ANORGANIZATIONALCHANGEAPPROACHFORENTERPRISESYSTEMIMPLEMENTATIONS

GraduationCommitteeProf.Dr.Ir..J.J.Krabbendam(Chairman) UniversityofTwenteProf.Dr.C.Wilderom UniversityofTwenteProf.Dr.R.A.Stegwee UniversityofTwenteProf.Dr.N.BjrnAndersen CopenhagenBusinessSchoolProf.Dr.K.Kumar FloridaInternationalUniversityProf.Dr.A.J.Cozijnsen FreeUniversityofAmsterdamProf.Dr.Ir.D.RMuntslag(Promotor) UniversityofTwenteProf.Dr.JvanHillegersberg(Promotor) UniversityofTwentePrintedbyIpskampBVEnschede,theNetherlands504pages100gramsGprint,Font:MSCalibriISBN:9789036526807Englishcorrection:CarlaKoelemij,iTranslate(www.itranslate.nl)CoverDesign/Image:GawinDapper,http://gaw.in

ANORGANIZATIONALCHANGEAPPROACHFORENTERPRISESYSTEMIMPLEMENTATIONS

DISSERTATION

toobtainthedoctorsdegreeattheUniversityofTwenteontheauthorityoftherectormagnificus,

prof.dr.W.H.M.Zijm,onaccountofthedecisionofthegraduationcommittee,

tobepubliclydefendedonwednesdaythe21stofmay2008at15:00

by

ChristiaanPabloKatsma

bornon3December1970inVlaardingen,theNetherlands

ThisPhDdissertationhasbeenapprovedby:Prof.Dr.Ir.D.RMuntslag(Promotor)Prof.Dr.J.vanHillegersberg(Promotor)

AcknowledgementsThis dissertation is about organizational change. It is especially about how peoplenowadaysareconfrontedwithswiftlychangingpervasivetechnologiesandhowpayingdeliberate attention to personal development can improve implementation successandorganizationalacceptance.ThisPhD research isalsoamilestone inmypersonaldevelopment.Ofcourse,this issomethingthatoneexperiences individually,but it isenabledbyagroupofpeople.Here Iwould liketoexpressmywordsofgratitudetothosepeople.It all started during my experiences in consultancy where I learned that theintroduction of technology into organizations requires more than just overcomingtechnical challenges. It also requires dealing with the softer human sides oforganizationsandtryingtointegratethesetwodomainswitheachother.Iwouldliketo thank Dr. Udo Schwartzkopff and Arno Brijoux for their coaching during theseprofessionalyears.RobertStegwee introducedme into thescientificworldandgaveme theopportunity toapplymypracticalknowledge in teachingand research. Iamgratefulforreceivingthatopportunityandhistrust,despitemylimitedexperiencesinthisdomainatthatmomentintime.InthebeginningespeciallyDianaLimburgtaughtmealotaboutteachingandtheinsandoutsofISresearch.In2003DennisMuntslagandIintensifiedourcollectiveinterestintheimplementationof information systems, but particularly in the application of insights fromorganizationalchangeandbehaviouralscience.ThismarkedthebeginningofafruitfulrelationshipandexchangeofideasbothinthisPhDresearchaswellasinourcollectiveteaching.Ihopethatwewillcontinueourcollaborationintheforthcomingyears.Duringmyyearsattheuniversity,thefollowingcolleaguesandstudentscontributedtosome memorable moments. I would like to thank Peter Schuur for the fun andinspiringsessionsinourmutualcourses;TonSpilforintroducingmetotheworldofEhealthandourcollectiveworkonImusic;JeffHicksandMichelEhrenhardtforsharingand reflecting ideas; Eveline van Stijn, Jeroen Kraaijenbrink andMehmet Aydin forsharing theirPhDexperiences;RickGoslingaandClaartjevd Linden for the inspiringmomentsduringtheirmasterassignments;HansHeerkensandKoosdeRooyforourfrequentaviationmoments;andGawinDapperforournerdandMacmoments.DuringthecasestudyanextensivegroupofpeoplefromtheDutchministryofDefenceofferedtheirhelpandcooperation.HowevertherearesomepeoplewhoIwouldliketoespeciallythank. Iwould liketothankthefinancial,purchasing,and logisticteamsand inparticularLeonieLangevoort,JanVos,HermanOudeLohuis,DirkJanZuiddamandBertvanderZwan.Experiencinghowscientificideasandknowledgeareperceivedinpracticeisonething,butwriting italldown inastructuredmanner isquiteanother.Anumberofpeopleespecially contributed to the realizationof thisbook. Iwould like to thankGertJanSchuilingforsharinghisworkandinsights.Histhesisisagreatpleasuretoreadandit

mademeawareofthepossibilitiestointegratelargescaleorganizationalchangewithindividualwellbeingandpersonaldevelopment.I would also like to thank those people who have read and commented on thedifferentversionsofthemanuscript (Celeste,Jan,Wim,DennisenJos).Finally, IalsothankPieterTerlouw forhisstatisticalcoachingandCarlaKoelemij forheradviceonwritingandforhercorrections.Allremainingerrorsaremine.During these years my professional relations with certain people turned intofriendships. Iwould again like to expressmy thanks to Jan and Remco. You havebecomemyfriendsandIhopewewillcontinueourjointchatsonourprofessiononafrequentbasis.Dennis,notonly forhelpingme reachmygoals,butalso forbeingafriend.Mayourmutualknowledgeexchangeonmotionpicturesandcomicsgoon.Thesameholds for Ton,my colleague, roommate, corunner,but above allmy friend. Ihopethatourconversationsonliteratureandmusichaveaninspiringfutureandthatwewillcontinueourmusicalquizzesuntilourhearingaidswillbecometheproblem.Finally Iwould like to thank thepeoplewhoaresoclose tome ineveryday lifeandwhoeachintheirownwaycontributedtotherealizationofthisbook:myfamily.ThankstoJanandJantienfortheircontinuoushospitalityandtoWillemandGerdafortheircoachingintheearlyyears.Willem,youhavedefinitelytransferredthosegenescontainingapassionforlearning,developmentandteaching.Rutger,youbroughtmebacktomyplaygroundyears.Wherewould IbewithouttheendlessLegomoments?Madelief(Daisy),yourearthyattitudeandselfconfidenceinspireme.Eline:Ienjoyourcollective swimming exercises and admire your dancing talent. Always rememberLockerbleiben!And finally Rosemary, from now on I will try not to use the words design anddevelopmentinoureverydaylives.Thanksforyourenduringsupport.ChristiaanPabloKatsmaAhaus,April2008

7

TableofContents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................5

PARTA.THEORETICALREFLECTIONONESIMPLEMENTATIONSANDORGANIZATIONALCHANGE....................................................................................14

1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................15

1.1 TheintroductionofICTintoorganizations...................................................151.2 ImplementationofEnterpriseSystems........................................................16

1.2.1 EnterpriseSystemsexplored.....................................................................171.2.2 ThemeaningofImplementation..............................................................17

1.3 TheproblemsofESimplementations...........................................................231.3.1 Financial,technicalandorganizationalissues.........................................231.3.2 ESimplementationsdriveorganizationalchanges..................................251.3.3 AdefinitionoftheESimplementationprocess.........................................28

1.4 AnoverviewoforganizationalproblemsduringESimplementations.........291.4.1 Varianceandfactororientedresearch...................................................291.4.2 Processorientedresearch........................................................................311.4.3 Pattern1.Learningandknowledgeexchange.........................................321.4.4 Pattern2.Thesocialandpoliticalchangeprocess..................................351.4.5 Pattern3.ESImplementationapproachesandmethodologies...............37

1.5 Analysisandformulationoftheresearchproblem......................................411.5.1 CurrentESimplementationpractice........................................................441.5.2 Changeapproach.....................................................................................441.5.3 Successfulorganizationalchange............................................................45

1.6 Researchquestionsandresearchapproach.................................................461.6.1 ResearchQuestions..................................................................................461.6.2 ResearchApproach...................................................................................471.6.3 Multimethoddesignresearch..................................................................501.6.4 PhDoutlineResearchmethodsintheregulativecycle.........................51

2. THEESIMPLEMENTATIONPROCESSINTHEPERSPECTIVEOFORGANIZATIONALCHANGE.................................................................................................................55

2.1 Introduction..................................................................................................552.2 AgenericESimplementationmethodologymodel(ESIMM).......................562.3 AnalysisofcurrentESimplementationmethodologies...............................60

2.3.1 Philosophy................................................................................................602.3.2 Framework...............................................................................................612.3.3 Tools.........................................................................................................642.3.4 Conclusions...............................................................................................67

2.4 Contributionsfromorganizationalchangeliterature...................................682.4.1 Plannedversusemergentchange............................................................69

8

2.4.2 TheOrdersofchangetheory....................................................................692.4.3 Ahistoricaloverviewofchangestrategies..............................................712.4.4 Integralorganizationaldevelopment......................................................742.4.5 Conclusions..............................................................................................77

2.5 AtypologyofESimplementations...............................................................782.5.1 Structuralreconfigurationimplementation(SRI).....................................802.5.2 ItDrivenReplacement(IDR)....................................................................812.5.3 PackageEnabledReengineering(PER)....................................................822.5.4 HumanDrivenRenewal(HDR).................................................................862.5.5 Conclusions..............................................................................................88

2.6 Foundationforthechangeapproach...........................................................902.6.1 Analysisofthethreeimplementationtypesinpractice...........................902.6.2 ApplicationofIODinthestagedESimplementationprocess..................922.6.3 Comparativeanalysisofthethreestages................................................952.6.4 Conclusions..............................................................................................98

2.7 DeploymentoftheESIMMforthedesignobjectiveinthisthesis...............99

PARTB.ANALYSIS&DESIGNOFANINTEGRALCHANGEAPPROACH.....................102

3. ANALYSISFORANINTEGRALCHANGEAPPROACH.........................................103

3.1 Introduction...............................................................................................1033.2 AnalysisofthephilosophybehindIOD......................................................103

3.2.1 IODassynthesisofdesignanddevelopment.........................................1043.2.2 FromIODprinciplestowardsinterventionmechanisms........................1103.2.3 ExplicationofelementalprocessesduringIOD......................................1143.2.4 ExplicationofoutcomesofIOD..............................................................1173.2.5 SpecificationoftheIODprinciplestothePEREScontext......................122

