic decision
making. Furthermore, the impact that this has had on
the HR professionals is also relatively unknown.
2. Research method
Our research used two techniques to investigate the
impact of IS on HRM: a questionnaire survey to
obtain responses from HR professionals in UK
organisations, and interviews with a small number of
senior executives, such as directors, to gain deeper
insights into the emerging issues and as a source of
corroboration of the research hypotheses deduced from
analyses of the survey responses.
In our analyses, the convention of treating routine
usage as having an associated probability of 0.5, was
employed. Then usage at a significantly higher level
would be considered evidence of substantial use
throughout HRM whilst the lower level demonstrated
only sporadic use.
2.1. Questionnaire
A questionnaire was first developed by the authors. It
was then piloted with ambiguous questions and those
with poor response rates being reworded for clarity,
accordingly. The revised version was then sent to HR
managers at 450 organisations situated around the UK.
These were in diverse sectors of the economy and were
selected by stratified random sampling from the UK
Business Directory. As we were only concerned with
HR professionals, the seniority of the responder was
confirmed and confidentiality assured. Of the ques-
tionnaires received, 101 were from suitably senior HR
professionals (a 22% return); these were used in the
subsequent analyses.
The survey questions were designed to provide
demographic information about the responder and their
organisation; to elicit beliefs on the role of HRIS in
supporting professional activities; to determine the
extent to which HRIS were used, particularly for
strategic decision making; the current reliance on HRIS
by HR professionals; the level of intervention afforded
by HRIS and the perceived impact that current or
expected future HRIS usage was having on the
76 Z. Hussain et al. / Information & Management 44 (2007) 74–89
professional standing of HR professionals. A copy of
the relevant questions is given in Appendix A.
2.2. Interviews
In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted
with 11 senior organisational executives to whom the
HR professionals reported. These were intended to
determine whether the professional standing of the HR
professional had been elevated as a result of using
HRIS. Comparisons were made with other non-HR
professionals. In each case, the executives were
randomly selected from companies in the survey who
used HRIS, with selection being based on company
size, approximately in proportion to those responding to
the full survey. In order to select senior executives, it
was therefore necessary to receive the questionnaires
ahead of the interviews, which were subsequently
undertaken on the telephone.
A copy of the question template is presented in
Appendix B.
2.3. SME and large companies
In our research, company size was grouped as small-
and-medium sized or large. The former, termed SME,
had a workforce that did not exceed 500 workers, with
the remainder being categorised as large companies,
these being in accordance with the guidelines of a recent
Commission of the European Community report [32].
2.4. Strategic and non-strategic HR usage
HRIS are used to support a variety of HR tasks. Here,
strategic tasks are those that have a direct impact on, or
are used in support of, an implicit or explicit strategic
objective. Kinnie and Arthurs and Ball itemised specific
HR non-strategic tasks that were undertaken using
HRIS; Lawler and Mohrman similarly introduced an
array of tasks that related to strategic usage. In all
instances, a large number of disparate categories were
present. As a consequence we have introduced a
taxonomy consisting of a broader categorisation with
fewer entries; it provides focus and facilitates mean-
ingful comparisons. The strategic and non-strategic
functions identified in these major studies were mapped
onto this taxonomy. All routine activities that were
typically performed by less senior, non-professional
personnel were excluded. This made it possible to make
a qualitative comparison between previous and current
non-strategic uses of HRIS, strictly by HR profes-
sionals.
We also assessed the degree to which companies
were currently employing HRIS in support of non-
strategic HR, from the surveyed companies. This was
contrasted with previous levels of usage, as reported by
Ball. Tests for a difference in the respective proportion
of users were undertaken for current and future HRIS
use. The proportion of current users of HRIS for non-
strategic functions was compared to the proportion
of previous users, as identified by Ball. A similar
comparison was also made for future use, which was
estimated from reported HRIS planned usage from our
survey. These comparisons were made for both SME
and large companies. An additional test for proportional
usage was also made, regardless of company size, and
the previous user levels. In all cases, it was assumed that
non-strategic HRIS use was likely to have increased and
so one-sided Fisher’s Exact tests were conducted. We
also identified the current profile of SME versus large
company non-strategic HRIS usage and planned usage.
Finally, the extent of usage of HRIS for strategic
tasks over those that were still performed manually was
determined. This degree of computerisation of strategic
tasks was also computed to see if it differed according to
company sizes. A descriptive summary was provided
for the former, and a Fisher’s Exact test conducted to
quantify the latter.
2.5. The research hypotheses
Six research hypotheses were investigated in our
study. The corresponding questions (see Appendix C),
and the associated investigations were as follows:
Hypothesis 1. HRIS are used by HR professionals in
support of strategic tasks.
Strategic tasks included strategic decision making
and providing crucial information in support of this, in
the areas of: HR Planning, Salary Advice, Employee
Benefits and Industrial Relations. Operational level
activities were considered to be background tasks,
typically performed by junior personnel. Data for this
hypothesis were obtained from responses to survey
question 8: ‘‘At which level can/do HRIS support you in
your emerging roles, such as HR consultancy and
strategic decision making?’’ The appropriateness of the
response was gauged by qualifying questions 2, 9 and
10.
Fisher’s Exact test for HRIS use by HR professionals
was conducted to assess whether the proportion of users
to non-users differed between SME and large compa-
nies. Additional binomial tests were undertaken for
these two groupings to assess the level of advanced task
 Z. Hussain et al. / Information & Management 44 (2007) 74–89
use against a routine level of use (H0: p = 0.5, H1:
p 6¼ 0.5).
Hypothesis 2. HRIS will be used differentially by
small and medium sized companies in support of stra-
tegic decision making relative to large sized companies.
Several types of HR strategic use were categorised:
HR Planning, Salary Advice, Employee Benefits,
Industrial Relations, Assessment and Training Needs,
Recruitment and Performance Management. Data for
this hypothesis were obtained from responses to question
14: ‘‘What strategic HR tasks are you performing that
are supported by HRIS?’’ The appropriateness of the
response was gauged by the qualifying questions 2 and 9.
A separate Fisher’s Exact test was conducted for
each category of use to determine whether the
proportion of users to non-users differed between
SME and large companies. Additional binomial tests
were conducted for the two size groupings, to further
compare each type of advanced task use against a
routine level of use (H0: p = 0.5, H1: p 6¼ 0.5).
Hypothesis 3. HRIS will be used more in support of
strategic decision making in organisations in the future.
Data for this hypothesis were obtained from responses
to question 12: ‘‘What is your view of (further)
deployment of HRIS in your organisation for work
and decision making?: More strategic use of HRIS for
long term planning’’. The appropriateness of the response
was gauged by the qualifying questions 2 and 9.
A binomial test was performed to see whether HR
professionals will use HRIS more in support of strategic
decision making in the future. Two separate binomial
tests were also undertaken for each of the company size
groupings in our survey. A Fisher’s Exact test was also
conducted to look at the proportion of companies
claiming there will be an increase, to those not
anticipating one, for company size grouping. As we
were trying to determine whether there was likely to be
an increase in usage and that a reduction was not
anticipated, the test was one-sided.
Hypothesis 4. HRIS are used differentially by small
and medium sized companies for strategic decision
making relative to large sized companies.
HRIS facilitated strategic decision making was
appraised both for its support in decision making per
se, and for information provision. Data for this hypothesis
were obtained from responses to question 15: ‘‘If you are
now using HRIS in support of strategic decision making,
what is your role(s)?’’ The appropriateness of the
response was gauged by the qualifying questions 2 and 9.
77
In both cases, separate binomial tests were con-
ducted to assess whether usage was routine for SME and
large companies. Fisher’s Exact tests were also
conducted to appraise whether the proportion of
companies using HRIS in both categories of strategic
decision making were likely to depend on company
size.
Hypothesis 5. HRIS are seen as an enabling technol-
ogy by HR professionals.
Data for this hypothesis were obtained from
responses to question 5: ‘‘At which level can/do HRIS
support you in your normal HRM duties (advice,
service, functional support to the organisation)?’’ The
appropriateness of the response was gauged by the
qualifying questions 1, 2, 9 and 11. Here enabling
technology was seen as supporting advanced tasks.
We looked at whether HRIS were believed to be an
enabling technology by selected HR professional
groupings using binomial tests. A test was carried
out for HR managers, HR directors and personnel
managers, respectively. An additional binomial test was
also conducted with no distinction made for the job title
of the responder. A Fisher’s Exact test was also used to
see if the views were dependent on company size.
Hypothesis 6. HRIS usage for strategic decision mak-
ing leads to enhanced professional standing.
To assess possible enhancement in professional
standing due to the increased use of HRIS, responders
who used HRIS in support of strategic decision making
were asked to make a self-assessment and to judge if
their organisation recognised any enhancement. Those
who did not use HRIS, were asked whether they
expected that if they did use it in support of strategic
decision making, this would enhance their professional
status. Data for this hypothesis were obtained from
responses to questions 16 and 17. The appropriateness
of the response was gauged by the qualifying question 9.
To confirm that there was consistency between the
responses for self-assessed enhancement and perceived
acceptance of enhanced status by the organisation, we
obtained a measure of correlation between the two
responses. To take ties into account, Kendall’s t–b
coefficient was calculated.
We considered that those who were not currently using
HRIS for strategic decision making, and responded as
neutral when assessing enhancement of professional
standing, did so due to a lack of practical exposure. This
category was therefore excluded and the overall
responses for self-assessment, perceived organisational
recognition and potential enhancement were assessed
78 Z. Hussain et al. / Information & Management 44 (2007) 74–89

individually using binomial tests. Fisher’s tests were also
conducted to see if company size grouping had any
influence, both for self-assessed enhancement and
perceived enhancement. The three categories were
finally compared using a one-way ANOVA, treating
the Likert scale data as interval data, and with a Kruskal–
Wallis non-parametric test where no such assumption
was made. For all responses: 1 = Strongly Agree, 2 =
Agree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Disagree, 5 = Strongly Disagree.
2.6. Semi-structure interviews with senior
executives from responding companies
To corroborate several of these later results, the
responses to the follow-up semi-structured interviews
and survey from selected senior executives were
analysed. The responses were considered to represent
their company’s view. In all cases, HR professionals were
using HRIS for strategic decision making. Several t-tests
were conducted. In all cases, H0: m  3, where 3 was the
neutral value (from 1 = Strongly Agree to 5 = Strongly
Disagree). Furthermore, all tests were one-sided (H1:
m < 3) unless stated. The tests determined whether
professional status had been enhanced as a result of using
HRIS in support of strategic decision making in the
company and, more generally, within the professions.
Furthermore, we tested to see if it was felt that this usage
was valuable to the company. t-Tests were undertaken to
establish whether increased usage of MIS within the
company by other non-HR professionals was consistent
with that for the HR function, and if the professional
standing of these professionals had been enhanced.
Finally, a t-test was conducted to determine whether any
enhanced status of these non-HR professionals was
greater than any increase for senior HR personnel.
Corresponding binomial tests were conducted, with
‘‘Strongly Agree’’ and ‘‘Agree’’ responses being treated
as affirmations, ‘‘Neutral’’ responses were ignored, and
the remaining ‘‘Disagree’’ and ‘‘Strongly Disagree’’
responses as disagreements with the proposition. As all
‘‘Neutral’’ responses were associated with the executive
not feeling able to give a considered or measured
response, this test and the expedient were deemed
appropriate.
3. Results
3.1. Strategic and non-strategic HR usage
Our taxonomy, as shown in Table 1, comprised seven
categories. We believe they adequately covered all
previous and current areas of HRIS use by senior HR
personnel.
From this we can see that a new development is the
use of HRIS for strategically related Industrial
Relations issues. It is currently being used to support
strategic Union Relations (Industrial Relations) in large
US organisations. Furthermore, HRIS is supporting
Industrial Relations per se in UK companies, albeit
marginally. This is true for both non-strategic and
strategic purposes, regardless of company size. There is
no evidence of this being so prior to 1999.
The non-strategic use of HRIS, regardless of
company size, increased substantially over that by
smaller companies since the survey of Ball in 1998.
This is evident from the results of the tests between the

