SYMBOLIC PROCESSES IN ERP VERSUS “LEGACY” SYSTEM SUPPORT Ng, Martin M. T., School of Computing, National University of Singapore, 3 Science Drive 2 Singapore 117543, email@example.com Tan, Michael T. K., School of Computing, National University of Singapore, 3 Science Drive 2 Singapore 117543, firstname.lastname@example.org
Being hailed as possessing the ability to “drive effective business reengineering and management of core and support processes”, it is not surprising that Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems have been adopted by more than 60% of Fortune 500 companies as at the turn of the century. In contrast, negative connotations have been commonly known to be attached to legacy systems and inhouse developed systems. But yet, some of these legacy systems are not replaced when companies adopt ERP solutions while in-house systems still continue to be developed. This research employs symbolic interactionism as the informing theoretical perspective in an ethnography study of a large government authority in Singapore. Our findings surprisingly indicate that the IS professionals supporting the systems tend to attach rather negative symbols to their SAP system, while viewing their legacy system and in-house software development work in a more favorable light. In this paper, we first describe the different symbolism that has been attached over the years to the ERP vis-à-vis legacy system. We then highlight how certain of the early symbols gradually got sedimented over time, while others did not exhibit similar permanence and presence. As a result of such symbolic realities, we demonstrate the consequent differences in attitudes of the staff involved in ERP support vis-à-vis legacy and in-house system support. Keywords: Symbolic interactionism, Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), legacy system.
ERP solutions are commercial software packages (“integrated suites”) that enable the integration of transaction oriented data and business processes throughout an organization (Davenport 1998). By 2000, more than 60% of Fortune 500 companies have adopted ERP packages and this is a trend that is increasingly embraced by small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) as they realize the cost effectiveness and competitive necessity to follow suit (Klaus, 2000). Boston-based AMR Research estimates that the ERP market will grow from $19.8 billion to $31.4 billion in 2006 at a compound annual growth rate of 10 percent (Surmacz, 2002). This widespread adoption is largely the result of ERP packages being hailed as possessing the ability to “drive effective business reengineering and management of core and support processes” (Al Mashari, 2002). In fact, Davenport (1998) describes them as being the “most important development in the corporate use of information technology in the 1990s”. In contrast, legacy systems have been described as having a “consequentially negative impact on competitiveness” (Brodie and Stonebraker, 1995) while being “non-maintainable and inflexible” (O’Callaghan, 1999). As more organizations follow the trend of implementing ERP packages, there is increasing interest to study the factors determining the places that existing legacy and in-house developed systems are left to occupy within the organization. This is made all the more relevant in view of the negative connotations often attached to these systems. However, it is a well-known fact that some legacy systems are not replaced when companies adopt the ERP solutions (Themistocleous and Irani, 2001), while in-house systems still continue to be developed. While risks and time involved have been highlighted as possible reasons for the non-replacement of legacy systems, little attention has been paid to the process issues (Markus and Tanis, 2000) as well as the symbolic meanings attached to the ERP vis-à-vis legacy systems. Many researchers have highlighted the fact that extant literature has focused on the early stages of the ERP lifecycle...
References: Al Mashari, M. (2002), “Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems: a research agenda”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, 102(3/4). Alvarez, R. (2000), “Examining an ERP Implementation through Myths: A Case Study of a Large Public Organization”, Proceedings of the Americas Conference of Information Systems 2000, Long Beach, California. Bancroft, N. H. (1996), “Implementing SAP/R3: How to introduce a large system into a large organisation.” Greenwich. Manning Publications Co. Blumer, H. (1969), Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Brodie, M. and Stonebraker, M. (1995), Migrating Legacy System, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, CA. Davenport, T. (1998), “Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system”, Harvard Business Review, July – August, pp. 121-31. Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I. And Shaw, L. L. (1995), Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Esteves, J. and Pastor, J. (2001), “Enterprise Resource Planning Systems Research: An annotated bibliography”, Communications of AIS, 7(8). Feldman, S. P. (1989), “The idealization of technology: Power relations in an engineering department”, Human Relations, Vol. 42, pp. 575-92. Feldman, M.B. and March, J.G. (1981), “Information in organizations as signal and symbol”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26. Fine, G.A. (1992), “Agency, structure and comparative contexts: Towards a synthetic interactionism”, Symbolic Interaction, 15(1).
Gopal, A. and Prasad, P. (2000), “Understanding GDSS in Symbolic Context: Shifting the focus from technology to interaction”, MIS Quarterly, 24(3). Hirschheim, R. and Newman, M. (1991), “Symbolism and information systems development: Myth, metaphor and magic”, Information Systems Research, 2(1). Holland, C. P. and Light, B. (1999), “Generic Information Systems Design Strategies”, Americas Conference on Information Systems AMCIS, Milwaukee, USA. Klaus, H., Rosemann, M. and Gable, G.G. (2000), “What is ERP?”, Information Systems Frontiers, 2(2). Maines, D. (1977), “Social organization and social structure in symbolic interactionist thought”, Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 3. Markus, M.L & Tanis, C. (2000), “The Enterprise System Experience – From Adoption to Success”, in R.W. Zmud (Ed.), Framing the Domains of IT Management, Cincinnati, Ohio: Pinnaflex 2000. Mead, G. H. (1934), Mind, Self and Society, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Meyers, P.W., Sivakumar, K. and Nakata, C. (1999), “Implementation of industrial process innovations: Factors, effects and marketing”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16. Mumford, E. and Weir, M. (1979), Computer System in work design: The ETHICS method, New York, Wiley. Nah, F., Lau, J., Kuang, J. (2001), “Critical factors for successful implementation of enterprise systems”, Business Process Management Journal, 7(3). Ng, C. S. P. (2001), “A decision framework for enterprise resource planning maintenance and upgrade: A client perspective”, Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice, Vol. 13, pp. 431-68. O’ Callaghan, A. (1999), “Migrating large scale legacy systems to component-based and object technology”, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2(3). Pava, C. (1983), Managing new office technology: An organizational strategy, New York: Free Press. Pozzebon, M. (2000), “Combining a Structuration Approach with a Behavioral-Based Model to Investigate ERP Usage”, Proceedings of 2000 Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2000, Long Island, CA Prasad, P. (1993), “Symbolic processes in the implementation of technological change: A symbolic interactionist study of work computerization”, Academy of Management Journal, 36(6). Prus, R. (1996), Symbolic Interaction and Ethnographic Research, Albany: State University of New York Press. Ross, J. W. and Vitale, M. R. (2000), “The ERP Revolution: Surviving vs. Thriving”, Information Systems Frontiers, 2(2). Schonefeld, M. and Vering, O. (2000), “Enhancing ERP-efficiency through workflow-services”, Proceedings of 2000 Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2000, Long Island, CA, pp. 640-5. See, C. P. N. (2001), “A framework for enterprise resource planning maintenance and upgrade decisions”, Proceedings of seventh Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2001, Boston, Massachusetts, pp1026-9 Stryker, S. (1981), “Symbolic interactionism: Themes and Variations” in Rosenburg, M. and Turner, R. (Eds.), Social Psychology, New York: Basic Books. Surmacz, J. “Mix-and-Match ERP”, Available online at www2.cio.com/metrics/2002/metric381.html Themistocleous, M. and Irani, Z. (2001), “Benchmarking the benefits and barriers of application integration”, Benchmarking, 8(4). Turner, B.A. (Ed.) (1990), Organizational Symbolism, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Vaught, C. and Wiehagen, W. J. (1991), “Escape from a mine fire: Emergent perspectives and work group behaviour”, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, (27).
Please join StudyMode to read the full document