Enterprise resource planning (ERP) software is used to enable organizational change. The challenges of implementing these integrated software products have recently dominated academic and practitioner literatures. Given that it is difficult for organizations to stop such projects once started, the authors'approach is to focus on howto make troubled ERP projects work. A narrative methodology is adopted to analyze a strategic initiative between a university that partnered with an ERP vendor seeking entrance into the higher education market. Through the lens of social ordering, the authors argue against the idea that consensus must be sought in instances of conflict if success is to be realized. Rather, the important thing appears to be coordinating action that will allowgoals to be achieved, even if this involves compromise. Such compromise depends on reciprocity to produce order and does not expect a shared aim as long as a solution can be negotiated.
Aladwani, A. (2002). IT project uncertainty, planning and success: An empirical investigation from Kuwait. Information Technology & People, 15, 210-226.
2.
Allen, D. K., & Kern, T. (2001). Enterprise resource planning implementation: Stories of power, politics and resistance. In N. L. Russo, B. Fitzgerald, & J. I. Degross (Eds.), Realigning research and practice in information systems development: The social and organizational perspective(pp. 149-154). Boston: Kluwer.
3.
Alshawi, M., Themistocleous, M., & Almadani, R. (2004). Integrating diverse ERP systems: A case study. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 17, 454-460.
4.
Association for Operations Management. (2004). The Supply Chain Research Consortium, North Carolina State University. Retrieved November 28, 2005, from http://scrc.ncsu.edu/public/DEFINITIONS/S.html
5.
Bauer, M. (1996). The narrative interview: Comments on a technique for qualitative data collection. London: London School of Economics and Political Science.
6.
Boland, R., & O'Leary, T. (1991). Editorial: Technologies of inscribing and organizing: Emerging research agendas. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 1, 1-7.
7.
Boland, R., & Schultze, U. (1996). Narrating accountability: Cognition and the production of the accountable self. In R. Munro & R. Mouritsen (Eds.), Accountability: Power, ethos and the technologies of managing(pp. 62-81). London: International Thomson Business Press.
8.
Boland, R., & Tenkasi, R. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organization Science, 6, 350-372.
9.
Boland, R., Tenkasi, R., & Te'eni, D. (1994). Designing information technology to support distributed cognition. Organization Science, 5, 456-475.
10.
Boudreau, M.-C., & Robey, D. (2005). Enacting integrated information technology: A human agency perspective. Organization Science, 16, 3-19.
11.
Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12.
Brunsson, N. (1985). The irrational organization: Irrationality as the basis for organizational action and change. New York: John Wiley.
13.
Cliffe, S. (1999). ERP implementation: How to avoid $100 million write-offs. Harvard Business Review, 77(1), 16-17.
14.
Cooke, D., Gelman, L., & Peterson, W. J. (2001). ERP trends (Report No. R-1292-01-RR). New York: The Conference Board.
15.
Cornford, J. (2000). The virtual university is... the university made concrete?Information, Communication and Society, 3, 508-525.
16.
Czarniawska, B. (1997). Narrating the organization: Dramas of institutional identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
Davenport, T. H. (2000). Mission critical: Realizing the promise of enterprise systems. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
18.
Denning, S. (2004). Telling tales. Harvard Business Review, 82(5), 122-129.
19.
Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3, 179-202.
20.
ERP survey results point to need for higher implementation success; Robbins-Gioia LLC identifies lack of focused management surrounding ERP implementations. (2002). Business Wire. Retrieved November 22, 2005, from Lexis Nexis database.
21.
Fuller, L. L. (1978). The forms and limits of adjudication. Harvard Law Review, 92, 394-404.
22.
Gouldner, A. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.
23.
Hall, R., & Grant, D. (2005, July). Unlocking multiple organizational narratives concerning ERP implementations. Paper presented at the 21st EGOS Colloquium, Freie Universitat, Berlin.
24.
Latour, B. (1999). Pandora's hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25.
Latour, B. (2001). A critique of pure information(Lecture series at the Department of Information Systems). London: London School of Economics.
26.
Nonaka, I. (1994). Adynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, 14-37.
27.
Orlikowski, W. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11, 404-428.
28.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Iacono, C. Z. (2001). Research commentary: Desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research—A call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research, 12, 121-134.
29.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
30.
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
31.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependent perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
32.
Pollock, N. (1999). “The virtual university” as “accurate and timely information”. Information, Communication and Society, 3, 1-17.
33.
Robey, D., & Boudreau, M. (1999). Accounting for the contradictory organizational consequences of information technology. Information Systems Research, 10, 167-185.
34.
Robey, D., Ross, J., & Boudreau, M.-C. (2002). Learning to implement enterprise systems: An exploratory study of the dialectics of change. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19, 17-46.
35.
Sawyer, S., & Southwick, R. (2002). Temporal issues in information and communication technologyenabled organizational change. Information Society, 18, 263-280.
36.
Scott, J. E., & Vessey, I. (2002). Managing risks in enterprise systems implementations. Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 74-81.
37.
Scott, S. V., & Wagner, E. L. (2003). Networks, negotiations, and new times: The implementation of enterprise resource planning into an academic administration. Information and Organization, 13, 285-313.
38.
Standish Group International. (2001). Extreme chaos. Chaos Report. Retrieved November 21, 2005, from http://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research/PDFpages/extreme_chaos.pdf
39.
Swartz, D., & Orgill, K. (2001). Higher education ERP: Lessons learned. Educause Quarterly, 24(2), 20-27.
40.
Wagner, E., & Newell, S. (2004). “Best” for Whom?: The tension between best practice ERP packages and the epistemic cultures of an Ivy league university. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13(4), 305-328.
41.
Walsham, G. (1993). Interpreting information systems in organizations. New York: John Wiley.
