The Role of Information Technology In Accomplishing the Need of Human Resource Function For the Multi Divisional Organisation.

Many researchers have studied the changing of HR function. The most significant change is that the HR professionals now focus more on business strategic issue from a “human resource” aspect with the top managers rather than only dealing with personnel administration [Florkowski, 2006]. Meanwhile, part of the HR tasks, such as routine administration and individual performance management, are decentralized to line managers [Beatty, 2003]. Such extensive change in the HR function can hardly be described as simple as “change”, but “transformation” instead. It involves reinvention, reposition, and reconstruction of the HR roles, task and responsibility [Beer, 1997, Bjorkman, 2006]. The HR professionals participate in transformative activities to uphold the transformation, such as redesigning the work processes and HRM system, restructuring service delivery process, and managing cultural change [Andolsek, D 2005, Brewster, 2006]. To be competent for such challenging activities, they should improve management skills to promote the transformation by appropriate strategy, develop leadership to control it,

HR professionals are still considered as the core of workforce management, especially towards the strategy aspect. Thus, Ulrich has defined the “four roles of HR professional model” in 1997, and later separated into these three levels: HR professional, line manager and employee, through Ulrich’s model and theories from literature [Gardner, 2003, Gutierrez, 1995].

Most companies initially view the Balanced Scorecard as a project, to be led by a multi-functional project team. At the end of creating scorecards for the company and various business units, the project team leader becomes the custodian of the scorecard, with a title such as Vice President, Balanced Scorecard or Director, Global Reporting [Appelbaum 2000]. This scorecard manager oversees the valid, timely reporting of scorecard measures and serves as the corporate consultant for questions about the scorecard. But for many companies, this is the end of their Balanced Scorecard project. They have a new measurement system, but they have not changed any management processes to capitalize on it [Haines, 2008]. The successful companies, in contrast, transform key management processes to focus on strategy execution. They sustain the focus by elevating their Balanced Scorecard project team into a new corporate-level office, which we call the Office of Strategy Management (OSM). The emergence of this new office made us aware of a gap in most organizations’ management structures. 2- Roles of the Office of Strategy Management: Our research into the best practices of successful BSC users has identified nine cross-functional processes that should be managed or integrated by an Office of Strategy Management. Three of these processes –scorecard management, organization alignment, and strategy reviews – are the natural turf of the OSM. The processes did not exist prior to the BSC so they can be introduced without infringing on other departments’ work. Three other critical processes – strategic planning, communications and initiative management – are already being performed by existing organizational units. We believe that these processes should eventually be incorporated into a central organization with strategic focus. The three remaining processes – planning and budgeting, workforce alignment, and best practice sharing – are in the natural domain and responsibility of other functions. In these cases, the OSM plays a coordinating role, ensuring that the processes are tightly integrated with the enterprise strategy.

Executing strategy requires ongoing organization changes that only the CEO can empower. The OSM, the organizational unit created to manage strategy execution will be most effective when it has direct access to that CEO. Panels A and B of Figure 4 other important corporate functions such as finance, I/T, human resources and operations. Panel B shows a dotted line relationship to the CEO, with a solid line to another executive such as the CFO or COO. This configuration arises when the OSM is positioned within the strategic planning or finance department. At the Mexican insurance company, Group Nacional Provincial (GNP), the OSM reports both to the CEO and to the CFO. The OSM sets the agenda for a weekly meeting with the CEO and CFO, and for a broader weekly meeting of the top six company executives. The OSM at GNP has a matrixed relationship with 20 BSC managers in the two major business units and nine support units, and with the owners of the major strategic initiatives so that it can coordinate the strategic planning done in the nine business and support units. A less-desirable variant of this case, shown in Panel C, has the OSM two levels below the CEO and with no direct access. In this case, all OSM tasks and processes must be filtered through the CFO or COO before reaching the attention of the CEO. Panel D, where the OSM is three levels below the CEO is even less desirable and unsustainable. Such a configuration arises when the Balanced Scorecard is viewed solely as a performance measurement system that drives operational improvements but is not positioned as the core of a strategy management system. Some managers resist having to align their previously autonomous activities to corporate priorities. Barbara Bossin, the Director of Strategic Alignment at St. Mary’s Duluth Clinics, reported that she overcame resistance because managers knew that she had a direct reporting line to the company’s chief operating and chief executive officers. An OSM buried deep in finance or planning department may find it difficult to command similar respect and attention from senior executives for strategy management priorities. • Organizational Alignment. One manager coordinates with HR to advance the organization’s alignment with the strategy, including linking the Performance Management System to corporate and functional-level BSCs. • Reviews. Three senior managers and seven managers handle the agendas and minutes and coordinate briefing binders for meetings of the seven executive committees. The OSM head ensures that review meetings focus on performance gaps highlighted by the scorecard. • Strategic Planning. One senior manager and three managers provide the framework for strategic discussion by doing scenario

process. • Initiative Management. Two senior managers, three managers, and two analysts identify relevant strategic initiatives as part of an annual strategic planning process. They track the progress of initiatives and direct the progress of the OSM staffers who are involved in the initiatives of the brands or functional areas they support. The company’s operational groups execute their own initiatives.

1. Florkowski, G. W. & Olivas-Lujan, M. R. (2006). The diffusion of human-resource information-technology innovations in US and non-US firms. Personnel Review, 35(6), 684-710. 2. Beatty, R. W., Ewing, J. R., & Tharp, C. G. (2003). HR's role in corporate governance: Present and prospective. Human Resource Management, 42(3), 257-269. 3. Beer, M. (1997). The transformation of the human resource function: Resolving the tension between a traditional administrative and a new strategic role. Human Resource Management, 36(1), 49-56. Personnel Review, 35(6), 654-670. 5. Andolsek, D. M. & Stebe, J. (2005). Devolution or (de)centralization of HRM function in European organizations. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(3), 311-329. 6. Brewster, C., Wood, G., Brookes, M., & Van Ommeren, J. (2006). What determines the size of the HR function? A cross-national analysis. Human Resource Management, 45(1), 3-21. 7. Caldwell, R. (2003). The Changing Roles of Personnel Managers: Old Ambiguities, New Uncertainties. Journal of Management Studies, 40(4), 983-1004. 8. Farley Cheryl (2005). HR's role in talent management and driving business results. Employment Relations Today, 32(1), 55-61. 9. Francis, H. & Keegan, A. (2006). The changing face of HRM: in search of balance. Human Resource Management Journal, 16(3), 231-249. 10. Klaila, D. (2000). Knowledge as a transformation agent. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(2), 138-144. 11. Gardner, S. D., Lepak, D. P., & Bartol, K. M. (2003). Virtual HR: The impact of information technology on the human resource professional. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(2), 159-179. 12. Gutierrez, L. H. S. (1995). Transformations of the HR Function in the Context of Restructuring. International Journal of Manpower, 16(10), 25-38. 13. Appelbaum, S. H. & Wohl, L. (2000). Transformation or change: some prescriptions for health care organizations. Managing Service Quality, 10(5), 279-298. 14. Haines, V. Y. & Lafleur, G. (2008). Information technology usage and human resource roles and effectiveness. Human Resource Management, 47(3), 525-540.