3.3 ImpactoftheIODphilosophyonFramework............................................1263.3.1 Scope&outputs.....................................................................................1273.3.2 Planningandcontrolling........................................................................1283.3.3 Activities&staging................................................................................1323.3.4 Participation&staffing..........................................................................1333.3.5 Conclusionsonframework.....................................................................137

3.4 ImpactoftheIODphilosophyonTools......................................................1393.4.1 Wayofmodelling/model......................................................................1393.4.2 Wayofsupport,toolsandproducts.......................................................1433.4.3 Conclusionsontools...............................................................................146

3.5 Designrequirementsforanintegralchangeapproach..............................1473.5.1 Philosophy..............................................................................................1473.5.2 Framework.............................................................................................1483.5.3 Tools&Instruments...............................................................................150

4. DESIGNOFESIOD.........................................................................................151

4.1 Introduction...............................................................................................1514.2 AnintroductiontoESiOD...........................................................................151

4.2.1 IntroductionofthebasicelementsofESiOD..........................................152

9

4.2.2 Explanationofgeneraldesignconsiderations........................................1554.3 AssignmentANetworkdevelopment.........................................................160

4.3.1 DesignconsiderationsbehindassignmentA..........................................1604.3.2 TheObjectives........................................................................................1614.3.3 Methodsandinstruments......................................................................1624.3.4 DeploymentofNetworkdevelopment...................................................169

4.4 AssignmentBSystemicdesign....................................................................1714.4.1 DesignconsiderationsbehindassignmentB..........................................1714.4.2 TheObjectives........................................................................................1724.4.3 Tools.......................................................................................................1724.4.4 Deploymentofsystemicdesign..............................................................179

4.5 AssignmentCCompetencedevelopment..................................................1814.5.1 Designconsiderations............................................................................1814.5.2 Objectives...............................................................................................1824.5.3 Tools.......................................................................................................1824.5.4 Deploymentofcompetencedevelopment..............................................190

4.6 DeploymentofESiOD.................................................................................1924.6.1 SituationalspecificdeploymentofESiOD..............................................1924.6.2 DeploymentofESiODaftersituationandcontext..................................194

PARTC.APPLICATIONANDASSESSMENTOFESIODDURINGALONGITUDINALCASESTUDY..................................................................................................................198

5. PLANEVALUATION:CASESPECIFICANALYSISANDDESIGN...........................199

5.1 Introduction................................................................................................1995.2 Operationalizationoftheexanteevaluation.............................................1995.3 Context:Thedefenceorganizationanditschangeprogram......................201

5.3.1 MINDEFtowardsadifferentorganization.............................................2025.3.2 Analysisoftheexistingorganizationalculture.......................................203

5.4 Processperspective:Stage1.Thecharteringphase..................................2065.4.1 OverviewofstageI.................................................................................2065.4.2 Analysisofstage1intheperspectiveofIOD.........................................210

5.5 Contentperspective:designvisionandchangeambitions........................2125.5.1 TheESimplementationambition...........................................................2125.5.2 Analysisoffirstbusinessprocessvisions................................................2145.5.3 Analysisandspecificationofrelateddevelopmentaspects...................2165.5.4 Conclusions.............................................................................................219

5.6 ContextspecificdesignrequirementsforthedeploymentofESiOD.........2205.6.1 Deploymentbasedupontheorganizationalcharacteristics..................2205.6.2 Deploymentdependentonthe integrationofchangeprocessanddesigncontent2215.6.3 RequirementsspecifiedtoESiOD...........................................................222

5.7 Casespecificandcontextualdesign...........................................................2245.7.1 Arrangethedevelopmentorganizationandtheparticipationprocess..2255.7.2 StaffingandstartupoftheInitialDevelopmentorganization..............2295.7.3 Detailedstagemodel.............................................................................233

10

5.7.4 Fourperspectivesduringthedeploymentoftheassignments..............2365.7.5 Deliberatelimitationsinthegenericprocessmodel..............................238

6. PROCESSEVALUATION:DEPLOYMENTOFESIOD..........................................239

6.1 Introduction...............................................................................................2396.2 ResearchoperationalizationintheMINDEFcase......................................241

6.2.1 Processevaluation.................................................................................2416.2.2 Timingandresearchpopulations...........................................................2416.2.3 Researchinstruments:...........................................................................242

6.3 Macroperspective:EmploymentofESiODinthePGSproject..................2466.3.1 Timelineandsignificantevents(Macroview)........................................2466.3.2 Analysisoftheprocessfromamacroperspective.................................250

6.4 ComparisonbetweenESiODandtheappliedapproach............................2536.4.1 Philosophy:DesignandDevelopmentasprogrammotto..................2536.4.2 Comparativeanalysisofphilosophyintheintegralapproachatt0......2576.4.3 Deploymentofframeworkintheintegralapproach.............................2606.4.4 ComparativeanalysisofFrameworkintheintegralapproachatt0.....2656.4.5 DeploymentoftoolsintheMINDEFintegralapproach.........................2686.4.6 Comparativeanalysisoftoolsintheintegralapproachatt0................2726.4.7 Concluding comparison between ESiOD and the integral MINDEFapproach.............................................................................................................273

6.5 Microperspective1:Thepurchasingteam................................................2766.5.1 Teamdescription,contextandglobalprocessoverview.......................2766.5.2 Processanalysis:Employmentoftheintegralapproach.......................2786.5.3 Concludingprocessanalysisofthepurchasingteam.............................283

6.6 MicroPerspective2:TheMaterialsmanagementteam............................2906.6.1 Teamdescription,contextandglobalprocessoverview.......................2906.6.2 Processanalysis:Employmentoftheintegralapproach.......................2926.6.3 Condensedanalysisof theprocessby theManagementMaterials team 298

6.7 MicroPerspective3:InvitedParticipantsintheNetwork.........................3046.7.1 Deploymentofthesurveyandinterviews..............................................3046.7.2 Processanalysisanddeploymentoftheapproach................................3066.7.3 Assessmentoftheapproach..................................................................3106.7.4 Concludinganalysisofmicroperspective3...........................................311

6.8 ConcludingprocessanalysisoftheMINDEFprojectstage........................3156.8.1 DeploymentofESiODinMINDEF...........................................................3156.8.2 Evaluationoftheapproach....................................................................320

7. PRODUCTEVALUATION:ASSESSMENTOFESIOD...........................................323

7.1 Introduction...............................................................................................3237.2 ResearchoperationalizationforProductevaluation.................................323

7.2.1 Qualityofthecreateddesigns...............................................................3247.2.2 EffectivityofESiOD:Competenceincrease............................................327

7.3 MicroPerspective1:outcomesofthePurchasingteam...........................3367.3.1 Contentanalysis:Designresults............................................................336

11

7.3.2 Structuraldevelopmentsintheteam.....................................................3397.3.3 Competencedevelopmentbytheteammembers..................................3397.3.4 Conclusions.............................................................................................350

7.4 Microperspective2:Thematerialsmanagementteam............................3517.4.1 Designquality.........................................................................................3517.4.2 Competencedevelopmentbytheteammembers..................................3547.4.3 Conclusions.............................................................................................365

7.5 Microperspective3:Participantsfromthelineorganization....................3667.5.1 Designquality.........................................................................................3667.5.2 Organizationaldevelopment..................................................................3687.5.3 Conclusions.............................................................................................375

7.6 Conclusionsandcomparisonofresults......................................................3767.6.1 Summarizingproductevaluation...........................................................3767.6.2 Interactionbetweendesignanddevelopment.......................................3807.6.3 Efficiency................................................................................................382

PARTD.REDESIGNANDREFLECTION...................................................................383

8. REDESIGNOFESIOD.....................................................................................385

8.1 Introduction................................................................................................3858.2 ReflectionswiththeMINDEForganization.................................................386

8.2.1 ReflectionswiththePGS.........................................................................3868.2.2 ReflectionswiththeChangeManagementteam...................................3878.2.3 Conclusions.............................................................................................391

8.3 Foundations for redesign; reflections on plan, process and productevaluation................................................................................................................392

8.3.1 Networkdevelopment............................................................................3938.3.2 Systemicdesign......................................................................................4038.3.3 Competencedevelopment......................................................................4118.3.4 Concludinganalysisandinteractionbetweentheassignments.............419

8.4 RedesignofESiOD......................................................................................4248.4.1 RedesignofESiOD..................................................................................4248.4.2 Reflectionandlineofreasoningbehindtheredesign............................433

9. CONCLUSIONANDRECOMMENDATIONS......................................................435

9.1 Researchresults..........................................................................................4359.1.1 ResearchQuestion1...............................................................................4359.1.2 ResearchQuestion2...............................................................................4369.1.3 ResearchQuestion3...............................................................................438

9.2 Reflectionontheresearchprocessanditsoutcomes................................4399.2.1 Reflectionontheresearchprocess.........................................................4399.2.2 Reflectionontheresearchoutcomes.....................................................440

9.3 Contributions..............................................................................................4419.3.1 Contributionstoresearch.......................................................................4419.3.2 Contributionstopractice........................................................................443

9.4 Recommendations......................................................................................445

12

9.4.1 Recommendationsforfurtherresearch.................................................4459.4.2 Practicalrecommendations...................................................................447

SUMMARY............................................................................................................449

SAMENVATTING(INDUTCH).................................................................................457

BIOGRAPHY..........................................................................................................459

REFERENCES.........................................................................................................461

APPENDICES.........................................................................................................482

13

Informationisnotknowledge;knowledgeisnotwisdom;wisdomisnottruth;truthisnotbeauty;beautyisnotlove;loveisnotmusic;musicisthebest.

FrankVincentZappa(19401993)

14

PartA.TheoreticalreflectiononESimplementationsand

organizationalchange.

