|
Development
Informatics
Working
Paper Series
The
Development Informatics working paper series discusses the
broad issues surrounding information, knowledge, information
systems, and information and communication technologies
in the process of socio-economic development
Paper
No 24
Success
and Failure of ERP Technology Transfer: A Framework for
Analysing Congruence of Host and System Cultures
ALEMAYEHU
MOLLA & IOANNIS LOUKIS
2005
ISBN:
1 9040143 67 9
Published
by:
Development Informatics Group
Institute for Development Policy and Management
University
of Manchester, Precinct Centre, Manchester, M13 9QH, UK
Tel:
+44-161-275-2800/2804 Email: idpm@manchester.ac.uk
Web:
http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/idpm/
View/Download
from:
http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/idpm/publications/wp/di/index.htm
Educators'
Guide from:
http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/idpm/publications/wp/di/educdi.htm
Success
and Failure of ERP Technology Transfer: A Framework for Analysing Congruence of Host and System Cultures
Alemayehu Molla
Development
Informatics Group, IDPM, University of Manchester, UK
alemayehu.molla@manchester.ac.uk
&
Ioannis
Loukis
Development
Informatics Group, IDPM, University of Manchester, UK
ioannis_loukis@hotmail.com
2005
Abstract
Enterprise resource planning (ERP) applications are spreading
worldwide, including into developing countries. Problems
related to cultural mismatches are one of the challenges
that affect this global diffusion. Two main sets of culture
can be identified in any ERP situation of development, implementation
and use. On the one hand, there is a culture embedded in
the ERP software reflecting the views of the ERP developers,
vendors and consultants. On the other hand, there is a culture
reflecting the views of the implementing organisation's
project team, managers and users. We refer to the first
as the ERP system culture and to the second as the ERP host
culture. This paper presents a framework that allows analysis
of these two cultures and their impact on ERP success and
failure. The paper demonstrates the utility of this framework
by applying it to a case study. Overall, we argue that good
congruence between ERP system and host cultures can contribute
to ERP success both in process and outcome terms. However,
lack of congruence can contribute to ERP process and outcome
failure.
Introduction
Enterprise resource planning (ERP) applications are spreading
worldwide. In some developing countries, a number of large
companies have implemented ERP solutions and some mid-sized
companies are expected to follow suit. The transfer of information
systems like ERP – typically developed in industrialised
countries – to developing countries is often marred
by problems of mismatch with local cultural, economic and
regulatory requirements. This can result in undesirable
design—reality gaps, which tend to lead to underperforming
systems (Heeks, 2001; Walsham, 2001). This is because "…
tools transferred from one country to a specific enterprise
abroad suffer a double-layered acculturation: the technology
is confronted with a foreign national and alien corporate
culture" (Recht and Wilderom, 1998:8).
This
problem can be exacerbated in the case of ERP because these
systems represent solutions that are based on what are seen
to be Western business best practices. In addition, whilst
ERP is a global product, most of the ERP developers are
located either in North America or in Western Europe. As
a result, the developers' interpretations of business systems
are likely to be reflected in and influence the software
(Orlikowski, 1992). ERP systems thus incorporate values
and practices that will not necessarily match all environments.
For example, Soh et al (2000) surveyed "misfits"
observed in ERP implementations and found that these tend
to be higher in Asian companies because of differences from
European and US business practices. Sumner (2000) also argued
that ERP causes significant cultural transformation to the
organisation and tends to reset organisational values in
terms of discipline, change and processes.
We can
sum up this issue of interpretations and values within the
notion of culture; yet culture is an often overlooked or
underemphasised influence affecting the success or failure
of new technology adoption (Hoffman and Klepper, 2000).
Further evidence from the cultural construction of technology
literature indicates that universal applicability of information
technology (IT) is more of a myth than a reality (Bijker
and Law, 1992). In the parlance of Bijker and Law (1992:13)
"… technologies and technological practices are
built in a process of social construction and negotiation,
a process often seen as driven by the social interests of
participants".
This
implies that the internal workings of the technology developers
and the values of its members affect the technological outcome.
By the same token, therefore, culture influences the application
of IT and transforms the technology when in use.
As ERP
systems diffuse into developing countries, it is essential
to be aware of the implications of cultural assumptions
embedded in ERP software and those reflected in developing
country organisations. Such awareness can assist in assessing
ERP suitability; in devising mechanisms to mitigate the
impact of cultural misfit; and in increasing value from
relatively expensive ERP investments. In this paper, we
propose a framework that helps to identify the cultural
assumptions of the ERP system and the host organisation
and the impact of these on the likely outcome of ERP implementation.
We also show the utility of the framework by applying it
to a published case study. The paper ends by making suggestions
for future research.
A. Information
Technology and Organisations
ERP implementation is a significant intervention in organisational
life. Currently, it is one of the most challenging issues
for practitioners and researchers in the information systems
(IS) field (Pozzebon, 2000). ERP systems have been found
to have conceptual links with almost every area of IS research.
Thus, the divergent definitions and perspectives associated
with the "ERP—organisation" linkage depend
on how IS researchers conceptualise and treat the linkage
between IT/IS and organisations. Across the IS literature,
the view of information systems and their assimilation in
organisations acknowledges not only the technical, hard
perspective but also the soft, human aspect.
From
the hard, technical point of view, information systems are
seen as "engineered artefacts" expected to do
exactly what they are designed for (Orlikowski, 1992). Likewise,
organisations are seen as information processing systems,
exchanging and handling information based on certain rules
(Katzenstein and Lerch, 2000). There is a strong belief
in "instrumental rationality" and formality. That
is, all the processes and aspects of the working system
can be reconstructed to formal and mathematical models.
Hence, according to this perspective, the organisation is
assumed to have clear requirements.
In contrast,
several researchers such as Bostrom and Heinen (1977), Mumford
and Weir (1979) and Orlikowski (1992) advocate a softer
conceptualisation of information systems. As Probert (1997)
argues, while information systems do have objective and
touchable artefacts like processors and storage, they also
have a subjective construct. This perspective of technology
is closely related to Orlikowski's (1992:400) view where
she argued, "technology is not an external object but
a product of ongoing action, design and appropriation".
We believe that the "softer" perception of technology
broadens our understanding of potential problems during
the implementation of an information system of ERP's size
and scale.
In this
paper, we submit to Orlikowski's (1992) understanding of
information technology which, based on structuration theory,
is enclosed in two concepts of "duality" and "interpretive
flexibility". "Duality" addresses the assumption
that agents and technology are not independent. In the parlance
of Orlikowski (1992:406), "technology is physically
constructed by actors working in a given social context
but also technology is socially constructed by actors through
the different meanings they attach". Thus, information
technology as a product of human agents will include, and
at the same time reflect, not only the "structures"
– in other words the rules of behaviour of the social
system that designs it – but also their interpretations
of the social system it is going to serve (see also Rose
and Scheepers, 2001; Walsham, 2002).
On the
other hand, "interpretive flexibility" refers
to "the degree to which users of a technology are engaged
in its construction (physically or socially) during development"
(Orlikowski, 1992:406). There is a time and space gap between
the construction of the technology and its implementation;
hence different users are likely to appropriate and use
the same technology differently. This also means the same
technology is likely to have different meanings and effects
for different users (Pozzebon, 2000; Rose and Scheepers,
2001). Identifying this "time-space discontinuity"
among the design and the use of the technology is a crucial
point in IS research, particularly in the case of software
packages that are not developed in-house (Pozzebon, 2000).
From
the above discussion, it is possible to identify three key
elements in understanding information technology and its
deployment in organisations: human agents, technology, and
institutional properties (such as culture) (Orlikowski,
1992).
B. ERP
as a Socio-Technical System
On the basis of the arguments pursued so far, we conceptualise
ERP systems as socio-technical systems. ERP can be seen
as "a technological artefact bundling material and
symbolic properties in a certain recognizable form"
(Kyung and Kim, 2002:27). The structural properties of this
technical system are, however, shaped by the human agents
and institutional properties that develop and implement
it. Likewise, the institutional properties also set the
context for development, appropriation and use.
