Upgrading during ERP change process is a costly undertaking and may not .... include Oracle PeopleSoft, Oracle Enterprise and JD Edwards Enterprise One,.
Faculty of Information Technology Caulfield School of Information Technology
Understanding How Consultants Mediate Conflicts during PostImplementation ERP Change Process: A Dialectic Perspective
PhD Confirmation of Candidature: Research Proposal By: Musleh Alsulami
Supervisory team: Dr Mahbubur Rahim Caulfield School of Information Technology Monash University Associate Professor Helana Scheepers (External supervisor) Faculty of Information & Communication Technologies Swinburne University
September 2013
Abstract:
Over the past three decades, many organizations have been implementing Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems to meet their growing business requirements and enabling them to successfully negotiate competition from their rivals. During this period, two specific waves of ERP change processes can be observed: the first wave represents initial ERP implementation initiatives and the second wave relates to changes associated with upgrade and maintenance (post-implementation) of the initial ERP implementation. Much of the existing research on ERP systems focuses on the changes organization and users undergo as well as the critical success factors affecting implementation outcomes. However, little attention has so far been given to understand how ERP consultants manage conflicts during ERP change process which calls for further research attention. Moreover, ERP consultants play an important role during the ERP change process which too has received scant attention. This doctoral study explores the role of ERP consultants in mediating conflicts during postimplementation ERP change process. The dialectic perspective is used in this study as a theoretical lens to explain the roles consultants play to mediate conflicts during ERP change process. Examining the role of consultants in ERP change process from a dialectic perspective will potentially provide valuable and rich insights into understanding the broader ERP change process phenomenon. A literature review was undertaken to develop a conceptual model linking four constructs: consultant roles, conflicts, ERP stakeholders, and dialectic during ERP change process. An in-depth case study of a single ERP upgrading/maintenance (post-implementation) change process will be conducted involving multiple ERP stakeholders.
ii
Table of Contents Abstract: .......................................................................................................................................... ii 1.
2.
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1.
Research motivations .............................................................................................................. 1
1.2.
Research Goal and Questions ................................................................................................. 4
1.3.
Proposed Contribution ............................................................................................................ 4
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 5 2.1.
ERP systems: Definition and Benefits .................................................................................... 5
2.2.
ERP systems implementation.................................................................................................. 5
2.2.1.
Teleological model ........................................................................................................ 11
2.2.2.
Life cycle model............................................................................................................ 11
2.2.3.
Dialectic model ............................................................................................................. 12
2.2.4.
Evolution model ............................................................................................................ 13
2.3.
Stakeholders involvement in ERP systems ........................................................................... 13
2.3.1. 2.4.
Types of stakeholders.................................................................................................... 14
Conflicts in the ERP change process .................................................................................... 15
2.4.1.
Conflict definition ......................................................................................................... 15
2.4.2.
Types of Conflicts ......................................................................................................... 16
2.5.
Role of ERP consultants ....................................................................................................... 20
2.6.
Characteristic of consultants: IT consultants VS ERP consultants ....................................... 22
2.7.
Dialectic perspective and ERP .............................................................................................. 26
2.7.1.
Fundamentals of dialectic perspective .......................................................................... 26
2.7.2.
Use of dialectic perspective in IS/IT discipline ............................................................ 27
2.7.3.
Reflection of dialectical perspective for ERP change process ...................................... 27
3.
RESEARCH MODEL DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 30
4.
RESEARCH APPROACH ........................................................................................................... 31 4.1.
Nature of this study ............................................................................................................... 32
4.1.1.
Interpretive nature of this study ........................................................................................ 32
4.1.2.
Exploratory nature of this study ........................................................................................ 34
4.1.3.
Theory building nature of this study ................................................................................. 34
4.2.
Selection of research approach ............................................................................................. 34
4.3.
Target participants of this study ............................................................................................ 35
4.4.
Unit of analysis ..................................................................................................................... 35
4.5.
Sources of data ...................................................................................................................... 35 iii
4.6.
Research ethics...................................................................................................................... 37
4.7.
Data analysis ......................................................................................................................... 37
4.8.
Validity ................................................................................................................................. 38
5.
PROPOSED PROJECT PLAN ..................................................................................................... 38
6.
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 39
Table of Figures: Figure 1: Organization change process models (from Van de Ven and Poole, 1995) ............................ 7 Figure 2: Types of stakeholders ............................................................................................................ 14 Figure 3: Typical Role Statements from the Consulting Role Grid (Champion, Kiel, & Mclendon, 1990) ..................................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 4: The dialectic approach (Sabherwal and Newman, 2003) ...................................................... 29 Figure 5: A conceptual research model................................................................................................. 31
Table of Tables: Table 1: Overview of organizational change process models (from Garud & Van de Ven, 2002) ...... 10 Table 2: Summary of ERP conflicts (literature analysis)...................................................................... 18 Table 3: Definition of Champion et al’s nine roles ............................................................................... 22 Table 4: IT/ERP consultants’ skills classification (literature analysis)................................................. 23 Table 5: IT and ERP consultants’ characteristic ................................................................................... 25
iv
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1.
Research motivations Over the past three decades, many organizations have been implementing Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems to meet their growing business requirements and enabling them to successfully negotiate competition from their rivals. During this period, two specific waves of ERP change processes can be observed: the first wave represents initial ERP implementation initiatives and the second wave relates to changes associated with upgrade and maintenance of the initial ERP implementation. The first wave of initial ERP implementation initiatives is undertaken by organizations to integrate a range of business activities across the organization in many cases replacing legacy systems. This initial wave of ERP implementation required industry to invest billions of dollars (Salmeron and Lopez, 2010). According to a report by the Business Software Alliance, the worldwide market for ERP packages was $297 billion in 2008 (BSG, 2009). Moreover, AMR research mentioned that in the past decade approximately $300 billion was invested in ERP worldwide and 67% of individual companies spent more than $1 million on ERP implementation, and 13% of them spent more than 20 million dollars in 2006 (Jacobson and Shepherd, 2007). At present, most organizations have moved to the ERP post-implementation which includes maintaining/upgrading already implemented ERP systems. According to Salmeron and Lopez (2010) and Stein et al. (2003), the primary reason for upgrading is for an organization to stay abreast with rapidly changing business environment. Upgrading ERP systems incorporates new technologies such as e-commerce, data warehousing, and customer relationship management (Shang and Seddon, 2000). Upgrading during ERP change process is a costly undertaking and may not bring expected benefits to stakeholders in organizations (Khoo, 2011, Ng et al., 2003). Several studies suggested that annual ERP change process costs are approximately a further 25-33% of the initial investment (Carlino et al., 2000; Songini, 2000). Much of the existing ERP literature is concerned with identifying critical success factors (CSFs) affecting ERP change process during the initial implementations of ERP systems (Doom et al., 2010, Foster et al., 2004). These studies reported in the
literature discussed CSFs from the viewpoint of different stakeholders (e.g. management, technical, and users perspectives) (Al-Mashari and Al-Mudimigh, 2003; Ngai et al. 2008; Al-Mashari, 2002). However, there is no general consensus on the CSFs of ERP change process (Doom et al., 2011). A small number of studies of CSFs have also focused on upgrading of ERP systems which include maintenance risk assessment and decision making or frameworks for upgrading (Waeyenbergh and Pintelon, 2002) in organizations. We argue that successful adoption of ERP systems and subsequent maintenance/upgrading is influenced by the participation of ERP consultant as well. However, existing literature has paid little attention to explain the role ERP consultants play in mediating conflicts during ERP change process. The journey of organizations during ERP change process (first or second waves) is not easy and they face many challenges (e.g. IT infrastructure and project management). ERP change processes may also involve considerable risk because of different views and interest of stakeholders associated with ERP change process. One way to facilitate ERP change process mediation is to engage ERP consultants who would play an important role in resolving inherent conflict and managing expectations of various stakeholders during post-implementation EPR change process. Moreover, according to a report by KPMG LLP (2009), involvement of ERP consultants helps organizations to reduce operating cost and complexity during ERP change process. Additionally, ERP consultants’ involvement in ERP change process leads to managing and resolving many conflicts with the aim to understand aspects related to ERP change process which might include the intent, size, scope, costs, and timing of these initiatives (KPMG LLP, 2009). Without knowledgeable ERP consultants, it is difficult for organizations to properly mediate the inherent conflicts associated with post-implementation ERP change process. This could invite major cost overruns. However, little attention has so far been given to understand the role of ERP consultants in mediating inherent conflicts and investigating them in the postimplementation ERP change process. This calls for further research attention. A major motivation of this study thus arises from the recognition that a high level of risk is generally associated with ERP change process due to three reasons. First, in many organizations team members responsible for ERP implementation have limited understanding and experience in supporting ERP change process efforts (Ng et al., 2003). They may regularly encounter conflicts associated with change process of 2
these costly systems (Ng, 2001). Second, ERP change process tasks require the involvement of multiple stakeholders who may often have contrasting expectations regarding the tasks to be performed (Helo et al., 2008). This in turn makes ERP change process activities highly complex and risky (Salmeron and Lopez, 2010). Third, conflict is inherent in ERP upgrading/maintenance (post-implementation) change process and the role ERP consultants play in mediating these conflicts are not well documented in the ERP literature. Furthermore, Finney (2011) highlight that different stakeholders have different viewpoints about the ERP change process and suggest that there is a need for research from the perspective of various stakeholders. Therefore, this research attempts to study the role of ERP consultants in conflict mediation during ERP change process and investigate them in the postimplementation ERP change process from multiple stakeholders’ perspective. Another motivation of this study is the use of dialectics to examine the role of consultants during ERP change process. This perspective potentially provides valuable and rich insights into understanding the broader ERP change process phenomenon. Dialectics enable researchers to understand the dualistic nature of technology (Orlikowski, 1992). Technology is considered to have a dualistic nature when it includes several stakeholders in a project. This dualistic view of technology is due to the interaction between technology and organizations as a product of human action (Orlikowski, 1992). This human action is influenced by the different views about technology that stakeholders have chosen to focus on (Orlikowski, 1992). Moreover, using a dialectic approach can help ERP scholars to better understand how the consultants mediate conflict situations. This is in line with the views expressed by Soh et al. (2003) who suggested that a dialectic perspective is potentially a useful tool to understand and explain the issues encountered during ERP change process. The dialectic approach has been used to develop a rich understanding and explanation to understand the way systems developers think about inherent contradictions related to development (Dahlbom and Mathiassen, 1993) and representative users’ roles (Nordheim, 2008). This research applies a dialectic approach to analyze consultants’ role in mediating conflict situations in the ERP change process which facilitates successful ERP change process. The dialectic perspective is used in this study as a theoretical lens (framework) to explain the role of consultants in mediating inherent conflicts during ERP post-implementation change process. Dialectic perspective 3
conceptualizes conflicts as an inherent part of the change process. Drawing upon Van de Ven and Poole's (1995) theoretical analysis of organizational change, this doctoral study viewed ERP change process as a dialectic process involving forces promoting and opposing change. This approach builds on earlier work in philosophy by Hegel (1770-1831) and the work of other scholars (e.g. Orlikowski & Robey, 1991; Markus & Robey, 1988; Klein & Hirschheim, 1991). Moreover, this approach deals with systems conflicts in information systems development as primarily a social process (Hirschheim et al., 1991; Newman & Robey, 1992). However, a dialectic perspective offers enterprise systems researchers a useful theoretical framework to understanding the social and political process of the change process (Myers, 1994).
1.2.
