Advertisement

Understanding Contradictions in Enterprise System Implementations: A Case for Stakeholder Theory

  • Stig Nordheim
  • Kai R. Moseid-Vårhus
  • Arnfinn Min Bærø
Conference paper

Abstract

Enterprise Systems (ES) implementation is challenging, and handling conflicting interests may be vital for success. Previous research has established how ES implementation involves dialectics, often related to multiple stakeholders. Involved stakeholders have in previous studies been analyzed in a power perspective, through the lens of organizational influence processes. Stakeholder theory (ST) takes a wider perspective, by including legitimacy and urgency in addition to power. An interesting perspective is therefore a suggested combination of ST and dialectics. This paper presents an ES implementation case where the explicit combination of ST and dialectics was tried out in the data analysis. In this case, two types of contradictions surfaced in implementation process. The case demonstrates that stakeholder theory contributes to a richer understanding of these contradictions than a focus on power only. Based on previous research, power would be expected to be decisive for the outcome of contradictions. However, in this case urgency and legitimacy compensated for lack of power. This suggests that the combination of ST and dialectics is a useful theoretical perspective on ES implementation processes, to better understand contradictions.

Keywords

Enterprise systems Implementation Dialectics Stakeholder theory Contradictions 

References

  1. 1.
    Seddon PB (2005) Are ERP systems a source of competitive advantage? Strat Change 14:283–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allen JP (2005) Value conflicts in enterprise systems. Inform Tech People 18(1):33–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sia SK, Soh C (2007) An assessment of package–organisation misalignment: institutional and ontological structures. Eur J Inform Syst 16(568–5):83Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boonstra A (2006) Interpreting an ERP-implementation project from a stakeholder perspective. Int J Proj Manag 24(3):8–52Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sarker S, Lee AS (2003) Using a case study to test the role of three key social enablers in ERP implementation. Inform Manag 40(8):13–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman, BostonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Donaldson T, Preston LE (1995) The stakeholder theory of the corporation—concepts, evidence, and implications. Acad Manage Rev 20(1):65–91Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manage Rev 22(4):853–886Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sedera D, Gable GG, Chan T (2004) Measuring enterprise systems success: the importance of a multiple stakeholder perspective. In: Proceedings of the 13th European conference on information systems, Turku, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nordheim S, Päivärinta T (2006) Implementing enterprise content management: from evolution through strategy to contradictions out-of-the-box. Eur J Inform Syst 15(6):648–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nordheim S, Nielsen PA (2008) Enterprise system implementations: organizational influence processes for corporate user representatives. In: Golden W, et al. (eds) Proceedings of the 16th European conference on information systems, Galway, Ireland, Paper 187Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Flak LS, Nordheim S, Munkvold BE (2008) Analyzing stakeholder diversity in G2G efforts: combining descriptive stakeholder theory and dialectic process theory. e-Serv J 6(2):3–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Esteves J, Bohorquez V (2007) An updated ERP systems annotated bibliography: 2001–2005. Instituto de Empresa Business School Working Paper No. WP 07-04Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van De Ven AH, Poole MS (1995) Explaining development and change in organizations. Acad Manage Rev 20(3):510–540Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Besson P, Rowe F (2001) ERP project dynamics and enacted dialogue: perceived understanding, perceived leeway, and the nature of task-related conflicts. SIGMIS Database 32(4):47–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Robey D, Ross JW, Boudreau M-C (2002) Learning to implement enterprise systems: an exploratory study of the dialectics of change. J Manag Inform Syst 19(1):17–46Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Soh C, Sia SK (2005) The challenges of implementing vanilla versions of enterprise systems. MIS Quart Exec 4(3):373–384Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nordheim S (2011) Towards understanding contradictions in enterprise system implementations—insights from a case study. In: Pkorny J et al (eds) Information systems development. Business systems and services: modelling and development. Springer, New York, pp 563–574Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pouloudi A, Whitley EA (1997) Stakeholder identification in inter-organizational systems: gaining insights for drug use management systems. Eur J Inform Syst 6(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vidgen R (1997) Stakeholders, soft systems and technology: separation and mediation in the analysis of information system requirements. Inform Syst J 7(1):21–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sathish S, Pan S, Raman K (2004) Using stakeholder theory to analyze knowledge sharing during enterprise systems implementations. In: PACIS 2004 proceedings, Paper 26. http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2004/26
  22. 22.
    Friedman AL, Miles S (2002) Developing stakeholder theory. J Manag Stud 39:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Braa K, Vidgen R (1999) Interpretation, intervention, and reduction in the organizational laboratory: a framework for in-context information system research. Account Manag Inform Tech 9(1):25–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, 2nd edn. SAGE Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Creswell JW (2009) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 3rd edn. SAGE Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Walsham G (2006) Doing interpretive research. Eur J Inform Syst 15:320–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Klein HK, Myers MD (1999) A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quart 23(1):67–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Henfridsson O, Yoo Y, Svahn F (2009) Path creation in digital innovation: a multi-layered dialectics perspective. Sprouts: working papers on information systems, vol 9, article 20. http://sprouts.aisnet.org/9-20
  29. 29.
    Vlaar PWL, Van Den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2007) Towards a dialectic perspective on formalization in interorganizational relationships: how alliance managers capitalize on the duality inherent in contracts, rules and procedures. Organ Stud 28(4):437–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stig Nordheim
    • 1
  • Kai R. Moseid-Vårhus
    • 2
  • Arnfinn Min Bærø
    • 2
  1. 1.University of AgderKristiansandNorway
  2. 2.Norwegian Tax AdministrationOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations