NATIONAL ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF ADVANCED EDUCATION PROGRAM

----------

HUMAN RESOURCE INFORMATION SYSTEMS

HRIS APPLICATION IN PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

IN VINAMILK AND FPT

Class : Quản trị Nhân lực CLC 65

Group : 06
Lecturer : Nguyễn Hồ Nam

No. Full name Student ID

1 Trần Minh Tâm 11235496

2 Đồng Khánh Ly 11233503

3 Đỗ Thùy Dương 11235777

4 Nguyễn Ngọc Mai 11235258

5 Ngô Ngọc Hà 11230204

6 Nguyễn Ngọc Minh 11236537

7 Đinh Thị Thùy Dương 11230865

8 Bùi Thị Ngọc Bích 11235340

HANOI, 2025
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 4
1. Theory specialist (PM Models) ................................................................................ 5
1.1. Performance Management Cycle ..................................................................... 5
1.2. Outline and compare two models: The traditional Annual review and
Continuous performance management ................................................................... 8
1.2.1. Traditional Annual review ............................................................................. 8
1.2.2. Continuous performance management ........................................................ 10
1.2.3. Comparison between two models ................................................................ 12
1.3. Pros and cons for the shift towards the continuous model ........................... 13
1.3.1. Pros .............................................................................................................. 13
1.3.2. Cons ............................................................................................................. 13
1.4. Reasons for the shift towards the continuous model .................................... 14
2. Technology specialist (HRIS functions in PM) .................................................... 15
2.1. Goal setting (OKRs/KPIs) ............................................................................... 15
2.2. Gathering feedback (360° feedback) .............................................................. 16
2.3. Recording check-ins (continuous review) ...................................................... 16
2.4. Continuous Recognition................................................................................... 17
3. Integration specialist (PM data flow) ................................................................... 18
3.1. PM system → Compensation module............................................................. 18
3.2. PM system → LMS .......................................................................................... 18
3.3. Data integration mechanisms .......................................................................... 18
3.4. Key data integration risks ............................................................................... 19
4. Context specialist (Cultural challenges) ............................................................... 21
5. Case researcher Vinamilk ...................................................................................... 22
5.1. Performance Management Philosophy ....................................................... 22
5.2. HRIS Platform and Integration .................................................................. 23
5.3. Use of 360° Feedback .................................................................................... 23
5.4. Link Between Performance Management and Compensation/L&D ....... 23
5.5. Evaluation Cycle and Workflow ................................................................. 24
5.6. Comparison with FPT Corporation ............................................................ 24

2
6. Case Researcher FPT ............................................................................................. 25
7. Synthesis Specialist ................................................................................................. 29
8. Comparative analysis specialist............................................................................. 32
8.1. Compare the differences between the two companies .................................. 32
8.2. Assess whether their system truly drives performance or is merely
administrative .......................................................................................................... 35
9. Consultant & recommendation specialist ............................................................ 37
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 39

3
 INTRODUCTION
In today’s data-driven business environment, Human Resource Information
Systems (HRIS) have become an indispensable tool in transforming how organizations
manage, evaluate, and develop their workforce. Among various HR functions,
Performance Management (PM) stands out as a critical area where HRIS delivers
strategic value. By digitizing and integrating the PM process-from goal setting and
continuous feedback to evaluation and development planning-HRIS enables companies
to make performance decisions that are not only consistent and transparent but also data-
informed and aligned with organizational goals.
In the Vietnamese business context, the application of HRIS in performance
management is gaining increasing attention as companies strive to enhance
competitiveness, employee engagement, and operational efficiency. Traditional
performance review systems, often annual and paper-based, are gradually being
replaced by continuous and technology-supported approaches. However, the adoption
process is not without challenges-ranging from limited digital readiness to cultural
characteristics such as “saving face” or avoiding direct feedback, which may affect how
performance data is collected and utilized.
The objective of this study is to examine how Vietnamese businesses use HRIS
to manage their performance management systems and to analyze how performance-
related data integrates with other strategic HR functions, particularly Compensation and
Employee Development. Through a comparative case study between Vinamilk, a
leading enterprise in the manufacturing sector, and a Technology company, the report
aims to uncover differences in HRIS utilization, performance philosophies (e.g.,
traditional KPIs versus continuous OKRs), and the degree of data integration across
modules.
This analysis holds significant importance for both academic and practical
reasons. Academically, it deepens understanding of how technology enhances HR
strategy alignment and fosters a performance-driven culture. Practically, it provides
insights into how Vietnamese organizations can leverage HRIS not only as an
administrative tool but as a strategic enabler-linking individual performance outcomes
to compensation decisions and tailored learning opportunities. By exploring these
dynamics, this research contributes to the broader discussion on how digital
transformation can reshape human resource management practices in Vietnam.

4
1. Theory specialist (PM Models)

1.1. Performance Management Cycle

Performance Management (PM) should be understood as an ongoing

organizational cycle that aligns individual and team work with strategic objectives,
provides timely information for decision-making, and supports employee development.
While authors and practitioners describe slightly different breakdowns, the PM cycle
commonly used in practice comprises the 4 following stages: Planning → Monitoring
→ Reviewing → Rewarding, after which the cycle repeats (planning for the next
period). This framing emphasizes PM as a continuous, iterative process rather than a
single annual event.

Short descriptions of each stage:

- Planning: Define organizational priorities and translate them into team-level

objectives and success criteria (KPI/OKR definitions). Establish who is
accountable and what resources are required.

The planning phase revolves around setting performance expectations for the
employee. These are often planned and are also included in the job descriptions.
It is best practice to actively involve the employee in this planning process.
According to a meta-analysis by Cawly, Keeping & Levy (1998), this
involvement increases satisfaction with the performance cycle, as well as
perceived fairness, usefulness, and motivation to improve. Employee
performance plans should also be flexible so they can be adjusted for changing
objectives and requirements along the way. For more information about planning
and goal setting, the SMART goal-setting process is a useful framework.

- Monitoring: Track progress against goals via dashboards, periodic check-ins or

progress updates; detect early signs of underperformance or obstacles.

In the monitoring phase, the goals set in the planning phase are actively tracked.
Monitoring involves the continuous measuring of performance and providing
feedback on progress towards the goals. By monitoring continuously, the
manager or supervisor can correct in case of suboptimal performance, rather than
finding this out at the end of the year when it is too late. Especially when dealing
with highly educated professionals, it is important to focus on whether the goal
is achieved instead of how it is achieved. A manager should stay away from
micromanagement and determine exactly how this goal has to be achieved. Good

5
 management practices are key when it comes to effective monitoring. To learn
more about this, read our article 5 Tips to ace your employee performance
management process.

- Reviewing: Provide performance-related information from managers, peers, or

multi-rater sources; feedback can be coaching-oriented (developmental) or
evaluative.

At the end of the year, the management and the employee meet to review the
previous year and see if goals were met. This is another opportunity to build a
collaboration with the employee. The more involved they are in the other stages
of the performance management cycle, the more motivation they will have to
continue working diligently to achieve their goals and those of the organization.
If proper monitoring was done, the management will already have a good idea
of how well the employee did during the year. The review is a chance for
management and employees to evaluate both the final result and the process
itself.
This evaluation should include questions such as:

+ Was the original goal realistic?

+ Was the goal in line with the organization’s objectives?
+ Did the employee gain useful experience or skills?
+ How well did the employee complete their tasks?
+ Did the organization offer the proper support to achieve the goal?
+ In what ways could future goals be set differently to ensure success?
+ What aspects of this process could be streamlined or improved?

The employee can present their perspective on how well they did during the year
and receive feedback from the management team on how well they met or
exceeded their goals. If there have been performance issues during the year, this
is where they can be brought up. It is recommended that if issues are being
discussed, possible solutions are also presented. This is also a space in which
future development opportunities can be discussed, as well as bonuses or
compensation increases.

- Appraisal (formal evaluation): Summarize performance over a defined period

and, where applicable, assign ratings that feed into compensation, promotion and
succession decisions.

The final stage of the performance management cycle plan is the reward. This is
a stage that cannot be overlooked, as it is the one that is the most important for
employee motivation.

6
Employees who do not receive a proper reward after a year of striving to meet
organizational goals, and succeeding in doing so, will lose motivation for the
next year. They might lose faith in their organization, feel that their talents are
not appreciated, and begin searching for another job.

When management fairly rewards employees and gives them recognition for
their efforts, they are ensuring that those employees will continue to work hard
to achieve organizational goals.

These rewards should be merit-based. Employees will recognize who amongst

them has put in the effort, and if they see colleagues rewarded without cause,
they could lose motivation. Conversely, when employees see a high-performer
get a handsome reward, it demonstrates the value in putting in that extra effort.

Some rewards that might be offered are:

+ An increase in compensation
+ A one-time bonus
+ Increased vacation time
+ Special projects
+ A promotion
+ A positive written review
+ Company-wide acknowledgment

After the reward stage of the performance management cycle model, the
management team and the employee can choose to meet one final time, to review
the cycle as a whole. This is a chance to bring up any issues that might have
arisen, and begin talks about the next year’s goals.

7
1.2. Outline and compare two models: The traditional Annual review and Continuous
performance management

1.2.1. Traditional Annual review

Picture 1-1: Annual Performance Review Template (Source: UPDF)

- Characteristics: The Annual Review model centers a formal, end-of-period

evaluation (commonly yearly). Goals are typically set at the start of the year, and
the main evaluative conversation and ratings occur at year-end. Annual review

8
 outcomes are tightly linked to pay, bonuses and promotions in many
organizations.
- Concrete features activities (examples):
+ Formal evaluation form: Standard rating scales and competency
checklists completed by line managers.
+ Calibration meetings: Cross-team manager panels that discuss and align
ratings to reduce rater variability and support perceived fairness. Research
shows calibration can improve rating quality and perceived
accountability.
+ Year-end performance meeting: Manager and employee discuss the
year’s results and a rating is recorded for HR/payroll action.
- Typical strengths: Standardized, administratively straightforward, and easily
mapped to compensation cycles. Good where comparability and compliance are
priorities.
- Typical limitations: Feedback often arrives too late to meaningfully change
outcomes; annual systems can feel “surprising” to employees and may lead to
disengagement. They can also institutionalize rating bias when managers do not
provide regular coaching throughout the year.

Table 1-1: Advantages and disadvantages of Traditional Annual review

Advantage Disadvantages

Standardization and administrative Latency of feedback: By the time annual

simplicity: An established cadence results are discussed, opportunities for
simplifies payout cycles and ensures a improvement earlier in the year are lost;
formal record for compensation and employees may feel surprised or unfairly
promotion decisions. Calibration judged. Empirical critiques and industry
mechanisms can help correct rater trend analyses document organizations
variance when implemented well. moving away from purely annual systems
for this reason. ResearchGate+1

9
1.2.2. Continuous performance management

Picture 1-2: Continuous Performance Management (Source: mapers)

- Characteristics: CPM reframes performance management as an ongoing process

of short-cycle goal setting, frequent check-ins, real-time feedback and
continuous development. The emphasis is on coaching and course-correction
rather than a single summative judgment. Modern HRIS tools increasingly
support CPM workflows.
- Concrete features/activities (examples):
+ Regular 1:1 check-ins: Documented manager-employee conversations
(weekly or monthly) with action items saved in the HRIS.
+ Real-time feedback tools: Micro-recognition, peer-to-peer feedback, and
timestamped comments inside platforms (e.g., many vendors offer
“kudos” and feedback streams).
+ Dynamic goals (OKRs): Goals are updated or re-scoped each quarter (or
more frequently), with dashboards showing progress.
+ Pulse surveys and frequent multi-rater checks: Short surveys to measure
engagement and collect 360° inputs at cadence.
- Typical strengths: Faster corrective action, stronger developmental focus, and
higher employee engagement where implemented well; research and industry

10
 reports find associations between continuous feedback practices and lower
turnover/higher initiative.
- Typical limitations: Requires manager skill (coaching, giving effective
feedback), an open feedback culture, and reliable HRIS support. Without training
and governance, CPM can create notification fatigue, inconsistent feedback
quality, or interpersonal tensions.

Table 1-2: Advantages and disadvantages of

Continuous performance management

Advantage Disadvantages

- Higher engagement and lower - Cultural readiness: CPM demands a

turnover: Industry reports and surveys culture of open feedback and
indicate organizations practicing frequent psychological safety; in cultures or
feedback report lower turnover and organizations where conflict avoidance or
higher initiative among staff. For “saving face” predominates, CPM may
example, SHRM/Labs and related generate resistance or superficial
analyses report measurable reductions in feedback. Implementation literature
turnover and gains in engagement metrics stresses culture change as a central
for continuous feedback adopters. barrier.

- Faster performance improvement: - Manager capability & consistency:

Real-time, actionable feedback enables Frequent feedback requires managers
quicker adjustments and development, skilled in coaching; otherwise feedback
improving performance trajectories quality is low or inconsistent. Research
compared to waiting for an annual highlights manager capability as a
appraisal. Peer-reviewed studies have limiting factor for CPM effectiveness.
examined reactions to continuous
feedback and shown differential effects - Operational costs and noisy data:
depending on feedback source and Continuous systems need good HRIS
content. configuration, governance, and data
hygiene; otherwise organizations risk
- Better integration with talent feedback overload, data fragmentation or
systems: CPM workflows link naturally biased inputs. Studies and vendor reports
to LMS and compensation systems when caution about implementation costs and
HRIS supports real-time data flows (e.g., governance needs.
linking observed skill gaps to
recommended courses). Deloitte research
emphasizes designing PM strategy

11
around purpose and integration (not just
process mechanics) to drive outcomes.

1.2.3. Comparison between two models

Traditional Annual Reviews represent the long-established approach in many

Vietnamese and global organizations: a once-a-year, backward-looking appraisal
conversation.

Continuous Performance Management (CPM) represents a modern, agile,

developmental model built around frequent feedback, evolving goals, and ongoing
coaching.

Table 1-3: Compare Traditional Annual review

and Continuous Performance Management

Attributes Traditional Annual review Continuous Performance

Management

Frequency Once per year (sometimes semi- Weekly or monthly check-ins;

annual). quarterly OKRs.

Core One-time review meeting; fixed Regular 1:1s, real-time feedback,

Activities KPI review; rating and dynamic goal updates, ongoing
calibration. recognition.

Feedback Formal, end-of-year written Real-time feedback, micro-

remarks. coaching, peer recognition.

Goal Setting Goals fixed at the beginning of the Goals adjusted throughout the
year. year as priorities evolve.

Development Training plan assigned after Personalized development

appraisal. actions integrated continuously
and supported by LMS.

HRIS Forms, appraisal workflow, basic OKR tracking, feedback tools,

Support reporting. dashboards, continuous data
analytics.

12
1.3. Pros and cons for the shift towards the continuous model

1.3.1. Pros
Improved Agility and Goal Alignment: Continuous PM allows organizations to
update goals regularly (monthly or quarterly), ensuring alignment with shifting business
priorities. This is especially valuable in fast-changing industries such as technology or
FMCG. Compared to annual reviews, CPM prevents goal misalignment and keeps
employees focused on current strategic priorities.
More Timely and Actionable Feedback: CPM provides real-time or frequent
feedback, enabling employees to correct performance gaps immediately rather than
waiting months until the annual review. Research by Gallup (2022) found that
employees receiving frequent feedback are 3 times more likely to be engaged and 2
times more likely to meet performance expectations.
Stronger Employee Engagement and Motivation: Continuous conversations
create psychological safety, strengthen manager–employee relationships, and enhance
motivation through ongoing recognition. SHRM (2023) reports that organizations
implementing continuous feedback experience lower voluntary turnover and higher
employee satisfaction.
Enhanced Development and Learning: Frequent check-ins help identify skill
gaps early. Modern HRIS systems can automatically recommend courses from the
LMS, creating personalized development paths. Employees experience continuous
growth instead of waiting for annual appraisal-driven training.
More Accurate and Fairer Performance Data: Because CPM captures
performance in real time, it reduces recency bias, memory distortions, and rating
subjectivity common in annual reviews. Data is richer, more granular, and better suited
for analytics-based decision-making.
Better Manager Capability and Leadership Behaviors: Continuous PM models
encourage managers to act as coaches rather than evaluators. Over time, this builds
leadership competencies such as active listening, developmental feedback, and
empathy.

1.3.2. Cons
Requires Cultural Readiness and Open Communication: CPM depends on a
culture where employees and managers are comfortable giving and receiving frequent
feedback. In contexts like Vietnam - where “saving face,” hierarchy, and reluctance to
give upward feedback are common - shift resistance can be high.
Increased Workload for Managers: Continuous check-ins and coaching require
time and emotional labor. Without proper training or workload adjustments, managers
may feel overwhelmed. This can result in inconsistent implementation across
departments.

13
 Risk of Feedback Fatigue: If poorly structured, CPM may create excessive
feedback and too many check-ins, leading to fatigue and disengagement. Employees
may feel micromanaged rather than supported.
Higher Dependence on HRIS and Digital Maturity: Effective continuous PM
requires strong HRIS functionality (OKR tracking, real-time feedback, dashboards, 1:1
logs). Organizations with low digital maturity may struggle with adoption, data
integrity, and system overload.
Potential Variability and Inconsistency: Annual reviews provide standardized
forms and structured processes. CPM, if not well governed, can differ widely across
managers - causing inequity in feedback quality, check-in frequency, and development
opportunities.
Blurred Boundaries Between Coaching and Evaluation: Employees may feel
unsure whether continuous conversations are “informal feedback” or formal evaluation
inputs, leading to anxiety or performance pressure.

1.4. Reasons for the shift towards the continuous model

Evidence of better outcomes: Industry studies and HR analytics increasingly

show associations between continuous feedback practices and improved engagement,
retention and performance metrics - encouraging broader adoption.

Enhanced employee growth: Continuous performance management is like

providing a roadmap for employee development. Regular feedback and targeted
development plans empower employees to grow, acquire new skills, and reach their full
potential.

Increased engagement: Engaged employees are more likely to be motivated and

productive. By fostering a culture of ongoing communication, continuous performance
management boosts engagement levels within your organization.

Alignment with business goals: Continuous management ensures that employee

efforts are consistently aligned with the organization's changing goals and priorities.
This agility can be a game-changer in today's fast-paced business environment.

Improved employee retention: Employees who feel supported, recognized, and

valued are more likely to stay with their organization. Continuous performance
management helps build strong relationships and increases retention rates.

Data-driven insights: Continuous performance management platforms often

provide data-driven insights into employee performance trends, enabling informed
decision-making and strategic planning.

14
 Faster changing business environment: Rapid product, market and role changes
make static annual goals less useful; organizations need agility in goal-setting and
evaluation.

Employee expectations: Millennial and Gen-Z cohorts expect frequent feedback,

coaching and visible development paths - CPM meets these expectations better.

Technology availability: Modern HRIS and performance platforms (with OKR,

feedback streams, 360 modules and dashboards) make continuous approaches
operationally feasible.

2. Technology specialist (HRIS functions in PM)

In the modern workplace, technology has become an indispensable part of

Human Resource Management (HRM). Among various digital tools, the Human
Resource Information System (HRIS) stands out as a powerful platform that integrates
and automates many HR functions, including Performance Management (PM). The
performance management process aims to align individual performance with
organizational goals, promote employee development, and enhance overall
productivity. In Phase 1 of the PM cycle, HRIS supports four key stages: goal setting,
gathering feedback, recording check-ins, and continuous recognition. Each of these
modules contributes to a data-driven, transparent, and continuous performance
improvement process.

2.1. Goal setting (OKRs/KPIs)

The first and most critical step in the performance management process is goal
setting. Through the Goal management module, HRIS allows managers and employees
to collaboratively establish performance goals that are aligned with both departmental
and corporate objectives. Most modern systems support frameworks such as OKRs
(Objectives and key results) or KPIs (Key performance indicators).

This module drives goal alignment by offering ready-to-use templates, SMART

goal guidance, and an automatic cascading feature that connects employee goals to team
and organizational targets. Once goals are created, the HRIS enables users to track
progress in real time through visual dashboards that display performance metrics,
completion rates, and deadlines. For example, in SAP SuccessFactors, the Goal
Management module allows dynamic goal alignment, showing how each employee’s
objectives contribute to the company’s strategic priorities. Employees can update
progress percentages or milestone achievements, which are immediately reflected in the
system’s analytics dashboard. Input data in this module typically include target
descriptions, measurable indicators, timelines, and goal owners. The module's output,
15
which includes completion rates, progress reports, and performance analytics, provides
essential data for subsequent stages like feedback sessions and final performance
ratings.

By standardizing and automating goal tracking, HRIS ensures that goal setting
becomes an ongoing, collaborative process rather than a one-time annual task.

2.2. Gathering feedback (360° feedback)

The second phase of performance management involves collecting performance

feedback from multiple perspectives. The 360° Feedback module within HRIS
facilitates this process by automating the selection of reviewers and the distribution of
feedback forms.

This module collects multi-source input from supervisors, peers, subordinates,

and clients, creating a well-rounded performance profile for each employee. HRIS
platforms send automatic invitations to reviewers, consolidate the responses, and
generate aggregated, anonymized reports highlighting both strengths and areas for
improvement. A key advantage of HRIS in this stage is objectivity and efficiency.
Instead of manually collecting and compiling evaluations, the system uses pre-designed
competency frameworks to ensure consistency in rating scales and behavioral criteria.

For instance, Base HR, a Vietnamese HR platform, features a built-in 360°

Feedback tool that visualizes results through radar charts, helping managers easily
identify development needs. Input data include reviewer lists, competency criteria, and
feedback forms. Output data consist of summarized feedback reports, scores, and
qualitative comments, which become vital inputs for mid-cycle reviews or coaching
sessions. By digitizing 360° feedback, HRIS ensures fairness, confidentiality, and a
richer understanding of employee performance.

2.3. Recording check-ins (continuous review)

Unlike traditional performance systems that only evaluate employees once or

twice a year, modern HRIS platforms support continuous performance management
through the Check-in module.

