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 301–400 of 1,018
King, N. E. (2012) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2012.47 · Cited by 26
“Training European Journal of Information Systems on software procedures are insufficient without addressing broader issues of process change (Robey et al, 2002).”
BackgroundAhmad, N., Haleem, A., & Syed, A. A. (2012) · Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management · doi:10.1007/s40171-013-0019-8 · Cited by 26
“Robey et al. (2002) have said that antecedents or CSF study lacks the theoretical framework to explain to the variety of implementation results.”
BackgroundE-government system evaluation
Althonayan, M., & Althonayan, A. (2017) · Transforming Government People Process and Policy · doi:10.1108/tg-11-2015-0045 · Cited by 26
Petrini, M., & Pozzebon, M. (2009) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-657-0.ch013 · Cited by 26
“Our method is based on recent studies showing the value of using telephone interviews when the main purpose is to draw an initial picture of a given phenomenon [25, 11].”
MethodCritical Success Factors for ERP ImplementationPreprint
Amini, M., & Safavi, N. S. (2013) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2256382 · Cited by 26
Malik, G., & Singh, P. (2024) · Employee Relations · doi:10.1108/er-08-2023-0427 · Cited by 35
The intellectual core of enterprise information systems: a co-citation analysis
Shiau, W. (2015) · Enterprise Information Systems · doi:10.1080/17517575.2015.1019570 · Cited by 25
“Robey, Ross, and Boudreau (2002) conducted a comparative case study, assessing 13 industrial firms that implemented ERP systems.”
BackgroundInfluentialApport de la théorie de l'action humaine à la compréhension des usages des systèmes d'information
Azan, W., & Beldi, A. (2014) · Systèmes d information & management · doi:10.3917/sim.093.0079 · Cited by 25
Larsen, T. J. (2009) · Computers in industry (Print) · doi:10.1016/j.compind.2009.05.004 · Cited by 24
“[27] present strong evidence that the configuration of teams, careful management of consulting relationships, and user training has an impact on knowledge transfer.”
BackgroundGerow, J. E., Grover, V., Roberts, N., & Thatcher, J. B. (2010) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 25
Integrated Electronic Medical Record Systems: Critical Success Factors for Implementation
MacKinnon, W., & Wasserman, M. (2009) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2009.264 · Cited by 25
A doxa‐informed practice analysis: reflexivity and representations, technology and action
Ellway, B. P. W., & Walsham, G. (2015) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.12041 · Cited by 25
“We know that some IS, such as enterprise resource planning systems, are often in fl exible following their con fi guration and implementation (Robey et al., 2002; Kallinikos, 2004), which re fl ects the observation that certain technologies may represent more rigid constraints on our actions (Markus,…”
BackgroundManaging User Resistance in Enterprise Systems Implementation
Shang, S. S. C., & Su, T. M. (2004) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 24
A Facilitation Task Taxonomy for Communities of Practice
Tarmizi, H., & de Vreede, G. (2005) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 25
Challenges of enterprise resource planning (ERP) implementation in agriculture
Куликов, И. М., Semin, A. N., Skvortsov, E. A., Ziablitckaia, N., & Skvortsova, E. G. (2020) · Journal of Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues · doi:10.9770/jesi.2020.7.3(27 · Cited by 26
Santhanam, R., Yi, M. Y., Sasidharan, S., & Park, S.-H. (2013) · AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.17705/1thci.00056 · Cited by 25
“This gap must be addressed, because as per generally held beliefs, and evidence from surveys and case studies (e.g., Lee et al., 1995; Robey et al., 2002; Sun and Bhattacherjee, 2011), it is clear that training bears a significant correlation to IS use and successful assimilation of large enterprise systems.”
BackgroundAn exploratory study of the impacts of upgrading packaged software: a stakeholder perspective
Khoo, H. M., Robey, D., & Rao, S. (2011) · Journal of Information and Technology · doi:10.1057/jit.2011.1 · Cited by 37
Self-citationPark, K. O. (2018) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su10093080 · Cited by 24
“Accordingly, some studies [10,11] emphasize change management as a critical success factor in IS implementation.”
BackgroundA strategic activity model of Enterprise System implementation and use: Scaffolding fluidity
Leonard, J., & Higson, H. E. (2013) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2013.11.003 · Cited by 24
“Admissions process maps (2011 ‐ from intranet) Formal strategic plans and reviews KPIs for Council (2011)– update of 2008 KPIs University plan (2009/10) (including Balanced Scorecard review for 2009) University Strategy and four year plan (2011) (includes four year rolling plan) Strategic plan for 2020 (public documen…”
MethodHustad, E., & Olsen, D. H. (2013) · Procedia Technology · doi:10.1016/j.protcy.2013.12.020 · Cited by 28
“Despite implementation challenges and high implementation costs, ERP systems have become popular, and both small and large companies implement this type of system to maintain competitiveness [2].”
BackgroundHow Business Enterprises Use Technology: Extending the Demand-Side Turn
Yates, J. (2006) · Enterprise & Society · doi:10.1017/s146722270000433x · Cited by 28
De l'intégration du Système d'Information à la vision transversale de l'organisation
Amrani, R. E. (2014) · Systèmes d information & management · doi:10.3917/sim.084.0061 · Cited by 30
Team performance and information system implementation
Plaza, M. (2008) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-008-9080-9 · Cited by 23
“The assumption is not valid for IS implementations, in which the extensive training and knowledge transfer component makes performance non-linear: it increases significantly during the progression of the project (Haines et al. 2000; Robey et al. 2002 ).”
BackgroundThe impact of project team attributes on ERP system implementations
Rothenberger, M. A., Srite, M., & Jones‐Graham, K. (2010) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/09593841011022555 · Cited by 26
“The scope of our investigation was the implementation project (rather than the entire organization) with the project team as the primary area of interest; thus we focused our investigation on the two leading team members to obtain a detailed picture of the implementation ( Robey et al. , 2002”
MethodYang, S. H., & Seddon, P. B. (2004) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 21
Hospitality, Improvisation and Gestell: A Phenomenology of Mobile Information
Brigham, M., & Introna, L. D. (2006) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000063 · Cited by 23
“(see Robey et al ., 2002).”
ICT implementation process model for logistics service providers
Vieira, C. L. D. S., Coelho, A. S., & Luna, M. M. M. (2013) · Industrial Management & Data Systems · doi:10.1108/02635571311322757 · Cited by 23
“Two approaches can be taken to make the process operational: (1) the fragmented approach, in which the ICT is installed first, and then changes are made in the business processes; and (2) the combined approach, which deals with the process change during implementation (Robey et al., 2002).”
Fremdt, S., Beck, R., & Weber, S. (2013) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2013.182 · Cited by 25
“As ERP systems are basically built for core corporate functions [39], we subsumed CRM, Human Capital Management (HCM), SCM and Financial Services (FIN) in this category.”
MethodToward an Ontology of Workarounds: A Literature Review on Existing Concepts
Röder, N., Wiesche, M., Schermann, M., & Krcmar, H. (2016) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2016.640 · Cited by 24
“64 Robey [86] 2002 conc D, R, RI, W I manufacturing US ERP proc / s”
BackgroundÉtats des lieux de la recherche ERP francophone
Amrani, R. E., & Saint-Léger, G. (2013) · Systèmes d information & management · doi:10.3917/sim.132.0111 · Cited by 23
Dual strategy for managing user resistance with business integration systems
Shang, S. S. C. (2011) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2011.553744 · Cited by 23
“2002 , Beaudry and Pinsonneault 2005 , Lapointe and Rivard 2007 , Morris and Venkatesh 2010 ).”
BackgroundShepherd, C. (2006) · Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1348/096317906x105742 · Cited by 24
Impacts of IT Acceptance and Resistance Behaviors: A Novel Framework
Bagayogo, F. F., Beaudry, A., & Lapointe, L. (2013) · Cited by 22
The Relation of Shadow Systems and ERP Systems—Insights from a Multiple-Case Study
Huber, M., Zimmermann, S., Rentrop, C., & Felden, C. (2016) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems4010011 · Cited by 24
“Others mention several, but focus on the implications for ERP implementation [9,28,33,49–51] or organizational control [31].”
