Generative mechanisms of projects related to Enterprise Systems use in Bureaucracies: An embedded case study in a French hospital
Keywords:
Enterprise system, Critical realism, Bureaucracy, Flexibility, ChangeAbstract
While previous literature has emphasized that bureaucracy may be an obstacle to the implementation and use of Enterprise Systems (ES), the link between these phenomena has not yet been conceptualized. This paper aims to investigate how bureaucracy intervenes in the achievement of projects related to the ES use. We aim to answer this question by using the concept of generative mechanisms to unpack the concept of bureaucracy and to apprehend its influence on the outcomes of three projects. We propose an explanation of the mitigated outcomes of these projects in a French hospital by emphasizing the role of two conflictual generative mechanisms: a bureaucratic mechanism and a flexibility mechanism. These mechanisms were identified using an embedded case study that focuses both on the actualization of the causal power of a new organizational entity and on the combination of mechanisms and contextual conditions that led to specific outcomes in each project. Moreover, our study shows that these projects are not related to the management of this implementation process but are linked to the use of ES, which may be considered as only one of the elements that interacts with other organizational, technological and environmental evolutions. We suggest understanding these projects as being ramifications of the use of ES. Future research may more deeply investigate the nature and the mechanisms of these kinds of projects in different organizational forms.
References
Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999), “Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system”, Organization science, Vol. 10, No. 1, p. 43-68.
Adler, P. S., & Borys, B. (1996), “Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive”, Administrative science quarterly, p. 61-89.
Akhlaghpour, S., & Lapointe, L. (2018), “From Placebo to Panacea: Studying the Diffusion of IT Management Techniques with Ambiguous Efficiencies: The Case of Capability Maturity Model”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 19, No. 6, p. 441-502.
Bhaskar, R. (1997), “On the ontological status of ideas”, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, Vol. 27, No. 2‐3, p. 139-147.
Bhaskar, R. (2010), Reclaiming reality: A critical introduction to contemporary philosophy, Taylor & Francis.
Boonstra, A., Versluis, A., & Vos, J. F. (2014). “Implementing electronic health records in hospitals: a systematic literature review”, BMC health services research, Vol. 14, No. 1, p. 370.
Bygstad, B. (2010), “Generative mechanisms for innovation in information infrastructures”, Information and Organization, Vol. 20, No. 3-4, p. 156-168.
Bygstad, B. (2017), “Generative innovation: a comparison of lightweight and heavyweight IT”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 32, No. 2, p. 180-193.
Bygstad, B., Munkvold, B. E., & Volkoff, O. (2016), “Identifying generative mechanisms through affordances: a framework for critical realist data analysis”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 31, No. 1, p. 83-96.
Conboy, K. (2009), “Agility from first principles: Reconstructing the concept of agility in information systems development”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 20, No. 3, p. 329-354.
Courpasson, D. (2000), “Managerial strategies of domination. Power in soft bureaucracies”, Organization studies, Vol. 21, No. 1, p.141-161.
Cresswell, K., & Sheikh, A. (2013), “Organizational issues in the implementation and adoption of health information technology innovations: an interpretative review”, International Journal of Medical Informatics, Vol. 82, No. 5, p. 73-86.
Crozier, M. (1963), Le phénomène bureaucratique: essai sur les tendances bureaucratiques des systèmes d'organization modernes et sur leurs relations en France avec système social et culturel. Éditions du Seuil.
Davenport, T. H., Harris, J. G., & Cantrell, S. (2004), “Enterprise systems and ongoing process change”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 1, p.16-26.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of management review, Vol. 14, No. 4, p. 532-550.
El Amrani, R., & Saint-Leger, G. (2013), “Etats des lieux de la recherche ERP francophone”, Systèmes d’Information et Management, Vol. 18, No. 2, p. 111-160.
Esteves, J., & Pastor, J. (1999). “An ERP lifecycle-based research agenda”, In 1st international workshop in enterprise management & resource planning.
Foss, N. J. (2003), “Selective intervention and internal hybrids: Interpreting and learning from the rise and decline of the Oticon spaghetti organization”, Organization Science, Vol. 14, No. 3, p. 331-349.
Gabriel, Y. (2005). “Glass cages and glass palaces: Images of organization in image-conscious times”, Organization, Vol.12, No. 1, p. 9-27.
Grabski, S. V., Leech, S. A., & Schmidt, P. J. (2011), “A review of ERP research: A future agenda for accounting information systems”, Journal of information systems, Vol. 25, No. 1, 37-78.
Habib, J., Béjean, M., & Dumond, J.-P. (2017), “Appréhender les transformations organisationnelles de la santé numérique à partir des perceptions des acteurs”, Systèmes d’Information et Management, Vol. 22, No. 1, p. 39-69.
Harris, M. L., Collins, R. W., & Hevner, A. R. (2009), “Control of flexible software development under uncertainty”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 20, No. 3, p. 400-419.
Henfridsson, O., & Bygstad, B. (2013), “The generative mechanisms of digital infrastructure evolution”, MIS quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 3, p. 907-931.
Highsmith, J. 2003, “Agile project management: Principles and tools”, Agile Project Management, Vol. 2, No. 4, Cutter Consortium.
Hodson, R., Martin, A. W., Lopez, S. H., & Roscigno, V. J. (2013), “Rules don’t apply: Kafka’s insights on bureaucracy”, Organization, Vol. 20, No. 2, p. 256-278.
Josserand, E. (2004), “Cooperation within Bureaucracies: Are Communities of Practice an Answer?”, M@n@gement, vol. 7, No. 3, p. 307-339.
Kirsch, L. J., Sambamurthy, V., Ko, D. G., & Purvis, R. L. (2002), “Controlling information systems development projects: The view from the client”, Management science, Vol. 48, No. 4, p. 484-498.
Kallinikos, J. (2004), “The social foundations of the bureaucratic order”, Organization, Vol. 11, No. 1, p. 13-36.
Kirsch, L. S. (1997). “Portfolios of control modes and IS project management”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 8, No. 3, p. 215-239.
Lave, J., Wenger, E., & Wenger, E. (1991), Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge, Cambridge university press.
Mainardes, E.W., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2011). “Stakeholder theory: issues to resolve”, Management Decision, Vol. 49 No. 2, p.226-252.
Markus, M. L., & Tanis, C. “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, Chapter 10, Pinnaflex Educational Resources Inc., Cincinnati, 2000, p. 173-207.
Maruping, L. M., Venkatesh, V., & Agarwal, R. (2009), “A control theory perspective on agile methodology use and changing user requirements”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 20, No. 3, p. 377-399.
McPherson, C. M., & Sauder, M. (2013), “Logics in action: Managing institutional complexity in a drug court”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 2, p.165-196.
Merton R. K. (1957), Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Mingers, J. (2003). “The paucity of multimethod research: a review of the information systems literature”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 13, No. 3, p. 233-249.
Mingers, J., & Standing, C. (2017), “Why things happen–Developing the critical realist view of causal mechanisms”, Information and Organization, Vol. 27, No. 3, p. 171-189.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organization: A synthesis of the research, Prentice-Hall.
Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. (2010), “Job characteristics and job satisfaction: understanding the role of enterprise resource planning system implementation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 1, p.143-161.
Ologeanu-Taddei, R., & Paré, G. (2017), “Technologies de l’information en santé : un regard innovant et pragmatique”, Systèmes d’Information et Management, Vol. 22, No. 1, p. 3-8.
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997), Realistic evaluation, London, Sage Publication Ltd.
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1998), “Caring communities, paradigm polemics, design debates”, Evaluation, Vol. 4, No. 1, p.73-90.
Perrow, C. (1986), “Economic theories of organization”, Theory and society, Vol. 15, No. 1, 11-45.
Poba-Nzaou, P., Uwizeyemungu, S., Raymond, L., & Paré, G. (2014), “Motivations underlying the adoption of ERP systems in healthcare organizations: Insights from online stories”, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 16, No. 4, p. 591-605.
Rivard, S., Lapointe, L., & Kappos, A. (2011), “An organizational culture-based theory of clinical information systems implementation in hospitals”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 12, No. 2, p. 123-162.
Rowe, F. (1999), “Cohérence, intégration informationnelle et changement : esquisse d'un programme de recherche à partir des Progiciels Intégrés de Gestion”, Systèmes d’Information et Management, Vol. 4, No. 4, p. 3-20.
Saeed, K. A., Abdinnour, S., Lengnick‐Hall, M. L., & Lengnick‐Hall, C. A. (2010), “Examining the impact of Pre‐Implementation expectations on Post‐Implementation use of enterprise systems: A longitudinal study”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 41, No. 4, p. 659-688.
Stefanou, C. J. (2001), “A framework for the ex-ante evaluation of ERP software”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 10, No. 4, p. 204-215.
Strong, D. M., Johnson, S. A., Tulu, B., Trudel, J., Volkoff, O., Pelletier, L. R., & Garber, L. (2014), “A theory of organization-EHR affordance actualization”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol.15, No. 2, p. 53-85.
Sykes, T. A. (2015). Support Structures and Their Impacts on Employee Outcomes: A Longitudinal Field Study of an Enterprise System Implementation. Management Information Systems Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 2, 473-495.
Vaast, E. (2007), “What goes online comes offline: Knowledge management system use in a soft bureaucracy”, Organization Studies, Vol. 28, No. 3, p. 283-306.
Venkatesh, V., Zhang, X., & Sykes, T. A. (2011). “Doctors do too little technology: a longitudinal field study of an electronic healthcare system implementation”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 22, No. 3, p. 523-546.
Volkoff, O., & Strong, D. M. (2013), “Critical realism and affordances: theorizing IT-associated organizational change processes”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 3, p. 819-834.
Wagner, E. L., & Newell, S. (2007). “Exploring the importance of participation in the post-implementation period of an ES project: a neglected area”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 8, No. 10, p. 508-524.
Wagner, E. L., Newell, S., & Piccoli, G. (2010), “Understanding Project Survival in an ES Environment: A Sociomaterial Practice Perspective”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 11, No. 5, 276-297.
Weber M. (1947), The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation (Trans AM Henderson and T Parsons), Free Press, New York.
Yin, R. K. (2013), Case study research: Design and methods, Sage publications.
Zmud, R. W. (1980), “Management of large software development efforts”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 4, No 2, p. 45-55.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The author bears the responsibility for checking whether material submitted is subject to copyright or ownership rights (e.g. figures, tables, photographs, illustrations, trade literature and data). The author will need to obtain permission to reproduce any such items, and include these permissions with their final submission.
It is our policy to ask all contributors to transfer for free the copyright in their contribution to the journal owner. There are two broad reasons for this:
- ownership of copyright by the journal owner facilitates international protection against infringement of copyright, libel or plagiarism;
- it also ensures that requests by third parties to reprint or reproduce a contribution, or part of it, in either print or electronic form, are handled efficiently in accordance with our general policy which encourages dissemination of knowledge within the framework of copyright.
In conformity with the French law, the author keeps the 'moral rights' related to the article:
- The 'authorship right': It is the author's right to have his name associated with each publication and exploitation of the article.
- The 'integrity right': It can be claimed by the author if he finds that during an exploitation, his work has been distorted (cutting, reassembly...).
