Abstract

Enterprise systems are used to facilitate the seamless integration and data exchange between the various departments within an organization. In order to achieve this, rigidly defined control mechanisms must be in place in the system, which safeguard the company’s data and protect from unauthorized and unintended uses of the system. This ideal for total control, however, is only achieved to a certain extent. Because of organizational necessities, the configuration of controls in the enterprise system may have unintended organizational implications. The purpose of this paper is to present the findings from a company case study, where an enterprise system is installed. We suggest that the introduction of an enterprise system creates power differentials, which serve to increase control in the organization. This results in increased rigidity, and a possible decrease in organizational flexibility and resilience. On the other hand, enterprise systems can cause drift, from the unexpected consequences of these power differentials, and the role of perceptions of people in solving a problem within the enterprise system. This reduction in control may serve in some circumstances as an enabler to organizational resilience.

Keywords

Enterprise system resilience embedding disembedding power control drift 

References

  1. Al-Mashari, M., and Al-Mudimigh, A. “ERP Implementation: Lessons from a Case Study,” Information Technology & People (16:1), 2003, pp. 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bloomfield, B. P., and Coombs, R. “Information Technology, Control and Power: The Centralization and Decentralization Debate Revisited,” Journal of Management Studies (29:4), 1992, pp. 459–484.Google Scholar
  3. Bloomfield, B. P., Coombs, R., and Owen, J. “The Social Construction of Information Systems: The Implications for Management Control,” in R. Mansell (ed.), Management of Information and Communication Technologies: Emerging Patterns of Control, London: Aslib, 1994, pp. 143–157.Google Scholar
  4. Boudreau, M.-C, and Robey, D. “Enacting Integrated Information Technology: A Human Agency Perspective,” Organization Science (16:1), 2005, pp. 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boudreau, M.-C, and Robey, D. “Organizational Transition to Enterprise Resource Planning Systems: Theoretical Choices for Process Research,” in P. De and J. I. DeGross (eds.), Proceedings of the 20 th International Conference on Information Systems, Charlotte, NC, 1999, pp. 291–299.Google Scholar
  6. Bruns Jr., W. J., and McFarlan, F. W. “Information Technology Puts Power in Control Systems,” Harvard Business Review (65:5), 1987, pp. 89–94.Google Scholar
  7. Clegg, S., and Wilson, F. “Power, Technology and Flexibility in Organizations,” in J. Law (ed.), Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology andDomination, London: Routledge, 1991, pp. 223–273.Google Scholar
  8. Coombs, R., Knights, D., and Willmott, H. C. “Culture, Control and Competition: Towards a Conceptual Framework for the Study of Information Technology in Organizations,” Organization Studies (13:1), 1992, pp. 51–72.Google Scholar
  9. Finnegan, P., and Longaigh, S. N. “Examining the Effects of Information Technology on Control and Coordination Relationships: An Exploratory Study in Subsidiaries of Pan-National Corporations,” Journal ofInformation Technology (17:3), 2002, pp. 149–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Foucault, M. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, London: Lane, 1977.Google Scholar
  11. Giddens, A. The Consequences of Modernity, Cambridge, England: Polity Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  12. Hanseth, O., and Braa, K. “Globalization and ‘Risk Society,’” in C. U. Ciborra, K. Braa, A. Cordelia, B. Dahlbom, A. Failla, O. Hanseth, V. Hepso, J. Ljungberg, E. Monteiro, and K. A. Simon (eds.), From Control to Drift: The Dynamics of Corporate Information Infrastructures, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 41–55.Google Scholar
  13. Hanseth, O., Ciborra, C. U., and Braa, K. “The Control Devolution: EPR and the Side Effects of Globalization,” The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems (32:4), 2001, pp. 34–46.Google Scholar
  14. Markus, M. L. “Power, Politics, and MIS Implementation,” Communications of the ACM (26:6), 1983, pp. 430–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nandhakumar, J., and Jones, M. R. “Too Close for Comfort? Distance and Engagement in Interpretive Innformation Systems Research,” Information Systems Journal (7:2), 1997, pp. 109–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Orlikowski, W. J. “Integrated Information Environment or Matrix of Control? The Contradictory Implications of Information Technology,” Accounting, Management and Information Technologies (1:1), 1991, pp. 9–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Orlikowski, W. “Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations,” Organization Science (11:4), 2000, pp. 404–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Robinson, B., and Wilson, F. “Planning for the Market? Enterprise Resource Planning Systems and the Contradictions of Capital,” The Data base for Advances in Information Systems (32:4), 2001, pp. 21–33.Google Scholar
  19. Sia, S. K., Tang, M., Soh, C, and Boh, W. F. “Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Systems as a Technology of Power: Empowerment or Panoptic Control,” The Data base for Advances in Information Systems (33:1), 2002, pp. 23–37.Google Scholar
  20. Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998.Google Scholar
  21. Walsham, G. “The Emergence of Interpretivism in IS Research,” Information Systems Research (6:4), 1995, pp. 376–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Walsham, G. Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations, Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, 1993.Google Scholar
  23. Yin, R. K. Case Study Research-design and Methods, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2003.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ioannis Ignatiadis
    • 1
  • Joe Nandhakumar
    • 1
  1. 1.University of BathUK

Personalised recommendations