Maureen, a teammate of ours, was recently at a client finalist presentation when she referred to the system as being “integrated” and was corrected by the vendor saying it was “unified.” Ok… is this po-ta-to, pa-ta-to? Or is there something deeper going on here?
We use the terms integrated and interfaced all the time in our industry. So I really got to thinking, how can someone (especially someone who might not be as familiar with the different vendor systems and the terms) tell the difference between integrated, interfaced and unified?
To start, all of this is about the exchange of data across two or more different technology systems. But as similar as they sound, they are not interchangeable and therefore, it is important to understand the difference.
Interfaced
We really need to start with this vocabulary word (not in any elementary school), as it represents the vast majority of data exchanges out there. In our HR world, there are a ton of different business needs (or wants – truth be told!) that drive us to technology. It could be the desire to get paychecks online for employees or pushing out performance process input to managers. In either case, you’re going to need data from one system (payroll) to marry up with data from another (employee self-service portal or intranet.) Often, just to make things interesting, we’re also going to have to filter that data through a third application – perhaps to identify security rights or the active status of employees through a non-HR, IT system like Active Directory.
We all know how well that childhood game of telephone went. (In our text-heavy world is that game even still relevant? I can just see a kid scratching their head with “why would I pass on a message only to one person at a time!”) So, as long as you can drive, this allegory still works – and as popular as this blog is, I don’t think I’ve fully penetrated the grammar school sub-group! Interfacing is that game of telephone with strict quality controls put in place around that transmission of data. The payroll information is passed over to the self-service system to fill a “mock-paycheck” frame created to replicate the paycheck the employee was used to receiving.
This is where most HR technology started and ended as recently as 10 years ago. HR Perspective held the HR data, TimeSaver had the hours worked information and passed it to PCPW for payroll if needed and all systems interfaced to ReportSmith for reporting. If you’ve ever been an ADP customer you know exactly what I’m talking about here. (And it was state of the art at one point – just pretty messy if it broke!) Often vendors would have to create the connections for the employers during implementation or in the design of their product. If they hadn’t built a connection, the professional services costs were dramatic to say the least!
Interfaced means there are two separate databases and the data is shared (interfaced) back and forth as needed, but the Payroll data is in the payroll database and the Time information is in the time database. This is actually still the most common connection – and if you’reconnecting two different vendor’s systems you’re interfaced – even if they’re calling it by the fancy, current name of “web services.” (We’ll have to spend some time on that concept in future postings!)The surprise around interfacing would be when an employer thought they were buying a system from one vendor, but didn’t realize that those systems weren’t integrated. This was (and is) pretty common as vendors increase their “scope of services” by buying systems and companies to complete their “portfolio” amalgamation. If you’re an Infor client, you know this all too well as they’ve been furiously trying to connect all their purchases behind the curtain.
ADP was also notorious for this back in the day, and both Ceridian, Ultimate and others used that to their advantage when they released some of the first truly integrated HR Technology back when Wham! was still on the radio.
The key to integration is that often data changes don’t happen in real time (which is called batching) and the data can be filtered, secured or transformed along the process resulting in divergence.
Integrated
In contrast to interfacing, a system described as “integrated” means that the system can exchange data between the different tables of an HR Information System (HRIS) within the same database. So instead of having a best-of-breed Benefits Administration system and a separate best-of-breed HR/Payroll system, you would have one, integrated system that would encompass both areas and could easily pass data to and from each other. Inside the database, there would be payroll tables, benefits tables and others with “keys” already created by the vendor to connect those tables. With integration, data changes are automatic and don’t require much work from the HRIS manager’s end (assuming the workflow and security rights are permissive).
Separate systems can be integrated with each other, but integrating diverse applications is a challenge at best as most HR technologies don’t integrate very well with others. After all, what vendor wants to let a third party write directly to their database and then be accountable for that data? That’s why many vendors will try to convince you that you can only get “integrated talent management” (or whatever type of system) by buying everything from them. Long live the Single Source Vendor value proposition! Hear! Hear!
With integration, different data types are stored in different tables, but they are all within the same database.
Integration makes it easier to combine data for integrated reporting such as driving at a True Cost of Labor report which would require hours, wages, benefits costs and more. Another reason that you would want an integrated system would be because it can be expensive to integrate best-of-breed solutions with each other. This is why you see the current musical chairs game continuing as vendors hookup in “strategic partnerships” like Benefitfocus and Successfactors or PlanSource and Ultimate Software. This will continue until the rapture or until ADP has finally bought everyone else (but as soon as they do, some new firm will pop up to always be the alternative to Big Red).
Unified = What?
Ok, so back to Maureen’s finalist presentation and the vendor’s term “unified”: Total Fluff.
At best this is just a synonym for integrated. More likely it’s a marketing term applied to either 1) sexy up HR Tech – (as if it’s not sexy enough already!) or 2) to mask something technically deficient in the underbelly of the application that they don’t want to fully explain to the prospective buyer.
We often would joke that a system is integrated at the “brochure level.” After all, if you read most of the marketing fluff out there you’ll come away believing that all vendor employees have perfect teeth and their systems are “unified!” That stretch of the truth keeps my whole team of dyed-in-the-wool HR Technologists (and others of our ilk) fully employed and unable to take long vacations!
So if you’re looking at a sales rep and trying to figure out what in the world they’re saying – just give us a call. Do you need help determining whether or not a system is integrated, interfaced or unified? Talk to a technical expert from the vendor – not the sales rep.
Do you see this differently? I know a lot of vendors read this blog – let’s hear from the product managers if we’ve got something incomplete above. We’re always truly interested in learning. Employers, do you have stories to share? We’d love to hear. Let us know by commenting below.