UNDERSTANDING THE ERP POST-IMPLEMENTATION

DISCOURSE

David Sammon, Frederic Adam, Fergal Carton

Business Information Systems, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

Keywords: ERP, ERP II, Post-Implementation, Nee

ds Discourse, Sales Discourse

Abstract: This paper presents the first stage of a larger research project focusing on understanding the emergence of

ERP II. ERP is now being seen for what it really is: ‘a means to an end’, in that, its primary benefit is in the

integrated infrastructure that it introduces and its ability to support future IS investments. The paper focuses

on the changes that have been observed in the services offered by vendors and consultants in the now

renamed ERP II market. Now terms like ‘ERP’ and ‘e-business’ are for the most part avoided by vendors

and consultants as they are perceived to be out-of-date. For example, SAP once promoted that fact that they

were ‘29 years in the business of e-business’ with ‘the best-run e-businesses run SAP’, but now their

message promotes, ‘30 years in the business of helping businesses grow’ with ‘the best-run businesses run

SAP’. In this paper, issues of concern with the realities of ERP post-implementation are presented through

examining: benefits realisation; informational requirements; and generic to specific solutions. While we

would argue that it is difficult to understand the rationale for the introduction of these ‘newer’ ERP

extensions, we must acknowledge that a market has been created and that once again the ‘new-look’ ERP

vendors are the dominant ERP II players. This leads us to question whether there is anything new in ERP

II.

1 INTRODUCTION

There is no doubt that the introduction of a new

Information System into an organisation should

deliver multiple benefits and achieve the desired

Return On Investment (ROI), in that it meets a

business need or solves a business problem.

Therefore, an organisation’s ability to identify the

need for the introduction of an Information System

is extremely critical to ensure success and realised

benefits. In relation to ERP systems, benefits have

not been realised due to the lack of understanding by

managers of what these systems entail (Sammon et

al., 2003) both in terms of implementation and use.

Therefore, it seems that there is an inherent danger

in the way that ERP systems, were and are currently

being, adopted by organisations. As ERP systems

are being introduced, the specific needs of the

organisations and the specific features that make

them different may be lost or eroded in a way that is

not controlled or understood by managers. In certain

cases the enormity of the system leads the business

rather than the business leading the system. Brown

and Vessey (2003) comment on improving the

understanding on how to leverage, what they call,

the ‘enterprise system maturity curve’ in an effort to

reduce the high risks and costs of implementing ‘the

next wave of complex enterprise systems’.

Based on these observations, we propose that

nisations need to dictate the ERP systems

agenda, now and in the future, to a much greater

extent, therefore, strengthening their needs discourse

and thereby improving their chances of realising all

of the benefits expected from integrated enterprise-

wide systems. However, while strengthening their

needs discourse, organisations are now being

subjected to successive waves of post-ERP hype. In

this paper we present our initial observations in an

attempt to understand what this needs discourse is

and why it has emerged, and examine the recursive

elements in the emergent sales discourse (the

essence of what is new in ERP II). Fundamentally,

we attempt to identify if, in fact, ERP II is

positioned to address these needs. In an attempt to

position the ERP II trend in the overall evolution of

the integrated enterprise-wide systems market, a

number of research questions are presented.

466

Sammon D., Adam F. and Carton F. (2004).

UNDERSTANDING THE ERP POST-IMPLEMENTATION DISCOURSE.

In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, pages 466-472

DOI: 10.5220/0002653704660472

 SciTePress

2 THE EVOLVING ERP MARKET

To date, researchers have looked at the ERP market

as the place where organisational needs, in terms of

integrated enterprise-wide systems, were met by the

packages and services proposed by ERP vendors and

ERP consultants. However, current research in

integrated enterprise-wide systems (e.g. Hossain and

Shakir 2001; Wood and Caldas 2001 and Sammon

and Adam 2002) has found that the ERP market

reality is characterised by a strong vendor and

consultant push whereby organisations appear to

have little choice but to ‘jump on the bandwagon’

(as described for Activity-Based Costing by Jones

and Dugdale 2002; and IT outsourcing by Michell

and Fitzgerald 1997; and to some extent for e-

commerce development by Howcroft 2001). The

strong vendor push that characterises the ERP

movement inherently favours the sales discourse

(that which is proposed by ERP vendors and ERP

consultants) and replaces the needs discourse (that of

the implementing organisation). The accuracy of

this contention is now more obvious than ever, or

indeed should be to an implementing organisation,

due to the fact that a ‘bizarre trend’ (Hayler, 2003

p.1) is now emerging: the re-implementation and

extension of ERP, referred to as ERP II (Humphries

and Jimenez, 2003; Hayler, 2003). It is hard to

imagine an organisation wanting to undertake an

ERP II initiative having just finished an ERP

systems implementation. Therefore, this trend

further heightens our contention that the

implementing organisation needs to be empowered

and made aware of the complexities of the ever

changing ERP market and needs to internally assess,

if not their readiness for ERP, or now ERP II, their

ability to manage the external parties (the ERP

vendor and the ERP consultant) within the ERP

Community (Sammon and Adam 2002).

According to Sammon and Adam (2003) the

three entities that comprise the ERP Community are

the de facto actors that play a role on the ERP

market, where the implementing organisation is

dependent on the offerings of the ERP vendor and

the ERP consultant. This may not be 'by-choice' for

the implementing organisation, but few, if any

organisations can use exclusively internal resources

to undertake an ERP implementation. Therefore,

they are subject to the 'system' (Carlton Collins,

2000) and the dependent actors in the ERP

Community. Markus and Tanis (2000) also believe

that due to the all-encompassing nature of all ERP

offerings, a level of dependence is created that "far

surpasses the dependence associated with prior

technological regimes" p.203. They further pose the

questions "does this dependence have negative

effects on organisations?" and "how do the effects

manifest themselves?", "how do organisations

cope?" and "what are the costs of picking the wrong

vendor?" pp.203-204. However, they also question

how adopting organisations "influence the strategic

plans (behaviours) of vendors?" p.204. Kestelyn

(2003) offers some insight into this ‘level of

dependence’ stating that enterprise applications –

whether for traditional enterprise resource planning

or ‘newfangled’ ERP II processes, “form the central

nervous system of the intelligent enterprise, [such

that] as they go, your entire business goes”.

However, Kestelyn (2003) further comments that “a

vortex of emerging customer requirements are

forcing [enterprise application solutions providers]

to rethink how their companies develop, market, and

maintain business-critical software”. This

observation is further supported by Pallatto (2002)

who states that “the major consultants, integrators,

and vendors are responding to this management

focus by beefing up the ERP capabilities that go to

the sweet spot of the value chain for a wide range of

industries, such as chemical, health care,

manufacturing, and even service”. In effect, this is

addressing the discourse gap between the needs and

sales discourse highlighted by Adam and Sammon

(2004), where the ERP vendors and ERP consultants

(sales discourse) appear to be addressing the

concerns of the implementing organisation (needs

discourse). Alternatively, it could also be a simple

re-packaging exercise by vendors and consultants to

ensure future market growth. To solve this riddle

we analyse the discourse of the ERP Community

actors, as explained in the next section.

3 USING DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

TO UNDERSTAND THE ERP

MARKET

The term discourse and discourse theory has become

common currency in a variety of disciplines, and

plays an increasing significant role in many branches

of the human and social sciences (Howarth, 2000;

Mills, 1997; Van Dijk, 1997), so much so that it is

frequently left undefined, as if its usage were simply

common knowledge (Mills, 1997). Van Dijk (1997)

comments that the 'notion' of discourse is essentially

'fuzzy', however, discourse analysts try to go beyond

the 'common-sense' definitions and introduce a more

'theoretical concept' of discourse "which is more

specific and at the same time broader in its

application" p.2, and provides a definition for this

'complex phenomena' (Van Dijk, 1997).

UNDERSTANDING THE ERP POST-IMPLEMENTATION DISCOURSE

467

Discourse theory "does seek to provide novel

interpretations of events and practices by elucidating

their meaning"…"by analysing the way in which

political forces and social actors construct meanings

within incomplete and undecidable social structures.

This is achieved by examining the particular

structures within which social agents take decisions

and articulate hegemonic projects and discursive

formations" (Howarth, 2000). Mills (1997) states

that “the constituents of discourse itself are less

important than the range of practices which are

necessary to support that discourse and to exclude

other discourses from positions of authority” p.24.

