The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 64 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 3 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change
Open accessAbstract
This paper reports on a comparative case study of 13 industrial firms that implemented an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system. It compares firms based on their dialectic learning process. All firms had to overcome knowledge barriers of two types: those associated with the configuration of the ERP package, and those associated with the assimilation of new work processes. We found that both strong core teams and carefully managed consulting relationships addressed configuration knowledge barriers. User training that included both technical and business processes, along with a phased implementation approach, helped firms to overcome assimilation knowledge barriers. However, all firms in this study experienced ongoing concerns with assimilation knowledge barriers, and we observed two different approaches to address them. In a piecemeal approach, firms concentrated on the technology first and deferred consideration of process changes. In a concerted approach, both the technology and process changes were undertaken together. Although most respondents clearly stated a preference for either piecemeal or concerted change, all firms engaged in practices that reflected a combination of these approaches.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This comparative case study examines 13 North American manufacturing firms that implemented enterprise resource planning systems, using a dialectic learning lens to analyze how they overcame knowledge barriers. It distinguishes configuration and assimilation barriers, and contrasts piecemeal with concerted implementation approaches.
Key findings
- Firms faced two main knowledge barriers: configuring the ERP package and assimilating new work processes. More successful firms managed consultants carefully and transferred external knowledge; less successful firms either ignored consultant advice or became overdependent, with one firm paying 60% of project cost to consultants.
- Training budgets ranged from 1% to 20% of total project budget. More successful firms supplemented system training with education on new processes and change management, while incremental implementation helped users assimilate new work processes.
- Eight firms used a piecemeal approach, implementing ERP before or separately from process reengineering, while five used a concerted approach, redesigning processes alongside ERP. Both groups ultimately had to change systems and processes together, and the distinction was clearer in stated philosophy than in practice; no evidence showed concerted approaches led to greater success.
- Outcomes were mixed: positive impacts included supply chain efficiency, improved financial accounting, greater data visibility, and process-centered thinking; negative impacts included data inaccuracy, lost reporting capabilities, user resistance, strained customer relationships, and loss of skilled people. Most respondents said it was too early to tell ultimate benefits.
Methods
- Comparative case study of 13 North American manufacturing firms or divisions that had completed a major ERP implementation from SAP, Oracle, Baan, or PeopleSoft. The original sample had 16 sites, but 3 had insufficient data; firms initially had to exceed $500 million in revenue, though this criterion was later relaxed.
- One author interviewed 16 sites as part of a larger ERP study. The analysis used a dialectic process perspective, focusing on obstacles encountered during implementation and the mechanisms used to overcome them.
- Firms were categorized by relative success in overcoming configuration and assimilation knowledge barriers, and by whether they followed piecemeal or concerted change processes.
Limitations
- The paper states that many firms were still in post-implementation adjustment, most said it was too early to tell ultimate benefits, and the authors could not gauge ultimate success. It also notes that interviews with senior executives gave no direct access to situated learning, and that the study does not address whether ERP is an effective match for organizations or verify concerns about lost functionality.
- Evident from the text: the sample is limited to 13 North American manufacturing firms or divisions, partly selected through sponsor and consulting contacts, which constrains generalizability. The data are retrospective interview accounts, and outcomes were unstable at the time of study, making causal or long-term conclusions difficult.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
50 Own result · 33 Own interpretation · 24 No basis given · 2 No full text of the sources · 2 Own method · 1 Sources not found · 1 Not checked yet
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only two cases (PlastiCo and ContainerCo) had mixed results, in that they were judged successfiil in configunng ERP but less successfiil in assimilating new work processes.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 4.3 ERP Implementation Process
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All firms had to overcome knowledge bamers of two types: those associated with the configuration of the ERP package, and those associated with the assimilation of new work processes.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although ERP is often associated with radical change, our results suggest that user knowledge barriers were overcome more effectively when change was introduced incrementallv”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 4.3.1.2 Overcoming Assimilation Knowledge Barriers
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The eight companies that adopted a piecemeal approach (TeleCo, HealthCo, MetalCo, WearCo, PlastiCo, CommCo AutoCo, and EquipCo) implemented ERP either prior to or apart from a business process reengineering initiative.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 4.3.2 Piecemeal and Concerted Change Processes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The remaining five firms (ComputerCo, TextileCo, IndusCo, ContainerCo, and PharmaCo) pursued a concerted change approach, focusing on business process redesign along with ERP implementation.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 4.3.2 Piecemeal and Concerted Change Processes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the latter approach, both the technology and the process changes were tackled together.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To respondents, the primary obstacle to implementing ERP successfully and realizing benefits from new business processes was the firm's established knowledge pertaining to systems and business processes.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 4.3 ERP Implementation Process
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The learning challenges associated with each of these approaches were found to be different.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, almost every case exhibited some combination of positive and negative outcomes, making our goal of assessing those outcomes difficult.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 4.2 Outcomes of ERP
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The more successful companies consistently reported an effectively managed relationship with their consultants.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 4.3 ERP Implementation Process
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 30
- Probably not a substantial claim. 12
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also observed different ERP implementation approaches: piecemeal and concerted.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Respondents described a mixture of positive and negative impacts resulting from their ERP implementation, but most said that it was “too early to tell” what ultimate benefits might result.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 4.2 Outcomes of ERP
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the less successfiil cases, companies either depended too little on consulting advice or became over dependent.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 4.3 ERP Implementation Process
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Negative outcomes included problems of data inaccuracy, loss of reporting capabilities, resistance by users, strained relationships with customers, and loss of skilled people.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 4.2 Outcomes of ERP
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Performance improvements included greater efficiency within supply chains, improved financial accounting, greater data visibility and analysis capability, and more process-centered thinking.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 4.2 Outcomes of ERP
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The one firm (EquipCo) that attempted to circumvent process change by customizing and changing program code to make the system fit its existing processes experienced extraordinary technological problems as a result of its modifications.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 4.3.2 Piecemeal and Concerted Change Processes
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Firms that were less successful in the management of their consultant relationships made one of two mistakes: they were either too dependent on consultants' advice or they distrusted them.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 5.1 The Dialectic of Organizational Learning
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“one respondent from PharmaCo estimated that it could take about tliree years to get ftill knowledge of the software”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 4.3.2 Piecemeal and Concerted Change Processes
hedgedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, firms differ in their implementation approach, some choosing a piecemeal approach and others a concerted approach.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 6. CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although standard business processes were part of the corporate model for the first ERP implementation, fears were that divisions would modify their individual processes later.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 4.3.2 Piecemeal and Concerted Change Processes
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, it was clear that the processes that had been designed into the system failed to leverage the capabilities of the ERP and severely limited the firm's ability to use the data effectively.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 4.3.2 Piecemeal and Concerted Change Processes
boosteddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, ContainerCo actually implemented its ERP modules into traditional fiinctional departments, foregoing the advantages potentially associated with process integration.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 4.3.2 Piecemeal and Concerted Change Processes
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the most successful firms in our sample limited their dependence on external consultants and took measures to ensure the transfer of external knowledge to the organization.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 5.1 The Dialectic of Organizational Learning
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ERP was regarded as dismantling not only existing business processes but also the understanding of how work ought to be structured.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 4.3.2 Piecemeal and Concerted Change Processes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although this approach was adopted to separate the two types of leaming requirements, vanilla versions required some business processes to change immediately.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 5.1 The Dialectic of Organizational Learning
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Moreover, firms adopting either approach also faced a future with ERP upgrades and new software releases (Glass, 1998), and few firms regarded their implementation as “complete” simply because the installed version was working.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 5.1 The Dialectic of Organizational Learning
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Glass, 1998 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although this increased the learning challenge, these tlrms were more likely to report fiill transformations rather than wait for the lliture.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 5.1 The Dialectic of Organizational Learning
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many respondents were candidly doubtful that the business changes would indeed follow the BRP implementation, citing the resistant organizational cultures out in the operating divisions.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 5.1 The Dialectic of Organizational Learning
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“According to respondents, BRP implementation challenged established knowledge in two ways.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 6. CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Not only did core teams become a key repository of new knowledge, but they also helped to distribute knowledge throughout organizations as they carne into contact with user areas.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 6. CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whereas most firms had once built information systems around the requirements of their existing operational processes, most were concluding that big packages sometimes demanded that business processes adapt to assumptions built into the software.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 6. CONCLUSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In summary, respondents descnbed organizational forces that promoted leammg about new systems and processes as well as forces that sought to maintain the status quo.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 6. CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effectiveness of core teams depended on their size, representation, and their ability to avoid turnover of key members.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 6. CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Because past research has revealed that changes induced by mformation technology are often resisted, unanticipated, or contradictory, a theory embedding a motor that acknowledges the opposing forces contnbuting to change promises useful analytical power (Robey and Boudreau, 1999).”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 2.3. Toward a Dialectic of ERP Implementation The research reported in this paper adopts a process theory perspective, but employs different assumptions about the mechanisms that generate change.In addition to the life cycle motor.Van de Ven and Poole (1995) offered three alternative types of motors that could drive organizational changes: dialectical, teleological, and evolutionary.Our particular interest is in the dialectic motor, which emphasizes a "pluralistic world of colliding events, forces, or contradictory values that compete with each other, for domination or control" (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995: 517).The dialectic interplay between two or more opposing entities was the basis for Robey and Boudreau's (1999) proposed "logic of opposition" to explain the diversity of orgamzational consequences of IT, and dialectics could potentially explain the diversity of outcomes observed m ERP research.Using dialectics, researchers are not tied to a preordained sequence of developmental stages such as those represented in a life cycle model.Rather, any particiilar implementation project would be expected to manifest forces promoting change and forces opposing change.Rather than being determined by antecedent conditions, ERP consequences become largely indeterminate in a dialectic analysis.In this way, a variety of potential outcomes can be explained, at least retrospectively, with a dialectic motor.Because past research has revealed that changes induced by mformation technology are often resisted, unanticipated, or contradictory, a theory embedding a motor that acknowledges the opposing forces contnbuting to change promises useful analytical power (Robey and Boudreau, 1999). In using dialectic analysis, it is necessary to identify the opposing forces (Robey and Boudreau, 1 999).Identification of forces may be guided by an a priori choice of theory or it may be induced during data analysis.If a researcher, for example, wished to examine ERP implementation as a political contest, he or she could design research methods to identify opposing political interests.Alternatively, the researcher could operate in a more exploratory manner by looking for any evidence of opposing forces, not necessarily political opposition.In the method employed for this research, we selected dialectics as a motor believed to be useful for explaining a vanety of outcomes for process research.However, we did not specify an a priori theoretical approach choosing to let the content of the dialectical theory be suggested by the research data (Boudreau and Robey, 1999).
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Robey and Boudreau, 1999 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, ERP systems required working more cross-fiinctionally than before simply because of their integrated design.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 4.3.2 Piecemeal and Concerted Change Processes
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Clearly, these statements indicate the presence of barriers that require substantial efforts to overcome.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 4.3.2 Piecemeal and Concerted Change Processes
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Concerted change is practically forced upon most firms by virtue of ERP's integrated nature; old business processes simply cannot be performed on new software.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 5.1 The Dialectic of Organizational Learning
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because HRP technology is so new and complex, it is difficult for a company to embark on such an endeavor without external knowledge.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 5.1 The Dialectic of Organizational Learning
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: ERP technology is so new and complex that it is difficult for a company to embark on an ERP implementation without external knowledge.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ERP tends to be associated with integrated, process-centered models of organization, and moving successtlilly toward such newer business and organizational models requires substantial learning.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 5.1 The Dialectic of Organizational Learning
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: ERP tends to be associated with integrated, process-centered models of organization.
In the paper
“Despite the significant technical challenges posed by ERP, researchers agree that organizational factors are most critical to successful ERP implementation (Constantinos, 1999).”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 2.1 Variance Research on ERP
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Constantinos, 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We concluded that the concerted group of firms was more realistic in acknowledging the tight coupling between technology and organizational change, while many firms in the piecemeal group appeared naive in their expectation that they could easily defer attention to business process changes.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 4.3.2 Piecemeal and Concerted Change Processes
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Certainly, ERP solutions removed some fiinctionality associated with legacy systems, but that may have been desirable for firms seeking greater integration.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 6. CONCLUSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, firms in the piecemeal ERP group had not simply deferred part of their task to the ftiture; in some cases they may have increased the total learning challenge as a result of this approach.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 4.3.2 Piecemeal and Concerted Change Processes
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The assimilation challenges demand intensive employee education and appear to be more effective with incremental implementation plans.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 6. CONCLUSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The configuration challenges demand a core team that is carefully selected, motivated with incentives, and empowered to act, as well as an effectively managed consulting relationship.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 6. CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings imply that firms implementing ERP may not have the luxury to proceed m piecemeal fashion, even though many of them tned.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 5.1 The Dialectic of Organizational Learning
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rather, our use of learning constructs was drawn directly from the interview notes, which contained numerous references to learning, learning curves, and knowledge.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 5.1 The Dialectic of Organizational Learning
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rather, the structures and processes of entire divisions needed to change, and references to cultural change captured the scope of the learning required at the organizational level.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 6. CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Caches of organizational memory formerly guarded by division managers become transparent in the world of ERP, and enduring assumptions about responsibility, accountability, and the shared understandings about what it takes to succeed are all challenged.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 6. CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
ERP software packages are prepackaged and allow customization only through configuration tables that reflect business rules.
“First, the software was prepackaged, allowmg for customizahon only through tables that the firm could configure m order to reflect its business rules.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Replacing legacy systems with ERP disrupts processes built on those systems and replaces them with more standardized, crossfunctional processes.
“Second, as firms replaced existing legacy systems with an ERP, they disrupted the processes that were built on those systems and replaced them with more standardized, crossftanctional processes.”
The paper relies on this without support.
ERP tends to be associated with integrated, process-centered models of organization.
“ERP tends to be associated with integrated, process-centered models of organization”
The paper relies on this without support.
ERP systems typically require organizations to replace large portions of what they know, not only about technical infrastructures but also about business processes.
“ERP systems typically require orgamzations to replace large portions of what they know, not only about technical mfrastructures but also about business processes.”
The paper relies on this without support.
ERP technology is so new and complex that it is difficult for a company to embark on an ERP implementation without external knowledge.
“Because HRP technology is so new and complex, it is difficult for a company to embark on such an endeavor without external knowledge.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“ES implementations comprise two main parts—an extensive redesign of business processes and the deployment of new software to support the new business processes (Morris and Venkatesh 2010; Robey et al. 2002).”
From Enterprise System Implementation and Employee Job Performance: Understanding the Role of Advice Networks1 (2014) · cites this paper as Robey et al. 2002
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Despite a large body of ERP research literature from a number of different perspectives, there is not an adequate understanding and explanation about how and why these varying outcomes occur.”
From An Explanatory Framework for Achieving Business Benefits from ERP Systems (2012) · cites this paper as Robey, Ross, & Boudreau's (2002)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“A new ES introduces uncertainty in the work environment in the transition period (Kolodny et al. 1996) and often results in realignments of business processes and work unit interdependencies (Robey et al. 2002).”
From Enterprise System Implementation and Employee Job Performance: Understanding the Role of Advice Networks1 (2014) · cites this paper as Robey et al. 2002
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“As noted earlier, an ES implementation comes with changes to business processes and the introduction of new software applications (Davenport 2000; Robey et al. 2002; Ross and Vitale 2000).”
From Enterprise System Implementation and Employee Job Performance: Understanding the Role of Advice Networks1 (2014) · cites this paper as Robey et al. 2002
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Robey, Ross, & Boudreau's (2002) contention that most studies to date have concentrated on description rather than explanation still applies.”
From An Explanatory Framework for Achieving Business Benefits from ERP Systems (2012) · cites this paper as Robey, Ross, & Boudreau's (2002)
Citations
Cites
Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Bloch, M. E. F., Lave, J., & Wenger, É. (1994) · Man · doi:10.2307/2804509 · Cited by 39,362
Building theories from case study research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (2009) · STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI · doi:10.3280/so2008-002004 · Cited by 11,403
Explaining Development and Change in Organizations
van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1995.9508080329 · Cited by 3,762
Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system.
Davenport, T. H. (1998) · PubMed · Cited by 3,340
Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research
Markus, M. L., & Robey, D. (1988) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.34.5.583 · Cited by 2,108
Self-citationThe Case Study Crisis: Some Answers
Yin, R. K. (1981) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392599 · Cited by 2,030
(1981) · Cited by 1,972
Better Stories and Better Constructs: The Case for Rigor and Comparative Logic
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1991) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1991.4279496 · Cited by 1,817
House, R. J., Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1984) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258499 · Cited by 1,436
Technology Diffusion and Organizational Learning: The Case of Business Computing
Attewell, P. (1992) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.3.1.1 · Cited by 1,401
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- [20]20. Koh, C, Soh, C, and Markus, M.L. "A Process Theory Approach to Analyzing ERP Implementation and Impacts: The Case of Revel Asia," Journal of Information Technology Cases and Applications, (2:1), 2000, 4-23.
- [24]24. Markus, M.L., Tanis, C, and van Fenema, "MultiSite ERP Implementations," Communications of the ACM, (43:4) 2000, 42^6.
- [26]26. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M., Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expended Source Book, Second Edition, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1994.
- [50]50. Willcocks, L.P. and Sykes, R., "The Role of the CIO and IT Function in HRP," Communications of the ACM, (43:4), 2000, 32
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. (2007) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148781 · Cited by 3,921
Enacting Integrated Information Technology: A Human Agency Perspective
Boudreau, M.-C., & Robey, D. (2005) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0103 · Cited by 1,071
“Typically, modifications to the work processes embedded in the vendor’s software are discouraged and “vanilla” implementations are recommended (Robey et al. 2002).”
MethodSelf-citationJasperson, J., Carter, P. E., & Zmud, R. W. (2005) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.5555/2017264.2017272 · Cited by 1,035
Antecedents of Knowledge Transfer from Consultants to Clients in Enterprise System Implementations
Ko, D., Kirsch, L. J., & King, W. R. (2005) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 981
Jasperson, J., Carter, & Zmud, R. W. (2005) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148694 · Cited by 1,433
An extension of the technology acceptance model in an ERP implementation environment
Amoako-Gyampah, K., & Salam, A. F. (2004) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.08.010 · Cited by 922
“When an ERP package is started, organizational members must acquire complex new knowledge, must learn to overcome the knowledge barriers and organizational changes that implementation carries with it and simultaneously unlearn what they already know [63].”
BackgroundContradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations: A Constitutive Approach
Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1162421 · Cited by 1,116
Toward Blockchain-Based Accounting and Assurance
Dai, J., & Vasarhelyi, M. A. (2017) · Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.2308/isys-51804 · Cited by 881
“Using ERP systems, firms can integrate data from different business segments, reengineer business processes, improve financial controls, and increase information transparency and visibility (Grabski, Leech, and Schmidt 2011; Morris and Laksmana 2010; O’Leary 2004; Robey, Ross, and Boudreau 2002).”
BackgroundUnpacking the Difference Between Digital Transformation and IT-Enabled Organizational Transformation
Wessel, L., Baiyere, A., Ologeanu‐Taddei, R., Cha, J., & Jensen, T. B. (2021) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00655 · Cited by 983
“Several IS work practice changes that entail learning how to use new ICTs (Boudreau & Robey, 2005; Robey, Ross, & Boudreau, 2002; Robey & Sahay, 1996) and strike balances between contradictory tensions associated with IT (Gregory et al., 2015) have been found to be linked with organizational…”
BackgroundAntecedents of Knowledge Transfer from Consultants to Clients in Enterprise System Implementations1
Ko, D., Kirsch, L. J., & King (2005) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148668 · Cited by 756
ERP implementation: a compilation and analysis of critical success factors
Finney, S., & Corbett, M. (2007) · Business Process Management Journal · doi:10.1108/14637150710752272 · Cited by 691
“, 2002) while others have focused on user training (Robey et al., 2002; Bingi et al., 1999; Kumar et al., 2002; Mandal and Gunasekaran, 2003; Trimmer et al., 2002).”
BackgroundInfluentialGattiker, T. F., & Goodhue, D. L. (2005) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148695 · Cited by 642
Examining the critical success factors in the adoption of enterprise resource planning
Ngai, E. W. T., Law, C. C. H., & Wat, F. K. T. (2008) · Computers in Industry · doi:10.1016/j.compind.2007.12.001 · Cited by 660
“It needs to be pointed out that user training will be effective only if it also includes business practices and processes as part of its content [39, 59 ].”
BackgroundFrom Use to Effective Use: A Representation Theory Perspective
Burton‐Jones, A., & Grangé, C. (2012) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1120.0444 · Cited by 529
“A different approach would be to change the domain so that it more faithfully reflects the system (e.g., by creating and implementing new work practices required by an ERP system) (Robey et al. 2001).”
BackgroundMorris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. (2010) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/20721418 · Cited by 437
“ERP system implementations typically involve an extensive redesign of business processes and the deployment of new software to support those new business processes (Robey et al. 2002; Ross and Vitale 2000).”
BackgroundImpact of organizational learning and knowledge management factors on e‐business adoption
Lin, H., & Lee, G. (2005) · Management Decision · doi:10.1108/00251740510581902 · Cited by 450
A Review of ERP Research: A Future Agenda for Accounting Information Systems
Grabski, S. V., Leech, S. A., & Schmidt, P. J. (2011) · Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.2308/jis.2011.25.1.37 · Cited by 440
Critical Success Factors for Enterprise Resource Planning Implementation and Upgrade
Nah, F. F., & Delgado, S. (2006) · Journal of Computer Information Systems · doi:10.1080/08874417.2006.11645928 · Cited by 413
Organizational culture and leadership in ERP implementation
Ke, W., & Wei, K. (2007) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2007.02.002 · Cited by 426
“committed to ERP implementation project [37,65].”
BackgroundCreating a Strategic it Architecture Competency: Learning in StagesPreprint
Ross, J. W. (2003) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.416180 · Cited by 392
Self-citationExplaining employees' Extended Use of complex information systems
Hsieh, J. J. P.-A., & Wang, W. (2007) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000663 · Cited by 412
“At first, they use a small number of system functions; but over time, they will find additional useful features (Robey et al., 2002).”
Bharadwaj, S. G., Bharadwaj, A., & Bendoly, E. (2007) · Information systems research · doi:10.1287/isre.1070.0148 · Cited by 396
“Robey et al. (2002) argue that successful implementation of complex information systems (such as ERP) is contingent on effective interactions between IS and other functional areas.”
BackgroundEnterprise systems and ongoing process change
Davenport, T. H., Harris, J. G., & Cantrell, S. (2004) · Business Process Management Journal · doi:10.1108/14637150410518301 · Cited by 354
“In part, this may be due to the fact that many firms defer process change until after implementation (Robey et al., 2002).”
BackgroundCritical factors for successful ERP implementation: Exploratory findings from four case studies
Motwani, J. G., Subramanian, R., & Gopalakrishna, P. (2005) · Computers in Industry · doi:10.1016/j.compind.2005.02.005 · Cited by 367
“[60] report on a comparative case study of 13 industrial firms that implemented an ERP system.”
BackgroundERP implementation failures in China: Case studies with implications for ERP vendors
Xue, Y., Liang, H., Boulton, W. R., & Snyder, C. A. (2004) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.07.008 · Cited by 358
“The impact of cultural issues on ERP implementation has attracted considerable attention from IS researchers (Davison, 2002; Robey et al., 2002; Soh et al., 2000; Zhang et al., 2003).”
BackgroundUnderstanding success and failure in customer relationship management
King, S. F., & Burgess, T. F. (2007) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.02.005 · Cited by 349
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP): a review of the literature
Moon, Y. B. (2007) · International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development · doi:10.1504/ijmed.2007.012679 · Cited by 328
The Impact of ERP Implementation on Business Process Outcomes: A Factor-Based Study
Karim, J., Somers, T. M., & Bhattacherjee, A. (2007) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222240103 · Cited by 329
“Tornatzky [32]; Gable [41]; Gupta [45]; Robey et al. [ 74 ]; Ross [77]; Slater [85]; Umble et al. [96] THE IMPACT OF ERP IMPLEMENTATION ON BUSINESS PROCESS OUTCOMES 107”
BackgroundBuckman, A. H., Mayfield, M., & Beck, S. B. M. (2014) · Smart and Sustainable Built Environment · doi:10.1108/sasbe-01-2014-0003 · Cited by 384
“Enterprise in the context of non-domestic buildings consists of a combination of hardware and/or software used to overcome fragmented, non-compatible, non-proprietary legacy systems (Robey et al., 2002) in order to allow the building operation to be optimised towards the building function.”
Exploring knowledge sharing in ERP implementation: an organizational culture framework
Jones, M. C., Cline, M. K., & Ryan, S. D. (2004) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2004.06.017 · Cited by 322
Taking industry seriously in information systems research
Chiasson, M. W., & Davidson, E. (2005) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.5555/2017274.2017276 · Cited by 311
Paradoxes and the Nature of Ambidexterity in IT Transformation Programs
Gregory, R. W., Keil, M., Muntermann, J., & Mähring, M. (2015) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2014.0554 · Cited by 297
The role of readiness for change in ERP implementation: Theoretical bases and empirical validation
Kwahk, K.-Y., & Lee, J.-N. (2008) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2008.07.002 · Cited by 290
“ERP systems, because users must overcome knowledge barriers and rid themselves of what was the previous operation [27].”
BackgroundSharma, R., & Yetton, P. (2007) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148789 · Cited by 285
Assessing risk in ERP projects: identify and prioritize the factors
Huang, S., Chang, I.-C., Li, S., & Lin, M.-T. (2004) · Industrial Management & Data Systems · doi:10.1108/02635570410561672 · Cited by 285
Enterprise Information Systems as Objects and Carriers of Institutional Forces: The New Iron Cage?
Gosain, S. (2004) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00049 · Cited by 270
“Implementing such enterprise technologies has been a source of great challenge for enterprises, resulting in a high incidence of failure (cf. Bingi, Sharma and Godla, 1999; Robey, Ross and Boudreau, 2002).”
BackgroundInfluentialMorton, N. A., & Hu, Q. (2008) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2008.01.008 · Cited by 286
A multi-project model of key factors affecting organizational benefits from enterprise systems
(2010) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.5555/2017458.2017464 · Cited by 259
The Role of Information Systems Resources in ERP Capability Building and Business Process Outcomes
Karimi, J., Somers, T. M., & Bhattacherjee, A. (2007) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222240209 · Cited by 269
Analyzing ICT adoption and use effects on knowledge creation: An empirical investigation in SMEs
López‐Nicolás, C., & Soto‐Acosta, P. (2010) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.03.004 · Cited by 255
An Exploration of Organizational Level Information Systems Discontinuance Intentions1
Furneaux, B., & Wade (2011) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/23042797 · Cited by 253
“8 percent of an organization’s annual revenue (Beatty and Williams 2006; Robey et al. 2002).”
BackgroundCapturing Bottom-Up Information Technology Use Processes: A Complex Adaptive Systems Model1
Nan, N. (2011) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/23044054 · Cited by 236
Bala, H., & Venkatesh, V. (2015) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2014.2111 · Cited by 254
“Robey et al. (2002) found that, instead of learning the new D ow nl oa de d fr om in fo rm s.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialA Framework for Evaluating ERP Implementation Choices
Luo, W., & Strong, D. M. (2004) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.2004.830862 · Cited by 227
“Any successful ERP implementation requires a fit between the ERP system and the organizational processes it supports [13], [14].”
BackgroundAn Empirical Investigation on End-Users' Acceptance of Enterprise Systems
Nah, F. F., Tan, X., & Teh, S. E. (2004) · Information Resources Management Journal · doi:10.4018/irmj.2004070103 · Cited by 236
The influence of organizational factors on successful ERP implementation
Dezdar, S., & Ainin, S. (2011) · Management Decision · doi:10.1108/00251741111143603 · Cited by 249
Enterprise resource planning: Developments and directions for operations management research
Jacobs, F. R., & Bendoly, E. (2002) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(02)00546-5 · Cited by 217
“Swanson 1999, Hirt and Swanson 2001, Robey et al. 2001 ).”
BackgroundSykes, T. A., Venkatesh, V., & Johnson, J. L. (2014) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2014/38.1.03 · Cited by 210
“As noted earlier, an ES implementation comes with changes to business processes and the introduction of new software applications (Davenport 2000; Robey et al. 2002; Ross and Vitale 2000).”
MethodTaking Industry Seriously in Information Systems Research1
Haskayne, M. W. C., & Davidson, E. (2005) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148701 · Cited by 242
Arvidsson, V., Holmström, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2014) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2014.01.004 · Cited by 213
“As a result of the unanticipated ways in which IT becomes appropriated in local practice (Barley, 1986; Orlikowski, 2000, 1992), however, not even an otherwise successful implementation of a strategically aligned system can ensure that strategic intents materialize (e.g. Robey et al., 2002).”
BackgroundInfluentialWagner, E. L., & Newell, S. (2004) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2004.11.002 · Cited by 207
Extracting Business Value from IT: A Sensemaking Perspective of Post-Adoptive Use
Hsieh, J. J. P.-A., Rai, A., & Xu, S. X. (2011) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1110.1398 · Cited by 210
“…for explaining adoption behaviors, IS scholars have recommended studying post-adoptive behaviors through a learning lens, which points to the importance of sensemaking (Robey et al. 2002, Saga and Zmud 1994, Jasperson et al. 2005, Boudreau and Selig-man 2005). informational cues for sensemaking.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialERP implementation at SMEs: analysis of five Canadian cases
Snider, B., da Silveira, G. J. C., & Balakrishnan, J. (2009) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/01443570910925343 · Cited by 202
“Our update excludes some additional recent studies that have either focused on a few particular CSFs, e.g. Robey et al. (2002), or developed theoretical frameworks based on a more limited number of sources, e.g. Akkermans and van Helden (2002).”
BackgroundERP systems as an enabler of sustained business process innovation: A knowledge-based view
Srivardhana, T., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2007) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2007.01.003 · Cited by 195
Ferreira, J., Cardim, S., & Coelho, A. (2020) · Journal of the Knowledge Economy · doi:10.1007/s13132-020-00655-z · Cited by 234
A paradoxical perspective on technology renewal in digital transformation
Wimelius, H., Mathiassen, L., Holmström, J., & Keil, M. (2020) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.12307 · Cited by 219
“Enterprise systems research has shown that implementing digital platforms requires organizations to simultaneously redesign technology, structures, processes and skills (Robey et al., 2002).”
BackgroundInfluentialNational differences and ERP implementation: issues and challenges
Sheu, C., Chae, B. K., & Yang, C. (2004) · Omega · doi:10.1016/j.omega.2004.02.001 · Cited by 179
“In contrast, CareM, like many US 9rms, took the “phase by module” approach in its implementation [6].”
BackgroundBeyond critical success factors: A dynamic model of enterprise system innovation
King, S. F., & Burgess, T. F. (2005) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2005.10.005 · Cited by 189
“…CSFs is as follows: vendor support (Robey, Ross, & Boudreau, 2002; Soh, Kien, & Tay-Yap, 2000; Swan, Newell, & Robertson, 1999), project management (Robey et al., 2002), package selection/customisation (Hong & Kim, 2002; Soh et al., 2000; Swan et al., 1999), project team competence (including…”
Understanding Project Survival in an ES Environment: A Sociomaterial Practice Perspective
Wagner, E. L., Newell, S., Piccoli, G., & de Manage, G. E. (2010) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00227 · Cited by 181
“In these cases, employees are likely to find other ways of accommodating their preferred practices, for example, by using shadow systems (Robey et al., 2002).”
BackgroundThe consistency among facilitating factors and ERP implementation success: A holistic view of fit
Wang, E. T. G., Shih, S.-P., Jiang, J. J., & Klein, G. L. (2007) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2007.11.722 · Cited by 185
Organizational adoption of enterprise resource planning systems: A conceptual framework
Başoğlu, N., Daim, T. U., & Kerimoglu, O. (2007) · The Journal of High Technology Management Research · doi:10.1016/j.hitech.2007.03.005 · Cited by 181
Carlo, J. L., Lyytinen, K., & Boland (2012) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41703499 · Cited by 181
Sykes, T. A. (2015) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2015/39.2.09 · Cited by 176
Lu, X., Huang, L., & Heng, M. S. H. (2005) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2005.06.007 · Cited by 163
Bajwa, D. S., Garcia, J. E., & Mooney, T. (2004) · Journal of Computer Information Systems · doi:10.1080/08874417.2004.11647585 · Cited by 164
“For larger organizations, ERP assimilation price tag can run into tens and hundreds of millions of dollars (41).”
