20 Apr 2026
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 an all-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 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.”
"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
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?’”
Low confidence in current approach to HR technology
In a Gartner survey, just 35% of HR leaders said they were confident their current approach to HR technology was helping achieve business aims
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
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.
Article originally published on HRD April 2026