Thus, the study of discourse is not simply the

analysis of utterances and statements; it is also a

concern with the structures and rules of discourse

(Mills, 1997). Howarth (2000) further points out

that the "adequacy or inadequacy of discourse theory

as a whole depends on its ability to engender

plausible accounts of social phenomena”. In this

sense, the ultimate criterion for judging the

adequacy of the discourse approach as a whole is

pragmatic; it can be evaluated by the degree to

which it makes possible new and meaningful

interpretations of social and political phenomena it

investigates.

Panteli (2003) argues that “discourse analysis is

not a fancy new approach in IS research, but that it

could indeed make a real contribution to our

discipline”. Panteli (2003) takes the view that

‘virtual workplaces’ cannot be understood from a

‘simplistic view’ of a physical organisation centred

around ‘peripheral, dispersed and electronically-

linked segments’, but instead centred around,

“human cooperation and flows of information that

bring together and separate at the same time their

dispersed segments”. This view is also shared by

Sammon and Adam (2002) with regard to the

concept of the ERP Community. They propose that

the ERP Community might be understood from a

discursive approach, in that, actors are engaged in

the creation of complex discourses (Adam and

Sammon, 2004). As a result, analysing the ERP

market as a network of actors with different

interests, different techniques, and different modes

of interaction, will foster novel ideas for improved

ERP post-implementation trends, and the emergence

of ERP II. Therefore, we plan to use discourse

analysis in an attempt to understand the needs and

sales discourse of the de facto actors, within the

ERP Community, and their contribution to the

structure of the evolving ERP market.

4 ISSUES IN ENTERPRISE

INTEGRATION WITH ERP

For more than a decade, organisations have adopted

a number of different approaches to IS integration;

from Data Warehousing in the early-to-mid 1990s,

striving to achieve informational integration,

through to ERP in the mid-to-late 1990s, focusing on

operational integration. In particular the evolution

of the ERP movement has gone through a number of

waves in an effort to achieve the required level of

enterprise integration. According to Kalakota and

Robinson (2001) Wave 1 addresses the emergence of

MRP, Wave 2 relates to ERP, Wave 3 positions

Customer-Centric Integration (CRP), and Wave 4

identifies Inter-Enterprise Integration (XRP)

(Jeanne, 1999). However, we identify a new wave,

Wave 5 which positions ERP II as the ‘new’, or is it

in fact ‘nothing-new’, integration’, as illustrated in

Figure 1.

One of the most significant factors for Wave 2

ERP adoption was Y2K preparation (Brown et al.,

2000; Kalakota and Robinson, 2001;

Themistocleous et al., 2001; Hayler, 2003),

however, a level of understanding is now required to

uncover what the most important factors are for the

emergence and adoption of this new wave, Wave 5.

In this research project we focus on improving our

understanding, and identifying the important factors

for the emergence of ERP II, through examining the

concept of:

• benefits realisation

• informational requirements, and

• generic to specific solutions,

in terms of the realities of ERP post-implementation.

4.1 Post-Implementation: Benefits

Realisation

As organisations moved toward the post-

implementation phase of their ERP projects, post

Y2K for the vast majority of organisations, the real

issue of benefit realisation emerged (Sammon et al.,

2003). Pallatto (2002) comments on the fact that

some vendors and consultants are presently ‘soft-

peddling’ the term ERP due to bad experiences and

management frustration, when original business

goals and benefits were not achieved, with their ERP

implementations. Pallatto (2002) adds that

concessions and compromises in the design of these

rushed Y2K upgrade projects (ERP) had negative

impacts on systems performance and benefits which

were not promptly and fully communicated to the

ICEIS 2004 - DATABASES AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS INTEGRATION

468

Figure 1: IS Integration Evolution

implementing organisation. Hendrickson (2002)

supports this argument, stating that “organisations

that have future designs developed from a clear

understanding of [business] requirements will gain

more vision and value from their ERP

implementation”.

