Advertisement

Changing Spaces for Social Learning in ERP Implementation: A Situational Analysis

  • Gian Marco Campagnolo
  • Samantha Ducati
Conference paper

Abstract

The research presented in this paper focuses on two different periods of implementation choices in the history of an Italian public sector organization as ERP software support shifts from being provided in-house to a market-based supply. The case illustrates a deeply contextual reflexivity between the various compositions of supply and use space and the social learning that shapes organizational members’ representations of ERP system implementation choices. Data on distinctive situational maps of organizational resources concerning implementation choices and post-implementation enhancements of the system were gathered through biographic interviews and observations of the system in use. Two different situational maps of IT related expertise were identified across different time periods: the “Steering Committee” period (1998–2001) and the “Key Users” period (2002–2005). We explore the role played across time by the reconfiguration of actors and their interactions along the ERP system support chain in patterning the way project participants make sense of notions like “customization” or “standardization”.

Keywords

Project Manager Steering Committee Operational Service User Centered Design Epistemic Culture 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Pentland B (1992) Organizing moves in software support hot lines. Adm Sci Q 37(4):527–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Almkov PG, (2008) Standardized data and singular situations. Soc Stud Sci 38(6):873–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clarke A (2005) Situational analysis: grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Knorr-Cetina K (1999) Epistemic cultures: how sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ciborra C (2000) From control to drift: the dynamics of corporate information infrastructures. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Williams R, Slack R, Stewart J (2005) Social learning in technological innovation—experimenting with information and communication technologies. Edgar Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jaeger B, Slack R, Williams R (2000) Europe experiments with multimedia: an overview of social experiments and trials. Inf Soc 16(4):277–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brown HS, Vergragt P, Green K, Berchicci L (2003) Learning for sustainability transition through bounded socio-technical experiments in personal mobility. Technol Anal Strateg Manage 15(3):291–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Molina A (1995) Sociotechnical constituencies as processes of alignment: the rise of a large-scale European information technology initiative. Technol Soc 17(4):385–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hislop D (2002) The client role in consultancy relations during the appropriation of technological innovations. Res Policy 31(5):657–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Newman M, Westrup C (2005) Making ERPs work: accountants and the introduction of ERP systems. Eur J Inf Syst 14(3):258–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pollock N, Cornford J (2004) ERP systems and the university as an ‘unique’ organization. Inf Technol People 17(1):31–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Richmond WB, Nelson P, Misra S (2006) An empirical analysis of software life spans to determine the planning horizon for new software. Inf Technol Manage 7(2):131–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liang H, Xue Y, Boulton W, Byrd T (2004) Why Western vendors don’t dominate China’s ERP market: examining cases of failed ERP system implementation in China and explaining the unique circumstances. Commun ACM 47(7):69–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kumar K, Maheshwari U, Kumar U (2003) An investigation of critical management issues in ERP implementation: empirical evidence from canadian organizations. Technovation 23(10):793–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Light B, Holland C, Wills K (2001) ERP and best of breed: a comparative analysis. Bus Process Manage J 7(3):216–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brown JS, Duguid P (2001) Knowledge and organization: a social-practice perspective. Org Sci 12(2):198–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wagner E, Newell S (2004) Best for whom: the tension between ‘best practice’ ERP packages and diverse epistemic cultures in a university context. J Strateg Inf Syst 13(4):305–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Univeristà di TrentoTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations