To be honest, choosing the right HR technology can feel like trying to solve a Rubik's Cube blindfolded. With countless vendors promising the moon and stars, how do you cut through the noise and find a system that actually delivers results? As someone who has guided many companies through this process, and with many people wanting to choose a new system in 2026, I wanted to share some of my thoughts.
Only 46% of organizations adopting HR technology products reported achieving clear business value; this means more than half of companies struggle to extract tangible benefits from their HR technology investments. Most often, the real reason is inadequate planning and flawed implementation/setup processes.
Picture a technology selection meeting.
The calendar is packed. Complaints from departments have increased. Senior management says "solve this by this quarter." HR is at the table with the motivation of "let's deploy as soon as possible." Then the sentence comes:
"X is already the most widely used. Everyone in the industry uses it. We also have a trusted reference. Let's move forward."
When I hear this sentence, "courage" comes to mind. But not the right kind of courage. Choosing a technology (HR or training) without advancing technical review, comparison, and similar processes is a very bold step.
What I see here most of the time is: The courage to finish the selection with "perception" without clarifying what you're buying and why, without defining which problem it solves, without writing success criteria.
This is the riskiest type. Because the bill for this courage can be heavier than the technology purchase cost: projects that drag on for months, "unused" modules, operational burden dumped on teams, and ultimately an investment canceled saying "this system didn't work out"…
When I asked HR technology managers at my solution partners how many of the companies buying their technologies conducted evaluations through technical assessment processes (RFP, SOW, POC, etc.), the rate I received truly alarmed me — only 15% of companies manage this technical evaluation process…
There are studies supporting this picture. In Gartner's 2023 findings, one of the biggest obstacles for HR technology leaders stands out as sustaining technology adoption (57% in the sample). So the problem isn't just "buying"; it's making usage permanent.
Another Gartner data point shows this reality: Only about one-third of leader-managed changes result in "healthy adoption" (32%). Since technology projects are fundamentally change projects, it becomes more understandable why the "choose by trend" reflex isn't budget-friendly and ends up being expensive.
Choosing by reference: the hidden danger that looks safe
Reference conversations are certainly valuable and sharing experiences is meaningful, but it's not a method by itself. Because references most often tell you this: "It worked great for them." But it doesn't guarantee: "It will work for you."
Your processes, integration dependencies, data discipline, user profile, even your corporate culture… Each of these changes the fate of technology.
In Sierra-Cedar's HR Systems research conducted over the years (content containing 2019–2020 findings), there's a very striking picture: A significant portion of organizations don't measure HR technology usage; even the question "Who's using it?" isn't clear. In this content, "HR technology usage measurement" rates remain at low levels by company size.
We might soon start seeing numbers like HR system usage rates in HR metrics ☺
A few days ago, I witnessed a dialogue between two people: "HR brought another system for x process, we use everything from a different system, we're confused about what to do where." Listening to the field and learning what they need will make a serious contribution.
Now ask this question: An organization that doesn't measure usage — on what "evidence" is it basing its selection decisions? Most often the answer is: perception, name, market share, "everyone uses it."
That's why choosing by reference isn't a "safe decision" in most organizations. Of course, there are a few techniques that can make the reference process safe. When you apply these, safer decisions can be made.
Choosing by trend: the myth that "biggest is best"
At one of the companies I worked with, an HR module from a major software company was to be purchased… To determine the right consulting firm for us, I first conducted a technical evaluation and then applied a Ref Check survey. While the results pointed to firm X, the IT team preferred the firm with "the most consultants" (but with a low score in my results). In the end, while going live with the project, we worked with consultants who learned the system alongside us and somehow went live with the shortcomings. "Size and prevalence" doesn't automatically bring "field expertise."
In another example from my experience, during an LMS selection process for another company, technical analyses were done, strong alternatives were presented, but "the most widely used in the industry" was selected… and the system was canceled before it was even deployed, at the first implementation.
These two examples tell us this: Technology is not a trend. Trends make the purchasing moment easier; but implementation reality, like culture eating strategy for breakfast, quickly destroys…
The real issue: not choosing technology, but choosing "what it serves"
I reverse the approach here:
Successful technology projects generally don't start with "let's buy this product." They start with "How will we measure and narrow down this problem?" It's not about having many features, but about having the core modules that will solve your problem.
In Sierra-Cedar content, there's another critical emphasis: A regularly updated HR system strategy is correlated with higher business outcomes; elements like "reviewing the strategy every 12–18 months," "current state analysis," "phased roadmap," "KPIs," and "governance" are underlined.
So the search for the "right tool" is actually the result of the search for "the right strategy and the right design."
The antidote to courage: discipline
Let me clearly state an important correction here:
Courage is not entering an RFP and running the process. Courage is getting up from the table with a "quick decision" without knowing what you're buying and why.
RFP, SOW, POC are not "courage"; they are discipline, subject matter expertise. Discipline does this: reduces uncertainty, produces evidence, makes comparison fair.
RFP translates your need into a "purchasable" language. SOW ties "success" to delivery and acceptance criteria. POC ends the demo stage; it brings you down to real life with your own data and your own scenario.
And this discipline particularly breaks these two misconceptions:
- "widely used means good"
- "if it has references, it'll work"
Technology is not prestige, it's business design
HR technology selection is not a product selection; it's a business design selection. If a technology isn't shortening a process, improving quality, carrying the user, and producing measurable benefit; being the biggest, the most widespread, having the most references is just a "feel-good" story.
To achieve sustainable results and high value from your investments, you need an experienced expert team working with you from start to finish on your HR technology implementation program. The right choice is a team that has gained experience in different industries and organizational structures, leaves nothing to chance, and works with a "flawless" approach that ensures every stage is managed completely.
At IC Consulting, we do exactly that. In every corporate project we work on, we achieved remarkable user adoption rates, short delivery times, and agile working methodology.
Contact us now to learn what we can achieve for you.
