Why ERPs Disappoint: the Importance of Getting the Organisational Text Right

Taylor, James R.; Virgili, Sandrine

doi:10.1007/978-1-84800-183-1_5

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the 20-year history of the CSCW field, for instance, we find that there are few mentions of the terminology of ERP (based on a free-text search of online archives) (but see Taylor and Virgili 2008). The lack of ERP studies is, on one hand, perhaps understandable.…”

Section: Initial Work On Information Infrastructuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Artefacts to Infrastructures

Monteiro

Pollock

Hanseth

et al. 2012

Comput Supported Coop Work

166

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Initial Work On Information Infrastructuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Artefacts to Infrastructures

Monteiro

Pollock

Hanseth

et al. 2012

Comput Supported Coop Work

166

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…On the face of it, ERP systems, with their libraries of standardised business processes and centralised databases, would seem to constitute the antithesis of the CSCW project (c.f. Taylor and Virgili 2008). In contrast to the emphasis of ethnomethodological and interactionist accounts on the 'unique adequacy' of organisational processes-and thus also the need for specificity of designed systems and of methods of creating them (Voss 2006)-our studies have suggested that packaged solutions have prevailed because they offer workable 'bridges' between generic organisational/informational templates and the particularities of diverse organisation practices.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

“…& the uniqueness of particular organisational settings and practices (Hartswood et al 2002); & the consequent gulf between standard generic enterprise software solutions and these practices (Soh et al 2000;Walsham 2001;Taylor and Virgili 2008). Packaged ERP implementation is accordingly often portrayed in these accounts as risky and imposing high costs (as well as the high purchase price for these enormously complex software systems, costs include the significant expense and effort of adapting software to user needs or of adopting unwanted organisational change to align to the templates built-in to the packaged solutions) and uncertain in its benefits.…”

Section: The Need For Strategic Ethnographymentioning

confidence: 99%

e-Infrastructures: How Do We Know and Understand Them? Strategic Ethnography and the Biography of Artefacts

Pollock

Williams

2010

Comput Supported Coop Work

106

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In health research and services, and in many other domains, we note the emergence of large-scale information systems intended for long-term use with multiple users and uses. These einfrastructures are becoming more widespread and pervasive and, by enabling effective sharing of information and coordination of activities between diverse, dispersed groups, are expected to transform knowledge-based work. Social scientists have sought to analyse the significance of these systems and the processes by which they are created. Much current attention has been drawn to the often-problematic experience of those attempting to establish them. By contrast, this paper is inspired by concerns about the theoretical and methodological weakness of many studies of technology and work organisation-particularly the dominance of relatively short-term, often single site studies of technology implementation. These weaknesses are particularly acute in relation to the analysis of infrastructural technologies. We explore the relevance to such analysis of recent developments in what we call the Biography of Artefacts (BoA) perspective-which emphasises the value of strategic ethnography: theoretically-informed, multi-site and longitudinal studies: We seek to draw insights here from a programme of empirical research into the long-term evolution of corporate e-infrastructures (reflected in current Enterprise Resource Planning systems) and review some new conceptual tools arising from recent research into e-Infrastructures (e-Is). These are particularly relevant to understanding the current and ongoing difficulties encountered in attempts to develop large-scale Health Infrastructures.

show abstract

“…Language, through speech acts, brings about organizational reality (Cooren, 2000), whether in face-to-face interaction (e.g. Bencherki, Matte, & Pelletier, 2016;Bencherki & Cooren, 2011), in writing (Brummans, 2007;Cooren, 2004) or through technology (Taylor & Virgili, 2008). Speech acts construct (social) reality: couples are married when the priest says 'I now pronounce you…', and institutional facts such as money, baseball or human rights exist in and through language use (Searle, 1995).…”

Section: Property and Organization Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Property and Organization Studies

Bencherki

Bourgoin

2017

Organization Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Property is pervasive, and yet we organization scholars rarely discuss it. When we do, we think of it as a black-boxed concept to explain other phenomena, rather than studying it in its own right. This may be because organization scholars tend to limit their understanding of property to its legal definition, and emphasize control and exclusion as its defining criteria. This essay wishes to crack open the black box of property and explore the many ways in which possessive relations are established. They are achieved through work, take place as we make sense of signs, are invoked into existence in our speech acts, and travel along sociomaterial networks. Through a fictionalized account of a photographic exhibition, we show that property overflows its usual legal-economic definition. Building on the case of the photographic exhibit, we show that recognizing the diversity of property changes our rapport with organization studies as a field, by unifying its approaches to the individual-vs.-collective dilemma. We conclude by noting that if theories can make a difference, then whoever controls the assignment of property – including academics who ascribe properties to their objects of study – decides not only who has or who owns what, but also who or what that person or thing can be.

show abstract

Why ERPs Disappoint: the Importance of Getting the Organisational Text Right

Cited by 11 publications

References 12 publications

From Artefacts to Infrastructures

From Artefacts to Infrastructures

e-Infrastructures: How Do We Know and Understand Them? Strategic Ethnography and the Biography of Artefacts

Property and Organization Studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About