HRIS Performance Monitoring Plan

A human resources information system (HRIS) is an integrated system for managing information used in HR decision-making. A complete HRIS links all human resources data from the time professionals enter pre-service training to when they leave the workforce. HRIS performance measures are benchmarks for evaluating how efficient and effective HRIS investments are and how they can be improved to obtain better results to support HRIS strengthening objectives.

Continuous monitoring and evaluation is vital in determining what an HRIS is accomplishing, what needs to be improved and whether results are being achieved. This document provides basic guidance in the systematic monitoring and evaluation of an HRIS system. The goal of any performance monitoring plan (PMP) is not to focus on what is wrong and condemn it; rather, it is to highlight the positive aspects of the system that make it work, as well as to identify what went wrong as a basis for improving the system.

Implementing a HRIS Performance Monitoring Plan

Ideally, a working group—often a subcommittee of the Stakeholder Leadership Group (SLG)—whose members have a key interest in monitoring the HRIS strengthening process is responsible for implementing the PMP. These stakeholders may include the HRIS manager, chief information officer, chief security officer, SLG secretary or chair and other key representatives of the organization hosting the information system (Chew 2008). This group will be responsible for managing the generic steps necessary to implement the HRIS monitoring and evaluation plan (WHO 2004):

  1. Develop a plan for the systematic monitoring and evaluation of the system:
    • What will be monitored and evaluated?
    • How will it be done?
    • Who will do it?
    • How frequently will it be conducted?
    • How will the results be systematically disseminated?
    • How will action resulting from the evaluation results be generated?
  2. Identify the resources needed to implement the monitoring and evaluation plan
  3. Prioritize the activities, based on availability of resources and need
  4. Implement the monitoring and evaluation plan
  5. Document and disseminate the results of monitoring and evaluation activities
  6. Make recommendations based on the results of monitoring and evaluation activities.

We recommend institutionalizing monitoring efforts to ensure that it becomes a regular activity and will be allocated the corresponding resources and technical expertise.

Suggestions for HRIS Performance Monitoring Indicators

At the end of this document is a set of suggested indicators for the quantitative and continuous monitoring of HRIS performance. The proposed indicators generally fall in five categories:

  1. System indicators
  2. Security indicators
  3. Data indicators
  4. Stakeholder Leadership Group indicators
  5. Usage indicators.

For each indicator, data collection must be as nonintrusive as possible and would ideally be automated. In addition, country-specific laws and regulations concerning privacy or protection of individual rights might apply to the HRIS and therefore would need to be examined and included.

HRIS Evaluation Strategy

In addition to continuous monitoring of system performance, periodic evaluation studies can be conducted to assess the strengths and weaknesses of HRIS data supply and demand. Figure 1 is a matrix that can be used to evaluate HRIS strengths or weaknesses on both the data supply and data demand side (MEASURE/Evaluation 2007).

HRIS Evaluation Matrix

Figure 1: HRIS Evaluation Matrix (Source: MEASURE/Evaluation 2007)

Since "strengthening" is relative to the country's specific baseline conditions, the matrix helps to contextualize results of strengthening activities relative to initial conditions. In the MEASURE/Evaluation model, the data demand and information use (DDIU) assessment distinguishes technical, individual and organizational factors applied on either the supply or the demand side, which determine where a country might fall in this matrix.

An evaluation strategy includes conducting focus group and/or qualitative interviews focusing on four key groups:

  1. Development and management: HRIS program developers involved in maintaining the system locally and project managers involved in managing the HRIS and responsible for compiling results to be provided to decision-makers
  2. Decision-makers and key stakeholders: Participants of the HRIS SLG and decision-makers who have used the HRIS and can provide valuable input on how HR information was used in planning
  3. HR personnel and common HR users: Users of human resources information on a daily or regular basis, including personnel departments, heads of departments, council registrars and regional health managers or matrons
  4. Regional stakeholders: Individuals who are involved in strategic regional HRIS development, such as participants in the WHO Observatory or the Eastern Central Southern African Health Secretariat, as well as other senior-level stakeholders.

A list of suggested respondents includes the following:

  • Principal secretary (MOH)
  • Undersecretary/director general (MOH)
  • Chief nursing officer (MOH)
  • Chairperson of Stakeholder Leadership Group
  • Key additional members of Stakeholder Leadership Group
  • Members of regional health management team (nurse managers, regional health administrators, etc.)
  • HR Unit principal personnel officer (MOH)
  • HR Unit senior manager, preferably from training/human resources development (MOH)
  • HR Unit record officer (MOH)
  • Key members of related ministries involved in HRIS or HRH
  • Planning Unit health planner (MOH)
  • Health Statistics Unit statistician (MOH)
  • HRIS consultants/advisors
  • HRIS system analyst (MOH)
  • Registrars of nursing and other councils.

Ideally, access to these respondents should be negotiated with the assistance of local informants, such as HRIS managers or the chair of the SLG. The informants consulted should be active participants in HRIS management, known and trusted in the HRIS development community and able to provide insight into the best mix of participants who can give the broadest diversity of perspectives. As local partners in the evaluation, a sense of ownership is a strategic asset in obtaining access to key informants. As a general rule, it is advisable not to seek assistance from people who are controversial.

The key informants should provide a list of potential respondents with their respective departments and contact information. Interviews can proceed only with informed consent by the respondents. Documentary data collection includes an analysis of country-specific baseline assessments conducted in each of the target countries. In addition, progress reports and other documentation can be used to contextualize qualitative findings.

A list of suggested HRIS evaluation interview themes follows.

References

Chew E, et al. Performance Measurement Guide for Information Security. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Accessed 16 January 2009 at: http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-55-Rev1/SP800-55-rev1.pdf

MEASURE/Evaluation. Data Demand and Information Use in the Health Sector. MEASURE/Evaluation Report. December 2007. Accessed 3 February 2009 at: http://www.cpc.unc.edu/measure/publications/pdf/sr-08-44.pdf

World Health Organization. Developing Health Management Information Systems: a practical guide for developing countries. Accessed 16 January 2009 at: http://www.wpro.who.int/NR/rdonlyres/3A34C50D-C035-425A-8155-65E8AD3CB906/0/Health_manage.pdf

Suggested HRIS Evaluation Interview Themes (After WHO 2004)

Suitable for printing. PDF

HRIS PMP Indicators

Suitable for printing. PDF

HRIS PMP Indicators

Suitable for modifying. Microsoft Word