Understanding ERP Implementation Methods: The Case of ASAP

IRIS27 Jonas Hedman: Understanding ERP Implementation Methods: The Case of ASAP

Understanding ERP Implementation Methods: The Case of ASAP Jonas Hedman Department of Informatics, School of Economics and Management, Lund University Ole Römers väg 6, S-223 63 Lund, Sweden [email protected]

Abstract: This paper presents the analysis of one Enterprise Resource Planning systems implementation method, namely AcceleratedSAP (ASAP). The analysis is based on Iivari’s (1991) framework for investigating the underlying assumptions of information systems development methods. The framework includes four dimensions: ontology, epistemology, research methodology and ethics. The analyses show similarities between information systems development approaches, such as the infological-, the information modelling-, the socio-technical-, and the trade unionist approach. The main difference between ASAP and traditional information systems development methods is the inherent view of information requirements, which can be summarised as information predetermined, i.e. the method ‘knows’ the information requirements and dictates the information specification. In addition, or a consequence of information predetermination, ASAP applies a reversed logic of analysis and design in the implementation, where the implementation process begins with the design followed by the analysis.

Keywords: ASAP, paradigmatic framework, ISD, method, ERP implementation.


1. Introduction and Background IS researchers have been criticized for not paying attention to the IT artefacts (Orlikowski & Iacono, 2001) and not critically reflecting upon and challenging the approaches used in the development and implementation of IS (Iivari & Hirschheim, 1996). Critical analysis of information systems development methods (ISDMs) can contribute to our understanding of the embedded assumptions in ISDMs (Iivari et al., 1998). The underlying assumptions affect the choices with regard to the analysis, design and implementation alternatives and, in the long run, the IS and the organization (Iivari & Hirschheim, 1996; Iivari et al., 1998). Iivari (1991) among others has stressed the importance of investigating the underlying assumption for research, education and practice. Research on ISDMs has been increasing over the years (Nielsen, 1990; Iivari, 1991; Iivari et al., 2001). According to Nielsen (1990) one of the first contributions was Taggert and Tharp (1977). This was followed by, among other things, three conferences on Cooperative Review of Information Systems Design Methodologies in 1982, 1983 and 1986. The result of these conferences is a framework for comparing ISDMs (Olle, 1991). Other researchers have investigated the assumptions and purposes inherent in ISDM, e.g. WoodHarper and Fitzgerald (1982), Nielsen (1990), Iivari (1991), Jayaratna (1994), Iivari and Hirschheim (1996), Iivari et al. (1998), Iivari et al. (2001), and Avison and Fitzgerald (2003), whereas other have investigated the use of ISDMs, such as Wynekoop and Russo (1993), Iivari and Maansaari (1998), Fitzgerald et al. (2002). This paper addresses ERP systems implementation methods, which are mostly developed by ERP vendors and ERP consulting firms to support the implementation of ERP systems (Markus & Tanis 2000). For instance, methods such as AcceleratedSAP (ASAP) from SAP, Implex from Intentia and JD Edwards One/Methodology from JD Edwards (Rashid et al., 2002) are some examples of methods developed by ERP vendors and ERP consulting firms. The interest in ERP systems implementation methods originates, in particular, from the large-scale adoption of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems during the past decade (Davenport, 2000; Hitt et al., 2002; Kumar, 2002; Robey et al., Boudreau 2002). Research on ERP systems has so far been mainly focused on implementation and impact issues (Robey et al., 2002; Hedman, 2003). Less attention has been given to the methods used during the configuration and the implementation of ERP systems (Gattiker & Goodhue, 2002), even though they are commonly used in practice (George, 2000), they remain unexplored in ISD research. There are some exceptions, including (Dolmetsch et al., 1998; Fitzgerald et al., 2002; Avison & Fitzgerald, 2003; Esteves et al., 2003; Hedman, 2003). The main contribution of this research is the conclusion that the order of analysis and design in the system development life cycle is


performed in reverse order. This implies a different sequence or various steps during the configuration and implementation of ERP systems, compared to how the system development life cycle describes it. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of ISD by analyzing the underlying assumptions of one ERP systems implementation method. The analysis is based on Iivari’s (1991) paradigmatic framework and is justified since it enables comparison to previous research on “contemporary” (Iivari, 1991) and “contrasting” (Iivari et al., 1998) ISDMs1. The plan of the paper is as follows. The following section describes the paradigmatic framework and some empirical results based on the framework. In section three the research approach is presented. Section four presents the ERP implementation method. The fifth section presents the results of the analysis, which are followed by a discussion. The final section summarizes the results and provides suggestions for further research into ERP implementation methods.

2. Paradigmatic framework Iivari’s framework is based on the distinction between ontology, epistemology, methodology, and the ethics of research and is summarized in Table 1 and in the following sections. Iivari’s (1991) paradigmatic framework was initially used to analyse seven contemporary ISDM or schools of thought, including software engineering, database management, management information systems, decision support systems, implementation research, socio-technical and infological approach. Later the framework has been used to analyse contrasting ISDMs (Iivari et al., 1998), such as the interactionist approach, the speech act approach, the soft system methodology approach, the trade unionist approach, and the professional work practice approach, and to investigate the view on ontological assumptions in eight different ISDMs (Iivari & Hirschheim, 1996). The results of three empirical studies are presented at the end of the section.

2.1 Ontological Dimension The ontological dimension consists of five levels; according to the view of 1) data/information, 2) data/information systems, 3) human beings, 4) technology, and 5) organization and society, see Table 1. The ontological dimension was further explored in Iivari and Hirschheim’s (1996) study of two

Iivari et al. (1998) made a distinction between method and approach, whereas method represents instances of methods belonging to an approach. However, this distinction is not necessary for this paper, but it is important to recall since the approach level have been the main analytical level of analysis of the paradigmatic framework.

1


underlying ontological assumptions in eight ISDMs. The first assumption addressed was the perceived role of ISs in organization, i.e. the relationship and function of an IS within its context. The organizational role of the IS was further divided into three dimensions: technical (T), socio-technical (ST) and social (S). The technical view regards the IS as a technical artifact with well-defined input and output interfaces. The social view, on the other hand, primarily sees the IS as an organizational and social system, i.e. an integral part of the whole or an interdependent subsystem. The other assumption addressed what constitutes information requirements. The information requirements category contained objectivism (O), subjectivism (S), and intersubjectivism (I). Objectivism refers to the impersonal features, e.g. task position and organizational role. The subjective view, on the other hand, sees information requirements as personally based on the user’s characteristics. The intersubjective view applies an emergent perspective of information requirements.

Ontology

Epistemology

Five levels

Distinction between

Dimensions Methodology Ethics: the role and underlying values of IS research Research The role of IS Underlying approaches values

• The view of

• Positivism

• Constructive

data and information

• Antipositivism

• The view of data- and information systems

• Nomothetic

• Means and end

• Organization/ Management

• Idiographic

• Interpretative

• End user

• Critical

• Other

• The view of human beings • The view of technology • The view of organization and society

Table 1. Summary of the paradigmatic framework, based on Iivari (1991).


2.2 Epistemological, Methodological, Ethical Dimensions Epistemology relates to knowledge and how this can be obtained. This dimension is based on Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) distinction between positivism and anti-positivism, i.e. the nature of scientific knowledge. Methodology addresses the preferred research method of improving the ISDM. Three categories are used to distinguish between research approaches, including idiographic research methods (e.g. case studies and action research), nomothetic research methods (e.g. formal-mathematical analysis, experiments, field studies and surveys) and constructive research approaches (conceptual development and technical development). The two first research approaches (i.e. idiographic and nomothetic) are based on Burell and Morgan’s (1979) illustration of two extremes in research. Constructive research methods on the other hand take into account the fact that IS science is also an applied science. In a later paper, Iivari et al. (1998) derive the constructive research approaches to Simon’s work on the “Science of the Artificial” (1996). Ethics of research distinguishes between the role of IS research (means-end oriented, interpretative, and critical as potential roles) and its value (organization/management, end user, and others).

2.3 Empirical Research As mentioned above the paradigmatic framework has been applied in a number of studies of ISDM (Iivari, 1991; Iivari & Hirschheim, 1996; Iivari et al., 1998; Iivari et al., 2001). This section reviews three studies. The result of Iivari’s (1991) showed great similarities between the seven contemporary approaches and is summarized in Table 2, last row. The ontological dimension showed the greatest diversity. The seven contemporary ISDMs view IS mainly as a technical system, where data and information are descriptive facts. Furthermore, the contemporary approaches apply a structuralistic view of organizations and apply a positivistic epistemology. The research approach applied have involved both nomothetic and constructive research methodology to improve the approaches and embracing a means-and-end oriented research ethics emphasizing organizational and management values. Iivari’s et al. (1998) applied the same paradigmatic analyses on five contrasting ISDMs, including the interactionist approach, the speech act approach, the soft system methodology approach, the trade unionist approach, and the professional work practice approach. The selection of these five approaches was justified by the fact that Iivari et al. (1998) assumed that they reflect different paradigmatic assumptions than the contemporary approaches analysed by Iivari (1991). Support for this hypothesis was also provided by the analysis. The result of their analysis is presented in Table 2 and shows larger differences than the contemporary ISDMs analysed by Iivari (1991). The contemporary approaches


apply a much more deterministic view of technology, whereas the contrasting approaches have a clearer social orientation.

ISDM

Ontology

Dimensions Epistemology Methodology

Ethics

Interactionist

Social

Positivism

Idiographic

Interpretive

Speech act

Sociotechnical

Antipositivist

Nomothetic

Means-end

SSM

Sociotechnical

Dualistic

Constructive and Means-end and idiographic interpretive

Trade unionist

Technical

Positivism

Constructive and Critical idiographic

Antipositivist

Constructive and Means-end idiographic

Positivism

Constructive and Means-end nomothetic

Professional practice Contemporary approaches

work Sociotechnical Technical

Table 2. Summary of empirical results of analysis based on the paradigmatic framework. Iivari and Hirschheim (1996) analysed eight ISDMs, including information modelling, the decision support system, the socio-technical approach, the infological approach, the interactionist approach, the speech act-based approach, soft systems methodology, and the trade unionist approach. The first four approaches represent old and established tradition while the four latter ones represent new and contemporary approaches. In their analysis, they used textbooks based on Kuhn’s idea that books are important manifestations of existing paradigms. A summary of their findings is shown in Table 3. The first two traditions, i.e. information modelling and the decision support system, apply a mechanistic view of technology. The social-technical school views the IS as a social-technical system, whereas the infological approaches apply a combination of the three. The so-called new approaches emphasize the social nature of ISs. The view of information requirements did not provide the same variety. One of their explanations was that new ISDMs have different sets of assumptions than the old ISDMs with regard to the view on technology, human being, and organization. There are differences between the ISDMs analyzed with regard to their ontological, epistemological, preferred research approaches and ethics preferences. Nevertheless, there is one common factor in the above-mentioned methods and approaches; they are all designed for scratch development - inhouse or by an external party. The methods and approaches assume that ISs are developed from scratch. The recent development and increased importance of


COTS systems and the subsequent COTS approaches and methods have not yet been analyzed.

Methods

Organizational role T

ST

Information requirements

S

O

S

I *

Information Modelling

***

*

***

**

Decision Support System

***

*

**

***

***

*

***

*

Socio-technical approach Infological approach

*** **

**

**

Interactionist approach

***

Speech Act approach

***

**

*** **

SSM

**

**

**

Trade Unionist approach

***

*

**

*

**

Table 3. Orientation of ISDMs, based on Iivari and Hirschheim’s (1996) tables four and five, *** Strong orientation, * Weak orientation.

3. Method The applied research method is artefact evaluation with the goal of uncovering the underlying assumptions in ASAP. The ASAP method is viewed as an artefact, where the paradigmatic framework has been used as an evaluation framework for positioning constructs and concepts (March & Smith 1995). The chosen research approach includes three presumptions: 1) the COTS method is viewed as an artefact; 2) the artefact described in books and the actual methodology reflect the underlying assumptions that guided the design of the method; 3) and by performing text analysis it is possible to infer those assumptions (Iivari et al., 1998). The selection of ERP implementation method is based on the degree of institutionalization in the scientific community. According to Iivari and Hirschheim (1996), Kuhn (1970) has described six criteria to determine institutionalization: including 1) the existence of scientific journals, 2) scientific conferences, 3) textbooks, 4) professional associations, 5) informational and formal communication networks, and 6) citations. ASAP is one of the few ERP implementations methods addressed by the research community (Dolmetsch et al., 1998; Borell & Hedman, 2000; Rosemann, 2001; Esteves et al., 2003) and is widely described in textbooks (Bancroft et al., 1998; Hiquet & Kelly, 1998; Miller, 1998; Hernandez et al., 1999; Jacobs & Whybark, 2000). In addition, there are professional associations promoting ASAP and there are newsgroups on the Internet representing informal networks and are cited in case studies,


such as Geneva (Bhattacherjee, 2000). Furthermore, ASAP is well established on the market as regards implementing a market leading ERP system and it is used in education via the university alliance program between SAP and about 400 universities around the world. Thus, the method has both practical and educational relevance and meets several of Kuhn’s institutional assessment criteria. There are limitations of the chosen approach and the selected ERP implementation method. An important limitation of this work is the fact that only one ERP systems implementation method is analyzed. This limits the possibilities of interpreting and discussing the results. Another limitation of the study, but also a consequence of the chosen approach, is that the analysis was based on material published on the method and not related to how it is used in practice. However, text books have been used previously (Iivari & Hirschheim, 1996; Iivari et al., 1998). Another limitation is that the paradigmatic framework has previously been used to analyse approaches or schools of thought – not instances of approaches such as a method. However, in this particular case of ERP implementation methods it is not possible to apply an approach level, since it does not yet exist on a theoretical and conceptual level.

4. The Case: AcceleratedSAP In this section, we will be providing a review of ASAP, including a brief historical overview and a description of its phases. Following Iivari and associates, textbooks were chosen (such as Hernandez et al., 1999; Hiquet & Kelly, 1998; Jacobs & Whybark, 2000; Keller & Teufel, 1998) and official training material (SAP, 1998) and the actual methodology (SAP, 1999). In addition, current research on ASAP is briefly reviewed. The ASAP implementation methodology was introduced in 1996 with the specific goal of structuring implementation projects and thereby reducing the time to implement R/3 (Miller, 1998). The previous, and to some extent competing implementation method Procedure Model, was introduced in 1995 and included four phases (organizational and conceptual design, detailed design and system setup, preparations for going live, and productive operations) with three levels of detail (project phases, work packages, and project activities). Hernandez et al. (1999) present the main differences between the two implementation methods. The main difference between the two methods is that the Procedure model has a stronger focus on reengineering, whereas ASAP is more focused on short implementation projects. This is expressed as “the absence of Business Process Reengineering” (Hiquet and Kelly, 1998, p. 18). The procedure model resembles more traditional ISD than ASAP. For instance, the focus on reengineering and the adaptation of the system to firms’ requirements illustrate this. ASAP was initially developed by SAP AG’s American subsidiary


and is based on best practice by a number of implementation projects in the USA (Hernandez et al., 1999). There had been many customer complaints regarding the long implementations. Dolmetch et al. (1998) studied the implications and use of ASAP in four implementation projects. They concluded that the strength of the method lies in forcing companies to focus on essentials, on keeping implementation projects on time and within budget, on control of the project’s organization, and on managing documentation. Two key areas were found to be insufficiently supported, including end user training and change management. The ASAP method is packaged as an independent software application with connections to the IMG in R/3. IMG stands for Implementation Guide, which is used to configure the R/3 system. The ASAP software comprises four components: The ASAP Implementation Assistant, The SAP R/3 Concept Check Tool, The Question and Answer (Q&A) database, and The ASAP Administration Tool. The administration tool is used to create and manage the projects and the users of ASAP. The concept tool is used to test and verify the system and the implementation project. The Q&A database is used to organize and document requirements. The implementation assistant structures and organizes the project, by stipulating what tasks are to be performed and when, as well as by whom.

