Enterprise Systems Implementation: A Knowledge Integration ...
description
Transcript of Enterprise Systems Implementation: A Knowledge Integration ...
EXPLORING EXPLORING KNOWLEDGE KNOWLEDGE
INTEGRATION IN ERP INTEGRATION IN ERP PROJECT TEAMSPROJECT TEAMS
EXPLORING EXPLORING KNOWLEDGE KNOWLEDGE
INTEGRATION IN ERP INTEGRATION IN ERP PROJECT TEAMSPROJECT TEAMS
Sue NewellSue Newell
Bentley College, USABentley College, USA
Introduction
• Many IT projects do not meet cost, schedule & functionality targets
• Many more do not create the radical change that was intended
• Rather IT often reinforces the status quo (Orlikowski)
• Focus on problems of sharing & integrating distributed knowledge
ERP Projects• Standard software & ‘vanilla
implementations’• Change organization to fit software• Many organizations therefore start
ERP implementation with a business process reengineering phase
Project Team• Must map ‘as is’ processes, identify
processes embedded in software, & define new organizational processes that ‘fit’
•Process analysis & redesign fundamental to achieving transformational potential
Reality• Many firms do not achieve this
transformational potential from their ERP implementations!
• Critical success factors have been identified
• Ability to integrate distributed knowledge not considered
Knowledge Integration• The process whereby several
individuals combine their information to create new knowledge (Okhuysen & Eisenhardt)
• Oversimplifies complex process of sharing knowledge – knowledge is distributed & ambiguous
Knowledge Integration - Distributed
STRUCTURAL BARRIERS
Knowledge Integration - Ambiguity
We play football!!COGNTIVE BARRIERS
Knowledge is hoarded
RELATIONAL BARRIERS
Knowledge Integration• Understanding knowledge as
socially constructed & arising through interaction & dialogue means -
• Teams will achieve greater or lesser success in their ability to integrate knowledge
Different levels of knowledge integration
• Mechanistic pooling
• Generative knowledge integration
Achieving High Levels of Knowledge
Integration• Depends on project team
– Intellectual and Social capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal)
–Social capital/networking: ‘bridging’ (Burt) vs. ‘bonding’ (Coleman) views (Adler & Kwon)
Social Capital - Bonding
Social Capital - Bridging
Research• Explore level of knowledge integration
achieved in two project teams tasked with implementing a functional pillar of an ERP system in two companies
• Specifically focus on networking of teams in pursuit of sharing & integrating knowledge
Methodology
• Case study methodology• 2 companies – QEL and IEL• First interviews (14/25) and follow-
up interviews (7/12)• Informal interviews, observations,
documentation
Cases• Both large, multi-national,
engineering companies• Both decided to implement ERP
systems in 1998• QEL
– Project not completed• IEL
– System implemented and well-received
Differences between the two project teams
• Emphasis on team building• The way the project was divided up• The allocation of specialists to workpackage
areas• The inclusion of different opinions from the
process mapping stage• The involvement of the IT consultants• The understanding of ERP functionality• The involvement of users
Impact on Social Capital/Networking
• Bonding– IEL – team bonding seen as crucial– QEL – team operated independently
• Bridging– IEL – team spent considerable effort
accessing distributed knowledge– QEL – team made very little effort to access
distributed knowledge
Successful Knowledge Integration
Discussion and Conclusions
• Knowledge integration is a central activity within an ERP implementation
• Social networking (bonding and bridging) influences these processes of knowledge integration
• Management and organization of project influences this social networking
• Transformational potential of IT – requires generative knowledge integration (vs. mechanistic pooling)
Managerial Implications• Team Building• Division of tasks• Allocation of team members• Encouraging wide information search
during process mapping stage• Engaging hybrid IT consultants• Involving users
Next Steps• Longitudinal study – to explore
subsequent improvisation with system
• Track differences between piecemeal (mechanistic) and concerted (generative) approaches (Robey et al)