The
environment in which an ERP system is developed, selected,
implemented and used constitutes a "social activity
system" (Skok and Legge, 2001). This ecosystem includes
several stakeholders: from the developers of the system,
to the vendors, to the consultants, the project team, and
the ultimate users. Each one of these holds a certain cultural
assumption towards the ERP implementation and use process.
Particularly, the developers' and consultants' cultural
assumptions are embedded in the very roots of the software
(the technology) itself.
We can
identify two main sets of culture at work in any ERP situation
of development, implementation and use. On the one hand,
there is a culture reflecting the views of the ERP developers,
vendors and consultants which, as described above, will
come to be "written in" to the ERP system. On
the other hand, there is a culture reflecting the views
of the implementing organisation's project team, managers
and users. We refer to the first as the ERP system culture
and to the second as the ERP host culture.
ERP
system culture represents a certain understanding of problem
solving, which is often implicitly promoted in the form
of "best of breed" business practices (Davenport,
1998; Davison, 2002). For instance, ERP vendors and consultants
consider that ERP embodies the best universally applicable
business processes without taking into consideration potential
clients' cultural distinctiveness. Because
of the
designer's focus on core competence, low cost strategies
and mass production, ERP appears to reflect a universalist
culture (Skok and Doringer, 2001). Yet the cultural assumptions
within ERP systems and the whole notion of cultural universalism
are challenged. For example, when ERP systems are implemented
in the public sector they are criticised as reflecting a
specific "ideology of the private sector" (Allen
and Kern, 2001).
During
an ERP implementation, there can be conflicts and accommodations
between the institutional properties of the host organisation,
in particular its organisation culture, and the institutional
properties of the ERP system, i.e. its in-built features
and the underpinning cultural assumptions embedded inside
the software via the institutions pushing the software.
We argue that congruency between the two cultures contributes
to ERP success both in process and outcome terms. However,
lack of congruency can lead to cultural gaps and can contribute
to ERP failure. Figure 1 captures a visual impression of
this ERP success/failure framework.
C. Cultural
Dimensions for ERP Analysis
In social and management science research, culture is divided
into two main categories: organisational and national (Krumbholz
and Maiden, 2000). One of the most well-known ways of understanding
of organisational culture comes from Schein (1985). Schein
identified three levels of cultural phenomena in organisations,
each distinguished by their visibility and accessibility
to individuals. The first level is called the "surface
manifestation of culture" and includes artefacts, symbols,
norms and rituals. The second level includes "espoused
organisational values and beliefs". Finally, at the
deepest level are the "basic underlying assumptions"
and include those things that organisations take for granted
as correct ways of doing things.
In terms
of national culture, the most influential definition (framework)
of culture which dominates IS research is that of Hofstede
(1980). Hofstede argued that people carry mental programmes,
which are developed in the family in early childhood and
reinforced in schools and organisations, and that these
mental programmes contain a component of national culture.
Hofstede further captured his notion of national culture
along five dimensions – individualism, power distance,
uncertainty avoidance, masculinity and time orientation.
Although Hofstede's work on culture has been widely accepted
in the IS literature (Myers and Tan, 2002), it has also
been equally criticised (Avison and Myers, 1995; Walsham,
2002). However, critique of Hofstede's work, although interesting,
lies outside the scope of this paper.
Several
other authors have conceptualised culture (organisational
and national) and suffused it with their own interpretation.
For instance Johnson and Scholes (1993) identified stories,
symbols, power structure, organisation structure, control
systems and rituals and routines as indicators of organisational
culture. Trompenaars (1996) identified seven dimensions
of national cultural diversity: universalism versus particularism,
collectivism versus individualism, neutral versus emotional,
diffuse versus specific cultures, achievement versus ascription,
human-time relationship and human-nature relationship (internal
versus external control).
To operationalise
the concepts of ERP system and host culture for an individual
ERP application in an organisation, a central focus must
be the idea of norms, beliefs and
values
from organisational culture theories. These three concepts
are chosen because previous studies have found them to be
important manifestations of organisational culture (Krumbholz
et al, 2000). For any given ERP system and host, there will
be case-specific aspects to these organisational cultural
dimensions that must be recognised.
However,
we cannot focus solely on the organisational culture. As
noted above by Recht and Wilderom (1998), the transfer of
ERP into developing countries is likely to face the "double-layered
[national and organisational] acculturation" problem.
Hence, it is essential to address cultural dimensions that
cover both these two layers. This is consistent with the
approach of Krumbholz et al (2000:269) who argued that "corporate
and national cultures can be described using multiple dimensions
which give us a set of overlapping characteristics with
which to describe aspects of culture".
With
this in mind, we can look for more generalised dimensions
that draw from work on national culture, though recognising
that national culture impacts norms, beliefs and values
at the organisational level (Ciganek et al, 2004). One starting
point for identification of these generalised dimensions
is the knowledge that national differences in approaches
to problem solving may create problems during ERP implementation
(Krumbholz and Maiden, 2000). To reflect this in the framework,
we find it relevant to incorporate Hofstede's "power
distance" and "uncertainty avoidance" dimensions.
Another starting point for identification of generalised
dimensions is the fact that ERP systems are global products
which embody supposedly universal business models of industry
best practices. To reflect this, we find Trompenaars' universalism
versus particularism national culture dimension relevant.
D. ERP
Success and Failure
The literature on ERP success and/or failure is inconclusive.
While some analysts report positive impacts and outcomes
of ERP application, others have revealed ERP failures. One
of the reasons behind these different views lies in the
multidimensionality of the concept of success and the difficulty
of developing a single success/failure measurement.
Based
on review of both ERP and IS success and failure literature
(Al-Mashari et al, 2003; Bingi et al, 1999; Davenport, 1998;
DeLone and McLean, 2003; Gable et al, 2003) we identified
two dimensions of ERP success/failure – process and
outcome – that are likely to be influenced by the
degree of congruence between ERP system culture and ERP
host culture.
The
first dimension looks at the success/failure of an ERP implementation
process. Implementing an ERP system often constitutes a
company's largest-ever IS investment, and in many cases
the largest-ever corporate project (Sumner, 2000). There
are a variety of "cost" factors that may escalate
the initial budget. These include implementation assistance
cost, cost of system integration, reengineering cost, cost
of changing a companies' IT architecture to support ERP
technology, etc. (Cotteleer et al, 2003; Shang and Seddon,
2002). Furthermore, depending on the implementation strategy
a company adopts, ERP projects are often long and intense
(Cotteleer et al, 2003). According to one survey, the average
time for implementing an ERP system is 23 months (Umble
and Umble, 2002). Process success/failure gauges whether
an ERP project is completed inside the time and budget schedule.
Outcome
success/failure looks at the extent of post-implementation
ERP benefits. Organisations implementing ERP expect transactional,
informational and strategic benefits (DeLone and McLean,
2003; Markus et al, 2000; Mirani and Lederer, 1998). Transactional
benefits include reduction in IT operations costs, inventory-carrying
costs, business process costs and operating labour costs.
Informational benefits include the extent to which ERP increases
the quality, accessibility and flexibility of information,
and improves managerial decision. Strategic benefits include
improvements in competitiveness and customer service. The
context and constituencies specific to the desired level
of analysis should be considered in evaluating ERP benefits
(Markus et al, 2000).
E. Case
Application of the ERP Success/Failure Framework
The framework proposed above is intended to be applicable
in any context, including that of developing countries.
Unfortunately, the case evidence on ERP implementation in
developing countries is currently very limited in terms
of both depth and breadth: a shortcoming that urgently needs
attention. Because of this, we demonstrate the utility of
the framework developed above by analysis of a European
case study.
The
case (Krumbholz et al, 2000) involves the implementation
of an ERP package in the UK and Swedish subsidiaries of
a large European multinational company. Both the UK and
the Swedish subsidiary experienced problems and received
several complaints from their employees and managers concerning
the new integrated system; in particular its warehousing
module. Some of these problems included "lack of practical
system use before implementation, warehouse staff not working
in the warehouse enough, system over-acknowledges warehouse
operation, failure to meet local requirements for warehouse
systems and employees cannot match delivery schedules and
purchase orders" (Krumbholz et al, 2000:276).
We now
apply the framework to this case. First, we compare the
system and host cultures (though without specific discussion
of 'power distance' due to case data limitations). Second,
we relate the findings on cultural congruence to process
and outcome success/failure.
E1.
ERP System Norms vs. Host Organisation Norms
Norms are expected behaviour modes based on organisational
values and beliefs. In the Scandinavian subsidiary, there
was a norm formulating employee's perceptions about warehouse
activities. The norm was "warehouse personnel perform
physical tasks and all warehouse personnel believe they
should perform physical tasks" (ibid.:274). Stakeholders
indicated "the warehouse personnel worked "out
there" in the warehouse and performed physical tasks
such as moving products" (ibid.:274). This value emerged
from the social interaction of the company's employees and
was
the
product of shared values and meanings towards the warehouse
personnel activities.
ERP
systems often reflect a number of assumptions concerning
human involvement in organisations about how employees are
related to the object of their work. The established norm
in the Scandinavian subsidiary that the warehouse staff
should do physical tasks was not "compatible"
with the ERP software's implicit culture, which required
warehouse personnel to get involved in doing administrative
tasks. The result was that "…the warehouse staff
were spending more time using the system and less time out
there in the warehouse" (ibid.:274) doing "proper"
warehouse activities. Hence, there was incompatibility between
the software's way of dealing with warehouse work, and the
accepted norm in the organisation in terms of what constituted
warehouse activities.
E2.
ERP System Values/Beliefs vs. Host Organisation Values/Beliefs
Both the UK and Swedish subsidiaries had in the past developed
and used their own bespoke systems. The implementing consultant
perceived these systems as the source of several organisational
problems and considered ERP to be the solution. However,
employees in the subsidiaries valued very highly the old
system functionality and believed that their previous system
was exactly what the company needed. For instance a marketing
manager complained: "the old system was just for our
needs and was very effective" (ibid.:274). Another
key marketing user maintained "…we bought a jumbo
when we needed a bicycle" (ibid.:274). As a result,
the ERP system was perceived as very complicated, with very
structured functions and at certain level inflexible. Thus
employees had difficulties in working with it because it
clashed with their own values. For example, one sales user
stated "order entry in SAP is quite cumbersome because
of the way it is set out and because of the information
that we have to enter it can make life quite difficult"
(ibid.:274).
Swedes
are widely characterised by very low scores in Hofstede's
uncertainty avoidance dimension. Therefore Swedish employees
are likely to choose less structured and more flexible working
practices. However, SAP's ERP package "…is a
typically German way of doing things" (ibid.:274) and
was seen as more applicable to
the
type of rigid approach associated with manufacturing operations
rather than a distribution company's more open activity
profile. In this way, the German vendor's cultural assumptions
that were embedded in the software were not compatible with
the cultural assumptions of staff in at least the Swedish
subsidiary.
E3.
ERP System Universalism vs. Host Organisation Particularism
In the UK subsidiary, there were problems due to the universalistic
"best practice" operating assumptions embedded
in the ERP software by the designers. For instance, "updates
of purchase orders assumed perfect information and processes
even when this was not always the case" (ibid.:275).
In addition, updates of the ERP package reflected changes
in German legislation only and assumed this to be universally
applicable. However, changes in UK legislation were much
faster than those embedded in the ERP. Hence "the package
is deficient in not keeping up with changes in local legislations"
(ibid.:275).
Further,
warehouse personnel dealt with complex delivery schedules
and expected the system to be flexible in order to adapt
to and process these specific orders. However, "the
ERP package failed to adapt to the local circumstance"
and was unable to deal with the complex delivery schedules.
As the IT materials management developer stated "you
can have a complex delivery schedule against the purchase
order in theory and then the supplier may acknowledge different
quantities and different dates and it is not actually possible
to match those perfectly, but the package has made an attempt
and it just falls down" (ibid.:275).
E4.
ERP Success/Failure
The incompatibilities in culture between the ERP system
and the host subsidiaries led to a number of process and
outcome problems. Both of the subsidiaries were forced to
reconsider their initial implementation process plans in
terms of time and budget. In the UK, for example, the implementation
process was extended for almost five months and extra financial
resources were required for its completion.
Regarding
outcome measures, in the Swedish subsidiary, it was difficult
to obtain a holistic and integrated view of the data. This
compromised the potential informational benefit of ERP.
The low perceived usefulness of the ERP package led to an
initial fall in the performance of the sales and warehouse
departments. Serious delays in deliveries and purchase order
processing occurred. Customer enquiries were not handled
adequately. All the above undermined the potential for transactional
benefits from implementing ERP. Further, the inefficiencies
in the warehouse and sales had a negative impact on the
level of service provided to customers. As a result, the
companies were forced to reconfigure the ERP warehouse module
in order to "acknowledge" local requirements in
terms of legislation, delivery schedule and purchase order
process.
F. Summary
and Future Work
The global diffusion of IT requires growing awareness of
cultural diversity and, ultimately, the need for development
of IT solutions for heterogeneous target environments. This
paper conceptualised ERP as a socially constructed technological
system that encapsulates certain structures of behaviour,
values, beliefs and norms. ERP is not a culturally-neutral
phenomenon. Rather, it is loaded with cultural values of
the vendors, developers, and implementation consultants.
Its transferability to other cultures that do not necessarily
share those embedded cultural values will continue to be
challenging.
However,
the 'host culture' should not be conceived as a static and
culturally homogeneous environment. Therefore, understanding
how organisations (including those in developing countries)
in different cultures accommodate and/or resist the cultural
assumptions embedded in ERP will contribute knowledge to
the application of IT in the global context.
The
paper identified two sets of culture that can prevail in
any ERP implementation situation: ERP system culture and
ERP host culture. The paper further argued that the extent
of [in]compatibility between these two can affect the process
and outcome of implementing ERP. Secondary analysis of a
case study offers some preliminary evidence on the importance
of cultural alignment between an ERP system and the organization
that implements the system. Awareness of the cultural assumptions
embedded in ERP and introduction of mechanisms to mitigate
any cultural mismatch may improve the likelihood of ERP
process and outcome success. Future studies are needed to
fully explicate the research framework and identify its
theoretical and managerial implications.
References
Allen, D. & Kern, T. (2001) Enterprise resource planning
implementation: stories of power, politics, and resistance.
Proceedings of the IFIP TC8/WG8.2 Working Conference on
Realigning Research and Practice in Information Systems
Development: The Social and Organizational Perspective,
Boise, Idaho, pp.149-162.
Al-Mashari,
M., Al-Mudimigh, A. & Zairi, M. (2003) Enterprise resource
planning: a taxonomy of critical factors. European Journal
of Operational Research, 146, pp.352-364.
Avison,
D.E. & Myers, M.D. (1995) Information systems and anthropology:
an anthropological perspective on IT and organizational
culture. Information Technology and People, 8(3), pp.43-56.
Bijker,
W.E. & Law, J. (eds.) (1992) Shaping Technology/Building
Society: Studies in Socio-Technical Change. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Bingi,
P., Maneesh, K. S. & Jayanth, K.G (1999) Critical issues
affecting an ERP implementation. Information Systems Management,
16(3), pp.7-14.
Bostrom,
P.R. & Heinen, J.S. (1977) MIS problems and failures:
a socio-technical perspective, Part I: The causes. MIS Quarterly,
1(3), pp.17-32.
Ciganek,
P.A., Jarupathirun, S. & Hangjung, Z. (2004) The role
of national culture and gender on information elements in
e-commerce: A pilot study on trust. Proceedings of the Tenth
Americas Conference on Information Systems, New York, August,
pp.470-476.
Davenport,
H.T. (1998) Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system,
Harvard Business Review, 76(4), pp.121-133.
Davison,
R. (2002) Cultural complications of ERP, Communications
of the ACM, 45(7), pp.109-111.
DeLone,
H.W. & McLean, R.E. (2003) The DeLone and McLean model
of information systems success: A ten-year update, Journal
of Management Information Systems, 19(4), pp.9-30.
Gable,
G., Sedera, D. & Chan, T. (2003) Enterprise systems
success: a measurement model. Proceedings of the Twenty
Fourth Annual International Conference on Information Systems,
Washington, December, pp.576-591.
Heeks,
R. (ed.) (2001) Reinventing Government in the Information
Age. International Practice in IT-enabled Public Sector
Reform, London: Routledge.
Hoffman,
N. & Klepper, R. (2000) Assimilating new technologies:
the role of organisational culture. Information Systems
Management, 17(3), pp.36-43.
Hofstede,
G.H. (1980) Cultural Consequences: International Differences
in Work Related Values, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Johnson,
G. & Scholes, K. (1993) Exploring Corporate Strategy.
3rd ed, London: Pearson Higher Education.
Katzenstein,
G. & Lerch, F.J. (2000) Beneath the surface of organization
processes: a social representation, framework for business
process redesign. ACM Transactions on Information Systems,
18(4), pp.383-422.
Krumbholz,
M. & Maiden, N.A.M. (2000) How culture might impact
on the implementation of enterprise planning packages? Proceedings
of Computer Aided Information System Engineering, Springer-Verlag,
pp.279–93.
Krumbholz,
M., Galliers, J., Coulianos, N. & Maiden, N.A.M. (2000)
Implementing enterprise resource planning packages in different
corporate and national cultures. Journal of Information
Technology, 15, pp.267-279.
Markus,
M.L., Axline, S., Petrie, D. & Tanis, C. (2000) Learning
from adopters' experiences with ERP: problems encountered
and success achieved. Journal of Information Technology,
15(4), pp.245–265.
Mirani,
R. & Lederer, A.L. (1998) An instrument for assessing
the organisational benefits of IS projects. Decision Sciences¸
29(4), pp.803-838.
Mumford,
E. & Weir, M. (1979) Computer Systems in Work Design:
The ETHICS Method, Halstead Press.
Myers,
D.M. & Tan, B.F. (2002) Beyond models of national culture
in information systems research. Journal of Global Information
Management, 10, pp.24-29.
Orlikowski,
W. (1992) The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept
of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3),
pp.398-427.
Pozzebon,
M. (2000) Combining a structuration approach with a behavioral-based
model to investigate ERP usage. Proceedings of Americas
Conference on Information Systems 2000, California, August,
pp.1015-1021.
Probert,
S. (1997) The actuality of information systems. in: J. Mingers
and F. Stowell (eds), Information Systems: An Emerging Discipline,
London: McGraw-Hill.
Recht,
R. & Wilderom, C. (1998) Kaizen and culture: on the
transferability of Japanese suggestion systems. International
Business Review, 7, pp.7-22.
Rose,
J. & Scheepers, R. (2001) Structuration theory and information
systems development; frameworks for practice. Proceedings
of the 9th European Conference on Information Systems, Bled,
Slovenia, June, pp.217-231.
Schein,
E. (1985) Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Shang,
S. & Seddon, B.P. (2002) Assessing and managing the
benefits of enterprise systems: the business manager's perspective.
Information Systems Journal, 12, pp.271-299.
Skok,
W. & Legge, M. (2001) Evaluating enterprise resource
planning systems using an interpretive approach. Proceedings
of the 2001 ACM SIGCPR conference on Computer Personnel
Research, San Diego, April, pp.189-197.
Soh,
C., Kien, S.S. & Tay-Yap, J. (2000) Cultural fit and
misfits: is ERP a universal solution. Communications of
the ACM, 43(4), pp.47-51.
Sumner,
M. (2000) Risk factors in enterprise-wide/ERP projects.
Journal of Information Technology, 15, pp.317-327.
Trompenaars,
F. (1996) Resolving international conflict: culture and
business strategy. Business Strategy Review, 7(3), pp.51-68.
Umble,
J.E. & Umble, M.M. (2002) Avoiding ERP implementation
failure. Industrial Management, 44(1), pp.25-35.
Walsham,
G. (2001) Making A World of Difference: IT in A Global Context,
Chichester: John Wiley.
Walsham,
G. (2002) Cross-cultural software production and use: a
structurational analysis. MIS Quarterly, 26(4), pp.359-380.
|