Research Goal and Questions Driven by the research motivations outlined in the previous section, this study seeks to address the following broad research goal: To understand how ERP consultants help mediate inherent conflicts during ERP post-implementation change process from a dialectic perspective This broad goal is translated into the following specific research questions: 1. How do ERP stakeholders perceive the dialectic nature of the ERP postimplementation change process? 2. What are the types of conflicts ERP stakeholders encounter during ERP postimplementation change process, and why do these conflicts occur? 3. How do the ERP stakeholders perceive the consultants’ role in mediating the conflicts encountered during ERP post-implementation change process? 4. How do the consultants believe they play a role in mediating conflicts related to the dialectic nature of the ERP post-implementation change process?
1.3.
Proposed Contribution This study is expected to make contributions to theory and practice. The study would contribute to the ERP literature in three ways. First, it will help clarify the role of ERP consultants in conflict situations during ERP post-implementation change process from multiple stakeholders’ view. Second, it helps improve researcher understanding about why conflicts arise in ERP change process. Finally, it applies a dialectic approach as a potentially useful tool to make sense of conflicts during ERP change process. The study’s findings will also be valuable to practice. Senior management of organizations, responsible for making decisions regarding enhancing their ERP 4
systems will be better able to appreciate the value of ERP consultants by understanding their roles.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1.
ERP systems: Definition and Benefits Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems represent a particular class of software package that integrates a range of business activities across different functional areas of an organization (Al-Mdimigh, 2007). These systems are often intended to make major improvements in organizational performance (Kamhawi, 2008). ERP systems reflect knowledge of business practices that affect many aspects inside and outside an organization (Albadri and Abdullah, 2009). By integrating the complete range of business processes and functions, ERP systems provide a holistic picture of business from different perspectives (e.g. managerial perspective or technical perspective) (Osei-Bryson and Ojelanki, 2008; Al-Mdimigh, 2007). Examples of ERP packages include Oracle PeopleSoft, Oracle Enterprise and JD Edwards Enterprise One, MOVIX, and SAP R/3. When successfully implemented, ERP systems can offer a range of benefits. Widely cited benefits include a reduction in the cost of running business processes, the cost of legacy systems maintenance (Yang and Su, 2009; Kamhawi, 2008; Shang and Seddon, 2000), and manpower (Kamhawi, 2008).
These systems also improve
productivity, decision making (Kamhawi, 2008; Shang and Seddon, 2000), system quality (Seddon and Shang, 2000), customer services (Yang and Su, 2009; Kamhawi, 2008; Shang and Seddon, 2000), IT infrastructure and empower staff (Yang and Su, 2009; Kamhawi, 2008; Shang and Seddon, 2000). ERP systems further contribute to better resource management (Yang and Su, 2009; Shang and Seddon, 2000), organizational change (Shang and Seddon, 2000), organizational strategy (Kamhawi, 2008; Davenport and Brooks, 2004; Shang and Seddon, 2000), and planning management (Yang and Su, 2009; Davenport and Brooks, 2004; Shang and Seddon, 2000).
2.2.
ERP systems implementation The ERP systems implementation literature, makes it clear that the journey of ERP change process is complex to undertake and fraught with several challenges (e.g. cost
5
and risk of failure). Many ERP systems do not deliver expected benefits to implementing organizations after being implemented (Khoo, 2011, Umble et al., 2003, Ng et al., 2003). ERP vendors realized that most implementing organizations require considerable support from ERP consultancy firms to adapt ERP to suit their organizations, or to modify their organization to suit the ERP systems (Wagner and Newell, 2007). ERP systems are not just a change in technology but also include sizable organizational change (Strong and Volkoff, 2004). Moreover, various theories have been developed to explain the process of change associated with ERP implementation. These have been described as technological-driven (Paluszek, 2006), organizational change, or technochange (Markus, 2004). These are closely related to the various schools of thought that have been developed by Van de Ven and Poole (1995) for the information systems discipline. These schools of thought can be conceptualized as various organization change process models of: teleological, life cycle, dialectic and evolution. These schools of thought are developed for general information system, and they have been applied to ERP systems to describe the process of organizational development and change (Sabherwal and Newman, 2003). The organization change process schools of thought are often used to explain how and why organizations change (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). The organization change process is categorized into two main dimensions which guide organizational change (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). These dimensions are: Unit of change and Mode of change as shown in Figure 1. Using these two dimensions, the organization developmental progressions can be classified into four ideal schools of thought (Van de Ven and Poole 1995). The schools of thought have been used in different research areas and have a long standing intellectual tradition and associated terminologies (Garud and Van de Ven, 2002). The four schools of thought have been described using four concepts: members, event progressions, generative mechanisms and conditions under which they are likely to operate. Additionally, Van de Ven and Poole (1995, p. 519) said that the four process models “provide fundamentally different accounts of the sequence of events that unfold to explain the change process in an organizational entity”. Weiner (2009) found change process models an appropriate perspective on organizational change and a useful way to think about strategic change in organizations. The main advantage with Van de Ven and Poole’s 6
typology is the possibility to identify the dimensions of process change before it has concluded. Moreover, each of the change process models depend on a different set of conditions (e.g. the life cycle the activities passes through stages) (Garud and Van de Ven, 2002).
Figure 1: Organization change process models (from Van de Ven and Poole, 1995, p. 520) Based on Unit of change and Mode of change, the four change process models are classified according to their action and process (Garud and Van de Ven, 2002). This classification is different from other classifications that are often used to classify organization change such as incremental versus radical change (Burgelman, 1983), continuous versus discontinuous change (Meyer et al., 1993), first order versus second order change (Meyer et al., 1993) and competence enhancing versus competence destroying change (Abernathy and Clark, 1985) as identified in Van de Ven and Poole (1995). The Unit of change refers to the size of the unit that needs to undergo change. These units can be an individual person, group of people, entire organization, or population (Van de Ven and Poole 1995). In Figure 1, the nested hierarchy classifies the organizations change level into two units of change categories: single entity 7
(individual or individual group) or interactions between more entities (groups) (Garud and Van de Ven, 2002). Evolutionary and dialectical models involve multiple entities (Van de Ven, 2002). The evolutionary model is defined in terms of their impacts on populations and has no meaning at the level of the individual entity (Van de Ven and Poole 1995). Dialectical models involve at least two entities which are called thesis and antithesis to fill the roles of the dialectic discourse (Sabherwal and Newman, 2003). Examining processes of change between several organizational entities, the appropriate models would be dialectical or evolutionary model with their related laws, rules, or processes by which the entities interact (Van de Ven and Poole 1995). On the other hand, life cycle and teleological models describe the change process of a single entity (Weick and Quinn, 1999). Life cycle model explains the development as a function of potential sequential stages1 within the entity, while the environment and other entities are strictly ordered secondary (Van de Ven and Poole 1995). Teleological model identifies a single goal for an entity (Garud and Van de Ven, 2002). A teleological model can be used for a single entity if there is sufficient consensus among the members to permit them to act as a single organizational entity (Kling, 2000). Moreover, in the life cycle model the interaction between entities may influence the ways of development, whereas in the teleological motor drives individual entities to achieve the end goal (Van de Ven and Poole 1995). The Mode of change distinguishes the four models in terms of whether the sequence of change is prescribed (either deterministic or probabilistic laws) or whether the progression emerges as the change process unfolds (Van de Ven, 2007). Moreover, Van de Ven (2007) defined a prescribed sequence as channels to develop the entities in a pre-specified direction, typically of maintaining and incrementally adapting their forms in stable and predictable ways. Whereas, the constructive mode of change defined as generating unprecedented, novel forms which are often discontinuous and unpredictable departures from the past (Van de Ven and Poole 1995). A prescribed mode uses a pre-established program or action routine as a sequence of change events, but a constructive mode, conversely, produces new actions which are created based on the situation (Van de Ven and Poole 1995).
1
Van de Ven and Poole (1995) described this as an imminent program 8
Life cycle and evolutionary models are prescribed and incorporate a prescribed mode of change, while teleological and dialectical models are considered constructive and incorporate a constructive mode of development (Haywood, 2006). The life cycle model has an imminent program consisting of stages and some stages may seem like a radical change (transformation from systems to systems) (Van de Ven and Poole 1995). This model is primarily connected to the imminent form, logic, program, or code which drives development change. The evolution model depends on the statistical accumulation of small group events which gradually change to the larger population (Garud and Van de Ven, 2002). The teleological change process seeks to depart from the status quo (Van de Ven and Poole 1995). Dialectical model also incorporates a constructive mode of change (Garud and Van de Ven, 2002). The sequence of thesis and antithesis describe the conflicts and resolutions that may occur occasionally over the course of the organization change process (Garud and Van de Ven, 2002). The resolution is a synthesis which becomes part of the second round of change (Sabherwal and Newman, 2003). All types of change process models are summarized in Table 1 and described below.
9
Table 1: Overview of organizational change process models (from Garud & Van de Ven, 2002) Model Teleological
Model stages Set goals, Implement goals, Satisfaction and Modification
Model concepts Purposeful enactment Social construction Consensus
Definition This model is based on the assumption that change proceeds towards a goal. It assumes that the organization employ purposeful and adaptive stakeholders. By themselves or by interaction with others, they construct an envisioned goal to achieve. Action is taken to reach the goal progression is monitored.
Life cycle
Start-up, Grows, Produce and End
Compliant adaptation to rules and imminent program into or outside of the organization.
Dialectic
Thesis, Antithesis, Conflict, and Synthesis
Confrontation and conflict among pluralistic stakeholders.
Evolution
Variation, Selection and Retention
Resource scarcity, competition, and environmental selection
This model assumes that change is imminent program. The developing entity (system) has to connect imminent form, logic, the program, or code which drive development change. This change will move the entity from a given point of departure toward a subsequent end that is already predetermined in the present state. This model is rooted in the assumption that the organization exists in a pluralistic world of conflict events of opposing forces, or contradictory values that compete with each other for dominance and control of the situations. These oppositions may be internal to an organization (several conflicting goals or interest groups competing for priority) or external to the organization (directions that collide with those of others interests) This model describes that change proceeds through a continuous cycle of variation, selection, and retention. Variations, the creation of novel forms of solutions, are often emerging by blind or random chance. Selection occurs principally through the competition among variations, and the environment selects those forms that optimize or are best suited to the resource base of an environmental niche. Retention involves the forces (including inertia and persistence) that perpetuate and maintain certain organizational forms
10
Strategic organization change issues Ex-ante attempts to weigh positives and negatives and manage trade-offs employing a rational calculus. Strategic choices dictated by an understanding of interdependencies and end-state outcomes as in game model. Context monitoring and matching; Managing transitions and change in critical (inflection) points.
Change as negotiated settlement, strategy; resolution of conflict and tensions with the articulation of higher order constructs to achieve the main goals.
Trial and error adaptation and adoption processes.
2.2.1.
Teleological model
A teleological model views development as a cycle of four concepts: goal formulation, implementation, evaluation and modification based on what was learned by the stakeholder (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). The sequence of four concepts emerges through the purposeful social construction and consensus with the four stages described above (Weick and Quinn, 1999) as summarized in Table 1. ERP literature on implementation can be classified as teleological (Botta-Genoulaz et al., 2005, Dery et al., 2006) and critical success factors (CSFs) are part of a teleological view of ERP implementation (Butler and Fitzgerald 1999, Fortune and White, 2005). Moreover, a significant part of ERP implementation literature is developed and evaluated based on the strategic objectives of the organization which is classified as teleological (Lee and Myers, 2004). Van de Ven and Poole (1995) mentioned that the three steps in teleological model: set the goal for change by observing issues, respond to the observed issues and develop initiatives which are relevant to the goals. According to these three steps the goals of change process are either achieved or not (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). ERP systems implementation is not easy, but can be planned and directed towards set goals (Kraemmerand et al., 2003). However, the main problem with the teleological view is conflict between the logic of the system and the logic of the business (Davenport, 1998), which leads to misalignments between the functionality offered by vendors and organization requirements (Liang and Xue, 2004; Sia and Soh, 2007; Scott and Vessey, 2002; Wei et al., 2005). However, the critics of the teleological view also point out that a singular focus on goals leads to viewing the ERP implementation process as a black box and ignores the fact that the organization can change strategies and goals which may change the implementation (Robey et al., 2002; Lee and Myers, 2004). 2.2.2.
Life cycle model
A life cycle model depicts the process of change in the organizations as progressing through a necessary sequence of stages for organizational change (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). Organizational change stages include a logical sequence to prescribe the specific content of the stages (Garud and Van de Ven, 2002). Each stage has a number of compulsory activities and characteristics which explain issues of change and 11
contribute to the final successful implementation. Life cycle model has concepts (imminent program, regulation and compliant adaptation) and stages (startup, grows, harvest and terminate) which are summarized in Table 1 (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). Moreover, it assumes that change is a function of potential sequential stages “which mean the developing entity has within it an underlying form, logic, program, or code that regulates the process of change and moves the entity from a given point of departure toward a subsequent end that is already determined in the present state” (Garud and Van de Ven, 2002, p.212). From the perspective of the life-cycle model, ERP systems implementation involves a sequence of iterative stages. ERP implementation life cycles include several stages and the life cycle perspective is quite frequently used in ERP implementation research (e.g. Wei et al., 2005) and it is also in combined with a teleological perspective (e.g. Aloini et al., 2007; Nah and Delgado, 2006). The key activities of the life cycle stages includes variations of: building a business case, selecting integration solution and vendor, identifying a project manager, adopting a budget and schedule, software configuration, system integration, testing, data conversion, training, rollout and start-up, bug-fixing and rework, system performance tuning, process and procedural changes, retraining, staffing to handle temporary inefficiencies, maintaining the system, supporting the users, upgrading technology, and maintaining an innovative attitude for the future (Markus and Tanis, 2000). 2.2.3.
Dialectic model
In a dialectical model of change, conflicts emerge because two stakeholders who have opposing views (thesis and antithesis) which needs to be synthesized (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995).
This synthesis action becomes the thesis for the next cycle of a
dialectical process and so on (Sabherwal and Newman, 2003). Confrontation and conflict between stakeholders with opposing views generate the dialectical cycle that dominate the situation of systems change as summarized in Table 1 (Van de Ven and Poole, 2002). Dialectic model has concepts (confrontation and conflict) among pluralistic stakeholders and stages (thesis, antithesis, conflict, and synthesis) which are summarized in Table 1 (Garud and Van de Ven, 2002). This model helps to understand and explain the dynamics of IT development and organization change (Weick and Quinn, 1999). From a dialectical perspective, stability and change are explained by reference to the balance of power between two opposing stakeholders 12
(Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). A contradiction can be viewed as a connection between two opposing aspects of a phenomenon, called thesis and antithesis; where antithesis is the negation of the thesis (Nordhiem, 2011). A thesis may be challenged by an antithesis, and the result of the conflict becomes a synthesis (Sabherwal and Newman, 2003). The two opposite views in the conflict are related and cannot be fully understood without considering each side (Peng and Berkeley, 1999). Van de Ven and Poole, (1995) mentioned that the change occurs when these opposing entities gain sufficient power to confront and engage the status quo. Moreover, contradictions may continue in the organization, maintaining the pluralist or conflicting status quo, or it may result in survival of the thesis or antithesis alone (Sabherwal and Newman, 2003). 2.2.4.
Evolution model
This model views organizational change as the result of cumulative and possible changes due to competition of limited resources (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). Moreover, this model of development consists of a repetitive sequence through a continuous cycle of variation, selection and retention (summarized in Table 1) among stakeholders (Hannan and Freeman, 1989). The competition for scarce environmental resources between stakeholders inhabiting a population generates an evolutionary cycle (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). It is mainly applied and focused on describing development of ERP software by vendors (Kumar & Van Hillegersberg, 2000). This model is less prominent and the change at the level of the organization depends on actions taken to respond to all the needs of individuals’ entities within the organization, which then leads to organizational change over time (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995).
2.3.
Stakeholders involvement in ERP systems ERP change process is complex (Otieno, 2008), and quite expensive (Holst et al., 2008). One reason for the high degree of complexity in ERP change process is the participation of several types of stakeholders in ERP projects. This view is supported by Albadri and Abdullah (2009) who identified multiple stakeholders to be a major factor which may potentially affect ERP systems success. Moreover, a stakeholder is any individual who can affect the ERP implementation or organization’s objectives (Finney, 2011). The engagement of ERP stakeholders is cited as a most influential factor which leads to ERP success (Wang and Chen, 2006) 13
2.3.1.
Types of stakeholders
ERP literature has differing views about stakeholders involved in ERP change process. Some scholars (e.g. Wang and Chen, 2006) have identified two types of stakeholders: internal and external. While other scholars (e.g. Finney, 2011) classified stakeholders into four groups: managers, users, IT staff, and consultants. The external stakeholders are vendors and consultants who help the organization by providing knowledge, training, maintenance, and technical support (Ifinedo, 2008; Thong et al., 1994). External engagement of vendors and consultants who have diverse knowledge and skills (discussed in 2.5) are among the most widely cited positive influences in the success of ERP implementation (Ifinedo, 2008; Wang and Chen 2006). Whereas the internal stakeholders include: top management, project managers, IT staff and ERP systems users who play a significant role in ERP implementation process and outcome (Wong, 2005). Equally important is the influence of internal stakeholders, because internal stakeholders must understand and learn to use the system (Wang and Chen, 2006). These stakeholders are summarized in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Types of stakeholders
14
2.4.
Conflicts in the ERP change process
2.4.1.
Conflict definition
Conflict is “a clash of interest (sometimes escalating to active struggle) between individuals, groups or society” (Sociology Online Dictionary). It is also a persistent phenomenon which affects processes and outcomes of a large number of organizations (Barki and Hartwick, 2001). Smith and McKeen (1992) view conflict as real part of information systems in the implementing organization and a major barrier which affects computerization. They mentioned that conflict appears between information systems and other organization departments. Moreover, some of these conflicts are clearly mentioned by business managers and information system personnel (Smith and McKeen, 1992). For example these conflicts include: lack of trust and understanding related to information systems managers beliefs (users are hostile, business managers feel information systems are not responsive to their needs and system developers do not understand business needs), and frustration and collision with other stakeholders. However, Wong (2005) pointed out that conflicts are good because it is developed out the conflict situation where stakeholders have misunderstanding, where stakeholders differ in what they are seeking for development and where the miscommunication exits between the stakeholders. This view is supported by Damanpour et al. (2006) who pointed out that some conflicts are good because they prevent group thinking which might prevent innovation. Furthermore, understanding conflicts can easily help the organization to develop proper actions and communication which improve the information system project outcomes (Wong, 2005). Additionally, Wang et al. (2006) mentioned that conflicts have adverse effects on the perceived quality of the ERP systems delivered and identify that ERP implementation consultants are important in influencing the perceived ERP system quality. The adverse effect of conflicts can persist through implementation and lower system quality even after implementation (Wang and Chen, 2006). Wong (2005) identified that the most common sources of conflicts involve: manpower resources, equipment and facilities, capital expenditures, cost, technical opinions and trade-offs, priorities of requirements, administrative procedures, scheduling, responsibilities and penalty clashes.
15
2.4.2.
Types of Conflicts
Existing ERP literature reports that a number of conflicts arise during ERP change processes. These are summarized in Table 2. As indicated in this Table, these conflicts are grouped into two categories: technical and stakeholder. It appears that ERP change process conflicts are common in most ERP implementation projects. Technical conflicts are conflicts that are related to the implementation process. For example, some studies (e.g. Sia and Soh 2007; Soh and Sia 2005; Soh et al. 2003; Themistocles et al., 2001) mentioned that change process conflicts occur during ERP implementation when requirements of implementing organizations do not match the structures of the ERP systems and the structures of the implementing organization. This type of conflict can be solved either by modifying the package or changing the organization practice to fit the package (Soh and Sia 2005). However, workarounds are developed when implementing organizations decide not to modify their ERP systems or change their business practices (Robey et al., 2002). Stakeholder conflicts are conflicts that include task priority and relationship conflicts (Liu et al. 2011). In each stage of organizational change several views are expressed by various stakeholders related to system change (Liu et al. 2011). Miao et al. (2010) indicate the effectiveness of dysfunctional conflicts affect learning performance and examine the relationship between the conflicting parties during systems change. For example, some studies (e.g. Boonstra, 2006, Allen, 2005, Robey et al., 2002) mentioned that stakeholder conflicts occur during objectives and priorities setting which includes rarely agree on a set of common aims, learning process and conflicts over evaluation fairness. Opposing views can occur between stakeholders and some contradicting opinion seems more important than others (Allen, 2005). Each contradictory view should be analyzed in detail to illustrate the different interests of each stakeholder and identify conflicts sides (Dahlbom and Mathiassen, 1993). Moreover, conflicts, negotiations, compensations, or compromises should be considered because that might help to understand and contribute to resolve the conflict and support further development (Meissonier and Houze, 2010). Table 2 shows the contradictions/conflicts literature associated with ERP change process. It can be observed that the focus of the studies (listed in Table 2) is on conflicts encountered during the initial implementation stage of ERP change process. An exception is the work of Soh and Sin (2005) who identified some conflicts (e.g. 16
misalignment
between
package
and
organization)
during the
ERP
post-
implementation change process. However, these conflicts are similar to those reported for the initial ERP implementation change process. Therefore, we will initially use ERP change process conflicts during initial implementation as a basis to investigate the post-implementation stage ERP change process conflicts which have not been adequately discussed in the existing ERP literature.
17
Table 2: Summary of ERP conflicts (literature analysis) Literature source Alsulami, 2010
Nordheim, 2011 Nordheim, 2008 Sia and Soh 2007
Nordheim and Tero, 2006 Boonstra, 2006 Soh and Sia 2005
Contradictions/Conflicts
Stage
Conflict between technical and business stakeholders; Conflict between internal consultants (domain experts) and external consultants; Conflict between IT department and consultants; Conflict between business people and ERP vendors. Between an as-is implementation of standard software, and an implementation fulfilling the organizational requirements of solution integration and user experience This study describes a case where the corporate user representative played a crucial role in reaching a synthesis in the dialectics of adaptation. Imposed-deep misalignments (e.g. the package did not support the commitment of funds prior to purchases) Imposed-surface misalignments (e.g. stringent security required ensuring non-disclosure of sensitive information when sending out purchase orders) Voluntary-deep misalignments (e.g. Hospital A was the inability of the package to accommodate its ‘double decking’ bed utilisation routine) Voluntary-surface misalignments (e.g. Hospital A required more detailed bed management reports, while Hospital B required the printing of premature baby labels) Resolving job and governance conflicts.
Implementation Implementation
Conflicts type Stakeholder Technical
Stakeholders involve in conflicts ERP consultant ,IT experts, ERP vendor, Business people, IT department
Implementation Implementation Implementation Implementation
Technical Stakeholder Technical Stakeholder
ERP vendors, Users, IT department, Consultant
Implementation
Stakeholder
Users, Management
Implementation
Stakeholder
Users, Consultants, Vendors, Systems Developers,
Implementation
Technical
Implementation
Technical
Implementation
Technical
Implementation
Stakeholder
Stakeholders conflicting objectives and priorities which rarely agree on a set of common aims Misalignments between package and organization Misalignments arise from the developer's context differing from the organization's context (The developer's context is reflected in the structures embedded in the package and the organization's context is reflected in its structures)
Implementation
Stakeholder
Post – implementation Post – implementation
Technical Stakeholder
Top management, ERP Vendors, Consultants,Users Project managers, Consultants, Users, Top managment System developer, Users, Top management, Vendor, Consultants (Continue …)
18
Literature source Nordheim 2007 Sabherwal and Newman 2003 Robey et al. 2002 Besson and Rowe 2001
Soh et al. 2003
Allen 2005
Meissonier and Houze 2010
Contradictions/Conflicts
Stage
Conflict of commonality and variability Conflict of organizational change Dialectic of persistence and change of enterprise systems development
Implementation Implementation Implementation
Conflicts type Stakeholder Stakeholder Stakeholder
Dialectic of learning process (e.g. learning the new ERP systems and extracting business benefits from legacy systems) A dialectical process due to the lack of perceived flexibility by the stakeholders; A teleological process view, where stakeholders feel they have more flexibility and where they try to take advantage of technological effects that they feel they can control Integration and differentiation; Process orientation and functional orientation; Flexibility and restrictiveness; Package domain specifics and organization domain specifics; Conflicts over work priorities; Conflicts over dependency on the commitments of others; Conflicts over evaluation fairness. Conflict between management and employees Conflict about the system; Expected conflict mode of resolution (avoidance style); Conflicts about the new professional skills required; Socio-political oriented value conflict; and Conflicts due to a loss of power
Implementation
Stakeholder
Implementation
Stakeholder
Implementation
Stakeholder
Implementation Implementation Implementation Implementation Implementation Implementation Implementation Implementation Implementation Implementation Implementation Implementation Implementation
Technical Stakeholder Technical Stakeholder Stakeholder Stakeholder Stakeholder Stakeholder Technical Stakeholder Stakeholder Stakeholder Stakeholder
19
Stakeholders involve in conflicts Vendor ,Customers, Consultants Top management, Vendors, Users, Project managers, Top management, Consultant, Users Senior management ERP Consultants, Users, ERP vendors
ERP vendor, Finance department, ERP consultants, Users Accounting department, Users, Clients, Planners Organization Computer department employees, Administrative employees
2.5.
Role of ERP consultants Existing ERP literature highlights various important roles that typical ERP consultants are expected to play to facilitate ERP implementation in organizations. The term of “Role” comes from sociological concept (Biddle, 1986). It is defined as “a particular set of norms that is organized about a function” (Bates & Harvey, 1975, p.106); and “a comprehensive pattern for behaviour and attitude” (Tuner, 1979, p.124). In this study, the term ‘role’ is used to mean the functions performed by an individual ERP consultant during ERP change process and it is different from skills which refer to ability of consultants to perform a functions related to ERP change process. A review of the IT/ERP literature suggests that these roles can be classified in two broad categories: (a) positive roles (Metrejean & Stocks, 2011) and (b) negative roles (Haines and Goodhue, 2003). Positive roles refer to consultants roles which facilitate the success of ERP implementation (Metrejean & Stocks, 2011).
ERP consultants play a role in
providing implementing organizations with a standardized solution for each of the business problems. These roles include: knowledge transfer, training, project management, conflict resolution, selecting appropriate ERP systems, and technical support (Metrejean & Stocks, 2011). The influence of ERP consultants’ positive roles is very important in the implementation process to overcome the difficulties of understanding the requirements of their business by offering solutions or explanations for particular issues (Skok and Legge, 2001). Negative roles represent consultants roles which increase the rate of ERP implementation failure (Haines and Goodhue, 2003). Despite all the positive roles it is important for implementing organizations to be aware of some negative roles of ERP consultants which may threaten the strategic objective of the implementing organizations. According to Haines and Goodhue (2003), it is important for organizations to be aware of potential negative roles ERP consultants can play during ERP implementation process and therefore these organizations should avoid assigning consultants to managerial and strategic positions. Organizations do need to balance the role consultants play within the ERP implementation process by ensuring that there is also an organizational implementer taking on managerial and strategic role (Haines and Goodhue, 2003).
20
A taxonomy of ERP consultants’ roles initially proposed by Champion et al. (1990) for IT consultants which was later extended
by Chen et al. (2008) for ERP
consultants. According to Champion et al. (1990), nine different roles can be played by IT consultants. These are shown in the form of a grid model in Figure 3. The model uses “consultant responsibility for client growth” and “consultant responsibility for project results” as the vertical and horizontal axis respectively. Both “consultant responsibility for growth” and “consultant responsibility for results” identify the specific consulting roles appropriate for the mix of services the consultant is expected to provide.
Figure 3: Typical Role Statements from the Consulting Role Grid (Champion, Kiel, & Mclendon, 1990)
Theses nine different roles (Counselor, Coach, Partner, Facilitator, Teacher, Modeler, Reflective observer, Technical adviser, and Hand-on expert) are divided into three levels of intervention (low, moderate and high) and defined by Champion et al. (1990) as shown in Table 3.
21
Table 3: Definition of Champion et al’s nine roles Types role Counselor
Coach Partner
Facilitator Teacher
Modeler
Reflective
Technical adviser Hand-on expert
2.6.
Definition of role The organization uses the consultants to clarity, set organization’s goals, and motivation. In this case, the consultants are responsible to perform all implementation tasks. The consultants have no direct responsibility to perform tasks. The consultants may test the systems performance and provide feedback. The consultants and organization have the capacity to perform the tasks and both share high responsibility for the project results. In this case the organization has to do some tasks and learn from consultants. The consultants role is to help the organization in process-oriented activities such as problem analysis, agenda building, planning, and leading meetings. The consultants are removed from the project. The consultants are concerned with general performance of the systems rather than performance in the specific situation. The consultants are responsible for the results in the project, but the organization has the main responsibility to build their own capability. In this case the implementing organization has to perform the task in future change process. The organization undertakes most tasks and is mostly responsible for results. In this case the consultants have the least responsibility. The main task for the consultants is to give limited feedback and impressions. The consultants have moderate responsibility for the project results and are used as back-up. In this case the organization uses the consultants as experts during task performance. The consultants undertake most or all tasks on behalf of the organization to produce good results. In this case the organization may need the expertise of consultants again to perform future changes.
Characteristic of consultants: IT consultants VS ERP consultants In order to appreciate the characteristics of ERP consultants, it is necessary to develop an understanding about the broader attributes of IT consultants. This is because many ERP consultants are more likely to have played the role of IT consultants in the past. Hence, a brief review of IT consultants’ attributes is provided before discussing the specific characteristics of ERP consultants. Existing IT literature on IT consultants can be divided into two categories. One group of studies identified some essential attributes of IT consultants but do not offer the classification of these skills. Another group has provided a classification of IT consultant’s skills. A summary of the studies classified each group is provided in Table 4.
22
Table 4: IT/ERP consultants’ skills classification (literature analysis)
Group one
Category No Classification
Groups
Classification of consultants skills
Group two
Literature sources
Skills
Chen et al. (2008)
• Negotiation and Interaction skills
Wang et al. (2006)
• Systematic investigation skills
Haines & Goodhue (2003) Thong et al. (1994)
• Mentoring skills
Mische (2000) Arnoudse et al. (1989)
• Communication skills Classified IT consultants’ skills into four sets: technical skills, human interaction skills, business context skills, and consulting framework skills.
Yap et al. (1992)
Metrejean & Stocks (2011)
Focus Is not about classifying skills of IT consultant. These studies have mentioned certain skills while discussing other aspects of IT/ERP consultants.
• Consultants' effectiveness
Classified IT consultants’ skills into three sets: consultant experience, consultant capability and consultant effectiveness. Classified IT and ERP consultants’ skills into eight sets: technical skills and knowledge, human interaction and communication skills, business context skills, consulting skills, objectivity, experience with ERP implementations, commitment to quality, and management ability.
23
These studies have discussing IT consultants’ skills classification directly. Arnodse et al. (1989) and Yap et al. (1992) did not mention the criteria to examine IT consultants, whereas Meterejean & Stocks (2011) mentioned 18 IT consultants characteristics and examine whether certain characteristics possessed by ERP consultants contribute more to their effectiveness than other characteristics.
A review of group 2 studies suggests that scholars differ in their opinions about the types of skills an IT/ERP consultant should have. In their study, Metrejean & Stocks (2011) have comprehensively identified 8 types of skills. However, some of the skills are closely related. Therefore, an alternative classification is proposed for this study. This is shown in Table 4. According to this new classification, a typical IT consultant should have skills in five broad areas. It also includes the generic skills set common between IT consultants and ERP consultants. It appears that the skills set for both types of consultants are common in nature. This observation is supported by Metrejean & Stocks, (2011) who suggest that IT consultants’ characteristics should also be present in ERP consultants. It also becomes obvious that IT consultants should have a range of effective skill sets in different areas. This is because: a) consultants’ characteristics are considered a critical factor for the success of IT systems implementation (Nah et al., 2001; Thong et al., 1994; Yap et al., 1992); b) increase the level of trust which can lead to better relationship between consultants and client organizations (Chen et al., 2008); and c) help the users and implementing organization to understand the expressions of both sides during the consulting process by providing specific information about related services to fill the gap between technological opportunity and user needs (Bessant and Rush, 1993). Despite the similarity in the skills set between IT and ERP consultants (as indicated in Table 5). ERP consultants are also required to have some additional skills which are not common for IT consultants. For example, according to Wang and Chen (2006) and Chen et al., (2008), ERP consultants must have knowledge about characteristics of a specific industry within which the client organization operate. Such knowledge of consultants can help client organizations to configure an appropriate ERP system. Moreover, consultants help the organization to train users to fully exploit the technology with knowledge inside the organization and help the clients to understand these new technologies.
24
Table 5: IT and ERP consultants’ characteristic Broad areas of required expertise Personal Skill
Technical skills
Business skills
Description of the skill areas
people skills which help the consultant to communicate with other related stakeholders during implementation process
A broad knowledge of a variety of technologies in IT which include programming and ERP systems different functionality Ability which gained to understand business process modifications and specific industry operations.
Characteristic (skills)
Project management skills
Ability to manage and monitor the implementation project of the client organization.
Methodological skills
Ability to perform analysis and build a theoretical model which guide the implementing organization to make proper recommendation
Negotiation and interaction skills (Chen, 2008) Human interaction and communication skills (Arnoudse et al., 1989; Thong et al. ,1994; Mische, 2000) Personality and chemistry (Mische, 2000) Objectivity (Mische, 2000) Mediation skills (Wang and Chen, 2006) Technical skills (Arnoudse et al., 1989;Thong et al. ,1994, Metrejean & Stocks, 2011) Consultant technical background knowledge and experience in ERP sysems (Mische, 2000) Systematic investigation skills (Wang et al., 2006) Business process reengineer skills (Thong et al. ,1994, Metrejean & Stocks, 2011) Commitment to quality (Mische, 2000) The ability to determine the organization’s need and expectation (Yap et al., 1992; Mische, 2000) Understand the specific industries operations (Wang and Chen, 2006) The ability to manage ERP implementation (Metrejean & Stocks, 2011) Management skills (Haines and Goodhue, 2003) Mentoring skills for ERP implementation (Haines and Goodhue, 2003) Consultants framework skills (Thong et al. ,1994)
25
IT consultant
ERP consultant
√ √
√ √
√ √ X √
√ √ √ √
√
√
X √
√ √
√ √
√ √
X
√
X
√
√ X
√ √
√
√
2.7.
Dialectic perspective and ERP
2.7.1.
Fundamentals of dialectic perspective
Dialectic perspective is defined as a useful tool to understand a situation of change (Bjerknes, 1992; Israel, 1979). Dialectic perspective is based on Hegelian (1949) assumption of a pluralistic world arriving at the truth by stating a thesis, developing a contradictory antithesis, and combining and resolving them into a coherent synthesis. However, Van de Ven and Poole (1995) identify dialectics as a process model that leads to organizational change. Moreover, Dahlbom and Mathiassen (1993) used the dialectic perspective to explain how a systems developer can view differing viewpoints made during systems development. They identified that system developers can focus on technology alone or the human process or consider these as potential opposing views that becomes the grounds for actions. This perspective is thinking based on contradictions which represent the key elements of a dialectic view (thesis, antithesis, conflicts, and synthesis) during systems development (Mathiassen and Nielsen, 1989). Robey and Boudreau (1999) mentioned that the dialectic perspective, in particular, captures the essence of opposing views which arise from conflict between opposing stakeholders. Robey and Boudreau (1999, p. 4) suggested one main question should be answered through a dialectical perspective "What are these opposing forces which can arise from the conflicts/contradictions?". One potential conflict comes from technology because of the dualistic nature of technology itself (Robey and Boudreau, 1999). A dialectic perspective enables researchers to make sense of a dynamic situation of organizational change (Myer, 1994).
Myer (1994) mentioned that different
stakeholders’ views may confuse many development issues which are often contradictory. Myer (1994) identified the main advantages of the dialectic approach are to describe real complexity in organizations (social, cultural and political systems) and enables researchers to look at information systems implementation from many different perspectives (Myer, 1994). Moreover, Keil (1991) proposed a model of implementation based on organizational problem-solving which involved mutual adaptation. Keil argues that the dialectic approach, based on problem-solving, is more realistic because it explicitly considers both technology and the organization and it provides a holistic and complete picture to understanding the problem.
26
2.7.2.
Use of dialectic perspective in IS/IT discipline
Dialectic model provides insights into ERP change process; the dialectic approach does not treat the relationships between organizations and IS as determinate, causal connections (Sabherwal and Newman, 2003). It examines the relationship as emerging through social construction by individuals and groups of stakeholders (Sabherwal and Newman, 2003). The mutual adaptation process between the technology and the organization, and the outcomes of the process are difficult to predict (Wei et al., 2005). Therefore a technologically deterministic depiction of ERP systems advanced by consultants and vendors, amounts to little more than a false promise (Grant et al., 2006). Grant et al. (2006) identified that the top management of organizations were aware about the potential benefits of implementing ERP systems; they felt the ERP system not better than the legacy systems which was replaced and better to reject the ERP systems and build their own in-house system. Hirschheim and Klein (1989) recognize that conflict is a natural part of information systems development and therefore argue that using a dialectic perspective is an important approach. This approach leads to totally different ways of thinking in terms of systems design features, systems implementation strategies, user satisfaction, and system use (Hirschheim and Klein, 1989). However, several questions should be considered during dialectic process on systems developing as suggested by Dahlbom and Mathiassen (1993). These questions are: Should the systems change? Should the systems be organized in a different ways? Should the systems developers receive further training? Should additional systems developer with wide skills be employed? And should management and users realize that their expectations and requirements cannot met. The following section describes how dialectics has been applied in ERP implementation research. 2.7.3.
Reflection of dialectical perspective for ERP change process
Dialectic approach is a process model which leads to organization change (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995) and can be used to explain how a systems developer can view systems development (Mathiassen and Nielsen, 1989). Moreover, it has been utilized in information system to understand systems development and has been applied to ERP implementation (Robey et al., 2002). In ERP implementation, opposing opinions can arise when the ERP system does not fulfill the business requirements and requires customization. Robey and Boudreau (1999) suggested that taking a dialectical 27
approach in implementing ERP systems because it explicitly recognize the opposing sides and supports the implementation stakeholders to manage the tensions creatively. For example, one group of scholars (Sia and Soh, 2007; Soh and Sia, 2005; Allan, 2005; Soh et al., 2003) has applied a dialectic conceptualization to study ERP systems functionality conflicts. According to them, ERP change process conflicts occur between the features of an enterprise system package and the specific requirements of implementing organization. Moreover, some conflicts occur between the structures of software and the structures of the implementing organization which can be solved either by modifying the package or changing the organization practice (Soh and Sia 2005). Whereas another study reports that dialectics of learning (Robey et al., 2002) occurs between old knowledge related to practices associated with legacy systems and new knowledge related to the use of enterprise systems during implementation (Nordheim, 2008). Using a dialectic perspective Sabherwal and Newman (2003) identified four main stages for studying change processes. These four stages are: identify what is being changed; understand the change and identify ways of addressing it; examine the change and recognize the dynamic nature of various stakeholders’ relative preference for change. The implementing organizations have to recognize these four concepts: thesis, antithesis, conflict and synthesis (as shown in Figure 4) to fulfill the previous four stages (Nordheim, 2011). A thesis is an intellectual proposition, antithesis is simply the negation of the thesis or a reaction to the proposition, synthesis is about solving the conflict between the thesis and antithesis by reconciling their common truths, and forming a new proposition (Sabherwal and Newman, 2003). However, a contradiction does not necessarily bring a new synthesis with a novel idea that may become the thesis which can then again have an antithesis and so on (Nordheim, 2009). An observed contradiction may continue in the organization, maintaining the pluralistic or conflicting status quo, or it may lead to the survival of the thesis or antithesis alone (Nordheim, 2011). Moreover, the synthesis represents the underlying dialectic explanations (Sabherwal and Newman, 2003). Stakeholder views are the result of conflict in values that are competing for dominance in an unstable situation that usually occurs between two opposing stakeholders (thesis and antithesis) and leads to synthesis or solution (Nordheim and Tero, 2006). Moreover, Nordheim (2008) describes the importance of user 28
representation in dialectics process. User’s involvement in dialectic nature of processes helps the organization to reach a synthesis. He mentioned that the understanding the conflict situation depend on the level of corporate user representative during dialectic of adaptation. The project manager needs a strong corporate user representative to express the requirements of business units when a dialectic enterprise systems adaptation occurs (Nordheim, 2008).
Figure 4: The dialectic approach (Sabherwal and Newman, 2003)
29
3. RESEARCH MODEL DEVELOPMENT This study proposes a conceptual research model which serves as the theoretical foundation to address the research questions. Drawing on the literature review, an initial conceptual model (Figure 5) is proposed which is developed based on two arguments: a) stakeholders are involved during post-implementation ERP change process undertaken within the context of an ERP implementing organization, b) these stakeholders have different levels of influence, participation, and expectations of outcomes during ERP change process. Drawing on the model and the background literature analysis, a total of four constructs are included in the model. These are: ERP change process; conflicts; ERP stakeholders and ERP consultant. The dialectic perspective is chosen for this research as a theoretical lens to explain the role(s) ERP consultants play in managing conflicts during ERP change process. ERP change process is a conceptualization of system implementation that explains organizational change during ERP implementation. During the journey of ERP change process, an implementing organization faces several conflicts. These conflicts are generated by the engagement of many stakeholders who affect the ERP change process by expressing different views. This engagement is among the most widely cited positive influences which lead to successful diffusion of enterprise wide information systems like ERP (Wang and Chen, 2006). Miao et al. (2010) mentioned that ERP change process conflicts affect learning performance and influence the relationship between the stakeholders involved during ERP change process. As a result, these conflicts influence the development teams and change process in positive or negative way (Miao et al., 2010). These conflicts (which are grouped into technical and ERP stakeholders) were discussed in 2.4. The dialectic perspective (Bjerknes, 1992; Israel, 1979) is used in this study as an appropriate theoretical lens to explain the role of consultants in managing conflicts during ERP change process. The dialectic perspective makes sense of conflicts by conceptualizing them as opportunities for actions and improvement. Moreover, this perspective potentially provides valuable and rich insights into understanding the broader ERP change process phenomenon. Conflicts arising during ERP change process of implementing organization require the engagement of ERP consultants who can play a major role to mediate technical and stakeholder conflicts. Doom et al. (2010) stated that, there are several stakeholders who mediate conflicts with ERP consultants as a key player in mediating and resolving conflicts. The importance of involving ERP consultants is to mediate the conflicts which in turn help 30
organizations to realize the benefits during ERP change process. This view is supported by Wang and Chen (2006) who mentioned that the consultants should be involved to learn more about conflict situations and to apply how to negotiate these conflicts.
Figure 5: A conceptual research model
4. RESEARCH APPROACH The majority of information systems studies have been carried out in two broad philosophical traditions: positivist research and interpretivist research (Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991). These traditions are widely used in the information systems discipline. The positivist tradition is based on an ontology in which an objective physical and social world is assumed to exist independently of a human’s knowledge of it and to contain regularities that can be discovered and investigated (Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991). The positivist tradition typically uses deductive logic and is concerned with the empirical testability of theories in order to discover the general principle or laws which govern the natural and social world (Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991; Neuman, 2003). In contrast, the interpretivist tradition is based on an ontology in which reality is considered subjective (Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991). Based on this tradition, the study of a social phenomenon requires an understanding of the social world which people have constructed and which they reproduce through their continuing activities (Blaikie, 1993). The 31
interpretivist tradition explains social phenomena through interpreting the meanings that people assign to them. Research processes generally follow three stages: theory building, theory testing and theory refinement (Neuman, 2003). Theory building involves exploration of concepts and phenomena and leads to formulation of research questions. Theory testing involves those research studies that are intended to address clearly formulated research questions. Theory refinement, builds on the results of the previous phases to refine and improve the adequacy of initial theories. Finally, three types of research can be identified: exploratory, descriptive and explanatory (Neuman, 2003). Exploratory research is directed towards understanding a topic on which little understanding has been developed by discovering specific variables and refining initial questions or hypotheses for future research. The purpose of such research is to gain familiarity with the subject domain for a more rigorous investigation at a later stage (Hussey and Hussey, 1997). It is in general useful for theory building. Normally, qualitative methods such as exploratory case studies, literature analysis, and observations are employed in exploratory research (Yin, 1994). Descriptive research is used for describing and analysing in great detail organizational practices (Neuman, 2003). It is used particularly for case study research (Yin, 1994). Explanatory research aims at explaining why things happen. A research project is considered explanatory when the description of particular issues is already available and the researcher is attempting to find reasons for them (Neuman, 2003).
4.1.
Nature of this study In light with the discussion on research traditions, research stages, and research types provided in the previous section, we now classify this study to be interpretive, theory building and exploratory in nature. A justification is provided below.
4.1.1.