15

1. Introduction

WeiseerdenkendieneuenGedanken,undNarrenverbreitensie.HeinrichHeine(17971856)

1.1 TheintroductionofICTintoorganizationsThe introduction of information and communication technology (ICT) and businessinformationsystemsinparticularintoorganizationshasbeenthesubjectofextensiveresearchworldwide.Thisishardlysurprisingconsideringthepresenterawearelivingin.CurrentlyICTplaysanimportantroleinoursocietyandmanyorganizationschoosetobelargelydependentonthistechnology.Whetherpeopleandorganizationshaveafreedomofchoice in thismatter isaratherphilosophicalquestion that isdifficult toanswer. It seems the ICT push that has been going on for a while has created asnowballlike effect and forces society to follow. From the perspective of the earlyadopter(Rogers,2003)newtechnologyshouldbeputtomarketasquicklyaspossible.Ontheotherhand,laggardsperceivetheyarealmostforcedtojumponatrainalreadyleaving overdue from platform 9 (Rowling, 1997). In this perspectivewe cannotanswerthequestionwhetherorganizationsinparticularhaveafreedomofchoice.ThecurrentvisionofmostorganizationsbothinthebusinessandpublicdomainisthatICTisindispensablewhentryingtoimprove,innovate,or,atworse,keepupwithpartnersand/orcompetitors.The vendorsofbusiness information systems are stillmaking significantprogress infunctionalitiesandcapabilitiesand it isachallengeforvariousorganizationstoselectthatparticulartechnologythatcontributestoamoreefficient,effective,andmoreoverpleasantwayofworkingforthepeopleinvolved.Especiallythislatteraspectseemstobe toooften forgotten.Nevertheless, in the scientificdomaina lotofattentionhasbeenpaidtothestudyofthe introductionof informationsystems intoorganizations.And multidisciplinary research efforts expand this field. One perspective is therelevanceandacceptanceofbusinessinformationsystems(Venkateshal.,2003;Spiletal., 2005, Davis&Olson, 1985).Other domains start by building upon informationsystemdevelopment (Avison&Fitzgerald,1995;Hirschheimetal.1995;RollandandPrakash,1999;Baskerville,1999;Aydin,2006,Slootenvan,1998).Athirdgroupdealswiththeintroductionofspecificformsoftechnology,suchaseworksupport(Limburg,2002), ubiquitous technology (Junglas, 2003), or ERPsystems (Robey at al.2002;Markus,2004;Stein,2006).InthisPhDresearchwewillfocusontheintroductionofEnterpriseSystems(ES)asthesuccessorofERPsystems.Evaluationresearch(Gableetal.2003;Sumner,2000;Kim,2005)has shown that the introductionof such systems intoorganizations is still farfrom successful. On the other hand, these specific types of business informationsystems are still popular. The reasons for these implementation failures have beeninvestigatedfromdifferentangles.ThisPhDresearchwillfocusontheorganizationalchangeprocessthataccompaniestheseESimplementation.

16 1.Introduction

Inthisfirstchapterwewillexplaintherelevanceofthistopicbyacondensedoverviewof literature on the current scientific insights into ES implementations. Firstly, insection1.2wewillintroducetheessentialsofESimplementationtakenfromscientificliterature.Typicalproblems that ariseduring theES implementationprocesswillbeexplained in section 1.3. Section 1.4will discuss the problems that are labelled inliteratureasorganizational issuesandshow that this topiccanbedivided into threeresearch patterns. For each pattern the research output , the current scientificknowledgeandcontributions,and finally the lacunas foreachpattern is shown.Thechapter isroundedoff insection1.5,which identifiesthemainproblemsofthe fieldanddeducestheresearchobjectiveforthisdissertationfromthethreepatterns.Thissets the stage for the specific research problem and research approach in thisdissertationinchapter2.

1.2 ImplementationofEnterpriseSystemsInthe lastdecadetherehasbeenatransferfromtheconceptofEnterpriseResourcePlanning(ERP)systemstowardsExtendedERP,ERPII,EnterpriseInformationSystems(EIS), or just Enterprise Systems (ES) (Mller, 2005; Davenport, 2004). In thisdissertationthelattertermwillbeused.ThischangeofnamecomesnaturallywiththefurtherdevelopmentofERPpackagesbyitsvendors.Inthebeginningoftheninetiesofthe last century ERP systems were still verymuch connected tomain operationalprocessesoforganizations supporting sales, finance,production,and logistics.Thesesystemshaveevolvedandcurrentlymoreandmorefunctionalmodulesareavailablethat are applicable to specific branches in industry, specific tasks or projects, orbusiness functions (Robey et al 2002,McLeod en Schell 2001,Davenport 1998). Sothere hasbeen an increase in functionality but still eachmodule is linkedwith thecentrallyguidedinformationarchitecture(thecentralESdatabase)andfunctionalityisdrivenbyintegratedbusinesslogic(bestpractices).The termEnterpriseSystem isalsousedsometimes from thesingularperspectiveoftechnology architecture for the entire enterprise (e.g. SUN enterprise system). Thisdissertationdoesnotcoverenterprisesystemsinthislatterperspective,butexplicitlyfocusesontheEnterpriseSystemsthathavebeenderivedfromERPpackages. Inthisdissertation Enterprise Systems include their functionality of seamlessly supportingand integrating a full range of business processes by uniting functional islands andmakingtheirdatavisibleacrosstheorganizationinrealtime.ArecentsignificantincreaseinESfunctionalityhasbeenthetransitionfromsupportingsingular organizations to chains of organizations, including a complete supply chainovertheformalbordersofoneormoreorganizations.InthiscasethedifferentESsatleast share specific functions and business logic. One of the latest developmentsenrichestheESwithmarketplacefunctionalitysothatatransitionfromchainthinkingtoward networkbased collaborations or doing business becomes available. Thisdissertation focuses on the adoption of ES by one singular organization. I.e. thecollaborations and network creation over the formal borders of the adoptingorganizationarenotwithinthescopeofthisresearch.

17

EnterpriseSystemsarepackagedsoftwareapplications(fromvendorssuchas SAP, Oracle, PeopleSoft and JD Edwards) that connect and manageinformation flows within and across complex organizations, allowingmanagers tomake decisions based on information that truly reflects thecurrent state of their business. These systems also automate complextransaction processes and thus have the potential to reduce costs.(Davenport,2004)

1.2.1 EnterpriseSystemsexploredES are exceptional due to a specific set of characteristics (Table 1). Thesecharacteristics also have a larger impact than is perhaps assumed at first sight.Enterprise systems often become hard tomodify due to their complexity and size(Davenport,1998).LargescaleISsuchasEnterpriseSystemsarelikeaninfrastructure.(e.g., analogous to a citys roads and bridges) (Markus & Tanis, 2000). Theimplementation of an ES is fundamentally different from traditional BusinessInformation Systems, is also distinct from the system user (Volkoff, 1999), and ischaracterized by a longterm and complex process with a high degree ofinterdependencies and a mandatory context for its users (Pozzebon, 2000). Theimplementation of an ES differs from other products in that it explicitly combinesstrategy, organizational structure, business processes, and IT into a coherentframework (Gibson,1999). It is thecoherentcollectionof thesedomains thatmakestheadoptionofanESbyanorganizationintoanevenlargermultidisciplinarychallengethanisthecasewithtraditionalinformationsystems.

1.2.2 ThemeaningofImplementationIntheISandmanagementliteraturethereseemstobeanimplicitagreementonusingthe word implementation in the domain of ES introductions. The term itself isneverthelessusedambiguouslyandseveralpublicationsshowthedifferentmeaningsof implementation. The ambiguity does not come from a fundamentally differentunderstanding of putting into effect. There is a general understanding on doingsomethingtoachieveanoutcomeinthedifferentdomains.

18 1.Introduction

EndtoEndprocesslogicTheESismodulewiseorganizedresemblingatypicallyfunctionalISstructure,butthefunctionalityandprocesslogicwithinthesemodulesrelatestotheprincipleofendtoendprocesschainsacrossthedifferentbusinessfunctions.

BestpracticebasedBycollectingimplementationexperiences,theESvendorshaveadoptedbestwaysofdoingbusinessintotheES.Thesebestpracticesrepresentgenericprocessesthatforexample8090%ofthecompaniesinaspecificbranchusetoperformtheirdailyroutines.Thebestpracticeisincorporatedintotheendtoendprocesslogic.

ESareconfigurableCOTSESarestandardsoftwarepackagesthataredevelopedbythesystemsuppliersbeforeactualusebythecustomer.Configurationcanbeseenas:balancingbetweenthewayanorganizationwantstoworkandthewayanEScanworkDavenport(1998).Therearetwowaysinconfiguration:

1. ByusingthemodularityofanES:anorganizationcanchoosetoimplementjustoneorsomemodulesinsteadofthewholepackage

2. Bycorrectconfiguration.InanESthousandsofconfigurationtablesarepresentthatallhavetobeconfiguredtoalignthesystemsfunctioningwiththebusinessprocesses.

CustomizationItispossibletogobeyondsettingthesystemsspecificationsbycustomization.InthiscaseexperiencedprogrammerschangethebasiclogicintheEScode.However,modificationofthesystemssoftwarecodesishighlyimpractical(BoudreauandRobey,1999).Itprolongsthetimeofimplementationandcomplicatesupgradingofthesystem.VendorsbringoutnewversionsoftheES,butthesearebasedonthestandardizedsourcecode.Thismeansthatcustomizedsolutionscannotbeguaranteedtoworkinanewerversionofthepackageandthereforeinmostsituationsanewcustomizationprojectisnecessarytoofferthesamefunctionality.

RealTimeavailabilityofdata/informationDuetotheintegrateddatabase,theaccessibilityofdataorinformationiseasierandinmanycasesinrealtimeorclosetothat.Thisenablesmonitoringandmanagingondifferentlevelsinanorganization.Thisalsoincreasesinformationtransparencyacrossdifferentpartsoftheorganizationorindifferenthierarchicallayers.Thisagainhassocialconsequencesforthewayemployeesinteractandcollaboratewitheachother.

Onesupplier/upgradeabilityAnEScancoverorganizationwideinformationneeds.Comparedwiththeuseofdifferentfunctionalinformationsystems,thisdoesimplya1:1supplier:adopterrelationship.Thishasbothitsbenefitsaswellasitsdisadvantages.Certainlysystemmanagementandmaintenanceduringoperationscanbecomestandardizedandorganizedmoreefficiently.Asingularsupplierontheotherhandalsoimpliesadependentrelationshipthatinsomecasescanbecomeproblematical.

Table1SpecificcharacteristicsofEnterpriseSystems

19

ButinbothISaswellasmanagementscienceliteraturethereisanambiguousunderstandingoftheeffectitself,ofthestartandfinishoftheprocesstoachievethiseffect,aswellasoftheactivitiestheprocessentails.AccordingtoMontealegre(1993),thetermimplementationisgivenavarietyofmeaningsinliterature.SomeexamplesaregiveninFigure1.

Implementationis. Source

aproceduredirectedbyamanagertoinstallplannedchangeinanorganization

Nutt(1986)

theprocessofgainingtargetedorganizationalmembers'appropriateandcommitteduseofaninnovation.

KleinandSorra(1996)

theadoptionofasystemduringthetransitionperiodbetweenthetechnicalinstallationofanewsystemanditsskilfulandtaskconsistentusebyagroupofthetargetedemployees

Bondarouk(2004)

theprocessofcompletingtheprojectsforapplicationofinformationtechnologytoassistanorganizationinrealisingitsgoals.

Gottschalk(1999)

Figure1.Differentmeaningsofimplementation

A kindof split canbediscerned in Figure1betweendefinitions thatemphasize thechange process and definitions that emphasize the IT or information systemintroduction. According to Kruithoff and Poll (1991) it is essential to perceive ITimplementation as an organizational change process. Implementation is both aboutthe information systemdefinitionand introduction,butmoreover it isaboutpeopleadopting the system. This combination is explicitly embedded in their SystemImplementationModel(SIM).TheSIMisbasedonsociotechnicalsystemstheory(STS)andiscomprisedofsevenphases,inwhichintroductionofthesystemisjustonestep(phase 5) in the process. This model is more extensive than the merely physicalintroductionof the ICTartefact.Kruithof&Pollexplicitlydistinguishbetween the ITandorganizationalaspects.Theyseethattwomaincategoriesofactivitiesareneededto accomplish a successful implementation of an information system: design andchange(Figure2).

20 1.Introduction

DesignProcess Changeprocess

ITTransformation

InformationanalysisSystemdesignDatabasedesignSecurityplanLayoutsystemadministration

ProgrammingDatabaseconstructionOperatingplanMaintenanceplanAcquirehardwareandsoftwareTestingConversion

SocialorganizationalTransformation

TaskdesignDesign(new)organizationalstructureDescriptionsofprocessesandproceduresDescriptionsoftasksandjobs

InformationRecruitingandtrainingofITPersonnelAdapt/fittingoutorganizationTrainingusersOrganizehousing

Figure2.Thefourquadrantsofanimplementationprocessadaptedfrom:KruithofandPoll1991:211.

InthespecificdomainofESthisviewisacknowledgedwithanemphasisonastagedlike perception of the implementation process. This field in general describes theimplementation process in stagemodels having three (Parr & Shanks, 2000), four(MarkusandTanis,2000),andfivestages(RossandVitale,2000).AccordingtoRobeyetal.(2000,)thereareseveralcommonelementsbetweentheseprocessmodels,butthestagingarrangementisdifferent.MarkusandTanis(2000)takeaholisticlifecycleperspectiveanddefinefouridealphasesthatrepeatthemselves(Figure2)

Figure3.CyclicalimplementationnotionbyMarkus&Tanis(2000)

PhaseIProjectChartering

PhaseIITheProject

PhaseIIIShakedown

PhaseIVOnwardandUpward

21

Intheirview,theimplementationprocessgoesbeyondthephysicalintroductionofthesystemattheendofstage2(GoLive).Stagesthreeandfourwillworktowardseitherreimplementationexercisesornewimplementationinitiatives.Thisisabroadernotionofwhattheimplementationprocessentails(Figure1).In another contribution, Parr and Shanks (2000), in their Preparation Project Model,focusonthesubstantialnumberofsignificantimportanceintheentireprocess.ThisviewcanalsobefoundintheworkofTeufelandKeller(2000).Theydescribethesignificant differences compared with classical waterfall approaches of nonpackagedinformationsystems.

Figure4EmphasisontheprojectstageaccordingtoParrandShanks(2000)

In the ES implementation domain the emphasis on resources and activities istransferredtothesecondprojectstageoftheprocess. Inthissecondstagethemainproject event is process redesign whereas the system configuration process takesrelativelyfewerresourcesthanclassicalcodingofnonpackaged informationsystems(TeufelandKeller,1998).ThethreestagesofthePPMcanbedescribedas:Stage1PlanningThis stage starts with the envisioning process to adopt an ES. Top managementfrequently initiatesorsupportsthe ideato introducethistypeof informationsysteminto the organization. External parties use business cases that apply to theorganizationtoexplainbusiness.ThisstagealsoincludestheselectionprocessfortheES vendor and the implementation partner(s). During this first phase, the businessgoalsare formulated includingavisionof thesystemand theadoptingorganization.Parr & Shanks (2000) describe three different categories that specify the physical,technical, and business scope of the subsequent processes. For an unambiguousdefinitionoftheESimplementationprocess,itisthereforeimportanttobeexplicitatthestartoftheimplementationprocessandincludethisstage.

Planning Project Enhancement

Setup

Reengineer

Design

Configuration&testing

Installation

22 1.Introduction

Stage2ProjectThisprojectstagecoversboththeprojectpreparationactivitiesaswellastheprojectexecution itselfup toGo Live.Thebaselineprojectplanaswellasproject initiationdocuments are defined. The project organization is selected and set up. This stageencompasses the fundamental redesign and reorganization activities necessary tocomeupwithaformalblueprintofprocessesandinformationneedsandfunctionality.The end of this stage is characterized by users training, system configuration andtesting,andphysicalintroductionofthesystemintotheorganization.Stage3EnhancementStage 3 is characterized by an interim period inwhich the organization catches itsbreath from the extensive implementation efforts. The error fixing from the firstlearningexperiencesafterGoLivearethesubject.Experiencesfromsystemoperationsarethemaininputforbugfixingorfundamentalredesignofspecificflaws.Duringthisstage the adopting organization embraces the new technology if the organizationalchangeprocessiscorrectlyfacilitatedduringstage2.The staged philosophy for the implementation process seems outdated whencomparing it with the recent developments in information system design andimplementation.Inthelastdecadestherehavebeensubstantialdevelopmentsinthedomainofsystemdevelopmenttowardssituationalspecific,agileapproaches(DSDM,RAD, eXtreme Programming) or networkbased approaches (Open source, Linux,).These approaches use a substantially different philosophy and management ofuncertainties and have shown significant benefits over previous waterfallshapedmethodssuchashighersystemacceptance,betterpossibilitiesforparticipationfromtheadoptingorganization,and improvedknowledge transfer throughout theproject(Fichman&Moses,1999;Orlikowski&Hoffman,1993).Unfortunately,thesebenefitscanonlybepartiallyachieved inthespecificdomainofES. The current ES technology cannot be used in relation to agile or incrementalapproaches(Fichman&Moses,1999)andtheESimplementationisthereforeforcedtobe a stagedwaterfalllike implementationprocess (Teufel& Keller, 2000). There arevariantsofthisconceptsuchasmigrationapproachesthat incorporatesitebysiteormodulebymodule introductionof theES.Thisnevertheless ismore like adifferentbreaking up of the structure ofwork packages into smaller pieces. (E.g. Case 4 inGovindaraju,2002pp.178).Themainparadigmbehindthesmallerworkpackagesstilldoesnotreflectthephilosophyofagiledevelopment.Itcanbecomparedwithsmallerwaterfallbased projects one after another that offer both advantages as well asproblems.The learningexperiencesfromearliersystem introductionsalongtheprojecttimelinecan be transferred, but the final integration achievement of the ES becomesmorecomplicatedincomparisonwithabigbangsystemintroduction.Prototypes can also to some extent be accomplished by expert ES consultants, butthesecanonlybeseenas illustrativetoforthcomingendusersandassupportingtheunderstandinganddesignprocess.

23

The basic agile principle of the organizational members working with releases,learning,andimprovingsystemqualityiscurrentlynottransferabletotheESdomain.The final configuration process for the entire enterprisewide information systemcannotbeconstructedandconfiguredbytheseprototypeparts.Eveninavanillatype(Parr&Shanks,2000)ESimplementation,thisresultsinasignificantlycomplexintegraltestingscenariothatinnormalbudgettermsisnotafeasiblesolution.Exceptionshaveshown what a custom developed ES can bring to organizations, e.g. the Dell ESimplementation,buttheseexamplesarerare(Mller,2005).ThemainbarrierfortheadoptionofincrementalapproachescomesbacktothebasicconceptoftheintegratedconfigurableCOTSpackage.ThisstrongdominantaspectinfluencesthecourseofmostESimplementationsandpreventstrulyagiledevelopment.

1.3 TheproblemsofESimplementationsEnterpriseSystemsareorganizationwidebusiness informationsystemsthatcanhelpentire organizations with their information needs. The ideal situation of oneinformation system as the solution without the difficulties of technical interfacesbetweenseveralfunctionalinformationsystemshasincreasedthepopularityofthesesystems in both profit aswell as nonprofit organizations. The introduction of suchsystemsisneverthelessacomplexaffairand50%oftheprojectsfail(Stefanou,2001).Exceedingproject timeandbudget,dissatisfiedusers,andoften incompletesystemsfunctionality are just a couple of problems that repeatedly return in yearlyimplementationstudies(Davenport,1998),someevenwithdisastrousresults.ThedelayintheSAPSiebelManugisticsimplementationatHersheycausedadecreaseof10%initsexpectedearnings(Branch,1999).GenevaSteel(OLeary,2000)declaredbankruptcy the day after their $8million SAP systemwas implemented. FoxMeyerclaimed in litigation that SAP was one of the reasons that ait had gone bankrupt(Radosevich,1998).Itisestimatedthatatleast90%ofERPorESimplementationsenduplateoroverbudget(Martin,1998).Besides,anequal90%ofERPimplementationsfailtofulfilthepromiseofsignificantreturnoninvestment.

