Routines as Shock Absorbers During Organizational Transformation: Integration, Control, and NASA’s Enterprise Information System

References

• Allen JP (2005) Value conflicts in enterprise systems. Inform. Tech. People 18(1):33–49.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Al-Mashari M, Al-Mudimigh A, Zairi M (2003) Enterprise resource planning: A taxonomy of critical factors. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 146(2):352–364.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barki H, Pinsonneault A (2005) A model of organizational integration, implementation effort, and performance. Organ. Sci. 16(2):165–179.Link, Google Scholar
• Barley S (1986) Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of ct scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Admin. Sci. Quart. 31(1):78–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beniger JR (1986) The Control Revolution: Technological and Economic Origins of the Information Society (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Berente N, Yoo Y (2012) Institutional contradictions and loose coupling: Post-implementation of NASA’s enterprise information system. Inform. Systems Res. 23(2):376–396.Link, Google Scholar
• Berente N, Gal U, Yoo Y (2010) Dressage, control, and enterprise systems: The case of NASA’s full cost initiative. Eur. J. Inform. Systems 19(1):21–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berente N, Vandenbosch B, Aubert B (2009) Information flows and business process integration. Bus. Process Management J. 15(1):119–141.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boudreau M, Robey D (2005) Enacting integrated information technology: A human agency perspective. Organ. Sci. 16(1):3–18.Link, Google Scholar
• Burton-Jones A, Gallivan MJ (2007) Toward a deeper understanding of system usage in organizations: A multilevel perspective. MIS Quart. 31(4):657–679.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chae B, Lanzara GF (2006) Self-destructive dynamics in large-scale technochange and some ways of counteracting it. Inform. Tech. People 19(1):74–97.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ciborra C (2000) From Control to Drift: The Dynamics of Corporate Information Infrastructures (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• D’Adderio L (2011) Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. J. Institutional Econom. 7(2):197–230.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davenport TH (1998) Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system. Harvard Bus. Rev. 76(4):1–10.Google Scholar
• Dechow N, Mouritsen J (2005) Enterprise resource planning systems, management control and the quest for integration. Accounting Organ. Soc. 30(7–8):691.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DeSanctis G, Poole M (1994) Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organ. Sci. 5(2):121–147.Link, Google Scholar
• Elbanna AR (2006) The validity of the improvisation argument in the implementation of rigid technology: The case of ERP systems. J. Inform. Tech. 21(3):165–175.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elmes MB, Strong DM, Volkoff O (2005) Panoptic empowerment and reflective conformity in enterprise systems-enabled organizations. Inform. Organ. 15(1):1–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Feldman MS, Pentland B (2003) Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Admin. Sci. Quart. 48(1):94–118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gattiker TF, Goodhue DL (2005) What happens after ERP implementation: Understanding the impact of inter-dependence and differentiation on plant-level outcomes. MIS Quart. 29(3):559–585.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gehman HW, Barry JL, Deal DW, Hallock JN et al. (2003) Columbia Accident Investigation Board report, Volume 1. Accessed March 29, 2016, http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/home/CAIB_Vol1.html.Google Scholar
• Goh JM, Gao G, Agarwal R (2011) Evolving work routines: Adaptive routinization of information technology in healthcare. Inform. Systems Res. 22(3):565–585.Link, Google Scholar
• Gosain S (2004) Enterprise information systems as objects and carriers of institutional forces: The new iron cage? J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 5(4):151–182.Google Scholar
• Hong KK, Kim YG (2002) The critical success factors for ERP implementation: An organizational fit perspective. Inform. Management 40(1):25–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Howard-Grenville JA (2005) The persistence of flexible organizational routines: The role of agency and organizational context. Organ. Sci. 16(6):618–636.Link, Google Scholar
• Kallinikos J (2004) Deconstructing information packages: Organizational and behavioural implications of ERP systems. Inform. Tech. People 17(1):8–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leonard-Barton D (1988) Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization. Res. Policy (17):251–267.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leonardi PM, Barley SR (2008) Materiality and change: Challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing. Inform. Organ. 18(3):159–176.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Light B, Wagner E (2006) Integration in ERP environments: Rhetoric, realities and organisational possibilities. New Tech., Work Employment 21(3):215–228.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lyytinen K, Newman M (2008) Explaining information systems change: A punctuated socio-technical change model. Eur. J. Inform. Systems 17(6):589–613.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lyytinen K, Newman M (2015) A tale of two coalitions—Marginalising the users while successfully implementing an enterprise resource planning system. Inform. Systems J. 25(2):71–101.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lyytinen K, Newman M, Al-Muharfi ARA (2009) Institutionalizing enterprise resource planning in the Saudi steel industry: A punctuated socio-technical analysis. J. Inform. Tech. 24(4):286–304.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Majchrzak A, Rice RE, Malhotra A, King N, Ba S (2000) Technology adaptation: The case of a computer-supported inter-organizational virtual team. MIS Quart. 24(4):569–600.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Markus M, Tanis C (2000) The enterprise systems experience-from adoption to success. Zmud RW, ed. Framing the Domains of IT Research: Projecting the Future…Through the Past (Pinnaflex Educational Resources, Inc., Cincinnati, OH), 173–207.Google Scholar
