Making Better Tech Decisions: How HR Can Avoid Buyer’s Remorse

Thirty percent of HR leaders regret their most recent HR technology purchase, according to research presented at SHRM26 in Orlando by Kenny Pyle, SHRM’s lead HR technology analyst, and Cal Engstrom, senior researcher at SHRM.

Drawing on survey responses from more than 6,000 HR professionals, Pyle and Engstrom explored why organizations struggle to realize value from HR technology investments and what separates successful implementations from disappointing ones. 

HR Tech Regret Is More Common Than Many Leaders Realize

In addition to the 30% of respondents who regretted their most recent purchase, only 29% said they would recommend their primary HR technology platform to a similarly sized organization. 

Many organizations enter the buying process with a narrow focus on product features, pricing, and vendor demonstrations while overlooking the factors that most often determine success: clear goals, stakeholder alignment, and data migration. These considerations often emerge later during implementation and adoption, according to Pyle.

He compared technology purchasing to an iceberg: visible elements such as functionality and cost represent only a small portion of the overall effort required to achieve value. The larger challenges often remain hidden until implementation begins.

“Failures are rarely about missing a feature,” he said. “It's the below-the-iceberg stuff that you don't see.” 

Organizations Often Chase Features Before Solving Business Problems

A central theme from the research was that organizations frequently start evaluating vendors before clearly defining the problem they are trying to solve.

Engstrom encouraged HR to focus first on business outcomes rather than software categories or feature lists.

“You don't want to buy an HRIS to just buy an HRIS,” he said. “You want to buy better decision making, you want to buy better compliance, you want to buy better reporting, faster hiring processes — whatever your core outcome really is.” 

The research found that organizations are often drawn to emerging capabilities, particularly AI-powered features, even when foundational processes remain inefficient or poorly defined.

Engstrom cautioned that organizations should distinguish between essential requirements and aspirational capabilities.

“Only about 30% of organizations that have AI embedded within their HR technology actually use it to a solid degree,” he said. “You really can't buy the promise if you haven't solved your practical need just yet.”

He advised HR leaders to identify must-have requirements before engaging vendors and to evaluate technology based on how effectively it addresses specific organizational challenges. Doing so can help prevent organizations from paying for capabilities they ultimately never use. 

Hidden Costs Continue to Undermine Implementations

The research also highlighted the financial surprises that frequently emerge after contracts are signed.

Among surveyed organizations:

• 46% encountered hidden costs. 

• 26% said implementation took longer than expected.

• 25% felt the system ultimately was not worth the cost.

Those findings underscore the importance of evaluating total cost of ownership rather than focusing solely on licensing fees.

Pyle urged attendees to account for implementation expenses, data cleanup, and ongoing administration when building budgets. 

“The total cost of ownership is going to be three times the sticker price,” he said. “Budget for that.”

He also noted that implementation timelines can create challenges. Delays often occur because organizations underestimate the internal resources required to support configuration, testing, data migration, and employee training.

Without adequate planning, even well-designed systems can struggle to deliver expected returns.

User Experience Matters More Than AI Features

User experience also emerged from the data as one of the strongest predictors of satisfaction, outperforming many of the advanced capabilities that vendors often emphasize during sales presentations.

“People want just something that works,” Engstrom emphasized. 

The data suggests that ease of use, intuitive design, and accessibility have a greater impact on long-term success than cutting-edge functionality. Employees are more likely to engage with systems that simplify tasks and reduce friction in their daily work. 

The data also found that organizations frequently fail to maximize the value of the technology they purchase. On average, respondents reported using only about three-quarters of the functionality available within their systems. Employee adoption remains another challenge, with only 62% of employees actively using the HR technology their organizations implement.

“Value doesn't come from buying the system,” Pyle said. “It comes from people actually using it in the way that was intended.”