In this week’s episode of the HR Digitalization Podcast, we explore the everyday challenges of digital transformation—where success isn’t always about chasing new systems but rather optimizing the ones we already have. Guests Anette Mattsson, Unit Coordinator for HR and Finance, and Erika Forsberg, Business Developer in IT, share their experiences from a major change project at Sveriges Radio: the Master Data Project.
The project was initiated after a survey revealed that managers were dissatisfied with the functionality of HR systems, especially during onboarding. Information had to be entered multiple times, systems didn’t communicate well, and the entire process was unnecessarily complicated. The solution? A cross-functional collaboration between HR, IT, and Communications to simplify and streamline processes—without purchasing new systems.
By consolidating all employee data into one system and integrating it with other platforms, they successfully reduced administrative work and improved the user experience for managers.
This episode highlights that successful digitalization isn’t always about finding new solutions—it’s sometimes about strengthening the ones you already have. Curious about how they did it? Tune in to the episode and get inspired by their journey!
Note: This episode is in Swedish. A translated transcript is available below.
Transcription:
Anna Carlsson: In many of the podcast's episodes, I invite guests who are at the forefront—people exploring new solutions and paving the way for the future of work. But sometimes, we need to pause and highlight questions that are just as important but might not always receive the same attention: the fundamental conditions required for digitalization to truly succeed.
Today, we’re focusing on these everyday challenges. It’s about identifying what isn’t working, adjusting and optimizing what already exists, rather than constantly chasing new systems or solutions. Sometimes, the most powerful step is to dig where you stand and create a solid foundation for the future.
To illustrate this, I have two guests from Sveriges Radio with me: Anette Mattsson, who is a unit coordinator in the HR and Finance department, and Erika Forsberg, who is a business developer within IT. They will share their experiences from a major transformation project called the "Master Data Project," which I would rather call an onboarding project.
Anette and Erika will talk about how they not only improved managers' experience with digital systems—especially when onboarding new employees—but also created a new culture of cross-functional collaboration.
Their work demonstrates that success often lies in strengthening the existing structures and building from a stable foundation rather than starting from scratch.
Anna Carlsson: Welcome to the HR Digitalization Podcast!
Anette Mattsson: Thank you!
Erika Forsberg: Thank you so much! Great to be here!
Anna Carlsson: Today, we’re going to talk about a project you have worked on together. It’s called the "Master Data Project," but sometimes I feel like that name might be a bit misleading once I understand what you’re actually doing. But we can discuss that later and see if we should call it something else for the listeners. I’m not sure, but let’s start by having you introduce yourselves. So, who wants to go first?
Anette Mattsson: I can go first. My name is Anette Mattsson, and I’m a unit coordinator in the HR and Finance department at Sveriges Radio. Right now, I’m also acting head of something called HR Tech, which deals with technical systems but from an HR perspective. Additionally, I’m the acting head of the payroll department since our payroll manager left. On top of that, I coordinate "Ask HR."
"Ask HR" is our entry point to HR, making it easy for employees to find the right support regardless of the question or assistance they need from HR.
Anna Carlsson: That’s exciting! Many of the listeners of this podcast probably have a role in HR Tech, so you’re in good company.
Anette Mattsson: Thank you!
Anna Carlsson: I saw that you’ve been at Sveriges Radio for quite a long time.
Anette Mattsson: Yes, I’ve been at Sveriges Radio for a very long time. I’ve been there since 2008 and have previously worked as both HR Manager and Payroll Manager, as well as with technical systems. My background is actually in engineering—I’m a high school engineer and worked as a service engineer many, many years ago, which is why I also have a technical background.
Anna Carlsson: That’s exactly what I was wondering—how did you end up here?
Anette Mattsson: That’s how it is.
Erika Forsberg: My name is Erika Forsberg, and I work as a business developer on the IT side within the IT unit at Sveriges Radio.
Anna Carlsson: I think you’re only the second IT person I’ve had on the podcast.
Erika Forsberg: Oh, interesting!
Anna Carlsson: In this particular setup, at least. And I’ve actually received questions about this before. It’s been a while, but people have asked for this dual perspective, so I’m really happy to have you here.
You both work at Sveriges Radio. Could one of you tell us a little bit about the organization? It’s easy to assume we know everything about it, but how is it actually structured?
Anette Mattsson: I’ll start by saying that Sveriges Radio, together with SVT and UR, is part of public service in Sweden, meaning we provide radio and TV in the public interest. I think most people already know that, but it’s good to clarify since it differentiates us from other radio and TV companies.
As for some numbers: Sveriges Radio has about 1,800 permanent employees, we are present in 50 locations across the country, and we have the largest foreign correspondent network in the Nordics, with 20 correspondents in different parts of the world.
Anna Carlsson: That has nothing to do with SVT?
Anette Mattsson: No, nothing to do with SVT.
Anna Carlsson: Right.
Anette Mattsson: These figures are just for the radio.
Anna Carlsson: And in terms of size, how big is the HR team, and how many managers are there? Do you have a sense of that?
Anette Mattsson: Yes, we have somewhere between 100 and 150 managers across Sveriges Radio at different levels and positions. The HR department consists of around 35–40 people, so it’s quite a large HR team.
Anna Carlsson: That’s interesting, especially since we’ll be talking a lot about the role of managers, so it’s helpful to know how many there are.
So, this project—what prompted you to start it? What’s the background?
Anette Mattsson: The reason we initiated this project was that HR conducted a survey with managers to measure their satisfaction with HR support. The results showed that when it came to direct HR support through "Ask HR," managers were very, very satisfied.
However, they were much less satisfied—or even dissatisfied—with the system support in various digital platforms. Especially when hiring new employees, managers found the process cumbersome. They had to enter the same personal data multiple times, the systems didn’t communicate with each other, and so on. So, that’s why we launched what we call the Master Data Project—to consolidate personal information. Master data can mean a lot of things, but in our case, it’s about personal information and ensuring it flows seamlessly between systems.
Anna Carlsson: Actually, I might call this… this is an area that you work with. It’s onboarding and offboarding, and this is everything. I would say that it is very high on the agenda for many organizations to want to improve things, but it’s complex because it’s not just HR. HR might be the one having the meeting with the new employee, the onboarding process. But this whole other "fluffy cloud" of all the other activities is something that is always a bit harder to get right and requires working in this way. But can you give examples of what types of activities and people were involved—those who might not be the most obvious ones?
Erika Forsberg: For example, the first thing I stepped into was communication. We needed to clarify the routines that existed for managers because it was quite unclear what steps they needed to take. So, we decided to make them clearer and publish them on our intranet. Then, we could continue working on each step in the routine to try to automate or improve them. That was a foundation we set.
Anette Matsson: You mentioned another workstream that wasn’t initially part of the project. We had a scheduling group, and one might wonder, what does scheduling have to do with this? It’s something used while working at the company on a daily basis. But for this scheduling group, it was very important to know early on about new employees so they could plan staffing in time, in accordance with our collective agreement rules, notice periods, and other requirements. That meant that this startup process—when someone joins—became crucial. It needed to move quickly from the decision to hire someone to actually having them scheduled in our planning system.
This wasn’t really about personal data in master data in that sense, but it was very important to ensure we didn’t delay the process of making new employees schedulable for this group. That’s why they became involved in our project. They were also working on improvements in their own scheduling process. So, our project kept growing, and more and more people got involved. It was great to have so many engaged, but also a bit daunting because it’s easier to keep track of things when there are only a few people involved.
Anna Carlsson: Yes, when it grows like that and has such a big impact on the entire organization, the choices and improvements you make become significant. But how did you decide what to do and who should be included? Did you act on every issue you identified in the survey, or did you conduct additional investigations? How did you get started in this way?
Anette Matsson: We actually did a very fundamental analysis of the workflows. We also continuously asked our steering group for guidelines. We presented proposals: Should we do this? Should we not? And with a certain timeframe in mind. We also assessed whether things were difficult or easy to implement, which helped us define clear boundaries.
We often had to say no—for instance, phone numbers for the switchboard were not included in this phase, just to give a concrete example. Even though that was also a need. Address lists for communication, for sending out various materials, were also not included at this stage. But we considered them for a later phase. If we had included every request that came up, I think we would have drowned, Erika.
Erika Forsberg: Yes, that was something we had to stay focused on. And how we chose what to prioritize—well, we had a set goal to simplify onboarding and offboarding for managers, and to ensure that data in the systems handling employee information was accurate. Based on that, we made our priorities.
We focused on delivering value to users as quickly as possible. For example, we decided to build upon existing systems. As Anette mentioned earlier, we felt there was a need to replace some systems, but we said, "Let’s start by making improvements where we can, and then we’ll take it further later on."
Anna Carlsson: How many systems were involved?
Erika Forsberg: The systems that require employee and employment data—I would say around 20. However, only certain systems require direct interaction from managers, such as when starting an employment contract, entering it into the HR system, ordering mobile phones and computers through the procurement system, or ordering access cards through a third system. Those are a few examples of the ones managers interact with the most.
Anna Carlsson: I just realized, at the beginning, we didn’t talk about when you started this and how long you’ve been working on it. Where are you in the process now?
Anette Matsson: It started in 2023. So, we worked for over a year before we really saw the first tangible effects of it.
Erika Forsberg: Wasn’t it 2022?
Anette Matsson: I think the survey was conducted in the fall of 2022, and then we officially started the project in 2023. The resources were allocated in the spring. That’s also when the steering group decided to actually go ahead with it. It wasn’t a given; it was a matter of prioritization.
Erika Forsberg: And there was some resistance, like, "We’ve done this before, and it didn’t work."
Anette Matsson: Yes.
Anna Carlsson: Okay.
Anette Matsson: We had made a couple of serious attempts before. One previous attempt ended with replacing a technical system—something I won’t go into depth on since I’m not a technical expert at that level. But in the end, that attempt didn’t lead to much beyond the system replacement. The benefits for users—meaning the managers—didn’t materialize with just a system change.
This time, the user perspective, meaning the managers' needs, has been much more of a guiding factor in our priorities. I can also mention that we followed an 80/20 principle. You can never solve everything, and if you start with the most complex cases, you won’t reach the finish line. So, we said, "If this solution works for 80% of the managers’ cases, then we go for it." The remaining 20% could still be handled manually in other ways. But if we could solve 80% of the cases through this change, that was enough for us to move forward.
Anna Carlsson: Yes, because it’s so easy to fall into the trap of wanting to solve everything. But you need to be clear on your goal—why are we doing this? If we improve things for the managers significantly, they will be very satisfied. So, now that you’ve rolled out many of these improvements, where do you stand in terms of that 80/20 and the "everything we’d like to do" list?
Erika Forsberg: We actually closed the project before the summer because we felt ready to hand it over to regular operations. We had established responsibilities for how the work would continue. Of course, there’s still a lot to do, but we have made a significant improvement.
For instance, managers now only need to update employee data in one system. We decided that the HR system would be the source of truth, ensuring consistency. Previously, there were discrepancies between systems, requiring a lot of time to reconcile data. We also improved ordering processes for things like computers.
Right now, we’re refining these workflows. During the fall, we noticed some teething issues—some cases where we hadn’t anticipated everything and needed to rethink certain things.
Anette Matsson: That’s how it is. You try to think of everything and draw beautiful system maps. Erika has drawn fantastic system maps and has incredible structure—I truly admire her for that. But even with all the knowledge we had in this project, there were things we hadn’t considered. You have to be humble about the fact that issues will arise.
When making decisions to go live, we said, "We haven’t thought of everything. We don’t know what we haven’t thought of. But we are confident that we can handle any issues that come up." So, we went ahead.
Anna Carlsson: That also builds trust within the organization—being open and humble about not knowing everything. That creates a different kind of work environment, where there’s trust in the process.
Erika Forsberg: Yes, especially within the project team. People feel safe taking one step at a time, knowing that if we miss something, we will fix it later.
Anna Carlsson: Which profiles did you have in the steering group? That’s always interesting. Did you get everyone you wanted? Maybe you did.
Anette Matsson: Yes.
Anna Carlsson: Lucky you. Maybe that was a silly question if you had said no.
Anette Matsson: The head of HR and the finance unit, who is also the HR director. And then we had...
Erika Forsberg: The finance director.
Anette Matsson: The finance director. And then we had someone from deputy...
Erika Forsberg: Deputy IT unit director.
Anette Matsson: Yes, we had the director. So those were the ones directly involved in the steering group.
Anna Carlsson: And how did they work? Was it through meetings, decision-making meetings, or did you have some kind of dialogue where you could ask questions and bring up issues outside of those meetings? Or were they just formal decision-making meetings? Those usually happen much less frequently than other types.
Anette Matsson: We were very strict with decision-making meetings, but we also provided informal updates to our respective teams. We report to different lines under these directors we’re discussing now. So, of course, there was a lot of informal dialogue. I personally had a lot of discussions with both the finance director and the head of HR and finance, who is also my direct manager, the HR director.
Anna Carlsson: So you lay the groundwork for those interactions. That’s why I wanted to ask because you should never go into running a project without keeping everyone continuously updated. The key is to keep them engaged and aware of where things stand so that they don’t feel left out along the way.
