سیستم های برنامه ریزی منابع سازمانی (ERP)، کنترل مدیریت و تلاش برای دستیابی به ادغام
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|1123||2005||43 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||25240 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Accounting, Organizations and Society, Volume 30, Issues 7–8, October–November 2005, Pages 691–733
This paper analyses how two companies pursued integration of management and control through enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems. We illustrate how the quest for integration is an unending process and it is produced concurrently and episodically. Integration is not only about ‘mere’ visibility and control at a distance. ERP systems do not define what integration is and how it is to be developed, but they incur a techno-logic that conditions how control can be performed through financial and non-financial representations because they distinguish between an accounting mode and a logistics mode. A primary lesson from our cases is that control cannot be studied apart from technology and context because one will never get to understand the underlying ‘infrastructure’—the meeting point of many technologies and many types of controls. ERP systems are particularly interesting for what they make impossible, and our cases illustrate how the two organizations in the quest for integration mobilized a number of ‘boundary objects’ to overcome systems-based ‘blind spots’ and ‘trading zones’. The paper points out that management control in an ERP-environment is not a property of the accounting function but a collective affair were local control issues in different parts of the organization are used to create notions of global management.
Enterprise wide resource planning systems (ERP systems) attempt to integrate all corporate information in one central database, they allow information to be retrieved from many different organizational positions, and in principle they allow any organizational object to be made visible. It has been suggested that such systems facilitate unprecedented levels of organizational integration (Davenport, 1995, Davenport, 1998 and Davenport, 2000). Even if this is often appealing to firms, it is a formidable task. Some times this is justified as an investment (Deloitte Consulting, 1998, KPMG Consulting, 1997 and PA Consulting Group, 1999), and sometimes it is dismissed due to the complexity of integration (Ciborra, 2000 and Hanseth et al., 2001). Integration is surely at stake here. Is it possible and interesting to integrate the firm’s activities by information systems? And will this enable management control? These are the questions that have been suggested in the past by various approaches among which we can identify at least three strands. One strand of literature on ERP says that firms implementing ERP systems (have to) go through a learning curve and then benefit from their investment (e.g. Ross & Vitale, 2000). This strand of literature builds on the ‘stage-maturity model’ (Nolan, 1979 and Hirschheim et al., 1988), which in spite of its criticisms (e.g. Benbassat et al., 1984, Holland and Light, 2001 and King and Kraemer, 1984) continues to have a lot of appeal and is often used as a basis for consultants’ advice on ERP implementation (Deloitte Consulting, 1998, KPMG Consulting, 1997 and PA Consulting Group, 1999).
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
We have identified a series of effects of ERP systems that extend both the theory of ‘moderate effects’ (Granlund & Malmi, 2002) and the theory of ‘drift’ (Ciborra, 2000). Many things and moves happen around the ERP system, and it is difficult to separate it from developments in management control and corporate integration work generally. This makes its effect both significant and ambiguous at the same time. ERP systems force actors to go out of their way to solve problems and create solutions, and through their attempts to either work with the ERP system or to circumvent it, they show awareness of multiple ways that ERP systems can act. They hardly merely make firms drift because they rarely just leave things open ended. Some things work e.g. within the areas of ‘financial accounting’, and some things are being explored such as for example management control even if it works in mysterious ways prima facie. Our cases illustrates that integration can be explored and managed in various ways in relation to ERP. Integration is less a goal than a problematizing activity because the ambition to achieve ‘full integration’ cannot be fulfilled. ERP systems require a lot of different supplements. Many of these supplements are created to respond to crises of integration, and often they are created outside the ERP system and function so as to alleviate limitations in the ERP system. These limitations are not merely ‘bad implementation’ because what was a solution at a certain point in time can be a problem at a later point in time. The ERP system brings a residue of the past that makes it resistant to change. This however does not suggest that ERP systems drift (Ciborra, 2000). Rather it shows that integration rarely follows a distinct learning curve. Functionalities of ERP systems are mobilized only in situations that vary across organizational problems and solutions. They are, in turn, present as episodes that may only be loosely coupled to each other. E.g. when integration is performed by adding to the repertoire of ERP by a product configurator or when hand carried information is necessary to make an accounting report. This shows that there is limited sequential connectivity in the solutions found to make integration perform around ERP and that there is hardly an overall process of implementation going on.