Short answer
An HR tech stack is the set of systems and workflows that support people processes. To improve it, map the employee task, authoritative record, responsible owner and next handoff for each tool. Check where work is duplicated or blocked, then decide what to keep, improve, replace or test. Evaluate the complete workflow before buying another feature.
Start with a work journey
Choose one recurring process, such as a new starter's first week, a development discussion or a departing employee's feedback. Follow it from invitation to a completed action. Include the spreadsheets, shared mailboxes and manual work that sit between named systems.
Ask employees, managers and administrators to show the same case from their perspective. An administrator may see a completed workflow while an employee still lacks the information needed to start work. A manager may receive a report but have no authority or time to respond.
The UK government's Technology Code of Practice connects technology choices with user needs, accessibility, reuse, existing systems and purchasing constraints. Its government scope is specific; the practical lesson for an HR review is to examine the whole service, not only the vendor demonstration. The worksheets below are original examples for an internal review.
Map capabilities without assuming separate products
One product may cover several capabilities, and several products may contribute to one process. Use this map to identify ownership, not to prescribe a shopping list.
| Capability | Work it supports | Ownership question |
|---|---|---|
| Employee records | Employment details, organisational structure and approved changes | Which record is authoritative for each field? |
| People processes | Recruitment, onboarding, absence or performance workflows | Who owns completion and exceptions? |
| Employee communication | Questions, feedback and conversations | Who can contribute, who sees the material and who responds? |
| Learning and knowledge | Approved learning material and reusable work practices | Who validates content and keeps it current? |
| Analysis and planning | Measures, comparisons and workforce decisions | Who checks definitions and interpretation? |
| Follow-up | Agreed actions, escalation and review | Who has authority and resources to act? |
A missing capability does not always require a new system. A clear owner, a better handoff or an unused feature in an existing tool may resolve the problem. Conversely, removing a product can increase manual work if its specialist workflow is not covered elsewhere.
Copy this tool-inventory worksheet
Create one record per product or substantial manual workaround. Validate it with the process owner rather than relying only on procurement records.
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| User task | The work a named population needs to complete |
| Tool and owner | Product, business owner and technical contact |
| Actual use | Which eligible people use it for the intended task |
| Authoritative data | Fields it owns and fields copied from elsewhere |
| Inputs and outputs | What arrives, what leaves and who receives it |
| Access | Who administers, contributes, reviews and exports |
| Exceptions | What happens when a record is missing or a step fails |
| Work outside the tool | Re-entry, spreadsheet correction, chasing and review |
| Commercial commitment | Subscription, renewal, notice and usage conditions |
| Exit evidence | Usable export, document history, transfer and removal process |
| Current decision | Keep, improve, replace, retire or test further |
Record unknowns explicitly. A vendor's claim that a connector exists is different from proof that the required fields, permissions and updates work in your configuration. Use the HRIS and AI integration guide to prepare those questions.
Distinguish duplicate features from duplicate work
Two products both offering a survey feature do not necessarily create a problem. They may serve different populations or processes. The problem is clearer when users repeat the same task, administrators reconcile competing records or two teams expect the other to act.
Test an apparent overlap with these questions:
- Does it serve the same user task and population?
- Does it collect the same information for the same purpose?
- Can one workflow cover the exceptions the other currently handles?
- Would removing one system preserve history, access and continuity?
- Would anyone inherit additional work or lose a needed route?
A feature matrix alone cannot answer these questions. Run an actual, approved example through the proposed replacement, including a failure case. Keep the original service available until its owner has accepted the transition plan.
Estimate the whole cost of the workflow
A subscription price is only one part of the decision. Keep cash spending and paid staff capacity in separate columns so that a time saving is not presented as an immediate budget reduction.
Consider this fictional annual comparison in US dollars. It illustrates arithmetic, not vendor pricing or a promised saving.
| Item | Existing workflow | Proposed workflow |
|---|---|---|
| Annual subscriptions | $12,000 | $9,600 |
| One-time setup in the first year | $0 | $4,000 |
| Administration per month | 10 hours | 6 hours |
| Proposed review work per month | Included in the 10 hours above | 2 hours |
Assuming existing review effort is already included and the proposed tasks are distinct, internal effort falls from 120 to 96 hours a year: 12 x (10 - 6 - 2) = 24 hours of capacity. It does not release payroll cash unless staffing expenditure actually changes.
First-year proposed cash is $9,600 + $4,000 = $13,600, or $1,600 above the existing $12,000. From the second year, the subscription difference would be $2,400 lower annually if prices and scope remain unchanged and setup does not recur. Migration, parallel operation, export charges or extra support would change these figures and must be added if applicable.
This comparison may still support the new workflow if it improves a material task, but it does not support a first-year cash-saving claim. Use the people analytics ROI guide for a fuller treatment of assumptions and evidence.
Check permissions and continuity before migration
The NIST Cybersecurity Framework provides a way to organise and communicate cybersecurity outcomes. It is a reference for the organisation's security review, not a certification of an HR product or this worksheet.
Ask the responsible specialists to check the proposed flow. At business level, confirm:
- Which data is needed for the stated task, and which can be excluded?
- Who approves a new user, a changed role and removal of access?
- Can a manager see only the relevant scope after a team change?
- What does the user see when information is missing or out of date?
- Who responds when the service or data transfer fails?
- How will required records remain usable if the supplier or product changes?
A controlled manual pilot can sometimes establish workflow value before building an integration. It still needs approved handling and access. Do not move live employee information into a new tool simply because the import accepts the file.
A fictional stack decision
A UK service business uses an HRIS for employment records, an onboarding tool for tasks and a spreadsheet for follow-up. New starters repeatedly report that their questions remain unanswered after the checklist is complete.
The review finds that no one owns questions after the first-week meeting. Replacing the HRIS would not resolve that missing responsibility. The team first assigns an owner and a response date in its existing workflow, then reviews whether questions receive an answer.
If the remaining problem is that employees struggle to explain their work context, the team can evaluate a focused conversation tool. If the problem is missing access or an unstaffed support role, it needs an operational fix. The audit separates those decisions before any purchase.
Make the next decision small enough to verify
Choose one task and write the acceptance conditions before the trial. Include a typical case, a missing-information case and a changed-access case. Record who reviews the result, which defects prevent expansion and how the existing workflow will continue during the test.
The AI implementation guide covers the steps after a tool has been selected. The HR action card helps assign the business follow-up.
Lontra can be evaluated when a defined employee conversation and a manager brief would help that follow-up. Explore Lontra's employee conversation workflow, then test whether its output helps the responsible person prepare a useful discussion. Confirm any required integration separately; a conversation capability does not establish replacement of an HRIS, payroll system or complete people process.
Frequently asked questions
- What is an HR tech stack?
- An HR tech stack is the set of systems and supporting workflows used to run people processes. A useful map identifies the task each tool supports, its data and process owners, and the handoffs between systems and people.
- How many tools should an HR tech stack contain?
- There is no useful universal number. Keep tools that serve a defined need with acceptable effort, cost and controls. Review duplicate work, missing ownership and avoidable handoffs before judging the stack by its size.
- Should a new AI tool replace an existing HR system?
- Only when the required workflow, records, access, continuity and exit conditions have been demonstrated. A successful AI demonstration does not establish that the tool can replace a system of record or a complete HR process.
- How do you evaluate HR software cost?
- Separate subscription and implementation cash from internal administration, review and training time. Include integration, migration, support and exit work. Count a saving only when the spending or workload is actually removed.