EXPLORING EXPLORING KNOWLEDGE KNOWLEDGE

INTEGRATION IN ERP INTEGRATION IN ERP PROJECT TEAMSPROJECT TEAMS

EXPLORING EXPLORING KNOWLEDGE KNOWLEDGE

INTEGRATION IN ERP INTEGRATION IN ERP PROJECT TEAMSPROJECT TEAMS

Sue NewellSue Newell

Bentley College, USABentley College, USA

Introduction

• Many IT projects do not meet cost, schedule & functionality targets

• Many more do not create the radical change that was intended

• Rather IT often reinforces the status quo (Orlikowski)

• Focus on problems of sharing & integrating distributed knowledge

ERP Projects• Standard software & ‘vanilla

implementations’• Change organization to fit software• Many organizations therefore start

ERP implementation with a business process reengineering phase

Project Team• Must map ‘as is’ processes, identify

processes embedded in software, & define new organizational processes that ‘fit’

•Process analysis & redesign fundamental to achieving transformational potential

Reality• Many firms do not achieve this

transformational potential from their ERP implementations!

• Critical success factors have been identified

• Ability to integrate distributed knowledge not considered

Knowledge Integration• The process whereby several

individuals combine their information to create new knowledge (Okhuysen & Eisenhardt)

• Oversimplifies complex process of sharing knowledge – knowledge is distributed & ambiguous

Knowledge Integration - Distributed

STRUCTURAL BARRIERS

Knowledge Integration - Ambiguity

We play football!!COGNTIVE BARRIERS

Knowledge is hoarded

RELATIONAL BARRIERS

Knowledge Integration• Understanding knowledge as

socially constructed & arising through interaction & dialogue means -

• Teams will achieve greater or lesser success in their ability to integrate knowledge

Different levels of knowledge integration

• Mechanistic pooling

• Generative knowledge integration

Achieving High Levels of Knowledge

Integration• Depends on project team

– Intellectual and Social capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal)

–Social capital/networking: ‘bridging’ (Burt) vs. ‘bonding’ (Coleman) views (Adler & Kwon)

Social Capital - Bonding

Social Capital - Bridging

Research• Explore level of knowledge integration

achieved in two project teams tasked with implementing a functional pillar of an ERP system in two companies

• Specifically focus on networking of teams in pursuit of sharing & integrating knowledge

Methodology

• Case study methodology• 2 companies – QEL and IEL• First interviews (14/25) and follow-

up interviews (7/12)• Informal interviews, observations,

documentation

Cases• Both large, multi-national,

engineering companies• Both decided to implement ERP

systems in 1998• QEL

– Project not completed• IEL

– System implemented and well-received

Differences between the two project teams

• Emphasis on team building• The way the project was divided up• The allocation of specialists to workpackage

areas• The inclusion of different opinions from the

process mapping stage• The involvement of the IT consultants• The understanding of ERP functionality• The involvement of users

Impact on Social Capital/Networking

• Bonding– IEL – team bonding seen as crucial– QEL – team operated independently

• Bridging– IEL – team spent considerable effort

accessing distributed knowledge– QEL – team made very little effort to access

distributed knowledge

Successful Knowledge Integration

Discussion and Conclusions

• Knowledge integration is a central activity within an ERP implementation

• Social networking (bonding and bridging) influences these processes of knowledge integration

• Management and organization of project influences this social networking

• Transformational potential of IT – requires generative knowledge integration (vs. mechanistic pooling)

Managerial Implications• Team Building• Division of tasks• Allocation of team members• Encouraging wide information search

during process mapping stage• Engaging hybrid IT consultants• Involving users

Next Steps• Longitudinal study – to explore

subsequent improvisation with system

• Track differences between piecemeal (mechanistic) and concerted (generative) approaches (Robey et al)