4.1 Phases of included in ASAP The methodology consists of five phases presented as a roadmap. The roadmap only contains one road, making navigation much easier, with checkpoints: Phase I. Project Preparations provide assistance in the initial planning and preparation for an R/3 project. This involves defining the project, specifying the scope, deciding on an implementation strategy, specifying the project schedule and sequence of implementation, establishing the project organization and steering committees, and assigning resources. Phase II. The Business Blueprint is the requirements specification phase during which detailed documentation is gathered in from workshops. The Q&A database supports the creation of the Business Blueprint, documenting the business requirements and identifying the scope of the project. The Business Blueprint covers, for instance, business strategy, organizational structure, general settings, master data, and the documentation of business processes. The goal is to create a common understanding of how to run the business with R/3. Phase III. Realization involves configuration of the system using guidelines decided in the Business Blueprint. Testing the system is important during this phase. Configuration is done in a two-step procedure. Initially, baseline configuration is done, which involves general configuration options, e.g. global settings such as currencies master data, the most important processes and the


organizational structure. Final configuration involves configuring other processes, printing options, and background processing. Phase IV. Final preparation mainly includes testing the system and end-user training on it. Loose ends from previous phases are also dealt with during this phase. The future system administration is set up and stress tests are performed. Phase V. The Go Live and Support phase is when the actual installation takes place and the system comes into use. Initially, support for the users is essential since most problems are likely to arise at the beginning. The long-term goal is to optimize the system. Each of the phases includes a large number of tools and utilities for simplifying work. The hierarchy of the methodology is that each phase includes a group of work packages, which are divided into activities consisting of groups of tasks that have to be completed. In some cases, the activities are structured into six hierarchical levels. Most of the activities are supported via Word, Excel, and MS project documents and files. For instance, there are document templates for convening a start-up meeting and to organize a kick off meeting.

5. Result of the analysis The assumptions embedded into ASAP, related to its ontological, epistemological, research methodology, ethics, and view of information requirements, are presented in the following sections.

5.1 Ontological assumptions In relation to the ontological position ASAP view data and information as descriptive facts. In the method there are references to the R/3 reference model. The reference model includes the conceptual design of R/3 (including process models, organizational models and data models) and descriptions of data objects with their attributes and relationships. This is a reflection of a descriptive view of data and information, since the method takes it for granted, and even presumes what data and information are. The view of IS (technical versus organizational/social system), ASAP does not explicitly define. Implicitly, ASAP assumes the existence of one and only one IS, namely R/3 – thus there is no need for any other IS. This conclusion is based on a reverse logic, since there are no references to other ISs there is no need for other IS. The view of IS is a technical view with organizational implications. The implication of this is that the method assume that the organization is adapted to the system and the role of the ASAP is to support the organizational adaptation.


ASAP express this as “moving from an existing system and way of doing business to using R/3 to run the entire, or a part of, the business.” The view of the human being is deterministic, where humans have to adapt to the system. This can also be expressed as a Theory X view of the human being which assumes that most people have an inherent dislike for work and therefore have to be controlled and directed in order to accomplish organizational goals. People are controlled by the ‘order’ enforced by R/3, which defines individual work tasks. The roles of humans are to perform tasks and roles and only those that the system cannot do. This is based on an instrumental view of humans and organizations similar to information modelling. ASAP applies a general view of technology that is deterministic with casual effects, i.e. success will follow the use of ASAP, cf. the contemporary ISDMs. Technological choices are stressed during all phases of ASAP and the Concept check tool is mainly a technical test. The choice that organizations might have concerns using the system at all, and what parts or modules to use. The organizational view inherent in ASAP is structuralistic, whereby the system is a reflection of the organization or more precisely the system is the organization. The organizational view is that the organization is subordinate to the system which also defines the organizational surroundings. Society are competitors, customers and suppliers, which the system knows how to manage. The view of information requirements is the most distinguishing characteristic of ASAP in comparison to the other ISDM, e.g. the infological approach, the structured approach or the SSM approach. In comparison with other kinds of ISDM, there is no such need – the system provides the best solution to any information requirements. The view is clearly objective and emphasizes the organizational and task position of information requirements. However, there is one major difference between ISDMs in general and ASAP. In the traditional view of information requirements, e.g. in the contemporary ISDMs analyzed by Iivari (1991), it is the organizational role or task that determines the user’s information requirements. In ASAP, on the other hand, this is presented in a similar way but in the reverse order. ASAP informs the user of the information options he or she has, so instead of user requirements, there is a system specification of information. This view of information requirements can be labelled as ‘information predetermined’. This is a composition of ‘information’ requirements and technology ‘determinism’.

5.2 Epistemological, research and ethical assumptions The epistemological assumptions of ASAP, which deal with the nature of knowledge, include two opposite poles: positivism and antipositivism. ASAP is clearly positivistic. This is expressed in the method as “it systematically guides you through the tasks involved in getting R/3 up and running in your business”


(Jacobs & Whybark, 2000, p. 39). This can be interpreted as ASAP is the knowledge needed to implement R/3 and there is not need for complementary knowledge residing within human beings. ASAP include laws and procedures of how to effectively implement R/3. This is a similar to other positivistic ISDM. The development of the method was initially conceptually based on surveys regarding implementation consultants and customer complaints. Further development has involved several research methodologies including surveys, case studies and action-based research. The research strategies for improving ASAP have included both nomothetic and idiographic research methods even though the methodology is initially based on a constructive research approach (March & Smith, 1995). The ethics of ASAP, referring to the role of IS science and the value of IS research, indicate a clear means-end orientation, i.e. the role of IS research is to provide knowledge to improve the method. This opens up for interpretative and critical research on ASAP, which can be used to understand the human and organizational implications of the method. The value of research has a strong organizational/management orientation and thus neglecting end users and critical aspects.

Ontology • ASAP view data and information as descriptive facts, where R/3 is the only data and information system. • Human beings have to be controlled and the technology is deterministic. • Organizations and society are viewed as structure.

Dimensions analysed in ASAP Epistemology Methodology Ethics • The nature of knowledge is positivistic and ASAP is the knowledge to implement R/3. No other knowledge is needed – if you follow ASAP the implementation will be a success

• The development of the method has involved constructive, nomothetic, and idiographic research methods.

• The ethics are means and end oriented with clear organizational and management values

Information requirements • ASAP apply information predetermination as view on information requirements, i.e. there is a need for requirements since the method or system knows which requirements are best.

Table 4. The underlying assumptions of ASAP.

5.3 Summary or the result To summarize, ASAP is a technically-oriented ISDM with the specific goal of installing R/3 in organizations. The success of implementing R/3 depends on


ASAP. It applies an instrumental view of humans and organizations. The guiding principle is to install the best technical solution, which will solve all data and information issues, both now and in the future. The overall view is that an effective and efficient organization is controlled and run by R/3, where all information requirements are pre-decided. This is in particular shown in the view of information requirements underlying ASAP – i.e. information determinism. A summary is provided in Table 4.

6. Discussion This section attempts to discuss the result of the paradigmatic analysis of ASAP. Initially, we will discuss the result along the ontological, epistemological, methodological, and ethical dimensions of Iivari and associates’ framework. In addition, there will be a section on the practical implications of the analysis.

6.1 Ontological assumptions ASAP’s view on data and information is similar to most of the ISDMs analyzed by Iivari (1991). The information modelling approach and the decision science approach show the strongest resemblance to ASAP. A possible explanation for this is the strong link between R/3 and the embedded reference model which includes both process models and data models. In-depth description of the process- and data models can be found in Scheer (1998) and Keller and Teufel (1998). Another approach which includes similar assumptions is the trade unionist. This could, potentially, be explained by the German heritage of both R/3 and the trade unionist approach. The trade unionist approach was initially inspired by the German ideologist, i.e. Karl Marx, and R/3 supports the installation of a modern version of Weber’s theory of bureaucracy, He wrote: The decisive reason for the advance of bureaucratic organisation has always been its purely technical superiority over any former organisation. The fully developed bureaucratic mechanism compares with other organisations exactly as does the machine with nonmechanical modes of production (Weber, 1946). The technical view of data and information is also evident in how information requirements are perceived, where ASAP view information requirements as predetermined, i.e. there is no need for a requirements specification, since the ASAP has specified data and information. ASAP’s view is most similar to the objective view except for knowing what information requirements organizations have. Support for this interpretation can be found in Fitzgerald et al. (2002), Hedman (2003) and Rosemann (2001). Information predetermination might be a fourth perspective on information requirements compared to the three categories objective, subjective and intersubjective (Iivari & Hirschheim, 1996).


Furthermore, ASAP defines how to succeed with R/3 implementations thus: 1) full commitment by the entire organization, 2) clearly defined and consistent project scope, 3) no customization of the system, 4) follow all SAP guidelines regarding implementation. Support for this interpretation of success can be found in research on ERP systems critical success factors (e.g. Somers & Nelson, 2001; Parr et al., 1999). The perception that methods are good is a common one among IS researchers, but also a flaw which has to be questioned be ourselves. Hernandez et al. (1999) question ASAP by stating “… most important to the project success is that the project manager and consultants working in a methodological framework are experienced and capable”. Hernandez et al. (1999) stress the skills the cognitive capacity of individuals and states that individuals are more important than the method. Robey et al. (2002) and Kalling (2003) have also stressed the cognitive capacity and learning as critical issues in overcoming problems related to the implementation of ERP systems. ASAP view data and information systems as technical systems, which are similar to all contemporary ISDM, such as the trade unionist approach and the decision science approach. Regarding one aspect ASAP is different. ASAP regard R/3 as the only data and information system an organization has need for. This could be explained by R/3’s market penetration, which might have made the developers of ASAP believe that R/3 is the only information system an organization needs. The view on human beings resembles the contemporary approaches. In that sense, ASAP has taken a giant step back to the 1970s. One can only wonder why. One conclusion one can make is that the IS discipline has not been successful in selling its ideas to the developers of ASAP. There are other potential explanations: Firstly, that IT maturity has increased to such a level that there is no longer a need for user participation. Secondly, it might be that ERP implementation method developers do not have an IS background and therefore have not read any of our literature. Thirdly, there might be other more important requirements on IS projects, such as time and budget, than involving end users. Regardless of what reason, it can be anticipated that old IS problems will remain, such as reluctance to use the intended system (Kennerley & Neely, 2001) or creating antipathy to the system (Aladwani, 2001). The view on organisations is technical (cf. the information modelling-, the decision science-, and the trade unionist approach), but with a twist, namely ASAP view R/3 as the organization, i.e. the technical system is superior to the social system. This implies that all other aspects of an organization can be replaced, except for the system, which is the backbone and infrastructure of an organization. See for instance Hanseth and Braa (1998) who conclude that ERP systems can evolve to an infrastructure which finally even becomes the organization’s traitor. The technical view of the system is further reinforced when looking at the view of society and the environment. All important part of society and the environment can and is controlled by the system. This implies a


certain view of IT in general and R/3 in particular. This might be the result of the world-leading market position of SAP, which has influence the developers of ASAP that R/3 is the best and only ERP system needed. To conclude: The ontological stand point of ASAP shows very strong resemblance to the contemporary approaches identified and studied by Iivari (1991) and can be summarized as: data and information are descriptive facts, ISs are R/3, human beings have to be controlled, technology is deterministic, and a structuralistic view of organizations and society. This is a common view in IS research and the cause of many problems (Hirschheim & Smithson, 1998). The technical interpretation of ERP systems leads to the installation of a new technical system for data processing (Hedman, 2003) and the institutionalization of ERP systems as a technical system (Hanseth & Braa, 1998).

6.2 Epistemological, research and ethical assumptions The view on the nature of knowledge of ASAP is the same as the contemporary ISDMs, such as the interactionist approach, and the trade unionist approach (see, Table 3). This implies that the developers of ASAP have similar assumptions regarding the nature of knowledge as, for instance, those who developed the contemporary ISDMs. The lack of evolution in method developer’s epistemological view is worrying. Since it implies that the IS discipline has not been able to promote and spread the conceptual ideas of the speech act approach or the empirical insights gained from the interactionist approach, to those who develop methods in practise. This problem has previously been stressed by Iivari (1991) who suggested that IS education passes along poor work practice by teaching the tools practitioners use. Thus, we have a catch 22 situation. ASAP has had a similar evolutionary development process as the contemporary approaches (Iivari, 1991) and the contrasting approaches (Iivari & Hirschheim, 1996). In principle, Wohed (2000) has made the same argument, namly that ISD is an evolutionary and path dependent process, where new programming techniques has been followed by complementary ISDM. For instance, Information Engineering (IE) followed database technology while Object Oriented programming was followed by Object Oriented development methods (Wohed, 2000). In addition, the diversity of ISs and the innovation of new ISs, such as ERP systems, lead to an increased number of ISDM and the continuous development of existing ones. See, for instance, Vigden (2002) who enhanced Multiview for Internet-based ISs and the development of ERP systems has led to ERP implementation methods. Thus, it is likely that ASAP will continue to evolve in a path-dependent way with the same underlying assumptions.


The ethical side of ASAP is means-ends oriented with clear organizational and management values. This is no surprise since the method stems from an ERP vendor, which incorporates such values.

6.3 Practical implications The practical implications are discussed along two paths. The first addresses ERP systems implementation issues. The other path highlights some issues, from a consultant perspective, related to the practical aspects of the paradigmatic framework. Failure is a recurrent phenomenon in IS and ERP research (). In this paragraph we will try to provide explanations for ERP failure due to the use of methods embracing the assumptions of ASAP. ASAP users are in most cases implementation consultants working for large external ERP consulting firms, such as Accenture, CAP Gemini, KMPG etc, with an academic background in business administration or engineering. They have little or no training in ISD. As a means to reduce their uncertainty they will become rule followers, i.e. they will adopt the procedures and phases of ASAP and the underlying assumptions. Consequently, the consultants will believe that society and organizations are mainly structures, where human beings, i.e. the users of R/3 have to be controlled and can be controlled by the one and only IS, namely R/3. One can only wonder why not all implementations fail? If this illustration is, at least, to a small portion true. It is likely that this explains some ERP failure. Especially, in organizations characterised as professional bureaucracies, such as research organizations and the health care sector. To stress this point further one can ask why do organizations adopt such methods. It has probably to do with the perception of time and related budget constraints, i.e. it is perceived that on time and budget are equal to project success. However, this perception of success was questioned by Stabell (1983), how stated that a used system does not necessarily have to be useful. The other path of practical implications addresses the potential of applying the paradigmatic framework to understand the management consultant toolkit. With the management toolkit we refer to all the frameworks used by consultant, such as balanced scorecard, strategic grid, Gartner’s Magic quadrant, five forces, value chain analysis, Total Quality Management, Capability Maturity Model, Seven-S Framework, ISO 9000, SWOT etc. All frameworks are based on some underlying assumptions regarding ontology, epistemology, methodology and ethics, which affect the method in use. However, the assumptions are explicit or implicit into each framework. By analysing these frameworks it could be possible to reveal the underlying assumptions and thereby better understand the implications and consequences of these frameworks. This would of course contribute to a more critical attitude towards the use of the management toolkit and lead to a more reflective use of management toolkit. Caulkin (2004),


building on ideas from the late Sumatra Ghoshal, presented one important point in promoting the need of a more critical attitude, by claiming that management schools are the creators of the people behind most business scandals, such as Enron, Tyco, World Com etc (All the senior executives of these firms were products of world leading business schools). Therefore, it is urgent that management schools replace literature presenting organization behaviour as impersonal patterns and laws, with literature focusing of behaviour “in terms of human choices and actions”.

7. Conclusions The main contribution of this paper is the paradigmatic analyses of one ERP implementation method, i.e. ASAP. This corroborates the usefulness of the paradigmatic framework, leading to some insight regarding our understanding of ISD and ERP implementation methods. The analyses of ASAP complement the prior work on ISD by addressing a type of ISDM which has not previously been addressed. One distinguishing feature of ASAP is that it is designed to implement ISs purchased off the shelf, instead of methods designed for an IS to be developed from scratch. Another contribution provided by this paper is related to the underlying assumptions embedded into ASAP. The ontological assumptions are very similar to the contemporary ISDMs, which apply logic or assumptions that are well-known for not fulfilling their stated promises. One could conclude that the use of ASAP is a quick return to the 1970s. And, thus, we can expect that implementation applying ASAP as support will fail with regard to meeting their promises in the same way as the contemporary approaches. See for instance Iivari and Hirchheim’s (1996) critique of the contemporary approaches. The main distinguishing characteristic of ASAP is the view of information requirements. ASAP embeds a view, which “knows” what information requirements and organization has. This is diametrically opposed to all other ISDMs analysed by Iivari and associates. An implication information determination is the sequence of analysis and design are performed in reverse order. This leads to a number of further research topics and some suggestions for education: 1) Research in the future should include other ERP system implementation methods, e.g. the BIS procedural model and Method One. This is justified by a need to build knowledge concerning off the shelf implementation methods and ERP systems implementation methods. 2) The shortcomings of ASAP leads to the possibilities and opportunities for researchers to develop new methods or improve existing ones (i.e. method engineering). This research could be based on research paradigms that are derived from critical or interpretative frameworks, such as the SSM or the interactionist approaches. 3) Another interesting issue is related to how the method is actually used in practise. See for instance Russo and Stolterman


(2000) for suggestions in this direction. 4) Paradigmatic analyses of the management toolkit. 5) To conclude this paragraph, I would like to make some personal suggestions concerning IS education. The first is if we would introduce ERP systems implementation methods in our curricula, we have to stress the draw-backs of such methods and thereby force the students to critically reflect upon such methods and any other method. Concluding words: This paper has contributed to the discussion on philosophical and conceptual assumptions underlying ISD. The analysis of ASAP is based on Iivari’s (1991) analytical framework of investigating underlying paradigmatic assumptions in ISD. The main distinguishing features of ASAP is that it includes an information predetermined view. In a sense ASAP supports the introduction of an external parties’ ‘world view’ onto an organization. In this particular case, it is R/3.

Acknowledgement I would like to thank the reviewers and other people for their constructive suggestions.


References Aladwani, A.M. (2001). Change Management Strategies for Successful ERP Implementation, Business Process Management Journal, Vol 7, No. 3, pp. 266275. Avison, D.E. & Fitzgerald, G. (2003). Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques, and Tools, McGraw-Hill: New York, NY. Bancroft, N. H., H. Seip & Sprengel, A. (1998). Implementing SAP R/3: How to Introduce a Large System into a Large Organization, Manning: Greenwich, CT. Bhattacherjee, A. (2000). Beginning SAP R/3 Implementation at Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Communications of the AIS Vol. 4, No. 2. Borell, A. & Hedman, J. (2000). CVA Based Framework for ERP Requirements Specification, Proceedings of the 23rd Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia, University of Trollhättan, Uddevalla, Sweden. Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, Heineman: London. Caulkin, S. (2004-03-28). Business Schools for Scandal. Observer Business. Davenport, T. H. (2000). Mission Critical: Realizing the Promise of Enterprise Systems, , Harvard Business School Press: Boston, Ma. Dolmetsch, R., T. Huber & Fleisch, E. (1998). Accelerated SAP 4 Case Studies, Institute for Information Management, University of St: Gallen. Esteves, J., R. Chan, J. Pastor & Rosemann, M. (2003). An Exploratory Study of Knowledge Types Relevance along Enterprise Systems Implementation Phases, Proceedings of the Organizational Knowledge and Learning Conference. Fitzgerald, B., N. L. Russo & Stolterman, E. (2002). Information Systems Development: Methods in Action, McGraw Hill: London. Gattiker, T. & Goodhue, D. (2002). Organization Structure and Enterprise Systems: An Empirical Study of Intra-Organizational Interdependency and ERP Impact, MIS Department, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia. George, J. F. (2000). The Origins of Software: Acquiring Systems at the End of the Century, in R. Zmud (Ed.), Framing the Domains of IT Management: Projecting the Future....Through the Past, Pinnaflex Educational Resources: Cincinnati, Ohio, pp. 263-284. Hanseth, O. & Braa, K. (1998). Technology as Traitor: Emergent SAP Infrastructure in a Global Organization, Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Information Systems, Helsinki, Finland.


Hedman, J. (2003). On Enterprise Systems Artifacts: Changes in Information Systems Development and Evaluation, Department of Informatics, Lund, Lund University. Hernandez, J. A., E. R. Bueno, S. A. Servera & Elechiguerra, J. R. S. (1999). SAP R/3 Implementation Guide, McGraw-Hill: New York, NY. Hiquet, B. D. & Kelly, A. F. (1998). SAP R/3 Implementation Guide: A Manager’s Guide to Understand SAP, MacMillan Technical Publishing: Indianapolis, In. Hitt, L. M., D. J. Wu & Zhou, X (2002). Investment in Enterprise Resource Planning: Business Impact and Productivity Measures, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol 19, No. 1, pp. 71-98. Iivari, J. (1991). A Paradigmatic Analysis of Contemporary Schools of IS Development, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol 1, No. 4, pp. 249272. Iivari, J. & Hirschheim, R. A. (1996). Analyzing Information System Development: A Comparison and Analysis of Eight Development Approaches, Information and Systems, Vol. 21, No. 7, pp. 551-575. Iivari, J., R. A. Hirschheim & Klein, H.-K. (1998). A Paradigmatic Analysis Contrasting Information Systems Development Approaches and Methodologies., Information Systems Research, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 164-193. Iivari, J., R. A. Hirschheim & Klein, H.-K. (2001). A Dynamic Framework for Classifying Information Systems Development Methodologies and Approaches, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 179-218. Iivari, J., & Maansaari, J. (1998). The usage of systems development methods: are we stuck to old practices?, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 40, No. 9, pp. 501-510. Jacobs, F. R. & Whybark, D. C. (2000). Why ERP? A Primers on SAP Implementations, McGraw-Hill: Boston, Ma. Kalling T, (2003). ERP Systems and the Strategic Management Processes that Lead to Competitive Advantage. Information Resource Management Journal, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 46-67. Kennerley, M. & Neely, A. (2001). Enterprise Resource Planning: Analyzing the Impact, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 103-113. Kumar, M. (2002). Enterprise Resource Planning Systems Adoption Process: A survey of Canadian Organizations, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 509-523. March, S. & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 251-266.


Markus, M. L. & Tanis, C. (2000). The Enterprise Systems Experience-From Adoption to Success, In R. W. Zmud. (Ed.), Framing the Domains of IT Management: Projecting the Future....Through the Past, Pinnaflex Educational Resources, Inc. Cincinnati, OH, pp. 173-207. Miller, S. S. (1998). AcceleratedSAP: Implementation at the Speed of Business, McGraw-Hill: New York, NY. Nielsen, P. A. (1990). Approaches to Appreciate Information Systems Methodologies: A Soft Systems Survey, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 2, pp. 43-60. Olle, T. W. (1991). Information Systems Methodologies: A Framework for Understanding. Addison-Wesley: Wokingham. Orlikowski, W. J. & Iacono, C. S. (2001). Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the IT in IT research - A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact, Information Systems Research, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 121-134. Rashid, M. A., L. Hossain & Patrick, J. D. (2002). The Evolution of ERP Systems: A Historical Perspective, in Hossain, L., Patrick, J. D. & Rashid, M. A. (Eds.), Enterprise Resource Planning: Global Opportunities & Challenges. Idea Group Publishing: Hersey, PA, 1-16. Robey, D., J. W. Ross & Boudreau, M.-C. (2002). Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of Dialectics of Change, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 17-46. Rosemann, M. (2001). Requirements Engineering for Enterprise Systems, Proceedings of the 7th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston, MA. Russo, N. L., & Stolterman, E. (2000). Exploring the assumptions underlying information systems methodologies. Information Technology & People, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 313-327. SAP (1998). CA091 ASAP R/3 Implementation. SAP (1999). GlobalASAP for 4.6A. Walldorf, Germany, SAP AG. Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. Stabell, C.B. (1983). A Decision-Oriented Approach to Building Decision Support Systems, in Bennet J. (Ed.), Building Decision Support Systems, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, pp. 221-260. Taggart, W. and M. O. Tharp (1977). A Survey of Information Requirements Analysis Techniques. Computing Survey Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 273-290. Vidgen, R. (2002). Constructing a Web Information System Development Methodology. Information Systems Journal Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 247-261.


Wohed, P. (2000). Schema Quality, Schema Enrichment, and Reuse in Information Systems Analysis. Department of Computer and System Sciences. Stockholm, Sweden, Stockholm University and Royal Institute of Technology. Wood-Harper, T. & Fitzgerald, G. (1982). A Taxonomy of Current Approaches to Systems Analysis, The Computer Journal, Vol. 25, pp. 12-16. Wynekoop, J.L. & Russo, N. (1993). Systems Development Methodologies: unanswered questions and the research-practice gap, Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando, FL.

Understanding ERP Implementation Methods: The Case of ASAP

Recommend Documents