Two successful implementations of PeopleSoft human resource management systems (HRMS) underscore the importance people issues play in adapting new technology. These examples were presented at seminars to attendees of the recent International Association of Human Resource Management (IHRIM) conference in San Diego.

The Art Institute of Chicago, for example, spent several million dollars over the course of a year in its first attempted PeopleSoft implementation before giving up, reported Carl Williams, vice president of human resources.

The institute implemented a PeopleSoft student administration system in the mid-1990s, then decided to add the HRMS module to replace its legacy system, which was no longer supported by its vendor.

The problem: Project managers were attempting to adopt the institute's 30-year-old transaction-based HR processes to the new system. The implementation team consisted of highlevel managers from the departments of HR, benefits, payroll and information technology, who continued to be responsible for their previous job duties while overseeing the implementation.

The institute gave up after spending a lot of money and making very little progress. Williams was hired to oversee the second implementation attempt in early 1998 as time was running out for the institute's non-Y2K-compliant legacy mainframe system.

For his project team, Williams brought on four tactical-level staff members who were told to reengineer their job processes and responsibilities according to the new system's capabilities.

"We suggest you really think through what the implementation will mean for HR and the entire organization," Williams advises. "What are the costs? What are the cultural implications? How will we deliver functionality?"

The institute was able to successfully implement the PeopleSoft system by changing the focus from a tactical, transaction-based system to a strategic system that added value to the organization. Because AIC was experiencing a lot of turnover, the project team decided to focus on a new compensation system and a recruiting and retention system in order to more effectively compete for talent with other universities and museums as well as private-sector employers.

"We realized we were sitting on a goldmine of information about our employees," Williams explains. "Traditionally, we were just storing that information. We wanted to try to use that information to help managers keep good people."

Value-added functionality included a payroll system with direct deposit and salary planning capabilities along with benefits administration, HR record keeping, financial and staffing/recruiting modules. Long-term, the system has to support employee self-service and manager self-service capabilities.

Consultant Cyndi Rose of CDG & Associates, which supported the art institute's project, observes that a HRMS gives HR and benefits staff a new functionality requiring a complete change in the processes governing payroll and benefits administration, recruiting and hiring, plus the responsibilities of staff handling these functions. The change management project is almost as large as the technology project.

The evaluation that takes place before implementation is critical, Rose says. Managers must build business cases to support the changes to the organization, to explain the new processes that will be created and to evaluate new needs the system creates as well as new the value-added functionality the system brings.

Overcoming resistance

Two years after implementing PeopleSoft HRMS, some employees at Perdue Farms Inc. still resist some of the changes the system has brought to their jobs, according to HRMS Manager Donna Keener. The greatest resistance has come from occupational nurses and benefits staff.

"The HRMS represented a huge leap forward for Perdue," she says. "We've spent lots of time and energy with them trying to get them to embrace and use the system."

A benefits manager with 15 years experience, Keener was asked in 1998 to oversee the implementation of a PeopleSoft HRMS that includes benefits administration, compensation, payroll, and health and safety modules.

Because HRMS systems are infinitely expandable, Keener and Williams agree that managers should resist end-users' requests to make expensive customizations during implementation. "Scope creep," a malady that begins when members of an organization start requesting add-ons and enhancements to the system, can cause delays.

"We decided to stay as vanilla as possible," Williams comments.

"It's very important that you have the backbone to say no," Keener says. "We all like banana splits, myself included, but vanilla is always best."

Keener also recommended that responsibilities for the implementation be split between a functional team leader and a technical team leader, as the job is too big for one person to direct. An executive sponsor is crucial to support the project and communicate its goals and progress to senior management.

The project sponsor can remove obstacles to the implementation, help gain consensus on major decisions and act as an active agent for change within the organization.

Implementation teams need to communicate how the system will change jobs, responsibilities and functions long before the technology goes live. Keener began this process three months before the go-live date, which she concedes now was "a big mistake."

As the project progresses, begin identifying end-users of the system and bring them in for demonstrations and training sessions that show how the new system will benefit them. Identify the concerns and needs of the end-users as early in the process as possible.

Assembling a good project team is essential to a successful implementation. Keener says project leaders should recruit "A-team" players from within the organization. "If you get B- or C-grade players, you will get a grade B or grade C project," she mused. "Your team will obviously make or break your project. You need functional and technical resources."

Perdue decided early on to hire outside consultants to assist the implementation. Consultants bring high-level expertise and fill voids in internal skill sets.

However, never assume consultants are sending their very best people to assist you, Keener said. Perdue turned over the first team of consultants within three months and later fired that firm in favor of another one with more expertise.

Always check references and talk to clients, she said. "It was very painful," Keener commented. "We spent a lot of time and money, obviously not going forward. Outside consultants can be a blessing or a curse."

Before getting started, develop a project plan that includes timetables for implementation.

"Initially, the first consultants we used were the only ones who had the project plan," Keener explains. "We didn't know what was expected of us. They kept coming to us and saying, Why isn't this done yet?' Finally, we said you need to share that plan with us."

Because technology implementation projects bring new roles for team members, it's a good idea to set up in a new location for the duration of the project. Team members have to be separated from their old jobs and functions in order to concentrate on the new. Keener found herself and her team moved to a poultry processing plant 30 miles from corporate headquarters in Salisbury, Md.

Setting up new offices also helps build an identity for the project team, who will be working long hours together throughout the implementation and possibly beyond.

At Perdue, the team developed a project Web site that included a mission statement and a logo. Achievements and milestones great and small were recognized and celebrated.

Visits and praise from senior managers also helps build team identity and boost morale. "It took quite a bit of effort for me to get senior-level management to visit us. But when they did, it was very important to us," she says.

Garbage in

When the HRMS system went live at Perdue on June 21, 1999, Keener's team had accomplished about 65% of the implementation. Major holdups included some team turnover, unexpected problems and customizations that bogged the project down.

Conversion of data from Perdue's legacy system took three months. Once installed, the team had to conduct a lot of data cleanup because system users had insisted that huge amounts of outdated HR information be converted.

Williams reports that the institute's new HRMS is also bogged down by the sheer volume of outdated, mostly useless HR information that was converted from the legacy system.

"We transferred over and converted lots of garbage," he says. "We now have difficulty grappling with the data that we have."

Williams and his team was able to complete the implementation by July 1, 1999, on time and under budget. Since then he has been working with HR and benefits staff to use the system's functionality to support the strategic goals of the school.