4.2 Post-Implementation:

Informational Requirements

Due to the monolithic style integration of the mid-

to-late 1990s, many organisations are now

discovering that the solution to leveraging

investment decisions in, and retrieving useful data

from, an ERP system is to undertake additional

initiatives, for example Data Warehousing, in

conjunction with the implemented ERP system

(Sims 2001; Raden 1999; Inmon 2000; Radding

2000; Hewlett-Packard 2002; Hayler, 2003;

Sammon et al., 2003). Sammon et al. (2003) refer

to this as a ‘double learning curve’ for an

organisation, undertaking additional projects in

quick succession to the ERP project, in an attempt to

finally achieve the benefits expected but never

realised. The harsh reality of ERP systems

implementation, to the expense of those

organisations that invested resources in the initiative,

is that ERP only gets data into the system, it does

not prepare data for use and analysis (Inmon 2000).

This is due to the fact that ERP systems lack certain

functionality and reporting capabilities (Adam and

Doyle, 2001). However, it bears thinking that as

long as organisations can analyse data, supporting

different business processes, even across differing

data structures that change with the diversity of

systems, there is no need to force a rigid

standardisation of business processes (a

straightjacket) across the organisation (Hayler,

2003). For example, organisations that expected

ERP systems to solve their Information Systems

problems have found that ERP systems solved some,

but hardly all, of these problems. Many

organisations experience frustration when they

attempt to use their ERP system to access

information and knowledge (Radding 2000). It has

been quickly realised that ERP systems are good for

storing, accessing and executing data used in daily

transactions, but it is not good at providing the

information needed for long term planning and

decision making (Radding 2000; Adam and Doyle,

2001) as ERP systems are not designed to know how

the data is to be used once it is gathered (Inmon

1999).

4.3 Erp Ii: From Generic To Specific

Solutions

It appears that much of the value of these ‘all-

encompassing’ systems lay in the infrastructure

foundation they created for future growth based on

Information Technology. As a result organisations

are now focusing on implementing the extensions

and components of ERP that “managers think have

the greatest potential to improve the bottom line,

manufacturing, and supply-chain management

systems” (Pallatto, 2002). However, managers, for

UNDERSTANDING THE ERP POST-IMPLEMENTATION DISCOURSE

469

Figure 2: The Myth and Reality of ERP Systems Benefit Realisation

Adapted from CGEY

ocumentation. Note: The term ERP II is an addition to this figure

the most part, want “assurances that the system will

deliver the performance and business benefits that

were promised when they agreed to sign on the

dotted line”. That is because they know from bitter

experience that “keeping such promises is easier said

that done” (Pallatto, 2002). Nowadays the focus is

on “enterprise collaborative systems”. Pallatto

(2002) argues that it is “better to focus on thespecific

components and the benefits they deliver, rather than

the all-encompassing concept of ERP. The main

interest is in systems that make interactions between

customers, partners, and suppliers more efficient and

contribute to improvements in the bottom line”.

Organisations can now implement these ‘new’

collaborative systems because they have already

implemented an ERP, but, what is really new about

implementing these ERP II extensions?

5 CONCLUSIONS: THE SALES

DISCOURSE FROM ERP TO ERP

The ‘new-look’ ERP vendors and ERP consultants

now talk about collaborative, component-based

systems for specific vertical rather than all-

encompassing generic ERP; opening and

maintaining full communication channels with

implementation partners to avoid disputes over

business objectives, deadlines, project scope and

system design, which were common in ERP

implementations; shorter implementation projects;

quicker actual ROI and benefits realisation; systems

implementation knowledge transfer and dedicated

system experts for implementation.

As an illustration of how discourse analysis must

be included in our observations of the ERP market,

we examined a recent product brochure titled

‘Optimise your ERP Investment’ by Cap Gemini

Ernst & Young (CGEY), promoting their E³

solution. In this it was argued that “most companies

have high expectations of their ERP

implementations but some of these fail to deliver on

all the benefits that were promised. In fact, these

ERP implementations experience high

dissatisfaction levels, which is evidenced by many

operational glitches and limitations”. Furthermore,

they state that “in effect, the ERP implementation

gives you sight of business potential – but may not

deliver much of the expected value”. As a result,

they propose that “E³ can help you detect and correct

ERP-related lost value in your business and deliver

those benefits you expected in the first place”. A

graphical representation, adapted from the CGEY

brochure, is presented in Figure 2.

In essence, if we examine what Figure 2

represents, the achievement of potential value is

through the use of ‘fine-tuned’ (New Straits Times,

2003) ERP II type functionality. “With proper

implementation and full utilisation of these tools,

and using software applications that are highly

scalable, enterprises will be able to see returns on

their investments” (New Straits Times, 2003).

ICEIS 2004 - DATABASES AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS INTEGRATION

470

In a further illustration of our application of

discourse analysis to the ERP market, we tried to

understand the full implications of the “Square Peg,

Round Hole – No Problem!” message appearing on

the JDEdwards (now acquired by Peoplesoft)

website in April 2001, as illustrated in Figure 3.

This highlights the fundamental over-simplified

nature of the ERP vendors’ sales discourse.

Furthermore, SAP are now delivering “a business

platform that unlocks valuable information

resources, improves supply chain efficiencies, and

builds strong customer relationships”, while it

delivers “the tools, technologies, and methodologies

that minimize total cost of ownership and maximize

your return on investment in SAP solutions” and

“proven implementation methodologies give you

control over deployment to reduce risks and ensure

reliable results. Best practices anticipate your

business needs, reduce costs, and decrease your

reliance on external consultants”

(SAP, 2003a,b).

Based on our initial observations in this research

study, it appears that further investment of resources

is required for an organisation to realise the initial

benefits promised from their ERP system

investments. However, the worrying issue here

seems to be ERP vendors and ERP consultants

admittance of not addressing critical implementation

issues, or fulfilling the organisational requirements,

in the previous ERP implementations. Therefore, in

light of the current market trend, it is legitimate to

question whether ERP II is addressing ERP post-

implementation concerns or new emerging business

issues. In an attempt to understand the positioning

of ERP II within the evolving ERP market, the

researchers pose two research questions as follows:

Research Question 1: with regard to the sales

discourse, is the market positioning of ERP II

functionalities, in terms of their proposed benefits,

addressing some of the ERP post-implementation

concerns, within organisations?

Research Question 2: in relation to the needs

discourse, will ERP II solutions be implemented by

organisations to [1] address dissatisfaction with

their ERP implementation, or, [2] support new

emerging business requirements?

It is hoped that these questions will fulfil the

objective of the study, to understand the nature of

the discourse gap (Adam and Sammon, 2004)

between the needs and sales discourse in the

evolving ERP market.

REFERENCES

Adam, F, and Doyle, E, 2001. Enterprise Resource

Planning at Topps Ireland Ltd. In Johnson and Scholes

(Eds.) Exploring Corporate Strategy, Prentice Hall,

6th Edition.

Adam, F, and Sammon, D, 2004. The Enterprise Resource

Planning Era: Lessons Learned and Issues for the

Future, Idea Group Publishing.

Brown, C, and Vessey, I, 2003. Managing the Next Wave

of Enterprise Systems: Leveraging Lessons from ERP.

MIS Quarterly Executive, 2(1), March.

ure 3: Ove

-Sim

lified Sales Discourse

Brown, C.V., Vessey, I. and Powell, A, 2000. The ERP

Purchase Decision: Influential Business and IT

Factors. In Proceedings of the 6th Americas

Conference on Information Systems, August 10-13,

Long Beach California, pp.1029-1032.

Carlton Collins, J, 2000. Opinion - Be Wary of Enterprise

Consultants. Accounting Software News.

www.accountingsoftwarenews.com/charts/warning.ht

13/12/2001.

Hayler, A, 2003. ERP II – Déjà vu? IT Toolbox – ERP

Knowledge Base.

http://erp.ittoolbox.com/documents/document.asp?i=2

515

28/10/2003.

Hendrickson, 2002. Getting More Out of ERP. IT Toolbox

– ERP Knowledge Base.

www.erpassist.com/documents/document.asp?i=1268

15/10/2002.

Hewlett-Packard, 2002. Strategic Systems of the Future:

Integrating ERP Applications and Data Warehouses.

DM Review, March.

Hossain, L, and Shakir, M, 2001. Stakeholder Involvement

Framework for Understanding the Decision Making

Process of ERP Selection in New Zealand. Journal of

Decision Systems, 10(1) pp.11-27.

Howarth, D, 2000. Discourse. Open University Press, UK.

Howcroft, D, 2001. After the goldrush: deconstructing the

myths of the dot.com market. Journal of Information

Technology, 16, pp.195-204.

Humphries T, and Jimenez M, 2003. ERP Scenario. In

proceedings of Software Infrastructure track at

UNDERSTANDING THE ERP POST-IMPLEMENTATION DISCOURSE

471

Gartner Symposium ITXPO, Florence, Italy. 10-12

March.

Inmon, W.H, 1999. Data Warehousing and ERP

http://www.billinmon.com/library 24/11/2001.

Inmon, W.H, 2000. ERP and Data Warehouse: Reading

the Tea leaves

www.billinmon.com/library/articles/arterpfu.asp

18/10/2001.

Jeanne, F, 1999. Après l’ERP, voici le XRP pour

l’entreprise étendue. Le Monde Informatique, # 9999,

02/04/1999.

Jones, T.C. and Dugdale, D, 2002. The ABC bandwagon

and the juggernaut of modernity. Accounting,

Organizations and Society, 27, pp.121-163.

Kestelyn, 2003. The Future of Enterprise Applications –

An Intelligent Enterprise Roundtable. Intelligent

Enterprise.

www.iemagazine.com/cgi-

bin/printable.cgi?file=../030422/607feat1_1.shtml

29/10/2003.

Markus, ML and Tanis, C, 2000. The Enterprise Systems

Experience – from Adoption to Success. Claremont

Graduate University.

Michell, V, and Fitzgerald, G, 1997. The IT outsourcing

market-place: vendors and their selection. Journal of

Information Technology, 12, pp.223-237.

Mills, S, 1997. Discourse. Routledge, London.

New Straits Times, 2003. Relying on Technology to

Improve Bottomline.

http://erp.ittoolbox.com/common/print.asp?i=103893

05/11/2003.

Pallatto, 2002. Get the Most Out of ERP. IT Toolbox –

ERP Knowledge Base.

www.erpassist.com/documents/document.asp?i=1334

15/10/2002.

Panteli, 2003. Discourse Analysis in IS Research:

Constructing Presence in Virtual Organizing.

Organizational Information Systems in the Context of

Globalization, IFIP TC8 & TC9 / WG8.2 & WG9.4

Working Conference on Information Systems

Perspectives and Challenges in the Context of

Globalization. June 15-17, Athens, Greece.

Radding, A, 2000. Knowledge management appears on

ERP radar, Datamation,

http://itmanagement.earthweb.com 18/10/2001.

Raden, N, 1999. ERP and Data Warehousing. Archer

Decision Sciences

www.archer-

decision.com/artic11.htm

18/10/2001.

Rutherford, E, 2001. ERP's ends justify its means. CIO

Online Quick Poll Report.

http://www.cio.com/poll/042401_erp.html 18/07/2001.

Sammon, D. and Adam, F, 2002. Decision Making in the

ERP Community. In Proceedings of the 10th

European Conference on Information Systems, June,

Gdansk, Poland.

Sammon, D., Adam, F. and Carton, F, 2003. The Realities

of Benefit Realisation in the Monolithic Enterprise

Systems Era- Considerations for the Future. In

Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on

Information Technology Evaluation. Madrid, Spain,

September 25th-26th.

SAP, 2003a.

www.sap.com/company/ 11/11/2003.

SAP, 2003b. www.sap.com/services/servsuptech/

11/11/2003.

Sims, D, 2001. ERP Integration Strategies. EA

Community.

www.eacommunities.com/articles/art23.asp

15/10/2001.

Themistocleous, M., Irani, Z. and O’ Keefe, R.M, 2001.

ERP and application integration: exploratory survey.

Business Process Management Journal, 7(3).

Van Dijk, T.A, 1997. The Study of Discourse. In

Discourse as Structure and Process, Van Dijk, T.A,

(Ed.). London, Sage.

Wood, T. and Caldas, M, 2001. Reductionism and

complex thinking during ERP implementations.

Business Process Management Journal, 7(5), pp.387-

393.

ICEIS 2004 - DATABASES AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS INTEGRATION

472