Table 1
Categories of use of HRIS by senior HR personnel
Categories of HRIS use Previous non-strategic HRIS use
(Kinnie and Arthurs)
HR Planning Succession planning; relocation;
human resource planning; labour
turnover; HR budgeting; wage modelling
Salary Advice Performance appraisal; wage modelling
Employment Benefits Pensions; car schemes; health schemes
Industrial Relations None
Assessment and Training Training; management development;
Needs performance appraisal
Recruitment Recruitment
Performance Management Performance appraisal
Previous non-strategic HRIS
use (Ball)
Manpower planning; budget
control (recruitment); budget
control (training)
Salary information; recruitment
(organisation salary structure)
Appraisal
None
Appraisal; training; training
(course evaluation); training
needs analysis; skills monitoring;
training evaluation; skills matching
Recruitment; budget control
(recruitment)
Appraisal
Current strategic use
(Lawler and Mohrman)
HR planning; organisational
development; organisational
design; strategic planning
Compensation
Benefits
Union Relations
Performance appraisal;
competency/talent assessment;
employee training/education;
management development
Recruitment; selection
Performance appraisal;
competency/talent assessment
 Z. Hussain et al. / Information & Management 44 (2007) 74–89 79

Table 2
Tests for proportions for current and planned HRIS use against previous use
Company size Proportions p-Value Degree of take-up
HRIS Previous HRIS
Overall (current use) 0.77 0.64 0.01* Significant increase in recent usage regardless of company size
Overall (planned future use) 0.86 0.64 <0.0005*** Highly significant increase in planned usage regardless of company size
SME (current use) 0.65 0.64 0.42 No evidence of increase in recent usage by SME
SME (planned future use) 0.77 0.64 0.03* Significant increase in planned usage by SME
*
Significant at 0.05 level.
***
Significant at 0.001 level.

previous level of usage by smaller companies and that
from our surveyed companies. Moreover, this trend is
expected to continue. Interestingly, there is no evidence,
from our data, that the level of use has increased
significantly since 1999. However, when comparing
current and planned use for SME, we observe a
significant increase. These results suggest that there has
been substantial adoption of HRIS for non-strategic
work by large companies with SME following this trend
in the near future. These results are presented in Table 2
and are shown graphically in Fig. 1.
It was found that substantial use of HRIS was still
made in supporting HR Planning, Salary Advice,
Employment Benefits and Training for non-strategic
purposes. Usage rates continue to be in excess of 40%
in all cases.
Whilst it was found that a large number of strategic
HR tasks were supported by HRIS there were still
several that were performed manually. An indication of
the extent of this is provided in Table 3. Approximately
44.5% of all companies use HRIS exclusively in support
of strategic tasks.
When comparing the degree of computerisation of
strategic tasks to company size grouping, the relative
increase of HRIS usage for advanced functions
appears to be slightly more pronounced for large
companies than for SME. However, a Fisher’s Exact
test showed that the proportion of advanced usage, to
manual usage, for company size was not significant at
the 5% level ( p = 0.40), so we have no evidence that
an overall difference in relative usage was present
between the two company size groups for those using
HRIS.
3.2. The research hypotheses
Hypothesis 1. HRIS are used by HR professionals in
support of strategic tasks.
There is strong evidence that HRIS were used in
support of strategic tasks. The findings are consistent
with organisations being increasingly more reliant on
the use of HRIS in support of advanced strategic
business tasks, irrespective of company size. The results
are presented in Table 4.

Fig. 1. Frequencies of current and planned HRIS non-strategic usage.

80 Z. Hussain et al. / Information & Management 44 (2007) 74–89

Table 3 from routine, although the observed number was below

Number of non-computerised strategic HR tasks average usage. There was, however, weak evidence that
Number of tasks Frequency usage for Salary Advice by large companies was
None 40 significantly above the routine level. Although this
One-to-three 32 result was marginal (B(36, 23), p = 0.07), this was a
Greater than three 18 two-tailed test and the Fisher’s Exact test for the
proportions was significant.
Table 4
Statistical tests for Hypothesis 1 3.2.3. Employment Benefits
Null hypothesis p-Value
From our survey data, there was a significant
difference in the proportion of users between SME
Overall routine usage, regardless of company size <0.0001***
and large companies who use HRIS to support
No difference in proportional usage and company size 0.45
***
Significant at 0.001 level. Table 6
Statistical tests for HRIS use in support of strategic decision making
HR tasks
Hypothesis 2. HRIS will be used differentially by
small and medium sized companies in support of stra- Null hypothesis p-Value
tegic decision making relative to large sized companies. HR Planning
No difference in proportional usage and 0.39
The overall use of HRIS in support of strategic company size
decision making was highly consistent for SME and Routine usage by SME 0.50
large companies. Furthermore, this overall use was seen Routine usage by large companies 0.62
to be substantially greater than routine for both Salary Advice
company size groups. These findings demonstrated No difference in proportional usage and 0.03*
that most companies that have HRIS, used them company size
Routine usage by SME 0.13
extensively in support of strategic decision making,
Routine usage by large companies 0.07
regardless of company size. The results from the
associated statistical tests are presented in Table 5. Employment Benefits
No difference in proportional usage and 0.03*
The results from testing the specific strategic decision company size
making uses are present in Table 6 and demonstrate Routine usage by SME 0.08
that differences exist in specific usage however. Routine usage by large companies 0.13
Industrial Relations
3.2.1. HR Planning No difference in proportional usage and 0.12
There was no difference in the proportion of users company size
from SME and large companies who use HRIS in Routine usage by SME 0.00001***
Routine usage by large companies 0.04*
support of HR Planning. Use here was also shown to be
no different from routine. Assessment and Training Needs
No difference in proportional usage and 0.11
company size
3.2.2. Salary Advice Routine usage by SME <0.0005***
From our survey, there was a significant difference in Routine usage by large companies 0.62
the proportion of SME and large companies who use Recruitment
HRIS in support of Salary Advice. There was no No difference in proportional usage and <0.0006***
evidence that the level of use by SME were any different company size
Routine usage by SME <0.00001***
Routine usage by large companies 0.14
Table 5
Statistical tests for Hypothesis 2 Performance Management
No difference in proportional usage and 1.000
Null hypothesis p-Value
company size
No difference in proportional usage and 1.000 Routine usage by SME <0.004**
company size Routine usage by large companies <0.008**
Routine usage by SME <0.00001*** *
Significant at 0.05 level.
Routine usage by large companies <0.00001*** **
Significant at 0.01 level.
*** ***
Significant at 0.001 level. Significant at 0.001 level.
 Z. Hussain et al. / Information & Management 44 (2007) 74–89
Employment Benefits. There was weak evidence that
usage of HRIS in support of Employment Benefits by
SME was significantly below the routine level.
Although, similar to that for Salary Advice by large
companies, this result was only marginal (B(54, 20),
p = 0.08); this was a two-tailed test and Fisher’s Exact
test for the proportions was also significant. There was
no evidence of the level of use by large companies being
any different from routine, although the observed
number was below average usage.
3.2.4. Industrial Relations
There was no evidence of an overall difference in the
proportion of users between SME and large companies
using HRIS for Industrial Relations. Both SME and
large companies, however, showed significant differ-
ences from routine usage. We therefore conclude that
use of HRIS for Industrial Relations was significantly
smaller than we would expect by chance alone although
there is no evidence of a difference in relative usage.
3.2.5. Assessment and Training Needs
There was no evidence of an overall difference in the
proportion of users between SME and large companies
using HRIS in support of Assessment and Training
Needs. SME usage was highly significant, demonstrat-
ing limited use of HRIS in support of this. There was,
however, no evidence of the level of use by large
companies being any different from routine.
3.2.6. Recruitment
There was strong evidence of an overall difference in
the proportion of users between SME and large
companies using HRIS in support of Recruitment. The
use here by SME showed a significant difference from
routine usage with the reported number of companies
being lower. We therefore have evidence that use of HRIS
for Recruitment by SME was significantly smaller than
we would have expected by chance alone. The use by
large companies in support of Recruitment was not found
to be any different than routine, however.
3.2.7. Performance Management
There was strong evidence of no overall difference in
the proportion of users between SME and large
companies using HRIS in support of Performance
Management. The use by SME showed a significant
difference from routine usage, however, with the
reported number of companies being low. Similarly,
and consistent with the proportions test, the use by large
companies for Performance Management was found to
be significantly lower than routine.
81
Table 7
Statistical tests for Hypothesis 3
Null hypothesis p-Value
No difference in proportional increase <0.01** [one-sided
in usage and company size test for increased
usage]
Increase in usage regardless of <0.0001***
company size
Routine usage by SME <0.0005***
Routine usage by large companies <0.00001***
**
Significant at 0.01 level.
***
Significant at 0.001 level.
Hypothesis 3. HRIS will be used more in support of
strategic decision making in organisations in the future.
HR professionals anticipate using HRIS increasingly
in support of strategic based decision making in their
organisations, regardless of the size of the company.
However, the test to see if a difference in the degree of
future take-up for company size suggested a significant
difference. This showed there was a difference between
the size of company and predicted increased relative use
of strategic decision making. These results were
consistent with organisations being increasingly more
reliant on the use of a MIS to maintain competitive
advantage, perhaps by supporting flat organisational
structures and being more responsive. In the case of
future HRIS usage, this was more pronounced for large
sized companies. The results from the associated
statistical tests are presented in Table 7.
Hypothesis 4. HRIS are used differentially by small
and medium sized companies for strategic decision
making relative to large sized companies.
3.3. Decision maker role
SME and large companies do not use HRIS for
strategic decision making per se differently. Indeed, the
data suggested that in both cases, usage was no more
than at the routine level.
3.4. Information provider role
The relative use of HRIS by SME and large
companies for information provision in strategic
decision making was similar. However, as the test used
was two-tailed, we do have weak evidence at the 8.3%
level of a difference due to company size. Information
providing appeared to be used substantially greater than
by chance for large companies. This has to be contrasted
with typically routine usage by SME. These results
82 Z. Hussain et al. / Information & Management 44 (2007) 74–89
Table 8
Statistical tests for Hypothesis 4
Null hypothesis
Strategic decision making—decision maker role
No difference in proportional usage and company size
Routine usage by SME
Routine usage by large companies
Strategic decision making—information provider role
