This article was co-written by Margaret Godwin, HR Technology Consulting Practice Leader/Principal Consultant supporting the Benefits Broker community, and Robert Huston, VP of Strategic Partnerships at Benefitscape.

Part Two of the HR Technology Decision Series

In Part One, we explored how organizations too often overlook individual stakeholders during the selection process of HR technology. Executives, brokers, and consultants all bring valuable perspectives — but it’s the payroll administrator, the HR generalist, or the benefits manager who will determine whether the system works in practice.

That same truth carries into the next stage. By the time an organization reaches implementation, the assumption is often that the hardest work is over. The platform has been chosen, contracts are signed, and the focus shifts to building, configuring, and launching. But in our experiences, this is the phase where many projects either thrive or unravel — and once again, the individual stakeholders often hold the key.

Why the Individual Stakeholders Matter in Implementation

Executives and consultants help shape the vision. IT ensures the system integrates securely with the broader tech stack. But it’s the day-to-day professionals who know exactly how policies, processes, and workflows play out in reality.

Consider these examples:

• A payroll administrator catches how union pay rules differ across agreements and prevents costly miscalculations.

• A benefits specialist ensures eligibility files align with carrier requirements, avoiding rejected claims and employee frustration.

• A timekeeper highlights nuances in leave policies that might otherwise be missed in a configuration.

Without their voices, implementations risk being technically correct but operationally flawed. The system “works” — but not in the way it needs to in practice.

Balancing Strategic Vision with Practical Reality

The most successful implementations we’ve been a part of share one thing in common: a balanced blend of leadership vision and frontline input. Each group has a role to play, but the timing and level of involvement matter:

• Executives provide the “why.” Their role is to align the system with broader business goals, growth strategies, and ROI expectations. But if they only appear at kickoff and go-live, their input comes too late. They should stay engaged at critical checkpoints to validate the system against the original business case.
• The CFO brings oversight on financial controls, compliance, and reporting. Engaging them early ensures requirements are built into workflows instead of bolted on after testing.
• IT leaders are essential for integrations, data security, and long-term scalability. They need clear responsibilities around system governance and post-implementation support.
• HR leadership defines the “what” — the outcomes they expect in talent management, benefits delivery, payroll accuracy, and employee engagement.
• Operational stakeholders (payroll, benefits, HR ops, timekeepers, union/payroll compliance specialists) deliver the “how.” They surface the rules, policies, and edge cases that determine whether the technology actually works once the system goes live.

When these perspectives overlap, implementations move from theory to reality — and adoption skyrockets.

How to Bring Individual Voices into Implementation

The challenge is not whether to include these voices, but how. Too often, organizations worry that broad input will slow timelines or complicate decisions. In practice, we’ve found it often saves time by reducing rework and surfacing issues before go-live.

Here are practical ways to make it work:

• Assign workstream ownership. Instead of a single project lead managing everything, create functional leads for payroll, benefits, time, and HR operations. Their responsibility is to document processes, identify current challenges, and ensure these are translated into system design.
• Use scenario-based testing. Don’t limit testing to “happy path” workflows. Ask end- users to run real-world scenarios: a retroactive benefits adjustment, a leave of absence, or a union-specific overtime rule. These reveal gaps no demo ever will.
• Create structured feedback loops. Build checkpoints where frontline stakeholders validate configurations, reporting outputs, and integrations. Their early feedback avoids painful corrections after go-live.
• Build change champions. Identify individuals excited about the new system and empower them to support colleagues during rollout. Champions reduce resistance and foster adoption.
• Document rules and processes early. Encourage each functional area to capture their current workflows. Not only does this accelerate configuration, it becomes an internal reference guide that prevents knowledge loss when staff turnover occurs.

  By deliberately including these voices, implementation becomes less about vendor timelines and more about organizational readiness.

The Bigger Picture

The truth is, HR technology doesn’t succeed because a vendor delivered every feature promised on the sales sheet. It succeeds when the people who use it daily find it reliable, intuitive, and aligned to the reality of their work.

When individual stakeholders are engaged in implementation, they not only catch issues early — they also feel a sense of ownership. That ownership translates into smoother adoption, stronger ROI, and a faster path to realizing the technology’s potential.

At the end of the day, HR technology is about people. Not just the employees it serves, but also the professionals who keep payroll accurate, benefits accessible, and compliance in check. If those individuals don’t have a voice in implementation, organizations risk building a system that looks great on paper but falls flat in practice.

The organizations that get this right know one thing: technology adoption isn’t driven by contracts, RFPs, or executive dashboards. It’s driven by people who trust that the system will make their jobs easier, not harder. And the only way to earn that trust is to give them a seat at the table — not just in selection, but in implementation too.