BackgroundMehrizi, M. H. R., van den Hooff, B., & Yang, C. (2021) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.12341 · Cited by 29
“Work culture can trigger resistance to IS change (Robey, Ross, & Boudreau, 2002): a work culture that is traditional, formal and rule-based can imply more routine seeking and cognitive rigidity and thus a stronger status quo-bias and an emphasis on habits, than one that is innovative, creative and…”
BackgroundThink before you act: organizing structures of action in technology-induced change
Yeo, R. K., & Marquardt, M. J. (2015) · Journal of Organizational Change Management · doi:10.1108/jocm-12-2013-0247 · Cited by 22
“For instance, the innovative use of e-mails through the creation of subgroups and the circulation of incontrollable information extended technology’s objectivity to redefine social relationships and responsibilities (Robey et al., 2002).”
BackgroundClient strategies in vendor transition: A threat balancing perspective
Chua, C. E. H., Lim, W.-K., Soh, C., et al. (2012) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2011.12.001 · Cited by 22
Dispersed Change Agency and the Improvisation of Strategies During Processes of Change
Charles, K., & Dawson, P. (2011) · Journal of Change Management · doi:10.1080/14697017.2011.576653 · Cited by 22
“In practice, however, implementing information systems across subsidiary sties can exacerbate problems of integration and have unintended disorganizing effects (Robey et al., 2002).”
BackgroundFederated ERP-systems on the basis of Web Services and P2P networks
Brehm, N., & Gómez, J. M. (2009) · International Journal of Information Technology and Management · doi:10.1504/ijitm.2010.029435 · Cited by 22
“The integration is based on a common data model for all system components and extends to more than one enterprise sector (Robey et al., 2002; Rautenstrauch and Schulze, 2003).”
BackgroundTaxonomy of ERP integrations and performance outcomes: an exploratory study of manufacturing firms
Roh, J. J., & Hong, P. C. (2015) · Production Planning & Control · doi:10.1080/09537287.2014.950624 · Cited by 23
“(25) For example, a study reports that ERP implementation standardised business process, innovated business processes and made performance improvements (Robey, Ross, and Boudreau 2002).”
BackgroundResource management activities in healthcare information systems: A process perspective
Teoh, S. Y., Pan, S. L., & RAMCHAND, A. M. (2010) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-010-9280-y · Cited by 22
“1.1.1 Enterprise systems implementation ES implementations by nature are inherently large-scale, complex and have the potential to impact and transform a hospital at an organization-wide level (Markus and Tanis 2000; Robey et al. 2002; Lim et al. 2005; Pan et al. 2007; and Devadoss and Pan 2007;).”
BackgroundInfluentialERP Implementation: A Cross-Cultural Perspective
Livermore, C. R., & Rippa, P. (2011) · Journal of Global Information Technology Management · doi:10.1080/1097198x.2011.10856541 · Cited by 22
Factors affecting the ERP implementation in Indian retail sector
Garg, P., & Chauhan, A. K. (2015) · Benchmarking An International Journal · doi:10.1108/bij-11-2013-0104 · Cited by 22
Leadership challenges in the context of university 4.0. A thematic synthesis literature review
Rocha, Á., Gonçalves, M. J., da Silva, A. F., Teixeira, S., & Silva, R. P. (2021) · Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory · doi:10.1007/s10588-021-09325-0 · Cited by 29
“However, public organizations, despite the low amounts they invest in training, rate IT as important as does the private sector (Robey et al. 2002).”
BackgroundLinking customisation of ERP systems to support effort: an empirical study
Koch, S., & Mitteregger, K. (2014) · Enterprise Information Systems · doi:10.1080/17517575.2014.917705 · Cited by 21
“As a partial reason, the authors suggest, with reference to Robey, Ross, and Boudreau (2002), that many companies change their processes after the implementation of the system.”
BackgroundResultNecessary but not sufficient: ERPs and strategic HRM
Dery, K., & Wailes, N. (2005) · Strategic Change · doi:10.1002/jsc.727 · Cited by 21
“Robey et al. (2002) argue that motivation has very little impact on the ERP implementation process or outcome.”
BackgroundWork transformation following the implementation of an ERP system
Ripamonti, S. C., & Galuppo, L. (2016) · Journal of Workplace Learning · doi:10.1108/jwl-01-2016-0005 · Cited by 25
An Exploratory Study of Knowledge Types Relevance Along Enterprise Systems Implementation Phases
Esteves, J. (2003) · Cited by 21
Multi Agent Systems in Logistics: A Literature and State-of-the-art Review
Lang, N. A., Moonen, H., Srour, F. J., & Zuidwijk, R. A. (2008) · RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) · Cited by 21
Syed, T. A., Wiener, M. J., Mehmood, F., & Abdelrahman, M. (2021) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1080/0960085x.2021.1977728 · Cited by 20
“Relatedly, earlier research highlights that paradoxical demands in IS projects become recurrently salient, triggering a project manager’s ambidex-terity to confront these demands simultaneously (Gregory et al., 2013, 2015; Robey et al., 2002).”
BackgroundKarim, M. R., Nordin, N. B., Yusof, M. F., Amin, M. B., Islam, M. A., & Hassan, M. S. (2023) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2023.2275869 · Cited by 20
“…(Palanisamy, 2008) Members of the implementation team are specialists who put their skills to use in the workplace and gain expertise through the process of implementing ERP; over time, as their understanding of the system grows, they become more valuable to the company (Robey et al., 2002).”
BackgroundRemus, U. (2012) · Information Systems Management · doi:10.1080/10580530.2012.687309 · Cited by 23
“The knowledge required in ERP projects comprises a wider variety of experiences, perspectives, and abilities than that needed for traditional IS implementations (Robey et al., 2002).”
BackgroundInfluentialMANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS ISSUES: CO-CITATION ANALYSIS OF JOURNAL ARTICLES
Shiau, W. (2015) · International Journal of Electronic Commerce Studies · doi:10.7903/ijecs.1393 · Cited by 20
“The sixth factor was “Knowledge Management” (see Table 4-2, for examples, Robey et al. 51 , Nonaka 52 ).”
BackgroundShao, Z. (2019) · Journal of Enterprise Information Management · doi:10.1108/jeim-07-2018-0160 · Cited by 20
Firm and Employee Effects of an Enterprise Information System: Micro-Econometric Evidence
Jones, D. C., Kalmi, P., & Kauhanen, A. (2011) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.12.005 · Cited by 21
“These results are consistent with the view that, at the outset, when large scale inputting of data takes place and new work processes need to be learned (Robey et al. 2002), the adverse impact on employees is the greatest.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialEnterprise Resource Planning, Corporate Governance and Internal Auditing
Elbardan, H., & Kholeif, A. O. R. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-54990-3 · Cited by 20
Alignment or Drift? Loose Coupling over Time in NASA's ERP Implementation
Berente, N., Yoo, Y., & Lyytinen, K. (2008) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 20
Chang, H. H., & Wang, I. C. (2008) · Service Industries Journal · doi:10.1080/02642060701843595 · Cited by 20
“…is a key competitive factor offering advantages in building and maintaining internal and external business relations (Geyskens et al., 1999; Gefen and Ridings, 2002), and affecting business functions from design and production through to after-sales service (Robey and Ross, 2002; Schulz, 2005).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe role of formal controls in facilitating information system diffusion
Abubakre, M. A., Ravishankar, M. N., & Coombs, C. R. (2015) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2015.04.005 · Cited by 20
“Although strategies have been proposed to overcome these barriers, such as increased training for users [37] and increased user participation [49] these actions are more commonly performed as pre-implementation activities, along with IS configurations and customizations.”
BackgroundERP Implementation Teams, Consultants, and Information Sharing
Volkoff, O., & Sawyer, S. (2001) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 19
Rowe, F., Amrani, R. E., Bidan, M., et al. (2005) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 19
ERP's Best Practices and Change: An Organizational Memory Mismatch Approach
van Stijn, E. J., & Wensley, A. K. P. (2005) · University of Twente Research Information · Cited by 19
The importance of management innovation and consultant services on ERP implementation success
Alcamí, R. L., Alegre, J., & Chiva, R. (2011) · Service Industries Journal · doi:10.1080/02642069.2011.556189 · Cited by 19
Three essays on audit technology
Dai, J. (2017) · doi:10.7282/t3rn3bz9 · Cited by 21
Knowledge creation and external consultants during ERP implementation: an interpretive study
Dutta, S., & Kumar, A. S. (2021) · Business Process Management Journal · doi:10.1108/bpmj-01-2021-0055 · Cited by 24
The dilemma of internal audit function adaptation
Elbardan, H., Ali, M., & Ghoneim, A. (2015) · Journal of Enterprise Information Management · doi:10.1108/jeim-10-2013-0074 · Cited by 20
“Robey et al., 2002; Davenport, 1998; Markus et al., 2000; Markus and Tanis 2000; Soh et al., 2000; Boudreau and Robey, 2005; Wagner and Newell, 2004; Elmes et al., 2005; Sia et al., 2002; Allen, 2005 Identity Top-down structure implies rationalized bureaucracy in line with functional managerial…”
BackgroundAlmajed, A. I., & Mayhew, P. J. (2013) · IBIMA Business Review · doi:10.5171/2013.260919 · Cited by 19
“Training and Education (Finney and Corbett, 2007; Kumar et al., 2002; Robey et al., 2002; Mandal and Gunasekaran, 2003; Aladwani, 2001) Partners and Suppliers Management (Zhang et al.”
BackgroundJustifying ERP Investment: The Role and Impacts of Business Case A Literature Survey
Nafeeseh, R. A., & Al‐Mudimigh, A. S. (2011) · Cited by 19
Pan, M., & Mao, J. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.2016.2596319 · Cited by 19
“Moreover, colocation permitted user representatives to observe work of their peers and the consultants, and to acquire tacit knowledge [38].”
BackgroundCase study research in information systems
Shanks, G., & Bekmamedova, N. (2018) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-102220-7.00007-8 · Cited by 34
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP): managing the paradigm shift for success
Kocakulah, M., Embry, J., & Albin, M. (2006) · International Journal of Information and Operations Management Education · doi:10.1504/ijiome.2006.009171 · Cited by 20
“This means that an internal business-process education programme must be developed (Boudreau et al., 2002).”
BackgroundInfluential(2005) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-378-4 · Cited by 19
Examining the motivators of training transfer in an enterprise systems context
Arasanmi, C. N., Wang, W. Y. C., & Singh, H. (2016) · Enterprise Information Systems · doi:10.1080/17517575.2016.1177206 · Cited by 21
“This is a precondition for learning e ff ective-ness (Calvert 2006; Robey Ross, and Boudreau 2000; Scaduto, Lindsay, and Chiaburu 2008).”
BackgroundHapsara, M., Imran, A., & Turner, T. (2017) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2017.12.166 · Cited by 20
Managing ERP system evaluation and selection in SMEs using the six-imperatives methodology
Argyropoulou, M., Ioannou, G. D., Söderquist, K. E., & Motwani, J. G. (2008) · International Journal of Procurement Management · doi:10.1504/ijpm.2008.018430 · Cited by 18
A McKinsey 7S Model-Based Framework for ERP Readiness Assessment
Hanafizadeh, P., & Ravasan, A. Z. (2012) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-2464-1.ch009 · Cited by 18
Cloud ERP Adoption-A Process View Approach
Salim, S. A. (2016) · doi:10.13140/rg.2.1.4900.8240 · Cited by 19
Interproject Conflict Management Through Cooperation in an Enterprise System Implementation Program
Cheng, F.-F., Wu, C.-S., & Chang, J. Y. T. (2020) · Project Management Journal · doi:10.1177/8756972820949058 · Cited by 17
“…(1) old knowledge or procedures contradicting with new knowledge or procedures/process (Alsulami et al., 2013; Nordheim & Päivärinta, 2006 ; Robey et al., 2002)―misfit between the organizational practices of ES structures and the overall organizational objectives ( Sia & Soh, 2007; Soh et…”
BackgroundMaier, C., Laumer, S., & Weinert, C. (2015) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 17
Balancing the costs of human resources on an ERP project
Plaza, M. (2015) · Omega · doi:10.1016/j.omega.2015.06.005 · Cited by 15
Bondarouk, T., Ruel, H. J. M., Guiderdoni-Jourdain, K., et al. (2009) · HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-304-3 · Cited by 17
ERP measure success model; a new perspective
Bento, F., & Costa, C. J. D. C. (2013) · International Conference on Information Systems and Design of Communication (ISDOC) · doi:10.1145/2503859.2503863 · Cited by 16
“This system type became a very popular type of software in the corporate/organizational environment [2], [9].”
BackgroundUnderstanding the IT/business partnership: A business process perspective
Siurdyban, A. (2012) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-012-9388-3 · Cited by 17
“When deploying processes standardized across process units, the business is looking for “ turn-key ” delivery of a concerted system and process change (Robey et al. 2002).”