No difference in proportional usage and company size
Routine usage by SME
Routine usage by large companies
*
Significant at 0.05 level.
further reinforced the view that a difference did exist
between the relative provision of information in
strategic decision making.
It would appear that the profile of usage for HRIS
supported strategic decision making between the
company size groupings, did prove to be different.
Overall, we have evidence that a reasonable number of
companies were using HRIS to facilitate or enable a
strategic business partnership role within their organi-
sation but with a different emphasis, regardless of the
size of the company.
The results from the associated statistical tests are
presented in Table 8.
Hypothesis 5. HRIS are seen as an enabling technol-
ogy by HR professionals.
HRIS were seen as a crucial and enabling technology
by HR professionals. This was the case, regardless of
the size of the company. The tests across the various
categories of HR job titles for the HR professionals in
our survey were consistent for two of the three main
categories of HR professionals: HR managers and HR
directors. These demonstrated that they attached much
importance to HRIS as an enabling technology.
However, this was not shared by the personnel directors
in our survey. This is consistent with Hoque and Noon’s
2001 study [10]. Their analysis of data from the UK
Workplace Employment Relations Survey 1998 [34]
established that respondents with the title ‘‘human
resource manager’’ were more likely to be profession-
ally qualified and develop more sophisticated business
policies and practices than those with the title
‘‘personnel manager’’.
Finally, no difference was seen in the proportions of
users who believed that HRIS was enabling for all
categories of job title when compared by company size.
This showed that there was evidence that the importance
of HRIS by several main groups of HR professionals
was consistent across companies, regardless of size. The
Table 9
Statistical tests for Hypothesis 5
p-Value Null hypothesis p-Value
HRIS are not an enabling technology <0.0001***
0.52 Proportion of users considering HRIS 0.66
0.68 as an enabling technology: SME
0.62 vs. large companies
HRIS are not an enabling technology— <0.0001***
HR managers
0.08
HRIS are not an enabling technology— 0.013*
0.89
HR directors
0.029*
HRIS are not an enabling technology— 0.23
personnel managers
*
Significant at 0.05 level.
***
Significant at 0.001 level.
results from the associated statistical tests are presented
in Table 9.
Hypothesis 6. HRIS usage for strategic decision mak-
ing leads to enhanced professional standing.
The number of neutral responses for the two
questions for HRIS users who used HRIS for strategic
decision making was high. For self-assessment of
enhancement to professional standing, we combined the
‘‘Strongly Agree’’ and ‘‘Agree’’ responses as affirma-
tive and tested against those who disagreed; no
responders registered that they strongly disagreed that
professional standing had been enhanced.
There was very strong evidence that those using
HRIS for strategic decision making believed that
undertaking this strategic partnering role enhanced
their standing. This was the case when neutral responses
were excluded and similarly when neutral responses
were treated as disagrees. These results were consistent
for HR professionals working either in SME or large
companies, when including neutrals as disagrees or
excluding them from the test.
Similar results were obtained regarding perceived
enhancement to professional standing by the organisa-
tion, again even when excluding neutrals and treating
neutral responders as disagreers.
The counts for the relationship between self-
evaluated and perceived enhanced professional stand-
ing are given in Table 10. In each case, the strong
recognition of enhanced status, and concomitant
acceptance by the company of this, is apparent. The
correlation between these using Kendall’s t–b,
r = 0.61, thus further demonstrated consistency in
responses for self-assessed enhanced professional
standing and the belief that this was duly recognised
by the company.
 Z. Hussain et al. / Information & Management 44 (2007) 74–89
Table 10
Self-assessed and perceived enhanced professional standing
Recognised enhanced Self-evaluated enhancement
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
Strongly Agree 16 1 0 0
Agree 0 22 0 0
Disagree 1 3 11 0 substantially benefiting it, however. The increased use
Strongly Disagree 0 3 2 2
The responses for potential enhancement to profes-
sional status from those not currently using HRIS were
more difficult to analyse unambiguously due to the large
number of neutral responses. When these were
excluded, we again obtained strong evidence confirm-
ing the belief that professional standing would be
enhanced by using HRIS. When including the neutrals
as disagrees however, the test was not significant,
demonstrating perhaps that a neutral response was
based on a lack of experience and it is too extreme to
consider this as disagreement with the proposition.
The one-way ANOVA with all neutrals removed was
not significant at the 5% significance level
(F 2,158 = 1.012, p = 0.37). Levene’s test on the residuals
however ( p = 0.007) indicated that there was violation
of the homogeneity of the variances assumption and so a
Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric test was also obtained.
This confirmed the ANOVA result (K = 1.71, p = 0.43
(adjusted for ties)) that we have no evidence from these
data of any overall average difference between self-
assessed enhancement, perceived recognition and
potential enhancement if strategic decision making
usage was undertaken.
The results from the associated statistical tests are
presented in Table 11.
Table 11
Statistical tests for Hypothesis 6 from questionnaires
Null hypothesis
No enhanced professional standing due to HRIS usage for strategic
decision making (self-assessment)
No enhanced professional standing due to HRIS usage for strategic
decision making—SME vs. large companies (self-assessment)
No enhanced professional standing due to HRIS usage for strategic
decision making ( perceived)
No enhanced professional standing due to HRIS usage for strategic
decision making—SME vs. large companies ( perceived)
No enhanced professional standing due to HRIS usage for strategic
decision making ( potential)
***
Significant at 0.001 level.
83
3.5. Interviews
The semi-structured follow-up interviews with
organisational executives revealed that HRIS use had
not enhanced professional standing within the organisa-
tion, but had done so in the profession at large. They
did see the use of HRIS within the organisation as
of HRIS was considered to be, on average, equivalent to
that for MIS by other professions within the companies
but there was a strong feeling that the professional
standing of these professionals was enhanced more.
This seeming contradiction may well be a consequence
of a persistent pejorative view of the relative worth of
HRM per se [4,21]. The results of the t-tests and
corresponding confirmatory binomial tests, are given in
Table 12.
The results were consistent for the two tests in all
cases, with the binomial test for enhancement of
professional standing within the profession due to HRIS
usage being significant at the 6% level. As this is a
substantially underpowered test, it can be seen as
providing confirmatory evidence.
4. Discussion
We have introduced a parsimonious, high level,
advanced HR usage taxonomy to facilitate comparisons
with other studies and to provide a focus when
investigating the direction in which HRIS usage is
changing. Our taxonomy proved to be sufficient to
categorise all advanced usage by HR professionals in
the companies in our survey.
Strategic decision making allows HR professionals
to participate at the organisational level and to work
closely with strategic management, potentially enabling
and facilitating the formation of strategic partnerships.
p-Value
<0.00001***—neutrals excluded
<0.0001***—neutrals included as disagreers
1.000—neutrals excluded
0.38—neutrals included as disagreers
<0.00001***—neutrals excluded
<0.0001***—neutrals included as disagreers
1.000—neutrals excluded
0.29—neutrals included as disagreers
<0.0005***—neutrals excluded
0.87—neutrals included as disagreers
84 Z. Hussain et al. / Information & Management 44 (2007) 74–89

Table 12
Statistical tests for Hypothesis 6 from data from interviews with senior executives
Null hypothesis p-Value (t-test) p-Value (binomial test)
No enhanced professional standing due to HRIS usage for strategic 0.22 0.23
decision making within company
No enhanced professional standing within the professions due to HRIS usage 0.03* 0.06
HRIS usage has not provided a value-add to the company 0.008** 0.04*
Increased use of MIS by HR professionals is consistent with that for other 0.20 0.29 [two-tailed test]
professionals
No enhanced professional standing for non-HR professionals due to MIS usage <0.001*** <0.001***
No enhanced professional standing of non-HR professionals relative to HR 0.02* <0.001***
professionals, due to MIS usage
*
Significant at 0.05 level.
**
Significant at 0.01 level.
***
Significant at 0.001 level.

The corroborating views of senior executives based in
several of the companies participating in the study were
obtained to further assess the impact of HRIS use in
enhancing professional standing of HR professionals,
both absolutely and relatively.
We found that slightly less than 50% of the
companies use HRIS or other software exclusively in
support of strategic HR usage tasks. Furthermore, there
are a substantially higher proportion of large sized
companies with full computerisation of strategic HR
tasks. There were also differences in the proportional
HRIS usage of advanced tasks or in strategic decision
making, between SME and large sized companies in
three of the categories: Salary Advice, Employment
Benefits and Recruitment. In each of these, the degree of
usage was relatively greater for larger companies.
A summary of the usage profile of HRIS supported
HR activities is given in Table 13.
The use of HRIS is mostly due to the improvements
of HR related ROI [22] and efficiency gains [11]. In
addition, it is likely that increased functionality and
flexibility in HRIS coupled with decreased costs [33], in
real terms, may also be contributing factors. However,
our finding of the consistent use or planned use of HRIS
across company size groupings is a recent phenomenon.
The Cedar 2003 Workforce Technology Survey of 328
respondents identified an increase of approximately
260% in investment in IT budgets for companies with
500–1000 employees, whereas for large sized compa-
nies the investment levels have remained roughly the
same. This suggests that there was an initial lag in
investment in HRIS technology by SME relative to