BackgroundCho, S., Mathiassen, L., & Nilsson, A. (2008) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2008.49 · Cited by 161
“Moreover, as our main interest is related to change processes, we adopt an interpretive approach (Walsham, 1995; Walsham, 2006) based on dialectical epistemology (Van De Ven & Poole, 1995; Robey et al., 2002; Cho et al., 2007).”
BackgroundMethodPaolo Quattrone, A., & Hopper, T. (2006) · Information and Organization · doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2006.06.001 · Cited by 178
“To become operative SAP often requires considerable customization, ranging from simple reconfigurations to complete rewrites of sections of the software code – ABAP 10 (Kallinikos, 2004; Quattrone & Hopper, 2001, 2005; Robey et al., 2002).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialEmployees' affective commitment to change: The key to successful CRM implementation
Shum, P., Bove, L., & Auh, S. (2008) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/03090560810903709 · Cited by 159
Preparing for utility computing: The role of IT architecture and relationship management
Ross, J. W., & Westerman, G. F. (2004) · IBM Systems Journal · doi:10.1147/sj.431.0005 · Cited by 159
Self-citationMinding the Gaps: Understanding Technology Interdependence and Coordination in Knowledge Work
Bailey, D. E., Leonardi, P. M., & Chong, J. (2009) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0473 · Cited by 158
“The modules and their interfaces are standardized and permit little modification (Robey et al. 2002).”
BackgroundThe creation of ‘best practice’ software: Myth, reality and ethics
Wagner, E. L., Scott, S., & Galliers, R. D. (2006) · Information and Organization · doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2006.04.001 · Cited by 156
“This has fuelled sales of ERP making it arguably the most popular business software of the last fifteen years ( Robey, Ross, & Boudreau, 2002 ).”
BackgroundBala, H., & Venkatesh, V. (2013) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2013/37.4.06 · Cited by 160
“Such rigidity prompts employees to attempt to workaround and/or improvise their work processes (Boudreau and Robey 2005; Robey et al. 2002; Soh et al. 2000, 2003).3 We define perceived process rigidity as the degree to which an employee believes that elements of his or her work processes (i.e.,…”
BackgroundInfluentialCritical Success Factors in International ERP Implementations: A Case Research Approach
Plant, R., & Willcocks, L. P. (2007) · Journal of Computer Information Systems · doi:10.1080/08874417.2007.11645967 · Cited by 156
“Failures and problems during implementation itself have been subjects of an extensive literature (33, 49, 52) and while”
Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2006) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222220402 · Cited by 154
“In many situations, IT use in boundary-spanning relationships has brought about contradictory and unexpected consequences [48, 49].”
BackgroundDowling, C., & Leech, S. A. (2012) · Contemporary Accounting Research · doi:10.1111/1911-3846.12010 · Cited by 145
Critical success factors in enterprise resource planning systems
Shaul, L., & Tauber, D. (2013) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/2501654.2501669 · Cited by 155
“Continued Mabert et al. 2003 Strategic, Tactical, Managerial Mandal and Gunasekaran 2003 Strategic, Tactical Markus et al. 2000 Strategic, Tactical Marsh 2000 Strategic, Managerial, Cultural, SMEs Mathrani and Viehland 2010 Technological, Organizational, Managerial Motwani et al. 2008 Strategic, Cultural, Technologica…”
BackgroundInfluentialPanoptic empowerment and reflective conformity in enterprise systems-enabled organizations
Elmes, M. B., Strong, D. M., & Volkoff, O. (2005) · Information and Organization · doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2004.12.001 · Cited by 149
Punishment, Justice, and Compliance in Mandatory IT Settings
Xue, Y., Liang, H., & Wu, L. (2010) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1090.0266 · Cited by 141
How Do Enterprise Resource Planning Systems Affect Firm Risk? Post-Implementation Impact1
Tian, F., & Xu, S. X. (2015) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2015/39.1.03 · Cited by 138
User resistance determinants and the psychological contract in enterprise system implementations
Klaus, T., & Blanton, J. E. (2010) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2010.39 · Cited by 150
“Successful ES implementations remain challenging as numerous articles report implementation catastrophes and implementations that have failed to provide projected benefits (i.e., Bingi et al ., 1999; Robey et al ., 2002).”
BackgroundDialectics of Resilience: A Multi–Level Analysis of a Telehealth Innovation
Cho, S., Mathiassen, L., & Robey, D. (2007) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000088 · Cited by 136
“…is already established as a useful approach to IS research (Bjerknes, 1991; Mathiassen, 1998; Robey and Boudreau, 1999; Robey and Holmstrom, 2001; Robey et al ., 2002; Sabherwal and Newman, 2003) and to organization studies in general (Ford and Ford, 1994; Das and Teng, 2000; Rond and Bouchikhi,…”
InfluentialSelf-citationKe, W., Tan, C., Sia, C. L., & Wei, K. (2012) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222290308 · Cited by 133
Information Technology, Materiality, and Organizational Change: A Professional Odyssey
Robey, D., Anderson, C. S., Raymond, B., & Laval, U. (2013) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00337 · Cited by 138
Self-citationWei, H.-L., Wang, E. T. G., & Ju, P.-H. (2005) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000547 · Cited by 135
“This study draws upon data from a case study to understand the misalignments of ERP adoption and the associated change dynamics from a stage view.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe role of organizational knowledge management in successful ERP implementation projects
Vandaie, R. (2008) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2008.04.001 · Cited by 128
“integrated view of the organizational information by means of centralized databases and integrated business processes across the lines of different divisions and departments [9,23,19].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialHsieh, P. J., Lin, B., & Lin, C. (2008) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.03.005 · Cited by 126
Toward an ‘IT Conflict-Resistance Theory’: action research during IT pre-implementation
Meissonier, R., & Houzé, E. (2010) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2010.35 · Cited by 125
“…with organisational processes (Hsiao-Lan et al., 2005) is all the more important, as problems in Management Information Systems (MIS) are more about the ability of users to understand how they must carry out their new tasks than about the ability of the firm to manage change (Robey et al., 2002).”
