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 201–300 of 1,018
Wang, W., & Hsieh, J. J. P.-A. (2006) · Digital Archive @ GSU · Cited by 53
A comparative analysis of learning curves: Implications for new technology implementation management
Plaza, M., Ngwenyama, O. K., & Rohlf, K. (2009) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.010 · Cited by 53
Gebauer, J., & Lee, F.-T. (2008) · Information systems management · doi:10.1080/10580530701777198 · Cited by 57
“…in research and practice emphasize the need to account for various system-related technical, organizational and legal factors, as well as for the interrelations between these critical factors (Brown & Vessey, 2003; Grossman & Walsh 2006; King, 2005; McAfee, 2006; Robey, Ross & Boudreau, 2002).”
BackgroundInformation Systems Appraisal and Coping: The Role of User Perceptions
Fadel, K. J., & Brown, S. A. (2010) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.02606 · Cited by 55
“Such an appraisal may result in the user doing enough to ―get by‖ with the system without incurring the effort expenditure to master more advanced features [Boudreau and Seligman 2005; Robey et al. 2002].”
BackgroundWork, Organisation and Enterprise Resource Planning Systems: An Alternative Research Agenda
Dery, K., Grant, D., Harley, B., & Wright, C. (2006) · New Technology Work and Employment · doi:10.1111/j.1468-005x.2006.00175.x · Cited by 68
Young, B., Mathiassen, L., & Davidson, E. (2016) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00432 · Cited by 53
The public procurement of information systems: dialectics in requirements specification
Moe, C. E., Newman, M., & Sein, M. K. (2017) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/s41303-017-0035-4 · Cited by 69
“Examples include the change processes in IS development (Bjerknes, 1991; Markus, 1983; Sabherwal & Newman, 2003), the development and implementation of enterprise content management systems (Nordheim & Päivärinta, 2006), software selection (Howcroft & Light, 2006) and the implementation of Enterprise Systems (Robey…”
BackgroundMalaurent, J., & Karanasios, S. (2019) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.12272 · Cited by 58
“It is indeed the case that the assumed inflexibility of enterprise systems (Robey et al., 2002) can be circumvented through improvisation by non-experts.”
BackgroundRondeau, P. J., Ragu‐Nathan, T. S., & Vonderembse, M. A. (2005) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2005.02.001 · Cited by 52
Mandates and technology acceptance: A tale of two enterprise technologies
Chae, B. K., & Poole, M. S. (2005) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2005.04.001 · Cited by 52
“In line with the implications that mandates differ in their degree of mandatoriness is the finding by Robey et al. (2002) that a mandatory ERP was not universally accepted or used.”
BackgroundLyytinen, K., & Newman, M. (2014) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.12044 · Cited by 59
“Implementing any large system such as ERP remains a high-risk proposition; fatal cases such as FoxMeyer, Dow Chemical (Davenport, 1998), Siemens or Bruno Magli (Robey et al., 2002) attest to this.”
BackgroundThe assimilation of enterprise information system: An interpretation systems perspective
Mu, E., Kirsch, L. J., & Butler, B. S. (2015) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2015.01.004 · Cited by 51
“Equally important are the challenges that arise from the deep and wide ranging consequences that ERP systems can have for organizational processes, structures, and even cultures [69].”
BackgroundAre ERP systems a source of competitive advantage?
Seddon, P. B. (2005) · Strategic Change · doi:10.1002/jsc.729 · Cited by 50
Maintaining ERP Packaged Software – a Revelatory Case Study
Ng, C. S.-P., & Gable, G. G. (2009) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1057/jit.2009.8 · Cited by 51
“This is similar to the initial ERP implementation project, see (Robey et al., 2002).”
BackgroundResultJian, G. (2007) · Communication Monographs · doi:10.1080/03637750701716602 · Cited by 53
Achieving Success in Large Projects: Implications from a Study of ERP Implementations
Ferratt, T. W., Ahire, S. L., & De, P. (2006) · INFORMS Journal on Applied Analytics · doi:10.1287/inte.1060.0203 · Cited by 50
“The reasons organizations adopt these large, complex systems have included Y2K compliance, replacing legacy systems, support ing process reengineering, integrating or consolidat ing multiple sites or operations, supporting growth or acquisitions, improving reporting and decision mak ing, and facilitating regulatory co…”
BackgroundConceptualising Participatory Action Research - Three Different Practices
Cronholm, S. (2004) · The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods · Cited by 49
From disruptions to struggles: Theorizing power in ERP implementation projects
Silva, L., & Fulk, H. K. (2012) · Information and Organization · doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2012.06.001 · Cited by 53
Identifying Critical Success Factors of ERP Systems at the Higher Education Sector
Rabaa’i, A. A. (2009) · Electronic workshops in computing · doi:10.14236/ewic/isiict2009.12 · Cited by 48
“Other researchers, considered other perspectives: Tarafdar and Roy (2003) interviewed executives about the issue of organizational acceptance; Robey et al. (2002) used case study to address the issue of knowledge barriers.”
BackgroundBen-Zion, R., Pliskin, N., & Fink, L. (2014) · Information Systems Management · doi:10.1080/10580530.2014.958024 · Cited by 60
“…et al., 2010); and CSF 5 (which applies to all implementation phases)—participating in professional networks (Ash & Bates, 2005; Berwick, 2003; Ludwick et al., 2010) as well as partnering with healthcare innovation companies, consulting firms, and industry peers (Robey, Ross, & Boudreau, 2002).”
BackgroundSupply chain collaboration for ERP implementation
Li, Y., Wu, F., Zong, W., et al. (2017) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/ijopm-12-2015-0732 · Cited by 47
Enterprise Resource Planning Research: Where Are We Now and Where Should We Go From Here?
Cumbie, B. A., Jourdan, Z., Peachy, T. A., Dugo, T., & Craighead, C. W. (2005) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 47
Anderson, M. C., Banker, R., Menon, N. M., & Romero, J. A. (2011) · Inf. Technol. Manag. · doi:10.1007/s10799-011-0102-9 · Cited by 44
“It is true that the packaged nature inherently constrains all ERP implementations to be technology-driven to a certain degree, and this forces every organization to redesign some processes to fit the generic templates built into ERP systems [31, 89 ].”
BackgroundResultInfluentialMatook, S., & Brown, S. A. (2016) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.12108 · Cited by 44
Changes in roles, responsibilities and ownership in organizing master data management
Vilminko-Heikkinen, R., & Pekkola, S. (2019) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.12.017 · Cited by 46
An empirical evaluation of existing IS change theories for the case of IOIS evolution
Reimers, K., Johnston, R. B., & Klein, S. P. (2013) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2013.7 · Cited by 44
“On the basis of Van de Ven & Poole’s (1995) Lyytinen and Newman’s PSIC model (2008) and some studies of ERP implementation such as those by Robey et al (2000) and Besson & Rowe (2001).”
MethodDressage, control, and enterprise systems: the case of NASA's Full Cost initiative
Berente, N., Gal, U., & Yoo, Y. (2010) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2009.47 · Cited by 43
“…of enterprise systems are emergent, difficult to predict, and rife with misalignments between locally situated organizational practices and those which are inscribed into the system (Davenport, 1998; Markus et al., 2000; Robey et al., 2002; Gosain, 2004; Soh & Sia, 2004; Wei et al., 2005).”
BackgroundChua, A. Y. K., & Goh, D. H. (2008) · Journal of Information Science · doi:10.1177/0165551507084139 · Cited by 44
“In general, the use of multiple cases offers a significant advantage over that of a single case in developing analytical insights because the phenomena under investigation, namely KM measurement, can be compared across the cases [37].”
BackgroundThe Mutual Relation Between Enterprise Resource Planning and Knowledge Management: A Review
Samiei, E., & Habibi, J. (2019) · Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management · doi:10.1007/s40171-019-00229-2 · Cited by 44
“Another major origin is that ERP projects, usually accompany other enterprise and strategic processes such as business process re-engineering (Robey et al. 2002).”
BackgroundInfluentialTheories of ICT system implementation and adoption : a critical review
Korpelainen, E. (2011) · Aaltodoc (Aalto University) · Cited by 44
Enabling strategic transformations with enterprise systems : beyond operational efficiency
Bhattacharya, P., Seddon, P. B., & Scheepers, R. (2010) · Deakin Research Online (Deakin University) · Cited by 43
Factors influencing ERP implementation in retail sector: an empirical study from India
Garg, P., & Garg, A. (2014) · Journal of Enterprise Information Management · doi:10.1108/jeim-06-2012-0028 · Cited by 45
Generative mechanisms of AI implementation: A critical realist perspective on predictive maintenance
Stohr, A., Ollig, P., Keller, R., & Rieger, A. (2024) · Information and Organization · doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2024.100503 · Cited by 45
“Moreover, they can help eliminate the insecurities that fuel the anxiety mechanism and instead promote the inspiration mechanism This mitigation effect is closely related to the benefits of dialectic organizational learning for change management (Robey, Ross, & Boudreau, 2002).”
BackgroundERP implementation: a knowledge integration challenge for the project team
Newell, S., Huang, J., & Tansley, C. (2006) · Knowledge and Process Management · doi:10.1002/kpm.262 · Cited by 42
“The similarity in adopted packages helps to reduce variance because both organizations are implementing the same system (Robey et al., 2002).”
BackgroundA model-based DSS for integrating the impact of learning in project control
Plaza, M., & Turetken, O. (2009) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2009.04.010 · Cited by 42
Determining ERP customization choices using nominal group technique and analytical hierarchy process
Parthasarathy, S., & Sharma, S. (2014) · Computers in Industry · doi:10.1016/j.compind.2014.03.003 · Cited by 42
Gamification of Enterprise Systems
Nah, F. F., Eschenbrenner, B., Claybaugh, C. C., & Koob, P. B. (2019) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems7010013 · Cited by 57
“Areas with the most challenges, apart from technical implementation issues, tend to be areas of most friction between new culture and old culture, or between dominant players in the organization [25].”
BackgroundEnterprise applications diffusion within organizations: A social learning perspective
Lorenzo, O., Kawalek, P., & Ramdani, B. (2011) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2011.10.005 · Cited by 41
Kwak, D.-H., Ma, X., Polites, G. L., Srite, M., Hightower, R., & Haseman, W. D. (2019) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00532 · Cited by 42
Shao, Z., & Li, X. (2022) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2022.103597 · Cited by 41
Intensifying to Cease: Unpacking the Process of Information Systems Discontinuance1
Mehrizi, M. H. R., Modol, J. R., & Nezhad, M. Z. (2019) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2019/13717 · Cited by 44
Institutional repositories: review and an information systems perspective
Kennan, M. A., & Wilson, C. S. (2006) · Library Management · doi:10.1108/01435120610668179 · Cited by 40
“Robey et al (2002) for example, conducted a comparative case study of 13 enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems implementations in North American companies and their results indicated that knowledge and use barriers were effectively overcome when change was introduced incrementally, and with…”
BackgroundGenre Combinations: A Window into Dynamic Communication Practices
Østerlund, C. S. (2007) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222230405 · Cited by 39
“First, researchers have long contended that end users often do not use IS as those systems’ designers intended [36, 44, 46].”
BackgroundSmolander, K., Rossi, M., & Pekkola, S. (2020) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2020.103407 · Cited by 47
van Fenema, P. C., Koppius, O., & van Baalen, P. (2007) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000708 · Cited by 39
“European Journal of Information Systems While the time–space discontinuity is inevitable as long as developer and user are not the same actor, in the case of packaged software the discontinuity becomes more manifest during the implementation process.”
Background(2008) · Proceedings of the ... ISARC · doi:10.22260/isarc2008 · Cited by 39
E-supply chain operational and behavioural perspectives: an empirical study of Malaysian SMEs
Hafeez, K., Keoy, K. H., Zairi, M., Hanneman, R. A., & Koh, S. C. L. (2009) · International Journal of Production Research · doi:10.1080/00207540903175079 · Cited by 38
“Therefore, training availability and high level of technical expertise have been identified as a necessary condition for technology adoption (Robey et al. 2002).”
BackgroundCritical Success Factors for ERP Projects
Wong, B. K., & Tein, D. (2003) · OPUS - Open Publications of UTS Scholars (University of Technology Sydney) · Cited by 38
Sykes, T. A. (2020) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2020/11672 · Cited by 41
Using a Multimethod Approach to Research Enterprise Systems Implementations
Esteves, J., & Pastor, J. (2003) · The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods · Cited by 38
Experiences While Selecting, Adapting and Implementing ERP Systems in SMEs: A Case Study
Winkelmann, A., & Klose, K. (2008) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 38
Learning from a failed ERP implementation: a case study research
Venugopal, C. K., & Rao, K. S. (2011) · International Journal of Managing Projects in Business · doi:10.1108/17538371111164038 · Cited by 37
Evolutionary patterns in e‐business strategy
Caniato, F. F. A., Cagliano, R., Kalchschmidt, M. G. M., Golini, R., & Spina, G. (2009) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/01443570910986229 · Cited by 37
“Some authors have also considered that the impact of ICT technologies changes according to the presence of specific enablers such as cross-functional teams (Robey et al., 2002) and purchasing teams (Ellram and Pearson, 1993; Giunipero and Vogt, 1997; Johnson et al., 2007).”
