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 401–500 of 1,018
IS diffusion: A dynamic control and stakeholder perspective
Ahmed, Z., Eryilmaz, E., & Alzahrani, A. I. (2021) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2021.103572 · Cited by 16
A Stakeholder Perspective Of Enterprise Systems
Sathish, S., Pan, S. L., & Raman, K. S. (2003) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 15
Hustad, E., & Olsen, D. H. (2011) · European Conference on Information Systems · Cited by 15
Towards a theory of individual-level discontinuance of information systems use
Recker, J. (2014) · Kölner Universitäts PublikationsServer (Universität zu Köln) · Cited by 17
The enterprise system as a part of an organization's administrative paradox
Melin, U. (2010) · Journal of Enterprise Information Management · doi:10.1108/17410391011019769 · Cited by 15
Understanding the Dynamics of Service-Oriented Architecture Implementation
Li, X., & Madnick, S. (2015) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2015.1063284 · Cited by 17
“However, most traditional IT systems, such as enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems, are designed using a monolithic architecture and built as integrated sets of software modules linked to a common database [45].”
InfluentialAndersen, T. K. (2015) · Systemic Practice and Action Research · doi:10.1007/s11213-015-9360-5 · Cited by 17
“Research has emphasized the necessity of changed work processes during ICT implementation, and of organizational learning through enactment and communication for the use of new ICT at work (Robey et al. 2002; Boudreau and Robey 2005).”
BackgroundSeth, M., Goyal, D. P., & Kiran, R. (2015) · Vision The Journal of Business Perspective · doi:10.1177/0972262915599465 · Cited by 15
“…has been studied extensively by various researchers (Adam & O’doherty, 2000; Bradford & Florin, 2003; Francalanci, 2001; Parr & Shanks, 2000; Robey et al., 2002; Ribbers & Schoo, 2002; Sumner, 2000), and they have concluded that there exists a negative relationship between complexity of…”
BackgroundInformation Systems Foundations: Theory Building in Information Systems
Dennis Hart, N., & Gregor, S. D. (2012) · ANU Press eBooks · doi:10.22459/isf.10.2012 · Cited by 25
Pries-Heje, L., & Dittrich, Y. (2009) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 15
Enterprise Systems Lifecycle-wide Innovation ReadinessPreprint
Lokuge, S., & Sedera, D. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.05089 · Cited by 18
“Past critical success factor and implementation studies have clearly identified that ‘resistance’ to change as a key barrier for ES success (Robey et al. 2002).”
BackgroundRealizing Sustainable Value from ERP Systems Implementation
Anaya, L. A., Flak, L. S., & Abushakra, A. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su15075783 · Cited by 25
Fuad, K., Li, P., Maruping, L. M., & Mathiassen, L. (2024) · Enterprise Information Systems · doi:10.1080/17517575.2024.2330084 · Cited by 16
“To create value from ES investments, cross-functional processes and enabling structures are critical (Robey, Ross, and Boudreau 2002), and practice gaps pose significant challenges (Sia and Soh 2007).”
BackgroundAral, S., Brynjolfsson, E., Gu, C., Wang, H., & Wu, D. J. (2024) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2023/17420 · Cited by 18
Haddara, M., & Constantini, A. (2017) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.123 · Cited by 14
Le pari des centres de compétences dans la stabilisation des organisations en phase post-projet ERP
Saint-Léger, G., & Amrani, R. E. (2011) · Systèmes d information & management · doi:10.3917/sim.111.0069 · Cited by 14
Colnar, S., Radević, I., Martinović, N., Lojpur, A., & Dimovski, V. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0272346 · Cited by 10
Analysing the governance, risk and compliance (GRC) implementation process: primary insights
Spanaki, K., & Papazafeiropoulou, A. (2013) · Loughborough University Institutional Repository (Loughborough University) · Cited by 14
Cost Pool Classification and Judgment Performance
Mastilak, M. C. (2011) · The Accounting Review · doi:10.2308/accr-10103 · Cited by 14
Social and Cultural Challenges in ERP Implementation
Poti, S., Bhattacharyya, S., & Kamalanabhan, T. J. (2011) · International Journal of Information Systems and Social Change · doi:10.4018/jissc.2011100104 · Cited by 14
Theory Development in Enterprise Systems and Organizational Learning
Tomblin, M. (2010) · Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce · doi:10.1080/10919392.2010.516647 · Cited by 25
“Robey et al. [14] cited knowledge of existing business processes (i.e., organizational memory) as one of the main impediments to ERP implementation.”
BackgroundInfluentialPrinciples, Foundations & Issues in Enterprise Systems
Loonam, J., & McDonagh, J. (2005) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-378-4.ch001 · Cited by 14
ERP—Enterprise Resource Planning: A cost‐based business case and implementation assessment
Han, S. W. (2004) · Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries · doi:10.1002/hfm.10066 · Cited by 14
Hogarth, K., & Dawson, D. E. (2008) · International journal on e-learning · Cited by 14
Information Technology and the Volatility of Firm PerformancePreprint
Hunter, S. D., Kobelsky, K. W., & Richardson, V. J. (2003) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.475641 · Cited by 14
Goal Equivocality and Joint Account of Meaning Creation in an Enterprise System Program
Tsai, J. C.-A., Wu, X. J., Klein, G. L., & Jiang, J. J. (2021) · Information Systems Management · doi:10.1080/10580530.2021.1879324 · Cited by 13
“Prior ES studies examined differences, tensions, and conflicts in the relationship among different stake-holders (Jiang et al., 2014; Robey et al., 2002; Sandberg et al., 2014).”
BackgroundMahmood, F., Khan, A. F., Shah, S. A., et al. (2023) · Kybernetes · doi:10.1108/k-06-2022-0914 · Cited by 13
A Change-Management Model for the Implementation and Upgrade of ERP Systems
Calvert, C. (2006) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 13
DeVries, E. J. (2005) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 13
Predicting ERP User Satisfaction―an Adaptive Neuro Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) Approach
Venugopal, C. K., Devi, S. P., & Rao, K. S. (2010) · Intelligent Information Management · doi:10.4236/iim.2010.27052 · Cited by 13
Waring, T., & Skoumpopoulou, D. (2012) · Prometheus · doi:10.1080/08109028.2012.754572 · Cited by 13
“…(2010) argues should take place is inhibited as the organisation subsystem fi nds itself constrained by the legacy and history of the technology and data subsystems, much of which may have been developed within another context and for another sector (Robey et al ., 2002; Pollock and Williams, 2009).”
BackgroundAmetowobla, D. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-37256-9 · Cited by 13
Information System Planning and Decision Making Framework: A Case Study
Jukić, B., & Jukić, N. (2010) · Information Systems Management · doi:10.1080/10580530903455221 · Cited by 13
“…a great deal of research has explored the factors influencing the effectiveness of managerial decisions about information system adoption, as well as the quality of the implementation of these decisions (Robey et al., 2002; Stratman & Roth, 2002; Grover & Goslar, 1993; DeLone & McLean 1993, 2003).”
BackgroundLearn not to learn–a way of keeping budgets and deadlines in ERP projects?
Andersson, A., & Linderoth, H. C. J. (2008) · Enterprise Information Systems · doi:10.1080/17517570701793830 · Cited by 14
“This is highly evident in ERP projects where knowledge development can be expected to occur after a contract is agreed, for example, due to efforts needed for renewal and change, if benefits of a project are to be realised (Appleton 1997, Robey et al .”
BackgroundDeng, X. N., & Wang, T. (2014) · Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.2308/isys-50743 · Cited by 13
Pollock, N., & Williams, R. (2009) · ERA · Cited by 13
Enterprise System Development in Higher Education
Chae, B. K., & Poole, M. S. (2005) · Journal of Cases on Information Technology · doi:10.4018/jcit.2005040106 · Cited by 13
“Several of the issues faced by the MIS team have much in common with the experiences of enterprise system development in private sector organizations (Brown & Vessey, 2003; Davenport, 1998; Robey et al., 2002 ).”
BackgroundOptimizing the Change Management of Enterprise Resource Planning Systems Implementations
Kerimoglu, O., & Başoğlu, N. (2006) · Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET) · doi:10.1109/picmet.2006.296876 · Cited by 13
“These systems, offering the integration of business processes and functions across the organization [1], are the most popular standard business software of the last decade [4].”
BackgroundEnterprise Resource Planning: An Empirical Study of Its Impact on Job Performance
Jalal, A. (2011) · International journal of business and information/International journal of business & information · doi:10.6702/ijbi.2011.6.1.3 · Cited by 12
“Initially, ERP system implementation implied a massive re-engineering of business processes and the use of innovative software to maintain those new processes [Robey et al., 2002; Ross and Vitale, 2000].”
MethodExamining critical success factors affecting ERP implementations in enterprises of Pakistan
Aamir, M., Khattak, O., Yuanguan, S., Irfan, M., Shoaib, M., & Khattak, M. (2012) · Cited by 12
Sizing ERP Implementation Projects
Janssens, G., Kusters, R. R., & Heemstra, F. J. (2008) · International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems · doi:10.4018/jeis.2008070103 · Cited by 12
A theoretical framework for knowledge transfer in process redesign
Fadel, K. J., Brown, S. A., & Tanniru, M. R. (2008) · ACM SIGMIS Database the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems · doi:10.1145/1390673.1390678 · Cited by 12
“Robey et al., 2002 ) and illustrate how knowledge transfer from existing task scripts plays a central role in learning new tasks.”
BackgroundSoja, P. (2015) · Information Technology for Development · doi:10.1080/02681102.2015.1075189 · Cited by 12
“In addition, there is a criticism that the contribution of prior CSF-based studies to understanding ES adoption is limited and that these studies offer few insights beyond conventional wisdom (Robey et al., 2002).”
BackgroundCustom Development as an Alternative for ERP Adoption by SMEs: An Interpretive Case Study
Poba‐Nzaou, P., & Raymond, L. (2013) · Information Systems Management · doi:10.1080/10580530.2013.832963 · Cited by 15
“The growing importance and risk of ERP projects, in SMEs in particular (Sammon & Adam, 2010), imply that researchers must find ways to increase the success rate of ERP implementations (Robey, Ross, & Boudreau, 2002).”
BackgroundHow Is an IT Innovation Assimilated
Swanson, E. B. (2005) · Kluwer Academic Publishers eBooks · doi:10.1007/1-4020-8000-x_17 · Cited by 14
“In achieving new 6 Robey, et al (2002), provide an illustrative study focusing on ERP implementation, as distinct from use.”
BackgroundVBP: An approach to modelling process variety and best practice
King, S. F., & Johnson, O. A. (2006) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2006.02.003 · Cited by 12
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN SUCCESS OF ERP SYSTEMS
Musa, U., Usman, Z., & Ahmad, M. N. (2015) · Cited by 11
Making the case for “techno-change alignment”
Fearon, C., Manship, S., McLaughlin, H. L., & Jackson, S. (2013) · European Business Review · doi:10.1108/09555341311302648 · Cited by 11
Enterprise Information Systems Design, Implementation and Management: Organizational Applications
Cruz-Cunha, M., & Varajão, J. (2010) · doi:10.4018/978-1-61692-020-3 · Cited by 47
A teleological process theory for managing ERP implementations
Williams, J., Williams, M. D., & Morgan, A. (2013) · Journal of Enterprise Information Management · doi:10.1108/17410391311325216 · Cited by 11
“, 1999; King and Burgess, 2006; Nah and Delgado, 2006; Nelson, 2007) whilst process research has suggested ways to understand how change occurs (see Markus et al., 2000; Robey et al., 2002; Davenport et al., 2004; Soh et al., 2003; Soh and Sia, 2005).”
BackgroundInfluentialTechniques and Tools for the Design and Implementation of Enterprise Information Systems
Gunasekaran, A. (2008) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-826-0 · Cited by 12
Estébanez, R. P., Trigo, A., & Belfo, F. P. (2016) · International Conference on Information Management · doi:10.1109/infoman.2016.7477544 · Cited by 12
How Do Adopters Transition Between New and Incumbent Channels?1
Overby, E. M., & Ransbotham, S. (2019) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2019/13781 · Cited by 13
“One example of such behavior occurs when adopters of a new organizational information system continue to use the incumbent system in parallel (e.g., Bala and Venka-tesh 2016; Robey et al. 2002).”
Kosalge, P. U., & Chatterjee, D. (2011) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.02830 · Cited by 11
“Adoption of such complex pieces of software often require major changes in organizational processes, structure, and culture [Davenport, 1998; Robey et al., 2002; Law and Ngai, 2007].”