1.3.1 Financial,technicalandorganizationalissuesIn literaturedifferenttechnological,economic,andorganizationalexplanationsforESsuccess and failure can be discerned (Sarker and Lee, 2003). Technological factorsincludetechnicalproperties(e.g.fieldlengths,recordIDs)thatareunsuitableinsomeorganizational contexts (Soh et al., 2000). Software version control and integrationwithlegacysystemsisanothertopicthatcausesproblemsduringtheimplementationprocess(Markusetal.,2000).TheeconomicfactorsconcerntheaccuracyandstrengthofthebusinesscasefortheESinvestment.InthelastcenturymanyorganizationsfeltmotivatedtoinvestinEStoensure Year 2000 compliance (Sia et al., 2002), to facilitate the introduction of theEuro,ortoreducethebusinessrisksofnonintegratedlegacysystems(Worthen,2002andHirtandSwanson,1999).

24 1.Introduction

In such cases, the financial and strategic implicationsof ES implementationdidnotreceiveenoughattention(Markusetal.,2000).The last category, organizational issues, is seen as the dominant influence onimplementation success (Bingi, Sharma&Golda, 1999; Appleton, 1997) and is alsodiscussedmoreextensivelythanthetechnicalandfinancialissues.Thisthirdcategory,organizational issues, in the viewof Sarker and Lee (2003) refers to the effectsoforganizational culture, structure, governance, communication, and conflict betweenstakeholder groups during the ES implementation process (Krumbholz et al., 2000,KrumbholzandMaiden,2001,Sohetal.,2000,ScottandVessey,2002andBessonandRowe,2001). Inmostcases, the implementationofanES requiresmajorchanges totheorganization(Davenport,2000;Bingi,SharmaandGodla,1999;Burnsetal.,1991)and a major cause for implementation failures appears to be the fact thatorganizational issuesare forgotten,neglected,oratbestunderestimated (Appleton,1997).Thisisreflectedina2005surveycarriedoutamong61Fortune500companies.Table2,(Kimetal.2005)showsthetop5criticalimpedimentsforESimplementationsuccess.Recent research suggests thatanESproject team'sability toaddress theseissues,bymanagingmultiplestakeholderswithdivergentinterests,canplayavitalroleinESimplementationsuccess(SarkerandLee,2003).Thoughweagreewiththislatterinsight,thisisonlypartlyasolutiontotheorganizationalproblems.

Rank Impediment

1 Inadequatecommitmentfromtheadoptingorganization

2 Lackoforganizationalchangemanagementexpertise

3 Resistanceofuserstoworkingwiththenewsystem

4 Conflictsofinterestamongdifferentfunctionalunits

5Business processes are not redesigned to achieve the full

benefitsoftheESproperties

Table2Top5criticalimpedimentstoESimplementationsuccess(Kimetal.2005):

Itdoesassume thatmanaging thisaspectwillsignificantlycontribute tosuccess,butleaves out other contributions. When looking at recent research into theseorganizational issues,aholisticviewseemsmoreappropriate.Wewillexplainthisbyshowingthattheorganizationalissueshavebecomeakindofrepositoryinwhichalotofdifferent researcheffortshavebeenpositioned.Thisnecessarilymeans lookingatthesubject fromabroaderperspectiverather than focusingon themanagementofinterestsof thedifferent stakeholders.Before further explaining the insights in thisrichresearchfield,wewillexplainwhytheESimplementationissostronglyrelatedtoorganizationalissues.

25

1.3.2 ESimplementationsdriveorganizationalchanges.It is important to note that the current generation of ES evolved from technologydesignedtoaidoperationsinthemanufacturingindustry(Klaus,RosemannandGable,2000).Still, this softwareembeds templatesof bestbusinesspracticesbasedonatraditional, hierarchical (and) functional view of organizations (Kumar and vanHillegersberg,2000) that limits towhatextent the technologycanbecustomized tomeetlocalorganizationalneeds.ThevisionofmostESvendorsevengoesbeyondthat.TheessentialphilosophybehindtheBestpracticesinanESistodefineorganizationalstructure,businessprocesslogic,andinformationneedsfortheadoptingorganization.TheESimplementationprojectsarethereforerarelyjusttechnicalimplementationsofthesoftware,but instead largescale transformations that invariably impactbusinessprocess,organizationaldesign,andhumanbehaviourintheworkingsituation.

ThoughtherearemanyoptionsforconfiguringtheES,thebusinessandorganizationallogic of the ES takes the lead in the redesign process. In practice the amount ofcustomizationislimitedandtheimplementationofanESsystemmoreoftenthannotleads to organizational change (Bancroft et al., 1998). E.g. organizations add newprocessteamsorprocessexecutivestothehierarchy(Ross,1998).Furthermore,anESimplementationoftenresults in thestandardisationofprocesses,proceduresaswellaslanguage.Duringtheimplementation,relativelylargeamountsoforganizationalandtechnological knowledge become informally concentrated in relatively few people(Baskervilleetal.,2000)who thusgain controlover informationandprocesses.Theresult, centralization, is consistent with hierarchical, commandandcontrolorganizations. However, ES may also trigger its adopter to start a process ofdecentralisation, by streamlining its management structure and creating a flatter,more flexible and democratic organization (Davenport, 1998). This last example israrelyseeninpracticethough.

The problem is that many organizations in general fail to take the organizationalaspects into accountwhen implementing new technology (Boer andDuring, 2002),which leads to thesocalled organizational lagphenomenon (DamanpourandEvan,1984)and to,at least initially, suboptimalperformanceof the system.However, fortheintroductionofanES,thisaspectisevenmoreimportantthanitisintheseothertechnologies. The organizational impact of the introduction of ES is large and itrequiresmajororganizationaladaptationsinorderfortheorganizationtoachievethebenefits inherent in such systems.Experience reports from implementationprojectsfrequentlystatethatespeciallytheseorganizationalissueshavetobeconsideredmoreimportant than technological implementation hurdles (e.g. Sumner, 2000).Nevertheless, during these projects themain focus is on the design activities andcorrectconfigurationoftheinformationsystemitself.Thiscanbeexplainedbythefactthat in themajority of ES implementations technical and informational integrationaspects, includingtheredesignofbusinessprocesses in itself, isacomplexaffair.Theimportanceofawellsupportedorganizationalchangeprocessiswidelyacknowledged,buttopicssuchaschangingsocialsystems,newexpectedbehaviourontheworkfloor,andtheneedfordifferentcompetenceswithintheorganizationreceivetheleastorno

26 1.Introduction

attention. To summarize, there is a general agreement on acknowledging theimportance of the socalled organizational and change management issues in ESimplementationliterature(GullaandBrasethvik2000;Kumaretal2003;Markusetal2000).Moreover, people challenges are considered to bemore difficult tomanagethanthetechnicalproblems(Kumaretal2003;SkokandLegge2001;Aladwani2001).Yet, in all these contributions the elementalmeaning of the organizational impactremains unclear or ill defined. In otherwords,what then are these organizationalissuesthataresoimportant?Inorganizationalsciencedifferentcontributionsdescribethe changeprocess inducedbynew strategic goals and/or technology introduction.Somecontributionsfocusonthedifferentaspectsoftheorganizationthatareaffectedduringthechangeprocess(Leavitt,1965;Salminen,2000).Otherscholarsfocusonthechangeprocess itself (Boonstra&Vink1996;Markus,2004). There isnevertheless asharedagreementthatgivingholistic1attentiontotheorganizationalchangeprocessisappropriate. A change process thus should always be seen in its holistic form andattentionshouldbegiventoallaspectsoftheorganizationinvolved.

Figure5.LeidsOctahedron(FromvdVlistinBoonstra,Steensma,Demenint,1998)

Figure5 shows The LeidsOctahedron as an aspectmodelof theorganization. ThemodelisafurtherdevelopmentoftheLeavittmodel(1965)byvdVlist(Boonstra,J.J.&Vlist,R. vande (1996) andbuildsupon the sociotechnical school (STS) (Emmery&Trist, 1960). This model pays deliberate attention to the coherent organizationalaspectsduringachangeprocess.Muntslag (2001)continues this lineof thoughtandarguesforperceptionandthusalsotreatmentoftheintroductionofanESasalargescale technologydrivenorganizationalchangeprocess.Basedon Colthof (1965)andLievers& Lubberding (1996),Muntslag (2001)divides theorganizational impactandthe change process into three levels (Table 3). Elements from Figure 5 can be

1Holisticmeanstheequalinclusionofdiverseaspectsoftheorganizationintheorganizationalchangeprocess,e.g.hardaspectssuchassystems,procedures,butalsosoftaspectssuchasculture,values,competences,etc(Dirkxetal.2004)

Technology

People

Strategy

Organizationalobjectives

Structure

Culture

27

recognized in the three levels and are entered between brackets. Strategy andorganizationalobjectivesareimplicitlyembeddedinthedecisiontoadopttheES.

1

Changestothebusinessprocessandsystems.(Technology)This level is about the definition of business processes logic and the necessary(technical)systemstosupportthem.This level receives themostattentionduringcurrentES implementationpractices.From the technical and financial perspective, this will lead to a successfulaccomplishment on the short run. Such an approach nevertheless neglects thedeeper levelsof2andespecially3.Fromaholisticperspective, likesociotechnicalsystemstheory(STS),itwillnotresultinasuccessfulchangeprocessandadoptionoftheES.Thiswillhaveadirect impactonthepeopleandwillalsohave its financialconsequencesonthelongrun.

2

Changestotheorganizationalstructure.(Structure)Thislevelisabouttheformaldefinitionoftheorganizationalcoherence.Adaptationsintheorganizationalstructureandrolepatternarenecessarytooptimallyutilizetheprocess changes too. The formal rolepatterndefinesauthorities, responsibilities,functions, and tasksof groupsor individuals in theorganization and relationshipsbetweenthem.Currentimplementationpracticespaylimitedattentiontothislevel,but then even in a deterministic and directivemanner. There are situationswithminorchangesofthis leveland insuchsituationstheseapproachesmaywork,butduring themajorityof theES implementations the structureand rolepatternareaffectedsignificantly.Thisrequiresamoreparticipativeprocessand,aboveall,thenecessarychangesonlevel3shouldbetakenintoaccountsimultaneouslywithlevel2.Thiswillresultinhigheracceptanceoftheadoptingorganizationandasmootheradoptionprocess.

3

Changestoindividualandgroupbehaviourintheworksituation.(People&culture)Thislevelisaboutpeople.It isaboutnewbehaviourof individualsboth inagroupaswellas in thepersonalsettingthat isrequiredtofulfiltheirpartrole inthenewbusinessprocessandtheneworganizationalstructure.Thisnewbehaviourcanonlydevelopifthepeoplearewilling,motivated,butalsoableto learn,develop,change,andact inanewsocialstructurewithdifferentcolleaguesandpowerstructuresthanbefore.Theadoptionand incorporationofnewordifferentcompetencesby thepeopleconcerned isofmajor importance. This requires new skills, at times different values, cognitiveschemata,orevenattitudes.Inthecurrentimplementationpracticethisisimplicitlyacknowledgedandknown,buttheexplicitattentionpaidtoandsupporttochangetheaspectsofthislevelisneglected.

Table3.Threelevelsoforganizationalchange(Muntslag,2001;Colthof,1965)

28 1.Introduction

1.3.3 AdefinitionoftheESimplementationprocessThe introductionprocessofanES isthusavariantofthestaged informationsystemsdevelopmentmodel.ThisvariantcomesdowntothedifferencebetweentheclassicaldevelopmentofsoftwareandtheconfigurableEStechnology(Keller&Teufel,1998).System realization in the ES variant means configuration instead of systemdevelopment.Thismeans thatmostuser influence isnotexerted in systemsdesign,but in the (re)designofbusinessprocessesand functionalitydefinition.Besides, theprojectisleadbybusinessmanagersinsteadoftechnicalmanagers.The established ES definitions emphasize the stagemodel characteristics. They areuseful for scheduling and controlling activities in the implementation project andrelevantforunderstandingthesequenceoftheactivities.Butthis isageneralmodelthat only roughly reflects the activities in time. The typical specifics of theorganizationalchangeprocessareomittedinsuchmodels,whereasthistopicisvaluedtobeoneofthemostimportantreasonsforimplementationfailures.ESstagemodelsoffermoredescriptionthanexplanation.Thedescriptionsofthevariousstagesdonotprovideanunderstandingofthenatureoftheunderlyingchangeprocesses.Basedontheanalysisofthe implementationdefinitionsandthespecificsofEStechnology,theimplementationprocessinthisPhDdissertationisdefinedas:

AnES implementation isatechnologicallydrivenorganizationalchangeprocessthatrequirespayingdeliberate,equalattentiontothetechnologicalissues,thefinancialandprojectmanagementaffairs,butalsotothepersonaldevelopmentof the participants. The current ES technology causes the implementationprocesstobestagedwithalineardependencybetweenthesubsequentstages.TheprocessstartswiththedecisionorenvisioningprocesstouseEStechnologytoimprovetheorganization.Thisbeginningstagedeterminesthecharacteristicsof the subsequent stages in both technology layout and the type of theorganizational changeprocess. The implementationprocess endswhenmajormodifications to the system have been completed and the majority of theorganization has accepted the system and is able to work in its neworganizational setting. This means the adoption of new working routines,differentsocial interactions,and insomecasesnewcompetencesandworkingbehaviour.

Figure6DefinitionofESimplementationwithinthisPhDresearch

ThisdefinitionperceivestheES implementationexplicitlyasanorganizationalchangeprocesswhichdistinguishes thisdefinition fromotherES implementationdefinitions(Govindaraju,2001;Wagner,2002;).Thisdissertationfollowsthelineofreasoningthatthedeliberate attentionpaid to and equal facilitationon all three levelsduring thechange process brings about a successful ES implementation process including itsaccompanyingorganizational changeprocess.The rich,empirical researchoutcomesshowthisequalattentionpaidtothethreelevelsisnotthecaseinpracticeand,even

29

worse,thattheattentiongiventothesocalledsofterorpeopleaspects(Table3,level3) isoftenmissing.ESarepackagedsoftwareapplicationsandthemajorityofprojectresourcesaredevotedtooutsideconsultants(Dolmetschetal.,1998;Oesterle,FleischandAlt,2000).Fora typicalES implementation,projectcostsarebrokendown intoSoftware Licensing (16%),Hardware (14%),Consulting (60%),and trainingandotherinternalstaffcosts(10%).Theconsultingpartconsistsmainlyofsetup,installationandcustomizationof thesoftware. In thenextsectionwewillexplainhow,according totheliterature,thisapproachcausesorganizationalproblemsandissues.

1.4 AnoverviewoforganizationalproblemsduringESimplementations.TheprevioussectionexplainsthattheintroductionofanEShasalargeimpactontheorganizationinallitsaspectsandthatthisresultsindifferentproblemsandissues.Butwhatarethecurrentinsightsintothesetypicalorganizationalproblemsinthedomainof ES implementations? In literature two main research approaches can bedistinguishedthatinvestigatetheseproblems(Pozzebon,2004).

Varianceorientedresearch Processorientedresearch.

1.4.1 VarianceandfactororientedresearchAcertainnumberofstudiesfocusonriskandsuccessmetricsanalysis,sometimesalsocalledCSF(CriticalSuccessFactors)basedresearch.Insuchstudiestheimplementationprocess is broken down into very specific variables or factors and their assumeddependencies. The intention of these studies is to identify potential predictors ofsuccessful ERP implementation. Due to the newness of the field of research, themajority of the reviewed studies present exploratory research. Studies testingempirical associations between predictors and the desired outcome can rarely befound.Among the more frequent outcomes (dependent variables) are implementationsuccess effectiveness and ERP value, performance, and competitive advantage. Inaddition,afewstudiesdealwithriskfactors(Butler,1999;Sumner,2000).Predictors(independent variables) are usually conceived of as factors that vary in degree orintensity (Newman and Robey, 1992). Table 4 gives an overview of some of thesefactors in the organizational context. One general conclusion from this entire fieldconfirmstheproblemsofsection1.3,thelackofattentiongiventotheorganizationalchangeaspectsduringERPimplementations.Thebasicrationalebehindthisvarianceandfactorbasedschoolofthoughtisthattheexpostinvestigationofarepresentativenumberofstudiescanleadtotheprescriptiveinformationonandknowledgeofhowtosuccessfullymanagethischangeprocessbycritical success and risk factors. But this research domain does not investigate thechangeprocess itselfandthusalsoneglectstogiveany insight intothisprocess.Thefocusisonwhatandhowtoseemssubordinate.

30 1.Introduction

Dimension Factors Authors

Peop

le

Implementationteammembers: KnowledgeandskillsTopmanagers: Topmanagement

expectationsandperceptions Topmanagement

commitmentandsupport Championand

transformationalleadership

AdamandODoherty(2000);Baskervilleetal.(2000);Bingietal.(1999);Brown(1994);MarkusandTanis(2000);Markusetal.(2000a,2000b);Parretal.(1999);ParrandShanks(2000);ScottandVessey(2000);Sumner(2000);Sohetal.(2000).

Implem

entatio

n

Managementprocess Teambuilding(multi

functionaland/or balanced) Implementationtimeand

costs

Appleton(1997);Bingietal.(1999);Markusetal.(2000a);MarkusandTanis(2000);ParrandShanks(1999,2000);ParrandShanks(1999);Bingietal.(1999).

Configurationprocess Degreeoffitormisfit(thegap

betweenERPfunctionalitiesandorganizationalneeds)

Degreeoffittocrossfunctionalintegration

Degreeofcustomization

Bingietal.(1999);Krumbholzetal.(2000);LeeandLee(2000);Markusetal.(2000);ParrandShanks(2000);Sohetal.(2000);Sumner(2000).

Mediationprocess Softwareimplementers

abilitiesduringintervention(e.g.,communicationskills)

ERPconsultantscompetence Natureofprocessof

knowledgetransfer

AdamandODoherty(2000);Appleton(1997);Bingietal.(1999);Krumbholzetal.(2000);Markusetal.(2000);Swanetal.(2000);Sohetal.(2000);Sumner(2000).

Table4.VarianceorientedlessonsandERPimplementationfactorsbasedonPozzebon(2004)

The basic idea behind such CSFbased findings is based on functionalistic researchparadigms and assumes relatively simple causeandeffect relationships betweenindependentanddependentvariables.

31

ItisquestionablewhetherthecomplexchangeprocessesthattakeplaceduringtheESimplementationcanbecapturedwiththisperspective.However,thisdoesnotmeanthatthisresearcharea isworthless. Itmaywellprovidecluesto importantareasandaspects,butacombinationwithprocessbasedresearchhelpsgetamoreholisticandsometimes clearer picture. Van de Ven (1993) has provided good examples ofcomplimentarylogic,describinghowthedifferentdimensionsobtainedbysurveysandinterviews (to identify ifandwhatchangesoccurred)canbecomplementedby realtimeobservations(tounderstandhowthesechangesoccurred).

1.4.2 ProcessorientedresearchThe factorbased research discussed in the previous section is mostly expostquantitative research.Anothergroupof researchers investigates the implementationprocessfromanotherresearchperspective.Thefocusinthisfieldisonempiricalcasestudiesand/oraction research inwhichdifferentaspectsof the changeprocessaredescribed (Besson& Rowe, 2001). Sometimes special research approaches areemployed,suchasActorNetworkTheory (ANT) (Hanseth&Braa,1998),narrativeorethnographic research approaches (Wagner, 2002), interpretative hermeneutics(Bondarouk,2004),andlongitudinalcasestudies(Volkoff&Strong,2002).BasedonanextensiveliteraturereviewbyPozzebon(2004),threemainpatternscanberecognizedin processbased research on the ES implementation process. Patterns 1 and 2 aremainly concerned with explorative and descriptive research contributions of theimplementationprocess. Inpattern3bothdescriptiveandprescriptivecontributionscanbedistinguished.

Pattern1:ERPimplementationasacognitive,knowledge

transfer,orlearningprocess

Pattern2:ERPimplementationasasocialandpolitical

process

Pattern3:changemanagementandimplementationapproaches

Knowledgemanagement(Baskervilleetal.,2000;Chan,1999;KlausandGabel,2000;LeeandLee,2000)

Cognitivechangeprocess(Brown,1994)

Organizationallearning(ScottandVessey,2000;Robey,etal.1995;Schimmel,2007)

Theoryofcultureperspective(Krumbholzetal.,2000)

Socialtechnical(Alvarez,2000;Stewartetal.,2000;Taylor,1998).

Socialshaping(ClausenandKoch,1999;Koch,2000a,Swanetal.,2000).

Politicalapproach(AdamandODoherty,2000;Brown,1998;Hislopetal.,2000;Koch,2000b).

Empiricalresearchedimplementationapproaches(Scheeretal.2003,Taylor,1998,Aladwani,2003)

Conceptualimplementationmethods(Stender,1999,Alleman,2001;SieberetNah,1999,AlMashari2003)

Table5ThreepatternsinprocessorientedESimplementationresearchbasedonPozzebon(2004)

32 1.Introduction

1.4.3 Pattern1.LearningandknowledgeexchangeIn this pattern specific attention is paid to the aspects of learning and knowledgetransferduringtheESimplementation.TheESimplementationcanbecomealearningchallengefortheadoptingorganization.Importanttothischallenge istheknowledgetransferbetweentheimplementationpartner(ESvendorand/orICTconsultants)andthe adopting organization (Robey et al. 1995). In the majority of the ESimplementations this leads to a dialectic change and learning process in whichopposite forcesarecompetingandthechangeprocessdevelopsdependingontheseforces. (Robey, Ross& Boudreau 2002). The adopting organization is aware of thecurrent working practice and performs its daily routines using its own cognitiveschemataandvalues.The implementationpartner,ontheotherhand,possessestheESspecific package knowledge and ideally helps cocreate futureworking practicesand theconfigurationof thesupporting informationsystem.One importantproblemduringthisprocessisovercomingtheknowledgebarrierbetweenthesetwodifferentgroups, which is caused by the different perceptions of the situation, differentbackgrounds,andsometimesevendifferentgoalsduringtheimplementationprocess.Thoughthisphenomenonhasbeendescribedextensivelyintheperspectiveofsystemdevelopmentandrequirementsengineering(Rolland&Prakash,1999;Slooten,1995),thesignificantimpactontheorganizationcomplicatesthisknowledgetransferprocess.Itnowgoesbeyonddefiningnewsystemfunctionalityandthesupportofnewworkingroutines.

ERP implementationstypicallyrequireorganizationstoreplace largeportionsofwhat they know, not only about technical infrastructures but also businessprocesses.The implementation inthatsensecanbeunderstoodasadialecticoflearning(Robeyetal.,2000)

Themajority of the research contributions use the organizational learning concept(MarchandOlsson,1975)asawaytoovercometheknowledgetransferbarrier.Robeyet al. (1995) show fundamental differences between reengineering and learning(Figure7),butargue for the integrationof theseconceptsbyencapsulating learningandmakingitanexplicitpartofthereengineeringprocess.Schimmel(2007)describesmeasurestoovercomeknowledgebarriersthroughouttheimplementationprocess.The general research outcomes show that organizations that put effort into formaltrainingprogramsachievesignificantlyhighersuccessratesoftheirESimplementationthanorganizationsthatspentalmostnoeffortorbudgetonformaltraining.Thelatterareconfrontedwithdifficultiesinovercomingtheknowledgebarriersandassimilatingchange.Theseresultsarenotsurprising,butalsoshowarathernarrowperceptionofthe learningconcepttoencounterknowledgeandchangebarriers.Thecontributionsin this pattern consider training and learning in a rather functionalistic perspective(AngetLee,1997)

33

PointofComparison Reengineering Learning

RootMetaphor Mechanism IntelligentOrganism

StartingPoint CleanSlate CurrentMemory

NatureofChange Radical,Discontinuous Incremental

Methodology Quantitative Qualitative

Risks DamageandDeathReversiontoOldPatterns

BlindSpotsImplementation,Acceptance

MethodologyforChange

RoleofInformationTechnology

PrimaryEnablerofRedesignedProcesses

EnablerandDisablerofLearning

Figure7.ComparisonofReengineeringandLearningasMetaphorsforOrganizationalImprovement(Robeyetal.1995)

From change and learning literature, it is known that a combination of variousmethodscontributes to the learningachievement.Forexample,action researchandsituatedlearningaretwomethodsthatinadditiontoformaltrainingcanevenincreaselearningefficiencyandhelpcrossingknowledgebarriers.The contributions in this pattern can thus give specific insights into the knowledgeexchangeprocessduringtheES implementationprocess.Buttheyaretoospecifictodescribeor facilitate theorganizational changeprocess in its entire form (theblindspotsinFigure7showsomeoftheseexplicitdeficits).Learninginchangeliteratureisperceived asone important contributor to the changeprocess,but the change andlearningprocesscannotbetreatedasoneandthesame(Beer,1980;Beer&Walton,1990;Schuilingpp56,2002).Thecognitiveandfunctionalisticperspectiveonlearningcan certainly contribute to knowledge growth and possibly changes to cognitiveschemata.But anorganizational changeprocess is also about structural, social, andbehavioural changes (Beer, 1980; Beer & Noria, 2000) that require differentinstrumentsandapproachesthantheratherfunctionalistic learningapproachesfromthispattern.Theaboveanalysisisonlyoneofthelimitationsinthispattern.Anotherperhapsevenlarger problem is the focus on mainly explorative research. Most frameworks ormodelsdescribetheknowledgetransferphenomenonandshowthedynamics inthephases of the implementation, but a prescriptive approach to overcoming theknowledgebarriersandshapethelearningprocessisscarceinthisfield(Figure8).Thereisneverthelessrecentresearchthathasresultedinpredictiveknowledgeandalsowidensitsperspectivetoincludeboththecognitiveaswellasthesocialaspectsoflearningandknowledgetransfer(Bondarouk,2004;Limburg,2002).Bondarouk,basedonKolbslearningcycle(1981),enhancesandintroducesagrouplearningapproachtoincreasethesuccessfuladoptionofITartefactswhereasLimburg,basedonMunford(1983)andGreenbaum&Kyng(1991),emphasizesthegroupcollaborationprocessandparticipativedesignmechanismsasafruitfulchangeandlearningmethodduringthedesignprocess.

34 1.Introduction

Contribution Knowledge Source

Organizationallearningmodel DescriptiveAngetal.1997)Robeyetal.(1995

KnowledgeTransferperspective

Descriptive

Lee&Lee2000,Boudreauetal,2000;Souder,Nasharetal.1990;Bancroft,SeipandSprengel1998;Haines&Goodhue,2003)

KnowledgeintegrationinERPimplementations

Descriptive Panetal.2001

SociallearningmodelExplorative/Descriptive

Wassenaar&Katsma(2004)

DoublelooplearningmodelExplorative/Descriptive

Stein&vdBosch(1996)

Figure8.Learningandknowledgetransfercontributions

ItisexpectedthattheseinsightsarepartlyapplicabletothespecificpropertiesoftheESimplementationprocess.Butamorethoroughinvestigationisnecessarytoconfirmthisandadapttheseapproaches.Concludingpattern1.The contributions in this pattern very specifically focus on parts of the behaviouralissues during the change process (level 3 in Table 3). The contributions from thispatterncanbesummarizedasfollows:

Theresearchinthisfieldismainlyexplorativeanddescriptive. A substantial part uses organizational memory theories or the

organizational learning concept to describe the complex process ofknowledge transfer between the consultants and participants of theadoptingorganization.Thoughthesecontributionsgivean insight intohow these processes develop, they mainly focus on the cognitiveaspectsandtreatthechangeprocessasprimarilyacognitive learningeffort. This does not specify new behaviour in theworking situationanddifferent social interactions betweenpeople. It is thus anarrowapplicationoftheissuesinlevelthreeofTable3.

The listedtheoriesassumeafunctionalisticperspectiveonthechangeand learning process. This line of reasoning can be easily combinedwiththecurrentESimplementationapproaches(figure3),butcurrentinsights from organizational science have shown multidisciplinaryapproachestobemoreeffectivewithmoresuccessfuloutcomesofthechangeprocess(Beer&Noria,2000)

Figure9Mainresearchoutputofresearchpattern1

35

1.4.4 Pattern2.ThesocialandpoliticalchangeprocessLiteraturethatcanbeclassifiedinthispatternemphasizesthetypicaldynamicsofthechangeprocessfromthestructural,social,political,orpowerperspective.Itfocusesontheorganizationalandsocialaspectsofthechangingorganizationalsystemduringtheimplementation process, the role technology plays in this process, and how thedifferent stakeholders perceive and undergo the change. In this pattern a few substreamscanbedistinguished:Afirstapproachinthisfieldfocusesonthebehaviourallevel,(thirdlevelinTable3).Itexpands the mainly cognitive learning experiences, discussed in pattern 1. Thesecontributions emphasize the different organizational structures inwhich people areexpected tobeworking and specify the stagesneeded to embed and facilitate thisstructuralchange.Basedonthe innovationthinkingofRogers (2003)andthe IspaceconceptofBoisot(1995),Wassenaar&Katsma(2004)defineasociallearningcycleinwhicheachstageoftheESimplementationprocessischaracterizedbyhavingitsownsocial learning dynamics, needing its own situationalspecific approach. The ideabehind thismodel is to combine thechange initiativeson the structural (second)aswell as the behavioural (third) level (Table 3) by putting emphasis on social andsituatedlearningineachstage.Inacomparablemodel,Besson&Rowe(2001)continuethe 'motors of change' (van de Ven& Poole, 1990), and specify four differentperspectiveson thechangeprocesses thatevolveduring the fourdifferentstagesoftheES implementation (Markus&Tanis,2000).Forexample, in the"projectphase,"designers tend towardseitheranengineering (Besson&Rowe,2001)or toa rationalactorpointofview(Markus&Robey,1988).A second large portion of research contributions focuses on the different socialstructures that emerge when an ES is adopted. In most cases organizationsintentionallyadoptanESbecauseofthefundamentalorganizationalchangesthatwilltakeplacedue to thesystem introduction (Boudreau&Robey,1999).Thesechangesnot only occur on a cognitive level (themain research subject of pattern 1), butstructures, coalitions and social interactions between people of the adoptingorganization also change. This socalled social shaping perspective on theimplementation process seeks to understand the relationship between structuringorganizations and the ERP implementation. In this field it is about identification ofoccasions for negotiation (Clausen and Koch, 1999), examination of the internalpoliticalprocessandpowerstructures(Koch2000;Swanetal.2000).The implementationprocessdescribed inpattern1fromthe learningandknowledgetransfer perspective here is perceived as a collaboration process between differentactors that together shapeaneworganizational structure.TheworkofVolkoff andStrong (2002, 2004) focuses on the social process of negotiating and designingbetween project team members. Typical topics such as negotiations, boundaryspanning during the implementation process, or the typical project roles (Volkoff&Strong,2002)andproject formatsRobey (2000)arediscussedbythesescholars.Notonlythepeople involvedbutalsothesystem isperceiveddifferentlyasan important

