The evolution of enterprise resource planning systems as an IT innovation: A performative perspective

ICIS 2013 Research-in-Progress

Introduction
IT systems have been characterized by its ability to continually evolve at a rapid pace. Newer IT systems enterprise platforms and systems in particularcontinue to grow in range, reach, and complexity. However, because existing theories have not sufficiently accounted for this character of IT systems in addition to other malaises, our ability to explain technological innovation has in turned become constrained. hile existing theories on IT innovation within the !cience and Technology !tudies "#!T!$% have provided deep insights into the social dynamics around the development of such innovations, their preoccupation with specific socioeconomic actors, such as users and developers, has led to the unintended neglect of other &ey sta&eholders "such as academics% involved in the process . This becomes problematic not simply because newer IT systems by themselves are more complex and tightly coupled' but because the process of innovation has also moved significantly away from one dominant innovator to increasingly a community of innovators that fragment along roles, interests, as well as social and ideological commitments. (urthermore, these IT artifacts are not limited to one form but are extremely #open$ to multiple usage and wide applications . )ur theorizing around IT innovation therefore needs to ac&nowledge the messiness that follows these #multiplicities$ and better account for them. This research*in*progress "+I,% article chronicles our ongoing and early attempt to address these issues in building an IT innovation theoretical framewor& grounded on the evolution of the enterprise resource planning "-+,% system. e first draw on social theories from science and technology studies to explain how traditionally larger and more complex IT systems are brought into existence and change over time. e then build on these theoretical foundations by turning to the Theory of ,erformativity as a potential theoretical lens to extend our understanding of IT innovation. )ur ongoing research uses data on the development of -+,a current and conspicuous exemplar of IT innovation. .s part of this early foray in studying this extensive innovation process, we first identified the role of &nowledge intermediaries, viz. academics, in the process of understanding and driving IT innovation. e conclude this article with our preliminary findings to illustrate the potential value of the performativity perspective.

Theoretical Framework
There is a rich stream of research in !T! on how technological artifacts evolve. This body of &nowledge shows that the process of IT innovation is not /ust technical but also social because technologies are endowed with social meanings . In other words, IT innovation is at once a social and political process, and a technical development. !T! also argues that these social and political processes involve struggles and contests among different social groups holding differing cognitive perceptions and beliefs of the focal technology "or #technological frames$% . Thus, the portrayal of innovation process in !T! is one of political interactions driven by different underlying technological frames' where technical development, in a sense, is subsumed under the social process. !T!, in particular those of the actor*networ& theoretical variant ".NT% , has pointed to the importance of material artifacts in the innovation process. They point out that IT innovations and artifacts cannot be neutral or passive agents in the innovation process because they carry inscribed logics and intrinsic designs that have important social and political implications . (urthermore, artifacts themselves also have their own history and tra/ectories that need to be ta&en into account in the process. In sum, !T! focuses our analytical view on the development phase where the form and function of the

Thirty Fourth International Conference on Information Systems, Milan 2013

Trac 13! IT "rtifact

innovation is still being decided. It opens up the blac& box of the material aspects of the innovation and surfaces the social interactions that occur before it is finalized and determined. 0et, although !T! have given us these theoretical building bloc&s, they cannot complete the tas& of understanding newer IT systems for three reasons. (irst, recent IT innovation involves technologies that are relatively more complex, given the greater number of underlying components and the potential lin&ages among them. (or this, researchers need theories that can better address multiple parallel technical developments and artifact histories. The second reason is because IT innovation is not limited to one single form or function but is instead extremely open and has wide applications . . set of innovation can be modular and combined into multiple configurations to produce different routines and functions. Here, we need to be able to consider plural accounts of the same set of innovation within our theorizing. 1ast, IT innovation is often the result of communities of related firms and innovators . Thus theory cannot simply focus on one set of local actors and their attending frames and need to bring a larger set of sta&eholders and the different sets of discourse related to each community into its consideration . It is on this final point that we see& to address specifically in this paper2 &nowledge intermediaries, specifically academics, are more than /ust na3ve observers or arms*length chroniclers of technological conduct' they are active contributors to the products and production of IT innovation, especially through the sets of &nowledge claims they bring to bear on IT innovation. . candidate theory that seems to build on !T! and, at the same time, direct attention to the theory*artifact interactions is the theory of performativity proposed by 4allon and his associates. In the next section, we consider and elaborate the theory.

Enter the Theory of Performativity

The theory of performativity is associated with recent wor& by 5ichel 4allon, (abian 5uniesa, 0uval 5illo, and 6onald 5ac7enzie in the field of economic sociology . !eeing 4allon and his associates explain how economic theories are rendered performative as the economy, we argue that their theory of performativity has the potential to highlight academic involvement in the process of IT innovation. To better appreciate performativity, we discuss the &ey assumptions and principles of the theory and elaborate how they relate to IT innovation. (irst, the theory of performativity holds to an ontological view where reality is not made up of discrete entities' instead reality is constitutively an entangled ensemble of people, discourse, theories, and material elements . This ontological stance not only resonates with !T!8 notion that both social and material elements play e9ually important roles in the innovation process, it goes further to highlight the tight relationships among these elements by treating them as an inseparable whole. 5ore importantly, by explicitly pointing to discourse and theories, the theory of performativity reveals the discursive elements that academics bring to bear on IT innovation, specifically our theories and ideas . !een this way, the constitution of #IT innovation$ under the theory of performativity is no longer limited to /ust its focal artifact"s%. Instead IT innovation is understood ontologically as constituted by the entire ensemble of human actors, different material artifacts, particularly the &nowledge claims and discourse that render it intelligible to the other sta&eholders, such as developers, consultants, and vendors. !econd, 4allon8s notion of performativity focuses on the actions and wor& underta&en to ma&e sociomaterial ensembles performative in specific situated sites. Here, he draws upon .ustin8s notion of #performativity$ that point to the performative property of statements, as opposed to /ust being descriptive "or constative%. However, instead of /ust focusing on how discursive elements "e.g., &nowledge claims or theories% have performative property, 4allon shifts our analytical gaze to the actions enacted by the different actors and artifacts that lin& discursive elements to material artifacts and devices so as to ma&e the entire ensemble #perform$. .pplied to the #IT innovation process$, the theory of performativity defines the IT innovation process as the actions underta&en by innovators, organizations, institutions, regulatory agencies that elaborate and lin& theories and &nowledge of IT innovations to the material artifacts. It also redefines the success or failure of an IT innovation process by the entire ensemble8s actual performance in reality. This performative perspective of the innovation process therefore argues that innovation is not /ust about the one particular social process "viz. political process : albeit this is one ma/or part%. +ather it expands the process to include technological development, cognitive and discursive actions, e.g., theorizing,

Thirty Fourth International Conference on Information Systems, Milan 2013

The e#olution of $RP systems as an IT inno#ation% " &erformati#e &ers&ecti#e

building organizing visions , and even institutional building actions . It also broadens our view of #who$ is involved to include the less obvious, specifically intermediaries "e.g., organizations in the supply chain%, related sta&eholders "e.g., regulatory organizations% and parties involved in the dissemination and consumption of &nowledge around innovation and artifacts "e.g., consultants, universities, industry media% . ;ust as important, by considering the actual performance, the theory of performativity allows us to view the innovation as multiple performances, or multiple versions of wor&ing. This in a way ta&es into account the malleability of IT innovation. (inally, 4allon and 5uniesa observe that performative processin our case, the IT innovation process usually involved multiple trials and errors through which different actors wor&ing collectively gradually ad/usted, reconfigured, and reformulated the social, discursive, and material elements to produce successful outcomes as broadly defined by the theories. ,art of the reason for the struggles is because such performative processes do not ta&e place de novothey are often built around existing social and technological &nowledge, social practices and institutions, as well as material context. These existing ensembles, in which the new ensemble is being arranged and configured, tend to be highly obdurate and challenging for the innovators8 efforts . In light of this, 5ac&enzie posits that there are several outcomes2 a% #generic performativity$, when an aspect of theory, model, concept, procedure, dataset, etc. is used and adopted by participants' b% #effective performativity$, when the practical use of an aspect of theory has an effect on target innovation processes' c% #<arnesian performativity$, when the practical use of an aspect of theory ma&es target innovation processes more li&e their depiction by theory' d% #counter*performativity$ when the practical use of an aspect of theory ma&es target innovation processes less li&e their depiction by theory. Thus from the theory of performativity, we argue that one could understand the IT innovation process in the following manner. (irst, one has to identify the ensemble involved the process. This includes the heterogeneous arrangements of human actors, material artifacts, as well as the &nowledge claims and discourse that are promoted by the actors and inscribed in the artifacts. !econd, we need to carefully trace the actions underta&en by the actors in the ensemble via the different processessocial, political, institutional, discursive, and technologicalto render the ensemble performative. (inally, we need to explicate the different performative episodes as mar&ed by the four different performative outcomes associated with the different processes. Together, by following these different elements of the theory of performative theory, we have the broad s&eletal structure of a theoretical framewor& that potentially helps better account for how the IT innovation process unfolds. The challenge and goal of our research is to fill in the #flesh$ of how these elements actually #loo&$ in reality and to build a grounded mid*range theory for specific classes of IT innovation, which in our case is the enterprise system class of innovations.

Methods
.s part of our research effort, we see& to understand what were the different elements involved in the -+, innovation ensemble. <ased on the extant research, there were potentially three &ey actor groups anchoring the -+, ensemblethe software innovators "e.g., !.,%, the industry users and organizations, and the intermediaries that included consultants, business press and academics . =iven that we are interested in the innovation process, we decided to adopt a historical approach and to collect archival data on these three groups, in order for us to start tracing the rest of the ensemble. However as part of this +I,, we decided to narrow our scope of data collection and analysis to one segment of the third group i.e., academics. e chose academics partly because there have been some wor& that has been done on consultants and 9uite a few case studies on business users but few studies have examined the role of academics in IT innovation processes. Theoretically, we believed that the academic sta&eholder could be useful in our early foray of data collection and analysis because of academics8 access to both industry and innovators. e expect to find textual traces "albeit lagged% of how these two sta&eholders may have acted and interacted over the course of -+,8s innovation. To examine the role academics play in the performative rendition of -+, innovation, we turn to the products that we create2 Texts. .s #unintended testimony to past actions$ , texts crystallize the interests and /udgments of the I! academic community. Text in the form of archived publications further carries imprints of the broader ideational and institutional commitments that academics inherit and enact. ;ust

Thirty Fourth International Conference on Information Systems, Milan 2013

Trac 13! IT "rtifact

as important, besides being systematic and reliable records of discourse, treating archived publications as data also avoids the recollection bias inherent in more obtrusive methods, such as field interviews and observations . e begin our investigation with the proceedings of the International 4onference on Information !ystems "I4I!% because it is the premier site for the I! academic community to feature its latest research available on information systems . .s conferences typically also serve as the inaugural avenue for researchers to present and receive feedbac& on developing theoretical framewor&s and preliminary findings, I4I! therefore counts a suitable site to uncover forming &nowledge claims about -+, as an IT innovation. >sing the .I! electronic library ".I!e1%, we search the I4I! proceedings using #enterprise resource planning,$ the long form of -+,. e choose to start from the year ?@@A because literature suggests that interests on our focal innovation, -+,, seem to appear in ?@@B but pea& by the early CDDDs . It is also in ?@@B that .<IEInform =lobal 6atabase ac&nowledged -+, as an independent category as a result of the volume of publications that discussed it as a main topic . <eginning our data collection from ?@@A therefore gives us sufficient #room$ to observe the ascent of -+, in the I4I! proceedings. )ur search retrieved CBF uni9ue papers. (or coding and analysis, we further limit the pool of papers to those that are empirical studies on -+, implementation as they provide the most conspicuous discursive demonstrations of &nowledge claims academics ma&e based on how they ma&e sense of how IT innovation materializes in the field. ith this in mind, we concurrently eliminate those that are either "?% meta* studies on -+, li&e ours, "C% focus solely on theory building, or "G% mention -+, only in a nominal manner. To elaborate on the third class of papers that we remove from consideration, we refer to studies in their discussion of pac&aged solutions, mention -+, as a cursory example. e are still coding the papers. .t this point in time, we focus on brac&eting #codable moments$ : fragments of text in the materials and our notes that relate to a% human actors, b% &nowledge claims and discourse about -+, about its professed utility by various sta&eholders and c% the processes through which it can be rendered intelligible and effective. Next, we present our preliminary findings, specifically some descriptive statistics and vignettes from our ongoing analysis. hen discussing our findings, we also point out shifts in our coding in practice at suitable /unctions to ta&e into account what is emerging in our process of analysis.

