Prioritizing Packaged Software Implementation Projects: The Significance of Gaps

This chapter examines the dynamics of prioritizing implementation projects. Building on the notion of “fit-gap” work, this chapter emphasizes the significance of “de-prioritization” as a practical technique for managing Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) implementation projects. “Fit-gap” is a term that resonates with current academic and professional discussions concerning the use of customization and work-arounds necessary to coax suboptimal implementations into functioning properly as the systems age. These are not idle matters given the near irreversibility of ERP projects once initiated and the reported high probability of failure following implementation. Drawn from in-depth interviews and internal documents collected from a multiyear organizational case study of ERP in an institution of higher education, this chapter reports on various uses, interpretations, and consequences of prioritization techniques used to manage implementation projects. In practice, the idea that complex software implementations can be theoretically reduced to mere gaps in fit serves to obscure the political conflict and ambiguous economic accounting that underlie committee work devoted to identifying gaps, deliberating on possible fits, and then prioritizing which gaps are fit immediately and others scheduled for fit later on. In conclusion, while fit-gap committee work is openly intended to result in fewer customizations overall, de-prioritization, as a management technique, appears to “remove without removing” agenda items from the implementation schedule. The upshot for managers: placing such decisions in purgatory delays indefinitely investments of time and finances into customizing new software to fit old policies, and all the work-arounds necessary to shore-up any lingering idiosyncrasies.

[1]  Ben Light,et al.  Going beyond 'misfit' as a reason for ERP package customisation , 2005, Comput. Ind..

[2]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  Power, politics, and MIS implementation , 1987, CACM.

[3]  Neil Pollock,et al.  Generification Work in the Production of Organizational Software Packages , 2022 .

[4]  D. Leonard-Barton,et al.  Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization , 1988 .

[5]  William J. Peterson Erp Trends , 2001 .

[6]  S. Hyysalo Review: How Packaged Software Conquers the Organization , 2009 .

[7]  O. Williamson The Economics of Organization: The Transaction Cost Approach , 1981, American Journal of Sociology.

[8]  Matti Vartiainen,et al.  The Role of Information Support Systems in the Joint Optimization , 1997, HCI.

[9]  Simon Kitto,et al.  Working around ERPs in Technological Universities , 2010 .

[10]  Mark Lycett,et al.  Evaluating business information systems fit: from concept to practical application , 1999 .

[11]  Doug Tudhope,et al.  Reconfiguring the User: , 2000 .

[12]  Les Gasser,et al.  The integration of computing and routine work , 1986, TOIS.

[13]  Miguel Baptista Nunes,et al.  Establishing and Verifying a Risk Ontology for Surfacing ERP Post-Implementation Risks , 2013 .

[14]  S. Newell,et al.  Repairing ERP , 2006 .

[15]  Sia Siew Kien,et al.  Enterprise resource planning: cultural fits and misfits: is ERP a universal solution? , 2000, CACM.

[16]  Dave Swartz,et al.  Higher Education ERP: Lessons Learned. , 2001 .

[17]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  Rituals in Information System Design , 1984, MIS Q..

[18]  Mário Romão,et al.  Advantages, limitations, and solutions in the use of ERP systems: a case study in the hospitality industry , 2013 .

[19]  Steve Sawyer,et al.  Temporal Issues in Information and Communication Technology-Enabled Organizational Change: Evidence From an Enterprise Systems Implementation , 2002, Inf. Soc..

[20]  Neil Pollock,et al.  When Is a Work-Around? Conflict and Negotiation in Computer Systems Development , 2005 .

[21]  Sharon Q. Yang,et al.  Applying Semantic Web Technologies to Meet the Relevant Challenge of Customer Relationship Management for the U.S. Academic Libraries in the 21st Century Using 121 e-Agent Framework , 2012 .

[22]  James Cornford,et al.  ERP systems and the university as a "unique" organisation , 2004, Inf. Technol. People.

[23]  Erica L. Wagner,et al.  Networks, negotiations, and new times: the implementation of enterprise resource planning into an academic administration , 2003, Inf. Organ..

[24]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Information technology, transaction costs and the decision to 'make or buy' , 1992 .

[25]  Larry Press,et al.  International perspectives: computing at the top of the world , 2000, CACM.

[26]  Young-Gul Kim,et al.  The critical success factors for ERP implementation: an organizational fit perspective , 2002, Inf. Manag..

[27]  Ben Light An alternative theory of legacy information systems , 2003, ECIS.