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
Items 101–200 of 1,018
Determinants of ERP implementation knowledge transfer
Xu, Q., & Ma, Q. (2008) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2008.08.004 · Cited by 112
“Factor analysis and the process approach are two methodologies that have been used to explore ERP implementation [23].”
MethodSykes, T. A., & Venkatesh, V. (2017) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2017/41.3.11 · Cited by 115
“For all the potential benefits of ESs, there are enormous challenges present when implementing them (e.g., Chae and Lanzara 2006; Robey et al. 2002), with a majority of these implementations failing (Lapointe and Rivard 2005).”
BackgroundThe effects of enterprise resource planning implementation strategy on cross‐functionality
Amrani, R. E., Rowe, F., & Geffroy‐Maronnat, B. (2005) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2006.00206.x · Cited by 112
“Therefore, ERP system implementation implies a much wider organizational change (Robey et al ., 2002).”
BackgroundERP Misfit: Country of Origin and Organizational Factors
Wang, E. T. G., Klein, G. L., & Jiang, J. J. (2006) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222230109 · Cited by 116
“However, the definition and measurement of IS success remain a thorny matter [57], especially for ERP systems that take a long time to implement and even longer to show their effects [37, 71].”
BackgroundEnhanced Use of IT: A New Perspective on Post-Adoption
Bagayogo, F. F., Lapointe, L., & Bassellier, G. (2014) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00367 · Cited by 117
“Indeed, individual users’ actions increasingly affect other users (Dong, Neufeld, & Higgins, 2008; Kang & Santhanam, 2003; Robey, Ross, & Boudreau, 2002).”
E‐government maturity model using the capability maturity model integration
Kim, D., & Grant, G. G. (2010) · Journal of Systems and Information Technology · doi:10.1108/13287261011070858 · Cited by 119
Coping with ERP-related contextual issues in SMEs: a vendor's perspective
Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2004) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2004.11.006 · Cited by 111
Trans-Situated Learning: Supporting a Network of Practice with an Information Infrastructure
Vaast, E., & Walsham, G. (2009) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1080.0228 · Cited by 111
“These studies therefore reveal that the way in which the IS foundation of information infrastructures is implemented holds significant consequences for the emergence of articulation between local practices and global context (Boudreau and Robey 2005, Robey et al. 2002).”
BackgroundThe impact of legitimacy-based motives on IS adoption success: An institutional theory perspective
Krell, K., Matook, S., & Rohde, F. (2016) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2016.02.006 · Cited by 102
“In this research, we use the project-based adoption definitions because prior research has attributed success and failure of projects to how a technology is implemented in a project [57; 101].”
MethodWagner, E. L., Moll, J., & Newell, S. (2011) · Management Accounting Research · doi:10.1016/j.mar.2011.03.001 · Cited by 108
Kummer, T., Recker, J., & Bick, M. (2016) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2016.04.002 · Cited by 108
The lifecycle of algorithmic decision-making systems: Organizational choices and ethical challenges
Marabelli, M., Newell, S., & Handunge, V. R. (2021) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2021.101683 · Cited by 140
“In fact, being able to effectively use analytics and understand the benefits and challenges of ADMS involves cultural changes (Davenport and Bean 2018), issues that IS scholars are very much familiar with (Grant 2003; Lee and Myers 2004; Robey et al. 2002).”
Exploring social network interactions in enterprise systems: the role of virtual co‐presence
Subramaniam, N., Nandhakumar, J., & Baptista, J. (2013) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.12019 · Cited by 108
“ES are software packages designed to integrate business processes across the functional divisions of an organization (Davenport, 1998; Robey et al ., 2002; Staehr, 2010).”
MethodSaraf, N., Liang, H., Xue, Y., & Hu, Q. (2012) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2011.00397.x · Cited by 111
“This and other studies show that the users must comprehend how the ERP system modules trigger tasks in other parts of the organisation and how the quality of data entered at one subunit affects decisions in other subunits (Robey et al ., 2002; Jones & Price, 2004).”
