knowledge creation in an erp project team: the unexpected debilitating impact of social capital...
TRANSCRIPT
KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN AN ERP PROJECT TEAM: THE UNEXPECTED DEBILITATING IMPACT OF SOCIAL CAPITAL
Professor Sue Newell (Royal Holloway, University of
London)
+ Jimmy Huang & Carole Tansley
Enterprise Resource Planning Systems New IT system designed to integrate
corporate activities across globe Common IT infrastructure & common
business processes Diffused rapidly but success? Here – consider micro-processes
surrounding design & implementation
ERP Systems cont. ERP vs. BPR BPR – blank sheet ERP – ‘best practices’ Change organization to ‘fit’
technology not vv. (Soh et al., 2000) Business process change rather than
technical problems key (Holland & Light, 1999)
Research Focus In-depth case study of project team Design
Configure system Integration of knowledge dispersed within
& across organizations (Lee & Lee, 2000) Implementation
Modification/ introduction of org. processes
Gain commitment from users
Project Team Selected on basis of intellectual
capital AND Social capital (Nahapiet &
Ghoshal, 1998) Broadens reach of project team Social capital mobilized to access
knowledge & gain commitment
Definitions (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998) Intellectual capital – the knowledge and
knowing capability of the collectivity Social capital – the sum of actual and
potential resources within, available through, and derived from the network of relationships possessed by an individual or social unit. Social capital thus comprises both the network and the assets that may be mobilized through the network
Research Methodology Ethnography – study of the culture(s) a
given group more or less share (Van Maanen, 1988); to understand fundamental meanings (Kakabadse, 97)
On-site observation over 18 months Semi-structured interviews with project
team members and process owners Interviews with project leader monthly
Case – Quality Engineering Ltd (QEL) HR pillar of large organization-wide
ERP project (SAP/R3) Replaced 1600 legacy systems 2 ‘waves’ of implementation HR forgotten! But recognized as
central
Project Team
HR ERP project initiated by HR Director But no interest in IT! Passed over initiative to Nick & team
Project Team Nick (project team leader)
Project Team Caroline IT skills, PT, strategic career reasons
Project Team Bob HR exp., no IT skill, cut-off from
Bristol
Project Team Robin payroll, IT skills dev., maintained links
Project Team Susan line role - unhappy, permanent search
Project Team Rebecca placement student, excited –
frustrated
Project Team + 2 IT outsourced company personnel no ERP experience, no business
involvement, never seen job through to completion!
HR ERP Project Team Diverse knowledge needed for project Personal goals & desires Nick – emphasized risks Tendency to face outwards rather than
inwards Used personal networks for personal
objectives Little team cohesion (quotes p. 12/13)
Team Activitives ‘Work package owners’ Senior managers – ‘process owners’
Based on functional role Little involvement or interest HR Director similarly uninterested (e.g.
conference) Justification problematic –
demoralizing Eventually project put ‘on hold’
Discussion & Analysis Nahapiet and Ghoshal – social capital
seen as generally beneficial for org. Here used for personal goals Social capital as a private vs. a public
good (Leana & Van Buren, 1999) Project team – need balance between
interests of individual & collective Requires conscious effort to create
balance
Strategic Exchange Watson (1994) Strategic exchange perspective
Personal goals and project goals Project goals over-ridden by personal
goals in context of insecurity Social capital distracted from focus on
project goals Knowledge sharing community not
developed
Conclusions Social capital – appropriable
organization Here appropriated for personal
gain Effects of social capital ambivalent Strategic exchange – heuristic
device
Model of the impact of low commitment and project priority on the appropriation of social capital and project team community development.
Context
Low seniormanagementcommitment
Low projectpriority
Project TeamInteraction
Outward-facingproject teammembers
Social CapitalAppropriation
Appropriated for personalgoalfulfillment
Project TeamCommunity
Little knowledgesharing &integration within team
Strategic Exchange
PersonalGoals/Desires
Project Goals/Requirements
Strategic Exchange in QEL Case
Personal goals/ desires
Project goals/requirements
Project team insecurity
Project Team
IDEAL SITUATION CASE REALITY
Social Capital
Ideal type - use Project reality – use SC forSC for benefit of project personal benefit
Innovation Processes and Social Capital
Innovation Episodes (Robertson et al.,) Agenda formation Design Implementation Appropriation
Innovation Processes and Social Capital Social Capital (Adler and Kwon)
Bridging vs Bonding emphasis Source
Structure – closed (Coleman), open (Burt) Content – relational (trust and norms)
and cognitive (shared understanding) embeddedness
Effects
Innovation and Social CapitalAgenda formation
Design Implemen-tation
Appropria-tion
Bonding Bridging Bonding Bridging
Closed Open Closed Open
Consumm-atory
Instrumen-tal
Consumm-atory
Instrumen-tal
Kn.sharing
Kn. access
Kn.sharing
Kn.access
Team building
Network building
Comm. building
Kn. Hub building
Inn.Episode
Focus
Structure
Content
Effects
Types ofSC
Agenda formation
TeamBuilding(bonding)
Design
NetworkBuilding(bridging)
Implementation
CommunityBuilding(bonding)
Appropriation
KnowledgeHub Building(bridging)
Figure 1. The relationship between the innovation episode and the focus of social capital