Abstract
Being hailed as possessing the ability to drive effective business reengineering and management of core and support processes, it is not surprising that enterprise resource planning (ERP)systems have been adopted by more than 60 percent of Fortune 500 companies at the turn of the century. In contrast, legacy systems have frequently been attached with negative connotations. Yet at the same time, it is common knowledge that some legacy systems are not replaced when companies adopt ERP solutions, while new in-house systems still continue to be developed. While risks and time involved have been highlighted as possible reasons for the non-replacement of legacy systems, little attention has been paid to process issues as well as the symbolic meanings attached to the ERP vis-à-vis the other coexisting information systems.
This research employs symbolic interactionism as the informing theoretical perspective in an ethnographic study of a large government authority in Singapore. Our findings surprisingly indicate that contrary to popular belief, the end-users in that organization tend to attach rather favorable symbols to their legacy and new in-house developed systems, while displaying relatively negative sentiments towards their ERP package. In this paper, we first discuss the different symbolism attached over the years to the coexisting systems. Next, we highlight how certain symbols gradually got sedimented over time. Finally, we demonstrate how the consequent manifestations of these symbolic realities influenced certain organizational actions that impacted the usage and perpetuation of the coexisting systems.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alvarez, R. “Examining an ERP Implementation through Myths: A Case Study of a Large Public Organization,” in H. M. Chung (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth Americas Conference of Information Systems 2000, Long Beach, CA, 2000, pp. 1655–1661.
Brodie, M., and Stonebraker, M. Migrating Legacy System, San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1995.
Feldman, S. P. “The Idealization of Technology: Power Relations in an Engineering Department,” Human Relations (42), 1989, pp. 575–592.
Feldman, M. B., and March, J. G. “Information in Organizations as Signal and Symbol,” Administrative Science Quarterly (26:2), 1981, pp. 171–186.
Fine, G. A. “Agency, Structure and Comparative Contexts: Towards a Synthetic Interactionism,” Symbolic Interaction (15:1), 1992, pp. 87–107.
Hirschheim, R., and Newman, M. “Symbolism and Information Systems Development: Myth, Metaphor and Magic,” Information Systems Research (2:1), 1991, pp. 29–62.
Holland, C. P., and Light, B. “Generic Information Systems Design Strategies,” in W. D. Haseman and D. L. Nazareth, Proceedings of the Fifth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Milwaukee, WI, 1999, pp. 396–398.
Klaus, H., Rosemann, M., and Gable, G. G. “What is ERP?,” Information Systems Frontiers (2:2), 2000, pp. 141–162.
Lindesmith, A. R. “Symbolic Interactionism and Causality,” Symbolic Interaction (4:1), 1981, pp. 87–96.
Markus, M. L, and 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, Cincinnati, OH: PinnaFlex Educational Resources, Inc., 2000, pp. 173–207.
Meyers, P. W., Sivakumar, K., and Nakata, C. “Implementation of Industrial Process Innovations: Factors, Effects and Marketing,” Journal of Product Innovation Management (16:3), 1999, pp. 295–311.
O’Callaghan, A “Migrating Large Scale Legacy Systems to Component-Based and Object Technology,” Communications of the Association for Information Systems (2:3), 1999.
Prasad, P. “Symbolic Processes in the Implementation of Technological Change: A Symbolic Interactionist Study of Work Computerization,” Academy of Management Journal (36:6), 1993, pp. 1400–1429.
Prus, R. Symbolic Interaction and Ethnographic Research, Albany, NY: State University of NewYork Press, 1996.
Ross, J. W., and Vitale, M. R. “The ERP Revolution: Surviving vs. Thriving,” Information Systems Frontier (2:2), 2000, pp. 233–241.
Schönefeld, M., and Vering, O. “Enhancing ERP-Efficiency through Workflow-Services,” in H. M. Chung (Ed.), Proceedings of Sixth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Long Beach, CA, 2000, pp. 640–645.
See, C. P. N. “A Framework for Enterprise Resource Planning Maintenance and Upgrade Decisions,” in D. Strong and D. Straub (Eds.), Proceedings of Seventh Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston, MA, 2001, pp. 1026–1029
Themistocleous, M., and Irani, Z. “Benchmarking the Benefits and Barriers of Application Integration,” Benchmarking (8:4), 2001, 317–331.
Turner, B. A. (Ed.). Organizational Symbolism, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1990.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ng, M.M.T., Tan, M.T.K. (2004). Symbolic Processes in ERP Versus Legacy System Usage. In: Kaplan, B., Truex, D.P., Wastell, D., Wood-Harper, A.T., DeGross, J.I. (eds) Information Systems Research. IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, vol 143. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-8095-6_49
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-8095-6_49
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8094-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8095-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive