Enterprise resource planning, operations and management

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-3577.htm

Enterprise resource planning, operations and management Enabling and constraining ERP and the role of the production and operations manager Kim Sundtoft Hald and Jan Mouritsen Department of Operations Management, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark

ERP, operations and management

1075 Received 19 November 2011 Revised 22 June 2012 10 September 2012 Accepted 11 September 2012

Abstract Purpose – This research aims to explore the enabling and constraining effects of enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems and speculate on how these can be linked to the four generic roles of operations management (OM) proposed by Slack et al. Design/methodology/approach – This research understands ERP as boundary objects characterised by modularity, abstraction, accommodation, and standardization. An in-depth cross-disciplinary literature review and role synthesis is conducted. Findings – Four enabling and three constraining effects of ERP are deduced from existing literature. ERP and OM are linked conceptually. Based on the identified effects of ERP, the paper speculates on the managerial tasks of the production and operations manager (POM) in an ERP environment and lists a set of central concerns of potential relevance to POM and to future research. Research limitations/implications – The identified roles of ERP and their implications could be empirically tested using case based and survey research. Practical implications – The results provide insights into how ERP has multiple and parallel roles, and how these roles are relevant to the function of OM. Such knowledge is valuable for practicing POMs in managing the implementation and design of ERP to support the different domains of OM. Originality/value – Current studies of the effects of ERP and their link to the practice of OM tend to focus on one or a few roles of the emerging system. Such studies do not properly take into account the modularised and pluralistic nature of ERP. This research provides a platform from where future research on the effects, managerial dilemmas and implications of ERP can be reconciled across research communities. Keywords Enterprise resource planning systems, Enabling and constraining effects, Role of the production and operations manager, Boundary objects, Literature review Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction Operations constitute the primary activities of a firm, and operations management (OM) is generally concerned with making the value chain work within and beyond the firm (Slack et al., 2010). Operations are spread in time and space and now routinely take into account the activities of suppliers and customers. The requirement for coordination is increasing with the increased size and complexity of the extended enterprise. Size and complexity make concerns about new management technology pertinent, and often, and more and more frequently, information technology (IT) such as integrated enterprise resource planning systems (ERP) is considered solution to this trend. As solutions ERP promise to minimise, if not completely efface, the fall outs arising from difficulties of coordination.

International Journal of Operations & Production Management Vol. 33 No. 8, 2013 pp. 1075-1104 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0144-3577 DOI 10.1108/IJOPM-11-2011-0430

IJOPM 33,8

1076

However, ERP are not only solutions. As we will show, OM can learn from other academic disciplines’ discussions of their effects. Adler and Borys’ (1996) seminal paper identifies two types of bureaucracy: the enabling and the coercive/constraining types. Their point is that any organisational technology can take many colours and produce many effects by the way it is taken into account in a firm. It is therefore interesting to ask, how are managerial technologies taken into account? And how may this knowledge help to understand the production and operations manager (POM) to consider the pros and cons of ERP? This is the general theme of the paper. ERP have been objects of research in various disciplines for three decades. Today research on ERP is extensive. Some literature is interested in ERP as a technology and discusses implications of different core technology designs (Puschmann and Alt, 2005; Wang et al., 2006). Other literature is concerned with ERP implementation and mostly searches for contingency factors leading to successful adoption (Akkermans and van Helden, 2002; Loh and Koh, 2004). A third stream of literature studies ERP outcomes and consequences for organisations, their management and performance (Boudreau and Robey, 2005; Ranganathan and Brown, 2006; Hendricks et al., 2007; Chapman and Kihn, 2009; Uwizeyemungu and Raymond, 2009, 2010). Often motivated by the extensive and heterogeneous functionality of ERP made possible by its modularized, abstracted, accommodated and standardised packages, ERP-researchers start from different places, occupy different research communities and are interested in a variety of different hypothesised effects. One general concern with the potentiality to reconcile or at least bring these communities on a common plane is the distinction between ERP’s potentially enabling or constraining effects on the organization, on its users, and on the actors making use of them for their managerial purposes (Adler and Borys, 1996). When ERP enables, it moves organizational processes into new and desirable directions and it will immediately or over time increase organizational performance. When ERP constrains it hinders the organization, its processes and its actors in performing to its potential and it reduces organizational performance. Developing knowledge about the consequences of ERP and their enabling and constraining powers will help future research establish relations between communities of research practice, a platform from where ERP effects can be identified and discussed. Identifying the enabling and constraining roles of ERP as discussed across different research communities studying ERP, may contribute to our understanding of the intersection between managerial roles and ERP. This addresses the question how ERP can become useful to management and how management may hinder some potential harmful side effect when introduced to the organization and its processes. Establishing knowledge on potential enabling and constraining effects of ERP across all its modules and functions holds especially important implications for the function of POM. Due to the introduction of new technology and globalisation the operations function has changed greatly during the last decades (Templer and Cawsey, 1999). These changes have led to new expectations to the function (Lee and Oakes, 1996), and as a consequence, the job of POM has increasingly become cross-functional. In fact OM has been proposed to be defined as the task of applying analytical tools and frameworks to improve business processes that cross-internal functional boundaries (Mentzer et al., 2008) and the cross-functional ambition is a shared feature with ERP. ERP with its potential to modularize, abstract, accommodate and standardise information holds especially high potential for the management of complex,

cross-functional, and high frequency processes. Therefore, it is interesting to explore the symbiotic link between ERP and OM in more detail. Increasingly OM-research recognises that many OM-problems have cross-discipli nary forms and consequences. This has led to broadening the scope of the operation management field and the desirability of conducting more interdisciplinary research (Buhman et al., 2005). Here we follow this broadening of the scope on the study of OM. Specifically we argue that due to the widened scope of the POM role and the interconnectivity and interdependencies of the technologies used to manage the resources which produce and deliver products and services, it is useful to extend the study of ERP beyond the boundaries of OM-research. We propose that it is not only possible but also useful to investigate this role and its expected heterogeneity across multiple streams of research. We further propose that such a study will reveal a diversity of effects of EPR, a totality of attributions of enabling and constraining powers of ERP and a synthesis of potential implications to the managerial role of POM attached to each of these powers. We formulate the following research questions: RQ1. How can we understand the enabling and constraining powers of ERP as portrayed across research communities interested in the study of the effect of ERP? RQ2. What are the potential consequences of this understanding for the enabling and constraining powers of ERP in relation to the role of POM in an ERP environment? In an attempt to analyse the enabling and constraining powers of ERP, a structured inter-disciplinary literature review is useful; this explores how ERP is relevant to different research communities and how this relevance translates into enabling and constraining effects of ERP. This paper is structured as follows. In the next section, ERP is defined and the conceptual foundation of this research suggesting ERP as boundary object between different communities of research is laid out. Then the research context and the methods employed are presented. Each of the identified streams of research are then analysed with a view to their position on how ERP enables and/or constrains the organization, its users and managers. Finally and building on the understanding of the enabling and constraining effects of ERP, implications to the role of POM in an ERP environment are proposed. Concluding, the contributions of this research, its limitations, as well as its implications for research and to practice are presented. 2. The heterogeneity of ERP in research ERP are defined as “packages of computer applications that support many, even most, aspects of a company’s information needs” (Davenport, 2000, p. 2). They: [. . .] offer the first great opportunity to achieve true connectivity, a state in which everyone knows what everyone else is doing in the business all over the world at the same time (Davenport, 2000, p. 5).

Two characteristics are shared across definitions of ERP: their ability to integrate and their ability to model enterprise activities. Therefore, ERP may be understood as modularised semiautomatic databases that through the representations of organizational


1077

IJOPM 33,8

1078

practices are thought to fulfil the particular needs of the various enterprise functions, as well as to connect organizational activities that are physically separated from each other. It may therefore be expected that research concerned with the consequences of ERP will understand them differently. From Wenger (1998) it is possible to understand research as a community of research practitioners who share a set of concerns, a set of problems, a passion for a topic, and who develop their knowledge and expertise by interacting. Researchers share interests, expertise, and research objectives; a physical or virtual space (e.g. journals and conferences) exists to make interaction possible; and this space forms the basis through which a “shared repertoire” (e.g. methodology) for the group can emerge (Koliba and Gajda, 2009). It may therefore be expected that given the heterogeneity of communities of research engaged with the effects of ERP there will be quite different propositions about the roles and enabling and constraining consequences hereof. They problematise ERP differently. This creates tension: “scientific work is heterogeneous, requiring many different actors and viewpoints. It also requires cooperation. The two create tension between divergent viewpoints and the need for generalizable findings” (Star and Griesemer, 1989, p. 387). In this paper, we understand ERP as boundary object connecting but at the same time separating communities of research. The term “boundary object” was introduced by Star and Griesemer (1989) in studies of collaborative problem-solving activities undertaken in scientific communities. Devices or artefacts qualify as boundary objects if they are “plastic enough to adapt to local needs and constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites” (Star and Griesemer, 1989, p. 393). Although a boundary object facilitates a common identity across communities it stays open and flexible for interpretations (plasticity). A boundary object therefore allows for multiple interpretations and uses (Star and Griesemer, 1989) or alternative meanings (Henderson, 1991, p. 448) by the multiple parties employing them. This openness and flexibility for multiple and different interpretations (e.g. their interpretive flexibility (Pawlowski and Robey, 2004, p. 650)) is consistent with the purpose of this study. It has been suggested that the characteristics enabling ERP to serve as boundary objects are their modularity, their abstraction, their accommodation, and their standardization (Star, 1989; Wenger, 1998). Specifically these characteristics make it possible to use the object differently in different communities of practices and to be discussed differently in different communities of research. First, modularity refers to the structure of the object. A modularised object enables each community to attend to one specific portion of the boundary object or “borrow from the pile for their own purpose without having directly to negotiate differences in purpose” (Star and Griesemer, 1989, p. 410). ERP’s modularity makes it easy for researchers to limit the scope of their research to certain modules and thus the functionalities and identities constructed inside these modules. Second, abstraction refers to a vagueness related to the information entailed in the object. In this way information and extraneous properties inside boundary objects can be deleted or ignored (Star and Griesemer, 1989, p. 404). The ability of ERP to isolate only parts of the total amount of information improves researchers’ ability to construct their research focusing only on certain aspects of ERP when theorising impacts on enterprise practices and outcomes. Third, accommodation refers to the flexibility in use or that the same boundary object lends itself to various activities in various communities. “The result is that work in different sites and with

