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 701–800 of 1,018
Why ERP systems fail to generate intended benefits in developing-country organisations
Rajapakse, J., Seddon, P. B., & Scheepers, R. (2006) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 2
Attitudes to information technology in health care professions
Meissonier, R., & Houzé, E. (2009) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 2
Feedback in the ERP Value-Chain: What Influence Has Thoughts about Competitive Advantage
Johansson, B. (2013) · Lecture notes in business information processing · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36611-6_10 · Cited by 2
Ma, X., Liu, L., Li, J., et al. (2008) · Tsinghua Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/s1007-0214(08)70057-9 · Cited by 2
Learning in IT projects- The Importance of Situated Practice as well as Formal Project Methodologies
Newell, S., & David, G. (2006) · Cited by 2
Open Source ERP In Organization: Research Agenda
Amrani, R. E. (2009) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 2
Health IT use outcomes in small physician practices
Wallace, S., & Iyer, L. (2022) · Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research · doi:10.1080/15228053.2022.2124083 · Cited by 2
“This technique of coding has been successfully used in other IS interpretive research (Robey et al., 2002; Spears & Barki, 2010).”
MethodIntended and Unintended Consequences of ERP System Implementation
Walton, S., Wheeler, P. R., & Zhang, Y. (2023) · Accounting Horizons · doi:10.2308/horizons-2020-192 · Cited by 2
Traditional and Modern Methodologies in ERP Systems Implementation Using Microsoft Dynamics-GP
Jeyaraj, A., & Sethi, V. (2008) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 2
A Framework for Successful Enterprise Systems Implementation: Preliminary Findings from a Case Study
Rabaa’i, A. A. (2010) · Cited by 2
Klose, K., Schallert, M., Holten, R., et al. (2004) · Cited by 2
UNDERSTANDING INFORMATION SYSTEM CHANGE: THE RELATION BETWEEN REASONS, GOALS, AND TYPES
Krell, K., Matook, S., & Rohde, F. H. (2008) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 2
Understanding information technology appropriation in organisations
Fidock, J. J. T. (2011) · RMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library) · doi:10.25439/rmt.27586071 · Cited by 2
Wie, H.-L., & Wang, E. (2004) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 2
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE ROLE OF KEY USERS IN ERP IMPLEMENTATIONS
Pan, M. (2008) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 2
An Exploratory Study of an Enterprise Systems Implementation Methodology in Action
Mihailescu, D., Carlsson, S., & Mihăilescu, M. I. (2006) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 2
Lemieux, N. (2011) · Gestion · doi:10.3917/riges.361.0074 · Cited by 2
Understanding technochange in ERP implementation through two case studies
Shakir, M. N., & Viehland, D. W. (2006) · International Journal of Information Systems and Change Management · doi:10.1504/ijiscm.2006.011199 · Cited by 2
“This is also referred to as ‘piecemeal change’ because “fewer changes are undertaken at one time” (Robey et al., 2002, p.35); hence resulting in a loose coupling between organisational and technological change.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialERP Implementation Across Cultures
Livermore, C. R., & Rippa, P. (2011) · International Journal of E-Politics · doi:10.4018/jep.2011100102 · Cited by 2
Understanding User Dissatisfaction
Klaus, T. (2011) · Journal of Organizational and End User Computing · doi:10.4018/joeuc.2011070101 · Cited by 2
Personality traits of the enterprise IT application implementation champion
Chrusciel, D. (2011) · International Journal of Information Systems and Change Management · doi:10.1504/ijiscm.2011.041511 · Cited by 2
Deng, X. N., & Liu, Y. (2013) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2013.582 · Cited by 2
“Knowledge barriers in post-implementation of integrated technology such as ERP have been documented in prior studies [3, 22].”
BackgroundResultAchieving Cultural Fit in Global Information Systems Implementation
Brainin, E. (2008) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 2
Santhanakrishnan, S., SenGupta, S., & Narendran, T. T. (2009) · International Journal of Enterprise Network Management · doi:10.1504/ijenm.2009.032399 · Cited by 2
“This approach should also highlight those process drivers of the enterprise or supply chain where the inherent lack of strength from a business perspective is a major constraint to leveraging the benefits of digitisation (Heinrich and Simchi-Levi, 2005; Robey et al., 2002).”
BackgroundExploiting Benefits from IS/IT Investments: An IT Culture Perspective
Odusanya, K. A., Coombs, C. R., & Doherty, N. F. (2015) · Nottingham Trent University's Institutional Repository (Nottingham Trent Repository) · Cited by 2
Zirpins, C., Ortiz, G., & Lamersdorf, W. (2005) · Cited by 2
Investigating the Role of Inertia in Business Process Standardization Initiatives
Kettenbohrer, J., & Beimborn, D. (2015) · International Conference on Information Systems · Cited by 2
Ramburn, A., Seymour, L. F., & Gopaul, A. (2013) · Lecture notes in business information processing · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36611-6_21 · Cited by 2
“This has been attributed to the disruptive and threatening nature of ERP implementations [5], [6].”
Awareness of organisational readiness in ERP implementation process
Capaldo, G., & Rippa, P. (2015) · International Journal of Information Systems and Change Management · doi:10.1504/ijiscm.2015.073080 · Cited by 2
Sasidharan, S. (2015) · Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation · doi:10.1177/2319510x15576274 · Cited by 2
“Here, in addition to transferring technical knowledge regarding the system, users have to be trained in the new and reconfigured business processes and educated about the potential changes it could bring into their tasks, enabling them to effectively incorporate technology features into their work routines (Mandal & G…”
BackgroundInfluentialTowards a Theory of Individual-level Discontinuance of Information Systems Use Research-in-Progress
Recker, J. (2014) · Cited by 2
Deployment of Open Source ERPs: What Knowledge Does It Require?
Johansson, B., & Koroliov, V. (2012) · Lecture notes in business information processing · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-28827-2_6 · Cited by 2
ERP Implementation Model, Research Findings, and its Applications to Government
Subramanian, G. H., & Peslak, A. R. (2011) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-863-7.ch002 · Cited by 2
Flow and the Art of ERP Education
Claybaugh, C. C. (2016) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-39399-5_4 · Cited by 2
“As ERP system implementations normally encompass a substantial redesign of business processes [5, 6], the use of such systems as a learning environment provides an superb chance to allow students to gain understanding into the integration and functionality of business and IT [7].”
BackgroundBhattacharya, P., Scheepers, R., & Seddon, P. B. (2010) · Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) · Cited by 2
Arik, A. G. (2006) · Cited by 2
박광오 (2017) · Management & Information Systems Review · doi:10.29214/damis.2017.36.2.001 · Cited by 2
Adaptive System Use Revisited – A Methodological Replication
Haake, P., Schacht, S., & Maedche, A. (2018) · AIS Transactions on Replication Research · doi:10.17705/1atrr.00024 · Cited by 2
“Sun (2012) motivates his research on user adaptation in post-adoption IS use along these lines. Surprisingly, Sun identified only little research on user adaptation to IS (2012), particularly for the post-adoption stage of IS implementations. Thus, Sun (2012) developed the concept, research model, and measures for Ada…”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialIdentifying the Critical Success Factors for Low Customized ERP System Implementations in SMEs
Wolters, J., Eseryel, U. Y., & Eseryel, D. (2018) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.24251/hicss.2018.588 · Cited by 2
“Any ERP implementation requires a fit between the implemented system and the processes in the organization that the system supports [12].”
BackgroundStructural modeling and analysis of enterprise resource planning implementation barriers
ÇAKIRLI, M. Y., Karadayi‐Usta, S., & Serdarasan, Ş. (2020) · Pamukkale University Journal of Engineering Sciences · doi:10.5505/pajes.2019.62993 · Cited by 2
“Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 17(2), 85–104, 2004 [15] Robey D, Ross J W, Boudreau MC.”
BackgroundHow to Turn Around a Failing ERP Implementation: Project Management Routines as Boundary Objects
Battleson, D. A., & Mathiassen, L. (2020) · Engaged Management ReView · doi:10.28953/2375-8643.1051 · Cited by 2
Technology-Use Mediation Revisited: A Symbolic Process Perspective
Stein, M., Newell, S., Wagner, E. L., & Galliers, R. D. (2013) · Figshare · Cited by 2
Kreie, J., Shannon, J. G., & Mora‐Monge, C. A. (2011) · Information Systems Education Journal · Cited by 2
Examining the Critical Success Factors in IT Projects
Radhakrishnan, A., Davis, J. S., & David, D. (2022) · International Journal of Information Technology Project Management · doi:10.4018/ijitpm.290423 · Cited by 2
Towards Understanding Contradictions in Enterprise System Implementations—Insights from a Case Study
Nordheim, S. (2011) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-9790-6_45 · Cited by 2
Adoption of Innovative Technology
Shibly, H. R., Abdullah, A., & Murad, M. W. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-11934-7_3 · Cited by 3
The life and death of Webfuse: principles for learning and leading into the future
Jones, D. J. (2012) · University of Southern Queensland ePrints (University of Southern Queensland) · Cited by 2
Challenging Universal Criteria in Management Consulting
Lalonde, C. (2011) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-61735-419-920251018 · Cited by 2
The impact of information technology resources on SMEs' innovation performance
Albesher, A., & Coster, R. D. (2012) · Brunel University Research Archive (BURA) (Brunel University London) · Cited by 2
Marnell, J. W., & Levy, Y. M. (2014) · NSUWorks (Nova Southeastern University) · Cited by 2
I'm OK,You're not OK: A Study of the Alignment between HR and IT
Dery, K. (2005) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 2
Mao, J., & Pan, M. (2009) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 2
The Moderating Role of Absorptive Capacity in the Assimilation of Enterprise Information Systems
Saraf, N., Liang, H., Xue, Y., & Hu, Q. (2006) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 3
Empirical Study on the Impact of User Participation on Service Value
Liu, B., & Li, D. (2012) · Journal of Service Science and Management · doi:10.4236/jssm.2012.52017 · Cited by 2
“Because enterprise systems impound deep knowledge of new ways of designing and executing organizational processes, these complex software packages can cause considerable assimilation difficulties in the process of ES use [2].”
BackgroundCONSTRUYENDO LA CAPACIDAD DE APRENDIZAJE ORGANIZATIVO DESDE LA PERSPECTIVA DEL CONOCIMIENTO
Vargas, M. V., Araya-Castillo, L., & Casad, E. G. (2019) · Revista Investigación & Desarrollo · doi:10.23881/idupbo.018.2-7e · Cited by 4
Meissonier, R. (2008) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1272383 · Cited by 2
Moving from evaluation to trial: The case of cloud ERP adoption in SMEs
Salim, S. A. (2015) · UPSI Digital Repository · Cited by 2
Perspective of different stakeholders for a successful ERP implementation- A comparative study
Khullar, N., & Moayeri, A. A. (2011) · KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) · Cited by 2
Firm and Employee Effects of an Enterprise Information System: Micro-Econometric EvidencePreprint
Jones, D. C., Kalmi, P., & Kauhanen, A. (2010) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1650129 · Cited by 2
APRENDIZAGEM ORGANIZACIONAL NA PEQUENA EMPRESA: PROPOSTA DE UM MAPA CONCEITUAL
Moraes, C. T. D. B. (2013) · doi:10.11606/d.18.2013.tde-18112013-102514 · Cited by 1
Proactive Information System Integration: A Concept of IS Integration in Mergers and Acquisitions
Nair, S., & Mazouch, A. (2007) · Lund University Publications Student Papers (Lund University) · Cited by 2
A MANAGERS VIEW OF CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS NECESSARY FOR THE SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF ERP
Turton, J. W. (2010) · ChesterRep (University of Chester) · Cited by 2
Chen, D. Q. (2003) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 2
Alvarenga, M. L. F. (2003) · LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) · Cited by 2
Implementation of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Systems
Subramanian, G. H., & Hoffer, C. S. (2011) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-477-4.ch001 · Cited by 2
“Specifically, several studies have looked at ERP implemen tation (Akkermans & van Helden, 2002; Hong & Kim, 2002; Robey et al., 2002 ).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialTowards Process Mediation in Semantic Service Oriented Architecture (SSOA)
Mahmoud, T., & Gómez, J. M. (2009) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-650-1.ch038 · Cited by 2
van Stijn, E. J. (2006) · doi:10.3990/1.9789036523851 · Cited by 2
Li, X., Hsieh, J. J. P.-A., & Rai, A. (2013) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1120.0456 · Cited by 328
“(Gupta et al. 2006), thereby reducing barriers to assim-ilating IS in work processes (Fichman and Kemerer 1999, Robey et al. 2002).”
BackgroundGamification of Enterprise Resource Planning in Education: A Bibliometric Analysis
Haryani, P., Musyaffi, A. M., Khairunnisa, H., Snnisa, E., Sudiati, R., & Azzahra, H. (2024) · International Conference on Electrical, Computer, Communications and Mechatronics Engineering (ICECCME) · doi:10.1109/iceccme62383.2024.10796202 · Cited by 1
“Therefore, intensive training and learning are needed to improve user understanding of ERP [7].”
Achieving information systems infusion beyond routinization
Lee, S.-H., Gupta, S., & Kim, H. (2025) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/itp-04-2025-0552 · Cited by 1
Kirwan, O., Golden, W., & Molloy, P. (2008) · Cited by 1
Ludmer, G., & Falk, J. A. (2007) · Americanae (AECID Library) · doi:10.1590/s1807-17752007000200003 · Cited by 2
ERP success factors: The impact of knowledge, organisational context and institutional forces
Kalling, T. (2007) · Lund University Publications (Lund University) · Cited by 1
ERP misfits: What is it and how do they come about?
Pries-Heje, L. (2006) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 1
ERP global template and organizational informal structures (a practice-based study).
Malaurent, J. (2011) · European Conference on Information Systems · Cited by 1
Ke, W., Wang, X., Liu, H., Wei, K., & He, J. (2008) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 1
Pries-Heje, L. (2010) · Lecture notes in business information processing · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14874-3_6 · Cited by 1
“Participation of organizational staff in ERP implementations is considered to be essential for success [7, 15, 16], and is expected to provide a better fit of user requirements, thus achieving better system quality, use, and acceptance [17].”
BackgroundERP Implementation, Cross-Functionality and Critical Change Factors
Amrani, R. E., Geffroy‐Maronnat, B., Rowe, F., Marciniak, R., & Bidan, M. (2004) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/1-4020-2673-0_8 · Cited by 1
Johansson, B. (2011) · Scientific Journal of Riga Technical University Computer Sciences · doi:10.2478/v10143-011-0006-5 · Cited by 1
“Several studies on inspiring success [14], but also failures [15, 16], associated with implementation and utilization of ERPs [17] exist.”
BackgroundThe Evolution of ERP Closure: Insights from the Social Shaping View of Technology
Ju, P.-H., & Wang, E. T. G. (2010) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2010.378 · Cited by 1
“The relationship between information technology (IT) and social organizations has long been of interest, especially for global and large scale enterprise system such as Enterprise resource planning (ERP) [1].”
BackgroundManaging the Implementation of an Enterprise System in an Accounting and Finance Environment
Williams, J., & Williams, M. D. (2007) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 1
User knowledge transformation through design: A historical materialism perspective
Yamauchi, Y. (2014) · Information and Organization · doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2014.10.002 · Cited by 1
“It has been extensively applied in information system development, which is largely political and full of conflict (Bjerknes, 1991; Cho, Mathiassen, & Robey, 2006; Mathiassen, 1998; Robey, Ross, & Boudreau, 2002).”
BackgroundCua, F. C., & Reames, S. (2013) · International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector · doi:10.4018/ijisss.2013100104 · Cited by 1
Dressage and the illusion of management control.
Berente, N., Gal, U., & Yoo, Y. (2006) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 1
ERP SYSTEMS IMPLEMENTATION: FACTORS INFLUENCING SELECTION OF A SPECIFIC APPROACH?
Johansson, B., & Sudzina, F. (2008) · Cited by 1
Process Compliance and Enterprise System Implementation
Berente, N., Ivanov, D., & Vandenbosch, B. (2007) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2007.447 · Cited by 1
“Goals of the system typically involve process standardization [8,5], process control [10], and process integration [5,14,17,21].”
BackgroundYou, Z., & Dedrick, J. (2015) · Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) · Cited by 1
Drivers of the Alignment of Financial Accounting to Management Accounting
Trucco, S. (2015) · Contributions to management science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-18723-5_4
Collaboration change in enterprise software development
Smolander, K., Rossi, M., & Pekkola, S. (2016) · International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE) · doi:10.1145/2897586.2897590 · Cited by 1
“[9] suggested that instead of linearity, the development is a continuous dialectical learning process, especially in large-scale enterprise software development.”
BackgroundIntegrative Teaching Aspects for the Profession: Development and Application of a Teaching Framework
Klose, K., Schallert, M., Holten, R., et al. (2004) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 1
Enterprise Resource Planning Systems in Family Firms
Smith, J. N. (2016) · DigitalCommons - Kennesaw State University (Kennesaw State University) · Cited by 1
Connectivity Changes: Why Do Project Team Members Shift between Different States of Connectivity?
Waizenegger, L., Remus, U., & Maier, R. (2014) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 1
Developing and Customizing Federated ERP Systems
Lübke, D., & Gómez, J. M. (2010) · Advances in business information systems and analytics book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-892-5.ch016 · Cited by 1
Mediation Model of Digital Technology Factors Affecting Health Care Service Performance
Melaka, U. T. M., Alzaabi, H. O. E. A., Hasan, H., Melaka, U. T. M., Akmal, S. B., & Melaka, U. T. M. (2022) · International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering Technology · doi:10.30880/ijscet.2022.13.04.009 · Cited by 1
Enterprise Resource Planning, saberes administrativos y profesionales en ciencias económicas
Hoffmann, G. E. (2023) · RAN Revistas Academia y Negocios · doi:10.29393/ran9-12ergh10012 · Cited by 1
Exploring the Renewal of IT-enabled Resources from a Structural Perspective
Lumor, T., Pulkkinen, M., Chan, Y. E., & Hirvonen, A. (2023) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.05324 · Cited by 1
Liu, H., Wen, W., Barua, A., & Whinston, A. B. (2024) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2022.0033 · Cited by 1
Modelling the factors that influence the achievement of business benefits from ERP systems
Staehr, L., & Byrne, G. (2011) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 1
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