This feature encourages regular one-on-one conversations between employees

and managers to discuss progress, challenges, and development plans. HRIS allows
users to schedule recurring check-ins, record discussion notes, and link these directly to
existing goals in the system. This integration ensures that any adjustments made during
check-ins, such as shifting priorities or revised targets, are immediately reflected in the
employee's goal progress. In Workday, for example, the Check-in module enables

16
employees to input their accomplishments before meetings, while managers can provide
written feedback and action items afterward. All records are securely stored and can be
referenced during formal review cycles. Input data include meeting schedules, progress
notes, and updated goal metrics. Output data include meeting summaries, interim
performance ratings, and development plans.

Through regular check-ins, HRIS transforms performance management into a

continuous dialogue rather than a static, once-a-year assessment. This fosters stronger
communication, real-time coaching, and agile performance adjustments.

2.4. Continuous Recognition

Recognition is one of the most powerful motivators in employee performance.

The Recognition module within HRIS creates an environment where appreciation
becomes an ongoing practice rather than an occasional reward.

Employees and managers can send digital kudos, appreciation messages, or

virtual badges to recognize positive behaviors and achievements. These recognitions
can be tied to core company values such as collaboration, innovation, or customer focus.
HRIS records all recognition data, which can later inform promotion decisions,
engagement analytics, or reward programs. The module also displays recognition
moments publicly through newsfeeds or leaderboards, thus encouraging a positive and
motivating culture. Platforms like SAP SuccessFactors and Base HR have integrated
recognition tools that enable instant peer-to-peer appreciation, helping employees feel
valued and connected to organizational goals. Input data include sender/receiver details,
messages, and recognition categories. Output data include recognition reports,
engagement scores, and behavioral performance data. By embedding recognition into
daily workflows, HRIS strengthens engagement and reinforces a culture of continuous
performance improvement.

Overall, an HRIS creates an integrated performance management cycle, where

data flows continuously from one phase (goal setting, feedback, check-ins) to the next..
This digital integration ensures accuracy, transparency, and agility. Instead of relying
on subjective or fragmented evaluations, HRIS provides data-driven insights that help
managers make fair decisions and employees take ownership of their growth. As
organizations continue to embrace digital transformation, the HRIS will remain an
essential foundation for building a performance culture that is dynamic, transparent, and
aligned with long-term business strategy.

17
3. Integration specialist (PM data flow)

3.1. PM system → Compensation module

3.2. PM system → LMS

3.3. Data integration mechanisms

The integration between the Performance Management (PM) system and other
strategic HRIS modules such as the compensation module and learning management

18
system (LMS) requires efficient data transmission, transformation, and synchronization
mechanisms. The following are the main integration methods:

- API (application programming interface)

APIs allow direct data exchange between the source and target systems in real
time or near real time. For example, the PM system can send information such as
Employee_ID, Performance_Rating, and Goal_Completion % to the Compensation
Module to calculate rewards based on the rule “rating X → bonus Y.” Similarly,
Competency_Gaps and Development_Needs data are sent to the LMS to recommend
training courses.

“HRIS has evolved into large-scale, integrated systems that support strategic HR
functions.” (Johnson & Carlson, 2021)

- ETL (extract - transform - load)

When data is processed in batches rather than real time, the ETL model is used.
Data is extracted from the PM system, transformed into a compatible format, and then
loaded into the compensation or LMS modules. This approach suits organizations that
update data weekly or monthly.

- Integration middleware

Middleware platforms (such as ESB or iPaaS) act as intermediaries to manage data

connections, mappings, transformations, and access permissions.
“The linkage of its financial and human resource modules through one database is the
most important distinction from earlier standalone systems.” (HRIS Unit1, n.d.)

- Manual export/import

In smaller organizations or early implementation stages, data can be exported from

the PM system (in CSV/Excel format) and imported manually into the Compensation
Module or LMS. Although simple, this method introduces significant delays and risks
to data quality.

3.4. Key data integration risks

The following table summarizes the major risks when integrating PM system data
with compensation module and LMS:

19
 Risk Description Impact

Data latency Data updates are delayed when Compensation and training
using ETL or manual imports. decisions may be outdated,
reducing timeliness and
effectiveness.

Inconsistent Different systems use varying Inaccurate course

data formats, codes, or rating scales recommendations or bonus
(e.g. competency codes in PM calculations; HR decisions
System not matching LMS). become unreliable.

Data mapping Data objects are not correctly Records may be missing or
errors mapped between systems. assigned to the wrong
employee, reducing data
reliability.

Integration API or middleware connection Data loss or corrupted

failure breakdowns, or manual data entry transmission, disrupting HR
errors. processes.

Security & Sensitive performance and Information leaks or privacy

access risks compensation data transferred breaches, damaging employee
insecurely. trust and compliance.

Integrating data between the PM system, compensation module, and LMS within
an HRIS delivers strategic advantages such as improved decision-making on pay and
employee development. However, success depends on the integration mechanism and
risk management quality. “Integration allows for seamless data flow between different
HR systems, reducing the risk of data discrepancies and errors.” (15Five Blog, 2025)

20
 Therefore, organizations should choose an appropriate mechanism (API, ETL, or
middleware) and establish strong data governance policies to minimize latency,
inconsistency, and mapping issues.

4. Context specialist (Cultural challenges)

One of the most significant cultural barriers in implementing Continuous

Performance Management (CPM) in certain Asian contexts lies in the “saving face”
culture. In such environments, both employees and managers tend to avoid providing
constructive or negative feedback for fear of causing embarrassment, damaging
relationships, or facing subtle retaliation. As a result, feedback often becomes overly
positive, vague, and insincere-reducing the effectiveness and credibility of the CPM
process.

The same challenge becomes even more pronounced in 360-degree feedback

systems. Employees are often reluctant to evaluate their peers or supervisors honestly
because they worry about straining interpersonal relationships within their department.
Even though most HRIS platforms support anonymity, employees’ trust in these
systems is often low. In small departments, identities can still be inferred, creating
psychological barriers that discourage truthful assessments.

Another common challenge is conflict avoidance, which leads to a lack of open

dialogue. Regular check-ins-intended to be candid discussions about performance,
obstacles, and development-often turn into routine status updates. Managers may shy
away from difficult conversations about underperformance, preferring to maintain
harmony. Similarly, when assigning performance ratings, many managers inflate scores
(“rating inflation”) to avoid conflict, preserve employee satisfaction, or escape
uncomfortable debates. This distorts HRIS data and undermines fairness in pay and
reward decisions.

A third issue is the tendency to focus on process rather than results.

Employees and managers may prioritize completing HRIS forms and meeting check-in
deadlines over evaluating whether those actions truly contribute to organizational goals.
As a result, performance management data becomes skewed: activity logging is
complete, but the recorded outcomes and impact remain weak. For example, managers
might track that an employee worked eight hours per day but fail to assess whether those
hours actually drove measurable progress toward company objectives.

Short-Term Solution Proposals

- Feedback Training

21
 For managers, feedback training should emphasize constructive communication
using models such as SBI-I (Situation, Behavior, Impact, Intention/Next Step)
or FEED (Focus on behavior, Ensure understanding, Explain impact, Discuss
next steps). Managers must learn to separate behaviors from personal attributes
to avoid judgmental tones. They should also work to reduce power distance by
actively requesting feedback from subordinates, practicing active listening, and
using open-ended questions to create a psychologically safe environment where
employees feel comfortable sharing candid opinions.

For employees, training should focus on giving work-related feedback rather

than personal criticism. Role-playing exercises can help employees practice
offering constructive feedback in realistic scenarios without fear of negative
repercussions. Additionally, employees should be trained in “feedback-on-
feedback” (meta-feedback) skills-learning to pause before reacting emotionally,
clarify specific points in negative feedback, and collaboratively identify
actionable next steps for improvement.

- Strengthening Trust in Anonymity

To enhance participation in 360-degree feedback, it is crucial to ensure absolute
anonymity. HRIS systems must be configured to prevent any traceability of
individual evaluators, especially in small teams. Transparent communication
about data confidentiality is essential to build trust and encourage employees to
give objective and detailed feedback.
- Pilot Project Implementation
Rather than launching company-wide immediately, organizations should pilot
CPM in departments with more open and adaptable cultures-such as Technology,
Marketing, or younger, smaller teams. The goal is to create internal success
stories, learn from real implementation experiences, refine the system, and use
these successful cases to persuade more traditional departments to embrace
change.

5. Case researcher Vinamilk

5.1. Performance Management Philosophy

Vinamilk applies a KPI-based system combined with the Balanced Scorecard

(BSC) to align individual and departmental goals with corporate strategy. According to
the 2023 Annual Report, the BSC framework focuses on financial, operational, and
managerial targets. Recent HR reports indicate a shift toward continuous feedback, with
monthly check-ins between employees and supervisors to track progress, provide

22
coaching, and identify development needs. While KPI remains the core tool, Vinamilk’s
philosophy is gradually evolving into a more agile and feedback-driven approach.

5.2. HRIS Platform and Integration

Vinamilk uses an integrated HRIS/ERP system, reportedly including Oracle E-

Business Suite and digital dashboards, to manage performance, employee data, and KPI
tracking. The system supports centralized reporting and analytics. Although public
information on full module integration is limited, the HRIS appears to link at least
partially with Learning Management (LMS) and Compensation modules, allowing
alignment between performance evaluation and rewards or development plans.

5.3. Use of 360° Feedback

360° feedback is implemented primarily for managerial and leadership roles,

incorporating assessments from supervisors, peers, and direct reports. Non-managerial
employees are mainly evaluated via KPIs and manager appraisals. The combination of
annual evaluations and monthly progress check-ins reflects a hybrid approach that
balances structured assessment with ongoing feedback.

5.4. Link Between Performance Management and Compensation/L&D

Performance results at Vinamilk are directly connected to compensation and

bonuses, with ratings guiding both salary increases and promotion decisions. High
performers are also identified for training programs and individual development plans
(IDPs), linking PM outcomes with career growth. Although the exact technical
integration within HRIS for automatic mapping from PM scores to compensation or

23
learning programs is not fully public, the conceptual framework ensures that
performance data drives strategic HR decisions.

5.5. Evaluation Cycle and Workflow

Vinamilk’s evaluation cycle includes:

- Goal setting: Employees define KPIs aligned with departmental objectives.

- Monthly check-ins: Progress is reviewed and recorded in the HRIS.

- Mid-year review: Supervisors discuss performance and development needs.

Annual appraisal: Final ratings determine bonuses, promotions, and
development plans.

Category Key Information Source

PM Model KPI + BSC Vinamilk Annual Report

2023

Feedback Monthly check-ins, partial Internal HR news, 2024

360°

HRIS Platform Oracle EBS + dashboards; IT & HR Press Releases,

partial LMS & 2023–2024
Compensation integration

Evaluation Cycle Annual + Mid-year + HR Process Guide, 2024

Continuous feedback

Compensation Link Performance-based HR policy reports

bonuses, salary, and
development

5.6. Comparison with FPT Corporation

When comparing Vinamilk and FPT Corporation, key differences emerge.

Vinamilk applies a structured KPI/BSC model, uses monthly check-ins and partial 360°
feedback, and links performance results directly to compensation and development. Its
HRIS/ERP system centralizes data for monitoring and reporting, though full integration
of LMS and compensation modules is not fully public.

24
 FPT, as a technology company, emphasizes continuous learning, skill
development, and talent rotation. While the company promotes a learning-oriented
culture and competency-based evaluation, detailed public information on HRIS
systems, KPI frameworks, or 360° feedback is limited. Mapping from PM data to
compensation is less explicitly documented, though employee development and career
progression are strongly emphasized.

Overall, Vinamilk demonstrates a structured, production-focused PM system

with emerging continuous feedback, while FPT represents a flexible, learning-driven
organization that prioritizes talent development and adaptability. Vinamilk could
further enhance alignment with technology-sector practices by strengthening
continuous learning, faster feedback loops, and deeper HRIS integration connecting
PM, compensation, and L&D.

6. Case Researcher FPT

FPT Software is a software company under FPT Corporation, providing
technology services to global partners across multiple areas, including
telecommunications, automotive, finance, manufacturing, and healthcare. FPT
Software is currently using the vision to be "the leading technology company in Asia"
with branches in the US, Japan, Germany, South Korea, Australia, and many other
countries.

To ensure effective management with its large team of global software engineers,
FPT Software proactively planned and implemented internal systems such as the HRIS
system and used the selected HR toolsets, including MyFPT, Welcome, eLearning, iHR,
[Link], and SAP SuccessFactors in key markets.

The [Link] Digital HR Ecosystem is a digital human resource management

system to help businesses move from a manual way of managing human resources, to a
modern, smart, and efficient human resource management model. Included in the
solution are a full set of 13 modules ranging from recruitment, time attendance, payroll,
training, evaluation, and other areas as well as insurance. [Link] helps to digitalize
up to 95% of HR processes and includes flexible options for customization for each
type of business.

With the capability for deep integration with the FPT ecosystem (AI, RPA,
eLearning, etc.), fast deployment, and optimized cost, iHRP is a trusted choice for
hundreds of large enterprises such as Masan, Sacombank, and GELEX.

25
 Picture 6-1: Interface and Software Model of [Link] (Source: FPT)

FPT IS has implemented the Objectives and Key Results (OKR) management
method as a new strategic tool. OKR is used to promote enthusiastic work, continuous
creativity, and innovation within the corporation. OKR does not completely replace
KPIs, but rather complements them by providing direction, purpose, and context for top
priorities. The relationship between OKR and KPI is not mutually exclusive but
complementary. Most organizations, including FPT IS, benefit from using both models.

OKR is utilized for long-term or quarterly strategic planning, and is typically

cascaded from the organizational level down to the team and individual levels in a
pyramidal structure. The [Link] system supports the construction of a KPI system
for analyzing and evaluating business performance and monitoring the entire system..

Crucial for an HRIS like [Link] is the ability to systematically handle goal
linking. OKRs must operate within a cascaded structure (e.g., departmental and
individual OKRs aligning with the overall organizational objective). Furthermore, the
system must support OKR scoring calculation, where a score of 0.6–0.7 is considered a
safe range indicating the plan is on track, and 1.0 represents full completion of the
objective. This technical capability requires [Link] to ensure both Vertical
Alignment and automatic score calculation-a complex requirement aimed at
transforming strategic objectives into measurable and real-time trackable results.

Goal Setting and Planning Module

26
 In a modern performance management system, goal setting is not a strict top-
down procedure, but rather a collaborative process between managers and employees.
[Link] digitalizes this process, enabling online processes that include suggestion,
review, and approval. This digitalization helps save time, cost, and resources in human
resource management.

The detailed planning capability of [Link] doesn't just stop at setting general
objectives; it also supports strategic planning and goal setting for each department based
on an integrated competency assessment system. This ensures that the goals established
are not only ambitious but also feasible, grounded in the actual capabilities of the team.