Preliminary Findings
.t this early stage of coding, we are already intrigued by what we have found so far. )ur preliminary analysis of the CBF papers shows that the tra/ectory of -+, is still not only rising, but also rising at an accelerated rate "see (igure ?%. e also confirm estrup8s observation that the term #-+,$ did not appear in I4I! before ?@@B. !till referring to (igure ?, the /udgment of the decline of -+, as a feasible IT innovation which seems /ustified then now appears to be premature , especially when we ta&e into account its sustained and accelerated proliferation in articles since CDDF. .s we code, we start to see the co*occurrence of -+, with other discursive concepts such as business process reengineering "#<,+$% and business process management "#<,5$%. e therefore begin to code for both other terms as well. There seems to be a divergence between article counts on -+, and that of <,+ and <,5. +eturning to (igure ?, the gap between -+, and other concepts seems to begin from CDDG, and widening faster from CDDF. (ewer studies mention -+, and <,+ or <,5 in tandem. hile not being shown here, we also code for a legacy term manufacturing resource planning "5+,%. The article counts are not only low and sporadic, but they also do not exist independently of -+,. In other words, all articles that mention 5+, do so in the context of -+,.

Thirty Fourth International Conference on Information Systems, Milan 2013

The e#olution of $RP systems as an IT inno#ation% " &erformati#e &ers&ecti#e

Figure 1. Cumulative Article Counts of ERP ,utting the above preliminary observations in terms of the theory of performativity, the performance of -+, artifact*concept to some extent seems to be lin&ed to other discursive elements i.e., <,+ or <,5, especially in its early period of its innovation. However, its ascent seems decoupled from them very 9uic&ly. This observation provides tentative corroboration with the account that acts of performativity: -+, as an IT innovation in our casedo not ta&e place de novo2 its existence leverages existing &nowledge claims, even that of legacy artifacts "i.e., 5+,%. It reflects that while the new ensemble is being arranged and configured, existing ensembles :even exiting and residual onestend to be highly obdurate. e further observe this persistent nature from the &nowledge claims about -+, from both before and after the point of inflexion "in CDDF%. (or example, in ,oston and =rabs&i8s study about the impact of -+, on firm performance "in the economic sense%2 !ince -+, implementations are often performed with business process reengineering "6avenport CDDD' =rabs&i et al. CDDD' ortmann ?@@H%, the separate effect cannot be disentangled "p. AHD%. Then in <hattachraya8s study that was published well beyond CDDF, we continue to see the definition of -+, systems to be expressed in terms of streamlining and integrating business processes, despite the claim that -+, should #enable business value creation "beyond operational efficiency% in strategic business transformations in large organizations$ "p. A%. In fact, we are starting to observe the curiously self*serving tendency that business problems are framed in such a way that necessitates -+, as the intervention, often without explaining why a phenomenon is problematic in the first place. 4asting the observation of diffused and un*integrated I! as a problem can only be resolved by, well, a tightly coupled and integrated I!. The material -+, system, therefore, as the naturalized solution is discursively performed, as we observe in +owe et al.8s study2 These shared information systems have been diffused rapidly and extensively, especially across large firms ",arr and !han&s CDDG%. -ven small organizations are increasingly installing them "Ian -verdingen et al. CDDD%. -+, systems are more integrated than conventional I! because the different modules are designed to be tightly coupled and their evolving architecture and expanding functionality promise cross*functional integration of all information flowing through a company "5ar&us and Tanis CDDD% "pp. FC?*FCC.

Thirty Fourth International Conference on Information Systems, Milan 2013

Trac 13! IT "rtifact

Future Steps
e hope that the glimpses from our ongoing coding and analysis offer some optimism and promise that the theory of performativity can address some of the issues associated with existing theories on IT innovation. .s we continue to examine the articles from the I4I! proceedings, we will start to add other publications for analysis. 4andidate publications include other conferences such as .54I!, ,.4I!, and HI4!!, as well as top /ournals such as the MIS 'uarterly and the (ournal of Management Information Systems. e also find ,olloc& and illiam8s notion of intermediaries in how they facilitate the performance of -+,, in particular those who #help shape expectations about the development of technological Jelds and constitute mar&ets for constantly changing supplier o erings$ "p. ?C%, useful in identifying other producers of &nowledge claims "such as industry analysts, using ,olloc& and illiam8s example%. This in turn also leads us to consider non*academic but e9ually ideational products, such as trade publications and technical reports. The next step also involves extending data collection to consider the other inter*related actor groups i.e., the software innovators "e.g., !.,%, the industry users and organizations. In addition to coding for the discursive elements as per our current analysis, we intend to also focus on actions and processes underta&en by the other actors e.g., technical developments, political negotiations, institutionalization, and carefully trace how these relate to the discursive elements and actions. The goal is to clarify what discursive elements are associated with which actors and what actions or processes. e intend to trace the actors, actions, material and discursive elements through the development of -+, system over time "?@@A*CD?C%. e will also code for important episodes of performative outcomes based on 5ac7enzie8s "CDDA% taxonomy of performativity "i.e., #generic performativity$, #effective performativity,$ #<arnesian performativity,$ and #counter*performativity$%. This would aid us in understanding what are the prevalent modes of performativity that engender -+, to remain a salient IT innovation, vis*K*vis its existing and upcoming competitors, to solve business problems. .s in interpretive research, we shall iterate between our theoretical framewor& and data and empirically ground the IT innovation process model to approximate what our data is telling us . In conclusion, we repeat and clarify the potential contributions from our paper. (irst, we build on existing !T! research and draw on the Theory of ,erformativity to develop a broad IT innovation theory. !econd, we have collected "and will collect more% archival data on the evolution of the enterprise resource planning "-+,% system. e intend to analyze the data with the broad performative*based innovation theory to develop a grounded theoretical framewor& of IT innovation process. (inally, we argue that this performative perspective on IT innovation would help us better theorize the IT innovation process, particularly the dynamics of modern IT systems8 development.

Thirty Fourth International Conference on Information Systems, Milan 2013

The e#olution of $RP systems as an IT inno#ation% " &erformati#e &ers&ecti#e

References
Agarwal, R., and Sambamurthy, V. 2002. "Principles and Models or !rgani"ing the #t $unction," MIS Quarterly Executive %&'&(, pp. &)&*. A+rich, M., ,allon, M., and -atour, .. 2002. "/he 0ey to Success in #nno1ation Part #i' /he Art o ,hoosing 2ood Spo+espersons," International Journal of Innovation Management %*'2(, pp. 203)224. .hattacharya, P.5., Seddon, P..., and Scheepers, R. 20&0. "6nabling Strategic /rans ormations with 6nterprise Systems' .eyond !perational 6 iciency," in' ICIS 2010. St. -ouis' A#S, pp. &)&2. .i7+er, 8.6., 9ughes, /.P., and Pinch, /.5. &:;3. The Social Construction of Technological Systems: e! "irections in the Sociology an# $istory of Technology. ,ambridge, MA' M#/ Press. .oyat"is, R.6. &::;. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic %nalysis an# Co#e "evelo&ment /housand !a+s, ,A' Sage Publications. ,allon, M. &:;*. "Some 6lements o a Sociology o /ranslation' <omestication o the Scallops and the $ishermen o St. .rieuc .ay," in 'o!er( %ction an# )elief: % e! Sociology of *no!le#ge( 5. -aw %ed.(. -ondon' Routledge, pp. &:*)2==. ,allon, M. 200*. ""8hat <oes #t Mean to Say /hat 6conomics #s Per ormati1e>," in "o Economists Ma+e Mar+ets, -n the 'erformativity of Economics( <. Mac0en"ie, $. Muniesa and -. Siu %eds.(. Princeton' Princeton ?ni1ersity Press. ,allon, M., and Muniesa, $. 2004. "Peripheral Vision 6conomic Mar+ets as ,alculati1e ,ollecti1e <e1ices," -rgani.ation Stu#ies %2*';(, pp. &22:)&240. 2arud, R., 5ain, S., and 0umaraswamy, A. 2002. "#nstitutional 6ntrepreneurship in the Sponsorship o ,ommon /echnological Standards' /he ,ase o Sun Microsystems and 5a1a," %ca#emy of Management Journal % @4'&(, $ebruary, pp. &:*A2&@. 2laser, ..2., and Strauss, A. &:*3. The "iscovery of /roun#e# Theory. ,hicago' Aldine. 9ughes, /.P. &:;:. "/he 61olution o -arge /echnological Systems," in The Social Construction of Technological Systems( 8.6. .i7+er, /.P. 9ughes and /.5. Pinch %eds.(. ,ambridge, Mass.' M#/ Press, pp. 4&);2. 0lein, 9.0., and Myers, M.<. &:::. "A Set o Principles or ,onducting and 61aluating #nterpreti1e $ield Studies in #n ormation Systems," MIS Quarterly %2='&(, pp. *3):=. -atour, .. &:;3. Science in %ction: $o! to 0ollo! Scientists an# Engineers through Society1 ,ambridge, MA' 9ar1ard ?ni1ersity Press. -aw, 5., and Singleton, V. 2000. "Per orming /echnologyBs Stories' !n Social ,onstructi1ism, Per ormance, and Per ormati1ity," Technology an# Culture %@&'@(, pp. 3*4)334. Mac0en"ie, <. 200@. "/he .ig, .ad 8ol and the Rational Mar+et' Port olio #nsurance, the &:;3 ,rash and the Per ormati1ity o 6conomics," Economy an# society %=='=(, pp. =0=)==@. Mac0en"ie, <., and Millo, C. 200=. ",onstructing a Mar+et, Per orming /heory' /he 9istorical Sociology o a $inancial <eri1ati1es 6Dchange," %merican Journal of Sociology %&0:'&(, $eb, pp. &03)&@4. Polloc+, E., and 8illiams, R. 200;. Soft!are an# -rganisations. -ondon and Eew Cor+' ?ni1ersity o /eeside, ?0. Polloc+, E., 8illiams, R., and <FaposGAdderio, -. 2003. "2lobal So tware and #ts Pro1enance' 2eneri ication 8or+ in the Production o !rgani"ational So tware Pac+ages," Social Stu#ies of Science %=3'2(, May 0&, pp. 24@)2;0. Poston, R., and 2rabs+i, S. 2000. "/he #mpact o 6nterprise Resource Planning Systems on $irm Per ormance," in' ICIS. .risbane, Australia' A#S, pp. @3:)@:=. Rosen+op , -., and /ushman, M.-. &::@. "/he ,oe1olution o /echnology and !rgani"ation," in Evolutionary "ynamics of -rgani.ations( 5.A. .aum and 5.V. Singh %eds.(. Eew Cor+' !D ord ?ni1ersity Press, pp. @0=) @2@. Rowe, $., Amrani, R.6., .idan, M., Marcinia+, R., and 2e roy)Maronnat, .. 2004. "<oes 6RP Pro1ide a ,ross) $unctional View o the $irm> ,hallenging ,on1entional 8isdom or Smes and -arge $rench $irms," in' ICIS 2002. -as Vegas, ?SA' pp. 42&)4=@. Scott, 5. &::0. % Matter of 3ecor#: "ocumentary Sources in Social 3esearch. Polity Press. Soh, ,., Sia, S.0., and /ay)Cap, 5. 2000. ",ultural $its and Mis its' #s 6RP a ?ni1ersal Solution," Communications of the %CM %@='@(, pp. @3)4&. Swanson, 6..., and Ramiller, E.,. &::3. "/he !rgani"ing Vision in #n ormation Systems #nno1ation," -rgani.ation Science %;'4(, pp. @4;)@3@. Van de Ven, A.9. 2004. "Running in Pac+s to <e1elop 0nowledge)#ntensi1e /echnologies," MIS Quarterly %2:'2(,

Thirty Fourth International Conference on Information Systems, Milan 2013

Trac 13! IT "rtifact

5une, pp. =*4)=3;. 8agner, 6., Scott, S.V., and 2alliers, R.<. 200*. "/he ,reation o B.est PracticesB So tware' Myth, Reality, and 6thics," Information an# -rgani.ation %&*(, pp. 24&)234. 8alstrom, 0.A., and 9ardgra1e, ..,. 200&. "$orums or #n ormation Systems Scholars' #ii," Information an# Management %=:'2(, pp. &&3)&2@. 8ang, P. 200:. "Popular ,oncepts .eyond !rgani"ations' 6Dploring Eew <imensions o #n ormation /echnology #nno1ations," Journal of the %ssociation for Information Systems %&0'&(, pp. &)=0. 8estrup, ,. 2002. "<iscourse, Management $ashions, and 6RP Systems," 'rocee#ings of the I0I' TC456/412 6or+ing Conference on /lo7al an# -rgani.ational "iscourse a7out Information Technology( 6. 8ynn, 6.A. 8hitley, M.<. Myers and 5.#. <e2ross %eds.(, .arcelona, Spain, pp. @0&)@&;. 8estrup, ,. 2004. "Management $ashions and #n ormation Systems," in $an#7oo+ of Critical Information Systems 3esearch: Theory an# %&&lication( <. 9owcro t and 6.M. /rauth %eds.(. ,heltenham' 6dward 6lgar, pp. &=2)&4&. Ceow, A., and Sia, S. 200;. "Eegotiating ".est Practices" in Pac+age So tware #mplementation," Information 8 -rgani.ation %&;'&(, pp. &)2;.

Thirty Fourth International Conference on Information Systems, Milan 2013