Change Management and E-hr (1)

Introduction

Human Resources Portal Applications

In recent years, the World Wide Web hasrevolutionized the way individuals in organi-zations access information. In addition tochannels such as business-to-business andbusiness-to-consumer, the Web has permittedhuman resources management to imple-ment HR processes where business-to-em-ployee (B2E) solutions are possible (Harris,Phifer, & Berg, 2002). Organizations withstrategic human resources have imple-mented an increasing number of electronicHR (e-HR) solutions for redesigning HR

processes and reducing the administrativerole of the HR department (Crandall & Wal-lace, 2002; Lepak & Snell, 1998; Walker,2001). Since more of the administrativetasks are available on HR portals, HR pro-fessionals have increasingly more time to en-gage in strategic HR activities.

Often located on company intranet sys-tems, HR portals are vehicles through whichHR information and applications can bechanneled effectively and efficiently (Fire-stone, 2003). There are many tools that HRportals offer, including employee communi-cations (HR policies, who’s who, what’s new,FAQs, etc.) as well as pension services, openenrollment and benefit inquiries, and the

THE APPLICATION OF CHANGE MANAGEMENTTHEORY TO HR PORTAL IMPLEMENTATION INSUBSIDIARIES OF MULTINATIONALCORPORATIONS

Human Resource Management, Spring 2005, Vol. 44, No. 1, Pp. 35–53© 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20039

Cataldo Dino Ruta

HR portals are complex information technology (IT) applications that can be accessed by allemployees of a given organization. By placing more applications and information online, HRportals reduce the reliance employees have on HR personnel. Given this relational change, fromhuman to computer, the HR portal implementation process must take into account the chal-lenges of both change management and technology acceptance. By integrating change man-agement theories with IT user acceptance models, this article adds to HR’s collective knowledgeof ways to effectively implement HR portals. In addition, this article describes the cross-nationalchallenges that exist when a global firm attempts to implement an HR portal around the world.Thus, this article will present a model that (1) integrates change management theories and ITuser acceptance models and (2) illustrates the ways in which change management plans mayneed to be adapted to be effective in various subsidiaries. A case study of Hewlett-Packard’s(HP’s) worldwide implementation of their @HP Employee Portal in the Italian subsidiary of HPillustrates the key issues of these theories. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Correspondence to: Cataldo Dina Ruta, Organization and Human Resources Management Department, SDABocconi School of Management, IOSI Bocconi University, Viale Isonzo, 23, 20135 Milan, Italy, (39) 0258362632, [email protected]

36 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Spring 2005

like. Other administrative activities, such asthe updating of an employee’s personal data(e.g., change of address), are the responsibil-ity of employees themselves. Through HRportals, employees also may have access tocustomized and personalized news, re-sources, applications, and e-commerce op-tions (Cascio, 2000; Collins, 2001). HRportals offer different services to employeesthan to management. Through HR portals,managers are able to generate reports (e.g.,headcount, salary listings, time reports),examine employee activities (transfers, pro-motions, terminations, etc.), and managetheir own activities (e.g., travel arrange-ments, expense management).

HR Portal Implementation: IntegratingChange Management Theories with IT UserAcceptance Models

Implementing an HR portal is a complexprocess because it requires firms to manageboth significant changes for the employees aswell as the technical challenges for the orga-nization’s project installation team. Althoughthe technical installation challenges can begreat, it is the human challenges associatedwith change that cannot be overlooked (al-though often are) during the implementationphase of an HR portal. Employee users mustbecome accustomed to establishing a newkind of relationship with HR, as well as ac-cepting interaction with a computer ratherthan with a person, and, for some, to actuallyusing new technology. These challenges—ITacceptance and organizational change man-agement—can be daunting, especially whennot managed effectively.

This article discusses and integrateschange management theories with IT useracceptance models. Armenakis and Bedeian(1999), in their review of organizationalchange literature, found four issues thatwere common to all change efforts: (1) con-tent issues focusing on the substance of thechange; (2) context issues focusing on forcesinternal and external to the organization; (3)process issues focusing on how the changewas implemented; and (4) criterion issuesfocusing on outcomes commonly assessed.In the case of an HR portal, the content is

the introduction of the HR application, thecontext includes all the internal and externalfactors affecting the employees and man-agers who will use the HR portal, the processincludes all the change management activi-ties organizations may implement to encour-age employee usage, and the criterion iswhether employees use the new HR portal,how long it takes for employees to start usingthe HR portal, how satisfied they are withthe HR portal, and so on. The model pre-sented in this article integrates these changemanagement concepts into the overall theo-retical framework for HR portal implementa-tion (see the left side of Figure 1). Given thatmany HR portals are often implemented bylarger, global organizations that spreadacross geographically distributed regions, thenational contextual issues (such as culture)are considered in greater detail.

A recent review of IT user acceptance re-search found eight competing models and in-tegrated them into one unified model, calledthe Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use ofTechnology (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, &Davis, 2003). The eight models that havebeen integrated into the unified theory ofVenkatesh et al. are: the theory of reasonedaction (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), the tech-nology acceptance model (Davis, 1989), themotivational model (Davis, Bagozzi, & War-shaw, 1992), the theory of planned behavior(Ajzen, 1991; Taylor & Todd, 1995b), amodel combining the technology acceptancemodel and the theory of planned behavior(Taylor & Todd, 1995a), the model of per-sonal computer utilization (Thompson, Hig-gins, & Howell, 1991), the innovation diffu-sion theory (Rogers, 1995), and the socialcognitive theory (Compeau & Higgins,1995). Though a discussion of each of theeight models comprising the unified modelof Venkatesh et al., is beyond the scope ofthis article, three basic concepts common toall theories are particularly relevant for HRportal applications: (1) individual reactionsto using information technology will affect(2) their intention to use information tech-nology, which will, in turn, (3) affect the ac-tual use of information technology. Themodel presented in this article integratesthese three concepts into the overall theoret-

Although thetechnicalinstallationchallenges canbe great, it isthe humanchallengesassociated withchange thatcannot beoverlooked(although oftenare) during theimplementationphase of an HRportal.

The Application of Change Management Theory to HR Portal Implementation • 37

ical framework for HR portal implementa-tion (see the right side of Figure 1).

Change management theory and the ITuser acceptance model focus on overlappingdimensions of this model for implementingan HR portal. The IT user acceptance modelfocuses on “what” predicts intentions to usethe HR portal, while change managementtheory focuses on “how” intentions to usethe HR portal can be influenced and “how”cognitive phenomena are formed. Both theo-retical streams view individual acceptanceand use of the HR portal as the final out-come. Figure 1 illustrates the integrated the-oretical framework for HR portal implemen-tation in a global firm. After presenting thefour key elements of the model (context,process, IT user acceptance, and outcome), acase study of the @HP Employee Portal im-plementation in the Italian subsidiary ofHewlett-Packard will be described.

Context

General Contextual Factors

HR processes reflect corporate culturethrough the way in which a company man-ages and treats its employees. As such, theintroduction of an HR portal, which replacesmore personal face-to-face interactions with

computer-based information, may be viewedby some employees with suspicion. Thus, itis important for the success of the imple-mentation to predict how the HR portalmight be perceived and to manage thischange to the betterment (and not detri-ment) of the company’s organizational cul-ture, employee satisfaction, and so on.

