230 likes | 345 Views
EXPLORING KNOWLEDGE INTEGRATION IN ERP PROJECT TEAMS. Sue Newell Bentley 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)
E N D
EXPLORING KNOWLEDGE INTEGRATION IN ERP PROJECT TEAMS Sue Newell Bentley 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)
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
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)