TDEI 13
Organisational perspectives on ERP
systems selection and use
Özgün Imre
ozgun.imre@liu.se
EIS-IE Linköping University
2015-09-11
Agenda
• Ivy league
Scott, S.V. & Wagner, E.L., 2003. Networks, Negotiations, and New Times: The
Implementation of Enterprise Resource Planning into an Academic Administration.
Information and Organization, 13(4), pp.285–313.
• GMs work
Kotter, J.P., 1982. What effective general managers really do. Harvard Business
Review, 60(6), pp.156–167.
2
ERP in public sector
• ERP in public sector
A few examples:
3
•
Some use the well known packages (t.ex Vingåker kommun, Röda
Korset etc: Microsoft)
•
whereas some opt for less-known vendors (t.ex Stockholms
dramatiska högskola, Dans- och cirkushögskolan och
Operahögskolan: KMD Opus)
•
Some implement their own (New York City)
•
Some opt for open source (Regenesys Univeristy)
Ivy League
• What is Ivy League?
• Why do we care about them?
4
Ivy case
5
•
The decision making is not a stand-alone, rational act
•
We have multiple actors that play their role in the game
•
These actors are not stable, and continuously re-work the setting
•
Actor-network Theory
•
Both human and non-human actors are included in ANT
•
The relations among the actors have an affect that can not always
predicted
•
Path dependency
•
There activity of the actors change over time, they are not stable
tation of the ERP system in our study and its consequences for those involved. We
define project times as an identifiable ebb and flow in meaning constituted by shifting
actor network processes that affects responses and conditions outcomes. We suggest
that one project may hold within it different and often conflicting definitions of its
meaning. An important part of these actor network dynamics are the negotiations
that take place about resources over time as they work to achieve their preferred
future during the flow of events surrounding this program of enterprise-wide ITenabled change.
Ivy case
Table 1
Multiple and interpenetrating times present during the ERP project initiative
The prestigious history that makes an Ivy League university
The local, embodied, embedded expert work times of university administration
A period of uncertain industry transformation
End of millennium Y2K panic
Individual biographies and careers
Intellectual trend toward global business solutions
Phase of technological maturity and diffusion of ERP
The time worlds of project and project teams
The ‘right time’ for change
6
Temporal zones
•
Time is an important issue
•
3 distinct temporal zones
Any body wants to give them names?
7
Temporal zones
•
The creation of the need for the ERP (VPs role, Y2K bug)
•
Creation of the ordered project (problems Ivy vs Oracle, point of no
return)
•
Creation of the adhocracy of systems (problems with the system,
shadow systems continue)
3 years of “clock time” meant different things to different actors
The project that began as success was a near failure
8
Your time to play
• Who (is involved, steered the project etc.)
• What (did they do)
• When (did it happen)
• Why (did they decide to do that; acted in this way)
• How (did they do that)
9
Ivy’s AHP
• From the case you have read, can you create a hierarchy as we
have seen in the AHP paper?
• Do they match/differ? How?
10
11
After the case
12
•
These days Cornell is using Peoplesoft – bought by Oracle in 2005
•
Univeristy of Indiana is using a module written by Cornell University
staff
•
Montclair State has sued Oracle for “extortion, lies and rigged
demo” over Peoplesoft implementation, and Oracle sued back – in
2013 they settled
Wei et al. 2005
What does a GM do
• Traditional management studies claim:
13
•
Planning
•
Organising
•
Controlling
•
Directing
•
Staffing
Wei et al. 2005
GMs’ day
• Kotter and many others argue that the daily life is not as clear
cut
• Figure out what to do under uncertainty and diversity
• Get things done through a large amount of people
14
A word of caution
• Agenda setting
•
Loosely coupled goals and plans for long- medium- and short-term
•
Most of is not written in exact forms
•
Can cover different time periods
•
Can be rather unconnected among each other
Strategy ?
Mintzberg, 1987
16
Why an ERP?
Similar to what we discussed with AHP:
Some questions remain:
Are we that rational?
Do we have complete information?
What can we control within the?
GMs are great at being intuitive and combining that with vast
amounts of knowledge
Able to put things into a logical perspective that touches multiple
issues
17
So you have an agenda
How will you execute the agenda?
Network!!!
Networking with both internal and external actors
They get them working by suggesting, posing questions,
persuading them
18
So what of our GMs
• Now you have read some cases in the literature
• Do you see what Kotter says about GMs?
• How did they act, did it differ from what Kotter said? How?
19
On the reverse
• What role does ERP play in this story?
• How does the GM use ERP? How should the GM use ERP?
• How does ERP effect the GM?
20
21
Some issues around ERP implementation
22
•
Intra-org standardisation
•
Inter-org homogenisation
•
Default
•
Best of practice
•
Risk of non-conformance
•
Individuals
•
Cost
•
Methods
+1 ?
• Technical isomorphism
• Embedding the organisational procedures and notions of
working to the technology
23
•
Inscription
•
If the system has these inscriptions, when it is adopted they may
surface and result in homogenisation of the work environment
•
Most of the ERP systems have the centralisation in mind when
developed, so they de facto force the organisations to centralise
24
www.liu.se
26
Some implications
Social worlds/arena/negotiated order can provide a
situated, dynamic analysis of issues
Can complement the static view adopted in
stakeholder analysis
IS can play the role of the boundary object in such
situations, and trigger the negotiations and learning
Using such lens can help iron out differences to find a
workable situation, and help out wider IS implementation
problems
27
Venue 1
• Lots of combinations: would social worlds add to the
stakeholder theory?
• Would saying it will add dynamism just be a buzz word?
• Are they the same? Or how can we identify the difference from
a bunch of interviews?
28
Venue 2
• Negotiated order with stakeholder theory
• Focus on temporality of the order, which is what dynamism is
• Adds non-executives to the system
•
Would we see any difference between stakeholders and social
worlds?
Would we feel different if we talked to editor x, who is also the dean?
29