Contextual dimensions may include ex-ternal variables, such as the firm’s industry(banking, airlines, health care, etc.), as wellas the industry’s main characteristics (com-petition, customers, level of technology,knowledge needed, etc.; see Armenakis &Bedeian, 1999), or internal variables, suchas specialization, professionalism, manage-rial attitude toward change, managerialtenure, technical knowledge resources, andlack of resources (Damanpour, 1991). Anextension of Damanpour’s work points outthat organizational design variables (mis-sion, technology, size, structural complexity,perception of change, and involvement) arestrong predictors of employee reactions tochange (Gresov, Haveman, & Oliva, 1993).In other words, by analyzing the context (atboth the industry and company levels),change agents can adopt the most appropri-ate actions to support the process. When in-troducing an IT application such as an HRportal, it is necessary to take into account

Figure 1. Theoretical Framework for HR Portal Implementation in a Global Firm.


the general context for change, consideringthere will be a new application for users andthat it will modify the relationship betweenemployee and organization.

Local Contextual Factors

The context for change in multinationalfirms is somewhat more complex. In addi-tion to the general factors commonthroughout the company, there are specificlocal or cultural factors unique to specificsubsidiaries or divisions. The literatureshows that national culture is a well-ac-cepted factor that influences internationalrelations, and its impact is extremely rele-vant to understanding processes and behav-iors (Adler, 1993; Ulijn, Lincke, &Karakaya, 2001). For these reasons, thesame innovation can have both general andlocal issues. Local differences depend onthe physical presence of local units in dif-ferent countries, which requires that com-panies follow local regulations. Local con-texts depend both on local policy andcultural features that can produce a differ-ent context. Multinational companies usu-ally possess a corporate culture that fits var-ious contexts and leads to differentmanagement styles (Hofstede, 1991, 2001).

Process

General Implementation Plan for the HRPortal

Once the context is defined, the implemen-tation phase progresses through successivesteps: (1) unfreezing: helping users becomeaware of the new change and bringing to thesurface the values upon which these actionsmay be based; (2) moving: introducing usersto new mental frameworks and behavioralpatterns and helping users with these newpatterns; and (3) refreezing: helping users in-ternalize these new behaviors and habits(Lewin, 1947). Based on this contribution,other researchers pointed out different andmore detailed phases that all refer to a com-mon framework by which change is intro-duced, adopted, and finally institutionalizedin organizational behaviors.

Managerial actions can help managechange and develop successful IT implemen-tation plans (Leonard-Barton & Deschamps,1988). Greater involvement causes greater“ownership sentiment” and will result inmore positive attitudes toward the change(Barki & Hartwick, 1994). When futureusers (i.e., employees) participate in the im-plementation by giving suggestions (whichare heeded and adopted), their commitmentto the project will increase (Strauss, 1998).People must be sure their contributions willbe relevant to the quality of the output (Re-ichers, Wanous, & Austin, 1997). The imple-mentation team collects feedback on the sys-tem, adapts the system accordingly, andshares progress reports and results. This pos-itive attitude, in turn, can generate a high de-gree of system knowledge that increases per-ceptions and intention to use (Barki &Harwick, 1994).

Though perception is fundamental forinfluencing the use of an HR portal, it maybe mediated by employees’ self-efficacy to-ward mastering the new system (Venkatesh,2000). Self-efficacy beliefs can be affectedthrough training or “from-the-start” involve-ment in the HR portal implementation proj-ect. Companies offer training in the earlystages of the project to reduce uncertainty ofthe new technology by providing informationabout its characteristics and to motivateusers to engage in use behaviors (Bostrom,Olfman, & Sein, 1990; Davis & Bostrom,1993). HR portal implementations shouldidentify influential individuals or technologychampions (Orlikowski, Yates, Okamura, &Fujimoto, 1995) to facilitate the flow of in-formation in the new system and the phasesof the project.

The behavior of top management is ex-tremely critical to communicating the needfor change (Kotter, 1995). The head of the or-ganization has to demonstrate strong sponsor-ship of the project (Zmud, 1984), becausewhen people see their bosses fail to remain in-volved in the innovation introduced, they stopmaking an effort in the process. In successfulchange management projects, top manage-ment keeps employees informed of theprocess of change. Change agents must workto avoid the dissemination of rumors. Rumors

When introduc-ing an IT ap-plication suchas an HR por-tal, it is neces-sary to takeinto accountthe generalcontext forchange, consid-ering there willbe a new appli-cation for usersand that it willmodify therelationshipbetween em-ployee andorganization.


…the bestimplementationplan may needto be variedwhenconsidering ageneralimplementationto account forlocal variationsin cross-national HRenvironments.

are a signal that communication is poor andthe change process is failing (Reichers et al.,1997). In addition to sponsorship, top man-agement needs credibility to develop mutualtrust and a friendly environment with the restof the organization (Conger, 1998). Trustingthe team leader is a critical prerequisite tohaving employee cooperation in implementingstrategic decisions (Korsgaard, Schweiger, &Sapienza, 1995). Armenakis, Harris, and Field(1999) identified seven influence strategies:(a) persuasive communication; (b) active par-ticipation by those affected; (c) human re-sources management practices; (d) symbolicactivities; (e) diffusion practices; (f) manage-ment of internal and external information;and (g) formal activities that demonstrate sup-port for change initiatives. Collectively, theseefforts should produce an effective HR portalimplementation plan geared toward increas-ing employee usage.

Local Implementation Plan for the HRPortal

HR portal acceptance can be positively influ-enced by developing a comprehensivechange management strategy (or implemen-tation plan) to increase employee usage.That said, the best implementation plan mayneed to be varied when considering a generalimplementation to account for local varia-tions in cross-national HR environments.This is especially relevant given that HR por-tals in large multinational organizations areimplemented on a worldwide scale andthereby include subsidiaries in many coun-tries. Given the common platform of mostHR portals, the technical application tendsto be standard around the world. The imple-mentation plan of the HR portal, unlike theportal itself, can be more locally adapted toensure maximum usage within subsidiaries.

Grover, Segars, and Durand (1994)found that firms in the United States,France, and Korea differ in their perceptionof IT’s competitive role, the level of integra-tion in information systems and strategicplanning, and other important issues for theuse and acceptance of IT. Every subsidiary ina multinational company has distinctivetraits that vary according to the subsidiary’s

national culture (Hofstede, 1991). Amongthe many differences, “power distance” (Hof-stede, 1991) and the “focus on relationships”(Schell & Solomon, 1997) can lead to vari-ous changes in implementation plans at thelocal level. For example, in cultures with ahigh level of power distance (i.e., France,India), leaders communicate what to do withclear direction and specific instruction. Inother cultures with lower power distance(i.e., United States, Sweden), leaders aremore likely to share all the different aspectsof a certain decision with collaborators, in-volving them in the decision process. Inthese cultures, people work with great au-tonomy because that seems to represent thebest model for them to be directed and man-aged. When the managerial style becomestoo vertical and authoritative, people reactnegatively and do not willingly collaboratewith others. This would have implications onthe extent to which employees become in-volved in the HR portal implementation.