Anette Matsson: For me, especially with my HR director, it’s also important to explain what we are actually doing. It gets quite technical at times, and that can be challenging for someone with an HR background who hasn’t worked in technology before. I need help with that too, even though I have a technical background from earlier in my career. You need to explain things in different terms than you would in a decision-making meeting, so that the HR director also feels confident with the technical decisions being made. I imagine it’s the same for IT people trying to understand HR—it’s about seeing the bigger picture.
Anna Carlsson: Speaking of that, since you come from an IT background, has anything about HR, HR data, HR decisions, or processes surprised you?
Erika Forsberg: No, not really. It all seems quite straightforward. These are basic things that you would expect to work smoothly. It’s a simple process—a new employee starts, and they should have everything they need to do a good job.
Anna Carlsson: Yes, it sounds simple.
Erika Forsberg: The processes are more complex, though.
Anna Carlsson: But now let’s get to the results. What have you achieved? What have you actually done?
Anette Matsson: We now have HR Plus 8, which is our HR system, as the master data source for personnel information. That’s where managers need to go to make changes—not only for new hires but also for all the changes that occur throughout an employee’s lifecycle within the company, including terminations. And since everything is handled in one place, there’s no need to update multiple systems manually. However, you still need to order a computer, a mobile phone, and access to production tools. That’s something we can’t yet predict or extract automatically from the HR system.
Erika Forsberg: Not yet.
Anette Matsson: But we do have some ideas for the future.
Erika Forsberg: The key difference is that you now only need to enter data in one place. When ordering a computer, for example, you simply retrieve the existing data about the person. Previously, you had to manually enter their personal number, name, and other details again in that system.
Anna Carlsson: Yes, and that increases the risk of errors.
Erika Forsberg: Exactly. It’s easy to make mistakes, and it also takes extra time for the manager.
Anna Carlsson: So have you integrated the different systems?
Erika Forsberg: Yes, we’ve integrated the HR system with the ordering system, so there’s a continuous exchange of data.
Anna Carlsson: What about the payroll system?
Anette Matsson: Since we use HR Plus 8 for payroll as well, that integration was already in place. So we don’t have two separate systems there.
Anna Carlsson: Right. Because integrating payroll can be quite complex in a setup like this. So is the ordering system integrated with the other systems as well?
Erika Forsberg: Yes, exactly.
Anna Carlsson: You also mentioned earlier that you decided to include consultants in the system, even though they’re not employees. I assume that has simplified things too?
Erika Forsberg: Yes, now we can enter a start and end date for consultants. If their contract is extended, we just update the end date, and their user accounts, access rights, and key cards automatically follow the new date. Previously, you had to go into multiple systems to make these changes manually. This has made things much easier.
Anette Matsson: It might sound like an easy decision to add all consultants to the HR system, but it wasn’t that straightforward. From an HR perspective, consultants don’t fall under employment law in the same way, so HR wasn’t particularly interested in including them. Payroll had no interest either, since consultants don’t receive salaries through the system—it just meant more people in the database. So it was a bit of a journey to get everyone to see the bigger picture. The focus had to be on what benefits the company, rather than whether it slightly complicates things for HR or payroll. The real advantage is for managers—having all their team members in one place, regardless of their employment type. Instead of having different processes for different categories of workers, everything is streamlined.
Anna Carlsson: This is a trend I’ve seen in the market. I actually think the term "HR system" might be outdated—it should be called an "employee system" instead. Because it’s really about knowing who is in the organization, ensuring they have the right access, and revoking access when necessary. It’s not just about employment status anymore. The distinction between employees and non-employees is becoming less rigid. Do you see that as well?
Anette Matsson: Yes, absolutely. And with the current security situation globally, things like security training are becoming increasingly important. We already have a connection between this employee system—if we’re calling it that now—and our competence portal for interactive digital training. Everyone needs to complete those trainings if they are working in our environment, and we don’t want to add people manually to that system. Now, anyone working with us is automatically included.
We even created a new term for this, since "employees" and "staff" didn’t fully capture the range of people working with us. We introduced the term "SR employees," which doesn’t differentiate between contract types. It doesn’t matter if they’re full-time employees, contractors, independent consultants, or work under another arrangement. What matters is that they are on-site, need key cards, require system access, and need to use our equipment. And the system supports that seamlessly.
Anna Carlsson: They should understand their obligations.
Anette Matsson: And responsibilities. Exactly, that's when they end up in the employee system.
Anna Carlsson: Yes, you should rename it. Do you have another name?
Anette Matsson: No, we don’t. We’ve stuck with the traditional names, but maybe we should change it.
Erika Forsberg: Yes, but that was also a benefit of this project—we had to sit down and agree on different terms. Because we were calling things by different names.
Anna Carlsson: Even though they meant the same thing.
Erika Forsberg: Exactly, just the concept of a "position"—what does that mean? I think we spent many hours in meetings defining that. Now we have an HR position and a…
Anette Matsson: Title.
Erika Forsberg: Title, exactly.
Anna Carlsson: So a job architecture was needed as well? Or was there already one in place?
Anette Matsson: No, we’re actually still working on that in parallel. We’re pretty much done at the position level, but we haven’t fully grouped our positions into job families yet—that’s coming. Through this process, we realized that in the master data for employee information, we use the position that HR determines, and that’s displayed in other systems. However, the employee can still enter their job title. So we’ve decided that job title will be a free-text field.
And if someone writes something inappropriate in that field? That’s been a discussion. It’s the manager’s responsibility to say, “You can’t be called Ninja Warrior because we don’t have those at Sveriges Radio,” or whatever it might be.
Anna Carlsson: This is so interesting. The same discussions come up in every organization—how should it look? And now, as we approach new regulations like the Pay Transparency Directive, this work lays a great foundation for you.
But what other lessons have you learned? What benefits has this brought to the organization?
Anette Matsson: Where should I start… Well, one big lesson is patience. You think certain things will be solved quickly, and they might not seem like a big deal once they’re done, but they take time. Things have to be anchored, the timing has to be right. What was impossible yesterday might be possible today because circumstances shift. So patience, persistence, and never giving up are key.
Erika Forsberg: Another important part is setting aside time to map out the challenges and understand the needs so you know exactly what you’re improving. Defining a clear goal helps everyone involved understand what we’re working toward.
Anna Carlsson: I often compare it to painting a wall—prep work is a pain, but it’s crucial to getting a good final result.
Erika Forsberg: And people usually aren’t unwilling to collaborate—it’s just about creating the right conditions for teamwork. That’s really been the case for us. Everyone has found it rewarding to be part of the project.
Anna Carlsson: And have they been given the time for it?
Erika Forsberg: Exactly.
Anna Carlsson: Did you have specific codes for tracking project work, or how did it work in your organization?
Anette Matsson: We don’t have internal billing or tracking like that. Instead, as managers, we made sure our team members had the time to dedicate to this work and didn’t get overwhelmed with their regular tasks. That required active planning and leadership. We also had the right managers involved, making sure the necessary resources were allocated. That was key.
Erika Forsberg: And within IT, we work in teams where we prioritize tasks. This was a high-priority initiative for those involved.
Anna Carlsson: Any other key lessons or recommendations for others?
Erika Forsberg: A major factor for us was breaking the work down. We set clear boundaries, making sure each step was manageable. We had a long-term goal, but we didn’t plan everything in advance—we worked iteratively, one step at a time.
Anette Matsson: Communication is crucial. You might feel like you’re repeating yourself endlessly, but repetition really is the key to understanding. Everyone needs time to hear, process, and absorb the information. It’s also important to communicate when you’re facing roadblocks—even if there’s no new update. Otherwise, silence can be misinterpreted as the project stalling.
Anna Carlsson: Yes, constant communication.
Anette Matsson: Exactly—ongoing and continuous. Even if you feel like a broken record, as I say, which probably dates me!
Anna Carlsson: Right! No one even knows what that means anymore.
Anette Matsson: But a record skips, and you hear the same thing over and over again!
Anna Carlsson: Yes! So now that you've reflected on the project, have you done any follow-up surveys on how it's been received?
Erika Forsberg: We’ve held off for now because it takes time for new routines to settle. We want meaningful feedback, so we plan to do a survey early this year to see how managers perceive the changes—whether they’ve noticed improvements.
Anna Carlsson: But overall, if I understand correctly, it has improved collaboration across different areas?
Erika Forsberg: Absolutely. We’ve built strong relationships, and the work continues. We’re not done yet, and it’s still really exciting.
Anna Carlsson: That’s an important takeaway—you're never truly finished when it comes to digitalization and data. Things are constantly evolving. You can’t assume something is "done"—you have to keep refining and adapting.
Thank you so much for coming in and sharing this journey. Really fascinating!
Erika Forsberg: Thank you for having us!
Anette Matsson: Thank you! Can I add one more thing?
Anna Carlsson: Of course!
Anette Matsson: I just wanted to mention that Sveriges Radio is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year! Our first broadcast was on January 1, 1925. We’ll be marking the occasion across all our programs—so tune in to Sveriges Radio!
Anna Carlsson: That’s fantastic! Thank you so much!