BackgroundUtilizing e‐business technologies in supply chains: The impact of firm characteristics and teams
Johnson, P. F., Klassen, R. D., Leenders, M. R., & Awaysheh, A. (2007) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2007.01.005 · Cited by 130
“…recognizes the importance of using cross-functional teams as part of successful implementation and assimilation of new information technologies (Robey et al., 2002), and purchasing teams represent a common approach to managing activities within the supply chain to achieve internal and external…”
BackgroundStratman, J. K. (2007) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2007.02.006 · Cited by 126
Davidson, E., & Chiasson, M. (2005) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000518 · Cited by 125
“With specialized COTS projects, which present knowledge barriers for configuring and assimilating social and technical features (Robey et al ., 2002), TUM highlights possible issues with the effectiveness of external mediators, such as industry consultants who often play a large part in such…”
BackgroundInfluentialWagner, E. L., & Newell, S. (2007) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00142 · Cited by 123
“…ES implementations, facing user resistance and running significantly over budget or time-lines (e.g., Wagner and Newell, 2004; Sauer et al., 2001; Scott and Vessey, 2002), even when users participate in these projects in a variety of capacities (e.g., Parr and Shanks, 2000; Robey et al., 2002).”
BackgroundPost-implementation practices of ERP systems and their relationship to financial performance
Galy, E., & Sauceda, M. J. (2014) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2014.02.002 · Cited by 121
Making ERPs work: accountants and the introduction of ERP systems
Newman, M., & Westrup, C. (2005) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000539 · Cited by 117
“Researchers have reported negative outcomes of multiple ERP projects in organisations such as FoxMeyer, Mobil Europe, Dell, Dow Chemical (Davenport, 1998), Siemens, Panasonic and Bruno Magli (Robey et al ., 2002).”
BackgroundEmployees’ Exploration of Complex Systems: An Integrative View
Liang, H., Peng, Z. C., Xue, Y., Guo, X., & Wang, N. (2015) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2015.1029402 · Cited by 126
“After finding new ways of using the system, employees are likely to apply these new ways in actual system usage to better perform job tasks [87].”
BackgroundLim, E. T. K., Pan, S. L., & Tan, C. W. (2005) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000531 · Cited by 120
“From a technical perspective, the assimilation of ERP systems into firms’ operational functions will radically alter the work processes of the organization by restructuring the flow of communication and information (Laughlin, 1999; Ross, 1999b; Robey et al ., 2002; Staehr et al ., 2002).”
BackgroundConfigurations for Achieving Organizational Ambidexterity with Digitization
Park, Y., Pavlou, P. A., & Saraf, N. (2020) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2020.0950 · Cited by 133
Information flows and business process integration
Berente, N., Vandenbosch, B., & Aubert, B. A. (2009) · Business Process Management Journal · doi:10.1108/14637150910931505 · Cited by 123
“Process integration is often cited as a key goal associated with the implementation of information technologies such as enterprise resource planning (ERP) (Markus et al., 2000; Al-Mashari, 2003; Robey et al., 2002), electronic data interchange (Mukhopadhyay and Kekre, 2002), or enterprise application integration (Koba…”
BackgroundInfluentialSasidharan, S., Santhanam, R., Brass, D. J., & Sambamurthy, V. (2011) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1110.0388 · Cited by 118
“Reports have chronicled failures and difficulties at well-known corporations, such as FoxMeyer, Hershey Foods, Hewlett Packard, Boeing, and Siemens (Robey et al. 2002, Ross and Vitale 2000, Wang et al. 2006) and at large educational institutions (Brown and Vessey 2003, Gattiker and Goodhue 2005).”
BackgroundInfluentialEnterprise systems, knowledge transfer and power users
Volkoff, O., Elmes, M. B., & Strong, D. M. (2004) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2004.11.004 · Cited by 114
Maheshwari, S., & Vohra, V. (2015) · Journal of Organizational Change Management · doi:10.1108/jocm-03-2014-0066 · Cited by 142
Metadata
- Authors
- Robey, D., Ross, J. W., & Boudreau, M.-C.
- Venue
- Journal of Management Information Systems
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2002-07
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 17-46
- ISSN
- 0742-1222 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-928X
- OpenAlex
- W2098925541
- Semantic Scholar
- 6236f012052e7f24bee1ee19997859f607d02d1e
- Cited by
- 1,023
- References
- 64
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 65 · 2014: 62 · 2013: 80 · 2012: 59
- FWCI
- 83.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Management Information Systems (publishedVersion)
- DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › ERP Systems Implementation and Impact
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Technology Governance and Strategy
- Keywords
- enterprise resource planning, ERP implementation, organizational learning, knowledge barriers, ERP configuration, workflow changes, consulting relationships, user training, phased implementation, industrial enterprises
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
