نفوذ برنامه های کاربردی سازمانی در سازمان: دیدگاه یادگیری اجتماعی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|27350||2012||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||9120 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Information & Management, Volume 49, Issue 1, January 2012, Pages 47–57
We used a social learning explanation to explain the diffusion of an enterprise application (EA) within an organization. We viewed the implementation of EA as a pattern of key users’ behaviors to examine the effect of self-generated and external sources of influence. Such behavior is progressively developed over time. Our study was based on investigating two business areas in a single company. From our investigation, we determined that the key users’ behaviors toward EA diffusion were influenced by both cognitive factors and organizational stimuli. Although the organizational environment was similar for both sites, one area performed better than the other in diffusing the system.
Enterprise applications (EAs) are a type of IS that are used in order to manage activity within teams or beyond organizational boundaries. This type of IS focuses upon the integration of business processes within organizations, allowing improved coordination among functional departments, business units, providers and with customers. EAs include ERP, CRM, KMS and Supply Chain Management (SCM). They are complex technologies because of their size, off-the-shelf approach, and the organizational, operational, and technological changes they introduce in organizations  and . However, the high rates of failure of EA projects have resulted in a tendency to analyze this phenomenon from different management perspectives  and , as a cross-functional discipline that covers a broad range of management fields including IS, organization theory, human resources, accounting, and operations.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
From the two sites under study, we found that the key users’ behaviors toward EA diffusion were influenced by cognitive factors and organizational stimuli. Although the organizational environment was similar for both sites, one performed better than the other. Key users’ personal characteristics played a fundamental role in the process. One can see that the S&D key user and change agents were better equipped in terms of skills, prior knowledge, and self-efficacy than the L&M key user for diffusion of the EA. However, the environmental stimuli performed by the CEO, EA outsourcer, KUC and internal help desk apparently had a favourable effect on the behavior of the S&D key user and change agents. Moreover, and we concluded that inertial behavior of the L&M key user influenced the environmental stimuli. We therefore concluded that organizational factors changed their actions, as did their attempts to modify the L&M key user's behavior. The departure of the L&M key user influenced the remaining key users and end-users, bringing about new patterns of behaviors. They learnt by observing the consequences of certain kinds of behaviors.