BackgroundBusiness Benefits from Enterprise Systems Implementation in Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
Mathrani, S., & Viehland, D. W. (2009) · AJIS. Australasian journal of information systems/AJIS. Australian journal of information systems/Australian journal of information systems · doi:10.3127/ajis.v16i1.555 · Cited by 11
Taking the high road to web services implementation
Fink, L., & Neumann, S. (2009) · ACM SIGMIS Database the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems · doi:10.1145/1592401.1592408 · Cited by 11
The Mediating Role of Absorptive Capacity in Knowledge Transfer
Adisa, F., & Rose, J. (2013) · International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems · doi:10.4018/jeis.2013040101 · Cited by 11
Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model
Rajapakse, J. (2011) · International Conference on Information Systems · Cited by 11
Picking Up the Pieces after a ?Successful? Implementation: Networks, Coalitions and ERP Systems
Bob-Jones, B., Newman, M. E., & Lyytinen, K. (2008) · Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) · Cited by 11
Can an Enterprise System Persuade? The Role of Perceived Effectiveness and Social Influence
Dabi, J., Wiafe, I., Stibe, A., & Abdulai, J. (2018) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-78978-1_4 · Cited by 11
“[3], tried and tested instruments are effective in measurement.”
BackgroundAbsorptive Capacity and Enterprise Systems Implementation
Marabelli, M., & Newell, S. (2019) · ACM SIGMIS Database the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3330472.3330480 · Cited by 11
“Organizations (and all the actors involved) must learn how to use and exploit company-wide systems (Markus, Tanis, & Van Fenema, 2000; Robey, Ross, & Boudreau, 2002).”
ERP Vendor Satisfaction: From Communication and IT Capability Perspectives
Claybaugh, C. C., Haried, P., Chen, Y., & Chen, L. (2019) · Journal of Computer Information Systems · doi:10.1080/08874417.2019.1566801 · Cited by 13
Stakeholder Management: An insightful Overview of Issues
Mashali, A., Elbeltagi, E. E., Motawa, I. A., et al. (2020) · Proceedings of the International Conference on Civil Infrastructure and Construction (CIC 2020) · doi:10.29117/cic.2020.0029 · Cited by 11
“Thus, many researchers repeated the urgency to address the implementation strategy by a gradual approach (Mandal and Gunasekaran 2003; Scott and Vessey 2000; Cliffe 1999; Robey et al. 2002; Gupta 2000; Motwani et al. 2002).”
BackgroundHow Business Enterprises Use Technology: Extending the Demand-Side Turn
Yates, J. (2006) · Enterprise & Society · doi:10.1093/es/khl004 · Cited by 11
A Learning-Based Model of Quality of Use: Insights from a Case Study of ERP Implementation
Boudreau, M., & Seligman, L. (2003) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 11
Self-citationMeissonier, R., Houzé, E., & Bessière, V. (2012) · International Business Research · doi:10.5539/ibr.v6n2p150 · Cited by 14
“, 2005), organisational changes (Markus, Tanis, et al., 2000; McAfee, 2007; Robey et al., 2002), power redistribution (Hart & Saunders, 1997; Jasperson et al.”
BackgroundThe Dialectics of Resilience: A Multilevel Analysis of a Telehealth Innovation
Cho, S., Mathiassen, L., & Robey, D. (2006) · Kluwer Academic Publishers eBooks · doi:10.1007/0-387-34410-1_22 · Cited by 11
Self-citationERP Implementation and Change: Towards a Cross Functional View
Amrani, R. E., Rowe, F., Bidan, M., et al. (2003) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 11
Rutz, P., Kotthaus, C., de Carvalho, A. F. P., Randall, D. W., & Pipek, V. (2023) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3610104 · Cited by 12
Incomplete by Design. A study of a design-in-use approach to systems implementation
Torkilsheyggi, A. M. Á., & Hertzum, M. (2017) · Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) · Cited by 10
Research Handbook on Public Management and Artificial Intelligence
Nagbøl, P. R., Krancher, O., & Müller, O. (2024) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781802207347 · Cited by 12
Enterprise resource planning systems implementation success
Cegielski, C. G., Hall, D., & Rebman, C. (2006) · International Journal of Information Systems and Change Management · doi:10.1504/ijiscm.2006.011201 · Cited by 15
“Primarily, previous studies focused on identifying critical success factors of the ERP implementation process (e.g. Davenport, 1998; Hitt et al., 2002; Robey et al., 2002).”
BackgroundInfluentialLewis, M., Hornyak, R., Patnayakuni, R., & Rai, A. (2008) · Journal of Global Information Technology Management · doi:10.1080/1097198x.2008.10856465 · Cited by 10
Hough, J. R., Haines, R. P., & Giacomo, S. (2007) · Enterprise Information Systems · doi:10.1080/17517570701630404 · Cited by 10
“This demonstrates the dialectics of change through organizational learning (Robey et al .”
BackgroundA Meta-Analysis of Organizational Learning and IT Assimilation
Roberts, N., Gerow, J. E., Jeyaraj, A., & Roberts, S. J. (2017) · ACM SIGMIS Database the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3158421.3158426 · Cited by 10
“For example, numerous enterprise resource planning (ERP) implementation projects fail because organizations do not comprehend their immense complexity (Robey et al., 2002) and lack the requisite expertise and knowledge needed to implement them properly (Smith et al.”
BackgroundAryal, A., Truex, D. P., III, & Amrani, R. E. (2023) · Information and Organization · doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2023.100490 · Cited by 15
Berente, N. (2008) · OhioLink ETD Center (Ohio Library and Information Network) · Cited by 10
The Importance of Ongoing ERP Training and Support
Calvert, C., & Seddon, P. B. (2006) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 13
Customer‐centric relationship management system development
Teoh, S. Y., & Pan, S. L. (2009) · Journal of Systems and Information Technology · doi:10.1108/13287260910932386 · Cited by 10
“Developing a customer-centric relationship management system could be challenging as organizations need to gather adequate knowledge (Iivari and Iivari, 2006) in a context where numerous barriers to knowledge creation and integration are known to exist (Robey et al., 2002).”
BackgroundFacing the Consequences: Examining a Workaround Outcomes-Based Model
Drum, D. M., Standifer, R. L., & Bourne, K. A. (2014) · Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.2308/isys-50875 · Cited by 10
An Empirical Research on the Impact of CSFs on Adoption of ERP
Song, Y., Han, J., Cheng, D., & Zhang, Y. (2007) · International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing · doi:10.1109/wicom.2007.1533 · Cited by 10
“The academic researches on ERP can be organized into two categories: variance research and process research [1].”
BackgroundRich, D., & Dibbern, J. (2013) · Lecture notes in information systems and organisation · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-37021-2_10 · Cited by 10
“The importance of a fit between the organization of a firm and the information systems has been recognized in IS literature [2] and confirmed in the ERP context [5, 12, 13] repeatedly.”
BackgroundE-mall as solution for marketing the federated ERP components on the basis of web services
Asfoura, E., Jamous, N., & Kassam, G. (2009) · Cited by 10
The Road to ERP Success: Understanding End-User Perceptions
Akbulut, A. Y., & Motwani, J. G. (2005) · Journal of international technology and information management · doi:10.58729/1941-6679.1153 · Cited by 10
“Most of the studies in the ERP critical success literature focus on either project success or correspondence success (Robey et al., 2002), yet neglect the other dimensions that focus on the end-users.”
BackgroundERP Systems: Critical Factors in Theory and Practice
Hedman, J. (2010) · CBS Research Portal (Copenhagen Business School) · Cited by 10
Digital consumers and the new ‘search’ practices of born digital organisations
Hafezieh, N., & Pollock, N. (2023) · Information and Organization · doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2023.100489 · Cited by 12
An Emergent Model of End-users' Acceptance of Enterprise Resource Planning Systems
Nah, F. F., & Tan, X. (2015) · Journal of Database Management · doi:10.4018/jdm.2015100103 · Cited by 9
Park, Y., & Saraf, N. (2016) · Americas Conference on Information Systems · Cited by 12
Analysis of MSEs in ICT Domain from Bucharest – Ilfov County by Using Nonaka – Takeuchi Model
POPESCU, D. I., Alexandru, A., Ceptureanu, S. I., & Ceptureanu, E. G. (2018) · Studies in Informatics and Control · doi:10.24846/v27i1y201811 · Cited by 8
“Even if organizational learning processes can be performed without supporting applications of ICT, technology allows these processes to be performed more effectively (Robey et al., 2002).”
BackgroundTo what extent is it viable to apply benefits management approach for ERP systems?
Anaya, L. A. (2019) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2019.12.151 · Cited by 9
How Does an Enterprise System Implementation Change Interpersonal Relationships in Organizations
Bala, H., Venkatesh, V., Ganster, D. C., & Rai, A. (2020) · Industrial Management & Data Systems · doi:10.1108/imds-06-2020-0380 · Cited by 15
META-ANÁLISIS SOBRE LA IMPLANTACION DE SISTEMAS DE PLANIFICACIÓN DE RECURSOS EMPRESARIALES (ERP)
Correa, P. R., & Cruz, R. G. (2005) · Americanae (AECID Library) · doi:10.1590/s1807-17752005000300002 · Cited by 10
“…(2002) Van Everdingen et al. (2000) Rajagopal (2002) Waarts et al. (2002) Rajagopal y Tyler (2000) Zhang et al. (2003) Rajagopal y Tyler (2002) Robey et al. (2002) Sarker y Lee (2003) Scott y Vessey (2002) Srinivasan y Jayaraman (1999) Sumner (1999) Sumner (2000) Taylor (1998) Umble et al.…”
BackgroundZhang, J. B., Zhang, D. H., Wong, M. M., et al. (2004) · doi:10.1109/etfa.2003.1247716 · Cited by 9
26 years of research on organizational paradox and coping strategies: a review
Guilmot, N., & Ehnert, I. (2014) · Digital Access to Libraries · Cited by 9
Positioning hierarchy in enterprise system change
Schwarz, G. M. (2006) · New Technology Work and Employment · doi:10.1111/j.1468-005x.2006.00179.x · Cited by 9
Critical Success Factors in ERP Upgrade Projects
Olson, D. L., & Zhao, F. (2007) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/0-387-34456-x_58 · Cited by 9
“[11].”
Capturing Users' Tacit Knowledge in ERP Implementation: An Exploratory Multi-Site Case Study
Palanisamy, R. (2007) · Journal of Information & Knowledge Management · doi:10.1142/s0219649207001615 · Cited by 9
What Is The Difference? The Case Of Two Erp Implementations
Livermore, C. R., & Rippa, P. (2010) · Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research · doi:10.1080/15228053.2010.10856183 · Cited by 8
User Perception Differences in Enterprise Resource Planning Implementations
Subramanian, G. H., & Peslak, A. R. (2010) · Journal of Computer Information Systems · doi:10.1080/08874417.2010.11645415 · Cited by 9
“User training that included both technical and business processes, along with a phased implementation approach, helped firms to overcome assimilation knowledge barriers [28] noting the importance of training and a phased approach to ERP implementation.”
META-ANALYSIS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ERP SYSTEMS
Correa, P., & Cruz, R. (2005) · Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management · doi:10.4301/s1807-17752005000300002 · Cited by 9
“…(2002) Van Everdingen et al. (2000) Rajagopal (2002) Waarts et al. (2002) Rajagopal y Tyler (2000) Zhang et al. (2003) Rajagopal y Tyler (2002) Robey et al. (2002) Sarker y Lee (2003) Scott y Vessey (2002) Srinivasan y Jayaraman (1999) Sumner (1999) Sumner (2000) Taylor (1998) Umble et al.…”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Robey, D., Ross, J. W., & Boudreau, M.-C.
- Venue
- Journal of Management Information Systems
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2002-07
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 17-46
- ISSN
- 0742-1222 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-928X
- OpenAlex
- W2098925541
- Semantic Scholar
- 6236f012052e7f24bee1ee19997859f607d02d1e
- Cited by
- 1,023
- References
- 64
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 65 · 2014: 62 · 2013: 80 · 2012: 59
- FWCI
- 83.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Management Information Systems (publishedVersion)
- DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › ERP Systems Implementation and Impact
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Technology Governance and Strategy
- Keywords
- enterprise resource planning, ERP implementation, organizational learning, knowledge barriers, ERP configuration, workflow changes, consulting relationships, user training, phased implementation, industrial enterprises
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
