Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 419

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Understanding Organization—Enterprise System Fit: A Path to Theorizing the Information Technology Artifact1

Strong, Diane M., Volkoff, Olga·2010·MIS Quarterly
DOI 10.2307/25750703
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Packaged software applications such as enterprise systems are designed to support generic rather than specific requirements, and hence are likely to be an imperfect fit in any particular instance. Using critical realism as our philosophical perspective, we conducted a three-year qualitative study of misfits that arose from an enterprise system (ES) implementation. A detailed analysis of the observed misfits resulted in a richer understanding of the concept of fit and of the ES artifact itself. Specifically, we found six misfit domains (functionality, data, usability, role, control and organizational culture) and within each, two types of misfit (deficiencies and impositions). These misfit types correspond to two newly defined types of fit: fit as coverage and fit as enablement. Our analysis of fit also revealed a new conceptualization of the ES artifact, with implications for IT artifacts in general.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/25750703

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 68

  1. Archer, 1995, Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach, 10.1017/CBO9780511557675 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Barki, 2005, A Model of Organizational Integration, Implementation Effort, and Performance, Organization Science, 16, 165, 10.1287/orsc.1050.0118 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Bhaskar, 1978, A Realist Theory of Science
  4. Bhaskar, 1979, The Possibility of Naturalism
  5. Bhaskar, 1998, General Introduction, ix
  6. Burton-Jones, 2007, Toward a Deeper Understanding of System Usage in Organizations: A Multilevel Perspective, MIS Quarterly, 31, 657, 10.2307/25148815 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Cooprider, 1991, Technology-Process Fit: Perspectives on Achieving Prototyping Effectiveness, Journal of Management Information Systems, 7, 67, 10.1080/07421222.1990.11517897 · DOI
  8. Davison, 2002, Cultural Complications of ERP, Communications of the ACM, 45, 109, 10.1145/514236.514267 · DOI
  9. Dishaw, 1998, Supporting Software Maintenance with Software Engineering Tools: A Computed Task-Technology Fit Analysis, Journal of Systems and Software, 44, 107, 10.1016/S0164-1212(98)10048-1 · DOI
  10. Dishaw, 1999, Extending the Technology Acceptance Model with Task-Technology Fit Constructs, Information & Management, 36, 9, 10.1016/S0378-7206(98)00101-3 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Dobson, 2001, The Philosophy of Critical Realism—An Opportunity for Information Systems Research, Information Systems Frontiers, 3, 199, 10.1023/A:1011495424958 · DOI
  12. Elmes, 2005, Panoptic Empowerment and Reflective Conformity in Enterprise Systems-Enabled Organizations, Information and Organization, 15, 1, 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2004.12.001 · DOI
  13. Foster, 2001, Oracle e-Business Suite 11i: Implementing Core Financial Applications
  14. Gasser, 1986, The Integration of Computing and Routine Work, ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 4, 205, 10.1145/214427.214429 · DOI
  15. Glaser, 1978, Theoretical Sensitivity
  16. Glaser, 1967, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
  17. Goodhue, 1995, Understanding User Evaluations of Information Systems, Management Science, 41, 1827, 10.1287/mnsc.41.12.1827 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Gosain, 2004, Enterprise Information Systems as Objects and Carriers of Institutional Forces: The New Iron Cage?, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5, 151, 10.17705/1jais.00049 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Henderson, 1990, Dimensions of I/S Planning and Design Aids: A Functional Model of CASE Technology, Information Systems Research, 1, 227, 10.1287/isre.1.3.227 · DOI
  20. Hofmann, 2002, Issues in Multilevel Research: Theory Development, Measurement, and Analysis, 247
  21. Hong, 2002, The Critical Success Factors for ERP Implementation: An Organizational Fit Perspective, Information & Management, 40, 25, 10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00134-3 · DOI
  22. Jacobson, 2008, The ERP Market Sizing Report, 2007-2012
  23. Kozlowski, 2000, A Multilevel Approach to Theory and Research in Organizations: Contextual, Temporal, and Emergent Processes, 3
  24. Krumbholz, 2000, Implementing Enterprise Resource Planning Packages in Different Corporate and National Cultures, Journal of Information Technology, 15, 267, 10.1177/026839620001500403 · DOI
  25. Light, 2005, Going Beyond ‘Misfit’ as a Reason for ERP Package Customisation, Computers in Industry, 56, 606, 10.1016/j.compind.2005.02.008 · DOI
  26. Locke, 2001, Grounded Theory in Management Research
  27. Lucas, 1988, Implementing packaged software, MIS Quarterly, 12, 537, 10.2307/249129 · DOI
  28. Markus, 2000, Paradigm Shifts—E-Business and Business/ Systems Integration, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4, 1
  29. Markus, 2004, Technochange Management: Using IT to Drive Organizational Change, Journal of Information Technology, 19, 4, 10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000002 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Markus, 2000, The Enterprise System Experience—From Adoption to Success, 173
  31. Martinsons, 2004, ERP in China: One Package, Two Profiles, Communications of the ACM, 47, 65, 10.1145/1005817.1005823 · DOI
  32. Mingers, 2004, Real-izing Information Systems: Critical Realism as an Underpinning Philosophy for Information Systems, Information and Organization, 14, 87, 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2003.06.001 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Mingers, 2004, Re-establishing the Real: Critical Realism and Information Systems, 372
  34. Monteiro, 1996, Social Shaping of Information Infrastructure: On Being Specific about the Technology, 325, 10.1007/978-0-387-34872-8_20 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Morgeson, 1999, The Structure and Function of Collective Constructs: Implications for Multilevel Research and Theory Development, Academy of Management Review, 24, 249, 10.2307/259081 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Orlikowski, 1993, CASE Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating Incremental and Radical Changes in Systems Development, MIS Quarterly, 17, 309, 10.2307/249774 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Orlikowski, 2001, Technology and Institutions: What Can Research on Information Technology and Research on Organizations Learn from Each Other?, MIS Quarterly, 25, 145, 10.2307/3250927 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Orlikowski, 2001, Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the ‘IT’ in IT Research—A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact, Information Systems Research, 12, 121, 10.1287/isre.12.2.121.9700 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Richards, 2005, Handling Qualitative Data
  40. Ross, 2000, The ERP Revolution: Surviving vs. Thriving, Information Systems Frontiers, 2, 233, 10.1023/A:1026500224101 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Rousseau, 1985, Issues of Level in Organizational Research: Multi-Level and Cross-Level Perspectives, Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 1
  42. Sawyer, 2000, Packaged Software: Implications of the Differences from Custom Approaches to Software Development, European Journal of Information Systems, 9, 47, 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000345 · DOI
  43. Sawyer, 2001, A Market-Based Perspective on Information Systems Development, Communications of the ACM, 44, 97, 10.1145/384150.384168 · DOI
  44. Seddon, 2003, Introduction: ERP—The Quiet Revolution?, 1, 10.1017/CBO9780511815072.001 · DOI
  45. Shang, 2002, Assessing and Managing the Benefits of Enterprise Systems: The Business Manager’s Perspective, Information Systems Journal, 12, 271, 10.1046/j.1365-2575.2002.00132.x · DOI
  46. Sia, 2007, An Assessment of Package-Organisation Misalignment: Institutional and Ontological Structures, European Journal of Information Systems, 16, 568, 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000700 · DOI
  47. Smith, 2006, Overcoming Theory-Practice Inconsistencies: Critical Realism and Information Systems Research, Information and Organization, 16, 191, 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2005.10.003 · DOI
  48. Soh, 2004, An Institutional Perspective on Sources of ERP Package-Organization Misalignments, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13, 375, 10.1016/j.jsis.2004.11.001 · DOI
  49. Soh, 2005, The Challenges of Implementing ‘Vanilla’ Versions of Enterprise Systems, MIS Quarterly Executive, 4, 373
  50. Soh, 2003, Misalignments in ERP Implementation: A Dialectic Perspective, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 16, 81, 10.1207/S15327590IJHC1601_6 · DOI
  51. Strauss, 1998, Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory
  52. Strong, 2006, Extending Task Technology Fit with Computer Self-Efficacy, DATA BASE, 37, 96, 10.1145/1161345.1161358 · DOI
  53. Strong, 1995, Exceptions and Exception Handling in Computerized Information Processes, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 13, 196, 10.1145/201040.201049 · DOI
  54. Sumner, 2000, Risk Factors in Enterprise-Wide/ERP Projects, Journal of Information Technology, 15, 317, 10.1177/026839620001500407 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Swanson, 2003, Innovating with Packaged Business Software: Towards an Assessment, 56, 10.1017/CBO9780511815072.003 · DOI
  56. Umanath, 1994, Multiattribute Data Presentation and Human Judgement: A Cognitive Fit Perspective, Decision Sciences, 25, 795
  57. Urquhart, 1997, Exploring Analyst-Client Communication: Using Grounded Theory Techniques to Investigate Interaction in Informal Requirements Gathering, 149, 10.1007/978-0-387-35309-8_10 · DOI
  58. Urquhart, 2007, The Evolving Nature of Grounded Theory Method: The Case of the Information Systems Discipline, 339, 10.4135/9781848607941.n16 · DOI
  59. Urquhart, 2010, Putting the ‘Theory’ Back into Grounded Theory: Guidelines for Grounded Theory Studies in Information Systems, Information Systems Journal, 20, 357, 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2009.00328.x · DOI · Paper page
  60. Venkatraman, 1989, The Concept of Fit in Strategy Research: Toward Verbal and Statistical Correspondence, Academy of Management Review, 14, 423, 10.2307/258177 · DOI · Paper page
  61. Volkoff, 2004, Enterprise Systems, Knowledge Transfer and Power Users, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13, 279, 10.1016/j.jsis.2004.11.004 · DOI
  62. Volkoff, 2005, Understanding Enterprise Systems-Enabled Integration, European Journal of Information Systems, 14, 110, 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000528 · DOI
  63. Volkoff, 2007, Technological Embeddedness and Organizational Change, Organization Science, 18, 832, 10.1287/orsc.1070.0288 · DOI
  64. Wand, 1995, On the Deep Structure of Information Systems, Information Systems Journal, 5, 203, 10.1111/j.1365-2575.1995.tb00108.x · DOI · Paper page
  65. Wang, 1996, Beyond Accuracy: What Data Quality Means to Data Consumers, Journal of Management Information Systems, 12, 5, 10.1080/07421222.1996.11518099 · DOI · Paper page
  66. Weber, 1997, Ontological Foundations of Information Systems
  67. Wei, 2005, Understanding Misalignment and Cascading Change of ERP Implementation: A Stage View of Process Analysis, European Journal of Information Systems, 14, 324, 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000547 · DOI
  68. Zigurs, 1998, A Theory of Task/ Technology Fit and Group Support Systems Effectiveness, MIS Quarterly, 22, 313, 10.2307/249668 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Strong, D. M., & Volkoff, O.
Venue
MIS Quarterly
Publisher
MIS Quarterly
Published
2010-12-01
Volume
34
Issue
4
Pages
731-756
ISSN
  • 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-9730
DOI
10.2307/25750703
OpenAlex
W2125636031
Cited by
419
References
5
FWCI
51.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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.

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.