Towards a Dialectic Understanding of Enterprise Systems – Vendor Challenges and Contradictory Rhetoric

  • Stig Nordheim

Substantial Enterprise Systems (ES) research has focused on customers’ imple- mentation processes. This paper argues the need for a larger context to understand ES implementation. This context includes the fundamental challenge ES vendors are facing, how to satisfy unique needs with generic software. The designed solution to this challenge is analyzed, focusing on the two simple and yet fundamental concepts of commonality and variability. It is argued that the balance between commonality and variability may be viewed as a dialectic of design.


Enterprise System Generic Software Enterprise Resource Planning Enterprise Resource Planning System Demarcation Line 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agresso (2005) Whitepaper: “Implementation the easy way”.
  2. Besson, P. and F. Rowe (2001). “ERP project dynamics and enacted dialogue”. SIGMIS Database 32(4): 47-66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brehm, L., Heinzl, A., Markus, M.L. (2001). “Tailoring ERP Systems: A Spec-trum of Choices and their Implications”. Proceedings of HICSS-34, Los Alamitos CA, IEEE.Google Scholar
  4. Bühne, S., K. Lauenroth, et al. (2005). “Modelling Requirements Variability across Product Lines”. 13th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering, Paris, France, IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  5. Coplien, J., Hoffman, D., and Weiss, D. (1998). “Commonality and Variability in Software Engineering”. IEEE Software. 15(6): p. 37-45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dahlbom, B. and L. Mathiassen (1993). Computers in Context: The philosophy and practice of systems design. Cambridge, Mass., NCC Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Davenport, T. H. (1998). “Putting the Enterprise into the Enterprise System.” Harvard Business Review 76(4): 122-131.Google Scholar
  8. Israel, J. (1979). The Language of Dialectics and the Dialectics of Language. Co-penhagen, Munksgaard.Google Scholar
  9. Klein, H. K. and M. D. Myers (1999). “A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems.” MIS Quarterly 23 (1): 67-93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lee, Z. and J. Lee (2000). “An ERP implementation case study from a knowledge transfer perspective.” Journal of Information Technology 15: 281-288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Leishman, D.A. (1999). Solution Customization. IBM Systems Journal, 38, 1: 76-97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Liang, H. and Y. Xue (2004). “Coping with ERP-related contextual issues in SMEs: a vendor’s perspective.” Journal of Strategic Information Systems 13: 399-415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Luo, W. and D. M. Strong (2004). “A framework for evaluating ERP implementa-tion choices.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 51(3): 322-333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Markus, M. L. (1997). “The Qualitative Difference in IS Research and Practice ”. Proceedings of the IFIP TC 8 8.2 International Conference on Information Systems and Qualitative Research, Philadelphia. 11-27.Google Scholar
  15. Markus, M. L. and C. Tanis (2000). “The Enterprise System Experience - From Adoption to Success”. R. W. Zmud (ed.): Framing the domains of IT man-agement: projecting the future through the past. Ohio, Pinnaflex: 173-207.Google Scholar
  16. Nordheim, S. and T. Päivärinta (2006). “Implementing Enterprise Content Man-agement: From Evolution through Strategy to Contradictions Out-of-the-Box. ”European Journal of Information Systems. In press.Google Scholar
  17. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Robey, D., J. W. Ross, et al. (2002). “Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change.” Journal of Management Information Systems 19(1): 17-46.Google Scholar
  19. SAP (2003). “SAP Makes Innovation Happen”. SAP AG Brochure Material No. 50 065- 210.Google Scholar
  20. SAP (2003b). “SAP Customer Services Network”. SAP AG Brochure Material No. 50 045-557.Google Scholar
  21. SAP (2005). “Integrated Industry-Specific Enterprise Solutions For Midsize Busi-nesses”. AG Brochure Material No. 50 061-060.Google Scholar
  22. Soh, C., S. K. Sia, et al. (2003). “Misalignments in ERP Implementation: A Dia-lectic Perspective. ” International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 16 (1): 81-100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Somers, T. M. and K. Nelson (2001). “The impact of critical success factors across the stages of enterprise resource planning implementations”. Proceed-ings of HICSS-34, Los Alamitos CA, IEEE.Google Scholar
  24. Van de Ven, A. H. and M. S. Poole (1995). “Explaining development and change in organizations.” Academy of Management Review 20(3): 510-540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wei, H.-L. H., E. T. G. E. Wang, et al. (2005). “Understanding misalignment and cascading change of ERP implementation: a stage view of process analysis. ” European Journal of Information Systems 14(4): 324-334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stig Nordheim
    • 1
  1. 1.Agder University CollegeNorway

Personalised recommendations