See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268517375

Usage, Benefits & Barriers of Human

Resource Information System in
Universities

ARTICLE in VINE · NOVEMBER 2014

DOI: 10.1108/VINE-04-2013-0024

READS

560

3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:

Umesh Bamel Mohan Thite

Indian Institute of Management Rai… Griffith University
11 PUBLICATIONS 16 CITATIONS 69 PUBLICATIONS 422 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Mohan Thite
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 19 March 2016
 VINE: The journal of information and knowledge management systems
Usage, benefits and barriers of human resource information system in universities
Nisha Bamel Umesh Kumar Bamel Vinita Sahay Mohan Thite
Article information:
To cite this document:
Nisha Bamel Umesh Kumar Bamel Vinita Sahay Mohan Thite , (2014),"Usage, benefits and barriers of
human resource information system in universities", VINE: The journal of information and knowledge
management systems, Vol. 44 Iss 4 pp. 519 - 536
Downloaded by Griffith University, Professor Mohan Thite At 23:19 20 November 2014 (PT)

Permanent link to this document:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/VINE-04-2013-0024
Downloaded on: 20 November 2014, At: 23:19 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 96 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 71 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Kirstie S. Ball, (2001),"The use of human resource information systems: a survey", Personnel Review, Vol.
30 Iss 6 pp. 677-693
E.W.T. Ngai, F.K.T. Wat, (2006),"Human resource information systems: a review and empirical analysis",
Personnel Review, Vol. 35 Iss 3 pp. 297-314
Gaétan Breton, Marie#Andrée Caron, (2008),"Elements for sociology of profit", Society and Business
Review, Vol. 3 Iss 1 pp. 72-90

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 330691 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
Downloaded by Griffith University, Professor Mohan Thite At 23:19 20 November 2014 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0305-5728.htm

Usage, benefits and barriers of Human resource

information
human resource information system
system in universities
Nisha Bamel 519
School of Business Management, BPS Women University, Sonipat, India
Umesh Kumar Bamel and Vinita Sahay
Downloaded by Griffith University, Professor Mohan Thite At 23:19 20 November 2014 (PT)

Department of Management, Indian Institute of Management Raipur,

Raipur, India, and
Mohan Thite
Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the university teaching staff’s perception about
functions, benefits and barriers of human resource information system (HRIS). It also aims to explore
the relevance of attitudinal/demographic diversity with focused HRIS dimensions.
Design/methodology/approach – A 26-item questionnaire was developed on the basis of similar
research studies. Responses were collected through electronic mail from 90 faculty members of seven
state universities in India. Descriptive statistics along with t-test and analysis of variance were used to
answer the research questions.
Findings – The results of the study reported that HRIS is mostly used for administrative purpose and
not taken as strategic requirement. Results also revealed that the perceived functions, benefits and
barriers in adoption of HRIS do not vary group-wise.
Research limitations/implications – The findings of the study potentially can help in developing
and implementing of HRIS in similar types of organizations.
Originality/value – Past literature on HRIS mainly comes from the developed countries and is
confined to for-profit organizations. The present study is among the few that coherently took up the
issue from non-profit organizations, i.e. universities of a developing country.
Keywords Information technology, Human resource management,
Human resource information system, Indian universities, University teaching staff
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Since later half of the twenty-first century, human resource management (HRM)
emerged as a key function of modern management (see in Thite et al., 2012), and
eventually, the scope of HRM has shifted from merely administrating the human
element to creating high-performance work systems (Hamlin and Serventi, 2008; Page
et al., 2003). Later on, concept of shareholder value maximization reinforced the VINE: The journal of information
and knowledge management systems
Vol. 44 No. 4, 2014
The authors wish to thank Professor Rongbin WB Lee, the editor, and two anonymous reviewers pp. 519-536
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
who have contributed to the present manuscript. Surely, their suggestions have added to the 0305-5728
quality of this work. DOI 10.1108/VINE-04-2013-0024
 VINE configuration of HRM with organizational strategy (Ball, 2001; Offstein et al., 2005;
Ulrich, 1997a; and Storey, 1995). Similarly, another dynamic change has been the use of
44,4 information systems and technologies in HRM processes (Hagood and Friedman, 2002;
Mayfield et al., 2003, Schuler et al., 2001; and Ulrich, 1997a).
Subsequently, human resource information system (HRIS) emerged from this
integration of HRM, information systems and technologies (Brockbank, 1999; Ulrich,
520 1997b). Tannenbaum (1990, p. 29) defines HRIS as a technology-based system used to
acquire, store, manipulate, analyze, retrieve and distribute information pertinent to
human resources of an organization. The HRM practices where HRIS has applications
are labor force planning, supply and demand forecast, staffing information, applicant
Downloaded by Griffith University, Professor Mohan Thite At 23:19 20 November 2014 (PT)

qualifications, information on training and development, salary forecast, pay increase,