Table 13
Summary of usage profile of HRIS supported strategic HR activities
HR activity Usage comparison—SME vs. large sized companies Company size Level of use
Planning No difference SME Medium level of use
Large Medium level of use
Salary Advice Difference SME Medium level of use
Large Overall high level of use
Employment Benefits Difference SME Overall low level of use
Large Medium level of use
Industrial Relations No difference SME Overall low level of use
Large Overall low level of use
Training and Assessment No difference SME Overall low level of use
Large Medium level of use
Recruitment Difference SME Overall low level of use
Large Medium level of use
Performance Management No difference SME Overall low level of use
Large Overall low level of use
 Z. Hussain et al. / Information & Management 44 (2007) 74–89
large sized companies but that the gap is now
narrowing. It therefore appears that the driving forces
of ROI and increasing efficiency, functionality and
flexibility are sufficient motivation for the take-up of
HRIS, regardless of company size. Our study at least
provides evidence of this trend.
Our findings also challenge Ball’s view that
company size is likely to be a key determinant, both
for the adoption of HRIS and the degree of its use in
decision making and strategic support, regardless of
other factors. They are however, consistent with the
views of Haines and Petit [9] and Thaler-Carter [29],
that lower cost, higher utility and flexibility are the
determining factors for SME uptake of HRIS. Indeed,
our survey suggested that HRIS are likely to be used
even more for strategic decision making in the future;
this was a strongly held belief by both SME and large
sized companies. The responses from the large
companies were, however, notably more positive in
this belief than those from the SME. This reinforced the
view that larger organisations use IT in support of
responsive, flatter organisational structures. Notwith-
standing this, most HR professionals viewed HRIS as
enabling software, providing timely and accurate
information to HR professionals and top management
in support of strategic decisions making, regardless of
organisation size.
Our findings reveal wholesale adoption of HRIS in
support of a full strategic partnering role, regardless of
company size. They also validate claims that such a role
does provide value to the company.
Finally, our results show that HR professionals
believed that the usage of HRIS for strategic decision
making led to enhanced professional standing within
and outside the organisation, regardless of company
size. They also unilaterally believed that this elevation
was recognised by the organisation, and this was shown
to be consistent, irrespective of company size. This
belief of elevated status was also shared by HR
professionals who are not currently using HRIS or do
not use it in support of strategic decision making.
The semi-structured follow-up interviews with
organisational executives revealed that HRIS use has
not enhanced their professional standing within the
organisation. It has in the professions at large but they
85
did see the use of HRIS as substantially benefiting the
company. The increased use of HRIS was considered to
be equivalent to that for MIS by other professions
within the companies but there was a strong feeling that
the professional standing of these professionals was
more enhanced by their MIS use. We argue that this
seeming contradiction may well be a consequence of a
persistent pejorative view of the relative worth of HRM
per se.
5. Conclusions
Our research suggested that for senior HR profes-
sionals, strategic use of HRIS is increasingly the norm,
irrespective of company size. This has led to the HR
profession providing a value-add for the company.
Moreover, strategic use of HRIS enhances the perceived
standing of HR professionals within their organisations,
a view however, not shared by their more senior non-HR
executives. Nonetheless, these executives acknowledge
that HRIS has provided value-add and increased the
status of the HR profession as a whole.
We also suggest that there may be more benefits in
using HRIS for non-strategic purposes; companies may
seek to gain efficiencies that allow them to reduce
staffing levels of routine administrative tasks.
One question raised by our findings is why SME are
adopting HRIS more readily. Maybe, in smaller
companies, the increased legislative burden requiring
accountability, from business activities through to equal
opportunities monitoring, has increased the demand for
HRIS as they are able to generate reliable quality data
for audit purposes. Although there is empirical evidence
that small companies in particular feel that the costs of
such systems are too high, there is also evidence that
HRIS are being better used by small companies. Thus,
for the SME, there is an improving return on investment
for such systems.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Professor Sibley and
anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments that
have made this paper more readable and pertinent to a
wider readership.
86 Z. Hussain et al. / Information & Management 44 (2007) 74–89

Appendix A. The role of human resource information systems (HRIS) in supporting senior HR
management
Z. Hussain et al. / Information & Management 44 (2007) 74–89 87
88 Z. Hussain et al. / Information & Management 44 (2007) 74–89