BackgroundInfluentialRisk of adopting mission-critical OSS applications: an interpretive case study
Poba‐Nzaou, P., Raymond, L., & Fabi, B. (2014) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/ijopm-03-2012-0117 · Cited by 44
A four‐dimensional view of IT business value
Cao, G. (2010) · Systems Research and Behavioral Science · doi:10.1002/sres.1015 · Cited by 38
Annamalai, C., & Ramayah, T. (2013) · Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management · doi:10.1108/17410381311327404 · Cited by 44
Esteves, J. (2013) · Enterprise Information Systems · doi:10.1080/17517575.2013.771411 · Cited by 35
“In order to realise the significant benefits from ERP systems, a considerable amount of training is required (Robey et al. 2002).”
BackgroundCo-authorship, Homophily, and Scholarly Influence in Information Systems Research
Gallivan, M. J., & Ahuja, M. K. (2015) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00416 · Cited by 35
Rashid, A., Masood, T., Erkoyuncu, J. A., Tjahjono, B., Khan, N., & Shami, M.-U.-D. (2017) · Enterprise Information Systems · doi:10.1080/17517575.2016.1258087 · Cited by 35
Model-based software configuration: patterns and languages
Dreiling, A., Rosemann, M., van der Aalst, W. M. P., et al. (2006) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000645 · Cited by 35
“…1995; Keil et al ., 2000; Keil & Robey, 2001; Schmidt et al ., 2001; Smith et al ., 2001), the reasons for ES failures remain difficult to explain (Robey et al ., 2002), because ES are complex socio-technical systems (Somers et al ., 2000) (this was already acknowledged for Management Information…”
BackgroundInfluentialOrganizational adaptation for using PLM systems: Group dynamism and management involvement
Kung, K.-H., Ho, C., Hung, W.-H. J., & Wu, C.-C. (2014) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2014.04.018 · Cited by 40
Srinivasan, M. (2010) · International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems · doi:10.4018/jeis.2010100101 · Cited by 35
E‐business through knowledge management in Spanish telecommunications companies
Cegarra‐Navarro, J., & Martínez‐Conesa, E. A. (2007) · International Journal of Manpower · doi:10.1108/01437720710755263 · Cited by 35
“By facilitating a high level of KAP, organisations will have members who will assume responsibilities in using TS (Venkatesh and Speier, 2000; Robey et al., 2002).”
BackgroundCentralization and the success of ERP implementation
Nandi, M. L., & Kumar, A. S. (2016) · Journal of Enterprise Information Management · doi:10.1108/jeim-07-2015-0058 · Cited by 40
“…implementation, the new system induces a significant change in work behavior in terms of changed business processes as well as changed interface with the IS (Martin and Huq D ow nl oa de d by C or ne ll U ni ve rs ity L ib ra ry A t 0 6: 04 0 1 A ug us t 2 01 6 (P T ) 10 2007, Robey et al. 2002).”
BackgroundMethodAmoako‐Gyampah, K., Meredith, J. R., & Loyd, K. W. (2018) · Project Management Journal · doi:10.1177/875697281804900106 · Cited by 34
Mengiste, S. A. (2010) · Journal of health informatics in developing countries · Cited by 34
Opening the Black Box: A Multi-Method Analysis of An Enterprise Resource Planning Implementation
Shepherd, C., Clegg, C., & Stride, C. (2009) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1057/jit.2008.32 · Cited by 34
“Enterprise resource planning: A review of the literature There have been a number of excellent reviews of the ERP literature (e.g., Robey et al., 2002; Dery et al., 2006a).”
BackgroundERP Acceptance: Organizational Change Perspective
Kwahk, K.-Y. (2006) · Proceedings of the ... Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences/Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.1109/hicss.2006.159 · Cited by 33
“With the ubiquitous growth of IS investment, enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems have become popular means for both medium and largesized organizations to overcome the hindrances of legacy systems [35].”
BackgroundInfluence of learning in resource-constrained project scheduling
Peteghem, V. V., & Vanhoucke, M. (2015) · Computers & Industrial Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.cie.2015.06.007 · Cited by 33
Self‐destructive dynamics in large‐scale technochange and some ways of counteracting it
Chae, B. K., & Lanzara, G. F. (2006) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/09593840610649970 · Cited by 33
An Institutional Analysis of Pluralistic Responses to Enterprise System Implementations
Yoo, Y., Lyytinen, K., & Berente, N. (2007) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 33
Information Technology Innovativeness and Data-Breach Risk: A Longitudinal Study
Wang, Q., Ngai, E. W. T., Pienta, D., & Thatcher, J. B. (2023) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2023.2267319 · Cited by 36
“Some literature defines it as the introduction and adoption of new technologies or tools, such as new hardware, software, or communication technologies, that improve the organization’s efficiency and competitiveness [13, 26, 28, 30, 48, 83].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialWorking in the UAE: expatriate management experiences
Almazrouei, H. S., & Pech, R. J. (2015) · Journal of Islamic accounting and business research · doi:10.1108/jiabr-08-2013-0032 · Cited by 32
Greenwood, B. N., Ganju, K. K., & Angst, C. M. (2019) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2018.0817 · Cited by 32
Moving from Evaluation to Trial: How do SMEs Start Adopting Cloud ERP?
Salim, S. A., Sedera, D., Sawang, S., Alarifi, A. H. E., & Atapattu, M. (2015) · AJIS. Australasian journal of information systems/AJIS. Australian journal of information systems/Australian journal of information systems · doi:10.3127/ajis.v19i0.1030 · Cited by 37
Arbuthnott, A., Eriksson, J., & Wincent, J. (2010) · Scandinavian Journal of Management · doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2010.05.001 · Cited by 32
An initial analysis of software engineers’ attitudes towards organizational change
Lenberg, P., Tengberg, L. G. W., & FELDT, R. H. (2016) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-016-9482-0 · Cited by 45
Conceptualizing Workarounds: Meanings and Manifestations in Information Systems Research
Ejnefjäll, T., & Ågerfalk, P. J. (2019) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.04520 · Cited by 32
Organisational factors for successful implementation of ERP systems
Motwani, J., Akbulut, A., Mohamed, Z. M., & Greene, C. L. (2008) · International Journal of Business Information Systems · doi:10.1504/ijbis.2008.016584 · Cited by 35
“However, most of the studies in this area lack a theoretical framework that successfully links the Critical Success Factors (CSFs) to implementation outcomes, such as project success and business benefits (Robey et al., 2002).”
BackgroundInformation technology change, work complexity and service jobs: a contingent perspective
Marler, J. H., & Liang, X. (2012) · New Technology Work and Employment · doi:10.1111/j.1468-005x.2012.00280.x · Cited by 31
“Recent case-based evidence taking place in the service sector suggests the effects of the latest IT innovations, such as ERP technical systems are contingent on organisational social processes in which they are implemented (Robey et al., 2002; Harley et al., 2006).”
Employees’ reactions to IT-enabled process innovations in the age of data analytics in healthcare
Bala, H., & Venkatesh, V. (2017) · Business Process Management Journal · doi:10.1108/bpmj-11-2015-0166 · Cited by 33
“Prior research has suggested the process misfit is responsible for numerous complex technology implementation failures in organizations in general and HCOs in particular (Bala and Venkatesh, 2013; Barley, 1986; Lapointe and Rivard, 2005; Robey et al. , 2002; Soh et al. , 2000).”
BackgroundEnterprise Resource Planning Adoption: Structural Equation Modeling Analysis of Antecdants
Ram, J., Corkindale, D. R., & Wu, M. (2013) · Journal of Computer Information Systems · doi:10.1080/08874417.2013.11645671 · Cited by 33
“Some researchers [10, 11] attribute this focus to the high risks and failure rates of ERP projects.”
BackgroundSoja, P. (2010) · Production Planning & Control · doi:10.1080/09537281003601597 · Cited by 30
“As a result, these research works reveal factors that have historically been associated with project management success and offer few insights beyond conventional wisdom (Robey et al. 2002).”
BackgroundSoja, P. (2011) · Information Systems Management · doi:10.1080/10580530.2011.585584 · Cited by 30
“Furthermore, some researchers claim that the contribution of prior CSF-based studies to understanding of ES implementation is limited and that these studies offer few insights beyond conventional wisdom (Robey, Ross, & Boudreau, 2002).”
