الصاق به استانداردها؛ فشارهای فنی و سایر فشارهی همریخت در استقرار سیستم های ERP
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|12529||2006||10 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||5523 کلمه|
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله شامل 5523 کلمه می باشد.
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Information & Management, Volume 43, Issue 2, March 2006, Pages 194–203
This paper focuses on how and to what extent homogenization coincides with the deployment of ERP-systems. Using the work of DiMaggio and Powell on isomorphic pressures, we argue that the use of ERP-systems may in several ways lead to standardization within and between organizations. Competitive and institutional pressures play a role in ERP-adoption. We introduce a novel form of isomorphism, technical isomorphism. This plays a role in ERP-implementation and manifests itself in the enactment of blueprints for centralization and standard working procedures that are embedded in the ERP-software. A case study of a Dutch publishing company illustrates how coercive and technical isomorphism jointly lead to adaptation of the organization to the system, although the firm aimed to differentiate itself from its competitors.
In their quests for competitive advantage, organizations adopt or develop innovations. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems are such an innovation; their general aim is to enable central and integrative control over all processes throughout the organization by ensuring one data entry point and use of a common database  and . However, adopting ERP-systems may be at odds with gaining competitive advantage, which calls for a unique position that is hard to imitate, whilst ERP-systems are widely used . This apparent contradiction can be fruitfully explored by drawing on DiMaggio and Powell's classic treatment of the concept of isomorphism . They describe several reasons why organizations are similar or isomorphic. Our paper was developed to present an inventory of pressures that may affect the adoption and use of ERP-systems. The key question is therefore: How and to what extent does homogenization coincide with the deployment of ERP-systems? By addressing this question, we attempted to clarify some important mechanisms that are ignored when considering and managing ERP-implementations.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
In adopting ERP, competitive and mimetic forces influenced the initial selection of the system. Indeed, ERP-investments are solely intended to improve the organization’s efficiency. With ERP, mimicking com- petitors and following industry norms governed the managers’ decisions. Coercive pressures also occurred when important clients induced organizations to adopt compatible ERP-systems or when headquarters require subsidiaries to adopt a company-wide system. In the implementation phase, mimetic isomorphism played a role if and when user organizations imp- lemented the software to bring work processes to the level considered to be industry’s best practice. To specifically clarify the potentially standardizing effect of standard working procedures incorporated into ERP-systems we introduced a novel form of isomorphism: technical isomorphism. This can be demonstrated by mechanisms that encourage actors (developers, consultants, users) to conform to the centralistic philosophy and standards incorporated in the ERP. As far as prescribed working procedures are concerned, the issue remains of course when users do or do not conform to these standards [7,16,36] . Mimetic, institutional and technical isomorphic forces can be separated analytically, but in practice they coincide. In fact, they appear repeatedly as ERP- software is deployed in organizations. In many cases, ERP-modules are implemented in a predefined order to spread risks and investments. For every module the mutual shaping of the organization and its IT is at stake. The longer the duration of the ERP-trajectory and the longer that it takes to achieve benefits, the more managers, consultants, and other project members will be under pressure. This makes the team attempt to retain the initial timetable which favors going for the easy option: sticking to standards