BackgroundResultHow “critical” are the critical success factors (CSFs)?
Ram, J., & Corkindale, D. R. (2014) · Business Process Management Journal · doi:10.1108/bpmj-11-2012-0127 · Cited by 103
Competitive advantage from ERP projects: Examining the role of key implementation drivers
Ram, J., Wu, M., & Tagg, R. M. (2013) · International Journal of Project Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.08.004 · Cited by 120
Wang, P. (2009) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00182 · Cited by 102
“In addition, ERP was arguably the most popular IT innovation in the 1990s (Robey et al., 2002) and potentially even the 20th century (Wagner and Newell, 2006).”
BackgroundAn Investigation of Customization in ERP System Implementations
Rothenberger, M. A., & Srite, M. (2009) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.2009.2028319 · Cited by 103
“They provided an example of an implementation that resulted in high changes to the ERP system because the implementation lacked strategic motivation [24].”
BackgroundResultInfluentialNewman, M., & Zhao, Y. (2008) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2008.00305.x · Cited by 105
“Researchers have reported negative outcomes of several major ERP projects in organizations such as FoxMeyer, Mobil Europe, Dell, Dow Chemical (Davenport, 1998), Siemens, Panasonic and Bruno Magli (Robey et al., 2002).”
BackgroundDavis, C. H., & Comeau, J. (2004) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 102
A framework for addressing the organisational issues of enterprise systems implementation
Ward, J., Hemingway, C., & Daniel, E. (2005) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2005.04.005 · Cited by 100
A McKinsey 7S Model-Based Framework for ERP Readiness Assessment
Hanafizadeh, P., & Ravasan, A. Z. (2011) · International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems · doi:10.4018/jeis.2011100103 · Cited by 104
“It should encompass the development of business practices and processes (Legare, 2002; Ngai et al., 2008; Robey et al., 2002), as well as IT (Tarafdar & Roy, 2003; Voordijk, Van Leuven, & Laan, 2003) and ERP skills (Stratman & Roth, 2002).”
BackgroundUnderstanding behavioral sources of process variation following enterprise system deployment
Bendoly, E., & Cotteleer, M. J. (2007) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2007.03.002 · Cited by 96
“When ease of circumvention is low, and while perceptions of misfit continue to provide a high valence for non-prescribed use, other factors may be instrumental in achieving such resolution—‘‘time,’’ and implied experience with the system, being an obvious candidate ( Robey et al., 2002; Tyre and von Hippel, 1997; Stei…”
BackgroundNordheim, S., & Päivärinta, T. (2006) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000647 · Cited by 98
“A rather limited body of literature adopts the dialectical motor to explain the process of ERP implementation (Besson & Rowe, 2001; Robey et al., 2002; Soh et al., 2003).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialWorkarounds to hospital electronic prescribing systems: a qualitative study in English hospitals
Cresswell, K. M., Mozaffar, H., Lee, L., Williams, R., & Sheikh, A. (2016) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-005149 · Cited by 96
Justifying business intelligence systems adoption in SMEs
Popovič, A., Puklavec, B., & Oliveira, T. (2018) · Industrial Management & Data Systems · doi:10.1108/imds-02-2018-0085 · Cited by 125
Trullén, J., Bos-Nehles, A. C., & Valverde, M. (2020) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/ijmr.12220 · Cited by 117
“In line with the adaptive view, we understand implementation as an ‘intermediate process’ (Choi and Chang 2009; Robey et al. 2002) where things happen between both flagpoles (i.e. adoption and routinization) as the original idea may be adapted, customized, redesigned, or improved.”
BackgroundInfluentialWagner, E. L., & Newell, S. (2006) · The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science · doi:10.1177/0021886305284290 · Cited by 98
“Enterprise resource planning (ERP) has proved to be the most popular business software of the 20th century (Robey, Ross, & Boudreau, 2002).”
BackgroundAn Explanatory Framework for Achieving Business Benefits from ERP Systems
La Trobe University, Staehr, L., Shanks, G., The University of Melbourne, Seddon, P., & The University of Melbourne (2012) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00299 · Cited by 98
Pan, S. L., Newell, S., Huang, J., & Galliers, R. D. (2006) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20523 · Cited by 96
“Following on the work of Robey et al. (2002) , I have shown how different types of knowledge created barriers to both reengineering (the assimilation knowledge barrier) and configuration (the configuration knowledge barrier).”
Laumer, S., Maier, C., Eckhardt, A., & Weitzel, T. (2016) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2016.1 · Cited by 100
“First, some research focuses on the implementation process itself (e.g., Cooper & Zmud, 1990; Yetton et al , 1999; Soh et al , 2000; Hong & Kirn, 2002; Robey et al , 2002; Liang et al , 2007).”
BackgroundInvestigating organizational learning in eGovernment projects: A multi-theoretic approach
Phang, C. W., Kankanhalli, A., & Ang, C. (2008) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2007.12.006 · Cited by 98
Knowledge risks in organizational networks: The practice perspective
Marabelli, M., & Newell, S. (2011) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2011.11.002 · Cited by 92
Rehman, N., Razzaq, S., Farooq, A., Zohaib, N. M., & Nazri, M. (2020) · Technology Analysis and Strategic Management · doi:10.1080/09537325.2020.1740192 · Cited by 112
“IT a ff ects a fi rm ’ s knowledge structure and content (Eisenhardt and Martin 2000) and helps in its cross-functional knowledge by reducing the complexity for the users (Robey, Ross, and Boudreau 2002).”
BackgroundLin, H. (2008) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/10662240810849595 · Cited by 93
“Organizational learning refers to the capacity or processes within a firm enabling the acquisition of, access to and revision of organizational memory, thereby providing directions for organizational action ( Robey et al. , 2002”
BackgroundSun, H., Ni, W., & Lam, R. (2015) · Computers in Industry · doi:10.1016/j.compind.2014.12.005 · Cited by 90
Deng, X. N., & Chi, L. (2012) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222290309 · Cited by 94
“for example, research has found that users’ lack of skills and expertise were major causes of problems with new computer technologies [6, 38, 41].”
BackgroundCynicism as user resistance in IT implementation
Selander, L., & Henfridsson, O. (2011) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2011.00386.x · Cited by 99
“First, previous research describes Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) and CRM systems as inherently inflexible, often implemented with the intention to streamline work processes (Robey et al ., 2002; Gosain, 2004).”
BackgroundRealizing Benefits from Enterprise Resource Planning: Does Strategic Focus Matter?
Stratman, J. K. (2007) · Production and Operations Management · doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2007.tb00176.x · Cited by 85
“These systems have gained wide market penetration on the premise that better information integration will provide a competitive advantage to adopting firms (Dav-enport 1998; Esteves and Pastor 2001a; Robey, Ross and Boudreau 2002).”
BackgroundKwak, Y. H., Park, J., Chung, B. Y., & Ghosh, S. (2011) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.2011.2111456 · Cited by 90
“The importance of function in achieving ERP system implementation success has been well noted in the existing project management literature [15], [25], [34], [57], [65], [68], [73].”
BackgroundNwankpa, J. K., & Roumani, Y. (2014) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.030 · Cited by 85
“This result is consistent with the study which argues that core teams within an ERP implementing firm need to operate as forces that vigorously promote new knowledge against knowledge barriers that reside in the organizational memory (Robey et al., 2002).”
ResultCritical success factors in ERP upgrade projects
Barth, C., & Koch, S. (2019) · Industrial Management & Data Systems · doi:10.1108/imds-01-2018-0016 · Cited by 91
Crafting Rules: Context-Reflective Data Quality Problem Solving
Lee, Y. W. (2003) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2003.11045770 · Cited by 82
“They include the research reported in [6, 9, 11, 17, 18, 27, 35, 36, 37, 42, 43, 44, 48, 56, 61, 68, 72, 83, 84].”
DEVADOSS, P. R., & Pan, S. L. (2007) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.01917 · Cited by 90
“Consequently, users resort to workarounds by beating the system [Robey et al. 2002].”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialMobile technology in mobile work: contradictions and congruencies in activity systems
Karanasios, S., & Allen, D. (2014) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2014.20 · Cited by 82
“Through the examination of the three activities we have created a different narrative of mobile technology change compared with other scholars who have examined the dialectics of large-scale systems implementation (Robey et al, 2002; Lyytinen & Newman, 2008; Reimers et al, 2013).”
MethodFurthering Information Systems Action Research: A Post-Positivist Synthesis of Four Dialectics
Kock, N., Gallivan, M. J., & DeLuca, D. (2008) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00150 · Cited by 85
“Dialectics have taken various forms in IS research, including dialogical reasoning (Klein and Myers 1999), logic of opposition (Robey and Boudreau 1999; Robey et al. 2002), and dialogical AR (Martensson and Lee 2004).”
Enhancing Cross-Project Learning
Newell, S. (2004) · Engineering Management Journal · doi:10.1080/10429247.2004.11415234 · Cited by 81
Influence of ERP systems on business process agility
Seethamraju, R., & Sundar, D. K. (2013) · IIMB Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.iimb.2013.05.001 · Cited by 90
Drivers of agile software development use: Dialectic interplay between benefits and hindrances
Vijayasarathy, L. R., & Turk, D. (2011) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2011.08.003 · Cited by 78
“[52] found support for the dialectics of organizational learning [53].”
BackgroundImplementing ERP systems in China
Reimers, K. (2003) · Proceedings of the ... Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences/Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.1109/hicss.2002.994311 · Cited by 79
“However, implementing an ERP system does not only imply the necessity of individual learning, it also frequently entails changes of organizational processes and structures ([16]).”
BackgroundA profession but not a career? Work identity and career satisfaction in project management
McKevitt, D. M., Carbery, R., & Lyons, A. (2017) · International Journal of Project Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.07.010 · Cited by 94
Empirically Testing User Characteristics and Fitness Factors in Enterprise Resource Planning Success
Holsapple, C. W., Wang, Y.-M., & Wu, J. (2005) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1207/s15327590ijhc1903_3 · Cited by 84
“Any successful ERP implementation requires a fit between the ERP system and the organizational processes it supports (Holland & Light, 1999; Robey, Ross, & Boudreau, 2002).”
MethodManaging readiness in enterprise systems-driven organizational change
Kwahk, K.-Y., & Kim, H. (2008) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/01449290701398475 · Cited by 78
Tenhiälä, A., & Helkiö, P. (2015) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2014.05.001 · Cited by 85
Lyytinen, K., Newman, M., & Al-Muharfi, A.-R. A. (2009) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1057/jit.2009.14 · Cited by 78
“ERP calamities reported by several world class companies like FoxMeyer, Mobil Europe, Dell, Dow Chemical, Siemens, Panasonic and Bruno Magli are numerous (Davenport, 1998; Robey et al., 2002; Berente et al., 2007).”
BackgroundSustainability of ERPS performance outcomes: The role of post-implementation review quality
Nicolaou, A., & Bhattacharya, S. (2008) · International Journal of Accounting Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.accinf.2007.07.003 · Cited by 75
The influence of organizational factors on e‐business use: analysis of firm size
Juste, M. V. B., Lucia‐Palacios, L., & Polo‐Redondo, Y. (2012) · Marketing Intelligence & Planning · doi:10.1108/02634501211211984 · Cited by 77
Organizational adoption of information technologies: Case of enterprise resource planning systems
Kerimoglu, O., Başoğlu, N., & Daim, T. U. (2008) · The Journal of High Technology Management Research · doi:10.1016/j.hitech.2008.06.002 · Cited by 73
Resistant Groups in Enterprise System Implementations: A Q-Methodology Examination
Klaus, T., Wingreen, S. C., & Blanton, J. E. (2010) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1057/jit.2009.7 · Cited by 71
“There have been multiple studies that have examined the impact of users’ resistance on ES implementation failures (Robey et al ., 2002; Umble and Umble, 2002; Barker and Frolick, 2003).”
BackgroundCritical Success Factors for ERP Systems Implementation in Public Administration
Ziemba, E. W., & Obłąk, I. (2013) · Interdisciplinary Journal of Information Knowledge and Management · doi:10.28945/1785 · Cited by 73
“ERP systems have significantly enhanced that as they integrate business processes and manage them (Davenport, 1998; Hammer & Stanton, 1999; Robey, Ross, & Boudreau, 2007).”
BackgroundKarjalainen, M., Sarker, S., & Siponen, M. T. (2019) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2018.0827 · Cited by 73
Tacit Knowledge Sharing During ERP Implementation
Jones, M. C. (2005) · Information Resources Management Journal · doi:10.4018/irmj.2005040101 · Cited by 70
Examining explorative and exploitative uses of smartphones: a user competence perspective
Koo, C., Chung, N., & Kim, H. (2015) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/itp-04-2013-0063 · Cited by 70
“If users at first employ a small number of system features, over time they will find additional useful features (Robey et al., 2002) (i.”
The Phases of ERP Software Implementation and Maintenance: A Model for Predicting Preferred ERP Use
Peslak, A., Subramanian, G. H., & Clayton, G. E. (2008) · Journal of Computational Information Systems · doi:10.1080/08874417.2008.11646006 · Cited by 97
Postimplementation Knowledge Transfers to Users and Information Technology Professionals
Santhanam, R., Seligman, L., & Kang, D. (2007) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222240105 · Cited by 69
“Yet, despite years of research on implementation of IS, we still do not have a good understanding of how employees learn to assimilate a new information technology (IT) as a routine element of their work [1, 24, 25, 39, 46, 59].”
BackgroundCollective mindfulness in post-implementation IS adaptation processes
Aanestad, M., & Jensen, T. B. (2016) · Information and Organization · doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2016.02.001 · Cited by 72
Mylonopoulos, N. A., Doukidis, G. I., & Editors, G. (2003) · International Journal of Electronic Commerce · doi:10.1080/10864415.2003.11044288 · Cited by 68
“Organizations adopting mobile business learn and change in much the same way as with other innovations in information systems [36].”
BackgroundOsei-Bryson, K.-M., Dong, L., & Ngwenyama, O. K. (2008) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2008.00309.x · Cited by 69
From the abacus to enterprise resource planning: is blockchain the next big accounting tool?
Jayasuriya, D., & Sims, A. (2022) · Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/aaaj-08-2020-4718 · Cited by 87
CIOs' perspectives of critical success factors in ERP upgrade projects
Olson, D. L., & Zhao, F. (2007) · Enterprise Information Systems · doi:10.1080/17517570601088364 · Cited by 66
“Hong and Kim (2002) and Robey et al. (2002). Some of these CSFs are expected to”
BackgroundBendoly, E., Citurs, A., & Konsynski, B. R. (2007) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2007.00165.x · Cited by 64
“studies that also focus on technical expertise as drivers ( Robey, Ross, & Boudreau, 2002; Lin & Lee, 2005).”
BackgroundKnowing why and how to Innovate with Packaged Business Software
Swanson, E. B., & Wang, P. (2005) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000033 · Cited by 68
“Additionally, the need for ‘top management support’ has long been singled out for its importance to information systems efforts more broadly (Swanson, 1988; Lucas et al ., 1990; Gallivan, 2001; Robey et al ., 2002).”
BackgroundOrganizational Learning Process
Ke, W., & Wei, K. (2006) · Journal of Global Information Management · doi:10.4018/jgim.2006010101 · Cited by 65
Plaza, M., & Rohlf, K. (2008) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.05.005 · Cited by 65
Honig, B., & Samuelsson, M. J. (2020) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102124 · Cited by 64
Managing Erp System Risk in SMEs: A Multiple Case Study
Poba‐Nzaou, P., & Raymond, L. (2011) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1057/jit.2010.34 · Cited by 66
“…importance and significance for SMEs, it thus becomes essential that researchers ‘focus on ways to improve ERP implementation’ in these organizations (Robey et al ., 2002: 19), while ‘there is also a need to investigate how managers today are managing [software project] risk – what works, what…”
BackgroundIdentifying reasons for ERP system customization in SMEs: a multiple case study
Zach, O., & Munkvold, B. E. (2012) · Journal of Enterprise Information Management · doi:10.1108/17410391211265142 · Cited by 62
“This is in line with former studies reporting that a lack of strategic motivation resulted in a reluctance to business process change and a high level of ERP system modifications (Robey et al., 2002; Rothenberger and Srite, 2009).”
ResultEnterprise Resource Planning and Supply Chain Management
Kurbel, K. E. (2013) · Progress in IS · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-31573-2 · Cited by 62
ERP Systems in Multinational Enterprises: A literature Review of Post-implementation Challenges
Osnes, K. B., Olsen, J. R., Vassilakopoulou, P., & Hustad, E. (2018) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2018.10.074 · Cited by 77
“In addition, due to complexity, ERP systems can be difficult to learn and understand, and comprehensive training programs are often necessary [5].”
BackgroundRampini, G. H. S., Takiya, H., & Berssaneti, F. T. (2019) · Procedia Manufacturing · doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2020.01.400 · Cited by 62
Gosain, S., Lee, Z., & Kim, Y.-B. (2005) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000549 · Cited by 64
“As increasing numbers of organizations across the globe have chosen to deploy ERP applications, there has been a greater appreciation for the challenges involved in implementing these complex technologies (Themistocleous et al ., 2001; Robey et al ., 2002; Olhager & Selldin, 2003).”
BackgroundInterpreting socio‐technical co‐evolution
Kim, R. M., & Kaplan, S. M. (2006) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/09593840610700800 · Cited by 63
The effect of ERP system workarounds on organizational control: An interpretivist case study
Ignatiadis, I., & Nandhakumar, J. (2009) · Research Repository (Kingston University London) · Cited by 61
INNOVATION IMPLEMENTATION: CONCEPTUALIZATION AND MEASUREMENT IN ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH
Real, K. J., & Poole, M. S. (2005) · Research in organizational change and development · doi:10.1016/s0897-3016(04)15003-9 · Cited by 62
On the edge of Big Data: Drivers and barriers to data analytics adoption in SMEs
Justy, T., Pellegrin‐Boucher, E., Lescop, D., Granata, J., & Gupta, S. (2023) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102850 · Cited by 86
Migdadi, M. M., Zaid, M. K. S. A., Hujran, O., & Aloudat, A. (2016) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-08-2014-0203 · Cited by 61
“Training availability and high level of technical expertise have been identified as necessary and essential components that impact the adoption of new technologies (Robey et al., 2002).”
BackgroundAn Updated ERP Systems Annotated Bibliography: 2001-2005Preprint
Esteves, J., & Bohórquez, V. (2007) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1006969 · Cited by 248
“(Robey et al., 2002) adopt a process theory perspective with focus on the dialects of organizational learning that generates change in a comparative case study of 13 industrial firms.”
BackgroundChou, S., & He, M.-Y. (2010) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2009.00347.x · Cited by 59
“According to Robey et al. (2002), the implementation of interdependent-use IS innovations is frequently accompanied by the introduction of new business processes that disrupt existing task routines.”
BackgroundMethodA dynamic model of e‐business strategies for ERP enabled organisations
Burn, J. M., & Ash, C. G. (2005) · Industrial Management & Data Systems · doi:10.1108/02635570510624464 · Cited by 58
“Thisfrequently resultsinnewbusinessprocesses,organisationalstructures,humanresourceskill requirements, management rolesand knowledge managementsystems(Robey et al. ,2002; Chang et al. , 2003; Ash and Burn, 2003; Okrent and Vokurka, 2004; McAdam and Galloway, 2005).”
BackgroundVeiga, J. F., Keupp, M. M., Floyd, S. W., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2013) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2013.15 · Cited by 58
“Conversely, when adopters lack suf fi cient motivation to use a system during the adoption period, they may use it sparingly and develop little pro fi ciency, or use it just enough to develop a moderate level of pro fi ciency – perhaps because they are able to quickly grasp suf fi cient information with limited use or exp…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialA decision support system for managing inventory at GlaxoSmithKline
Shang, J. S., Tadikamalla, P. R., Kirsch, L. J., & Brown, L. (2008) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2008.04.004 · Cited by 62
“Indeed, organizational and individual learning represents a major challenge facing many firms that implement SCM software [12,20,27].”
BackgroundGame-based Sprint retrospectives: multiple action research
Przybyłek, A., Albecka, M., Springer, O., & Kowalski, W. (2021) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-021-10043-z · Cited by 63
Liu, A. Z., & Seddon, P. B. (2009) · Business Process Management Journal · doi:10.1108/14637150910987928 · Cited by 56
“Amongst many others, these include studies of project management (Sumner, 2000; Scott and Vessey, 2000; Robey et al., 2002; Mandal and Gunasekaran, 2003; Sun et al., 2005), change management (Markus and Tanis, 2000; Motwani et al., 2002; McAdam and Galloway, 2005), TMS (Bingi et al., 1999; Sumner,…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialDiffusion in the Face of Failure: The Evolution of a Management Innovation
Scarbrough, H., Robertson, M., & Swan, J. A. (2015) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12093 · Cited by 64
ERP in agriculture: Lessons learned from the Dutch horticulture
Verdouw, C. N., Robbemond, R. M., & Wolfert, J. (2015) · Computers and Electronics in Agriculture · doi:10.1016/j.compag.2015.04.002 · Cited by 55
“The framework includes the following characteristics of the implementation partner that are important for ERP adoption (among others based on Robey et al., 2002; King and Burgess, 2006; Ngai et al., 2008): Consultant ‘click’: the degree to which the adopting organization describes the relation with…”
BackgroundOrganizational Knowledge Sharing in ERP Implementation
Jones, M. C., & Price, R. L. (2004) · Journal of Organizational and End User Computing · doi:10.4018/joeuc.2004010102 · Cited by 54
Li, L., Markowski, E., Markowski, C., & Xu, L. (2008) · International Journal of Production Research · doi:10.1080/00207540600898064 · Cited by 56
“…2003, Motwani et al. 2002, Ragowsky and Somers 2002), process re-engineering (Bendoly and Jacobs 2004, Hong and Kim 2002, Muscatello et al. 2003, Robey et al. 2002, Somers and Nelson 2003, Xu et al. 2005), human resource/staff training (Stratman and Roth 2002, Al-Mashari et al. 2003, Sheu et…”
BackgroundPeng, Z. C., Sun, Y., & Guo, X. (2017) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.11.007 · Cited by 54
ERP in Practice: A Snapshot of Post-Installation Perception and Behaviors
Jones, M. C., Zmud, R., & Clark, T. (2008) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.02325 · Cited by 59
Management Reactions to Technological Change
Harley, B., Wright, C., Hall, R., & Dery, K. (2006) · The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science · doi:10.1177/0021886305284857 · Cited by 54
“This increase in the complexity of work is enhanced by the dialectic nature of the changes required by management as they unlearn previous processes and acquire new knowledge made available through the ERP system (Robey, Ross, & Boudreau, 2002).”
Background
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