Interpretive nature of this study
The majority of information systems studies as suggested by Orlikowski & Baroudi (1991, p. 6) are “concerned with the ongoing relation among information technology, individuals and organizations”. Most studies are dominated by positivist paradigms. Since many IS researchers position themselves in positivism, with roots in natural sciences, their studies can provide outcomes, but they are less helpful in providing an explanation behind the outcomes (Kaplan & Maxwell, 2005). This reason has led to 32
IS scholars gaining a partial view on the IS phenomena being studied as the “quest for universal laws leads to a disregard for historical and contextual conditions as possible triggers of events or influences on human actions” (Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991, p. 12) in IS implementation and use within organizational contexts. As a result, Orlikowski & Baroudi (1991) proposed alternative philosophical assumptions in IS studies which is called an interpretive paradigm to increase understanding of the social world constructed by human actions and interactions. This study will be positioned in the philosophical paradigm of interpretivist which posits that reality is subjective and constructed by human interactions and environment. By using the interpretive theoretical perspective this study will aim to understand reality. Goldkuhl (2012) suggests that the interpretive theoretical perspective as essential paradigm to interpreting subjective meaning produced by humans. The understanding of the interpretive study as suggest by Orlikowski & Baroudi (1991, p. 12) is that “People create and associate their own subjective and inter-subjective meanings as they interact with world around them. Interpretive researchers thus attempt to understand phenomena through accessing the meanings that participants assign to them”. Interpretive study assumes that social construction, for example language, shared meaning, consciousness, and documents, produce knowledge of reality and they produce different meanings for different human actions as well as to researchers (Klein & Myers, 1999; Lee, 1991). As a consequence, this study will argue that understanding the social construction requires knowledge of how practices and meaning are constructed and informed by humans through an interpretive paradigm rather than a positivist one. This require the researcher to be engaged closely to obtain valid evidence about the phenomenon without requiring defining dependent and independent variables prior this research. This study will be concerned with the complex world and making sense during the situations as argued by Kaplan & Maxwell (2005) and Walsham (2006). The research questions are will guide the exploration of central phenomena as suggested by Cresswell (2009). The interpretive paradigm also provides opportunities to understand human interaction in social and organizational context and is able to give deep understanding into information systems phenomena (e.g. Walsham, 1995, 2006) within a single ERP 33
post-implementation change process case study organization.
Adopting an
interpretivist stance can help the researcher to understand the thoughts and actions of all ERP stakeholders (including consultants) in inherent conflicts, which is a social construct, during ERP change process within ERP implementing organizational context. Moreover, the seven principles suggested by Klein and Myers (1999) will be followed in this study (Appendix 1). 4.1.2.
Exploratory nature of this study
This study is considered exploratory because inadequate understanding exists about the consultants’ role in mediating conflicts during ERP post-implementation change process. Moreover, consultants’ role in ERP change process has not been thoroughly investigated by scholars and is poorly understood. Hence, this study seeks to explore the concept of ERP post-implementation change process from various stakeholder viewpoints using dialectic perspective. 4.1.3.
Theory building nature of this study
This study involves developing a conceptual model (which represents theory building stage) in order to comprehend conflicts and how those conflicts are mediated by consultants during ERP post-implementation change process. In doing so, we expect to discover new issues associated with conflicts mediation. This aspect has not been previously reported in the ERP literature.
4.2.
Selection of research approach Two research approach in IS (quantitative and qualitative) are commonly used in IT research to gain familiarity with research issues. Quantitative methods typically involve surveys and experiments (Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991). In contrast, qualitative methods include case studies, action research, and ethnography among others. Qualitative methods act as an instrument of data collection and focus on the ‘meaning of the words’ expressed by participants (Creswell, 1998). To address the research questions of this study, we have chosen the qualitative approach. This is because a qualitative approach is more suitable to investigate a relatively unexplored research concern (in this case, the conflicts and the role of consultants in mediating conflicts) as it provides rich insights from multiple stakeholders’ perspective. Our view is supported by Myers (1997) who recommended the use of qualitative approach to investigate less understood but complex IS issues.
34
To address the research questions, this study will choose an in-depth case study method. Case study focuses on gaining maximum understanding of certain phenomenon such as problems, politics, activities and relationships (Stake, 2006). As suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994), a case study’s selection should support indepth learning and it should provide information richness. In the selection stage of a case, Stake (2006, p. 23,) indicates that the researcher should consider answering questions: such as “Does the case provide diversity across the context? And, does the case provide good opportunities to learn about the complexity and context?”. This means that a case study should provide opportunities to the researcher to gain more knowledge and experience based on the theory being studied.
4.3.
Target participants of this study This study will be achieved by focusing on ERP change process in one upgrading/maintenance organization. This case will be study used as a basis to understand the role of consultants in mediating conflicts during post-implementation ERP change process. One organization with a single ERP implementation experience will be chosen and a number of ERP stakeholders (internal and external) will be interviewed.
4.4.
Unit of analysis Determining a unit of analysis in any research project is dependent on the research focus and should be determined before embarking on the research. A unit of analysis can be individual, groups or the entire organization (Benbasat et al., 1987). In ERP implementing organizations, there are multiple stakeholders each of them having their own unique characteristics and own understanding related to specific issues. The unit of analysis for this study is an “individual ERP project” undertaken within an organization. Different ERP stakeholders will be chosen from participating organization (who has an involvement with the ERP project) will be interviewed. The interviews aim to share their views about the conflicts they encounter and the roles they play in mediating those conflicts arising during the ERP change process. In doing so, these ERP stakeholders will also be required to describe their perceptions about the dialectic nature of the ERP change process.
4.5.
Sources of data In studying how consultants manage ERP conflicts during ERP change process, the researcher needs to understand how the people perceived the technology and 35
viewpoints held during implementation in the organizations (Heeks& Bailur, 2007). This view supports the researcher to collect data through multiple means: observation, interviews and documentation (Walsham, 2006). All data collection sources will be considered as evidence that support the credibility and richness of research findings and provide the opportunity for triangulations (Cresswell & Miller, 2000). Observation is one qualitative research characteristic (Kaplan & Dochon, 1998) it is about “hanging around” (Makkula & Sormunen, 1998, p.4) and watching everything happening in the organizations (Dingwall, 2007). The observation helps the researcher to deeply understand and describe the phenomenon (Stake, 1995) which supports the researcher to formulate further cases of analysis and reporting. Interviews are important for gathering primary data for this research and it is a key way to examine the participant interpretation (Walsham, 2006). Semi-structured interviews with ERP stakeholders will be used for data collection using open-ended questions as suggested by Yin (1981). The interviews aim at collecting detailed and frank responses from ERP implementation stakeholders. Interviewees will be granted sufficient time to respond in order to facilitate in depth responses. In some instances; more than one meeting will be conducted with interviewees to record their views. Follow-up phone calls along with e-mails will also be used to seek further clarifications or information (if needed). All information provided via e-mails and through additional meetings will be added to the original document of the interviewees. Interview data will be transcribed and consolidated. Drawing on the literature review, an interview protocol will be developed to guide the interview. Questions will focus on the conflicts which were faced during ERP change process (Appendix 2). This also involves asking certain questions that are aimed at identifying new conflicts and role of consultant in managing conflicts during ERP change process which have not yet been reported in the existing literature. Studying written material from the participating organization will be an important source to findings which support the primary data. Benbasat et al. (1987) mentioned that the written material (documentation) can produce valuable sources of qualitative data which can be collected throughout the interviews. The written material might includes annual reports, administrative documents, websites, emails and texts.
36
4.6.
Research ethics This research project will involve interviews with several participants. Ethics approval will be sought from Monash University Ethics committee, an ethics approval will be obtained before the actual interviews are conducted to ensure that this research is conducted in an ethical manner. The approval will enable the researcher to conduct interviews with the participating ERP stakeholders.
4.7.
Data analysis Data analysis is about evaluating data using various strategies to find relationships that may exist related to the research questions (Dooley, 2002). However, the researcher’s perspectives will open the possible emergence of new issues during data analysis as suggested by Strauss & Corbin (1998) which requires from the researcher to treat with data “as the ground on which the findings are bases” (Polkinghorne, 2005, p. 138). Qualitative data are “sources of well-grounded, rich descriptions and explanations of process in identifiable context” as pointed out by Miles & Huberman (1994, p. 1). Data analysis is challenging process in this research because of the wide range of data types and characteristics. The challenges of qualitative research data analysis has been addressed by Golden-Biddle & Locke (2006). Data consists of a variety of forms such as interviews, documents from various stakeholders, notes and emails which require a lot of effort from the researcher to structure the data in a proper manner to enable analysis. Data analysis starts as soon as the research begins and continues till the end of the research (Kaplan & Maxwell, 2005). In the early stages of data analysis the researcher might gain insights which support him to refine the conceptual framework (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The analysis of the data in this study will be based on a grounded-theory approach, where stages of coding will be followed by iterations of reflection (Strauss & Corbin’s 1998), conceptualization and review (Urquhart et al., 2010). The data analysis will be done through three iterations (open coding, axial coding and selective coding) broadly following Strauss & Corbin’s (1998) coding stages and Urquhart et al. (2010) conceptualization process. This strategy will help the researcher to derive thematic categories from the data by constantly comparing and re-comparing the data from the various sources (Cresswell, 2012, Gallier & Huang, 2012).
37
4.8.
Validity For this study, those seven principles (as shown in Appendix 1) which were proposed by Klein & Myers (1999) will be adopted to address validity issues. All interviews will be transcribed and the interview transcripts will be sent back to the interviewees for verification. This does mean the researcher taking back the raw transcript to check the accuracy (Cresswell, 2009) which in turn helps improve validity. This step can involve conducting follow-up interviews with the interviewees to allow them to comment in findings. The researcher will spend a prolonged time in analyzing the transcript which develops an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon under study (Cresswell, 2009). The more time a researcher spends the more accurate will be the findings (Creswell, 2009). These ways ensures that the data is reliable and accurately captured the opinions of the interviewees.
5. PROPOSED PROJECT PLAN Tasks
2012
2013
2014
2015
Sem1 Sem2 Sem1 Sem2 Sem1 Sem2 Sem1 Sem2 Literature review Write up the research proposal Publications Confirmation candidature
x
x
x
x
x x
x x
Apply for ethic approval Interviews validating guidelines Data gathering Mid-seminar Data analysis Final-seminar Writing and reviewing thesis submission
38
x
6. REFERENCES 1. Abernathy, W. and Clark, K 1985, “Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction", Research Policy, Vol.14, pp.3-22. 2. Aladwani, A. 2001, "Change management strategies for successful ERP implementation", Business Process Management Journal, Vol.7, No.3, pp. 266-275. 3. Albadri, F. and Salam, A. 2009, “ERP training and evaluation: ERP life-cycle approach to end-users characterization and competency building in the context of oil & gas company”, IBIMA business review, Vol.3. 4. Al-Mashari, M. and Al-Mudimigh, A. 2003, "ERP implementation: lessons from a case study" Information Technology & People, Vol.16, No.1, pp. 21-33. 5. Al-Mudimigh, A. 2007, “The role and impact of business process management in enterprise systems implementation”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol.13, No.6, pp.866 - 874. 6. Aloini, D., Dulmin, R., and
Mininno, V. 2007, “Risk management in ERP project
introduction: Review of the literature”, Information and Management, Vol.44, pp.547–567. 7. Alsulami, M. 2009, Understanding ERP Implementation Challenges: A Consultants' Perspective, (Master dissertation, Monash University). 8. Arnoudse, D., Ouellette L., and Whalen J. 1989, Consulting Skills for Information Professionals, Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin. 9. Barki, H., and Hartwick, J. 2001, “Interpersonal conflict and its management in information systems development”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp.195-228. 10. Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D., and Mead, M. 1987, “The case research strategy in studies of information systems”, MIS Quarterly, Vol.11, No.3, pp.369-386. 11. Bessant, J. and Rush, H. 1995, “Building bridges for innovation: the role of consultants in technology transfer”, Research Policy, Vol. 24 No.1. pp. 97–115. 12. Besson, P. and Rowe, F. 2001, ‘ERP project dynamics and enacted dialogue: perceived understanding, perceived leeway, and the nature of task-related conflicts’, The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp.47–66. 13. Bjerknes, G. 1992, “Dialectic Reflection in Information Systems Development,” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, Vol.4, pp. 55-77. 14. Blaikie, N. 1993, Research Strategies: Retroductive and Abductive Strategies, In N. Blaikie Approaches to Social Enquiry (pp. 162-197). Cambridge: Polity Press. 15. Boonstra, A. 2006, "Interpreting an ERP-implementation project from a stakeholder perspective", International Journal of Project Management, Vol.24, No.1, pp.38-52. 16. Botta-Genoulaz, V., Millet, P. and Grabot, B. 2005, “A survey on the recent research literature on ERP systems” Computers in Industry, Vol.56, pp.510–522.
39
17. BSG
2009,
“Software
Industry
Facts
and
Figures”,
http://www.bsa.org/country/Public%20Policy//media/Files/Policy/Security/General/sw_factsfi gures.ashx (accessed 25th May 2010). 18. Burgelman, R. 1983, “A process model of internal corporate venturing in a diversified major firms”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.28, No.4. 19. Butler, T. and Fitzgerald, B 1999, “Unpacking the systems development process: An empirical application of the CSF concept in a research context”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vo.8, pp.351–371. 20. Carlino, J., Nelson, S. and Smith, N. 2000, “AMR Research Study Reveals SAP R/3 Upgrade Cost Users 25-to 33 Percent-of Initial Investment”, AMR Research. 21. Champion, D., Kiel, D., and McLendon, J. 1990, “Choosing a Consulting Role”, Training & Development Journal, Vol.44, No.2, pp.66–69. 22. Chen R., Sun C., Helms M., and Jih, W. 2008, "Role negotiation and interaction: an exploratory case study of the impact of management consultants on ERP system implementation in SMEs in Taiwan", Information Systems Management, vol. 25, pp. 159-173. 23. Cresswell, J. 2009, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approach (3 ed.), Los Angeles: Sage Publication 24. Cresswell, J. 2012, Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluation Quantitative and qualitative research (4ed.), Boston: Person/Merrill Prentice Hall 25. Cresswell, J., & Miller, D. 2000, “Determining validity in qualitative inquiry”, Theory Into Practice, Vol.3, No.9, pp. 124-130. 26. Creswell, J. 2009, Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 3rd edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. 27. Dahlbom, C. & Mathiassen, L. 1993, Computers in context, Oxford: Blackwell. 28. Damanpour, Fariborz, and Marguerite 2006, “Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations: Effects of environment, organization, and top managers”, British Journal of Management, Vo.17, pp.215–236. 29. Davenport, H. 1998, “Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system", Harvard business review, Vol.76, No.4, pp.121-131. 30. Davenport, T. and Brooks, J. 2004, “Enterprise systems and the supply chain”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol.17, No.1, pp.8–19. 31. Dery, K., Grant, D., Harley, B. and Wright, C. 2006, “Work, organization and enterprise resource planning systems: An alternative research agenda”, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol.21, No.3, pp.199-214. 32. Dingwall, R. 2007, Methodological issues in qualitative research: accounts, interviews and observations. In G. Miller & R. Dingwall, Context& method in qualitative research, London: Sage Puplicatoin, pp.51-65. 40
33. Dooley, L. 2002, “Case study research and theory building”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol.4, No.3, pp.335–354. 34. Doom, C., Milis, K., Poelmans, S., and Bloemen, E. 2010, “Critical success factors for ERP implementations in Belgian SMEs”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol.23, No.3, pp. 378-406. 35. Finney, S. 2011 “Stakeholder perspective on internal marketing communication: An ERP implementation case study”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol.17, No.2, pp.311331. 36. Fortune, J. and White, D. 2005, ” Framing of project critical success factors by a systems model” International Journal of Project Management, Vo.24, pp.53–65. 37. Foster, S. 2006, “A new approach to change management in enterprise system implementations”, Proceedings of the 7th International Business Information Management Association Conference, (IBIMA), New York USA, pp. 469-477. 38. Foster, S., Hawking, P., and Stein, A. 2004, “Change Management: The Forgotten Critical Success Factor in Enterprise Wide System Implementations”, In proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS) 2004, Tasmania, Australia. 39. Freeman, R. and McVea, J. 2001, “ A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management”, Darden
Business
School
Working
Paper
No.
01-02,
Available
at
SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=263511 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.263511 40. Galliers, M. and Huang, J. 2012, “The teaching of qualitative research methods in information systems: an explorative study utilizing learing theory”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp.119-134. 41. Garud, R. and Van de Ven, A. 2002, Strategic change processes, In Pettigrew, A.M., Thomas, H. and Whittington, R. (eds), Handbook of Strategy and Management. London: Sage, pp. 206– 231. 42. Garud, R. and Van de Ven, A. 2002, Strategic change processes, In Pettigrew, A.M., Thomas, H. and Whittington, R. (eds), Handbook of Strategy and Management. London: Sage, pp. 206– 231. 43. Golden-Biddle, K., & Locke, K. 2006, Composing qualitative research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 44. Goldkuhl, G. 2012, “Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research”, European journal of information systems, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 135-146. 45. 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 and Employment, Vol.21, No.1, pp.2–15.
41
46. Haines, M. & Goodhue, D. 2003, "Implementation partner involvement and knowledge transfer in the context of ERP implementations", International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Vol.16, No.1, pp.23-38. 47. Hannan, M.
& Freeman, F. 1989, Organizational Ecology, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press. 48. Haywood, K. 2006, “Legitimizing the TALC as a theory of development and change”, The tourism area life cycle, Vol. 2, pp. 29–43, Clevedon: Channel View Publications. 49. Heeks, R., & Bailur, S. 2007, “Analyzing e-government research: Perspective, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol.24, No.2, pp.243−265. 50. Hegel, G. 1949, The phenomenology of mind, George Allen & Unwin, London,. 51. Helo, P., & Anussornnitisarn, P 2008, "Expectation and reality in ERP implementation: consultant and solution provider perspective", Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol.108, No.8, pp.1045 – 1059. 52. Hirschheim, R., and Klein, H. 1989, “Four Paradigms of Information Systems Development,”, Communications of the ACM, Vol.32, No.10, pp. 1199–1216 53. Hirschheim, R., Klein, H. and Newman, M. 1991, “Information systems development as social action: theoretical perspectives and practice”, Omega, Vol.19, pp.587– 606. 54. Holst, P., and Nielsen, J. 2008, "Complementary perspectives in the value chain on ERP system implementation", Microsoft Academic Pre-conference and Convergence 2008 Copenhagen, Denmark from 17 to 20 November, 2008. 55. Ifinedo, P. 2008, "Impacts of business vision, top management support, and external expertise on ERP success", Business Process Management Journal, Vol.14, No.4, pp.551- 568. 56. Israel, J. 1979, The language of dialectic and the dialectic of the language, Copenhagen: Munksgaard. 57. Jacobson, S., Shepherd, J., Aquila, M., and Carter, K. 2007, "The ERP Market Sizing Report”, Retrieved
from
http://www.gtm.sap.com/belux/solutions/businesssuite/erp/pdf/AMR_ERP_Market_Sizing_200 6-2011.pdf. 58. Kamhawi, E. 2008, "Enterprise resource-planning systems adoption in Bahrain: motives, benefits, and barriers", Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol.21, No.3, pp.310 – 334. 59. Kaplan B. & Maxwell J. 2005, “Qualitative research methods for evaluating computer information systems”, in: J.G. Anderson, & C.E. Aydin, S.J. Jay (Eds.), Evaluating Healthcare Information Systems: Methods and Applications (2ed). New York: Springer-Verlag. Dordrecht.
42
60. Kaplan, B., Duchon, D. 1988, “Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in information systems research: a case study”, MIS Quarterly, Vol.12, No.4, pp.571–586. 61. Keil, M. 1991, Managing MIS Implementation: Identifying and Removing Barriers to Use. Unpublished PhD thesis, Haward University. 62. Khoo, H., Robey D. and Rao, S. 2011, “An exploratory study of the impacts of upgrading packaged software: a stakeholder perspective”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol.26. 63. Klein, H. & Myers, M. 1999, A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems, MIS Quarterly, Vol.23, No.1, pp. 67-94. 64. Klein, H. and Myers, M. 1999, “A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems”, MIS Quarterly, Vol.23, pp. 67–94. 65. Kling, R. 2000, “Learning about information technologies and social change: The contribution of social informatics”, Information Society, Vol.16, No.3, pp. 217-232. 66. Kraemmerand, P., Moller, C. and Boer, H. 2003, “ERP implementation: an integrated process of radical change and continuous learning”, Production Planning & Control, Vol.14, No.4, pp.338-348. 67. Kumar, V. and Maheshwari, B. 2003, "An investigation of critical management issues in ERP implementation: emperical evidence from Canadian organizations", Technovation, Vol.23, No.10, pp.793-807. 68. Lee, A. 1991, “Integrating Positivist and Interpretive Approaches to Organizational Research”, Organization Science, Vol.2, No.4 pp. 342–365. 69. Lee, J. & Myers, M. 2004, “Dominant actors, political agendas, and strategic shifts over time: a critical ethnography of an enterprise systems implementation”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol.13, No.4, pp.355–374. 70. Liang, H. & Xue, Y. 2004, "Coping with ERP-related contextual issues in SMEs: a vendor's perspective", The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol.13, No.4, pp.399-415. 71. Liu J.Y.C., Chen H.G., Chen C.C., Sheu T.S. 2011, “Relationships among interpersonal conflict, requirements uncertainty, and software project performance”. International journal of Project Management, Vol.29, No.5, pp.547-556. 72. Markkula, M. & Sormunen, E. 1998, Searching for photos - Journalists’ practices in pictorial IR, The Challenge of Image Retrieval. Electronic Workshops in Computing. URL: http://www.ewic.org.uk/ewic/workshop/view.cfm/CIR-98. 73. Markus, M. and ROBEY, D. 1988, “Information technology and organizational change: Causal structure in theory and research”. Manage Scz. Vol.34, pp.583-598. 74. Markus, M.L. 2004, “Technochange management: Using IT to drive organizational change”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol.19, pp.4–20.
43
75. Markus, M.L. and Tanis, C. 2000, The enterprise system experience ± from adoption to success, in Zmud, R.W. (Ed.), Framing the Domains of IT Management: Projecting the Future Through the Past, Pinnaflex Educational Resources, Inc., Cincinnatti, OH, pp.173- 207. 76. Mathiassen, L. and Nielsen, P. 1989, “Soft Systems and Hard Contradictions - Approaching the Reality of Information Systems in Organisations”, Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, Vol.16, pp.75-88. 77. Meissonier, R. and Houzé, E. 2010, “Toward an ‘IT Conflict-Resistance Theory’: action research during IT pre-implementation”, European Journal of Information Systems, pp.1-22. 78. Metrejean, E. 2011, “The role of consultants in the implementation of enterprise resource planning systems”, Academy of Information and Management Sciences Journal, Vol.14, No.1. 79. Meyer, A., Goes, J. and Brooks, G. 1993, Organizations reacting to hyper turbulence. In G.P. Huber and W.H. Glick (Eds.), Organizational change and redesign: 66-111. New York: Oxford University Press. 80. Miao, M., Tien, C.T., Chang, H.T., and Ko, Y. 2010,” The effect of dysfunctional conflict on learning performance: The role of cognitive style”, Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, Vol.38, No.2, pp.169-186. 81. Miles, M. & Huberman, A. 1994, Qualitative data analysis (2nd Ed.), Thousand Oaks, Canada: Sage Publications. 82. Mische, M. 2000, “Choosing a Systems Integrator”, Enterprise Systems Integration, J. Wyzalek, Editor, Boca Raton, FL: Auerbach, pp.873 – 885. 83. Myers, M. 1995, “Dialectical hermeneutics: a theoretical framework for the implementation of information systems”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 51-70. 84. Myers, M. 1997, “Qualitative Research in Information Systems”, MIS Quarterly, Vol.21, No.2, pp. 241–242. 85. Nah, F. & Delgado, S. 2006, “Critical Success Factors for Enterprise Resource Planning Implementation and Upgrade”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol.46, No.5, pp.99-113. 86. Neuman, W. 2003, Social research methods. Boston, Allyn and Bacon. 87. Newman, M. and Robey, D. 1992, “A social process model of user–analyst relationships”, MIS Quarterly, Vol.16, pp.249–266. 88. Ng, C. 2001, “A Decision Framework for Enterprise Resource Planning Maintenance and Upgrade: A Client Perspective", Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice, Vol.13, No.6, pp. 431- 468. 89. Ng, C., Gable G., and Chan, T. 2003,"ERP Maintenance Model: An Exploratory Study", Journal of Software Maintenance: Research and Practice. 90. Ngai, E. & Law, C. 2008, "Examining the critical success factors in the adoption of enterprise resource planning", Computer Industrial, Vol.59 No.6, pp.548-564. 44
91. Nordheim, S. 2007, “Towards a Dialectic Understanding of Enterprise Systems – Vendor Challenges and Contradictory Rhetoric”, Advances in Information Systems Development, pp.11-22. 92. Nordheim, S. 2008, “Corporate user representatives and the dialectics of enterprise systems: A quest for social actors with political skill”, Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences – 2008. 93. Nordheim, S. 2011, “Towards Understanding Contradictions in Enterprise System Implementations-Insights from a Case Study”, Information Systems Development, pp 563-574. 94. Nordheim, S. and Päivärinta T. 2006, "Implementing Enterprise Content Management: From Evolution through Strategy to Contradictions Out-of-the-box", European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 15, pp. 648-662. 95. Olson, D. and Zhao, F. 2007, "CIOs' perspective of critical success factors in ERP upgrade projects", Enterprise information systems, Vol.1 No.1, pp.129-138. 96. Orlikowski, W. &
Robey, D. 1991, “Information technology and the structuring of
organizations”, Information Systems Research, Vol.2, No.2, pp.143–169. 97. Orlikowski, W. and Baroudi, J. 1990, "Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions ", Information Systems Working Papers Series. 98. Orlikowski, Wanda J. 1992, “The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations”, Organization Science, Vol.3 No.3, pp.398-427. 99. Osei-Bryson K. & Ojelanki D. 2008,"Exploring managerial factors affecting ERP implementation: an investigation of the Klein-Sorra model using regression splines" Information Systems Journal, Vol.8 No.5, pp.499-527. 100. Otieno, J. 2008, “Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Systems Implementation Challenges: A Kenyan Case Study”, Business Information Systems, Vol.7 No.12, pp.399-409. 101. Paluszek, B. 2006,” Into Asia- A cultural and technological adventure”, proceedings of the 2006 ASUG Conference, Orlando. 102. Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. 1999, “Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction”, American Psychologist, Vol.54, pp.741–754. 103. Polkinghorne, D. 2005, “Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research”, Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol.52, pp.137–145. 104. Robey, D., Ross, J. and Boudreau, M. 2002, “Learning to implement enterprise systems: An exploratory study of the dialectics of change”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol.19, No.1, pp.17–46. 105. Sabherwal, R. & Newman, M. 2003, “Persistence and change in system development: A dialectical view”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol.18, pp.69-92. 106. Salmeron, J. & Lopez, C. 2010, "A multicriteria approach for risks assessment in ERP maintenance", Journal of Systems and Software, Vol.83 No.10, pp.1941-1953. 45
107. Scott, J.E. and Vessey, I. 2002, “Managing risks in enterprise systems implementations”, Communications of the ACM, Vol.45, No.4, pp.74-81. 108. Shang, S. and Seddon, P. 2000, “A comprehensive framework for classifying the benefits of ERP systems”, Proceedings of AMCIS, Vol.2, pp.1005–1014. 109. Sia, S. and Soh, C. 2007, “An assessment of package-organisation misalignment: institutional and ontological structures”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol.16, No.5, pp. 568583. 110. Skok, W. & Legge, M. 2001, “Evaluating enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems using an interpretive approach”, Proceedings of the 2001 ACM SIGCPR conference on Computer personnel research, San Diego, California, United States, ACM. 111. Smith, H. & McKeen, J. 1992, "Computerization and Management: A Study of Conflict and Change," Information & Management, Vol.22, pp.53-64. 112. Soh, C. & Kien, S. 2005, "The Challenges of Implementing "Vanilla" Versions of Enterprise Systems", presented at MIS Quarterly Executive. 113. Soh, C., & Sia, S.K., 2003, “Misalignments in ERP implementation: a dialectic perspective”, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.81–100. 114. Songini, M.L. 2000, “Users vent frustration over Oracle CRM/ERP upgrades”, Computerworld 2000; Vol.34, No.44. 115. Stake, R. 2006, Multiple Case Study Analysis, New York: The Guilford Press. 116. Stein, A., Hawking, P., and Foster, S 2003,”ERP Post Implementation: A new journey”, Paper presented at the ACIS 2003. 117. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. 1998, Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 118. Strong, D. & Volkoff, O. 2004, “A roadmap for enterprise system implementation”, IEEE Computer, Vol.37, No.6, pp.22-29. 119. Themistocles, M., Irani, Z., O'keefe, R., And Paul, R. 2001, “ERP Problems and Application Integration Issues: An Empirical Survey”, In Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp.9045-9054. 120. Thong, J., Yap, C and. Raman K. 1994, “Engagement of external expertise in information systems implementation”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol.11, No.2, pp. 209–231. 121. Trochim, W. 1989, “Outcome pattern matching and program theory”, Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol.12, No.4, pp.355–366. 122. Urquhart, C., Lehmann, H., and Myers, M. 2010, "Putting the Theory Back into Grounded Theory: Guidelines for Grounded Theory Studies in Information Systems", Information Systems Journal, Vol.20, No.4, pp.357-381.
46
123. Van de Ven, A. 2007,Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 124. Van de Ven, A. and Poole, M. 1995, “Explaining development and change in organizations”, “Academy of Management Review”, Vol.20, No.3, pp.510-540. 125. Volkoff, O., & Elmes, M. 2004, "Enterprise systems, knowledge transfer and power users", The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol.13 No.4, pp.279-304. 126. Waeyenbergh, G. & Pintelon, L. 2002, "A framework for maintenance concept development", International Journal of Production Economics, Vol.77, No.3, pp.299- 313. 127. Wagner, E. & Newell, S. 2007, “Exploring the importance of participation in the post implementation period of an ES project: A neglected area”, Journal of the AIS, Vol.8, No.10, pp.508-524. 128. Walsham, G., 1995, “Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol.4, No.2, pp.74–81. 129. Walsham, G., 2006, “Doing interpretive research”, European journal of information systems, Vol.15, No.3, pp. 320–330. 130. Wang T., Gary, K., and James, J. 2006, “ERP misfit: country of origin and organizational factors”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol.23, No.1, pp. 263–292. 131. Wang, E. and Chen, J. 2006, "Effects of internal support and consultant quality on the consulting process and ERP system quality", Decision Support Systems, Vol.42, No.2, pp.1029-1041. 132. Wei, H., Wang E. and Pei-Hung, J. 2005, “Understanding misalignment and cascading change of ERP implementation: A stage view of process analysis”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol.14, No.4, pp.324-334. 133. Weick, K. and Quinn, R. 1999, “Organizational change and development”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol.50, pp. 361–386. 134. Weiner, B. 2009, “A Theory of Organizational Readiness for Change”, Implementation Science, Vol.4. 135. Wong, A., Scarbrough, H., Chau, P. and Davison, R. 2005, "Critical Failure Factors in ERP Implementation", PACIS 2005 Proceedings, Paper 40. 136. Wong, B. 2005, “Understanding Stakeholder Values as a Means of Dealing with Stakeholder Conflicts,” Software Quality Journal, Vol.13, No.4, pp.429-445. 137. Xue, Y., & Liang, H. 2005, "ERP implementation failures in China: Case studies with implications for ERP vendors", International Journal of Production Economics, Vol.97, No.3, pp.279-295. 138. Yap, C.S., Soh C.P.P. and Raman K.S. 1992, “Information systems success factors in small businesses”, International Journal of Management Science, Vol.20, No.5, pp.597–609.
47
139. Yin, R. 1981, The Case Study Crisis: Some Answers, Administrative science quarterly, Vol.26, No.1, pp.58-65. 140. Yin, R. 1994, Case study research: design and methods, Applied Social Research Methods Series, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
48
Appendix 1: Seven principles suggested by Klein and Myers
49
Appendix 2: Development of questions Constructs
Definition
ERP Conflict
Conflict is “a clash of interest between individuals, groups or society” (Sociology Online Dictionary)
Consultants’ roles
The functions performed by an individual ERP consultant during ERP change process.
ERP changes process
ERP Stakeholders
Dimensions
Questions
General Questions
Source of conflicts Type of conflicts Frequency of conflicts Impact of conflicts
What conflicts did you encounter during ERP change process? Why did these conflicts occur? What are the types of conflicts during ERP change process? How often did you encounter these conflicts? Are you expected these conflicts in the other projects? Did these conflicts affect the performance?
Have you face similar conflicts in other projects? Can you think about the type of conflict that you had in term of challenges that you face? What did the source of these conflicts?
Nature of role The ranking role How that roles played
What roles did you play in managing conflicts during ERP change process? Drawing on your experience which role did you think was most important to help manage conflicts? How did you play that role? How did you manage these conflicts? How do you play a role in managing these conflicts?
How long have you been an ERP consultant? How many ERP project you have been involved with? How do the consultants perceive the dialectic nature of the ERP change process? How does the consultant’s play a role in managing conflicts related to the dialectic nature of the ERP change process? Are there any lessons learnt from your experience for successful introduction or ERP systems in organization?
ERP implementation and postimplementation initiative involve changes and thus they are regarded as ERP change process.
Changes involving in ERP process Change in policies Change in users interaction with ERP Change in business structure
What changes did you make during ERP change process? Who were involved in that ERP change process? Did these changes related to organization or ERP package policies? Did these changes related to ERP package or business process? What changes that related to users? How did you perceive the dialectic nature of ERP conflicts during ERP change process?
Can you describe the project…? (Type of organization and Type of implementation) Can you think about another project that you had involved with? In which waves were you involved?
A stakeholder is any individual who can affect the ERP implementation or organization’s objectives (Fenny, 2010)
Types of stakeholders Reasons to stakeholders to participate Identification of stakeholders and contacting them
Which stakeholders are generally involved in ERP change process? Why are they involved? Which stakeholders offer greater insights, advice, and suggestion during ERP change process? How did you indicate these stakeholders? Are they approved by management using committee? How did you conduct these stakeholders?
What are the types of stakeholders involved in ERP change process? What different stakeholders want? (Management, users, consultants and information technology personnel)
50