different perspectives can be conducted autonomously while cooperating parties share a common referent” (Star and Griesemer, 1989, p. 411). The ability of ERP to accommodate different types of activities, and thereby promote autonomous work, will foster research where enterprise practices can be explored as seemingly complete from one location in the wider enterprise. Fourth, standardization refers to a method of common communication across functions. The standardization promoted by ERP will help formulate ideas of research where similar functional processes can be compared across sites as well as research occupied with the tension between standardised ERP and non-standardised organizations and processes (Davenport, 1998). 3. Research approach In the review of research on ERP, refereed articles published in academic journals were located using Business Source Complete as search engine. The review was performed early spring 2011. Relevance was defined using two screening criteria: first, the study had to deal with ERP as its main topic. Second, the study had to discuss effects of ERP. A four step approach was applied. First “enterprise resource planning systems” or “ERP” was key words and 626 potential articles were identified. In order to locate articles that specifically dealt with the impacts of ERP-emergence the 626 articles was then screened. Papers that did not focus on effects of ERP were rejected and this reduced the number of papers to 215. The remaining papers addressed ERP in its post-implementation stage, or focused specifically on how ERP impacted the organization while emerging in its context. Papers solely focusing on pre-implementation issues or criteria for success in ERP-implementation were thus excluded from the sample. The resulting reduced sample of papers was then analysed based on its publication origin and overall functional theme. It encompassed many communities of research (e.g. information system journals, accounting journals, operations management journals, general management journals or organisational behaviour/studies journals). Finally in order to make the analysis manageable and increase the validity of the sample the journal quality screening criteria the “ABS09 – Association of Business Schools Academic Journal Quality Guide March 2009” was used to find papers with a score of at least 2 “A well regarded journal”. Applying the quality criteria, a total of 98 articles were found. As a final step, all articles were analysed for the set of proposed effects of the ERP. The focus was on their research questions, hypothesis and conclusions. The analysis performed on each of the identified papers is exemplified in Table I[1]. In order to address the research question of how to understand the enabling and constraining powers of ERP, our aim was to identify from literature a set of overall enabling and constraining ERP identities. We used a two-step approach suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994). First and as exemplified in Table I we coded each of the identified publications individually. We looked for statements revealing how ERP was represented as an object in the research. This produced an initial list of categories. After completing the individual analysis we looked across publications with the aim to reduce the produced list into a set of coherent units, each highlighting a unique ability of ERP to act on parts of the organizational context in which it emerged. Compared to other recent reviews of ERP (Schlichter and Kraemmergaard, 2010; Koch et al., 2010; Grabski et al., 2011) this study is distinct in the sense that it specifically addresses the enabling and constraining effects of ERP. It does not limit itself beforehand to a specific stream of research. In accordance with the


1079

Table I. Examples of literature analysis

Law and Ngai (2007)

Park and Kusiak (2005)

Ranganathan and Brown (2006)

Improves stock market returns

ERP and financial performance

ERP identity (representation)

ERP is a black box that improves performance ERP was modelled as three different “This study contributes to the growing body “The abnormal stock market returns to project types. ERP projects were announcements of ERP adoptions will be of literature on the value of enterprise categories based on their functional resource planning (ERP) investments at the positive” (p. 149) scope, physical scope and the ERPfirm level” (p. 145) package vendors (p. 154) ERP and integration/coordination Improves speed in cross-functional activity ERP is a connector – creator of new execution connections ERP was represented as a process “As a collection of highly integrated “This paper proposes an ERP operations subsystems, ERP can be described as ‘tightly integration model (p. 3964) support system (EOSS) that aims at coupled’ As a result, it streamlines a achieving and maintaining process company’s data flow and provides integration of ERP at the highest possible management with direct access to a wealth of level” (p. 3960) real-time operating information. For many companies, these benefits have translated into dramatic gains in productivity and speed of business operations” (p. 3961) ERP and BPI Stabilises processes ERP is an extension of the using actors body/and abilities “We examined the relationships between the “In our study, the extent of BPI was used to User satisfaction was used as a measure the degree of process change leading surrogate for the success of success of ERP-system adoption, extent of BPI, and organizational performance” (p. 418) to enhanced process quality in five ways: (a) implementing ERP. The conceptual prevention of errors and defects, (b) process model tested further represented ERP as quality standards, (c) process simplification, connected to the extend of BPI (p. 422) (d) intra-firm co-ordination, and (e) inter-firm coordination” ERP and knowledge management Improve the reliability of decisions. Shortens ERP is an extension of the using actors body/and abilities the time associated with making decisions. Enhances the ability to tackle large complex problems (continued)

Attributed effects of ERP-adoption

Research community

1080

Authors (examples)

IJOPM 33,8

Boudreau and Robey (2005)

Dillard and Yuthas (2006)

Holsapple and Sena (2005)

Authors (examples)

“ [. . .] newer technologies such as enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems continue to be associated with the agenda of organizational transformation, largely because they are assumed to constrain human action” (p. 3)

ERP and organization

ERP and management control “Technology, as a mode of production, as the totality of instruments, devices and contrivances which characterize the machine age is thus at the same time a mode of organizing and perpetuating (or changing) social relationships, a manifestation of prevalent thought and behavior patterns, an instrument for control and domination” (p. 203)

This paper explores connections between ERP and decision support based on the perceptions of 53 ERP system adopters. It provides insights into the decision-support benefits of ERP (p. 575)

Research community A survey method was used; respondents were users of ERP. The respondents were asked to rate a list of decisionsupport benefits of ERP on a seven point scale (pp. 579-580)

“The six highest rated benefits had medians of five on a seven-point scale: better knowledge processing, decision reliability, decisional substantiation, competitiveness, decision making speed, and treatment of large-scale/complex problems” (pp. 587-588) Loss of control to external software vendors “Ironically, by implementing such allencompassing and pre specified systems, organizational managers in effect lose control of the strategic and operational processes and models that frame and instantiate the enterprise’s management information system and ultimately their actions. These systems are designed and developed by the software vendor and the ‘best – practices’ are embedded in the standardized software by the vendor’s system developers” (p. 202) Limits choice of alternatives. Imposes more discipline on users. Constrains user enactments “Moreover, the integrated nature of ERP systems imposes more discipline on its users, as their work is tightly coupled. The software features of enterprise systems, accordingly, would seem to constrain user enactments” (p. 5)

ERP and its impacts were represented by users expressed feelings: “Our objective was to understand how organizational members interpreted and used an integrated, ERP technology. In concert with the assumptions of interpretive research, we focused on the subjective descriptions of users’ practices and their expressed thoughts and feelings about the software package and their work” (p. 6)

ERP is a straitjacket

ERP is an eliminator of uniqueness Applies a Habermasian framework as underlying theoretical perspective. Look at ERP phenomena per definition from a critical perspective (p. 210)


Attributed effects of ERP-adoption


1081

Table I.

IJOPM 33,8

1082

views of Shepherd et al. (2009) it is interested in how ERP is mobilized as powerful, rather that reflecting its essential properties. Another distinctive feature of this research is its use of a multidisciplinary approach. Due to developments in the field of OM the discipline has grown and the number of problems accounted for as part of or closely related to OM has become extensive (Craighead and Meredith, 2008; Taylor and Taylor, 2009). It is therefore not hard to imagine that a potentially valuable research strategy could be to include research from domains normally understood as positioned outside the boundaries of OM. More and more scholars call for this kind of approach as a method and a route to develop the OM discipline even further (Buhman et al., 2005; Taylor and Taylor, 2009). Although we recognize that different communities of research often engage in different theoretical positions, we apply a kind of multidisciplinary approach that synthesize across communities by representing the different literatures by their problematisations and their conclusions. This provides a potential fertile common platform and a territory from where differences and similarities related to the effects of ERP can be deduced and discussed across theories and disciplines. The concept of boundary object as applied in this paper adds to a more complete understanding of the complexity involved. It provides an important argument for why a multidisciplinary approach is needed and it provides a platform from where relations between identified contributions can better be explained and identified. 4. The enabling and the constraining ERP The findings suggest that ERP research can be understood as seven different clusters or communities of research sharing an overall set of problems. This illustrates that ERP is adequately flexible to gain new properties in new communities and it is thus a boundary object (Pawlowski and Robey, 2004, p. 650). Specifically, these communities of research are concerned with discernible overall research interests as follows: . How does it improve financial results? . How does it integrate and coordinate the business? . How does it improve processes and operational performance? . How does it re-design processes? . How does it manage knowledge? . How does it assure management control? . How does it re-configure organizations? The analysis of the different roles of ERP presents it as a powerful actor within the enterprise. Across the seven roles the analysis shows how ERP is influential: how it is powerful and how it extends or reduces organizational decision making and performance; it enables and constrains (Table II). 4.1 The enabling ERP Enabling technologies have been conceptualised as devices supportive to employees and to managers to do their work better by providing feedback, identifying problems, revealing improvement opportunities, and by helping prioritising action, etc. (Wouters and Wilderom, 2008, p. 491), in short by enabling formalization (Adler and Borys, 1996;