labor/employee relations, promotion-related information and so on (Kovach and
Cathcart, 1999). Broadly, HRIS fulfills the information need of users and boosts their
effectiveness (Hannon et al., 1996). Recent studies (Broderick and Boudreau, 1992;
Ashbaugh and Miranda, 2002; Dery et al., 2009; Pickard and Dixon, 2004; Thite, 2004;
Thite et al., 2007, 2012; Wiblen et al., 2010) also confirmed the potential of information
systems in improving efficiency and value generation through fast information
processing, swift employee communications and by aligning the internal policies. Due to
its ease of speedy accessibility to information related to employees, HRIS improves the
strategy formulation and decision making and therefore has been considered as a
strategic partner of the firm (Ulrich, 1997b).
Despite the conventional wisdom that HRIS fulfills manifold needs, being an
inanimate and relational subject, the effectiveness and success of HRIS largely remained
in the hands of its end-users. Research on the technology acceptance model (Boudreau
and Robey, 2005; Brown et al., 2002; Davis, 1989; Oyefolahan and Dominic, 2013; Richter
et al., 2013; Venkatesh et al., 2003, 2007; Williams et al., 2009) has extensively examined
the users’ perception, attitude, motivation, intentions and adoption of information
systems and technologies. Actor network theory (Dery et al., 2013; Strong and Letch,
2013) also reinforces the above view. This body of knowledge (Delorme and Arcand,
2010; Lippert and Swiercz, 2005; Tansley and Newell, 2007; Troshani et al., 2011;
Wilson-Evered and Härtel, 2009) explains that users’ attributes and their interaction
with information system decide the success or failure of information systems and
technologies implementation.
From the ongoing discussion, two research themes emerged, i.e. advantage of HRIS
usage, and role and perceptions of users in implementation of HRIS. The first issue has
been extensively studied and therefore is beyond the scope of the present study. While
sizeable research (as mentioned previously) is available on the second theme too, little is
known about the users’ perception about HRIS in higher education (university) settings.
Therefore, in the present study, university teaching staff’s perceptions regarding HRIS
(i.e. applications, benefits and barriers in implementation) were examined. As studies
concerning this issue are scant, hence exploratory approach has been used to examine
the contents of HRIS in educational organizations. In an effort to align the purpose of the
present study and techniques used, literature on HRIS is presented in a chronological
fashion. The purpose of doing so is to understand the different themes of HRIS body of
literature. The literature is followed by the presentation of research questions and data
analysis. Finally, the implications of findings for theory and practice are discussed.
 2. Literature review Human resource
The research on HRIS gained momentum at some point in the 1980s. Authors such as
Lederer (1984), Nikkel (1985) and Simon (1983) adopted a descriptive approach to study
information
HRIS and examined the issues related to HRIS planning, implementation, basic system
functions and minimum capabilities. HRIS was described as a systematic procedure for
collecting, storing, maintaining, retrieving and validating data related to human
resources and personnel activities (Walker, 1982). During this stage of development, 521
HRIS was believed to materialize at modest level and the main utility of it was in
assisting administrative work such as manpower planning, recruitment and
maintaining information relating to job and individual (Helen and Nicholas, 1983). Soon
Downloaded by Griffith University, Professor Mohan Thite At 23:19 20 November 2014 (PT)

a shift was observed and subsequent work (DeSanctis, 1986; Spirig, 1988) recognized
HRIS as a critical tool for organizational success and perhaps for the first time, it was
accepted as a strategic tool. Later on, the HRIS was also seen as a useful means to comply
with regulatory requirements (Spirig, 1989).
Subsequently, the orientation of the HRIS started moving toward micro issues such
as ethics, individual privacy, information security and rights and interests of
stakeholders (Taylor and Davis, 1989; Taylor and Spencer, 1990). After a decade
following Spirig (1989), Hubbard et al. (1998) discussed the contemporary ethical and
legal issues related to HRIS. The decade-long work (1980-1990) that was started with the
purpose of describing the HRIS from the professionals’ desk has moved into micro
concerns and has started involving users and stakeholders. In this line, Tannenbaum
(1990) expanded the field of HRIS to user attributes and skills such as computer
knowledge, personnel system knowledge, focus, degrees of access required and
expectations.
Later on, scholars worked on particular and specific issues which reflect the maturity
gained by the HRIS field. For instance, Gildea (1993) extended functions of HRIS to
management of employees’ health care cost. Martinsons (1994) compared an effusively
developed Western economy (Canada) with a developing Asian economy (Hong Kong)
and concluded that organizational factors (management vision, skilled developers and a
business-driven approach) and region-specific cultural factors significantly predicted
the success of HRIS. Haines and Petit (1997) linked HRIS success to the system usage
and user satisfaction. Haines and Petit (1997) added more to the antecedents of HRIS,
namely, individual factors (age, gender, education, work experience, computer
understanding and experience), organizational factors (size, user support and computer
experience) and system factors (user involvement, training, support, documentation,
application development, dependence, usefulness and ease of use). Hannon et al. (1996)
envisaged HRIS as a mechanism to accommodate the geographic diversification of
growing multinational firms.
Research examining the antecedents of HRIS has continued in recent years too. These
studies highlight users’ trust (Lippert and Swiercz, 2005), the role of project social
capital, trust and leadership (Tansley and Newell, 2007), user involvement
(Wilson-Evered and Härtel, 2009), management support and organizational
commitment (Razali and Vrontis, 2010), compatibility among IT systems,
organizational design and the competencies of professionals (Delorme and Arcand,
2010), management commitment, human capability, organizational fit and broader
environmental factors (Troshani et al., 2011) and the impact of actor networks formation
 VINE and re-reformation (Dery et al., 2013; Strong and Letch, 2013) as critical success factors
in HRIS project implementation.
44,4 Following Martinsons (1994), an interesting development is noticed in the orientation
of HRIS research as subjectivism was included in it. Eddy et al. (1999) assessed the
subjective responses of HRIS users by assessing their perception about information
privacy and fairness. This work sensitized the possibilities of cognitive and subjective
522 persuasion on HRIS, which was earlier featured more as a mechanical schema than
subjective schema. The view of Kovach and Cathcat (1999) that HRIS is a decision
support tool also reinforced the subjective association of users and considered the
primacy of information rather than its source and the way it has been maintained. The
Downloaded by Griffith University, Professor Mohan Thite At 23:19 20 November 2014 (PT)

argument that HRIS is a relational and processual approach rather than a system
approach considerably strengthens the view of subjectivism (Tansley and Watson,
2000). As a strategic requirement, HRIS needs to be implemented successfully, and for
this, it requires the availability of adequate, symmetric and appropriate information in
it. HRIS information pool is primarily related to the human resources, and sometimes, it
might create a sense of insecurity in the minds of whom the information is related. Here
again the element of subjectivity appeared and it raises the issue of information security
(Zafar, 2013) and privacy, i.e. technology trust.
Sizeable research has also appeared on the issue of work-related outcomes of
HRIS implementation. Markova (2012) claimed that in-house developed or highly
customized HRIS can build the dynamic capabilities and ensures firm
competitiveness. Kumar and Parumasur (2013) also reinforced the above view and
stated that proper implementation of HRIS augments organizational effectiveness
through the realization of human resource strategy and organizational strategy.
Maier et al. (2013) recognized the relationships of HRIS implementation, employee
job satisfaction and turnover intention. In an effort to extend the scope of HRIS,
Dulebohn and Johnson (2013) suggested that HRIS plays a critical role in selection,
application and employment of human resource metrics and analytics, and
contributes to strategic advancement of organizations.
The above discussion presents the path of progress in HRIS research over time. It is
seen that it covers manifold aspects in its journey, i.e. from what is existing (descriptive)
to what ought to be (exploratory), from generic (common) to specificity, from
administrative tool to strategic requirements, from professionals’ to users’ perspective
and, finally, from theoretical to empirical. Another important observation is that most of
the research was restricted to developed economies and privately owned for-profit
organizations. The direction of HRIS research in developed countries confirms HRIS as
a strategic partner, whereas in developing economies, its nature and roles remain
relatively unexplored. These gaps led us to the present study.