MethodAntecedents of continued use and extended use of enterprise systems
See, B. P., Yap, C. S., & Ahmad, R. (2018) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2018.1536165 · Cited by 17
“The total market potential is huge as it is not unusual for an organisation to spend in excess of USD100 million to implement an ERP system (Robey, Ross, and Boudreau 2002).”
BackgroundMethodological Redirections for an Evolutionary Approach of the External Business Environment
Vlados, C. M., & Chatzinikolaou, D. (2019) · Journal of Management and Sustainability · doi:10.5539/jms.v9n2p25 · Cited by 20
Expatriate managers decision-making practices within the UAE: a qualitative study
Almazrouei, H. S., Zacca, R., Bilney, C., & Antoine, G. E. (2016) · International journal of organizational analysis · doi:10.1108/ijoa-10-2015-0929 · Cited by 17
Popovič, A. (2017) · Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja · doi:10.1080/1331677x.2017.1311232 · Cited by 17
“User resistance has been reported as a significant motive for system implementation failures (Barker & Frolick, 2003; Robey, Ross, & Boudreau, 2002).”
BackgroundA Comprehensive ERP Bibliography - 2000-2004Preprint
Møller, C., Kræmmergaard, P., Ríkharðsson, P., Møller, P. G., Jensen, T. N., & Due, L. L. (2004) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 17
ERP system implementation costs and selection factors of an implementation approach
Johansson, B., Sudzina, F., & Newman, M. (2011) · International Journal of Business Information Systems · doi:10.1504/ijbis.2011.041088 · Cited by 16
Integration through orchestration
Ochoa, O. L., Claes, B. P., Koryak, O., & Díaz, Á. (2017) · Journal of Enterprise Information Management · doi:10.1108/jeim-02-2016-0060 · Cited by 17
Legacy information system replacement: Pursuing quality design of operational information systems
Tsai, J. C.-A., Jiang, J. J., Klein, G. L., & Hung, S. (2022) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2022.103592 · Cited by 17
Hamad, M. J., Yassin, M. M., & Okour, S. (2022) · Journal of Governance and Regulation · doi:10.22495/jgrv11i1siart15 · Cited by 16
Process gatekeepers and compliance with enterprise processes
Berente, N., Ivanov, D., & Vandenbosch, B. (2010) · Business Process Management Journal · doi:10.1108/14637151011049421 · Cited by 16
“In many cases, misalignments are resolved by customization of the enterprise system, adaptation of human activity to conform to the system, or both (Boudreau and Robey, 2005; Soh et al., 2000; Robey et al., 2002; Soh and Sia, 2004).”
BackgroundPatterns of Transition: The Shift from Traditional to Object-Oriented Development
Nelson, H. J., Armstrong, D. J., & Nelson, K. M. (2009) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222250409 · Cited by 16
Tang, L.-J., & Sampson, H. (2017) · Journal of Vocational Education and Training · doi:10.1080/13636820.2017.1392997 · Cited by 18
“These findings do not imply that informal learning can replace formal training, as this body of literature also suggests that both forms of learning activities complement each other to produce better outcomes (Robey et al. 2002; Sharma and Yetton 2007).”
Sasovova, Z., Heng, S. H., & Newman, M. E. (2001) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 16
Turning a Community into a Market: A Practice Perspective on IT Use in Boundary-SpanningPreprint
Levina, N. N., & Vaast, E. (2005) · SSRN Electronic Journal · Cited by 16
Successful implementation of ERP systems: a case study of an international automotive manufacturer
Motwani, J., Akbulut, A., & Nidumolu, V. (2005) · International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management · doi:10.1504/ijatm.2005.008581 · Cited by 21
Enterprise system implementation issues: learning from field study in Poland
Soja, P. (2008) · Enterprise Information Systems · doi:10.1080/17517570802398216 · Cited by 15
“Except for general agreement regarding the necessity of management support for implementation (e.g. Robey et al .”
BackgroundDo Enterprise Resource Planning Systems (ERPs) Constrain Real Earnings Management?
Paredes, A. A. P., & Wheatley, C. M. (2018) · The Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.2308/isys-51760 · Cited by 12
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