36 1.Introduction

and sometimes even dominant actor (van Stijn, 2006; Braa& Hanseth, 1998). Theintroduction of the ES then is regarded as the introduction of a rather forced neworganizationalinfrastructure.Amerely critical approach creates awareness, but on the short runwill not helpimprove the track record of ES implementations. The current ES technology isinherently associated with enforcing new organizational structures. Whenorganizationsexplicitly chooseES technology, they should accept the accompanyingnecessary changes on this structural level togetherwith all its effects on differentsocialinteractionsandpowerstructures.ThisshowstheimportanceofacknowledgingthepoweroftheESitself.Inthatsensethedifferenttheoriesforresistance(Markus,1983)mustbeperceivedinaslightlydifferentperspectivethanisdonewithstandardinformation systems. The ES enforces social structures and the influence ofparticipants is reduced. This does notmean that the implementation process is adirectiveonewayaffair,butitisimportanttoacknowledgetheseinfluencesandhowtheyworkouton thedesignand learningprocess.Markusdiscerns three resistancetheories:

1. Peopledetermined,2. Systemdetermined,3. Interactiontheory.

Herworkshowsthateducation (described inpattern1,1.4.3)andparticipationhavepositive effects on peopledetermined resistance (1). The systemdeterminedresistance(2)takesaspecialplaceinthefieldofESimplementations.Theadaptabilityof ES is significantly lower than best of breed or customdeveloped businessinformation systems. Therefore, the possibilities to pay attention to this resistancetypeandcreateacceptancearelimited.Itistheinteractiontheory(3)thatisofspecialimportanceinpattern2.Itshowsuserparticipationisnotnecessarilyappropriateinallcases,but shouldbeadjusted to the specific situation. It stresses the importanceofaccomplishing the restructuring process at best simultaneously with, but alwaysbefore, system introduction; this trainof thought is also found inBoonstra&Vink,(1996).Lastbutnotleast,therelationshipsbetweenimplementationpartnerandusershaveamajorimpactbothonthesystemdefinitionbutalsoontheneworganizationalstructure.AcriticaloverthinkingofthewaysofworkingandimplementationmethodsisappropriateaccordingtoMarkus.Theperceptionoftheparticipantsnotonlystemsfromthestructuralchangesthemselves,butmorefromhowtheprocessisshapedandmanaged. It is therefore necessary to use insights from organizational science anddefine ways and approaches to support this change process. Implementationmethodologiesshouldnotonlypayattentiontoathoroughanalysisofsystemcontentbut also to the entire organizational setting the systemwill be introduced into. Ineffectthishasgreatconsequencesandcancontributetothe learningandknowledgetransfertheoriesinpattern1.

37

Concludingpattern2Fromtheabove itcanbeconcludedthatasignificantpartofthis literaturedescribesthephenomenaofchangingsocialandpowerstructures(level2,Table2)duetothespecialcharacteristicsof theES technology.Thecontributions in thispatterncanbesummarizedasfollows:

The contributions in this field mainly consist of explorative and

descriptiveresearch. Apartisaimedatenhancingthecognitivebasedresearchfrompattern

1.Itexplicitlyvaluesthecontributionofthiscognitiveperspective,butalsomentions its limitations. A real integration between these twopatterns isnotachievedoronlyata ratherexplorativeorconceptuallevel.

A substantial part takes a critical research perspective on the ITimplementationprocessandurgestobeawareofhowthe ITartefactandwaysofworkingduringtheimplementationprocessdominatestheshaping of organizational structures. These insights are valuable, butalso require further thinking about and development ofimplementation approaches. The inherent properties of current EStechnologyrequireadeliberatelyattunedchangeprocessalsoaimedatthesestructuralchanges(Level2,Table3).

Figure10Mainresearchoutputofresearchpattern2

1.4.5 Pattern3.ESImplementationapproachesandmethodologies.Theprevioussectionsonpatterns1and2typicallydescribeorganizationalproblemsorpartsofitduringtheimplementationprocess.Butisthereaclearcauseforalloftheseproblems?Orisitthecombinationofrelationshipsbetweentheproblemsasdescribedinthesesections?The firstassumption tendsmore towards thevarianceand factorbased researchasdescribedinsection1.4.1andassumesrathersimplerelationships.Intheperspectiveofthesecondassumptionitisneverthelessinterestingtoquestionthecurrentchangemanagement practice. How is change management currently embodied in theimplementationpractice?Isnoattentionbeinggiventothisaspectatallorarethingsbeingmanaged improperly?Partsof thesequestionsarealsoansweredby literaturefrom patterns 1 and 2, but from very specific perspectives, mostly resulting indescriptive knowledge. Pattern 3 distinguishes itself from the previous ones in twoways, first by using the experiences from information systems development(Checkland, 1991; Baskerville, 2001; Walsham, 1983; Rolland, 1995; Avison&Fitzgerald, 2004) and project management research. Secondly, in pattern 3 firstattempts are made to produce prescriptive knowledge on how to manage theimplementationprocess.

38 1.Introduction

Implementation partners and/or ES vendors have been developing implementationmethodologies inwhich changemanagementhas an importantplace.But a furtherinspectionoftheusedchangemanagementpractice,includingitstoolsandmethodsintheperspectiveofcurrent insightsfromorganizationalchange literature,raisessomequestionsandleavesroomfordiscussion.BasedontheBPRandprocessmodellingexperiences,Scheeretal.(2003)presentanintegrated change management and processredesign approach. In this work theextensionoftheARIStoolsetandtheprocessapproachtochangemanagementresultsinadesignbasedprojectmanagementapproachinwhichARISistheleadingmethodto manage the change process through project and process management. Thisapproach isdominatedby informationandcommunicationplans inorder topreparefortheintroductionoftheES.Butthesecommunicationandtrainingprogrammesareunbalanced in theircompositionandsuffer from thesameproblemsasdescribed inpattern 1 (section 1.4.3). Only a relatively small number of participants from theadoptingorganizationreceiveextendedtrainingprogrammesabouttheESandprocessmodelling intheearlystagesofthe implementation.Thedominantpartofeducationandtrainingisspentonsystemuseandthefunctionalimpactofthesystemontheendusers(MahapatraandLai,1998).Thesetrainingprogramsaremovedtotheendoftheimplementationprocessshortlybeforetheactualsystemintroduction.In the similarworkofAlMashari (2003),aprocessorientedchangemodel isderivedfrom empiricallybased evidence.Nevertheless, this change approach is a collectionand listing of dos and donts in the classes strategic management, projectmanagement(process improvementandERPdeployment),andchangemanagement.Themodeldoesexplainhowtoactandhowtoachievetheeffectsfromthelists.Thisis presented rather implicitly. Aladwani (2001) takes the same fundamentalperspectivebutstressesadifferentfocus.TheapproachthatisusedismainlybasedonthefoundationsofOrganizationalTransformation(PorrasandSilver,1991).Thereareresemblances between the ES implementation process and this topdown changephilosophy thataimsatstrategicand transformationalchangesoforganizations.ButOTpayslessexplicitattentiontobottomupcompetencedevelopmentandlearningoftheparticipantsinvolved.In the work of Aladwani, which cannot be compared to an elaborated method,different changemanagement strategies are listed. These strategiesmainly aim athelping top management and creating a change approach in order to overcomeresistance and motivate key and end users. Resistance is seen as a blockade forsuccessful implementation or as unwillingness to change. This perspective is underdebate and recent insights show resistance should not be seen as an impedimentpreventingtheprocesstocontinue,butassignalsandpotentialcriticalsourcesfortheorganizational members (Boonstra, 2000). These members often have a goodargumentation for being dissentient. To cope with resistance by pushorientedcommunicationandtheorganizationof informationfairscannotbecomparedwithadeliberatedialogueinwhichdifferentparticipantsreallyhavetheirsay.

39

This also requires a more problemoriented approach rather than the solutionorientedapproachesascurrentlyisthecase.AwayofworkingthattendstothislineofthinkingisthecombinationofBPRandsociotechnicaldesignappliedinthecontextofES (Taylor, 1998) This approach explores the application of STS (social technicalsystems), with its local participation in organization design, to a centralized andautocraticapplicationofBPRandSAPenterprisewidesoftware.Thisconceptisastepintherightdirection,buttheapplicationofSTSinthisworkisstillratherdeterministic.Later insights have shown the deficiencies of this classical appliance of STS(Scarborgough,1995)andfurtherresearchinsightsdevelopedsubstantially.Oneofthemain arguments against classical STS is themerely designbased approach used todefine both technological artefacts but also the softer human and social aspects.Especiallythelatteraspectsshouldbeembeddedinamoreinterpretativemanner(vanderZwaan,1990).Some scholars in IS literature explicitly argue for this aspect in conceptual changeapproachesintheEScontext(Stender,1999,Alleman,2001;SieberetNah,2000).Thelatterscholars,basedon the improvisationalchangemodelbyOrlikowski&Hofmann(1997), describe a conceptual change model for ERP implementations. The mainargument of this approach is the combination of the ES implementations criticalsuccess factors and a further specification of the three types of change from theOrlikowskiandHoffmanmodel.Stender(1999)usestheexperiencesfromincrementalCRM implementations to describe a conceptual incremental ERP implementationmethodology. Alleman (2001) follows the same route from agile development andextreme programming experiences. The fundamental problem with all threecontributions is theirconceptualstatus.Noneof these threeconceptsmovebeyondthe conceptual stageandnonehavebeen furtherdeveloped into soundandpropermethodsortools,letalonethatempiricalinsightsareavailable.Theproblemsdescribedinthispatterncanbesaidtoresultfromoneprimaryrationalebehind the ES implementation process. In the present change managementperspective during ES implementations, both the technology and