Another cultural implication for an HRportal implementation involves relation-ships. Some cultures are more focused on“doing business,” while others are morefocused on “building business through rela-tionships.” In cultures where relationshipscarry greater weight, people will spend moretime networking and discussing work-related ideas than working hard on specifictasks. Likewise, countries differ in high ver-sus low context. In countries with high-con-text cultures (i.e., Italy, Japan, China), con-textual cues are critical to the interpretationof a message, while in low-context cultures(i.e., Germany, Switzerland, United States),words spoken have a direct meaning and donot have difficult or subtle interpretations(Czinkota & Ronkainen, 1998). People char-acterized by high-context cultures try to getneeded information by accessing their per-sonal information networks. People embed-ded in low-context cultures are more likelyto use nonhuman sources, such as reports,databases, the Internet, and so on (Morden,1999). These cultural dimensions—powerdistance, focus on relationships, and highversus low context—should be taken into ac-count as part of an HR portal implementa-tion plan.


IT User Acceptance of the HR Portal

User acceptance models study factors thatpredict intention to use IT and its relation-ship with actual system usage. Venkatesh etal. (2003) defined the Unified Theory of Ac-ceptance and Use of Technology and identi-fied four main constructs as prerequisites ofthe actual system usage: effort expectancy(i.e., perceived ease of use), performance ex-pectancy (i.e., perceived usefulness), socialinfluence (i.e., subjective norms), and facili-tating conditions (i.e., compatibility). Someof the main theoretical contributions relatedto these constructs are presented below.

To better predict success in the accept-ance of HR portals, it is important to under-stand how employees will develop and experi-ence IT. Perceived ease of use (effortexpectancy) is the belief that a system’s use issimple and requires little effort (Davis,Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989). Employee usersare more willing to tolerate difficult, if notcomplex, technological interfaces if they pro-duce great functional benefits, whereas nodegree of ease justifies a rather functionallyuseless system. Perceived usefulness (per-formance expectancy) is an employee’s level ofconviction (or belief) that a particular systemwill increase their work performance (Daviset al., 1989). The relationship between per-ceived ease of use and perceived usefulnessalso may change over time (Szajina, 1996).The fact that the system has to be easy to useis most important during the initial phases ofany project. As one would expect, this effectdiminishes over time when familiarity withprocedure becomes more conventional(Adams, Nelson, & Todd, 1992; Chau, 1996;Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989). Thus, per-ceived ease of use can definitely influence ac-ceptance, but once a given technology is ac-tually accepted, its importance diminishes(Davis, 1989). Once in use, a feedback mech-anism derived by widespread “use” sets off avirtuous cycle: increased use increases per-ception of ease, which, in turn, increases per-ception of usefulness (Goodhue & Thomp-son, 1995). This cycle is determined, for themost part, by a given user’s learning curve.

Besides the relationship between per-ceived ease of use and perceived usefulness,

other researchers have addressed the criticalrole of performance expectancy as a prerequi-site to increasing intention to use. A systemcan be considered able to enhance individualperformance (Thompson et al., 1991) or togive a relative advantage to new users(Moore & Benbasat, 1991). Furthermore,when a person accepts a new system, it mayimply she has outcome expectations of thework itself (Compeau & Higgins, 1995) or ofindividual development (pay, promotions,etc.; see Davis et al., 1992).

Moving from a performance measure-ment to a more context-based approach (so-cial influence), social pressure is a criticalfactor that leads people to behave like others(Fulk, 1993), since they cannot do otherwisewithout being considered “misfits” or indi-viduals who behave inappropriately. The in-tention to use is an individual attribute, notan organizational one, and it is built and per-ceived through social interactions. In thesesituations, people are inclined to accept ITthrough subjective norms as they see othercolleagues doing so (Ajzen, 1991; Taylor &Todd, 1995b; Thompson et al., 1991). As amatter of fact, they wish to be a part of theorganization, so they conform to the behav-ior of others.

Consequently, when the IT application isintroduced, the innovation must be per-ceived as consistent with existing organiza-tional values (facilitating conditions), needs,and experiences of potential users (Moore &Benbasat, 1991). Moreover, users observeobjective factors that can enhance IT accept-ance, such as the provision of computer sup-port, resources needed to access and use IT,and technological compatibility (Ajzen,1991; Taylor & Todd, 1995b; Thompson etal., 1991).

Outcome of IT Implementation: Actual Useof the HR Portal

Literature on management of informationsystems describes the success of an IT im-plementation mostly through IT systemusage (Davis et al., 1989; Igbaria, Zinatelli,Cragg, & Cavaye, 1997; Straub, Limayem, &Karahanna-Evaristo, 1995; Thompson et al.,1991) and user satisfaction (Amoroso &

Useracceptancemodels studyfactors thatpredictintention to useIT and itsrelationshipwith actualsystem usage.


The primarypurpose of the@HP EmployeePortal systemwas to simplifythe relationshipbetween HRfunctions andthose internalclients thefunctionserves—namely,the employeesof Hewlett-Packard.

Cheney, 1991; Igbaria, 1990), while other re-searchers have studied these two dimensionstogether (Baroudi, Olson, & Ives, 1986; Gel-derman, 1998; Kim, Suh, & Lee, 1998; Tay-lor & Todd, 1995b). Discussing both meas-ures, Al-Gahtani and King (1999) pointedout that system usage is a more precisemeasure of IT acceptance. Moreover, Igbariaet al. (1997) also defined system usage as theprimary indicator for IT acceptance and said,“System usage has a notable practical valuefor managers interested in evaluating the im-pact of information technology.” For thesereasons, in this study, success of HR portalacceptance is measured by the degree ofusage. Specifically, the dependent variable ofthis article is Web site usage, a concept sim-ilar to the variable IT usage in informationsystems research. Portal usage can be meas-ured independently of the user, for instance,by taking the number of hits on the entiresite via system logs, documents viewed, vis-its, and single visitors in order to have a bet-ter representation of users and their use.

The model presented in Figure 1 offerstwo propositions:

Proposition 1: When change managementprinciples are integrated with an IT useracceptance model in developing an imple-mentation plan, the individual accept-ance of HR portal use will increase.

Proposition 2a: In cross-national imple-mentation of an HR portal, general im-plementation plans should be adapted tothe local context in order to increase theactual use of the HR portal in the sub-sidiary.

Proposition 2b: In cross-national imple-mentation of an HR portal, unique imple-mentation plans should be developed thatconsider the local context in order to in-crease the actual use of the HR portal inthe subsidiary.

In the following section, Hewlett-Packard’s worldwide implementation of their@HP Employee Portal will be discussed.This case illustrates the user acceptancemodel, a number of change management

concepts, and local adaptation of the @HPPortal’s implementation plan in Europeansubsidiaries generally and the Italian sub-sidiary specifically.

The Hewlett-Packard @HP EmployeePortal

In January 2000, Hewlett-Packard (HP)CEO Carly Fiorina provided a vision for the@HP Employee Portal, stating, “This world-wide entry point would be rolled out to everysubsidiary around the world, connecting em-ployees who can access corporate informa-tion, personal data, services, HP resources,and execute internal transactions.” The pri-mary purpose of the @HP Employee Portalsystem was to simplify the relationship be-tween HR functions and those internalclients the function serves—namely, the em-ployees of Hewlett-Packard. Fiorina recog-nized the @HP Employee Portal would haveimproved HP’s HR effectiveness and wouldhave increased employees’ satisfaction withthe HR department in general.

The @HP Employee Portal was designedto increase the ease and speed of access tointernal communications and corporate in-formation in an attempt to increase manage-ment effectiveness and production capacityof HP employees. Information on the @HPEmployee Portal is standardized and global,while addressing local concerns by usingmultilingual formats. By introducing the@HP Employee Portal, HP counts on reduc-ing HR and IT operating costs without sacri-ficing high-quality and up-to-date servicesand content. Ultimately, HP’s aim was to in-crease integration among the diverse busi-nesses and to reap the benefits derived interms of cost reduction, increased efficiency,and overall HR effectiveness. The scope ofthe project was to go from a vision of HR pre-dominantly oriented toward providing per-sonnel with basic services (i.e., bureaucraticand administrative) to one that sees HR pro-vide added value and consultancy in its typi-cal functions, such as recruiting, compensa-tion and benefits, training, and so on. Thedeclared objective was to create an HR de-partment that would become a strategic part-ner in managing company change and pro-


fessional growth for all employees. A descrip-tion of the contents of the @HP EmployeePortal is provided in Appendix 1.

Context at HP: General Contextual Factorsfor the @HP Employee Portal Implementation

HP’s hopes for the success and utility ofthe @HP Employee Portal were demon-strated by the CEO personally and enthusi-astically presenting the implementationplan. The proposed change to the delicateemployee-company rapport was entrustedto the HR Executive Director who wouldmanage this vital and large-scale corporatechange. In addition to the corporate bene-fits derived by using the portal as a corpo-rate tool, HP top executives explicitly indi-cated the HR department also would be therecipient of significant benefits. It wastherefore quite evident that from the outsetthe new portal would have a radical impacton what role and services HR would man-age within the new HP. In an effort to cre-ate a new, more unified, efficient, and ef-fective HR organization, the followingstrategies were implemented across the en-tire organization:

• Create a new business model thateliminates duplicate organizationalstructures in an aim to empower asingle global organization.

• Designate standard processes to aglobal service delivery modelthroughout the entire companyworldwide.

• Define an e-business strategy as afirst step in realizing a business-to-employee portal for use by every HPemployee worldwide.

• Identify a foundation technology,which is a framework that integratesall the current systems connected tothe employee’s “realm.”

Context at HP: Local Contextual Factors for@HP Employee Portal Implementation in Italy

Although the @HP Employee Portal wouldhave an impact on employees’ daily jobs bymaking them easier and more productive, few

employees considered the effect the portalwould have on the HR department staff itself.HR Country Leader Riccardo Benini said, “Atthe outset, I wasn’t completely in favor of theportal. I was afraid it would reduce the HRstaff. It wasn’t the headcount I was worriedabout, but rather I didn’t want anyone to findthemselves in a bad situation. In our depart-ment, relationships matter a lot and thereforepeople are not just simply colleagues. Withregard to our activities, I didn’t know whatwould have become of our function. Ithought a part of our work would have beenoutsourced to the Web and I didn’t want thetechnology to steal a certain job sense fromany of my staff by demotivating them.” Afterhis initial resistance, Benini began an analy-sis of the project because it was difficult forhim to predict how HP employees in Italywould accept the new portal and, conse-quently, how HR’s role would have changed.

Although the loss of administrative HRjobs is real, the introduction of portals andB2E logic gives HR the technological solu-tions that can increase efficiency in itsprocesses. Technology cannot change the wayHR works, but it can focus the function’s at-tention on a specific issue or problem. AsBenini commented, “Technology can help usredefine our service, but not everything de-pends on technology. Perhaps without theportal everything we are currently doingwould have been more difficult, but what weare accomplishing is much more than the im-plementation of an e-business application.”

Despite Benini’s comments, HPplanned to launch and “go live” with the@HP Employee Portal around the world by2002, and thus developed a centralized im-plementation plan. This plan, though com-prehensive, made allowances for regional ornational variation as needed. The firstcountries involved in the project were theUnited States and the “Big Countries” inEurope (France, Germany, and the UnitedKingdom), where the first version of theportal was released in April 2000. The sec-ond release, in September 2000, saw the in-volvement of Italy, Spain, the Netherlands,and Ireland, as well as updates for the BigCountries. The portal was expected to golive on March 5, 2001.

HP’s hopes forthe success andutility of the@HP EmployeePortal weredemonstratedby the CEOpersonally andenthusiasticallypresenting theimplementationplan.


Headquarters’generalimplementationplan requireddedication andorganizationaleffort to beable to “golive” by thedeadline.

Process: General Implementation Plan forthe @HP Employee Portal

Headquarters’ general implementation planrequired dedication and organizational ef-fort to be able to “go live” by the deadline.In order to identify an efficient implemen-tation methodology, HP staff analyzed itsHR organizational structure and involvedall groups, broken down into Corporate,European, and Local functions both hori-zontally (staff) and vertically (in the variousdivisions). The horizontal functions in-cluded leaders from Staffing and Recruit-ment (Talent Acquisition) & Relocation,Compensation & Benefits, EnterpriseWorkforce Development (Training), Indus-trial Relations, HR Services, and HR/IT.The vertical functions represented a groupfrom HR business managers (liaisons), whoserved as internal consultants. With theteam in place, the implementation method-ology was based on pilot testing and feed-back (HP called it the “Evolving Ideas”).This conceptual approach was sharedaround the world and implemented locallywith the creation of an HR Function TaskForce. On January 3, 2001, HP announcedthe @HP B2E Portal Global HR Communi-cation Plan (see Table I) with the followingcommunication objectives:

• to continue to build awareness ofand excitement for the @HP Em-ployee Portal among HP managersand employees;

• to create an understanding of thechanging role of HR and the new de-livery model for HR services;

• to clearly articulate the audience-specific benefits of HR in @HP andto communicate the long-term visionof the portal;

• to drive employee usage and adop-tion of HR services and applicationsin @HP;

• to establish @HP as the channel forreceiving HR news and informa-tion;

• to articulate the importance of thephased approach for portal integra-tion; and

• to improve employee usage of appro-priate HELP channels. HELP chan-nels are channels dedicated to sup-port employees during the firstusages (adoption).

In order to reach these goals, HP sug-gested some communication strategies:

• Provide each target audience withthe necessary information and toolsto create a high level of awarenessand acceptance of @HP.

• Work closely with the EnterpriseGlobal Portal team to ensure align-ment of communication activities.This implies partnering with internalcommunicators to leverage both ex-isting communication channels anddelivery mechanisms as well as inte-grating global and regional HR portalcommunication teams.

• Create a section within @HP dedi-cated to delivering HR news, policychanges, HR portal issues/work-around, and up-to-date information.

Corporate defined the main channelsavailable at HP and suggested strategies toreach out to audiences. Operatively, the@HP team leveraged a mix of communica-tions channels and vehicles (see Table I).

HP Corporate defined the prerequisitesfor success in order to ensure global em-ployee acceptance and usage of the @HPEmployee Portal. HP stated the communica-tions teams must:

• continue to align communicationplans across the Enterprise and HRportal teams;

• establish clear ownership of globalHR communication and the portaldelivery model;

• establish HR operations and busi-ness HR staff as a sales force for the@HP portal;

• ensure that the country implementa-tion and localization plan is clearlydefined and understood;

• continue to work with communica-tions contacts in each country to


support them in championing theportal; and

• ensure support plans and training arein place prior to announcing an HRprogram to employees and managers.

In sum, HP Corporate decided to im-plement the communication plan as an ex-ecutive directive in order to improve HRportal acceptance among employees. Localsubsidiary HR functions received a commu-nication plan in order to promote the utilityand relevance of the new HR portal. Con-sistent with the theoretical framework inFigure 1, HP implementation strategyplanned to influence employees’ perception,thereby influencing their usage behavior.Although this implementation plan seemedhighly standardized, all subsidiaries were

responsible for varying HP HQ’s implemen-tation plan to fit the cultural context oftheir local environments.

Process: Local Implementation Plan for the@HP Employee Portal in Italy

As one would expect from HQ-based HRprocess change, HP’s new employee portalreceived some criticism and suspicion fromits subsidiaries throughout the world. Localconcerns necessitated continuous dialoguewith headquarters, especially in making thesystem compliant with local laws. In Italy,the @HP Employee Portal implementationteam relied heavily on the Industrial Rela-tions department for its invaluable assistancein facilitating the change process. Their jointeffort was viewed as key to the implementa-

@HP B2E Portal Global HR Communication Plan

Channel Vehicle Audience

@HP Portal New HR @HP section All audiences HR @HP “Pick of the Week” HP employees and managers (by region)HR @HP vision and road map All audiences

HR Exchange E-kit (FAQs, presentations, etc.) HP employees and managersHR’s weekly message (HR community) HR community

E-mail Newsgrams HP employees and managersEmployee and manager messages HP employees and managers(HR’s distribution lists)

Electronic/Other E-cards Employees and managers PowerPoint presentations All audiencesVideotape HP employees and managers in manu-

facturing sites

Voice Mail High-level, strategic messages from All audiencesCarly and “Four Tops” Regional and site-specific messages HR community, employees, managers

Events Training sessions via NetMeeting or HR community, HP managers, and Web-based “classroom” employeesHR @HP Demo Stations Employees and managersHR case study presentation ExternalVirtual visits All HRHR Strategic Council Senior HR executives

Print Articles (regional, site-specific All audiencespublications)Quick reference guides Employees and managersPosters/signage All audiences

Adapted from @HP B2E Portal Global HR Communication Plan—Hewlett-Packard

TABLE I


In addition tolegal and laborrelationschallenges,certain culturalchallenges werealso a factor,and HP Italydecided toimplement anumber ofadditionalcommunicationmethods moreclosely linked toItalian culture.

tion success—attributed to the skill of Ric-cardo Benini at balancing concepts of inno-vation versus tradition and technology versuslocal labor legislation. Mr. Benini praised In-dustrial Relations Director Rino Furlan, whocoordinated the project, by saying, “In multi-nationals, one knows restructuring is effec-tively taking place when the smallest localbranch is able to unite with the entire global-tree. And speaking of HR, the biggest chal-lenge was not to allow any of the value andcontribution put forth by everyone in the en-tire HR department to go unnoticed.” Thechoice to involve Industrial Relations fromthe outset in Italy may have lengthened plan-ning time but surely diminished acceptancetime in the long run.

In addition to legal and labor relationschallenges, certain cultural challenges werealso a factor, and HP Italy decided to imple-ment a number of additional communicationmethods more closely linked to Italian cul-ture. The Italian HR staff launched an im-portant campaign that utilized some uniquechannels. For instance, the managing direc-tor (MD) of HP Italy periodically held early-morning talks in the company cafeteria withthe entire staff. These morning meetings usu-ally discussed issues ranging from marketconditions to results and economic indicatorsfor a given period. During the introductionphase of the employee portal, the topic was,for the first time, an HR project—the @HPEmployee Portal. Given the respect for localhierarchy and the personal credibility of thismanaging director, employees acknowledgedthe importance of the employee portal.

Given the (personal) communicative na-ture within the Italian context, and that e-mail alone is overused as a communicationtool, the Italian team believed e-mail com-munication alone might have failed. The im-plementation team contacted HP’s own mar-keting department to help create internalinterest and enthusiasm. This was the firsttime they were asked to market somethinginternally. In addition to trinkets, the mar-keting department developed what theycalled “stepping stones,” which were arrowsplaced on the floors of the building indicat-ing the @HP Employee Portal “virtual” pathin the departments themselves throughout

the entire building. The metaphor (if fol-lowed long enough) was that the arrows lednowhere but took employees everywhere atthe same time. Like the stepping stones, the@HP Employee Portal would lead employeeswherever they wanted. In retrospect, theseunique stepping stones encouraged informalcommunication about the portal that was im-portant in encouraging information ex-change within the Italian context.

Complementing the nontechnologicalchannels, the portal did make use of an e-mail campaign, only as an informative memoto get people’s attention. In Italy, the HR coun-try leader sent out e-mail messages that explic-itly described the new tool and asked employ-ees to use it to improve organizationalperformance. In Italy, as elsewhere, a corpo-rate e-mail is often read as one of many generalpieces of information that trickles down theranks (i.e., new products, institutional events,etc.), whereas a local or in-house e-mail ismore often than not from someone a personknows or feels will have a direct impact on heractual job, and is therefore more likely to getthe attention it deserves.

After the launch date, specific e-mailboxes were set up to collect feedback on thenew portal. The button “feedback/support” atthe top of the portal interface was added tocollect comments, suggestions, and, mostimportant, proposals for the release of thesecond version. These initiatives are closelyrelated to the strategy of “high level of em-ployee involvement” adopted by HR. In de-signing the Italian site, key organizationalfunctions, Industrial Relations, and otherHR figures were involved, as well as themanaging director and marketing depart-ments, as mentioned earlier. European-levelteams also were created to collect and shareapproaches, problems, and solutions.

Consistent with the implementationmodel, the “feedback/support” functionopened up the opportunity for all employeesto participate in the improvement of the por-tal. In this way, the @HP Employee Portal isseen as something in constant evolution, be-coming a tool that satisfies the users’ needsin research and transaction execution. Sincegoing live on March 5, 2001, other releaseshave followed, some not entirely evident to


all users, while others are already making anotable difference.

IT User Acceptance of the @HP EmployeePortal

Among the risks of this implementationproject was the possibility that general andItalian context could negatively influenceuser perception. Employee perplexity couldlead to refusing the new tool and continu-ing to manage HR function communica-tions using traditional channels (telephone,e-mail, meetings). The acceptance level onbehalf of all personnel was a continuouscause for concern for employees. As oneemployee said, “All HR initiatives increasedHR portal perception of usefulness amongus. I think the biggest challenge is to orientpeople toward the HR portal, at least forthe first time. In this way, everyone can di-rectly test utility and quality.” Undertakingdifferent actions, a great feeling of curios-ity arose among the employees. At the sametime, there were positive and negative atti-tudes toward the new technology. Organi-zational “rumors” created throughout thisprocess allowed the HR project team to winthe employees’ trust, although it was achallenging phase. Carla Di Martino, ITmanager for HR in HP Italy, said, “Beforegoing live, we clearly knew we, as the HRfunction, had finally obtained most of thefuture users’ trust. They were waiting tohave the chance to use @HP to be able tojudge, criticize, and eventually praise thesystem. We knew it would not be easy. Dur-ing those days, we lived with this feelingand persistent challenge.”

For all these reasons, HP designed animplementation plan to get people involvedeven after going live. They could send tipsand suggestions to the implementationteam by using the same @HP interface. Inthis way, the users could have the chanceto contribute to improving the product.Under the guidance of Industrial RelationsDirector Rino Furlan, and after some ini-tial concern, the position of most of theemployees changed to a belief that the@HP Employee Portal represented an op-portunity.

Outcome of IT Implementation: Actual Useof the @HP Employee Portal

In this case, consistent with the model,success was measured by the number of hitson the @HP Employee Portal site in relationto the number of employees in the sub-sidiaries. As a corporatewide project, the@HP Employee Portal was a success in allcountries. Italy, however, represented one ofthe most successful launches, with better re-sults in terms of hits, pages viewed, users’ ses-sions, and unique visitors (see Table II). Theindicator “hits” refers to the number of timesa server is accessed by Web site users. For thepurpose of determining Web site usage, hitscould be potentially misleading, because theydo not reflect the amount of content accessedby a user. Other more appropriate indicatorscould include “pages viewed,” “users’ ses-sions,” and “unique visitors.” Page views arethe number of times a visitor sees a page ofinformation on the portal. Individuals maymake several hits within a given page view.Another useful indicator is the “users’ ses-sions,” which include all the hits and pagesviewed from the time a person enters the site.One user may enter the site and view tenpages, while another user views only five—each person would represent a single usersession. Aggregating across user sessions topeople, a useful indicator is “unique visitors.”Unique visitors are the number of individualusers who use a given Web site, regardless ofhow many sessions any one person has. Inthis case, unique visitors represent the num-ber of employees who have used the @HPEmployee Portal. Collectively, these four in-dicators give a reliable picture of the use ofthe @HP Employee Portal.

Looking at the data (see Table II), itseems as though the extra effort put in by theItalian team in its implementation plan trulypaid off, whereas most of the other sub-sidiaries followed @HP’s standard corporateimplementation plan. In addition to theMarch 2001 results, Italy had data for the twosuccessive months confirming that the major-ity of its employees were habitual users of theportal (see Table III).

Nearly two years after its initial launch,Carla Di Martino, IT manager for HR in HP

Among therisks of thisimplementationproject was thepossibility thatgeneral andItalian contextcouldnegativelyinfluence userperception.Employeeperplexitycould lead torefusing thenew tool andcontinuing tomanage HRfunctioncommunicationsusingtraditionalchannels(telephone, e-mail,meetings).


Italy, defines the experience a concrete suc-cess: “At this point, everyone at HP Italy hascorrectly learned how to use the instrument.In Italy, we have a daily average of some 40pages visited, 14 visitors with an average usertime of 12 minutes and 41 seconds, and5,403 documents consulted. The accessesare naturally concentrated around those pe-riods when HR processes are being done, say,for example, during performance evalua-

tions.” In addition to improved services, eachinvestment of this kind ought to bring aboutincreased efficiency in terms of labor and op-erational costs. When comparing time sav-ings and related costs, the HR department inItaly counts on an average savings of 15%,with some differences for services (approxi-mately 25%), and HR business managers re-port a 5% result, with peaks of as much as50% in the salary revision process. The new

@HP Employee Portal* Usage in Italy, Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands** in March 2001

Italy Germany Spain Netherlands

Employees Number of employees 1,296 5,959 1,489 1,441

Hits Entire site (successful) 17,195 8,496 7,336 1,936Average per day (about 23 days) 747 369 318 84

Page Viewed Page viewed (impressions) 4,914 2,970 3,137 783Average per day (about 23 days) 213 129 136 34

User Session Visits 1,520 1,221 576 202Average per day (about 23 days) 66 53 25 8Average visit length (minutes: seconds) 08:11 07:41 07:35 06:42Median visits length (minutes: seconds) 03:08 02:26 02:40 03:36International visits (%) 0 0 0 0

Visitors Unique visitors (A + B) 791 793 336 143Visitors who visited once (A) 473 601 232 123Visitors who visited more than once (B) 318 192 104 20

* @HP Employee Portal in each country were comparable in terms of number of pages and topics covered.

**All units were comparable in terms of functions, roles, and age.

TABLE II

@HP Employee Portal Usage in Italy in March, April, and May 2001

March April May

Hits Entire site (successful) 17,195 13,674 16,201Average per day 747 455 522

Page Viewed Page viewed (impressions) 4,914 4,269 4,642Average per day 213 142 149

User Session Visits 1,520 1,438 1,704Average per day 66 47 54Average visit length (minutes: seconds) 08:11 07:22 08:18Median visit length (minutes: seconds) 03:08 02:46 02:58International visits (%) 0 0 0

Visitors Unique visitors (A + B) 791 772 940Visitors who visited once (A) 473 531 650Visitors who visited more than once (B) 318 241 290

TABLE III


HR portal is designed to simplify people’swork, helping them plan their business activ-ity. Fabio Gabbiani, training director at HPItaly, said, “This is a classic example of howthe @HP Employee Portal permits differentHR processes to perfectly integrate with oneanother: performance evaluations, compe-tency mapping, training, and, in part, careermanagement. Today, we entrust everyonewith their own internal career-developmentplanning by creating the conditions for self-growth, which represents a stimulus forlearning. Knowledge management, driven to-ward the access to corporate expertise, andHR management are converging toward amodel, which almost semi-automatically re-duces the filters between knowledge supplyand knowledge demand.”

Discussion and Conclusions

After the @HP Employee Portal went live, itwas not easy to manage the transition fromthe old system. Even though the portal waspresented as mandatory, the HR function didnot stop activities processed by the old sys-tems (i.e., telephone, e-mail, paper) to avoidincreasing resistance. In some cases, em-ployees still wanted to see their HR repre-sentative and continue to have face-to-facecontact with HR. This initially created someconcern among project team leaders, for inevery change process, resistance can lead todiscontentment and can threaten the suc-cess of the initiative. These situations weremanaged “ad hoc,” and after collecting ratio-nales for the resistance, users realized thatonly routine jobs with little added value had,in fact, been taken over entirely by the newtechnology. Employees knew the face-to-facerelationship was still intact in HR and avail-able in critical moments of HR processes,and this helped to create a more favorableclimate at HP Italy.

It is true that when technology entersinto the organizational design, the fear that amachine will substitute for a person is veryreal. HR has always had the role of managingpeople. Given the long-held focus on admin-istrative support and cost containment, thepositive influence HR can have on the effec-tive management of human talent is not

often measured. The new portal helps HRclose the technology gap that exists betweendepartments, and positions the function tobecome more strategic. In order to sustaincompetitive advantage, HR has been thoughtfor some time to be a critical factor (Huselid,1995; Pfeffer, 1995) as the debate on intan-gible asset value, knowledge management,and intellectual capital grows (Davenport &Prusak, 1997).

It is a common belief among HP em-ployees in Italy that the portal had four pos-itive effects. First, it improved the perceptionof the HR function as having greater valueadded and being less administrative. Mostprocesses have been standardized and sim-plified. The second positive effect was timesavings in terms of employee work activityand transaction costs. The HR function ismore strategic and less transactional, morefocused on problem-solving roles and com-petencies. Corporate HQ informed staff thatthe $20 million project cost was recuperatedin only six months, and that savings to datetotal over $50 million. In Italy, the HR head-count remained unchanged, whereas inother countries it was reduced in terms ofoperative staff, the majority accepting trans-fers within the company. A third effect, atleast in Italy, was the rise of the HR depart-ment in terms of strategic relevance withinthe company. Since successfully managingthis important strategic transformation forthe entire business, HR now supports thebusiness as a strategic partner. The HR func-tion modified its daily operations so that itnow works on producing global solutions andnot simply attending to routine administra-tive paperwork. The HR function is moreflexible, so it can adapt quickly to businessrequirements for new programs and servicedelivery needs. HR staff is now proactive inoffering their consultancy and solutions toenable the company to operate within a mar-ketplace that continually demands greaterinnovation.

The organizational success of the @HPEmployee Portal is due to the system’s qual-ity as well as its implementation process. TheHP case aided in presenting the researchframework proposed in this article. In partic-ular, empirical evidence reported in this

“This is aclassic exampleof how the@HP EmployeePortal permitsdifferent HRprocesses toperfectlyintegrate withone another:performanceevaluations,competencymapping,training, and,in part, careermanagement.Today, weentrusteveryone withtheir owninternal career-developmentplanning bycreating theconditions forself-growth,whichrepresents astimulus forlearning.Knowledgemanagement,driven towardthe access tocorporateexpertise, andHR manage-ment areconvergingtoward amodel, whichalmost semi-automaticallyreduces thefilters betweenknowledgesupply andknowledgedemand.”


study underlines the need for an integrationof user acceptance models and change man-agement theories (Proposition 1). The theo-retical contribution seeks to see the samephenomenon (IT individual acceptance)through two conceptual lenses. When thecontent of the change is an IT applicationand the context is an HR portal in a multi-national that requires rollout for all employ-ees in all subsidiaries, managerial actionsmust be carefully planned to reach the high-est degree of individual acceptance.

Furthermore, with regard to Proposi-tion 2, the HP case study suggests that cul-tural dimensions are relevant in definingthe change management plan and, conse-quently, in influencing employees’ percep-tions. Even though a group of people mayhave a strong common organizational cul-ture, their country culture is still relevant

and can affect IT implementation. For in-stance, HP could already count on a high-level IT culture since it not only sells IT, butis also a worldwide industry leader. How-ever, as this case demonstrates, this predis-position alone may not be enough to guar-antee implementation, since cultural beliefsand attitude can, and do, affect implemen-tation. The HR country leader in HP Italyadopted solutions in the Italian communi-cation plan consistent with local culture byinvolving all levels and creating widespreaddiscussion and interest among employees.This case clearly illustrated how the useracceptance models, change managementconcepts, and, in particular, local adapta-tion will affect ultimate usage with HR em-ployee portals in multinational companies.Future research can be designed in order totest these two propositions.

Cataldo Dino Ruta is an assistant professor at Bocconi University’s Institute ofOrganization and Information Systems and the SDA Bocconi School of Management.He received his PhD in management from the University of Bologna. His research in-terests include knowledge management, strategic HR, and organizational impacts of IT.

REFERENCES

Adams, D. A., Nelson, R. R., & Todd, P .A. (1992).Perceived usefulness, ease of use and usage ofinformation technology: A replication. MISQuarterly, 16, 227–247.

Adler, N. J. (1993). Do cultures vary? In T. D. Wein-shall (Ed.), Societal culture and management(pp. 23–46). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior.Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 50(2), 179–211.

Al-Gahtani, S. S., & King, M. (1999). Attitude, sat-isfaction and usage: Factors contributing toeach in the acceptance of information technol-ogy. Behaviour & Information Technology,18(4), 277–297.

Amoroso, D. L., & Cheney, P. H (1991). Testing acausal model of end-user application effective-ness. Journal of Management Information Sys-tems, 8(1), 63–89.

Armenakis, A. A. & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organi-zational change: A review of theory and re-search in the 1990s. Journal of Management,25, 293–315.

Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Field, H. S.(1999). Making change permanent: Institu-tionalizing change interventions. In W. A. Pas-more & R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in or-ganizational development and change (Vol. 12,pp. 97–128). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (1994). Measuring userparticipation, user involvement and user atti-tude. MIS Quarterly, 18, 59–82.

Baroudi, J. J., Olson, M. H., & Ives, B. (1986). An em-pirical study of the impact of user involvement onsystem usage and information satisfaction, Com-munication of the ACM, 29(3), 232–238.

Bostrom, R. P., Olfman, L., & Sein, M. K. (1990).The importance of learning style in end-usertraining. MIS Quarterly, 14, 101–119.

Cascio, W. F. (2000). Managing a virtual workplace.


Academy of Management Executive, 14(3),81–90.

Chau, P. Y. (1996). An empirical assessment of amodified technology acceptance model. Journalof Management Information Systems, 13(2),185–204.

Collins, H. (2001). Corporate portals: Revolutioniz-ing information access to increase productivityand drive the bottom line. New York: AMA-COM.

Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computerself-efficacy: Development of a measure andinitial test. MIS Quarterly, 19, 189–211.

Conger, J. A. (1998). The necessary art of persua-sion. Harvard Business Review, 76(3), 84–96.

Crandall N. F., & Wallace M. J., Jr. (2002). HR strat-egy in virtual organizations. In R. L. Heneman &D. B. Greenberger (Eds.), Human resource man-agement in virtual organizations (pp. 33–55).Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Czinkota, M. R., & Ronkainen, I. A. (1998). Inter-national marketing (5th ed.). Hinsdale, IL: TheDryden Press.

Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: Ameta-analysis of effects of determinants andmoderators. Academy of Management Journal,34, 555–590.

Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (1997). Working knowl-edge: How organizations manage what theyknow. Cambridge, MA: Harvard BusinessSchool Press.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceivedease of use, and user acceptance of informationtechnology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.

Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, R. (1989).User acceptance of computer technology: Acomparison of two theoretical models. Manage-ment Science, 35, 982–1003.

Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992).Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use com-puters in the workplace. Journal of Applied So-cial Psychology, 22, 1111–1132.

Davis, F. D., & Bostrom, R. P. (1993). Training andusers: An experimental investigation of the rolesof the computer interface and training meth-ods. MIS Quarterly, 17, 61–85.

Firestone, J. M. (2003). Enterprise information por-tals and knowledge management. Boston: But-terworth-Heinemann.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, in-tention and behavior: An introduction to theoryand research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fulk, J. (1993). Social construction of communica-tion technology. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 36, 921–950.

Gelderman, M. (1998). The relation between usersatisfaction, usage of information systems andperformance. Information & Management,34(1), 11–18.

Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MISQuarterly, 19, 213–234.

Gresov, C., Haveman, H. A., & Oliva, T. A. (1993).Organization design, inertia and the dynamicsof competitive response. Organization Science,4(2), 181–208.

Grover, V., Segars, A. H., & Durand, D. (1994). Or-ganizational practice, information resource de-ployment and systems success: A cross-culturalsurvey. Journal of Strategic Information Sys-tems, 3(2), 85–106.

Harris, K., Phifer, G., & Berg, T. (2002). Business toemployee: The road map to strategy. Stamford,CT: Gartner Group.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations:Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Com-paring values, behaviors, institutions, and or-ganizations across nations (2nd ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Huselid, M. A. (1995). Producing sustainable com-petitive advantage through the effective man-agement of people. Academy of ManagementExecutive, 9(1), 55–72.

Igbaria, M. (1990). End-user computing effective-ness: A structural equation model. OMEGA In-ternational Journal of Management Science,18, 637–652.

Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P., & Cavaye, A.(1997). Personal computing acceptance factorsin small firms: A structural equation model.MIS Quarterly, 21, 279–305.

Kim, C., Suh, K., & Lee, J. (1998). Utilization anduser satisfaction in end-user computing: A taskcontingent model. Information Resources Man-agement Journal, 11(4), 11–24.

Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H.J. (1995). The role of procedural justice inbuilding commitment, attachment, and trust instrategic decision-making teams. Academy ofManagement Journal, 38, 60–84.

Kotter, J. (1995). Leading change: Why transforma-tion efforts fail. Harvard Business Review,73(2), 59–67.


Leonard-Barton, D., & Deschamps, I. (1988).Managerial influence in the implementationof new technology. Management Science, 34,1252–1265.

Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1998). Virtual HR:Strategic human resource management in the21st century. Human Resource ManagementReview, 8(3), 215–234.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics.Human Relations, 1, 5–41.

Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Developmentof an instrument to measure the perceptions ofadopting an information technology innovation.Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222.

Morden, T. (1999). Models of national culture—Amanagement review. Cross Cultural Manage-ment, 6(1), 19–44.

Orlikowski, W. J., Yates, J. A., Okamura, K., & Fuji-moto, M. (1995). Shaping electronic communi-cation: The metastructuring of technology inthe context of use. Organization Science, 6,423–444.

Pfeffer, J. (1995). Producing sustainable competitiveadvantage through the effective management ofpeople. Academy of Management Executive,9(1), 55–72.

Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. (1997).Understanding and managing cynicism aboutorganizational change. Academy of Manage-ment Executive, 11(1), 48–59.

Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. NewYork: Free Press.

Schell, M. S., & Solomon, C. M. (1997). Capitaliz-ing on the global workforce. New York: Mc-Graw-Hill Irwin.

Straub, D. W., Limayem, M., & Karahanna-Evaristo,E. (1995). Measuring system usage: Implica-tions for IS theory testing. Management Sci-ence, 41, 1328–1342.

Strauss, G. (1998). Participation works—if condi-tions are appropriate. In F. Heller, E. Pusic, G.

Strauss, & B. Wilpert (Eds.), Organizationalparticipation: Myth and reality (pp. 190–219).Oxford: Oxford Press.

Szajina, B. (1996). Empirical evaluation of the re-vised technology acceptance model. Manage-ment Science, 42(1), 85–92.

Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995a). Assessing IT usage:The role of prior experience. MIS Quarterly, 19,561–570.

Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995b). Understanding in-formation technology usage: A test of compet-ing models. Information Systems Research,6(2), 144–176.

Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. H., & Howell, J. M.(1991). Towards a conceptual model of utiliza-tion. MIS Quarterly, 15, 125–143.

Ulijn, J., Lincke, A., & Karakaya, Y. (2001). Nonface-to-face international business negotiation:How is national culture reflected in thismedium? IEEE Journal of Professional Com-munication, Special Issue on Technical Innova-tion and Global Business Communication,44(2), 126–137.

Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceivedease of use: Integrating perceived behavioralcontrol, computer anxiety and enjoyment intothe technology acceptance model. InformationSystems Research, 11(4), 342–365.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis,F. D. (2003). User acceptance of informationtechnology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quar-terly, 27, 425–478.

Walker, A. J. (2001). Introduction: How the Web andother key trends are changing human resources.In A. J. Walker (Ed.), Web-based human re-sources (pp. XIII–XXVIII). New York: McGraw-Hill Trade.

Zmud, R. W. (1984). An examination of push-pulltheory applied to process innovation in knowl-edge work. Management Science, 30(6),727–738.


APPENDIX 1

@HP Description

As compared to the previous application,namely Intranet HR, the logic behind the@HP Employee Portal is notably changed.Users were accustomed to seeing the site assomewhere they could find information oncorporate procedures, policy, and forms forthe various HR functions: compensation andbenefits, staff, labor relations, training, andHR business, without the ability to interactand often without regular updates. The oldintranet system was purely informational;the HR presence on the site was simply a wayto introduce the company to employees andto tell them HR existed. This form of intranetwas quite different from what Carly Fiorinahad suggested when she said the new portalwould allow employees to transact with HR.The new @HP Employee Portal not only of-fers staff the chance to gain access to infor-mation, but also to interact directly with thecompany. The logic behind the functionwent from one of presentation to one of serv-ice. The e-service approach abandons the oldfunctional approach and concentrates onpresenting content. The site’s information isno longer based on the HR department perse, but is rather a detailed reference for theactual task the employee is performing.

The interface of the @HP Employee Por-tal is divided into four folders1: home,life/work, organizations, and my@HP. Ineach of these, one finds specific informationand the possibility to complete transactions.For example:

Home

• corporate news in general; • integration with Compaq; • Popular Links, which access HR, Fi-

nance, Legal, etc.; • @HP Status, which describes the

current status of the portal; • People Finder to find information on

HP colleagues (e-mail addresses,telephone numbers, extensions,etc.); and

• Feedback and Support, where em-ployees can express their opinions ontechnical issues (performance, logindifficulties, etc.) and site content(layout, texts, etc.).

Life/Work

This section is password-protected and is aplace where personal employee data is con-tained and where employees can executetransactions (i.e., change banking informa-tion, training course registration, job-postingcandidacy, etc.). This is HR’s main page andis where staff can interact with HR directly.

Organization

This page contains information from the var-ious divisions at HP and the domestic branchintranet. Detailed business-sector news andpress releases are part of the content relatedto the various HP businesses.

My @Portal

This is the most personalized section, alsopassword-protected, where each staff mem-ber can create their own portal, adding thosefunctions they use most, as well as other in-formation that is specific to their job.

Within the @HP Employee Portal, a se-ries of legacy corporate applications andservices have been integrated. The integra-tion is in constant evolution, being enrichedgradually from a functional point of view. Todate it contains the following components:

• internal communication: HP Corpo-rate guidelines and procedures;

• personnel database: salary planning,ranking, performance evaluation,and separate reporting for executivesand consultants;

• employee self-services: personaldata, pay stubs, training and salaryhistory, company stock program, jobpostings, staffing candidacy;

• e-learning courses and registrationand authorization processes, onlineclasses; and


• e-procurement, including: travelreservations, phone and video con-ference reservations, net meetings,resource allocation reporting tocost centers, electronics reporting,HP product purchases, presenta-tion and press release archive, cor-porate strategy information, bestpractices, and knowledge manage-ment.

Profiling users has become quite com-plex and detailed. As a result, employeesand management alike have a well-definedidentity, and as such can access the fol-lowing:

• employee services: financial planning,personal travel arrangements, etc.;

• daily services: Web mail access,training course registration, vacationscheduling, legacy system access,etc.; and

• corporate/employee exchange: indi-viduals, groups, or both can transferspecific news, press announcements,make meeting requests, exchangedata, etc.

NOTE

1. The description of @HP Employee Portal refersto March 2001.

Documents

Change Management and E-hr (1)