Enterprise Information Systems – Eight Significant Conditions

  • Anders G. Nilsson
Conference paper

Companies are investing in new information systems in order to achieve higher efficiency in their business operations. But innovations in information technology (IT) in the form of increased productivity have still been modest. This is a well known phenomenon, usually called the “productivity paradox” for investments in IT systems within enterprises (Brynjolfsson 1993). Even if the IT investments made during the last ten years have successively provided improved operational effects, they do not fully come up to the expectations of the top managements. Investments in large enterprise systems will not automatically generate improved efficiency in the organisation (Davenport 2000). The implementation in modern IT systems needs to be supplemented by new innovative business processes and solid investments in competence development to have full potential effects!


Business Process Information System Business Operation Enterprise System Enterprise Resource Planning 
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. Avison DE, Fitzgerald G (2006) Information Systems Development: Methodolo-gies, Techniques and Tools. 4th edn, McGraw-Hill, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker J, Kugeler M, Rosemann, M (2003) Process Management: A Guide for Design of Business Processes. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Brynjolfsson E (1993) The Productivity Paradox of Information Technology. Communications of the ACM, vol 36, no 12, pp 67-77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davenport TH (1998) Putting the Enterprise into the Enterprise System. Harvard Business Review, July-August, vol 76, no 4, pp 121-131Google Scholar
  5. Davenport TH (2000) Mission Critical: Realizing the Promise of Enterprise Sys-tems. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  6. Davenport TH, Harris JE, Cantrell S (2004) Enterprise Systems and Ongoing Process Change. Business Process Management Journal, vol 10, no 1, pp 16-26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis GB (1991) The Emergence of Information Systems as a Business Function and Academic Discipline. Research Report MISCR-WP-92-01, Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. Earl M, Khan B (2001) E-Commerce Is Changing the Face of IT. MIT Sloan Man-agement Review, Fall 2001, pp 64-72Google Scholar
  9. Edvardsson B, Gustafsson A, Johnson MD, Sandén B (2000) New Service Development and Innovation in the New Economy. Studentlitteratur, Lund, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  10. Hwang Y (2005) Investigating Enterprise Systems Adoption: Uncertainty Avoidance, Intrinsic Motivation, and the Technology Acceptance Model. European Journal of Information Systems, vol 14, no 2, pp 150-161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Iivari J, Lyytinen K (1998) Research on Information Systems Development in Scandinavia: Unity in Plurality. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, vol 10, no 1&2, pp 135-186Google Scholar
  12. Keen PGW (1997) The Process Edge: Creating Value Where It Counts. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  13. Langefors B (1973) Theoretical Analysis of Information Systems (THAIS). Auer-bach, Philadelphia and Studentlitteratur, Lund, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  14. Langefors B (1995) Essays on Infology: Summing Up and Planning for the Fu-ture, Studentlitteratur. Lund, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  15. Lucas Jr. HC (1999) Information Technology and the Productivity Paradox: As-sessing the Value of Investing in IT. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Malone TW, Crowston K, Herman GA (eds) (2003) Organizing Business Knowl-edge: The MIT Process Handbook. MIT Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  17. Markus ML, Tanis C (2000) The Enterprise System Experience: From Adoption to Success. In: Zmud, R.W. (ed) (2000) Framing the Domains of IT Manage-ment - Projecting the Future … … Through the Past. Pinnaflex Education Re-sources, Cincinnati, Ohio, chap 10, pp 173-207Google Scholar
  18. Mathiassen L (1998) Reflective Systems Development. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, vol 10, no 1&2, pp 67-118Google Scholar
  19. Nilsson AG (2001) Using Standard Application Packages in Organisations: Criti-cal Success Factors. In: Nilsson AG, Pettersson JS (2001) (eds) On Methods Enterprise Information Systems - Eight Significant Conditions273 for Systems Development in Professional Organisations: The Karlstad University Approach to Information Systems and its Role in Society. Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden, pp 208-230Google Scholar
  20. Nilsson AG (2004) Information Systems Development (ISD): Past, Present, Fu-ture Trends. In: Vasilecas O, Caplinskas A, Wojtkowski W, Wojtkowski WG, Zupancic, J, Wrycza S (eds) (eds) (2005) Information Systems Development: Advances in Theory, Practice, and Education. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Information Systems Development: ISD’2004, Vilnius, Lithuania, Springer, New York, pp 29-40Google Scholar
  21. Nilsson AG, Tolis C, Nellborn C (eds) (1999) Perspectives on Business Model-ling: Understanding and Changing Organisations. Springer, Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  22. Nilsson F, Rapp B (2005) Understanding Competitive Advantage The Importance of Strategic Congruence and Integrated Control, Springer, Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  23. Olhager J, Rapp B (1985) Effektiv MPS: Referenssystem för Datorbaserad Material- och Produktionsstyrning. Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden [Effective MPC: Reference Model for Computer-based Material- and Production Con-trol]Google Scholar
  24. Orlikowski WJ, Iacono, CS (2001) Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the ‘IT’ in IT Research: A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact. Information Sys-tems Research, vol 10, no 2, pp 121-134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ploom A (1988) Information Technology and the Manufacturing Enterprise. NordDATA 88, Helsinki, Finland, vol 2, pp 275-281Google Scholar
  26. Rhenman E (1973) Organization Theory for Lange Range Planning. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Robey D, Markus ML (1998) Beyond Rigor and Relevance: Producing Consum-able Research about Information Systems. Information Resources Manage-ment Journal, vol 11, no 1, pp 7-15Google Scholar
  28. Rockart JF (1979) Chief Executives Define Their Own Data Needs. Harvard Business Review, March-April, vol 57, no 2, pp 81-93Google Scholar
  29. Samuelson LA (1980) Models on Accounting Information Systems: The Swedish Case. Studentlitteratur, Lund, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  30. SCOR (2005) Supply-Chain Operations Reference-model, SCOR Version 7.0 Overview. Supply-Chain Council (SCC), Washington, DC USAGoogle Scholar
  31. Stymne B (1993) A Note on Distinctive Competence. Research paper no 1993:56, Institute for Management of Innovation and Technology (IMIT), Stockholm School of Economics & Chalmers University of Technology, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  32. Summer M (2005) Enterprise Resource Planning. Pearson-Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  33. Themistocleous M, Watson E (2005) EJIS Special Issue on Making Enterprise Systems Work. European Journal of Information Systems (EJIS), June 2005, vol 14, no 2, pp 107-109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tolis C, Nilsson AG (1998) Business Models and IS/IT in Process Orientation. In: Fariselli P (ed) Innovating SME Business Practices: The Compete Methodol-ogy and Tools. Nomisma/edizioni Pendragon, Bologna, Italy, pp 27-48Google Scholar
  35. Österle H (1995) Business in the Information Age: Heading for New Processes. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anders G. Nilsson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information SystemsKarlstad UniversitySweden

Personalised recommendations