Why HR keeps ending up back at the drawing board

IN Partnership with

HR keeps cycling between platforms and point solutions because integration is treated as a late-stage technical fix, not a shared responsibility between HR and IT

WHEN HR AND IT talk about systems, they often sound as though they are describing different halves of the same diagram. One side speaks in processes and policies, the other in platforms and data fields. The information that should move cleanly between them ends up like unfinished wiring, hidden until something sparks. Both functions can usually see where the loose ends are, but each assumes the other will resolve them. This is particularly true when organisations are weighing anall-in-one platform against a mix of specialist systems. What follows is a familiar pattern of blurred ownership, late integration questions and quiet failures that surface only when payroll, compliance or employee trust is already at risk. Liviu Marciu, chief technology officer at Frontier Software, sees this dynamic repeatedly. “The hesitation we see most often is not really about technology,” he says. “It’s about confidence. HR leaders are not always comfortable participating in integration discussions, so

Established in 1983, Frontier Software is an acknowledged leader in the provision of a global HR & Payroll software solution. Our software is called ichris (International Comprehensive Human Resource Integrated Software), and it sets the benchmark for human capital management software. Frontier Software provides HCM solutions and services to over 1,700 customers in 26 countries, from small to very large enterprises. Our software is used to provide an efficient payroll service from our global offices in Australia, India, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore and the UK. Frontier Software ensures proven long-term growth via prudent investment in its people and software products/services. A perfect solution.

Find out more

“HR leaders are not always comfortable participating in integration discussions, so they step back and assume IT will manage it. IT, in turn, is waiting for the business to define what it needs”

Liviu Marciu,Frontier Software

they step back and assume IT will manage it. IT, in turn, is waiting for the business to define what it needs. That gap is where most integration efforts stall.” It’s a structural problem framed as a technical one. IT can argue, with some justification, that business processes and data definitions sit with HR. HR can argue, equally plausibly, that systems and infrastructure sit with IT. The result is an accountability gap that often remains until something goes wrong. Matt Hamilton, head of digital native at Workato, believes language plays a role in reinforcing that divide. “If you strip away the technical framing and ask, ‘What do you need your data to do?’, HR leaders can answer immediately,” he says. “They understand the problem. They just have not always been given a way into the conversation that feels like theirs.”

The seductive promise of one platform Faced with this complexity, many organisations are drawn to what appears to be the simpler path, a single platform covering HR, payroll and workforce management. One vendor. One contract. Fewer moving parts. The appeal is obvious, and it’s powerful. The all-in-one solution doesn’t just promise simplicity; it feels responsible. It offers the comfort of consolidation and the reassurance that integration will take care of itself. “The all-in-one platform is often chosen because it feels like the safer option,” Marciu says. “And it can be, initially. The question is whether it remains sufficient once the organisation’s real complexity starts to show.”

In Australia, that complexity frequently surfaces in payroll. Industrial awards and enterprise agreements introduce requirements that generalist payroll engines may struggle to support. Time and attendance is another common pressure point. “Best-of-breed solutions are typically better equipped, both functionally and legislatively, to manage that level of complexity,” Hamilton says. The pattern that follows is consistent. Most needs are met adequately, but one or two areas fall short. Organisations either accept the compromise, absorbing the cost through manual workarounds and increased risk, or they return to market for a specialist system. At that point, integration becomes unavoidable. It has simply arrived later, with less planning and often at higher cost. Hamilton frames the issue as one of sequencing rather than ideology. “The better question is not ‘how do we avoid integration?’,” he says. “It is ‘what does each system need to do, and how should they exchange data?’”

When integration fails quietly One of the most significant integration risks is not a visible failure but one that looks successful for months or even years. Marciu describes a scenario his team encounters regularly. An integration between HR and payroll is built, tested at go-live and then left alone. Over time, HR system upgrades alter data structures, new employment types are introduced, or organisational changes affect cost centre mapping. None of these changes trigger immediate errors. The integration continues to run, but the data it passes becomes progressively less reliable. “The most damaging integrations are not the ones that break,” Marciu says. “They are the ones that keep running while quietly passing incorrect data.”

“If you strip away the technical framing … HR leaders can answer immediately. They understand the problem. They just have not always been given a way into the conversation that feels like theirs”

Matt Hamilton, Workato

Asking the question earlier Several misconceptions continue to shape how integration is approached, particularly the belief that it is a one-off project with a clear end point. In practice, integration requires ongoing ownership and governance. Both Marciu and Hamilton point to the same shift that makes the biggest difference: integration needs to be discussed before system decisions are finalised. The question is not technical but one of governance, ownership and accountability.

Published 20 Apr 2026

News

Opinion and best practice

Executive Insights

Industry trends

SPECIALISATION

Benefits Change Management Corporate Wellness Diversity & inclusion Employee engagement

Employment law ESG Financial wellness HR technology Immigration

Industrial relations Leadership Learning & development Mental health MICE

Payroll Recruitment Reward & recognition Workplace health & safety

Events

Australia HR events

All HR events

Best in HR

Resources

Premium content

White papers

Multimedia

HRD Talk

HR software reviews

Leaders Network

ADVERTISE

Asia

New Zealand

Canada

United States

Australia

Companies People Newsletter About us Authors Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Conditions of use Terms & ConditionsContact us Sitemap RSS

Current payroll Challenges

Source: APA 2025 Payroll Industry Report

Poor integration between systems 23.6%

Source: Gartner survey of HR leaders, 2024

In a Gartner survey, just 35% of HR leaders said they were confident their current approach to HR technology was helping achieve business aims

Low confidence in current approach to HR technology

Source: Remote, 2024 State of Payroll Report

0.89% More than five times

4.44% Four to five times

13.12% Three times

38.95% Twice

42.5% Once

How many times have you experienced payroll issues in the last 12 months?

Payroll issues are surprisingly common

Payroll technology and process 22.3%

Keeping up to date with and understanding legislation 19.9%

Award and EBA interpretation 15.6%

Incomplete or inaccurate input data 15.3%

Payroll team resourcing 12.1%

Lack of flexible reporting tools 11.2%

Number or frequency of ad hoc payments 8.7%

Lack of training 7.1%

Payroll errors 6.5%