• Markus ML, Axline S, Petrie D, Tanis SC (2000) Learning from adopters’ experiences with ERP: Problems encountered and success achieved. J. Inform. Tech. 15(4):245–265.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Morel B, Ramanujam R (1999) Through the looking glass of complexity: The dynamics of organizations as adaptive and evolving systems. Organ. Sci. 10(3):278–293.Link, Google Scholar
• Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Office of the Chief Financial Officer (2003) ePayroll project formulation plan, July 12, 2003. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL.Google Scholar
• Orlikowski W (1996) Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Inform. Systems Res. 7(1):63–92.Link, Google Scholar
• Parmigiani A, Howard-Grenville J (2011) Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. Acad. Management Ann. 5(1):413–453.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pentland BT, Feldman MS (2005) Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Indust. Corporate Change 14(5):793–815.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pentland BT, Feldman MS (2007) Narrative networks: Patterns of technology and organization. Organ. Sci. 18(5):781–795.Link, Google Scholar
• Pentland BT, Feldman MS, Becker MC, Liu P (2012) Dynamics of organizational routines: A generative model. J. Management Stud. 49(8):1484–1508.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pettigrew AM (1990) Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organ. Sci. 1(3):267–292.Link, Google Scholar
• Pollock N, Williams R (2008) Software and Organisations: The Biography of the Enterprise-Wide System or How SAP Conquered the World (Routledge, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sawyer S (2001) A market-based perspective on information systems development. Comm. ACM 44(11):97–102.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scott S, Wagner E (2003) Networks, negotiations, and new times: The implementation of enterprise resource planning into an academic administration. Inform. Organ. 13(4):285–313.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Seidel S, Urquhart C (2013) On emergence and forcing in information systems grounded theory studies: The case of Strauss and Corbin. J. Inform. Tech. 28(3):237–260.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shang S, Seddon PB (2002) Assessing and managing the benefits of enterprise systems: The business manager’s perspective. Inform. Systems J. 12(4):271–299.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sia SK, Soh C (2007) An assessment of package-organisation misalignment: Institutional and ontological structures. Eur. J. Inform. Systems 16(5):568–583.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Soh C, Sia SK, Boh WF, Tang M (2003) Misalignments in ERP implementation: A dialectic perspective. Internat. J. Human-Computer Interaction 16(1):81–100.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Srivardhana T, Pawlowski SD (2007) ERP systems as an enabler of sustained business process innovation: A knowledge-based view. J. Strategic Inform. Systems 16(1):51–69.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Starbuck WH, Farjoun M (2005) Organization at the Limit: Lessons from the Columbia Disaster (Blackwell, Malden, MA).Google Scholar
• Strauss AL (1978) Negotiations: Varieties, Processes, Contexts, and Social Order (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA).Google Scholar
• Strauss AL, Corbin JM (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Strauss AL, Schatzman L, Ehrlich D, Bucher R, Sabshin M (1994) The hospital and its negotiated order. Friedson E, ed. The Hospital in Modern Society (Free Press, New York), 147–169.Google Scholar
• Strong DM, Volkoff O (2010) Understanding organization-enterprise system fit: A path to theorizing the information technology artifact. MIS Quart. 34(4):731–756.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Turner SF, Rindova V (2012) A balancing act: How organizations pursue consistency in routine functioning in the face of ongoing change. Organ. Sci. 23(1):24–46.Link, Google Scholar
• Tyre M, Orlikowski W (1994) Windows of opportunity: Temporal patterns of technological adaptation in organizations. Organ. Sci. 5(1):98–118.Link, Google Scholar
• U.S. Government Accountability Office (2007) NASA must consider agencywide needs to reap the full benefits of its enterprise management system modernization effort. Report to Congressional Requesters, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• van der Aalst W, Adriansyah A, de Medeiros AKA, Arcieri F, Baier T, Bose JC, Brand P, Brandtjen R, Buijs J, Burattin A (2012) Process mining manifesto. La Rosa M, Soffer P, eds. Business Process Management Workshops (Springer, Berlin), 169–194.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vaughan D (1996) The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Vaughan D (2005) System effects: Slippery slopes, repeating negative patterns, and learning from mistake? Starbuck WH, Farjoun M, eds. Organization at the Limit: Lessons from the Columbia Disaster (Blackwell, Malden, MA), 41–59.Google Scholar
• Volkoff O, Strong DM, Elmes MB (2007) Technological embeddedness and organizational change. Organ. Sci. 18(5):832–848.Link, Google Scholar
• Wagner E, Newell S (2004) “Best” for whom? The tension between “best practice” ERP packages and diverse epistemic cultures in a university context. J. Strategic Inform. Systems 13(4):305–328.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wagner EL, Scott SV et al. (2006) The creation of “best practice” software: Myth, reality and ethics. Inform. Organ. 16(3):251–275.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wagner EL, Newell S, Piccoli G (2010) Understanding project survival in an ES environment: A sociomaterial practice perspective. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 11(5):276–297.Google Scholar
• Wei H, Wang E et al. (2005) Understanding misalignment and cascading change of ERP implementation: A stage view of process analysis. Eur. J. Inform. Systems 14(4):324–334.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yin RK (2013) Case Study Research Design and Methods (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar