22 Boudreau

Chapter II

Post-Implementation Use of a Complex Technology:

The Case of a Southeastern U.S. University
Marie-Claude Boudreau, University of Georgia, Terry School of Business, USA

Abstract
This chapter reports on a qualitative research study conducted within a Southeastern U.S. university, which investigated how organizational members appropriated an ERP package over time. A framework suggested by Lassila and Brancheau (1999), which distinguishes different states of software usage, was found to be particularly appropriate in understanding ERP usage. The research, which used a grounded theory methodology supported by the software Atlas.ti, uncovered different transition patterns of use exhibited by organizational members. Research findings suggest how the practice of informal learning was key in understanding how organizational members transited from one state of use to another.

Copyright 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Post-Implementation Use of a Complex Technology

23

Introduction
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) packages have recently gained acceptance among organizations from the public sector, which now represents one of the largest potential areas for new ERP sales (Wagner & Antonucci, 2004). Academic research focusing on ERP within the public sector has emerged, and within this stream of research, investigation of the higher-education environment has also taken place (e.g., Scott & Wagner, 2003; Sieber, Siau, Nah, & Sieber, 2000). Universities, it has been suggested, are somewhat different from other kinds of organizations (Pollock & Cornford, 2004), and therefore warrant targeted research for that specific environment. ERP implementations within higher education may be risky, as many unsuccessful implementations have been reported in the trade press (e.g., Brown, 2002; Leibowitz, 2000; Madden, 2002; Moodie, 2002; Olsen, 1999, 2000, 2000a). In many of these cases, ERP users are cited as contributors to the system failure, as their appropriation of the new technology is particularly demanding. It is demanding, because, by many accounts, ERP packages are considered to be complex technologies (Akkermans & van Helden, 2002; Gill, 1999; Maney, 1999; Ribbers & Schoo, 2002). When introduced within organizations, a complex technology typically imposes a substantial burden on would-be adopters in terms of the knowledge needed to use it effectively (Fichman & Kemerer, 1997). The implementation of a complex technology creates what have been termed knowledge barriers (Attewell, 1992), which implies that a great deal of effort is required to obtain the necessary knowledge and skills for the proper appropriation of such a technology. This necessary knowledge tends to be acquired over time, with considerable difficulty (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). Because of knowledge barriers, it is not uncommon for a complex technology to be successfully implemented, while being unsuccessfully appropriated. In such a scenario, expected benefits are only partially, if at all, attained. Considering that success is a multidimensional concept that includes more than a technological component, it is purported that a fully successful ERP implementation is contingent upon adequate appropriation. ERP, in other words, must be utilized appropriately before leading to significant benefits. Based on this assumption, this research seeks to increase our understanding of how organizational members appropriate a complex technology (such as ERP) over time. This chapter is structured as follows. First, the construct of use is discussed, and a specific framework of use is pointed out as being particularly relevant for the study of ERP. Then, the research approach that was used, the grounded theory methodology, is described. Next, empirical findings are presented according to the framework initially introduced. In the later part of the chapter, extensions to this framework are discussed, and contributions to academia and practice are emphasized.
Copyright 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

24 Boudreau

Revisiting the Construct of Use

Adequate appropriation of a software package first necessitates its use. The literature about use, within the IT field, unveils that use is one of the most frequently reported measures of system implementation success (DeLone & McLean, 1992, 2003). However, IT use has generally been defined narrowly. Use is typically understood by researchers in terms of user satisfaction or usage (Auer, 1998). Usage, in turn, is defined in terms of time spent using an IT, reliance on an IT, or number of IT features utilized (Trice & Treacy, 1988). This narrow operationalization of the construct of use is frequently found in the technology adoption and diffusion literature. Typically, these studies examine use and its antecedents through models based in the diffusion of innovations theory (Rogers, 1995), the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen & Madden, 1986), and the technology acceptance model (Davis, 1989). It may be argued that such models are not suited for the study of ERP implementation, as they are relevant to simple technologies that can only be used in a limited number of ways. Eveland and Tornatzky (1990) pointed out that problems arise when the diffusion model is applied in situations where its basic assumptions are not met that is to say, virtually every case involving complex, advanced technology (p. 123). Many studies of adoption and acceptance models based on these theories explore technologies that are relatively simple to use, such as e-mail and word processors. To date, research efforts directed toward the creation of a richer conceptualization of use to target complex technologies are few (Agarwal, 2000). Notable steps in this direction were taken by Saga and Zmud (1994), who focused on the infusion of technology. Auer (1998) suggested a taxonomy of five classes of issues to look holistically at quality of use. Also contributing to a richer operationalization of use, Nambisan, Agarwal, and Tanniru (1999) developed a construct labeled intentions to explore, which measures ones willingness to find new ways of applying IT to work tasks. A framework proposed by Lassila and Brancheau (1999) appears particularly appropriate to better understand the specific use of complex technologies such as ERP packages. These authors framework allows for the investigation of the differences in IT utilization according to many dimensions. Inspired by the work of Johnson and Rice (1984), Lassila and Brancheau suggested four equilibrium states, corresponding to increasing levels of use of a software package. These states, as summarized in Table 1, represent limited use (i.e., low integration), use to support existing processes (i.e., standard adoption), use to redesign existing work processes (i.e., expanding), and use to allow the extension of the capabilities of the technology and the work environment (i.e., high integration). The progression toward higher levels of use is reflective of (1) increased control over
Copyright 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Post-Implementation Use of a Complex Technology

25

Table 1: Essential characteristics of equilibrium states representing use

LowIntegration Control None Standard Adoption Moderate Expanding HighIntegration High (over IT & work processes) High

Moderate to high Moderate to high Provided for both work processes and IT features Moderate to high

Comfort

Low comfort

Moderate

Training

None

Adequate for basic features

Adequate training and time to learn provided High, adequate time provided

Experimentation

Discouraged

Neither encouraged nor discouraged

Adapted from Lassila and Brancheau (1999)

the technology and the work processes; (2) increased comfort with the technology; (3) better training; and (4) greater extent of experimentation. This framework offers a more holistic perspective on use, combining users perceptions with organizational context. Accordingly, it was deemed valuable in the conduct of this research.

Research Approach
The grounded theory research methodology was chosen for the pursuit of this inquiry (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Grounded theory uses a qualitative approach and techniques of induction, deduction, and verification to develop or elaborate a theory about a phenomenon (Schwandt, 1997). The Straussian version of the methodology was favored over the Glaserian version, as the former allows for the use of prior theory to help researchers gain insight into the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1994; Boudreau, 2002). This is in stark contrast with the later version, which advocates that a researcher should not bring any a priori knowledge to a research endeavor (Glaser, 1992). The phenomenon (i.e., ERP usage) was studied within a public university located in the Southeastern United States, employing nearly 3000 individuals. The university claimed to have successfully implemented (i.e., on time and within
Copyright 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

26 Boudreau

Figure 1: Transition patterns

Level of Use

High-Integration

Expanding

Power Users
Standard Adoption

Users
Low-integration

Time Early Use Mature Use

budget) the financial software components of a popular ERP vendor: PeopleSoft. The university used an incremental approach to its implementation, as it did not want to alienate its organizational members with changes too sudden and drastic. The ERP was mandated to all organizational members. The phenomenon was studied for a 15-month period, starting a month before the ERP became live. The period of inquiry is thus mainly post-implementation. The collection of data was done through interviewing, observing participants, and analyzing documents. A total of 74 interviews were conducted. Interviewees held different roles within the university and were from different hierarchical levels. Interviews were semistructured in their format. They lasted on average 1 hour. Information gathered through participation observation and documents analysis allowed the researcher to corroborate what was heard in interviews with what was observed on the site or read in the documents. The analysis of the data, supported by Atlas.ti, included the three types of coding: open, axial, and selective. Open coding was the process of breaking down, comparing, conceptualizing, and categorizing data. Such coding was realized by comparing each incident, quote, and instance for similarities and differences. From the verbatim interviews and field notes, similar textual segments were thus labeled and grouped to form codes. Axial coding necessitated that the data be put back together in new ways by making connections

Copyright 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Post-Implementation Use of a Complex Technology

27

between codes to form categories. Through axial coding emerged categories describing how organizational members appropriated the ERP package and how they transited from one state of use to another. Finally, during selective coding, a conceptualization of the main phenomenon was developed. Such conceptualization required the framing of the data according to two dimensions: the type of users and the time periods. The overall model resulting from the selective coding, graphically presented in Figure 1, is further described in the next section.

Empirical Findings
Types of Users and Time Periods
As mentioned, making sense of the data required viewing it according to two salient dimensions: types of users and time periods. For the first dimension, it appeared that two groups of users appropriated the ERP differently: the power users and the users. Power users were employees from the finance and administration unit. These 70 individuals were from the major financial departments (i.e., accounts payable, accounting, purchasing, etc.). Power users were significantly involved with the ERP system, in that all financial transactions eventually passed through their hands to be processed. As to the users, they were part of the administrative staff accountable for budget monitoring and reporting. These 620 users originated many financial transactions, such as purchase requisitions, travel authorizations, and journal entries. As to the second dimension, the time period, it appeared that organizational members evolved in their use of the ERP package. Two different time periods were observed: early use and mature use. Within each of these periods, users and power users exhibited different states of ERP use. Each period did not always last the same amount of time for all organizational members. Whereas some progressed toward mature use after only a few weeks, others took much longer before getting there. Still, during the period of inquiry, the majority of organizational members had made both transitions - an initial one to early use, and a second one to mature use. Particularly, what emerged from the data was that from the early use to the mature use, users transited from a low-integration state to a standard adoption state. As to the power users, they transited from a standard adoption state to an expanding state.

Copyright 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

28 Boudreau

Formal Training
Before proceeding to a description of how organizational members used the ERP over time, it is important to understand how formal training was organized at the university. Training sessions were made available to users and power users. These training sessions were elaborate, covering the technology (how to perform specific functions) and the underlying processes (what is actually happening) of the ERP package. These formal training sessions, offered to users and power users, were scheduled for months before the system was to go live. Training sessions, the university decided, would be mandatory for the power users but optional for the users. The rationale for the optional training was a concern that users would initially resist the system. Although system implementers were convinced that users would eventually like the system, they thought that early acceptance could be won through a more democratic approach in which users could elect to attend training. Similarly, users were initially not required to interact with the system directly. They could use paper forms and send them to the power users, who would then enter transactions directly into the system. A project leader explained this laissez-faire strategy: We didnt want to force people to do it; we feared that it might cause more resistance.[] Public relations-wise, I think it would have been disastrous to have said that you have to come! If instigated institution-wide, the laissez-faire strategy may have been impractical. Accordingly, the power users were required to attend training and were mandated to use the system, because they played a key role within the financial system. The laissez-faire strategy, therefore, impacted users and power users differently during their initial use of the system. The following subsections describe how users and power users interacted with the ERP over both periods.

Users Interaction with the ERP System

Early Use Period
After the system became live, users interaction with the new ERP system was reflective of a low-integration state. This state is characterized by little or no training for the users. In this case, although training was available, users did not take advantage of it, because they had not understood the importance of doing so:

Copyright 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Post-Implementation Use of a Complex Technology

29

I didnt think the training would be that crucial...that sounds terrible, but I thought that maybe it would be something that you could OJT [i.e., On the Job Training] a little bit, that you could learn on the job. I had the feeling that this is a standard program, a package... I mean, it is not even specific to universities, so how hard can that be? Thats what I thought. I did think I would be able to pick it up on the fly, so to speak. A low comfort level with the technology is also common of the low-integration state. Contributing to this lack of comfort was the new systems semantic jargon. Users felt that the discussions surrounding the new system were cryptic and well above their heads. Their lack of understanding of this jargon was an important drawback: They [the project leaders] sure dont speak down. Like when they start talking about Crystal report, and SQL report, and nVision report... well, SQL, I know that one. Crystal and nVision? Never heard of those! People are terrified! There is language that we havent seen before; things are called different names, which puts a lot of burden on the people originating the information. Another distinctive feature of the low-integration state is a lack of control over the system. Using the ERP, for many users, meant giving up their understanding of the previous business processes. This loss of knowledge was strongly resisted. As one manager commented, there is a loss of control over the process, which many have been reluctant to give up. Finally, experimentation is discouraged within the low integration state. This users comment illustrates this situation: Most of us use the system like monkeys: we are pushing buttons. We have directions in front of us, that say Push this button, Push that button... we dont push other buttons. People are afraid of pushing the wrong buttons.... We are encouraged not to push buttons. In summary, during the early use period, minimal training was common among users. Users felt that they had very limited control over the system, as well as a low level of comfort with it. No experimentation took place. These characteristics are closely related to a low-integration state, where only limited use occurs. During this initial period, many users were incapable of using the ERP because of their lack of know-how. They [the users] dont know how to use it... they dont understand it, mentioned one of the users. Instead of directly interacting
Copyright 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

30 Boudreau

with the system (i.e., entering the information online), many users interacted indirectly with it, by selecting the appropriate paper forms for a transaction, filing it, and walking it to the next person in the chain of command.

Mature Use Period

In the mature use period, users progressed toward a new state of use: the standard adoption. Because they did not understand the system, users requested additional training, which was offered. Although users attended these training sessions more conscientiously, they also found that these were generic and did not cover problem-solving issues. As one project leader conceded: I dont know if we focused enough on what happens when one makes a mistake. How do you get around and look around in there - click wherever you want, lets see what happened. Because thats when you find a lot of things. There are some buttons in there and they have no idea what happens when they hit that button; they dont have a clue. To fulfill this need, users decided to supplement the formal training sessions with many initiatives targeted at increasing their overall understanding of the ERP. The most fruitful initiative was the creation of a user group, which aimed at being a forum to discuss problems and share tips. A listserv was also created to keep users aware of any changes related to the system. In addition to these initiatives, users frequently relied on each other for assistance. When someone within a department would find out how to perform a particularly useful task, peers were quickly updated about the tip: I cant tell you how many things that we learned, not because of training, not because the trainers knew it, but because somebody figured it out, and it became kind of folk knowledge. Users thus created many opportunities to compensate for the training sessions they did not initially attend. Through formal and informal means, they were able to acquire a necessary level of knowledge about the systems functionality, which allowed them to enter standard (i.e., nonproblematic) transactions in the system. The levels of comfort and control with the ERP, during the standard adoption state, are moderate. Such moderate levels of comfort and control could be inferred by users counterproductive habits, such as maintaining independent backup systems or producing hard copies for every transaction entered in the
Copyright 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Post-Implementation Use of a Complex Technology

31

system. Even if such habits were discouraged by the project leaders, they were perceived as necessary by many users: I feel more comfortable now, but Im more than likely to still make copies, until I really feel like I can really trust that this stuff wont get caught, or that the system may crash and that our information goes away... I just know its going to take me some time to accept that this is fully working, and that I can keep everything on the computer, and that its safe. Because users were still intimidated by the system, most of them did not venture into its exploration. In fact, users could not use the ERP beyond its basic capabilities, as their understanding of the systems underlying business processes was unclear: I dont know how to use half of the functions in this system. I dont know if they pertain to me or not. I know enough to get what I need to get in there. Considering the above, it can be inferred that users eventually conformed to a standard adoption state. Because training was more faithfully attended and supplemented by learning initiatives, users knew enough of the system to be able to enter nonproblematic transactions. They could not, however, experiment with the system and make more advanced use of it, as most did not understand the ERPs embedded business processes. To make up for such limited capacity, users developed counterproductive habits, such as overrelying on hard copies and backup systems. Taken together, these inclinations were symptomatic of a use limited to basic system features, typical of the standard adoption state.

Power Users Interaction with the ERP System

Early Use Period
Early on, power users attended the training sessions faithfully. Their training was more elaborate, in that it not only focused on data entry but also involved the use of tools to support power users analysis, reporting, and projection activities. Nevertheless, power users also acknowledged that they were using the ERP in a fairly limited capacity: There are a lot of things that I need to learn. I know a lot of reports that are out there, but I dont know how to read them, or use them. I dont feel that
Copyright 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

32 Boudreau

I know the system inside out. I feel that I can navigate the system to do what I need to do. In fact, power users felt that their expertise was more targeted on the basic handling of the system rather than on a thorough understanding of its embedded processes: the training was more on how to use the software, not necessarily how to think through it, observed one of them. Experimentation with the system was also considered difficult, in that many power users did not have access (or full access) to the primary tool that allowed for such activity - the query tool: My main difficulty on the job is trying to find everything, to get good reports, to be able to have more than one person to link or to create queries or even join queries. We dont have anybody here who can link tables now. We were not given the authority. Power users missed the extent of control they had over the legacy systems, which they understood very well. As most power users had been working at the university for a long time, many of them had been involved in the initial design of these legacy systems. They felt limited by the discipline imposed by the ERP: You feel restricted in what you can do, because the system limits you. Even the way I would prefer my workflow to go, it cant happen because of the system. It just seems that I had more autonomy before, with the old system. It just makes things more difficult. In summary, power users initial use of the ERP fit the description of the standard adoption state. Although they attended training, power users expertise with the system was limited to its basic features, mainly because experimenting with the system was found to be difficult. Their levels of control and comfort with the system, accordingly, were moderate.

Mature Use Period

In the mature use period, many power users requested additional interactions with the project leaders, not only to share their concerns but also to better understand the systems ramifications that initially escaped them. Additional encounters were thus organized, many of which took the form of hand-holding sessions. In such sessions, a trainer would look at someones needs, take this person through a step-by-step procedure, or respond to questions related to the

Copyright 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Post-Implementation Use of a Complex Technology

33

system, the business processes, or the handling of exceptional cases. This extended training is characteristic of the expanding state. Given their increased understanding of the technology and its underlying business processes, power users also increased their extent of control and comfort with the system. In fact, some of them even felt comfortable enough to assist users in their own struggles with the system. A power user commented: We have become trainers in a way. We want to help them get to a point where they can do it themselves. Another characteristic of the expanding state is that individuals experiment and use the system beyond its basic capabilities. In order to use the system beyond its basic features, power users realized that they needed to have access to the most empowering tools, which were initially not available to most of them: It became apparent to us that if we were going to do our job right, we had to have the ability to do it. So, we requested that all the accountants had access to the query [tool], and we were all granted it. With the query tool available, power users started experimenting with the system, creating their own ad hoc reports or exploring the content of many of the tables. Access to the query tool bestowed them with the necessary autonomy to take greater advantage of the system. User modifications of work processes are also typical of the expanding state and were likewise distinctive of the way that power users eventually interacted with the system. In their use of the system, power users frequently mentioned that they had to tweak the system. Such tweaking, also called workarounds, allowed them to use the system in a slightly different way than it was intended to work, so that they would get things processed the way they wanted them. These workarounds, for the most part, were in the heads of people, rather than being formally documented. It was part of the folk knowledge that was developed over time. For all of these reasons, that is, the more thorough training, the greater control and comfort that allowed power users to teach others, and the use of the system above its basic features, including the development of workarounds, it is clear that power users eventually increased their levels of use to an expanding state.

Discussion
These findings show that, over the period of inquiry, different organizational members appropriated the new ERP system differently. Users initially exhibited
Copyright 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

34 Boudreau

a low-integration state but transited toward standard adoption. As to the power users, they went from a standard adoption to an expanding state. Although this research relates to a different organizational context and a different software package than those described in Lassila and Brancheau (1999), three of the proposed states of use suggested by these authors were recognized in the collected data, along with the salient characteristics proper to each one of these states (i.e., comfort, control, training, and experimentation). This study extends Lassila and Brancheaus (1999) work in two ways. First, Lassila and Brancheaus (1999) study uncovered transition patterns at the organizational level. This study, however, shows how it may be misleading to assume a common transition pattern for all software users within an organization. Different types of users, as was demonstrated, are likely to face different knowledge barriers and find different ways to overcome them. Such differences in users appropriation of the software may be attributable to the organizational context surrounding this implementation, and more specifically, to the training strategy elected by the university. The university was not comfortable with enforcing the training of the ERP package with its entire user base. Its laissezfaire strategy toward the users influenced the users to not attend the formal training sessions, while it forced the power users to do so. This double standard explains the different states of use adopted during the early use period. On the one hand, users had to deal with a software package they did not understand and could not use effectively. On the other hand, power users benefited from initial formal training sessions, which gave them sufficient skills that enabled them to use the basic features of the ERP. Because the existence of these skills is of primary importance for complex technologies, and because managerial action is likely to have a direct impact on fostering these skills, not all organizational members will demonstrate the same states of use within a given context. It is thus difficult to speak of transition patterns at the organizational level, and it may be more valuable to recast them at the group level or even the individual level. This study also extends Lassila and Brancheaus (1999) research in suggesting how organizational members may transit from one state to another. In this research, what is the most salient regarding the means through which users and power users eventually progressed toward higher states of use is their engagement in the practice of informal learning. Informal learning was the learning that occurred in an unstructured and unplanned way. It took multiple forms, such as watercooler conversations, casual questioning of more knowledgeable users, and spontaneous demonstrations of some of the systems functions. It encompassed all of the folk knowledge previously alluded to by a user. Because users had not taken advantage of the training sessions, they started relying on each other. They figured out which ones among them were the most knowledgeable in particular procedures, what to do when problematic transactions needed to be processed, how to handle errors, and what unwritten rules they needed to

Copyright 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Post-Implementation Use of a Complex Technology

35

be aware of. To help in the distribution of this emerging knowledge about the new system, users also took specific initiatives. The creation of practical documentation, the casual help provided by some users, and the introduction of a user group, are telling examples of actions contributing to shared knowledge among users. Power users also became involved in informal learning while progressing toward a greater state of use. This learning mainly took place when power users discussed the workarounds they developed when interacting with the system. Power users abilities to tweak the system, so as to make it do what they wanted it to do, were not learned during the formal training sessions. Rather, this knowledge was learned through experimenting with the technology and communicating with other power users. Robey, Ross, and Boudreau (2002) observed that the assimilation of new work processes constituted a major knowledge barrier for ERP implementations. To reduce knowledge barriers, these authors suggested two means: formal training and phased implementation. This research highlights a third means to facilitate the assimilation of new work processes associated with ERP: informal learning. As this case illustrates, informal learning may sometimes be preferable to formal training, because organizational members are likely to relate better to their colleagues who understand the relevant details of the work they do. Thus, through informal learning, it is possible to progress from one state of use to another more rapidly.

Conclusion
This research shows that, although an ERP implementation may be considered a technological success, one should also consider how organizational members appropriate the ERP. Lassila and Brancheaus (1999) framework is a valuable way to conceptualize how organizational members use a complex technology. Managerial action, particularly in terms of training requirements, is likely to impact how organizational members will initially use the ERP. However, the transition from one state to another may occur through means not instigated by management but instead by users. Informal learning, for example, was shown as being particularly powerful in helping users and power users progress toward higher states of use. This research extends the academic literature on post-implementation process. So far, most research on the adoption of new ITs typically concentrated on the activities occurring before or during the implementation process (Auer, 1998). It is, however, after a system becomes live that organizational members are

Copyright 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

36 Boudreau

confronted with the most knowledge barriers, particularly when dealing with complex technologies. Organizational members may, or may not, overcome these barriers effectively. Studies about technology reinvention (e.g., Kraut, Dumais, & Koch, 1989; Markus, 1994) are among the few that made some interesting contributions to the post-implementation literature. This research, which takes a broad view on the assimilation process occurring after an ERP becomes live, shows that the post-implementation process warrants careful investigation. This research also contributes to practice in an important way. It shows that even if an ERP implementation is considered technologically successful, the appropriation of the new technology is not guaranteed. Because ERP technology is complex, managers should be prepared for the appropriation challenges that are likely to arise as such a technology becomes available for use. In fact, their decisions concerning training are likely to influence how organizational members initially appropriate the ERP. ERP literature acknowledges that dips in performance are common after ERP systems become live (Markus & Tanis, 2000; Ross & Vitale, 2001). In this case, although the ERP implementation was not threatened by termination, the potential benefits were tempered by the organizational members slow appropriation of the new technology. Managers, as a result, should be aware that once an ERP becomes live, a lot is still at stake.

References
Agarwal, R. (2000). Individual acceptance of information technologies. In R. W. Zmud (Ed.), Framing the domains of IT management. Projecting the future... Through the past (pp. 85104). Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex Education Resources. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(5), 453474. Akkermans, H., & van Helden, K. (2002). Vicious and virtuous cycles in ERP implementation: A case study of interrelations between critical success factors. European Journal of Information Systems, 11(1), 35. Attewell, P. (1992). Technology diffusion and organizational learning: The case of business computing. Organization Science, 3(1), 119. Auer, T. (1998). Quality of IS use. European Journal of Information Systems, 7(3), 192201.
Copyright 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Post-Implementation Use of a Complex Technology

37

Boudreau, M. -C. (2002, JulyAugust). Using grounded theory in IS research. 20th Annual Conference Proceedings of The Association of Management and the International Association of Management (Vol. 20, pp. 383394). Qubec City, Canada. Brown, P. (2002). Rocky road to hi-tech admin. The Australian, Sydney, p. 20. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128152. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319340. DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 6095. DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 930. Eveland, J. D., & Tornatsky, L. G. (1990). The deployment of technology. In L. G. Tornatzky, & M. Fleischer (Ed.), The processes of technological innovation (pp. 117148). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Fichman, R. G., & Kemerer, C. F. (1997). The assimilation of software process innovations: An organizational learning perspective. Management Science, 43(10), 13451363. Gill, P. J. (1999, August 9). ERP: Keep it simple. InformationWeek, pp. 8792. Glaser, B. G. (1992). Emergence vs. forcing: Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press. Johnson, B. M., & Rice, R. E. (1984). Reinvention in the innovation process: The case of word processing, In R. E. Rice (Ed.), The new media: Communications, research, and technology (pp. 157184). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Kraut, R., Dumais, S., & Koch, S. (1989). Computerization, productivity, and quality of work-life. Communications of the ACM, 32, 220238. Lassila, K. S., & Brancheau, J. C. (1999). Adoption and utilization of commercial software packages: Exploring utilization equilibria, transitions, triggers, and tracks. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(2), 6390. Leibowitz, W. R. (2000, January 7). Officials of 7 large universities complain to PeopleSoft about its programs. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A54. Madden, J. (2002, April 24). Software system a flop, but RMIT has ways of covering costs. The Australian, Sydney, Higher Education, p. 31.
Copyright 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

38 Boudreau

Maney, K. (1999, June 23). Software so huge and complex ERP! USA Today, p. 03B. Markus, M. L. (1994). Finding a happy medium: Explaining the negative effects of electronic communication on social life at work. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12, 119149. Markus, M. L., & Tanis, C. (2000). The enterprise system experience From adoption to success. In R. W. Zmud (Ed.), Framing the domains of IT management. Projecting the future... Through the past (pp. 173207). Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex Education Resources. Moodie, G. (2002, April 24). Tough path to basic accounting. The Australian, Sydney , Higher Education, p. 35. Nambisan, S., Agarwal, R., & Tanniru, M. (1999). Organizational mechanisms for enhancing user innovation in information technology. MIS Quarterly, 23(3), 365395. Olsen, F. (1999, September 24). Delays, bugs, and cost overruns plague PeopleSofts services. The Chronicle of Higher Education , p. A31. Olsen, F. (2000, March 17). Cleveland State U. hires consultants to fix problems with its PeopleSoft system. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A48. Olsen, F. (2000b, January 21). Fed up with PeopleSoft software, Cleveland State U. hires lawyers. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A42. Pollock, N., & Cornford, J. (2004). ERP systems and the university as a unique organization. Information Technology & People, 17(1), 3152. Ribbers, P. M. A., & Schoo, K. -C. (2002). Program management and complexity of ERP implementations. Engineering Management Journal, 14(2), 4552. Robey, D., Ross, J. W., & Boudreau, M. -C. (2002). Learning to implement enterprise systems: An exploratory study of the dialectics of change. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(1), 1746. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press. Ross, J. W., & Vitale, M. R. (2001). The ERP revolution: Surviving versus thriving. Information Systems Frontiers, 2(2), 233241. Saga, V., & Zmud, R. W. (1994). The nature and determinants of IT acceptance, routinization, and infusion. In L. Levine (Ed.), Diffusion, transfer, and implementation of information technology (pp. 6786). New York: North-Holland. Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary of terms . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Copyright 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

Post-Implementation Use of a Complex Technology

39

Scott, S. V., & Wagner, E. L. (2003). Networks, negotiations, and new times: The implementation of enterprise resource planning into an academic administration. Information and Organization, 13, 285313. Sieber, T., Siau, K. L., Nah, F., & Sieber, M. (2000). SAP implementation at the University of Nebraska. Journal of Information Technology Cases and Application, 2(1), 4169. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Trice, A. W., & Treacy, M. E. (1988). Utilization as a dependent variable in MIS research. Data Base , 19(3/4), 3341. Wagner, W., & Antonucci, Y. L. (2004). An analysis of the imagine PA public sector ERP project. Proceedings of the 37 th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Big Island, HI.

Copyright 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.