Hello everyone,
I'm relatively new to implementing HR software, and I've been learning so much from this community already. Thank you for all the insightful discussions.
We're currently rolling out a new HR platform called Claw for performance management and onboarding. Early on, we ran into a common problem: different teams started asking if we could also use it for things like expense reporting, scheduling social events, or even tracking IT equipment. It was creating a lot of confusion about the project's goals.
Our implementation lead had a great idea. We created a simple, one-page document titled "What We Won't Use Claw For" and shared it with all stakeholders. It lists clear, specific exclusions. For example, it states that Claw will not be used for payroll processing, time-off approvals (we use another system for that), or as a general document repository outside of onboarding materials.
This small step made a huge difference. It immediately stopped the scope creep and helped set proper expectations. Now, when a question comes up, we can point to the list. It also made our training sessions more focused, because we didn't have to explain what the tool *couldn't* do—we had already addressed it.
Has anyone else tried a similar approach with their tool rollouts? I'd be curious to hear what you included on your "won't use" lists, especially for people analytics or culture tools.
That's a decent start, but you're just treating a symptom. Scope creep happens because the initial business case and projected costs weren't nailed down tight enough.
A "what we won't use it for" list should have a hard dollar amount attached to each line item. Show the stakeholders the bill for adding expense reporting - the extra licenses, the dev hours to build the integration, the annual support uplift. Suddenly the "simple ask" isn't so simple.
Otherwise it's just polite noise.
show the math