Appendix B. Interview questions

Appendix C. Relationship between research References

hypotheses and questions from questionnaire
[1] K. Ball, The use of human resource management systems: a
survey, Personnel Review 30 (6), 2000, pp. 677–693.
Hypothesis Relevant questions Qualifying questions
[2] W. Brockbank, If HR were really strategically proactive: present
Hypothesis 1 8 2, 9, 10 and future directions in HR’s contribution to competitive advan-
Hypothesis 2 14 2, 9 tage, Human Resource Management 38 (4), 1999, pp. 337–
Hypothesis 3 12 2, 9 352.
Hypothesis 4 15 2, 9 [3] R. Broderick, J.W. Boudreau, Human resource management,
Hypothesis 5 5 1, 2, 9, 11 information technology and the competitive advantage, Acad-
Hypothesis 6 16, 17 9 emy of Management Executive 6 (2), 1992, pp. 7–17.
 Z. Hussain et al. / Information & Management 44 (2007) 74–89
[4] R. Caldwell, Champions, adaptors, consultants and synergists:
the new change agents in HRM, Human Resource Management
Journal 11 (3), 2001, pp. 39–52.
[5] N.E. Cornelius, Human Resource Management: A Managerial
Perspective, second ed., Int. Thomson Business Press, London,
2000.
[6] M. Gallagher, Computers in Personnel Management, Heine-
mann, UK, 1986.
[7] C.R. Greer, Strategy and Human Resources: A General Manage-
rial Perspective, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1995.
[8] W.O. Hagood, L. Friedman, Using the balanced scorecard to
measure the performance of your HR information system,
Personnel Management 31 (4), 2002, pp. 543–557.
[9] V. Haines, A. Petit, Conditions for successful human resource
management information systems, Human Resource Manage-
ment 36 (2), 1997, pp. 261–275.
[10] K. Hoque, M. Noon, Counting angels: a comparison of personnel
and HR specialists, Human Resource Management Journal 11
(3), 2001, pp. 5–22.
[11] HR Focus, How two organisations are achieving HR value, HR
Focus 80 (12), 2003, pp. 7–11.
[12] HR Focus, How HRIS is transforming the workplace—and HR’s
role, HR Focus 81 (3), 2004, pp. 10–13.
[13] M.A. Huselid, The impact of HRM practices on turnover,
productivity and corporate performance, Academy of Manage-
ment Journal 38 (3), 1995, pp. 635–672.
[14] N.J. Kinnie, A.J. Arthurs, Personnel specialists’ advanced use of
information technology: evidence and explanations, Personnel
Review 25 (3), 1996, pp. 3–19.
[15] E.E. Lawler, S.A. Mohrman, HR as a strategic partner: what does
it take to make it happen? Human Resource Planning 26 (3),
2003, pp. 15–29.
[16] K. Legge, HRM: rhetoric, reality and hidden agendas, in: J.
Storey (Ed.), Human Resource Management: A Critical Text,
Routledge, London, 1995.
[17] S. Liff, Constructing HR information systems, Human Resource
Management Journal 7 (2), 1997, pp. 18–31.
[18] C. Mabey, G. Salaman, J. Storey, Human Resource Management:
A Strategic Introduction, second ed., Blackwell Business, USA,
2000.
[19] M.G. Martinsons, Benchmarking human resource information
systems in Canada and Hong Kong, Information & Management
26, 1994, pp. 305–316.
[20] M. Mayfield, J. Mayfield, S. Lunce, Human resource information
systems: a review and model development, Advances in Com-
petitiveness Research 11, 2003, pp. 139–151.
[21] J. Purcell, Personnel and human resource managers: power,
prestige and potential, Human Resource Management Journal
11 (3), 2001, pp. 3–4.
[22] B. Roberts, Calculating return on investment for HRIS, HR
Magazine 44 (13), 1999, pp. 122–128.
[23] R.S. Schuler, S.E. Jackson, J.J. Storey, HRM and its link with
strategic management, in: J. Storey (Ed.), Human Resource
Management: A Critical Text, second ed., Thomson Learning,
London, 2001.
[24] J. Storey, Developments in the Management of Human
Resources: An Analytical Review, Blackwell, Oxford, 1992.
[25] J. Storey, Human Resource Management: A Critical Text,
Routledge, London, 1995.
[26] J. Storey, Human resource management today: an assessment, in:
J. Storey (Ed.), Human Resource Management: A Critical Text,
second ed., Thomson Learning, London, 2001.
89
[27] Softworld Report, Human Resource Management Software,
Conspectus, PMP (UK) Ltd., 1996.
[28] Softworld Report, Human Resource Management Software,
Conspectus, PMP (UK) Ltd., 1997.
[29] R.E. Thaler-Carter, The HRIS in small companies: tips for
weighing the options, HR Magazine 43 (8), 1998, pp. 30–35.
[30] D. Ulrich, A. Geller, G. DeSouza, A strategy, structure, human
resource data base: OASIS, Human Resource Management 23
(1), 1984, pp. 77–90.
[31] D. Ulrich, Human Resource Champions: The Next Agenda for
Adding Value to HR Practices, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA, 1997.
[32] Commission Recommendation Concerning the Definition of
Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, Commission of the Eur-
opean Community (C.E.C.), 1996.
[33] People and technology: is HR getting the best out of IT? Survey
Report, Chartered Institute of Personnel Development, 2004.
[34] The 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey: First Find-
ings, Routledge, 1999.
Zahid Hussain has a BA in management,
MSc in HRM, MSc in IS, MA in learning
and teaching and a PhD in MIS. He has a
research background in information sys-
tems development in the UK National
Health Service and has worked for several
private organisations as a technical consul-
tant. Currently, he is a lecturer in Informa-
tion Systems at the University of Bradford
where his research interests include the
application and development of MIS.
James Wallace has a BSc in theoretical
physics and mathematics, MSc in engineer-
ing, a PhD in statistics and is a Fellow of the
Royal Statistical Society (FRSS). He has
considerable experience of statistical and
mathematical modelling gained over sev-
eral years in the UK utilities sector and in
H.E. He is currently a lecturer in Quanti-
tative Methods at the University of Brad-
ford where his interests include, applying
statistical and mathematical approaches to IS, operational and general
management problems.
Nelarine E. Cornelius has a BSc in psy-
chology and zoology, an MBA and a PhD in
medical sciences. She is a Fellow of the
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Devel-
opment and a Fellow of the Royal Society
of Arts. She is also a chartered psychologist
with research and consultancy experience
in the areas of human resource management
and organisational psychology. Nelarine is
reader in human resource management and
organisational behaviour, and director of both the Centre for Research
in Emotion Work (CREW) and the Human Resource Management and
Organisational Behaviour and Employment Relations Research Group
at Brunel University. Her current research interests include: the career
paths of HRM executives, organisational change, and learning stra-
tegies and fairness and ethics at work.