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.
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 former approach, firms concentrated on the technology first and on process changes second.”
§ 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: 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
“We examined the mechanisms through which firms attempted to overcome each type of knowledge barrier.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > Abstract
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 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
“Other firms spent as much as 20 percent of their project budgets en training.”
§ 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: 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
“Firms that have used these tactics thought that they were helpful in facilitating the assimilation of new business processes.”
§ 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.
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
“Indeed, many of these firms did not necessanly avoid the need to reengineer, but rather temporarily accepted the processes embedcLed in the common vanilla version of the software, and planned for later reengineenng of their processes.”
§ 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.
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
“To illustrate, the learning process of the firms that adopted a piecemeal approach was extended over a rather long period of time.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 6. CONCLUSION
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
“Many firms m our sample learned about this distinction painfully when they realized that their employees knew how to navigate the ERP system but they had not assimilated the basic concepts of integration and process-orientafion.”
§ 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.
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, our data include expressions of doubt about the value of ERP for solving particular business problems.”
§ 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.
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
“Our data do suggest that firms adopted ERP in good faith to solve real problems that they were facing.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 6. CONCLUSION
hedged- 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
“System performance was so poor even 18 months after implementation that EquipCo had to limit the number of users on the system at one time.”
§ 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.
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
“Formal training is an obvious choice for overcoming knowledge barriers (Bingi, et al., 1999), but several of the firms in our sample spent very little on training.”
§ 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.
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
“Instead, most firms believed it would take years to assimilate ERP technology.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 6. CONCLUSION
plainn = 13- 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
“Once the ERP was in place, most of these firms planned to deal later with the issue of transforming their business processes.”
§ 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: 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
“All of the firms pursuing a concerted approach had long traditions of business unit autonomy”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 4.3.2 Piecemeal and Concerted Change Processes
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.
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
“At PharmaCo, the “culture of autonomy” was seen as a threat to standardizing business processes across divisions.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 4.3.2 Piecemeal and Concerted Change Processes
plainSingle 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.
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
“These siime firms expenenced the most difficulty in getting users to assimilate change.”
§ 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.
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
“Thus, even firms adopting a piecemeal approach found themselves implementing new systems and some new processes simultaneously.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 4.3.2 Piecemeal and Concerted Change Processes
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
“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.
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
“None of the 13 firms from our sample displayed any sense of mastery over ERP following implementation.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 6. CONCLUSION
plainn = 13- 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 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 many cases, organizational memory is supported by organizational structures m which division managers traditionally enjoyed great autonomy and were held accountable only for bottom-line performance.”
§ 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.
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 contrast to firms adopting a piecemeal approach, companies like PharmaCo and TcxtileCo sought the more ambitious goal of changing their autonomous cultures at the same time as they implemented ERP and modified their business processes.”
§ 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.
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
“An incremental approach to implementing an ERP also proved to be an effective means to overcoming the knowledge barriers associated with the assimilation of new business processes.”
§ 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.
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 fact, the challenge was so dauntmg that all five firms eventually succumbed to some practices that nearly mimicked the behaviors of firms that professed to take a piecemeal approach.”
§ 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: 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
“Most of the firms we studied adopted a piecemeal approach, which focused on implementing a plain vanilla version of the software first.”
§ 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.
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 no case was a firm able to focus exclusively on a systems 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: 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
“Despite their desire to defer learning, firms adopting a piecemeal approach discovered that ERP dictated some immediate changes in business processes.”
§ 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: 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
“Moreover, frequent reference to the dialectical relationship between the way things were and the way things were going to be surfaced in most of the interviews.”
§ 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.
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
“By contrast, firms pursuing a concerted change approach took on tlie challenge of changing systems and processes simultaneously, which created greater learning requirements.”
§ 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: 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
“In summary, although the two groups had outlined very different approaches to implementing an ERP, both groups experienced the need to implement new systems and new processes simultaneously.”
§ 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
“Firms using an incremental strategy used different tactics: implemenfing in one site at a time, limiting the initial number of modules to implement, using parallel systems, and upgrading the package in small increments.”
§ 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: 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
“Both groups also experienced the need to focus attention at different points in time to either, rather than both, the technical and organizational challenges.”
§ 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.
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 adopting a concerted approach to ERP implementation sought to change their business processes while they were implementing ERP.”
§ 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.
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 found no evidence, however, that the more realistic view of tlie concerted approach led to greater success in overcoming knowledge barriers.”
§ 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.
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
“Consequently, the distinctions between the piecemeal and concerted approaches to implementing ERP were more apparent in their stated philosophies than in their implementation practices.”
§ 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 different reasons for implementing an ERP did not appear to result ih different implementation processes or outcomes.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 6. CONCLUSION
hedged- 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 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
“Core teams that stayed together and were motivated by incentives to finish the project were very instrumental to overcoming knowledge barriers erected by unmotivated users.”
§ 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.
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, no clear relationship was seen between the motivation for pursuing ERP and the processes used or the outcomes realized.”
§ 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.
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 deal with the knowledge barriers connected with ERP configuration, they used core teams and consultants.”
§ 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: 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
“The firms in our sample used a combination of means to overcome knowledge barriers associated with ERP implementation.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 6. CONCLUSION
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
“To overcome knowledge barriers associated with the assimilation of new work processes, firms relied on formal training and incremental pacing.”
§ 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.
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
“Where they invested wisely in training and adopted an incremental approach to organizational change, they dealt more successfully with the assimilation of their ERP.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 4.3.1.2 Overcoming Assimilation Knowledge Barriers
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 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
“Where companies supported the core implementation team and managed their relationships with consultants well, they succeeded in overcoming knowledge barriers related to the configuration of ERP software.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 4.3.1.2 Overcoming Assimilation Knowledge Barriers
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 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 seeking the piecemeal approach were unable to execute it as they imagined.”
§ 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.
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 systems typically require orgamzations to replace large portions of what they know, not only about technical mfrastructures but also about business processes.”
§ 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.
- Rests on an assumption: ERP systems typically require organizations to replace large portions of what they know, not only about technical infrastructures but also about business processes.
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
“Taken as a whole, our findings support the idea of a basic dialectic of learning during ERP implementation.”
§ 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.
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, any particiilar implementation project would be expected to manifest forces promoting change and forces opposing change.”
§ 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).
hedged- 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 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
“Therefore, their learning process is spread over a much longer time penod than the firms within the concerted change group, who chose to tackle both system and processes simuhaneously.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 6. CONCLUSION
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 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
“Having expended effort to overcome the configuration knowledge bamers, these firms may not have had sufficient resources left to overcome the more formidable barriers associated with user acceptance.”
§ 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.
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
“However, firms pursuing a concerted change approach appear to be more realistic with respect to the demands of ERP implementation.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 6. CONCLUSION
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.
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
“Implementing new systems and/or processes can thus be described and understood as a dialectic of 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.
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
“Where older processes are deeply ingrained into organizational memory, they represent formidable barriers to the implementation of new knowledge associated with ERP.”
§ 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.
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
“It highlights two categories of knowledge bamers that firms are likely to encounter: configuration and assimilation knowledge bamers.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 6. CONCLUSION
hedged- 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 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 than being determined by antecedent conditions, ERP consequences become largely indeterminate in a dialectic analysis.”
§ 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).
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 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
“In attempting to change systems and reengineer business processes simultaneously, the concerted firms took on a more ambitious task than that of the piecemeal firms.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 4.3.2 Piecemeal and Concerted Change Processes
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.
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 most liindamental dialectic occurs between, on the one hand, the old knowledge embedded in business processes and practices associated with legacy systems and, on the other hand, the new business processes and practices that ERP is designed to support.”
§ 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.
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
“The research sample consists of 13 North American manufacturing tlrms or divisions that had implemented one of four major ERP packages.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 3.1 Sample and Data Collection
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 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
“In deferring the learning, however, these firms also deferred much of the benefit they expected to generate from their ERPs.”
§ 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: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“However, effective use of consulting requires a firm to remain in control of the consultant-client relationship.”
§ 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.
- 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
“Using dialectics, researchers are not tied to a preordained sequence of developmental stages such as those represented in a life cycle model.”
§ 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).
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 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
“By leaving the design of potentially integrative changes such as supply chain management at the discretion of the business units, ContainerCo faced significant fiiture issues.”
§ 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.
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
“In addition, ERP implementations challenge established assumptions about the role of IT and how it is implemented.”
§ 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.
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
“To adjust to such new demands, clearly a large amount of orgamzational learning must take place.”
§ Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change > 6. CONCLUSION
boosteddirect- 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 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
“Core teams acted as the primary force promoting change in the dialectic process of learning.”
§ 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. 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
Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. (2007) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148781 · Cited by 3,921
Enacting Integrated Information Technology: A Human Agency Perspective
Boudreau, M.-C., & Robey, D. (2005) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0103 · Cited by 1,071
“Typically, modifications to the work processes embedded in the vendor’s software are discouraged and “vanilla” implementations are recommended (Robey et al. 2002).”
MethodSelf-citationJasperson, J., Carter, P. E., & Zmud, R. W. (2005) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.5555/2017264.2017272 · Cited by 1,035
Antecedents of Knowledge Transfer from Consultants to Clients in Enterprise System Implementations
Ko, D., Kirsch, L. J., & King, W. R. (2005) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 981
Jasperson, J., Carter, & Zmud, R. W. (2005) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148694 · Cited by 1,433
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
