EXPLORING
KNOWLEDGE
INTEGRATION IN ERP
PROJECT TEAMS
Sue Newell
Bentley 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 followup 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)