BackgroundHustad, E., & Olsen, D. H. (2013) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.12032 · Cited by 31
“Complex organizational learning processes take place when companies implement ES (Robey et al ., 2002).”
BackgroundReimers, K. (2003) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.01120 · Cited by 30
The Impact of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Systems on the Audit Report Lag
Kim, J., Nicolaou, A., & Vasarhelyi, M. A. (2013) · Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting · doi:10.2308/jeta-50712 · Cited by 28
Identifying Challenges for Facilitation in Communities of Practice
Tarmizi, H., de Vreede, G., & Zigurs, I. (2006) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2006.210 · Cited by 31
“[25] also suggest a role for COPs in overcoming knowledge barriers at the time of an IT adoption process in an organization.”
BackgroundUnderstanding User Adaptation toward a New IT System in Organizations: A Social Network Perspective
Wu, Y. Q., Choi, B. C. F., Guo, X., & Chang, K. (2017) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00473 · Cited by 29
“…instance, although research has recognized formal user training as the key mechanism to help users adopt new technologies, it has largely ignored the importance of informal mechanisms (e.g., on-the-job training and social learning) in sustaining post-adoption IT use (Robey, Ross, & Boudreau, 2002).”
BackgroundRameshwar, R., Solanki, A., Nayyar, A., et al. (2019) · Advances in civil and industrial engineering book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-9754-4.ch007 · Cited by 28
Increasing e-ordering adoption: A case study
Reunis, M. R. B., Santema, S. C., & Harink, J. H. A. (2006) · Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management · doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2007.01.006 · Cited by 28
Tension Awareness of Stakeholders in Large Technology Projects: A Duality Perspective
Boonstra, A., Offenbeek, V. M., & Vos, J. F. J. (2017) · Project Management Journal · doi:10.1177/875697281704800102 · Cited by 33
“Finally, technology can be configured, implemented, and integrated into an organization in different ways depending on the views of the stakeholders involved and the dynamics among them (Barley, 1986; Boonstra, 2006; Orlikowski, 1992; Robey et al., 2002).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialERP systems drive businesses towards growth and sustainability
Anaya, L. A., & Qutaishat, F. T. (2022) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2022.08.103 · Cited by 27
Rai, A., & Hornyak, R. (2013) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2013.07.005 · Cited by 27
Local assimilation of an enterprise system: Situated learning by means of familiarity pockets
Yamauchi, Y., & Swanson, E. B. (2010) · Information and Organization · doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2010.09.002 · Cited by 26
“As traditionally interpreted, a workaround is developed by a user to overcome misalignment between the system and the necessary work (Gasser, 1986; Sachs, 1995; Robey et al., 2002; Koopman et al., 2003; Boudreau & Robey, 2005; Wagner & Newell, 2006).”
BackgroundGeneric Verticalization Strategies in Enterprise System Markets: An Exploratory Framework
Fink, L., & Markovich, S. (2008) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1057/jit.2008.14 · Cited by 27
“Since ES implementation turned out to be a massive, complex, and risky process (Grossman and Walsh, 2004), many implementations have been unsuccessful in achieving their business objectives (Chen, 2001; Robey et al., 2002; Umble et al., 2003; Somers and Nelson, 2004).”
BackgroundThe effects of national culture on ERP implementation: a study of Colombia and Switzerland
Murcia, M. A. P., & Whitley, E. A. (2007) · Enterprise Information Systems · doi:10.1080/17517570701504294 · Cited by 27
“In relation to ERP systems implementation, many researchers have argued that countless problems during the implementation of ERP systems do not relate to merely technological issues at all (Davenport 1998, Skok and Doringer 2001, Robey et al .”
BackgroundLessons learnt from five years of experience in ERP requirements engineering
Daneva, M. (2004) · Journal of Lightwave Technology · doi:10.1109/icre.2003.1232736 · Cited by 28
“Issues: RE teams have to cope with knowledge barriers of two types: those associated with the SAP configuration and those associated with the assimilation of the new business processes [20].”
BackgroundElectronic Medical Records and Physician Productivity: Evidence from Panel Data AnalysisPreprint
Bhargava, H. K., & Mishra, A. N. (2011) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1952287 · Cited by 27
User Competence with Enterprise Systems: The Effects of Work Environment Factors
Ke, W., Kang, L., Tan, C., & Peng, C.-H. (2021) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2020.0989 · Cited by 30
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