Picture 6-2: Các phân hệ tính năng của hệ thống quản trị nhân sự [Link]
(Source: FPT IS)

Implementing Continuous Performance Management

[Link] is equipped with a 360-degree employee evaluation Module. The

360-degree review, also known as multi-rater feedback, is a crucial development tool
that provides a more comprehensive picture of an employee's performance, skills, and
workplace behavior. It collects feedback from multiple sources: self-assessment, peers,
subordinates, and supervisors. The integration of the 360-degree module into [Link]
demonstrates the system's evolution from a traditional (top-down) evaluation tool to a
comprehensive talent development instrument.

For this data to be valuable, the system must be designed to process complex
data from multiple raters, ensure the anonymity of the surveys, and integrate with an

27
online approval workflow to formalize the results. This capability supports making
data-backed decisions and creating clear Individual Development Plans (IDPs) for
employee

Picture 6-3: Dashboard System (Source: chuyendoisovn)

Linking Performance to Compensation and Rewards

The alignment between performance and compensation is a core strategic

function of an HRIS. [Link] not only includes the Salary/Bonus/ESOP module but
is also an open system, allowing users to create 'dynamic salary formulas'.

The dynamic salary formula feature is a high technical requirement, allowing the
system to utilize performance variables (e.g., KPI/OKR scores, end-of-period review
results) as inputs to automatically calculate variable compensation, bonuses, or ESOPs.
FPT IS rewarding individuals and units who complete OKR cycles is a clear example
of objective results being directly linked to reward mechanisms. This capability helps
ensure that the system formalizes the Pay-for-Performance model, increasing
transparency and fairness while driving motivation through a direct connection between
effort and reward.

28
 Integration with Training and Development Systems

Another critical function of digital performance management is creating a

closed-loop system between evaluation and development. The [Link] system
supports the training function (Training & E-learning) and is integrated with the
[Link] system.

Performance data is utilized to identify individual skill gaps. These gaps are then
converted into training needs. This allows the enterprise to personalize learning
pathways, implement training initiatives (upskilling, reskilling) to maintain the pace of
digital transformation and workforce development. In this way, [Link] is not merely
an administrative tool but also a Talent Development Management tool, helping to
establish a career path and nurture the successor pipeline.

7. Synthesis Specialist
Table 7: Process & data flow analysis map
NO. Stage Elements Vinamilk FPT Software

1 Planning Entities • Employees • Employees

• Line Managers • Line Managers
• HR Department • HR Department
• Corporate Strategy Unit • Corporate Planning Division
• Oracle HRIS (E-Business • [Link] Digital HR
Suite) Ecosystem

Processes • Translate corporate strategy • Define OKRs (Objectives and

into Balanced Scorecard Key Results) from corporate to
(BSC) metrics. team and individual levels.
• Departments set KPIs • Collaborative goal setting
aligned with BSC goals. between employees and
• Employees define individual managers.
KPIs with manager review. • Cascading OKRs through
• Final KPI plans approved iHRP system.
and entered into HRIS. • System automatically
calculates alignment and
weighting.

29
 Data • Corporate BSC objectives • Corporate strategic OKRs
Sources • Departmental KPIs • Department/Team OKRs
• Job descriptions • Competency database
• Historical performance data • Previous performance and
skill data

Data Flow Strategy → Department KPIs Corporate OKRs → Team

→ Individual KPIs → Oracle OKRs → Individual OKRs →
HRIS Database iHRP System (auto-sync)

Tools / Oracle E-Business Suite (KPI [Link] Goal Setting Module

Integration module, dashboard) (integrated with competency &
planning modules)

Remarks Structured top-down Collaborative and automated

approach; KPI entry partially cascading ensures alignment
manual. and transparency.

2 Monitoring Entities • Employees • Employees• Managers

• Managers • Peers & Subordinates
• HRBPs • iHRP 360° Feedback Module
• Oracle Dashboard • BI Dashboard

Processes • Monthly check-ins between • Continuous OKR progress

employee and supervisor. updates in real time.
• Update KPI progress in • Full 360° feedback collection
HRIS. from peers, subordinates, and
• Limited 360° feedback managers.
(managers only). • Automatic progress scoring
and notifications.

Data • Monthly KPI update forms • OKR progress entries

Sources • Manager feedback • Multi-rater feedback data
• Attendance & performance • AI-based analytics
logs

Data Flow Employee input → Manager Employee OKR input → 360°

validation → Oracle feedback → iHRP → BI
dashboard dashboard

30
 Tools / Oracle dashboards + Excel iHRP Continuous Performance
Integration files (limited automation) Module integrated with AI 360°
Feedback & Power BI

Remarks Manual entry; feedback Fully digital feedback; real-

collected offline, entered later. time analytics and alerts.

3 Evaluation Entities • Managers • Managers

• Employees • Employees
• HR Department • HR Department
• Compensation Team • Compensation & L&D
• Oracle HRIS Modules in iHRP

Processes • Mid-year and annual KPI • Quarterly and annual OKR

appraisals evaluations.
.• Calculate weighted KPI • Combine OKR, 360°, and
scores. competency data.
• Ratings approved and sent to • Automatic score calculation
HR for compensation (0.6–1.0 range).
decisions. • Approval via digital
workflow.

Data • KPI result sheets • OKR scores

Sources • Supervisor evaluations • 360° feedback
• HRIS records • Competency assessment data

Data Flow Employee & Manager input OKR/360°/Competency data →

→ Oracle appraisal module → AI scoring engine → iHRP →
HR validation → Compensation & LMS modules
Compensation module

Tools / Oracle EBS appraisal module iHRP AI Scoring + Automated

Integration (semi-automated) Workflow

Remarks Manual consolidation, End-to-end automation;

moderate system automation. transparent scoring and
approval trail.

31
4 Results Entities • HR Department • HR Department
• Compensation & Rewards • Compensation, Rewards &
Unit L&D Units
• L&D Department • Executives
• Top Management

Processes • Generate final ratings and • Calculate bonuses and ESOPs

reports. via dynamic salary formula.
• Link performance results to • Auto-assign learning paths in
pay and promotion decisions. [Link].
• Identify high-potential • Generate BI analytics
employees. dashboards.
• Use data for learning needs • Feed data back into corporate
analysis (manual). OKR planning.

Data • KPI results • Final OKR/360° data

Sources • Compensation & promotion • Salary/Bonus/ESOP modules
history • LMS data
• Training needs (IDP forms)

Data Flow HRIS (performance results) → iHRP (OKR/360° results) →

Compensation → LMS Compensation & eLearning →
(manual entry) → Strategic BI Dashboard → Strategy
Report Feedback

Tools / Oracle HRIS + LMS (manual [Link] + eLearning + BI

Integration linkage) (fully integrated closed loop)

Remarks Semi-automated; disconnected Fully connected ecosystem

data flows between HRIS and enabling real-time strategy–
LMS. performance–learning cycle.

8. Comparative analysis specialist

8.1. Compare the differences between the two companies

From the data in the tasks above, below is a quick comparison table between the
two companies Vinamilk and FPT:

32
 Aspect Vinamilk FPT

PM Model KPI + BSC OKR + KPI

Evaluation Annual + Mid-year + Continuous / quarterly OKR

frequency Continuous feedback cycles + ongoing check-ins

HRIS platform Oracle EBS + dashboards; [Link] + SAP

partial LMS & Compensation SuccessFactors; modules
integration OKR/KPI, 360, Salary/Bonus,
LMS

Feedback Monthly check-ins, partial 360° Broad, anonymized, system-

wide 360° feedback

Link to Performance-based bonuses, Dynamic salary formulas:

compensation salary, and development OKR/KPI score

Vinamilk applies the KPI model combined with BSC, a traditional system
suitable for the characteristics of consumer goods manufacturing and the goal of stable
and efficient operations. The KPI structure is designed from the company level down
to departments and individuals, ensuring vertical alignment between strategy and
execution. However, this system tends to measure quantitative results and pays little
attention to behavioral competencies or innovative initiatives. Recently, Vinamilk has
begun to introduce elements of continuous feedback and mid-year evaluation to soften
the “static” nature of the KPI system, but its core philosophy remains control and
adherence to production goals. In contrast, FPT implements the OKR model combined
with KPI, in which OKR plays the role of strategic orientation, while KPI is the
operational measurement tool. FPT chooses this approach to promote creativity,
flexibility, and a “self-driven” culture among its technology engineers. The OKR model
requires employees to proactively set quarterly objectives and key results, reflecting a
dynamic and open organizational culture that encourages continuous feedback. As a
result, FPT shifts its focus from control to development and innovation, while Vinamilk
remains inclined toward operational efficiency and process compliance.

Vinamilk maintains a performance review cycle that combines both periodic and
continuous evaluations, including: annual KPI setting, monthly check-ins, mid-year
reviews, and year-end summaries. In theory, adding check-ins is meant to enhance
regular feedback; however, in practice, these sessions often function more as “status
reporting” rather than genuine discussions about performance or capability
development. This reflects the traditional organizational culture, where employees are
hesitant to give feedback to superiors or openly express real difficulties. FPT, on the

33
other hand, adopts a Continuous Performance Management cycle aligned with its
quarterly OKR framework. Check - ins are conducted regularly on a monthly or sprint
basis, involving two-way discussions about progress, risks, and goal adjustments. The
implementation of OKRs fosters a continuous “learn - experiment - adjust” rhythm,
suitable for a technology company that operates in a rapidly changing environment.
From this comparison, it can be seen that Vinamilk’s performance management system
excels in stability and procedural transparency but lacks the flexibility to adapt to
change. Meanwhile, FPT’s system has the potential to drive real performance through
rapid feedback and ongoing goal adjustment. However, its effectiveness still depends
on the discipline of execution and the coaching capability of middle managers - factors
that can weaken as the organization scales up.

Vinamilk uses Oracle EBS combined with internal dashboards to manage HR

and performance data. This system offers high reliability in terms of security,
accounting standards, and data analytics, making it suitable for large-scale enterprises.
However, EBS mainly serves administrative management, with partial integration into
Compensation or LMS modules, and has not yet achieved a fully functional “digital
feedback loop.” Performance management data within the HRIS currently serves as
input for compensation decisions but has not been fully leveraged to generate IDP
suggestions or automated training recommendations. In contrast, FPT owns a self-
developed digital HR ecosystem - [Link], which can deeply integrate with other
systems such as eLearning, AI, RPA, and SAP SuccessFactors. It is an open and
modular platform, consisting of more than 13 subsystems (recruitment, payroll,
training, evaluation, insurance,...). Notably, [Link] enables the creation of dynamic
salary formulas - meaning performance data (KPI/OKR) can automatically feed into
bonus or ESOP calculations. This system clearly reflects FPT’s philosophy of “eating
its own HR tech”, serving as proof of how a technology enterprise leverages internal
tools to optimize management. Therefore, it can be seen that Vinamilk’s HRIS still
functions primarily as an administrative ERP focused on compliance and data storage,
whereas [Link] operates as a strategic HR platform that proactively connects
performance, compensation, and learning data.

Vinamilk has only implemented 360° feedback at the management and

leadership levels, while regular employees are mainly evaluated by their superiors and
quantitative KPIs. Although the HRIS supports multi-source feedback, employees’ trust
in anonymity and data security remains low, especially in small teams, leading to
formalistic feedback, more praise than constructive comments. Moreover, a “conflict-
avoidant” culture makes managers hesitant to provide negative feedback or discuss
improvements, resulting in rating inflation becoming common. On the other hand, FPT
integrates a 360 degree feedback module directly into the iHRP system, with the ability
to process data from multiple sources (self, peer, subordinate, manager) while ensuring

34
automatic anonymity. A young, flat, and results-oriented work environment makes 360°
feedback more feasible. Additionally, OKR check-ins serve as natural opportunities for
rapid feedback, rather than waiting until the end of year review.

At Vinamilk, performance evaluation results (KPI/BSC, mid-year, and annual

appraisal) are used as the main basis for deciding salary, bonuses, and promotions. This
reflects the “Pay for Performance” philosophy, linking work results directly to financial
rewards. However, the technical integration from the Oracle EBS to compensation
calculations is not fully automated, most processes still rely on manual or semi-
automated approvals. This means that while PM data is used for compensation
decisions, transparency and feedback speed are not fully optimized, and results can be
affected by rating inflation. Unlike Vinamilk, at FPT, OKR/KPI results are
automatically processed by the iHRP HRIS to calculate bonuses, variable pay, and
ESOP through dynamic salary formulas. This ensures a direct, transparent, and timely
link between performance and financial rewards while minimizing distortions caused
by subjective evaluation. As a result, employees can clearly see the relationship between
effort and outcomes, enhancing motivation and encouraging timely achievement of
goals. Both companies use performance management results as the basis for
compensation decisions, but Vinamilk primarily relies on manual or semi-automated
processes, whereas FPT achieves automation, transparency, and tighter linkage thanks
to technical integration within the HRIS. Vinamilk’s conflict-avoidant and face-saving
culture can soften evaluations, directly impacting salary and bonus allocation. In
contrast, FPT’s open culture and strong technical mechanisms make the connection
between PM and compensation more substantive.

8.2. Assess whether their system truly drives performance or is merely administrative

The current PM system at Vinamilk has a very clear structure: KPI + BSC,
monthly check-ins, mid-year review, and year-end appraisal. Administratively, the
system operates efficiently: all data is recorded in the HRIS, reports are easy to track,
and they support decisions on salary, bonuses, and promotions. However, its actual
effectiveness in driving behavior and improving productivity is limited. The main
reason is that feedback is often formal and lacks honesty, as employees hesitate to
provide negative comments, managers avoid conflicts, and the phenomenon of rating
inflation makes it difficult to distinguish clearly between high and average performers.
The system helps manage performance procedurally but does not genuinely motivate
innovation, proactive problem-solving, or individual productivity improvement. At
FPT, the PM system (iHRP + OKR + KPI + 360° feedback) is designed to drive real
performance. Continuous processes, two-way feedback, multi-source evaluation, and
automatic reward calculation allow employees to clearly see the link between work
results and rewards. Additionally, PM data is used for Individual Development Plans

35
(IDP) and continuous goal adjustment. Therefore, the system is not just an
administrative tool but also has a real behavioral impact: employees act proactively, and
managers monitor progress and adjust strategies in a timely manner. However, ultimate
effectiveness still depends on a culture that accepts feedback, employees’ willingness
to be transparent, and their ability to use technology. Currently, Vinamilk leans toward
administration and data management, while FPT focuses on driving performance and
capability development, but both are influenced by human factors and implementation
culture.

One of the key factors explaining the difference in PM effectiveness between

Vinamilk and FPT is the “saving face” culture. At Vinamilk, employees and managers
tend to avoid situations that might cause someone to “lose face,” which reduces the
quality of constructive feedback, especially negative feedback. Even when the HRIS
supports anonymity, employees still fear being identified in small teams, resulting in
formalistic feedback and rating inflation. Consequently, PM data does not accurately
reflect actual capabilities, reducing its effectiveness in motivating employees and
improving productivity. In contrast, FPT has a young tech-oriented culture, low power
distance, and strong anonymity mechanisms in iHRP, which reduce face-saving risks
and foster honest feedback, making PM data more accurate.

Conflict avoidance is another factor leading to different PM outcomes. At

Vinamilk, managers and superiors often avoid direct discussions about poor
performance, turning monthly check-ins into general status reports rather than
improvement dialogues. Employees are also less proactive in raising issues or
suggesting improvements. As a result, continuous feedback and 360° feedback
mechanisms are underutilized, and the PM system remains primarily administrative. In
contrast, FPT’s flat and open culture encourages candid discussions, combined with
anonymity in 360° feedback, the collected data accurately reflects capabilities and
behaviors, allowing employees and managers to discuss challenges and solutions,
making PM data actionable and impactful.

Another important difference is the focus on process versus outcomes. At

Vinamilk, management tends to prioritize completing check-ins and forms on time
rather than focusing on actual impact and results. While the HRIS records all activities,
outcome data lacks differentiation, limiting PM’s ability to drive real performance.
Conversely, at FPT, the iHRP system combined with OKRs is outcome-oriented,
measuring data based on strategic goal achievement and continuous feedback, creating
a learning and adjustment loop. When combined with an open culture, this mechanism
allows the PM to truly influence behavior, enhance performance, and foster innovation.

36
 Although both companies implement HRIS and modern evaluation tools, their
practical effectiveness differs significantly. Vinamilk is constrained by traditional
culture, leading to formalistic feedback and administratively focused PM data, while
FPT leverages technical mechanisms and an open culture, enabling PM to genuinely
drive behavior, productivity, and work effectiveness.

9. Consultant & recommendation specialist

Based on the comparative analysis of Vinamilk and FPT, several
recommendations are proposed to enhance the effectiveness of their Performance
Management (PM) systems. The goal is to help both companies move beyond an
administrative approach and build a performance-driven, feedback-oriented, and
development-focused culture.

For Vinamilk, the first recommendation is to gradually modernize its

performance framework by integrating OKR principles alongside the existing KPI and
BSC system. While the current KPI-based structure ensures stability and alignment, it
limits flexibility and innovation. Introducing team-based OKRs, especially in
departments such as R&D or marketing, can encourage employees to set more
ambitious goals and collaborate across functions. This hybrid model would help
Vinamilk balance operational efficiency with creativity and adaptability in a fast-
changing business environment. Secondly, Vinamilk should focus on strengthening its
feedback culture. Currently, monthly check-ins often serve as status reporting rather
than genuine performance conversations. To address this, managers should be trained
to conduct coaching-style feedback sessions that emphasize development, reflection,
and problem-solving. The HR department can create a standardized feedback playbook
and integrate it into the HRIS system, allowing these sessions to be recorded and
tracked. Over time, this will improve the quality of feedback, reduce rating inflation,
and enhance employee trust in the PM process.

Another key recommendation for Vinamilk is to upgrade its HRIS integration.

Although Oracle EBS provides strong administrative functions, it currently lacks
advanced analytics and automation. The company could consider adding an AI-based
analytics layer that generates insights such as skill gaps, Individual Development Plans
(IDPs), and personalized training recommendations. This transformation would turn
Vinamilk’s HRIS into a more proactive and data-driven system that supports strategic
talent decisions rather than merely recording performance data. Cultural factors also
play a significant role in the effectiveness of Vinamilk’s PM system. Therefore, the
company should address cultural barriers such as the “face-saving” mindset through
communication campaigns, workshops, and anonymous pulse surveys. Encouraging
open dialogue and recognizing constructive feedback as a positive behavior will
gradually foster a culture of transparency and learning. As employees become more
37
comfortable giving and receiving honest feedback, PM data will better reflect true
performance levels, enabling fairer and more motivating evaluation outcomes.

For FPT, which already has a dynamic and technology-driven PM system, the
focus should shift from structure to consistency and depth of implementation. One
recommendation is to strengthen managerial coaching capabilities. Although the OKR
and 360° feedback mechanisms provide transparency, the impact largely depends on
how effectively managers guide and support their teams. Implementing a “Manager as
Coach” program that offers toolkits, peer learning sessions, and progress tracking can
ensure that feedback remains consistent and meaningful across departments.

Additionally, FPT should further utilize its advanced HRIS, [Link], by

leveraging PM data to create personalized learning paths. Integrating OKR/KPI results
and 360° feedback into the LMS can generate automated IDPs tailored to each
employee’s strengths and development needs. This approach not only enhances
continuous learning but also strengthens the connection between performance outcomes
and capability growth, aligning individual development with business goals. Finally, as
FPT continues to digitalize its PM process, it is essential to maintain a human-centered
approach. Excessive reliance on data and automation might reduce the emotional
connection between employees and their leaders. Therefore, the company should
complement digital dashboards with periodic development dialogues, allowing
employees to reflect on both results and personal growth. This balance between
technology and empathy will help sustain engagement and prevent the process from
becoming purely mechanical.

In conclusion, both Vinamilk and FPT have valuable strengths in their PM

systems that can be further developed. Vinamilk can learn from FPT’s agility, openness,
and technological integration, while FPT can benefit from Vinamilk’s structured KPI
discipline to maintain accountability during expansion. By adopting these
recommendations, both organizations can evolve their PM processes from
“performance administration” to “performance enablement.” This transformation will
not only improve operational efficiency but also enhance motivation, learning, and
innovation, ultimately making performance management a true driver of organizational
success.

38
 CONCLUSION
In summary, the integration of Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS)
into Performance Management (PM) represents a transformative shift from traditional,
administrative approaches toward a data-driven, agile, and developmental model.
Through the analysis of theoretical frameworks, HRIS functionalities, cultural contexts,
and case studies of Vinamilk and FPT, this report highlights how technology and culture
jointly determine the success of PM implementation.

Continuous Performance Management (CPM), when supported by robust HRIS

platforms, enables organizations to align goals dynamically, provide real-time
feedback, and link performance outcomes directly with compensation and learning
systems. However, its effectiveness depends heavily on managerial capability,
employee trust, and cultural readiness. The “saving face” culture and conflict avoidance
prevalent in many Asian contexts remain significant barriers, often leading to
formalistic feedback and inflated evaluations. Overcoming these challenges requires
deliberate training, strong communication, and a sustained effort to build transparency
and psychological safety within organizations.

The comparative cases of Vinamilk and FPT demonstrate two ends of the PM
maturity spectrum. Vinamilk’s structured KPI–BSC model ensures consistency and
control but remains largely administrative, while FPT’s integrated OKR–KPI system
within iHRP reflects a more agile, feedback-oriented, and learning-driven approach.
Both systems offer valuable lessons: the former underscores the importance of
governance and reliability, while the latter exemplifies innovation and real-time
adaptability.

Ultimately, effective performance management lies not only in technological

capability but also in cultural transformation and leadership behavior. By combining
structured systems with open communication, continuous feedback, and development-
focused practices, organizations can transform HRIS from a record-keeping tool into a
strategic enabler of engagement, growth, and sustainable performance.

39
40
41