Exploring successful enterprise system implementation

1. Exploring successful enterprise system implementation Jay Cooprider – Computer Information Systems Gary David - Sociology Linda Edelman – Strategic Management Traci Logan – CIO Bentley College Sue Newell – Organizational Behavior

2. Over-arching Research Question: • What is the role of social capital and knowledge creation/integration on the outcomes of large scale Information Technology Projects. • Motivated by studies that indicate that despite widespread implementation of ERP – limited use of functionality of system and in some cases total rejection of the new system.

3. Methods: • Consultant perception study • Large consulting organization RQ: What role do information systems consultants play in knowledge creation and integration within ERP projects? • Conducted 8 interviews over a four month period.

4. Methods: • Siebel implementation study • RQ1:What is the link between social networks and the generation of new knowledge during ERP implementation? RQ2:What are the advantages/ disadvantages of enacting organizational change at the beginning/end of an ERP implementation process? 2. Conducted 7 interviews over four months.

5. Data Analysis: • All interviews have been conducted and transcribed • Data is still undergoing analysis • Qualitative nature of data lends itself to tools such as NVIVO.

6. Systematic Literature Review: • Searched online databases for key words (e.g., "knowledge integration” or “systems consultants”) • Gathered over 500 articles – grouped by research question • Ranked articles on applicability • Took consultant articles and rated them on theoretical quality, rigor and robustness • Findings: Paucity of quality empirical research on role of Information Technology consultants in ERP implementation processes.

7. Consulting articles:Review template Key: 1 = low relevance 2 = medium relevance 3 = high relevance

8. Analyzing different strategies to ERP adoption: Reengineering-led versus quick deployment International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, forthcoming

9. Reengineering-led Concerted (Robey) Change processes before implement Define ‘as is’ and ‘to be processes Difficult implementation Pre-implementation transformation Quick-Deployment Piecemeal (Robey) Replace legacy systems Rely on embedded ‘best practices ‘Easy’ implementation Post-implementation gradual evolution Reengineering-led vs. Quick-deployment

10. Alternative Adoption Strategies Transformation Evolution

11. Discussion • Consultants recognized difference between reengineering-led vs. quick-deployment and could relate to different client experiences • All but 1 felt reengineering-led best • But recognized most firms want to limit reengineering (quote)

12. Case example • Small office furniture distributor – main business supplier wanted them to adopt a very complex ERP system that would have meant drastic org. changes • Refused – “we have been 15 years in this business and have perfected our processes – why should someone else know our processes better than us” • Wanted a tool to support processes, not a system to impose new processes • Went with a small software vendor • Problems – a bug versus an enhancement (purchase order field – long and short but long not actually supported in rest of software so PO never printed on e.g., receipts!)

13. Conclusions • Quick-deployment strategy popular with companies (Nah et al., 2003) • Good reasons for this • Previous extensive reengineering • BUs operate independently – integration may not be that important • May be beneficial • Reengineering may identify best practices not supported by selected software • Reduces visible progress and so limits commitment

14. Practical Implications • Quick-deployment strategy PLUS • User-led post-implementation strategy • Provide resources to facilitate emergent exploitation of system • May require a new team as implementation team may be ‘burnt out’

15. Understanding the problems of ES implementations: Beyond critical success factors Working paper

16. ERP critical success factors • Nah et al. – 11 factors more or less important at different project stages • Relate to different aspects of project management and structure • Consider these CSFs in relation to Siebel implementation • Explore why CSFs problematic in practice

17. The Siebel Project • Reduction of legacy systems – but only ‘sunsetted’ 1 system after 4 years • Delays in module implementations – sales (1 year) and marketing (2 years) • Burnout of project team (quote)

18. Project Methodology • Standard IT implementation methodology • Core team • Module teams – PDT – leader, project manager, process leader, architecture leader, education leader, deployment leader etc. • Fit-gap analysis – 1 week intensive workshop • ‘Vanilla’, ‘out the box’ implementation

19. Problems encountered • Sustaining resources for social rather than technical work (quote) • Getting things done at critical points – work around formal system (quote) • Leadership and team involvement • Overall project leader – x3 • Core project team • Periphery members – turnover • Divergent ‘common’ practices (quote) • Resistance and stalemates (quote)

20. Analysis - Socio-political and cultural realities make it difficult to sustain CSFs • Staffing issues – leadership and team composition • Top management support • Project champion • Good team mix • But reality: senior management turnover; continuous change in periphery members • i.e., Difficult to sustain commitment over long duration • Need continuous INDUCTION AND REINDUCTION

21. Analysis - Socio-political and cultural realities make it difficult to sustain CSFs • Formal project management methodology • Formal methods • Business plan • Communication to all stakeholders • Constant evaluation and monitoring • Troubleshooting and testing • But reality: Work around formal processes crucial (quote) • Understanding situated actions • Need to stress INFORMAL NETWORKING

22. Analysis - Socio-political and cultural realities make it difficult to sustain CSFs • Organizational structure and culture • Manage the change process • Reality: Maintaining resources for organizational change difficult • Stable and successful context • Reengineering already taken place – but reality: divergence of practice and process • Organization change to suit software so minimize customization • Reality: resistance • Recognize IMPROVISATION skills of users

23. Conclusions – Meta-level processes • Induction – to build and rebuild social capital – bonds and bridges (Adler and Kwon) • Informality – to sustain CoP (Brown and Duguid) • Improvisation – to support situated learning (Lave and Wenger)