3. Research questions
3.1 Applications of HRIS
Variation in the scope of HRIS has been observed with respect to organizational size. In
case of small organizations, HRIS may play an administrative role only; however, in
large organizations, HRIS is often used as a strategic tool (Kovach and Cathcart, 1999).
According to Ellig (1997), technology can be used to reduce the tension between the
strategic and administrative role, as it may approach to the point where it can remove
part of the administrative responsibility. Kossek et al. (1994) also believe that HRIS
 applications have the potential to change the nature of work performed and enable users Human resource
to make fast and complex decisions. DeSanctis (1986, p. 15) asserted that these
information systems increase administrative efficiency and generate reports for better
information
decision making. However, HRIS is still found to focus on administrative tasks such as system
record-keeping and payroll (Broderick and Boudreau, 1992).
Similar observation was made in educational organizations. Altarawneh and
Al-Shqairat (2010) concluded that Jordanian universities adopted HRIS only for 523
automation of routine work and not for strategic decision making. Economic
development stage of a nation also has some influence on the usages/applications of
HRIS, as it is well-known that in developing economies, HRIS mainly fulfills
Downloaded by Griffith University, Professor Mohan Thite At 23:19 20 November 2014 (PT)

administrative roles (Spero et al., 2011). In addition, levels of employees also have an
impact on HRIS usage. For instance, Wayne (1997) observed that while HR
professionals use HRIS for regulatory reporting and compliance, compensation
analysis, payroll, pension, profit-sharing administration, skill development and
skill inventory, benefits administration, etc., the second category of users (managers
in functional areas) use HRIS to meet information need specific to their functional
arena, and the third category, the end-users, i.e. employees, use HRIS for
administrative alternatives. Thus, the functions and applications of HRIS vary with
end-users and type of organizations:
RQ1. What are the applications of HRIS in the universities as perceived by
end-users, namely, faculty members?

3.2 Benefits of HRIS

In the current competitive global environment, characterized by knowledge and
technology intensiveness, there is immense pressure on organizations to better manage
and utilize talent. Efficient and effective use of information systems and technology can
enhance organization’s talent management endeavors. Investment in HR-related
information systems and technologies would improve the quality of organizational
decisions and boost organizational competitiveness. Organizations need timely,
accurate and quality information to make strategic decisions (Huselid, 1995); hence,
HRIS plays a key role and supports strategic decision-making process in organizations.
It is also seen as a tool to accommodate the geographic diversification and maintaining
consistencies in organizational policies and practices across the globe (Hannon et al.,
1996). Hussain et al. (2007) observe that irrespective of company size, strategic role of
HRIS is increasing substantially. Teo et al. (2007) examined the relationship among
organizational innovation, environmental characteristics and adoption of HRIS. Beulen
(2009) confirmed HRIS’ contribution in employee retention in global IT firms. Quick
response and access to information have also been identified as major benefits of
adopting HRIS (Ngai and Wat, 2006; Altarawneh and Al-Shqairat, 2010):
RQ2. What are the perceived key benefits of HRIS in universities?

3.3 Barriers to HRIS

Research identifies the following as the key stumbling blocks in the successful
implementation of HRIS: insufficient financial support (Ngai and Wat, 2006; Nusair and
Parsa, 2007; Reddick, 2009); difficulty in changing the organization’s culture and lack of
commitment from top managers (Altarawneh and Al-Shqairat, 2010); and unavailability
 VINE of suitable software and software usability (Barut and Dogerlioglu, 2010). This
discussion leads to the framing of next question:
44,4
RQ3. What are the barriers in the adoption of HRIS in universities?

3.4 Demographic variations and HRIS

In HRIS domain, Haines and Petit (1997) highlight the role of demographic features on
524 the success of HRIS. In this regard, other studies also confirm the importance of
demographic features such as gender, experience (Muchiri et al., 2011; Wickramasinghe
and De Zoyza, 2008), education (Igbaria et al., 1989; Igbaria and Nachman, 1990) and
Downloaded by Griffith University, Professor Mohan Thite At 23:19 20 November 2014 (PT)

levels/positions (Baral and Bhargava, 2011; Kaiser and Craig, 2011; Mumford et al.,
2007; Rai, 2009) on preferences, attitude and behaviors. Our next research question, thus,
considers the importance of demographic variations:
RQ4. Do demographic variables (gender, levels and education) create any
perceptual difference for HRIS?
It is evident from the literature that there is inadequate attention on the applications of
HRIS, benefits of using HRIS and barriers to the successful implementation of HRIS in
non-profit, small-sized organizations from developing economies. Hence, the present
study was designed to seek more insights about the nature and application of HRIS in
non-profit organizations (i.e. universities) by gleaning end-users’ responses (i.e. teaching
staff) from a developing state (i.e. India).

4. Research methodology
4.1 Sample size, features and data collection procedure
The population for this study comprised 509 faculty members (professor, associate
professor and assistant professor) from seven government universities in the Haryana
state of India. Email addresses of faculty members were retrieved from official websites
of the universities. Then an online questionnaire, developed on Google Documents, was
electronically mailed to them. A total 112 responses were returned, out of which 90 were
found suitable for analysis. The majority of respondents were male (54.5 per cent) and
possessed doctoral degree (91.9 per cent). Table I gives a detail view of demographic
features of the sample.

4.2 Instrument for data collection

The instrument for present study was developed on the basis of previous studies
(Altarawneh and Al-Shqairat, 2010; Ball, 2001; Ngai and Wat, 2006; Mohanty and
Tripathy, 2007). Twenty-six items were sought: the faculty’s opinion regarding

Assistant Associate
Gender professors (%) professors (%) Professor (%) Non-PhD (%) PhD (%)

Female (45.5%) 20 18.9 6.7 4.45 41.1

Male (54.5%) 18.9 15.5 20 4.45 50
Table I. 38.9 34.4 26.7 8.9 91.1
Demographic detail of
participants Note: Primary data
 application of HRIS (1-8 items), benefits of using HRIS (9-17 items) and barriers in Human resource
adoption of HRIS (18-26). Instrument was self-administered and includes explanatory
statements. Participants were asked to quantify their responses on a 5-point scale
information
(1 for strongly disagree to 5 for strongly agree). Cronbach alpha for the present system
instrument for selected dimensions were: HRIS applications – 0.89, benefits of HRIS –
0.78 and barriers in HRIS – 0.85.
525
5. Results
5.1 Applications of HRIS in universities
To answer the first research question, ranking of the variables was done on the basis of
Downloaded by Griffith University, Professor Mohan Thite At 23:19 20 November 2014 (PT)

descriptive statistics (mean value, standard deviation value and total score). As shown
in Table II, “absence monitoring” was ranked first followed by “performance appraisal”.
The ranking of variables presents their relative importance with regard to their
functions in universities.

5.2 Benefits of HRIS

Table III shows the mean score and overall ranking of benefits of HRIS in universities.
Results indicate that “Quick responses and access to information” was ranked first,
followed by “Improving employment services” and “Reducing paperwork”.

Items Rank Mean SD Total

Absence monitoring 1 3.73 0.96 336.00

Performance appraisal 2 3.68 0.77 332.00
Compensation management 3 3.44 1.01 310.00
Disciplining procedures 4 3.41 0.89 307.00
Current employees’ information 5 3.31 0.88 298.00
Promotion management 6 3.27 0.87 295.00
Employment reward 7 3.27 1.11 295.00
Job analysis and work design 8 3.18 0.89 287.00
Training and development 9 2.85 1.15 257.00
Cronbach alpha for applications of HRIS 0.89 Table II.
Ranking for applications
Notes: Source primary data; M ⫽ mean score; SD ⫽ standard deviation of HRIS

Items Rank Mean SD Total

Quick responses and access to information 1 3.90 0.70 344.00

Improving employment services 2 3.36 0.92 303.00
Reducing paperwork 3 3.32 0.77 299.00
Improving information control 4 3.28 0.86 296.00
Help in program standardizing 5 3.26 0.74 294.00
Reducing manpower requirement 6 3.17 1.0 286.00
Helping to make informal decisions 7 3.10 1.11 279.00
Reduce error while using HRIS 8 3.00 0.95 270.00
Cronbach alpha for benefits of HRIS 0.78 Table III.
Ranking for benefits of
Notes: Source primary data; n ⫽ 90; M ⫽ mean score; SD ⫽ standard deviation HRIS
 VINE 5.3 Barriers in adoption of HRIS
Table IV shows mean score and ranking of perceived barriers of HRIS and reveals that
44,4 “lack of commitment from top management”, ranked first, followed by “not perceived as
an advantage” and “inadequate knowledge and lack of expertise in IT”, were perceived
as major barriers for HRIS from faculty point of view. On the other hand, “insufficient
finance” is not considered a major barrier according to the faculty members.
526
5.4 Demographic variation and perceptual difference for HRIS between groups (male–
female, professor–associate professor–assistant professor, PhD–non-PhD)
To answer whether male and female participants have different opinions on the selected
Downloaded by Griffith University, Professor Mohan Thite At 23:19 20 November 2014 (PT)

HRIS items, t-test was conducted. The results revealed that male and female
participants have same opinion for most of the study items (Tables V–VII ). However, a
significant difference was observed in items, namely, “compensation management”

Items Rank Mean SD Total

Lack of commitment from top management 1 3.63 0.98 327.00

Not perceived as an advantage 2 3.57 0.82 322.00
Inadequate knowledge and lack of expertise in IT 3 3.55 0.90 320.00
Unavailability of suitable HRIS software 4 3.51 0.67 316.00
Fear of changing the way they do things 5 3.41 0.88 307.00
Difficulty in changing the organization culture 6 3.36 0.78 303.00
A lot of paperwork 7 3.23 0.99 291.00
Insufficient financial support 8 3.20 1.01 288.00
Lack of commitment and involvement by employees 9 3.14 0.80 283.00
Table IV. Cronbach alpha for barriers in adoption of HRIS 0.85
Raking for barriers in
adoption of HRIS Note: Source primary data; n ⫽ 90

ANOVA for Asntp, Asstp t-test for PhD

Items t-test for gender and Prf and non-PhD

Compensation management 0.023* 0.116 0.816

Current employees’ information 0.042* 0.387 0.008*
Disciplining procedures 0.593 0.141 0.529
Absence monitoring 0.112 0.548 0.307
Employment reward 0.210 0.048* 0.161
Asntp and Prf (0.036)**
Asstp and Prf (0.043)**
Job analysis and work design 0.596 0.942 0.000*
Performance appraisal 0.842 0.653 0.028*
Promotion management 0.840 0.353 0.479
Training and development 0.232 0.871 0.873
Table V.
T-test and ANOVA Notes: Source primary data; * significant at p ⱕ 0.05; ** post hoc ANOVA by using LSD approach
results of select groups for confirmed significant difference; Asnt ⫽ assistant professor; Asstp ⫽ associate professor; Prf ⫽
HRIS functions professor
 ANOVA for Asntp, Asstp t-test for PhD
Human resource
Items t-test for gender and Prf and non-PhD information
Responses and access to info. 0.209 0.150 0.064 system
Improving information control 0.273 0.549 0.443
Reduce error while using HRIS 0.229 0.048* 0.207
Asstp and Prf (0.018)**
Reducing manpower requirement 0.039* 0.417 0.673
527
Helping to make informal decisions 0.793 0.777 0.002*
Help in program standardizing 0.253 0.048 0.028*
Downloaded by Griffith University, Professor Mohan Thite At 23:19 20 November 2014 (PT)

Asntp and Asstp (0.032)**

Reducing paperwork 0.603 0.329 0.024*
Improving employment services 0.809 0.081 0.596
Asntp and Asstp (0.031)**
Table VI.
Notes: Source primary data; * significant at p ⱕ 0.05; ** post hoc ANOVA by using LSD approach T-test and ANOVA
confirmed significant difference; Asnt ⫽ assistant professor; Asstp ⫽ associate professor; Prf ⫽ results of select groups for
professor HRIS benefits

t-test for ANOVA for Asntp, Asstp t-test for PhD

Items gender and Prf and non-PhD

Insufficient financial support 0.321 0.553 0.192

0.607 0.019 0.961
Difficulty in changing the organization Asntp and Prf (0.017)**
culture Asstp and Prf. (0.009)**
0.269 0.037 0.239
Asntp and Prf (0.026)**
A lot of paperwork Asstp and Prf. (0.019)**
No suitable HRIS or software 0.745 0.786 0.961
Lack of commitment from top management 0.774 356 0.589
Lack of commitment and involvement by
employees 0.288 0.548 0.618
Fearful of changing the way they do things 0.145 0.501 0.002*
Inadequate knowledge and lack of expertise
in IT 0.528 0.545 0.057
Not perceived as an advantage 0.221 0.128 0.768
Table VII.
Notes: Source primary data; * significant at p ⱕ 0.05, ** post hoc ANOVA by using LSD approach T-test and ANOVA
confirmed significant difference; Asnt ⫽ assistant professor; Asstp ⫽ associate professor; Prf ⫽ results of select groups for
professor HRIS barriers

(p ⫽ 0.023), “current employee’s information” (p ⫽ 0.042) (Table V) and “reducing

manpower requirement” (p ⫽ 0.039; Table VI).
Next, to assess the perceptual difference among three categories of participants,
analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed at five per cent significance level
(Tables V–VII). The results demonstrate the significant difference among the three
categories of participants (assistant professors, associate professors and professors)
in items, namely, “employment reward” (p ⫽ 0.048, Table V), “reduce error while
 VINE using HRIS” (p ⫽ 0.048, Table VI), “help in program standardizing” (p ⫽ 0.048,
Table VI), “difficulty in changing the organization culture”(p ⫽ 0.019, Table VII)
44,4 and “a lot of paperwork” (p ⫽ 0.037, Table VII) have significant different mean
scores for three categories of participants. To find the differences among PhD and
non-PhD qualified respondents, t-test was carried out (Tables V–VII). Results found
a significant difference in the variables, namely, “current employees information”
528 (p ⫽ 0.008), “job analysis and work design” (p ⫽ 0.000), “performance appraisal”
(p ⫽ 0.028) (Table V), “helping to make informal decisions” (p ⫽ 0.002), “help in
program standardization” (p ⫽ 0.028), “reducing paperwork” (p ⫽ 0.024) (Table VI)
and “fearful of changing the way they do things” (p ⫽ 0.002) (Table VII).
Downloaded by Griffith University, Professor Mohan Thite At 23:19 20 November 2014 (PT)

Finally, to see whether the differences obtained on the items render any
significant difference on the focused issues of HRIS (functions, benefits and
barriers), t-test and ANOVA were performed. The results negated the assumption
that demographic variables lead to any perceptual difference on the focused
variable.

6. Discussion
The main purpose of this study was to explore faculty perceptions regarding functions
of HRIS, benefits of HRIS and barriers to success of HRIS in universities. Additionally,
the role of demographic variation was also examined.

6.1 Applications of HRIS

The faculty members identified “absence monitoring”, “performance appraisal”,
“compensations management” and “disciplining procedure” as core functions of
HRIS. On the contrary, “online training and development” and “job analysis and
work design” were perceived as least applicable areas of HRIS. These findings
revealed that in universities, the functionality of HRIS is restricted only to the
administrative sphere and HRIS is not perceived as a strategic partner. These
findings of the study are in line with previous studies (Altarawneh and Al-Shqairat,
2010; Ball, 2001; Hamlin and Serventi, 2008; Kovach and Cathcart, 1999).
The finding that in universities, HRIS is not used for training and development
function is in line with similar finding from Mohanty and Tripathy (2007) and
Haines and Petit (1997). Additionally, it can be argued that the stage of economic
development also determines the orientation of HRIS, as in the developing
economies, HRIS is still considered for the administrative purpose (see in Spero et al.,
2011). The findings suggest that HRIS in universities is mainly used to increase the
efficiency of HR functions and not the effectiveness of its users. However, in the
backdrop of these results, it is suggested that to meet contemporary challenges,
the functions of HRIS in Indian universities need to be extended to include strategic
role/functions of HR. We support the views of Beulen (2009) and Delorme and
Arcand (2010) reiterating the strategic importance of HRIS in present era.

6.2 Benefits of HRIS

Results reveal that the main perceived benefits of present HRIS are “quick response
and access to information”, “improving employee services” and “reducing
paperwork”, whereas “reduction in errors while using HRIS” and “helping to make
informal decisions” were perceived as the least benefits. The speedy access to the
information and information control are the generic benefits of HRIS, as confirmed
 in previous research (Ball, 2001; Barron et al., 2004; Delorme and Arcand, 2010; Human resource
Martinsons, 1994; Ngai and Wat, 2006). The revelation of the study that HRIS
considerably improves the employment-related services is also consistent with the
information
past studies (Broderick and Boudreau, 1992; Fletcher, 2005; Hussain et al., 2007; system
Ulrich, 1997a, 1997b). The study raises some concerns that HRIS in Indian
universities is not fully utilized and the major contribution of it, i.e. use as
decision-making tool rather than information communicator, is yet to be realized. 529
6.3 Barriers in adoption of HRIS
The findings suggests that lack of commitment from top management, inadequate
Downloaded by Griffith University, Professor Mohan Thite At 23:19 20 November 2014 (PT)

knowledge and lack of expertise in using HRIS are perceived as the greatest barriers for
HRIS in selected universities. Prior work (Kovach and Cathcart, 1999; Razali and
Vrontis, 2010; Tansley and Newell, 2007; Troshani et al., 2011) also held “top
management support” as a key factor for the successful adoption of HRIS. However,
other factors such as inadequate knowledge and lack of expertise in using HRIS
(Troshani et al., 2011), unavailability of suitable HRIS software (Wilson-Evered and
Härtel, 2009; Delorme and Arcand, 2010; Markova, 2012) and uncertainty and lack of
trust on HRIS processes (Lippert and Swiercz, 2005; Tansley and Newell, 2007) equally
impact on HRIS adoption.
The findings that insufficient finance and lack of commitment from users are least
hurdles for HRIS adoption are in contrast with previous studies (Altarawneh and
Al-Shqairat, 2010). If end-users are intrinsically motivated to prefer HRIS, then their
commitment can dilute the influence of other obstacles, i.e. lack of management support
and technology distrust. This appears as a positive sign for the advancement of HRIS in
universities.

6.4 Demographic variation and perceptual difference for HRIS between groups
Results show that no significant difference was observed in most of the selected
items across the groups. Gender-wise significant difference was only observed in
compensation management and current employee information. According to the
hierarchy of position occupied, the significant difference was observed only on a
lone item, i.e. employment reward. In the case of PhD and non-PhD, the groups
significantly varied on the items, namely, current employee information, job
analysis and work design and performance appraisal. Table VI give details about
the significant difference on items of HRIS benefits. Gender-wise, a single item, i.e.
reducing manpower requirements, was varied significantly. According to the
hierarchy of position occupied, the significant difference was noticed on the items,
namely, reduce error while using HRIS, helps in program standardization and
improving employment services. The PhD and non-PhD groups have significant
perception on the items, namely, helping to make informal decisions, help in
program standardization and reducing paperwork.
Table VII detailed the differences between the groups on barriers of HRIS
adoption. Interestingly, gender-wise, no significant difference was obtained.
Position-wise, the significant difference was observed for two items, namely,
difficulty in changing the organization culture and a lot of paperwork. For PhD and
non-PhD groups, the difference was found only on fearful of changing the way they
do things. However, on the whole, no significant difference (Table VIII) was
 VINE observed on three focused issues of HRIS (i.e. the application, benefits and barriers)
for demographic/demographic variations. These findings are contrary to prior
44,4 studies from Igbaria et al. (1989) and Igbaria and Nachman (1990) but in support of
findings from Bamel et al. (2012) and Kazén and Kuhl (2011).

7. Conclusion
530 This paper examined the relatively unexplored areas of HRIS in universities from
faculties’ perspective. Foremost, on the basis of literature review, we reject the notion of
generic HRIS and advocate firm-specific HRIS framework. Next, our empirical findings
report that HRIS in the selected universities is used only for the administrative purpose
Downloaded by Griffith University, Professor Mohan Thite At 23:19 20 November 2014 (PT)

and routine tasks, and it is not perceived as a strategic partner for competitive
advantage. The other important finding from the study is that the demographic
variables do not cause variation in the perceptions of HRIS users and hence negates the
role of demographic diversity.
This study has many implications for similar organizations. First, this study
identifies that users do not perceive HRIS as a tool which can enhance their efficacy and
as a potential value addition. Organizations need to consider the users’ voice and
preference before designing HRIS. Perhaps, education and training may change users’
(faculties in this case) perception and attitude toward HRIS usage. Demonstration
sessions on how HRIS can rejuvenate the entire process could also be helpful to change
the attitude of its users. We also identify some obstacles in the successful adoption of
HRIS; the foremost of them is support from the top management, lack of knowledge and
expertise on how to use/adopt it and user’s perception that use of HRIS doesn’t make any
difference. Here we stress that as HRIS adoption is more likely an organizational change
process, it must be fully backed and funded by the top management. Evidence from the
technology adoption model suggests making certain adjustments in culture such as
appreciating users, role modeling from leaders making it user-friendly, assuring
security and privacy issues are some measures which can be used to smoothen and
strengthen the adoption of HRIS in universities.
The limitations of the study include low response rate and narrow applicability
(state universities only). Accordingly, the validity and generalization of its findings
are limited only to similar kind of firms, i.e. universities. Therefore, we recommend
the replication of the work in other organizational settings. Studying HRIS from the
perspective of business intelligence model would be another possible extension of
the present work.

Groups/HRIS dimensions Applications Benefits Barriers

t-test for gender 0.24 0.32 0.74

ANOVA for Asntp, Asstp and Prf 0.36 0.24 0.15
t-test for PhD and non-PhD 0.1 0.12 0.63
Table VIII.
T-test and ANOVA Notes: Source primary data; * significant at p ⱕ 0.05, ** post hoc ANOVA by using LSD approach
results of select groups for confirmed significant difference; Asnt ⫽ assistant professor; Asstp ⫽ associate professor; Prf ⫽
HRIS dimensions professor
 References Human resource
Altarawneh, I. and Al-Shqairat, Z. (2010), “Human resource information systems in Jordanian information
universities”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 5 No. 10, pp. 113-128.
Ashbaugh, A. and Miranda, R. (2002), “Technology for human resources management: seven
system
questions and answers”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 7-20.
Ball, K. (2001), “The use of human resource management systems: a survey”, Personnel Review,
Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 677-693. 531
Bamel, U.K., Rangnekar, S. and Rastogi, R. (2012), “Gender, organization(s) and managerial
level(s) differences in perceiving role efficacy”, International Journal of Business and
Downloaded by Griffith University, Professor Mohan Thite At 23:19 20 November 2014 (PT)

Management Tomorrow, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 1-5.

Baral, R. and Bhargava, S. (2011), “Examining the moderating influence of gender on the
relationships between work-family antecedents and work-family enrichment”, Gender in
Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 122-147.
Barron, M., Chhabra, D., Hanscome, R. and Henson, R. (2004), “Exclusive panel discussion: tips
and trends in HRIS”, HR Focus, Vol. 81 No. 5, pp. 6-7.
Barut, O. and Dogerlioglu, O. (2010), “Human resources information systems: a sociotechnical
perspective”, Information Technology Journal, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 877-888.
Beulen, E. (2009), “The contribution of a global service provider’s human resources information
system (HRIS) to staff retention in emerging markets: comparing issues and implications in
six developing countries”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 270-288.
Boudreau, M.-C. and Robey, D. (2005), “Enacting integrated information technology: a human
agency perspective”, Organization Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 3-18.
Brockbank, W. (1999), “If HR were really strategically proactive: present and future directions in
HR’s contribution to competitive advantage”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 38 No. 4,
pp. 337-352.
Broderick, R., Boudreau, J.W. (1992), “Human resource management, information technology and
the competitive edge”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 7-17.
Brown, S.A., Massey, A.P., Montoya-Weiss, M.M. and Burkman, J.R. (2002), “Do I really have to?
User acceptance of mandated technology”, European Journal of Information Systems,
Vol. 11 No. 4, 283-295.
Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information
technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-340.
Delorme, M. and Arcand, M. (2010), “HRIS implementation and deployment: a conceptual
framework of the new roles, responsibilities and competences for HR professionals”,
International Journal of Business Information System, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 148-161.
Dery, K., Grant, D. and Wiblen, S. (2009), “Human resource information systems (HRIS): replacing
or enhancing HRM”, paper presented at the Proceedings of the 15th world congress of the
international industrial relations association, IIRA, August 2009, Sydney.
Dery, K., Hall, R., Wailes, N. and Wiblen, S. (2013), “Lost in translation? An actor-network
approach to HRIS implementation”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 225-237.
DeSanctis, G. (1986), “Human resource information systems: a current assessment”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 15-26.
Dulebohn, J.H. and Johnson, R.D. (2013), “Human resource metrics and decision support: a
classification framework”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 71-83.
 VINE Eddy, E.R., Stone, D.L. and Stone-Romero, E.F. (1999), “The effects of information management
policies on reactions to human resource information systems: an integration of privacy and
44,4 procedural justice perspectives”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 335-358.
Ellig, B. (1997), “Is the human resource function neglecting the employees”, Human Resource
Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 91-105.
Fletcher, P. (2005), “From personal administration to business driven human capital management:
532 the transformation of the role of HR in the digital age”, in Greutal, H.G. and Stone, D.L. (Eds),
The Brave New World of Her, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. l-12.
Gildea, J. (1993), “Employers go beyond HRIS to control health care costs”, Business and health,
Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 45-48.
Downloaded by Griffith University, Professor Mohan Thite At 23:19 20 November 2014 (PT)

Hagood, W., Friedman, L. (2002), “Using the balanced scorecard to measure the performance of
your HR information system”, Personnel Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 543-557.
Haines, V.Y. and Petit, A. (1997), “Conditions for successful human resource information system”,
Human Resource Management, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 261-275.
Hamlin, R.G. and Serventi, S.A. (2008), “Generic behavioral criteria of managerial effectiveness: an
empirical and comparative case study of UK local government”, Journal of European
Industrial Training, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 285-302.
Hannon, J., Jelf, G. and Brandes, D. (1996), “Human resource information systems: operational
issues and strategic considerations in a global environment”, International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 245-269.
Helen, L. and Nicholas, M. (1983), “Analysis of factors affecting the components of human resource
information systems”, International Journal on Policy and Information, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 77-85.
Hubbard, J.C., Forcht, K.A. and Thomas, D.S. (1998), “Human resource information systems: an
overview of current ethical and legal issues”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17 No. 12,
pp. 1319-1323.
Huselid, M.A. (1995), “The impact of HRM practices on turnover, productivity and corporate
performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 635-672.
Hussain, Z., Wallace, J. and Cornelius, N.E. (2007), “The use and impact of human resource
information systems on human resource management professionals”, Information &
Management, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 74-89.
Igbaria, M. and Nachman, S.A. (1990), “Correlates of user satisfaction with end user computing: an
exploratorv study”, Information and Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 73-82.
Igbaria, M., Pavri, F.N. and Huff, S.L. (1989), “Microcomputer applications: an empirical look at
usage”, Information and Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 187-196.
Kaiser, R.B. and Craig, S.B. (2011), “Do the behaviors related to managerial effectiveness really
change with organizational level? An empirical test”, The Psychologist-Manager, Vol. 14
No. 2, pp. 92-119.
Kazén, M. and Kuhl, J. (2011), “Directional discrepancy between implicit and explicit power
motives is related to well-being among managers”, Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 35 No. 3,
pp. 317-327.
Kossek, E.E., Young, W., Gash, D.C. and Nichol, V. (1994), “Waiting for innovation in the human
resources department: go dot implements a human resource information system”, Human
Resource Management, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 135-159.
Kovach, K.A. and Cathcart, C.E. (1999), “Human resource information systems (HRIS): providing
business with rapid data access, information exchange and strategic advantage”, Public
Personnel Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 275-281.
 Kumar, A.N. and Parumasur, B.S. (2013), “The impact of HRIS on organizational efficiency: Human resource
random or integrated and holistic?”, Corporate Ownership and Control, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 567-575. information
Lederer, A.L. (1984), “Information technology: planning and developing a human resources system
information system”, Personnel, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 14-27.
Lippert, S.K. and Swiercz, P.M. (2005), “Human resource information systems (HRIS) and
technology trust”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 340-353. 533
Maier, C., Laumer, S., Eckhardt, A. and Weitzel, T. (2013), “Analyzing the impact of HRIS
implementations of HR personnel’s job satisfaction and turnover intention”, The Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 193-207.
Downloaded by Griffith University, Professor Mohan Thite At 23:19 20 November 2014 (PT)

Markova, G. (2012), “Building dynamic capabilities: the case of HRIS”, Management Research:
The Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 81-98.
Martinsons, M.G. (1994), “Benchmarking human resource information systems in Canada and
Hong Kong”, Information and Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 305-316.
Mayfield, M., Mayfield, J. and Lunce, S., (2003), “Human resource information systems: a review
and model development”, Advances in Competitiveness Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 139-151.
Mohanty, M. and Tripathy, S.K. (2007), “Effectiveness of human resource information system; a
study in national aluminum company (NALCO)”, Management and Labour Studies, Vol. 32
No. 4, pp. 422-450.
Muchiri, M.K., Cooksey, R.W., Di Milia, L.V. and Walumbwa, F.O. (2011), “Gender and managerial
level differences in perceptions of effective leadership”, Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 462-492.
Mumford, T.V., Campion, M.A. and Morgeson, F.P. (2007), “The leadership skills strataplex:
leadership skill requirements across organizational levels”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18
No. 2, pp. 154-166.
Ngai, E.W. and Wat, F.K. (2006), “Human resource information systems: a review and empirical
analysis”, Personnel Review, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 298-314.
Nikkel, D. (1985), “HRIS implementation: a systematic approach”, Personnel, Vol. 62 No. 2,
pp. 10-15.
Nusair, K. and Parsa, H.G. (2007), “Critical factors in implementing HRIS in restaurant chains”, in
Advances in Hospitality and Leisure, Published online, Vol. 3, pp. 69-86.
Offstein, E., Gnyawali, D. Cobb, A. (2005), “A strategic human resource perspective of firm
competitive behavior”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 305-318.
Oyefolahan, I.O. and Dominic, P.D.D. (2013), “Knowledge management systems use and
competency development among knowledge workers: the role of socio-technical
antecedents in developing autonomous motivation to use”, VINE, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 482-500.
Page, C., Wilson, M., Meyer, D. and Inkson, K. (2003), “It’s the situation I’m in: the importance of
managerial context to effectiveness”, The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 22
No. 10, pp. 841-862.
Pickard, A.J. and Dixon, P. (2004), “Measuring electronic information resource use: towards a
transferable quality framework for measuring value”, VINE, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 126-131.
Rai, H. (2009), “Gender differences: ingratiation and leader member exchange quality”, Singapore
Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 63-72.
Razali, M.Z. and Vrontis, D. (2010), “The reactions of employees toward the implementation of
human resources information systems (HRIS) as a planned change program: a case study in
Malaysia”, Journal of Transnational Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 229-245.
 VINE Reddick, C.G. (2009), “Human resources information systems in Texas city governments: scope
and perception of its effectiveness”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 19-35.
44,4 Richter, A., Stocker, A., Müller, S. and Avram, G. (2013), “Knowledge management goals revisited:
a cross-sectional analysis of social software adoption in corporate environments”, VINE,
Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 132-148.
Schuler, R.S., Dolan, S. and Jackson, S.E. (2001), “Trends and emerging values in human resource
534 management: global and trans cultural perspectives”, International Journal of Manpower,
Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 195-197.
Simon, S.H. (1983), “The HRIS: what capabilities must it have?”, Personnel, Vol. 60 No. 5, pp. 36-49.
Downloaded by Griffith University, Professor Mohan Thite At 23:19 20 November 2014 (PT)

Spero, J.C., McQuide, P.A. and Matte, R. (2011), “Tracking and monitoring the health workforce: a
new human resources information system (HRIS) in Uganda”, Human Resources for
Health, Vol. 9 No. 1, p. 6.
Spirig, J.E. (1988), “Selling the HRIS to top management”, Personnel, Vol. 65 No. 10, pp. 26-34.
Spirig, J.E. (1989), “Human resource information systems: helping to meet section 89
requirements”, Employment Relations Today, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 9-16.
Storey, J. (1995), Human Resource Management: A critical text, Routledge, London.
Strong, M. and Letch, L. (2013), “Investigating cultural heritage data integration with an ANT
perspective”, VINE, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 322-340.
Tannenbaum, S.I. (1990), “HRIS information: user group implications” Journal of Systems
Management, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 27-32.
Tansley, C. and Newell, S. (2007), “Project social capital, leadership and trust: a study of human
resource information systems development”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22
No. 4, pp. 350-368.
Tansley, C. and Watson, T. (2000), “Strategic exchange in the development of human resource
information systems (HRIS)”, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 108-122.
Taylor, G.S. and Davis, J.S. (1989), “Individual privacy and computer-based human resource
information systems”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 8 No. 7, pp. 569-576.
Taylor, G.S. and Spencer, B.A. (1990), “Ethical implications of human resource information
systems”, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 19-30.
Teo, T.S.H., Lim, G.S. and Fedric, S.A. (2007), “The adoption and diffusion of human resources
information systems in Singapore”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 45 No. 1,
pp. 44-62.
Thite, M. (2004), Managing People in the New Economy Targeted HR Practices That Persuade
People to Unlock Their Knowledge Power, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Thite, M. Kavanagh, M.J. and Johnson, R.D. (2012), “Evolution of human resource management
and human resource information systems: the role of information technology”, in
Kavanagh, M.J., Thite, M. and Johnson, R.D. (Eds), Human Resource Information Systems:
Basics, Applications, and Future Directions, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 2-35.
Thite, M., Kerr, D. and Sandhu, K. (2007), “Problems and prospects in teaching multi-disciplinary
courses: a case study of human resource information systems”, International Journal of
Information and Operations Management Education, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 183-193.
Troshani, I., Jerram, C. and Hill, S.R. (2011), “Exploring the public sector adoption of HRIS”,
Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 111 No. 3, pp. 470-488.
 Ulrich, D. (1997a), Human Resource Champions: The Next Agenda for Adding Value to HR Human resource
Practices, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Ulrich, D. (1997b), “HR of the future: conclusions and observations”, Human Resource
information
Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 175-179. system
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003), “User acceptance of information
technology: toward a unified view”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 425-478.
Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D. and Morris, M.G. (2007), “Dead or alive? The development, trajectory 535
and future of technology adoption research”, Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 268-286.
Walker, A.J. (1982), HRIS Development, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Downloaded by Griffith University, Professor Mohan Thite At 23:19 20 November 2014 (PT)

Wayne, A.R. (1997), “The future of human resources: forging ahead or falling behind in
tomorrow’s HR management”, in Ulrich, D., Losey, M.R. and Lake, G. (Eds), Tomorrow’s
HR Management: 48 Thought Leaders Call for Change, John Wiley, New York, NY,
pp. 6-54.
Wiblen, S., Grant, D. and Dery, K. (2010), “Transitioning to a new HRIS: the reshaping of human
resources and information technology talent”, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research,
Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 251-267.
Wickramasinghe, V. and De Zoyza, N. (2008), “Gender, age and marital status as predictors of
managerial competency needs: empirical evidence from a Sri Lankan telecommunication
service provider”, Gender in Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 337-354.
Williams, M.D., Dwivedi, Y.K., Lal, B. and Schwarz, A. (2009), “Contemporary trends and issues in
IT adoption and diffusion research”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 1-10.
Wilson-Evered, E. and Härtel, C.E.J. (2009), “Measuring attitudes to HRIS implementation: a field
study to inform implementation methodology”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources,
Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 374-384.
Zafar, H. (2013), “Human resource information systems: information security concerns for
organizations”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 105-113.

Further reading
Chakrabarti, A.K. and Lester, R.K. (2002), “Regional economic development: comparative case
studies in the US and Finland”, Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Engineering
Management, Cambridge, August 2002.
Dobson, J. (1993), “The changing workforce”, Business Officer, Vol. 26 No. 12, pp. 32-35.
Florida, R. (1999), “The role of the university: leveraging talent, not technology”, Science and
Technology, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 67-73.
Hosie, P. (1995), “Promoting quality in higher education using human resource information
systems”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 30-35.
Kassim, N.M., Ramayah, T. and Kurnia, S. (2012), “Antecedents and outcomes of human resource
information system use”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 61 No. 6, pp. 603-623.
Sánchez, J. and Aguayo, M. (2007), “An approach to the satisfaction of human resource
information systems (HRIS): analysis and empirical contrast”, International Journal of
Human Resources Development and Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 177-214.
Schuler, R.S. and Jackson, S.E. (1987), “Organizational strategy and organizational level as
determinants of human resource management practices”, Human Resource Planning,
Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 125-141.
 VINE Shahzad, K., Bashir, S. and Rama, M.I. (2008), “Impact of HR practices on perceived performance
of university teachers in Pakistan”, International Review of Business Research Papers,
44,4 Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 302-315.
Shani, A., Tesone, D.V. (2010), “Have human resource information systems evolved into internal
e-commerce”, Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 30-48.
Truss, C., Gratton, L. (1994), “Strategic human resource management: a conceptual approach”,
536 International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 663-686.
Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A. and Mat Zin, R. (2010), “Internal marketing as an agent of change
implementing a new human resource information system for Malaysian airlines”, Journal of
General Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 21-41.
Downloaded by Griffith University, Professor Mohan Thite At 23:19 20 November 2014 (PT)

Corresponding author
Nisha Bamel can be contacted at nishabamel@gmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints