EXPLORING KNOWLEDGE INTEGRATION IN ERP PROJECT TEAMS

1
EXPLORING KNOWLEDGE INTEGRATION IN ERP PROJECT
TEAMS

• Sue Newell
• Bentley College, USA

2
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

3
ERP Projects

• Standard software vanilla implementations
• Change organization to fit software
• Many organizations therefore start ERP
  implementation with a business process
  reengineering phase

4
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

5
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

6
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

7
Knowledge Integration - Distributed
STRUCTURAL BARRIERS
8
Knowledge Integration - Ambiguity
We play football!!
COGNTIVE BARRIERS
9
Knowledge is hoarded
RELATIONAL BARRIERS
10
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

11
Different levels of knowledge integration

• Mechanistic pooling
• Generative knowledge integration

12
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)

13
Social Capital - Bonding
14
Social Capital - Bridging
15
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

16
Methodology

• Case study methodology
• 2 companies QEL and IEL
• First interviews (14/25) and follow-up interviews
  (7/12)
• Informal interviews, observations, documentation

17
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

18
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

19
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

20
Successful Knowledge Integration
21
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)

22
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

23
Next Steps

• Longitudinal study to explore subsequent
  improvisation with system
• Track differences between piecemeal (mechanistic)
  and concerted (generative) approaches (Robey et
  al)