ERP identity (representation) ERP is a black box that improves performance

The enabling ERP

ERP is an extension of the using actors body/and abilities

Illustration

Research community ERP and financial performance

ERP and BPI

ERP and KM

ERP and MC

Attributed effects

Authors

Hayes et al. (2001), Hunton et al. (2002), Nicolaou (2004), Reck (2004), Gefen and Ragowsky (2005), Matolcsy et al. (2005), Ragowsky et al. (2005), Ranganathan and Brown (2006), Hendricks et al. (2007), Brazel and Dang (2008), Agourram (2009), Uwizeyemungu and Raymond (2010) Automates processes Palaniswamy and Frank Improves efficiency (2000), Van Hillegersberg et al. in work practices Stabilises processes (2001), McAfee (2002), Bendoly and Schoenherr Reduces process (2005), Gattiker and cycle time Goodhue (2005), Seddon and Are (2005), BottaGenoulaz and Millet (2006), Riezebos (2006), Law and Ngai (2007), Stratman (2007), Chou and Chang (2008), Kim (2009) Holsapple and Sena Enhances (2003, 2005), information Bendoley et al. (2006)), transparency Enhances the ability Botta-Genoulaz and Millet (2006), to process Lengnick-Hall and knowledge Enhances the ability Lengnick-Hall (2006), to tackle large-scale Parry and Graves (2008) complex problems Shortens the time associated with making decisions Improves the reliability of decisions Improves centralized Hunton (2002), Lodh and Gaffikin (2003), Hyvo¨nen organizational (2003), Chapman (2005), control Dikolli and Vaysman (2006), Chapman and Kihn (2009) Increases the attractiveness of more sophisticated control methods Provides real time cost information Increases understanding of product and customer profitability (continued) Improves stock market returns Improves return of assets Improves return on investments Improves turnover of assets Reduces internal and external costs of operating


1083

Table II. The enabling and constraining ERP – representations, research communities and attributed effects

IJOPM 33,8


Illustration

Research community

ERP is a connector – creator of new connections

ERP and integration/ coordination

ERP is an innovator – enabler of new opportunities

ERP and BPR

1084

ERP and MC

ERP and KM


Attributed effects

Authors

Increases speed in cross-functional process execution Creates new internal and external links Increases collaboration among partners Provides opportunities to adjust physical separate activity Obliterates activities/ processes Increases simplification in work practices Promotes new ways of operating

Chiplunkar et al. (2001), Gattiker and Goodhue (2005), Park and Kusiak (2005), Botta-Genoulaz and Millet (2006), Ward and Zhou (2006), Gattiker (2007), Green et al. (2007), Law and Ngai (2007), Chou and Chang (2008)

Created new opportunities for management control practices

Fosters new roles and management control routines Promotes the use of information not previously thought of Opens new data constellation opportunities Enhances knowledge discovery New insights obtained from the combination of internal data Improved organizational learning Facilitating organizational members to innovate Provides as structure from where jobs can be designed

Legate (2002), Gardiner et al. (2002), Gattiker and Goodhue (2002), Schrnederjans and Kim (2003), Al-Mashari (2003), Law and Ngai (2007), Lynne (2004), Newman and Zhao (2008), Agourram (2009) Quattrone and Hopper (2001), Scapens and Jazayeri (2003), Caglio (2003), Granlund and Mouritsen (2003), Chapman (2005), Dechow and Mouritsen (2005), Quattrone and Hopper (2005, 2006)

Bendoly (2003), Bendoly et al. (2009)

Lengnick-Hall et al. (2004), Kositanurit et al. (2006), Agourram (2009); Benders et al. (2009), Morris and Venkatesh (2010)

Increases the competencies of users

Table II.

(continued)


The constraining ERP

ERP is a straitjacket

Illustration

Research community


ERP and MC


ERP and KM

ERP is an eliminator of uniqueness and value

ERP and BPR


Attributed effects Enhances users’ carrier opportunities Constrains user enactments and limits choice of alternatives Enforcement of managerial domination and impose more discipline on users Promotes a subservient position to “the system” Cements the use of existing management control practices Increases the difficulty of the organization in changing management control practices Reduces the role of management accountants Hindering the organization in operating in new valuable and modern business configurations Hindering the organization in levering knowledge properly Limits organizational ability to innovate Higher degree of standardisation leads to reduction of uniqueness Creates potential harmful misfit with organizational strategy that should be managed Decrease in inter subjective understanding


Authors

Oliver and Romm (2002), Boudreau and Robey (2005), Hall (2005)

1085

Granlund and Malmi (2002), Jack and Kholeif (2008)

Zheng et al. (2000), Edwards et al. (2001), Koch and Buhl (2001), Akkermans et al. (2003), Byrne and Heavey (2006), Cagliano et al. (2006), Su and Yang (2010) Trott and Hoecht (2004a, b), Li et al. (2006)

Bingi, et al. (1999), Pollock et al. (2003), Soh et al. (2003), Lim et al. (2005), Benders et al. (2006), McAfee (2006), Wang et al. (2006, 2007), Wu et al. (2007), Morton and Hu (2008), Rothenberger and Srite (2009) Hall (2002), Dery et al. (2006), Dillard and Yuthas (2006), Grant et al. (2006), Harley et al. (2006), Kayas et al. (2008)

(continued)

Table II.

IJOPM 33,8


Illustration

Research community

1086

ERP is an uncertainty and risk creator

ERP and MC


Table II.

Attributed effects

Authors

Marginalization of the ethical, political, cultural and social considerations in organizations Routinizing and deskilling jobs Rendering tacit skills obsolete Fosters workarounds Fosters friction and creates resistance and tensions between users and system Loss of control to Cooper and Kaplan external software (1998), Hanseth and Braa vendors (2000), Ciborra (2006), Dillard and Yuthas (2006), Wagner et al. (2006), Rettig (2007) Misuse of new management control functionality creates wrong and misguiding decisions Promotes a deeply worrying level of complexity Side-effects can Ciborra (2000, 2006), spread and diffuse at Hunton et al. (2004) higher speed to provoke disrupting impacts Increases business interruption and process interdependency risks Potentially increases security risks

Ahrens and Chapman, 2004). In this research, the enabling ERP is seen as a technology characterised by its ability to move organizational processes into new and desirable directions and it will immediately or over time increase organizational performance. Such manifestation of performance will either take effect directly through financial effects or process rationalizations or indirectly and over time through its creation of new connections and new opportunities. ERP is a black box that improves performance. Some research specifically addresses the question what benefit an organization may gain from an ERP system (Gefen and Ragowsky, 2005; Matolcsy et al., 2005; Hendricks et al., 2007)? This research seeks to assess the potential value of an ERP investment (Ragowsky et al., 2005), and whether and to whom ERP are successful (Agourram, 2009). In this rendering ERP once embedded in organizational processes is a tool to control company valuation (Hayes et al., 2001; Brazel and Dang, 2008). ERP are understood as investments and a potential to enhance

efficiency and improve financial performance (Hunton et al., 2002). The presence of ERP potentially increases the profitability of firms, its return on assets, operating income, and the cost of goods sold (Reck, 2004). ERP are represented as standardised entities that are either present in or absent from the enterprise (Nicolaou, 2004). By abstracting ERP and omitting most of its contextual details, except for a possible measure of extent of ERP presence, such as scope of ERP (Ranganathan and Brown, 2006), these representations provide overview. However, since all internal connectivity and functionality are eliminated in the representation researchers make, what is left to explore is what ERP can do to the enterprise, or to a selected set of primary activities (Ragowsky et al., 2005), and how this potential may differ depending on its context (Nicolaou, 2004). ERP are thus conceptualised as homogeneous and standardised black boxes provoking differences in value/performance before and after their implementation. ERP is an extension of the actor’s body and abilities. ERP may also be understood as a tool enhancing and transferring power to local actors and operations, extending their abilities, enabling them to cope with more tasks and improve the quality of their work. It can automate processes (Stratman, 2007; Kim, 2009), it can support decision making (Holsapple and Sena, 2003, 2005), and it can make data handling and management control easier (Hunton, 2002; Chapman and Kihn, 2009). It extends the individual and the organization and reduces time frames, accommodates bigger sets of data, and enhances calculations which develop more informed decisions. When ERP is related to business process improvement (BPI), ERP fosters process-improvement that can be measured as subsequent improvements in task efficiency and operational performance (Palaniswamy and Frank, 2000; McAfee, 2002; Gattiker and Goodhue, 2005; Chou and Chang, 2008). By levering its ability to abstract and accommodate information and activity, ERP potentially foster such improvements. In this understanding ERP pave the road to automation of laborious operations (Palaniswamy and Frank, 2000; Van Hillegersberg et al., 2001; Botta-Genoulaz and Millet, 2006, p. 214), improved, stabilised and faster executed processes (Seddon, 2005; Bendoly and Schoenherr, 2005, p. 307; Riezebos, 2006; Law and Ngai, 2007). In this conceptualisation ERP is understood as a platform potentially leading to better information, cost savings, (e.g. productivity, head-count, and inventory reduction) and improved business processes, that in turn via these beneficial process effects, can lead to competitive advantage through superior productivity (Seddon, 2005, p. 290). ERP may also extend organizational performance via its ability to store, discover, and retrieve large volumes of data and information. A focus on the knowledge management properties of ERP represents it as a data and information processing database, where transaction data comes in and well informed decisions comes out (Lengnick-Hall and Lengnick-Hall, 2006; Parry and Graves, 2008). In this light ERP improves information quality and enhances decision making by providing accurate and timely enterprise wide information (Botta-Genoulaz and Millet, 2006, p. 205). Such a conceptualisation of ERP understands it as a tool for intra-organizational communication (Bendoly et al., 2006). It is seen to construct organizational memory, where in principle all historical transaction data can be unpacked and abstracted for the use of any specific purpose in or across any specific enterprise function. More data will, it is proposed, provide more information, and thus improve the ability to support its using actor(s) (Holsapple and Sena, 2005). ERP is extensively being discussed as a potential to support actors by improving the collection, manipulation, reporting and discussion of corporate data (Hunton, 2002; Lodh and


1087

IJOPM 33,8

1088

Gaffikin, 2003; Chapman, 2005; Dikolli and Vaysman, 2006). In this light ERP is an enabling approach to management control (Chapman and Kihn, 2009). Specifically, ERP have been seen as enabling control through faster and more accurate reporting; increases in cost consciousness in the organization and the ability to have more detailed control information available (Hyvo¨nen, 2003, p. 166). ERP is a connector – creator of new connections. ERP may also create new connections between organizational actors and develop an integrated chain and workflow of action (Chiplunkar et al., 2001; Gattiker and Goodhue, 2005; Park and Kusiak, 2005; Botta-Genoulaz and Millet, 2006; Ward and Zhou, 2006; Gattiker, 2007; Green et al., 2007; Law and Ngai, 2007; Chou and Chang, 2008). In this view ERP connect previously fragmented activities and processes and allow data-sharing and coordination in real-time between the different functions represented by ERP modules within the company. Connections extend organizational decision making by promoting real time availability of all relevant process information. Connections also extend organizational performance by pushing tasks and informing users when activities are due and herby increase transaction speed, and by stabilising practices and securing that no task, activity or information will be omitted. When ERP improves coordination, it improves the capability of the organization and its processes to adapt to changing conditions, and its ability to synchronize among different units of the firm (Chou and Chang, 2008). Benefits of increased connectivity leading from the implementation of ERP are bigger in more interdependent organizational and process environments (Gattiker and Goodhue, 2005). Discussions of the ability of ERP to connect present it as a set of links between functional entities where activities happening in one place have implications for activities happening in another place. ERP understood as sets of links initiates research focusing on implications of increased connectivity on processes and on the ability of the firm to move in desired directions. Here, ERP enable new communication channels for involved actors. What was previous apart is now connected and increasing numbers of connections are said to reduce process cost and improve company performance (Park and Kusiak, 2005). When everyone knows what everyone else is doing (Davenport, 2000, p. 5) the enterprise will experience improved speed in cross-functional activity and process execution (Green et al., 2007). ERP is an innovator – enabler of new opportunities. ERP also sometimes leads to innovation since new work procedures may lead to new opportunities (Gardiner et al., 2002; Gattiker and Goodhue, 2002; Legate, 2002; Schrnederjans and Kim, 2003; Agourram, 2009), to new forms of management control (Scapens and Jazayeri, 2003; Dechow and Mouritsen, 2005; Quattrone and Hopper, 2005, 2006), and to new insights via data analysis (Bendoly, 2003; Bendoly et al., 2009). ERP is an inspiration and should be viewed by the organization not as an IT solution for organizational inefficiencies but as an enabling technology to build and augment social and intellectual capital (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2004). It may help the organization move to unfamiliar territory, places where it would not have gone otherwise (Agourram, 2009; Benders et al., 2009; Morris and Venkatesh, 2010). In this light the ERP is a template for change (Lee and Oakes, 1996). It unfreezes organizational processes and helps combine new previously un-combinable entities bringing processes from the outside into the organization, bringing management control to the local and bringing different data-sets from different parts of the process together to form new knowledge. When ERP is related to business process reengineering (BPR), it is understood as a tool supporting simplification of

processes (Gattiker and Goodhue, 2002; Al-Mashari, 2003; Newman and Zhao, 2008). Discussions of fit are widespread (Davenport, 1998) and process redesign is understood as a pre-requisite for the success of ERP adoption. Here ERP is related to processes of change moving enterprise processes towards best practice (Gardiner et al., 2002; Lynne, 2004). ERP may also be seen as an opportunity for management control practices. Quattrone and Hopper (2001) for instance report on dramatic changes in conventional reporting procedures after the ERP implementation. Through its modularized format ERP opens new data constellation opportunities (Granlund and Mouritsen, 2003). It may foster new roles and management control routines (Caglio, 2003), and promote the use of information not previously thought of Dechow and Mouritsen (2005). The ability of ERP as a data and information processing database to provide perspective and panorama across modules fosters connections between data that was previously unconnected. In this attribution ERP will make its users see new things that will bring new knowledge and opportunities and even increase overall learning abilities (Bendoly et al., 2009). Finally, since ERP also may be seen as an organizational infrastructure that affects how people work (Hanseth and Braa, 1998), it is also a structure from where jobs can be designed and new user competencies developed (Kositanurit et al., 2006; Benders et al., 2009; Morris and Venkatesh, 2010). 4.2 The constraining ERP Constraining or coercive technologies have been conceptualised as devices that only serve higher-management needs and control employees’ behaviour (Ahrens and Chapman, 2004; Wouters and Wilderom, 2008). Such technologies risk undermining employees’ commitment and foster dissatisfaction, and for instance has the potential to limit innovation since employees in formalized settings have little motivation to contribute to the complex non-routine tasks that constitute innovation (Adler and Borys, 1996, p. 63). When ERP constrains it is a technology characterised by its ability to hinder the organization in making fully informed decisions, and it reduces organizational performance. It hinders the organization performing to its potential, either by blocking it from more beneficial territories, by erasing part of its competitiveness or by introducing new uncertainties and risks. ERP is a straitjacket. ERP may be a straitjacket that inhibits moving the organization away from a set order. ERP may introduce high switching costs and when in use it will increase lock-in over time which may limit its ability to connect with the outside. It may hinder interaction between actors involved in the processes by limiting personal contact just as it may hinder adaptation to a changing environment. Therefore, apparently there are limits to connectivity; too much connectivity can turn back on the enterprise and block it from moving into new or better business configurations thus hindering external cooperation and supply chain structures as a way of managing the business (Zheng et al., 2000; Edwards et al., 2001; Koch and Buhl, 2001; Akkermans et al., 2003, Byrne and Heavey, 2006; Cagliano et al., 2006; Su and Yang, 2010). When ERP are understood as transactional and record-keeping devises by their users and therefore are developed and implemented solely for managing the physical assets of an enterprise, there is a risk that ERP will harm the competitive position of the company (Trott and Hoecht, 2004a, b). Under such instances, caused by limitations in scope, it will not be possible to use market knowledge and adapt to it, represent managerial thinking in business processes embedded in it, and use knowledge as an asset in the management of the enterprise


1089

IJOPM 33,8

1090

(Li et al., 2006). Due to difficulty of changing ERP setup once embedded in the system they may limit or hinder the organization from adapting control practices to its changing environment (Granlund and Malmi, 2002). ERP may limit organizational roles such as the role of management accountants ( Jack and Kholeif, 2008). From this perspective ERP affect how people can work, constrains user enactments (Boudreau and Robey, 2005) and imposes discipline and domination on users by defining job tasks and sequences (Oliver and Romm, 2002; Hall, 2005). ERP is an eliminator of uniqueness and value. ERP may also reduce organizational uniqueness when firms copy processes that are similar to those of their competitors. Best-practices will create homogeneity in application and reduce uniqueness. What once may have been a combination of resources and/or processes that would be hard to imitate could potentially be erased by an ERP which favours standardised best practices. When organizations implement ERP, they implement processes that are similar to their competitors and thus potentially eliminate the uniqueness embedded in their current work practices (Benders et al., 2006). Thus, apparently there are also limits to the benefit of standardisation, and ERP misfit, the difference between the functionality offered by the ERP and that required by the adopting organization could be harmful (Pollock et al., 2003; Soh et al., 2003; Morton and Hu, 2008) and ERP misfits therefore should be analysed and managed (Lim et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2006, 2007; Wu et al., 2007; Rothenberger and Srite, 2009). Organizations are therefore advised to check carefully the degree of potential match between their ways of doing business, configuration functionality and the standard practices embedded in the software package in order to avoid a painful struggling with the software when most of its modules do not fit the business (Bingi et al., 1999). ERP’s such as for instance SAP which is by far the most used case in ERP research allows configuration. Critical business processes would often involve tailoring software, whereas non central business processes could follow a standard process in built in ERP (Santamaria-Sanchez et al., 2010). A central concern is therefore where to use standard and where to use configuration? It may be impossible, or at least cumbersome, to avoid introducing new interdependencies and processes which become necessary as soon as the new systems go live (McAfee, 2006, p. 145). The technical logic enforced by ERP have further been claimed to marginalize and subordinate the ethical, political, cultural and social considerations in organizations implementing them (Hall, 2002; Dillard and Yuthas, 2006, p. 204; Kayas et al., 2008). ERP can therefore potentially foster friction, create resistance and workarounds by users affected by its new enforcing routines, and this in turn potentially can lead to inefficiencies and the elimination of previously generated value (Dery et al., 2006; Grant et al., 2006; Harley et al., 2006). By its properties as a provider of information that can be used flexibly and when people are physically apart and never meet, ERP may enforce instrumental thinking which potentially will provoke a decrease in inter-functional understanding paradoxically leading to less integrated work practices (Dillard and Yuthas, 2006). ERP is an uncertainty and risk creator. ERP may also introduce new uncertainties and risks that in turn if not managed will reduce organizational decision making and performance (Rettig, 2007). Large infrastructures developed to enhance control require interconnected data, but the side effect is difficulty of change leading, paradoxically, to less control (Hanseth and Braa, 2000, p. 126). ERP, it is proposed, may even imply the loss of control, when implementing best in class standardised processes constructed

outside the enterprise by external software vendors (Dillard and Yuthas, 2006). Such external actors impose themselves on organizational practices and routines and somehow control the ERP and through its representation they control the organization and practices, and are put in a position to speak on its behalf (Wagner et al., 2006). Technical integration may bring side-effects and unexpected consequences, for example interference between different standards or an infrastructure that is well-tuned but too rigid (Ciborra, 2006, p. 1352). Integration in ERP may even lead to misuse of new management control functionality resulting in wrong and misguiding decisions (Cooper and Kaplan, 1998). High levels of standardization and integration may provoke or enforce local information or process mistakes and push them to become global, like a virus that easily spreads in densely populated areas. Thus, higher levels of formalization, standardization and integration enforced by the emerging ERP is an ideal landscape where side-effects can spread and diffuse at higher speed to provoke disrupting impacts (Ciborra, 2000; Hunton et al., 2004; Ciborra, 2006, p. 1353). 5. Discussion and potential implications for OM Building on Adler and Borys’ (1996) distinction between enabling and constraining/coercive bureaucracies it is possible to speculate on the relation between ERP, OM and POM. Specifically and taking the deduced enabling and constraining effects of ERP as the base, it is possible to speculate on the roles POM may potentially fruitfully play when using ERP to develop efficient and effective performance in the activities fulfilling customer request for service, which is the general purpose of OM (Burcher et al., 2004). In order to do so we take as our structure the four key domains of OM proposed by Slack et al. (2010): operations strategy, design, planning and control and improvement, and we explore as examples a set of managerial dilemmas and concerns attached to the link between ERP and these four key domains. Adler and Burys (1996) predict that any action produce the possibility for enabling bureaucracy but also for constraining and coercive bureaucracy. However, the separation of ERP effects into enabling and constraining bears with it the risk of viewing the two as unrelated and separated in time and space. Elmes et al. (2005) identify mutual enabling and constraining effects of increases in visibility and level of integration brought about by the emerged ERP. They find that ERP will simultaneously empower workers but also increase control over them. Another finding is that ERP will increase discipline and conformity to rules and procedures while at the same time demand greater reflection on local, integrated, and future work practices (Elmes et al., 2005, p. 16). Such dilemmas are enduring and they can be thought of as providing the concerns facing POM as we show below. 5.1 Operations strategy Operations strategy is a blueprint that sets the vision and overall direction for operations decision making (Zhao and Lee, 2009). It concerns the pattern of strategic decisions and actions which set the role, objectives and activities of the operation (Slack et al., 2010, p. 62). Objectives as outlined in strategy in turn are usually defined in terms of key operations objectives such as cost, quality, dependability, flexibility and delivery (Boyer and Lewis, 2002). Central to operations strategy is its focus on “trying to achieve some kind of alignment, or ‘fit’, between what the market wants, and what the operations can deliver, and how that ‘alignment’ can be sustained over time”


1091

IJOPM 33,8

1092

(Slack et al., 2010, p. 75). This leads to a conceptualization of ERP as mediator between “market wants” and “what the operations can deliver”, and the selection and design decision attached to ERP becomes central. We propose that a central managerial task for POM in relation to the operations strategy domain could be to actively engage in selecting and designing an ERP that will enhance operations abilities to deliver what the market wants and at the same time avoid the potential constraining effects attached to such a selection and design decision. Specifically and based on our literature synthesis below we offer a set central concerns that could be of relevance to POM when attempting to support the strategic role of OM. We also propose these and similar questions as of potential relevance to future research exploring the strategic role of OM in an ERP environment: . How, where and under which circumstance will different types and designs of ERP when introduced add to the overall performance of the firm and its operations? . How, where and under which circumstance will different types and designs of ERP when introduced potentially hinder the organization and its operations in aligning its practices to changing market conditions? . How, where and under which circumstance will the introduction of ERP lead to the elimination of unique value? How are there limits to standardization in ERP? 5.2 Design According to Slack et al. (2010, p. 86) design is the process by which some functional requirement of processes is satisfied through the shaping or configuration of the resources and/or activities that compose a product, or a service or the transformation processes that produces them. It is a multidimensional activity potentially involving POM in the design of processes; products and service; supply networks; layouts and flows; process technology and people; jobs and organizations (Slack et al., 2010, p. 85). Design of systems involves a process of decision making that attempts to narrow the gap between what is known about the system and its likely performance, and what needs to be known in order for it to perform as desired (Lu and Wood, 2006). Leading from this understanding, we propose that a central managerial task for POM in relation to the design role of OM in an ERP environment could be to actively engage in decision making on which resources, activities and processes are and should be included in ERP, and at which level of detail they are or should be represented. As discussed in our literature synthesis on the effects of ERP it seems that a less abstracted and more fully represented ERP with more details and entities included, bears with it the potential to extend the using actors body/and abilities in multiple areas of operations and could lead to more valuable connections and opportunities to coordinate between more entities in the operating system. On the other hand our literature synthesis also highlights that too detailed and tight representations risk detract from operation performance. If too many entities are included it can lead to overflow of information, distortions, alienation and hard to grasp relationships between system entities and system outcomes. It can constrain users’ abilities to handle exceptions (Hall, 2005) and make it less likely that the operating system connects to entities not represented in it (Akkermans et al., 2003). Specifically and based on our literature synthesis we offer these although high level questions as examples of central

concerns that could be of relevance to POM when attempting to support the design role of OM. We also propose these and similar more detail questions as of potential relevance to future research exploring the design role of OM in an ERP environment: . How, where and under which circumstance will more detailed representations of operations resources, activities, processes and their functional requirement lead to enabling or constraining effects on the organization and its operation? . How can we understand the role of POM in finding an appropriate balance of details in ERP representations? 5.3 Planning and control Planning and control are activities involved in coordinating the operations of a process within and across functions in the firm and potentially across firms in the wider supply chain (Kehoe and Boughton, 2001). It is concerned with planning and controlling all aspects of manufacturing, including managing materials, scheduling machines and people, and coordinating suppliers and key customers (Vollmann et al., 2005). The major objective of planning and control it to connect supply and demand. A central aspect of planning and control is thus to provide the system, procedures and decisions which brings different aspects of demand and supply together (Slack et al., 2010). The link between the planning and controlling role of OM and ERP is perhaps the one best described in literature. Here ERP is portrayed as a mechanism from where adjustments to physical separate activities can be requested (Vollmann et al., 2005; Park and Kusiak, 2005; Law and Ngai, 2007). Building on the literature synthesis provided in this paper, we can understand the link between ERP and planning and control as leading to a managerial role potentially concerned with a set of dilemmas and questions such as: what data should be collected? How should data be manipulated? How should data be shared and feedback to decision making and transformation system entities? How can we best balance the tradeoff between complexity/cost of managing and outcome/accuracy of planning/controlling our transformation processes? As discussed in our literature synthesis the concept of integration is central to our understanding of ERP. Literature suggest ERP as a leaver to achieve more integration and suggest integration, data sharing and coordination of any process within and across functions in the firm and potentially across firms in the wider supply chain as potentially enabling to the organization and its operations (Green et al., 2007; Law and Ngai, 2007; Chou and Chang, 2008). However, the potential fruitful relation between ERP and its promising planning and control aspect should also be thought of as on potentially leading to constrains. Via its tightly coupled procedures and processes ERP might lead to side-effects which can spread and diffuse at high speed to promote disrupting impacts (Hunton et al., 2004; Ciborra, 2006, p. 1353). These observations lead us to formulate these high level questions as examples of central concerns that could be of relevance to POM when attempting to support the planning and control role of OM in an ERP environment: . How, where and under which circumstance will more integration and transparency between system entities as represented in ERP lead to enabling or constraining effects on the organization and its operation? . How can we understand the role of POM in finding an appropriate balance of integration in ERP?


1093

IJOPM 33,8

1094

5.4 Improvement Improvement is concerned with how operations performance can be enhanced. We adopt the definition offered by Slack et al. (2010, p. 540), where improvement is seen as including both an element of making processes better and an element of avoidance or stopping processes from becoming worse. An important relation between ERP and improvement is to consider what job routines, activities and processes should be automated, stabilized, radically re-engineered or completely eliminated via ERP functionality (Chou and Chang, 2008; Kim, 2009). This is a dilemma since it often involves a tradeoff between on the one hand more efficiency in operations (Bendoly and Schoenherr, 2005), and on the other hand at the same time the risk of detracting from future performance potential (Hall, 2005). We propose that POM in supporting the improvement role of OM in an ERP environment could be actively engaged in decision making attempting to resolve such dilemmas. In relation to improvement, ERP can be thought of as enabling by providing an opportunity to automate all simple routines or by providing the opportunity to standardize in order to stabilize processes to secure consistency of output. ERP can also be linked to the improvement role of OM by leaning on it to radical innovate and re-engineer transformation system processes. “The process of ERP system implementation forces organizations to increase their understanding of their core capabilities and make necessary changes to business processes that may otherwise have been ignored” (Bendoly and Schoenherr, 2005, p. 306). In relation to reducing the probably of making the ERP a constraint our literature review demonstrate how the quest for improvement in efficiency can lead to user alienation and the potential deskilling of jobs and resources (Grant et al., 2006; Harley et al., 2006; Kayas et al., 2008). These observations lead us to formulate the below high level questions as examples of central concerns that could be of relevance to POM when attempting to support the improvement role of OM in an ERP environment: . How, where and under which circumstance can the use of ERP and its potential to automate and routinize operations lead to a harmful deskilling of jobs and resources? . How, where and under which circumstance will the use of ERP as an opportunity to radically innovate and re-engineer transformation system processes lead to enabling or constraining effects on the organization and its operations? . How, where and under which circumstance will the use of ERP and its extended functionality in order to achieve more efficient operations lead to user alienation? . How can we understand the role of POM in finding an appropriate balance in using ERP to make operations more efficient, and at the same time in avoiding the potential long term constraining impacts of such a use. 6. Conclusion Today ERP is an integrated part of organizational activity and an intimate allied of OM (Vollmann et al., 2005; Slack et al., 2010). The question of how an already emerged ERP impacts the ability to manage the context in which it is embedded is therefore of high relevance to practice and increasingly so to communities of research (McAfee, 2002; Boudreau and Robey, 2005; Hendricks et al., 2007; Bendoly et al., 2009; Chapman

and Kihn, 2009; Uwizeyemungu and Raymond, 2009, 2010). The results of this study add to this stream of knowledge. 6.1 Contributions of the study The literature is clear on the importance of ERP to the role of managing organizations, internal and external transformation processes and performance. But the literature is lacking in terms of describing the diverse and simultaneous roles and effects of ERP and how these can be expected to manifest themselves across time and space. In addition the literature is lacking in terms of linking these diverse effects of ERP to the diverse roles of OM and the managerial tasks and dilemmas of the POM (Jacobs and Bendoly, 2003). This research takes a first step in moving research on the effects of ERP and its connection to the role of OM from a focus on singular casual relationships to a more complex interdisciplinary understanding. A key contribution of this research is thus that it increases our understanding of a very complex phenomenon in a manner that is only possible when using conceptual or qualitative methods. We argue that in order to understand the effects of ERP and its role in managing organizations and operations, researchers need to focus across communities of research. ERP are highly intervened across functions in practice and researchers needs to adopt a similar pluralistic perspective. This research contributes to a beginning reconciliation across communities by conceptualizing it as a boundary object. Specifically this research contributes by demonstrating a method for how such reconciliation is both possible, and how it adds new insights into our knowledge about the link between ERP and OM. Specifically and building on Adler and Borys (1996) two types of bureaucracy, the analysis identified four enabling and three constraining roles of ERP. This is a contributions since no other study have deduced a similar set of roles from literature. This study further contributes by adding to an emerging understanding of the intersection between the role of OM and ERP. Specifically we add to literature by proposing a set of central concerns and dilemmas that could be of relevance to POM when managing in an ERP environment. 6.2 Limitations and future research This research, like most studies suffers from some limitations. The study is conceptual. It uses a deductive literature synthesis, and text analysis to cluster seven enabling and constraining roles of ERP and their consequence to the different domains of OM. Future research should test the model proposed to provide a deeper understanding of the importance of each of the identified enabling and constraining roles and their implication to the function of OM and POM. The question of whether the four enabling and the three constraining effects are exclusive in the sense that no other enabling or constraining effects can be identified is another relevant question. We do not promise nor claim that our literature review and findings are complete or exclusive in any sense. The aim of this study is not to generalise a set of effect categories of ERP usage, but to provide more understanding of the enabling and constraining powers of ERP as portrayed across research communities interested in the study of the effect of ERP. Table II and its contents is the result of a specific search strategy, applied at a specific point in time and using a specific set of key words and screening criteria. Compared to other recent reviews of ERP (Shepherd et al.,


1095

IJOPM 33,8

1096

2009; Schlichter and Kraemmergaard, 2010; Koch et al., 2010; Grabski et al., 2011) the literature sample included in this research could be regarded as fairly extensive, however the identified literature is not complete. By taking into account an initial sample of 626 publications covering the time interval 1998-2010, and a reduced sample of 98 papers, it only produces a reduced view of ERP literature. Especially there is concern that the ABB journal quality screening could have excluded important contributions. The deduced ERP identities and attributed effects are the result of our narrative coding as explained in the research approach section and exemplified in Table I. If an alternative search strategy and/or an alternative narrative coding would have been applied it would properly have resulted in a set of different enabling and constraining effects. There is also some concern that some of the deduced effect categories which we choose to label “ERP identity” or “representations” can be understood as oversimplifi cations. This is an inherent challenge when using a conceptual approach to build up overview and direction of a set of intervened and complex phenomenon (Meredith, 1993; Miles and Huberman, 1994). Another concern is that the study adopts a fairly static view on ERP. It does not take into account how ERP and its potential to enable or constrain may change over time as a result of changes in technology platforms. Nor does it take into account, in any detail, how ERP scope enlarges over time to include the supply chain and customer relations in its core. This is a limitation and a potential avenue for extension (Koch, 2007). Future research could explore if and how the enabling and constraining effects and their implications to OM and POM can be assumed to vary over time and with improvements in technology. How for instance can we understand the enabling and constraining powers of cloud based and open source ERP? In what sense are they similar or different to the ones identified in this research? Although the separation of ERP outcome into enabling and constraining effects have demonstrated to be a fertile research strategy adding to a more comprehensive understanding of the effects of ERP, this distinction also bears with it the risk on not fully understanding how enabling and constraining effects can emerge simultaneously. We therefore urge future research too extend the work of Elmes et al. (2005) to explore such simultaneous enabling and containing effects of ERP. In Section 5 we proposed a list of central concerns and dilemmas, some of which highlight trade-offs and balanced between simultaneous enabling and containing effects of the emerged ERP. We suggest these as inspiration for the formulation of research questions for future research. 6.3 Implications for practitioners Practitioners can benefit from our results by noting the importance of the identified enabling and constraining roles. This knowledge has the potential to act as a compass where managers operating in an ERP environment, according to the logic, ideally should seek to enhance the enabling and minimise the constraining powers of ERP. Specifically of interest to POMs this research highlights a set of managerial dilemmas attached to the link between ERP and the four key domains of OM. Note 1. We did not base our categorization of articles in our sample on one citation only (Boje, 2001). Table I is merely indicative of our narrative analytical approach.

References Adler, P.S. and Borys, B. (1996), “Two types of bureaucracy: enabling and coercive”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41, pp. 61-89. Agourram, H. (2009), “Defining information system success in Germany”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 129-137. Ahrens, T. and Chapman, C.S. (2004), “Accounting for flexibility and efficiency: a field study of management control systems in a restaurant chain”, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 271-301. Akkermans, H. and van Helden, K. (2002), “Vicious and virtuous cycles in ERP implementation: a case study of interrelations between critical success factors”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 35-47. Akkermans, H.A., Bogerd, P., Yu¨cesan, E. and van Wassenhove, L.N. (2003), “The impact of ERP on supply chain management: exploratory findings from a European Delphi study”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 146 No. 2, p. 284. Al-Mashari, M. (2003), “A process change-oriented model for ERP application”, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 39-55. Benders, J., Batenburg, R. and van der Blonk, H. (2006), “Sticking to standards; technical and other isomorphic pressures in deploying ERP-systems”, Information & Management, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 194-203. Benders, J., Schouteten, R. and Kadi, M.A. (2009), “ERP-systems and job content: a case study of HR-assistants”, Personnel Review, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 641-654. Bendoley, E., Bachrach, D.G., Wang, H. and Zhang, S. (2006), “ERP in the minds of supervisors: joint roles of task independence and cultural norms”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 558-578. Bendoly, E. (2003), “Theory and support for process frameworks of knowledge discovery and data mining from ERP systems”, Information & Management, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 639-647. Bendoly, E. and Schoenherr, T. (2005), “ERP system and implementation process benefits implications for B2B e-procurement”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 304-319. Bendoly, E., Rosenzweig, E.D. and Stratman, J.K. (2009), “The efficient use of enterprise information for strategic advantage: a data envelopment analysis”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 310-323. Bingi, P., Sharma, M.K. and Godla, J.K. (1999), “Critical issues affecting an ERP implementation”, Information Systems Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 7-15. Boje, D.M. (2001), Narrative Methods for Organizational and Communication Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Botta-Genoulaz, V. and Millet, P. (2006), “An investigation into the use of ERP systems in the service sector”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 99 No. 1, pp. 202-221. Boudreau, M. and Robey, D. (2005), “Enacting integrated information technology: a human agency perspective”, Organization Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 3-18. Boyer, K.K. and Lewis, M. (2002), “Competitive priorities: investigating the need for tradeoffs in operations strategy”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 9-20. Brazel, J.F. and Dang, L. (2008), “The effect of ERP system implementations on the management of earnings and earnings release dates”, Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 1-21.


1097

IJOPM 33,8

1098

Buhman, C., Kekre, S. and Singhal, J. (2005), “Interdisciplinary and interorganizational research: establishing the science of enterprise networks”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 493-513. Burcher, P.G., Lee, G.L. and Sohal, A.S. (2004), “The changing roles of production and operations managers in Britain from the 1970s to the 1990s”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 409-423. Byrne, P.J. and Heavey, C. (2006), “The impact of information sharing and forecasting in capacitated industrial supply chains: a case study”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 420-437. Cagliano, R., Caniato, F. and Spina, G. (2006), “The linkage between supply chain integration and manufacturing improvement programmes”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 282-299. Caglio, A. (2003), “Enterprise resource planning systems and accountants: towards hybridization?”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 123-153. Chapman, C.S. (2005), “Not because they are new: developing the contribution of enterprise resource planning systems to management control research”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 30 Nos 7/8, pp. 685-689. Chapman, C.S. and Kihn, L. (2009), “Information system integration, enabling control and performance”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 151-169. Chiplunkar, C., Chattopadhyay, R. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2001), “Development of an integrated information management model: a case of textile industry”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 629-645. Chou, S. and Chang, Y. (2008), “The implementation factors that influence the ERP (enterprise resource planning) benefits”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 149-157. Ciborra, C. (2000), “From alignment to loose coupling: from mednet to www.roche.com”, in Ciborra, C. (Ed.), From Control to Drift – The Dynmamics of Corporate Information Infrastructures, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Ciborra, C. (2006), “Imbrications of representations: risk and digital technologies”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 1339-1356. Cooper, R. and Kaplan, R.S. (1998), “The promise – and peril – of integrated cost systems”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76, pp. 109-119. Craighead, C.W. and Meredith, J. (2008), “Operations management research: evolution and alternative future paths”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 710-726. Davenport, T.H. (1998), “Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 121-131. Davenport, T.H. (2000), Mission Critical: Realizing the Promise of Enterprise Systems, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Dechow, N. and Mouritsen, J. (2005), “Enterprise resource planning systems, management control and the quest for integration”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 30, pp. 691-733. Dery, K., Grant, D., Harley, B. and Wright, C. (2006), “Work, organisation and enterprise resource planning systems: an alternative research agenda”, New Technology, Work & Employment, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 199-214. Dikolli, S.S. and Vaysman, I. (2006), “Information technology, organizational design, and transfer pricing”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 41 Nos 1/2, pp. 201-234. Dillard, J.F. and Yuthas, K. (2006), “Enterprise resource planning systems and communicative action”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 17, pp. 202-223.

Edwards, P., Peters, M. and Sharman, G. (2001), “The effectiveness of information systems in supporting the extended supply chain”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-27. Elmes, M.B., Strong, D.M. and Volkoff, O. (2005), “Panoptic empowerment and reflective conformity in enterprise systems-enabled organizations”, Information and Organization, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-37. Gardiner, S.C., Hannam, J.B. and LaTour, M.S. (2002), “ERP and the reengineering of industrial marketing processes a prescriptive overview for the new-age marketing manager”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 357-365. Gattiker, T.F. (2007), “Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems and the manufacturing-marketing interface: an information-processing theory view”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 13, pp. 2895-2917. Gattiker, T.F. and Goodhue, D.L. (2002), “Software-driven changes to business processes: an empirical study of impacts of enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems at the local level”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 40 No. 18, pp. 4799-4814. Gattiker, T.F. and Goodhue, D.L. (2005), “What happens after ERP implementation: understanding the impact of inter-dependence and differentiation on plant-level outcomes”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 559-585. Gefen, D. and Ragowsky, A. (2005), “A multi-level approach to measuring the benefits of an ERP system in manufacturing firms”, Information Systems Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 18-25. Grabski, S.V., Leech, S.A. and Schmidt, P.J. (2011), “A review of ERP research: a future agenda for accounting information systems”, Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 37-78. Granlund, M. and Malmi, T. (2002), “Moderate impact of ERP on management accounting: a lag of permanent effect?”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 13, pp. 299-321. Granlund, M. and Mouritsen, J. (2003), “Problematizing the relationship between management control and information technology”, Introduction to the Special Section on European Accounting Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 77-83, Introduction to the Special Section on “Management control and new information technologies”. Grant, D., Hall, R., Wailes, N. and Wright, C. (2006), “The false promise of technological determinism: the case of enterprise resource planning systems”, New Technology, Work & Employment, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 2-15. Green, K.W., Whitten, D. and Inman, R.A. (2007), “The impact of timely information on organisational performance in a supply chain”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 274-282. Hall, R. (2002), “Enterprise resource planning systems and organizational change: transforming work organization?”, Strategic Change, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 263-270. Hall, R. (2005), “The integrating and disciplining tendencies of ERP: evidence from Australian organizations”, Strategic Change, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 245-254. Hanseth, O. and Braa, K. (1998), “Technology as traitor: emergent sap infrastructure in a global organization”, paper presented at International Conference on Information Systems, Finland. Hanseth, O. and Braa, K. (2000), “Who’s in control: designers, managers or technology? Infrastructures at Norsk Hydro”, in Ciborra, C. (Ed.), From Control to Drift – The Dynmamics of Corporate Information Infrastructures, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Harley, B., Wright, C., Hall, R. and Dery, K. (2006), “Management reactions to technological change”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 58-75.


1099

IJOPM 33,8

1100

Hayes, D.C., Hunton, J.E. and Reck, J.L. (2001), “Market reactions to ERP implementation announcements”, Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 3-18. Henderson, K. (1991), “Flexible sketches and inflexible data bases: visual communication, conscription devices, and boundary objects in design engineering”, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 448-473. Hendricks, K.B., Singhal, V.R. and Stratman, J.K. (2007), “The impact of enterprise systems on corporate performance: a study of ERP, SCM, and CRM system implementations”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 65-82. Holsapple, C.W. and Sena, M.P. (2003), “The decision-support characteristics of ERP systems”, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 101-123. Holsapple, C.W. and Sena, M.P. (2005), “ERP plans and decision-support benefits”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 575-590. Hunton, J.E. (2002), “Blending information and communication technology with accounting research”, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 55-67. Hunton, J.E., McEwen, R.A. and Wier, B. (2002), “The reaction of financial analysts to enterprise resource planning (ERP) implementation plans”, Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 31-40. Hunton, J.E., Wright, A.M. and Wright, S. (2004), “Are financial auditors overconfident in their ability to assess risks associated with enterprise resource planning systems?”, Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 7-28. Hyvo¨nen, T. (2003), “Management accounting and information systems: ERP vs BoB”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 12, pp. 155-173. Jack, L. and Kholeif, A. (2008), “Enterprise resource planning and a contest to limit the role of management accountants: a strong structuration perspective”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 30-45. Jacobs, F. and Bendoly, E. (2003), “Enterprise resource planning: developments and directions for operations management research”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 146 No. 2, pp. 233-240. Kayas, O.G., McLean, R., Hines, T. and Wright, G.H. (2008), “The panoptic gaze: analysing the interaction between enterprise resource planning technology and organisational culture”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 446-452. Kehoe, D.F. and Boughton, N.J. (2001), “New paradigms in planning and control across manufacturing supply chains: the utilisation of internet technologies”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 Nos 5/6, pp. 582-593. Kim, J. (2009), “Activity-based framework for cost savings through the implementation of an ERP system”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 47 No. 7, pp. 1913-1929. Koch, C. (2007), “ERP – a moving target”, International Journal of Business Information Systems, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 426-443. Koch, C. and Buhl, H. (2001), “ERP-supported teamworking in Danish manufacturing?”, New Technology, Work & Employment, Vol. 16 No. 3, p. 164. Koch, C., Tambo, T. and Olsen, M. (2010), “How little do we need to know about enterprise resource planning (ERP)? A critical review of information systems research on ERP”, Proceedings of the 33th Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia, Rebild. Koliba, C. and Gajda, R. (2009), “Communities of practice as an analytical construct: implications for theory and practice”, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 32, pp. 97-135. Kositanurit, B., Ngwenyama, O. and Osei-Bryson, K. (2006), “An exploration of factors that impact individual performance in an ERP environment: an analysis using multiple

analytical techniques”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 556-568. Law, C.C.H. and Ngai, E.W.T. (2007), “ERP systems adoption: an exploratory study of the organizational factors and impacts of ERP success”, Information & Management, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 418-432. Lee, G.L. and Oakes, I.K. (1996), “Templates for change with supply chain rationalization”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 197-209. Legate, T.L. (2002), “The role of organizational factors in realizing ERP benefits”, Information Systems Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 21-42. Lengnick-Hall, C. and Lengnick-Hall, M. (2006), “HR, ERP, and knowledge for competitive advantage”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 179-194. Lengnick-Hall, C., Lengnick-Hall, M. and Abdinnour-Helm, S. (2004), “The role of social and intellectual capital in achieving competitive advantage through enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems”, Journal of Engineering & Technology Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 307-330. Li, Z., Chaudhry, S.S. and Zhao, S. (2006), “Designing ERP systems with knowledge management capacity”, Systems Research and Behavioural Science, Vol. 23, pp. 191-200. Lim, E.T.K., Shan, L.P. and Chee, W.T. (2005), “Managing user acceptance towards enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems – understanding the dissonance between user expectations and managerial policies”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 135-149. Lodh, S. and Gaffikin, M. (2003), “Implementation of an integrated accounting and cost management system using the SAP system: a field study”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 85-121. Loh, T.C. and Koh, S.C.L. (2004), “Critical elements for a successful enterprise resource planning implementation in small- and medium-sized enterprises”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 42 No. 17, pp. 3433-3455. Lu, Q. and Wood, L. (2006), “The refinement of design for manufacture: inclusion of process design”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 10, pp. 1123-1145. Lynne, M.M. (2004), “Technochange management: using IT to drive organizational change”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 4-20. McAfee, A. (2002), “The impact of enterprise information technology adoption on operational performance: an empirical investigation”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 33-53. McAfee, A. (2006), “Mastering the three worlds of information technology”, Harvard Business Review, November, pp. 141-149. Matolcsy, Z.P., Booth, P. and Wieder, B. (2005), “Economic benefits of enterprise resource planning systems: some empirical evidence”, Accounting & Finance, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 439-456. Mentzer, J.T., Stank, T.P. and Esper, T.L. (2008), “Supply chain management and its relationship to logistics, marketing, production, and operations management”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 31-46. Meredith, J. (1993), “Theory building through conceptual methods”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 3-11. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis – An Expanded Sourcebook, Sage, London.


1101

IJOPM 33,8

1102

Morris, M.G. and Venkatesh, V. (2010), “Job characteristics and job satisfaction: understanding the role of enterprise resource planning system implementation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 143-161. Morton, N.A. and Hu, Q. (2008), “Implications of the fit between organizational structure and ERP: a structural contingency theory perspective”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 391-402. Newman, M. and Zhao, Y. (2008), “The process of enterprise resource planning implementation and business process re-engineering: tales from two Chinese small and medium-sized enterprises”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 405-426. Nicolaou, A.I. (2004), “Firm performance effects on the implementation and use of enterprise resource planning systems”, Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 18, pp. 79-105. Oliver, D. and Romm, C. (2002), “Justifying enterprise resource planning adoption”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 199-213. Palaniswamy, R. and Frank, T. (2000), “Enhancing manufacturing performance with ERP systems”, Information Systems Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 43-55. Park, K. and Kusiak, A. (2005), “Enterprise resource planning (ERP) operations support system for maintaining process integration”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 43 No. 19, pp. 3959-3982. Parry, G. and Graves, A. (2008), “The importance of knowledge management for ERP systems”, International Journal of Logistics: Research & Applications, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 427-441. Pawlowski, S.D. and Robey, R. (2004), “Knowledge brokering and the work of information technology professionals”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 645-672. Pollock, N., Williams, R. and Procter, R. (2003), “Fitting standard software packages to non-standard organizations: the ‘biography’ of an enterprise-wide system”, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, p. 317. Puschmann, T. and Alt, R. (2005), “Developing an integration architecture for process portals”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 121-134. Quattrone, P. and Hopper, T. (2001), “What does organizational change mean? Speculations on a taken for granted category”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 12, pp. 403-435. Quattrone, P. and Hopper, T. (2005), “A ‘time-space odyssey’: management control systems in two multinational organizations”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 30, pp. 735-764. Quattrone, P. and Hopper, T. (2006), “What is IT? SAP, accounting, and visibility in a multinational organisation”, Information and Organization, Vol. 16, pp. 212-250. Ragowsky, A., Adams, S. and Somers, T.M. (2005), “Assessing the value provided by ERP applications through organizational activities”, Communications of AIS, Vol. 2005 No. 16, pp. 381-406. Ranganathan, C. and Brown, C.V. (2006), “ERP investments and the market value of firms: toward an understanding of influential ERP project variables”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 145-161. Reck, J.L. (2004), “Discussion of: firm performance effects in relation to the implementation and use of enterprise resource planning systems”, Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 107-110. Rettig, C. (2007), “The trouble with enterprise software”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 21-27. Riezebos, J. (2006), “Inventory order crossovers”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 104 No. 2, pp. 666-675.

Rothenberger, M.A. and Srite, M. (2009), “An investigation of customization in ERP system implementations”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 663-676. Scapens, R.W. and Jazayeri, M. (2003), “ERP systems and management accounting change: opportunities or impacts? A research note”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 201-233. Schlichter, B. and Kraemmergaard, P. (2010), “A comprehensive literature review of the ERP research field over a decade”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 486-520. Schrnederjans, M.J. and Kim, G.C. (2003), “Implementing enterprise resource planning systems with total quality control and business process reengineering survey results”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 418-429. Seddon, P.B. and Are, E.R.P. (2005), “Are ERP systems a source of competitive advantage?”, Strategic Change, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 283-293. Shepherd, C., Clegg, C. and Stride, C. (2009), “Opening the black box: a multi-method analysis of an enterprise resource planning implementation”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 81-102. Slack, N., Chambers, S. and Johnston, R. (2010), Operations Management, 6th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Soh, C., Kien Sia, S., Fong Boh, W. and Tang, M. (2003), “Misalignments in ERP implementation: a dialectic perspective”, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 81-100. Star, S.L. (1989), “The structure of ill-structured solutions: heterogeneous problem-solving, boundary objects and distributed artificial intelligence”, in Huhns, M. and Gasser, L. (Eds), Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 2, Morgan Kaufman, San Mateo, CA. Star, S.L. and Griesemer, J.R. (1989), “Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-1930”, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 19, pp. 387-420. Stratman, J.K. (2007), “Realizing benefits from enterprise resource planning: does strategic focus matter?”, Production & Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 203-216. Su, Y. and Yang, C. (2010), “Why are enterprise resource planning systems indispensable to supply chain management?”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 203 No. 1, pp. 81-94. Taylor, A. and Taylor, M. (2009), “Operations management research: contemporary themes, trends and potential future directions”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 29 No. 12, pp. 1316-1340. Templer, A.J. and Cawsey, T.F. (1999), “Rethinking career development in an era of portfolio careers”, Career Development International, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 70-76. Trott, P. and Hoecht, A. (2004a), “Enterprise resource planning and the price of efficiency: the trade off between business efficiency and the innovative capability of firms”, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 367-379. Trott, P. and Hoecht, A. (2004b), “Enterprise resource planning (ERP) and its impact on the innovative capability of the firm”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 381-398. Uwizeyemungu, S. and Raymond, L. (2009), “Exploring an alternative method of evaluating the effects of ERP: a multiple case study”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 251-268.


1103

IJOPM 33,8

1104

Uwizeyemungu, S. and Raymond, L. (2010), “Linking the effects of ERP to organizational performance: development and initial validation of an evaluation method”, Information Systems Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 25-41. Van Hillegersberg, J., Zuidwijk, R., Van Nunen, R., Van Eijk, J. and Van Eijk, D. (2001), “Supporting return flows in the supply chain”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 74-79. Vollmann, T.E., Berry, W., Whybark, F. and Jacobs, R. (2005), Manufacturing Planning and Control for Supply Chain Management, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Wagner, E.L., Scott, S.V. and Galliers, R.D. (2006), “The creation of ‘best practice’ software: myth, reality and ethics”, Information & Organization, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 251-275. Wang, E.T.G., Chia-Lin Lin, C., Jiang, J.J. and Klein, G. (2007), “Improving enterprise resource planning (ERP) fit to organizational process through knowledge transfer”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 200-212. Wang, Z., Xu, X. and Zhan, D. (2006), “Component reuse based agile reconfiguration for enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems in manufacturing enterprises”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 44 No. 23, pp. 5107-5129. Ward, P. and Zhou, H. (2006), “Impact of information technology integration and lean/just-in-time practices on lead-time performance”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 177-203. Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Wouters, M. and Wilderom, C. (2008), “Developing performance-measurement systems as enabling formalization: a longitudinal field study of a logistics department”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 33, pp. 488-516. Wu, J., Shin, S. and Heng, M.S.H. (2007), “A methodology for ERP misfit analysis”, Information & Management, Vol. 44 No. 8, pp. 666-680. Zhao, X. and Lee, T. (2009), “Developments and emerging research opportunities in operations strategy and supply chain management”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 120 No. 1, pp. 1-4. Zheng, S., Yen, D.C. and Tarn, J.M. (2000), “The new spectrum of the cross-enterprise solution: the integration of supply chain management and enterprise resources planning systems”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 84-94. Further reading Santamarıá-Sańchez, L., Nuń˜ez-Nickel, M. and Gago-Rodrı´guez, S. (2010), “The role played by interdependences in ERP implementations: an empirical analysis of critical factors that minimize elapsed time”, Information & Management, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 87-95. Wang, E.T.G., Klein, G. and Jiang, J.J. (2006), “ERP misfit: country of origin and organizational factors”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 263-292. Corresponding author Kim Sundtoft Hald can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints