See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267715578

Understanding ERP Implementation Methods: The Case of ASAP

Article

CITATIONS READS

4 179

1 author:

Jonas Hedman
Copenhagen Business School
80 PUBLICATIONS   1,013 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

FinTech and Payments innovation View project

Cashless Society View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jonas Hedman on 25 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IRIS27
Jonas Hedman: Understanding ERP Implementation Methods: The Case of
ASAP

Understanding ERP Implementation Methods: The

Case of ASAP

Jonas Hedman

Department of Informatics, School of Economics and Management, Lund

University

Ole Römers väg 6, S-223 63 Lund, Sweden

jonas.hedman@ics.lu.se

Abstract: This paper presents the analysis of one Enterprise Resource Planning
systems implementation method, namely AcceleratedSAP (ASAP). The analysis is
based on Iivari’s (1991) framework for investigating the underlying assumptions of
information systems development methods. The framework includes four dimensions:
ontology, epistemology, research methodology and ethics. The analyses show
similarities between information systems development approaches, such as the
infological-, the information modelling-, the socio-technical-, and the trade unionist
approach. The main difference between ASAP and traditional information systems
development methods is the inherent view of information requirements, which can be
summarised as information predetermined, i.e. the method ‘knows’ the information
requirements and dictates the information specification. In addition, or a consequence
of information predetermination, ASAP applies a reversed logic of analysis and
design in the implementation, where the implementation process begins with the
design followed by the analysis.

Keywords: ASAP, paradigmatic framework, ISD, method, ERP implementation.

IRIS27
Jonas Hedman: Understanding ERP Implementation Methods: The Case of
ASAP

1. Introduction and Background

IS researchers have been criticized for not paying attention to the IT artefacts
(Orlikowski & Iacono, 2001) and not critically reflecting upon and challenging
the approaches used in the development and implementation of IS (Iivari &
Hirschheim, 1996). Critical analysis of information systems development
methods (ISDMs) can contribute to our understanding of the embedded
assumptions in ISDMs (Iivari et al., 1998). The underlying assumptions affect
the choices with regard to the analysis, design and implementation alternatives
and, in the long run, the IS and the organization (Iivari & Hirschheim, 1996;
Iivari et al., 1998). Iivari (1991) among others has stressed the importance of
investigating the underlying assumption for research, education and practice.
Research on ISDMs has been increasing over the years (Nielsen, 1990; Iivari,
1991; Iivari et al., 2001). According to Nielsen (1990) one of the first
contributions was Taggert and Tharp (1977). This was followed by, among other
things, three conferences on Cooperative Review of Information Systems Design
Methodologies in 1982, 1983 and 1986. The result of these conferences is a
framework for comparing ISDMs (Olle, 1991). Other researchers have
investigated the assumptions and purposes inherent in ISDM, e.g. Wood-
Harper and Fitzgerald (1982), Nielsen (1990), Iivari (1991), Jayaratna (1994),
Iivari and Hirschheim (1996), Iivari et al. (1998), Iivari et al. (2001), and Avison
and Fitzgerald (2003), whereas other have investigated the use of ISDMs, such
as Wynekoop and Russo (1993), Iivari and Maansaari (1998), Fitzgerald et al.
(2002).
This paper addresses ERP systems implementation methods, which are mostly
developed by ERP vendors and ERP consulting firms to support the
implementation of ERP systems (Markus & Tanis 2000). For instance, methods
such as AcceleratedSAP (ASAP) from SAP, Implex from Intentia and JD
Edwards One/Methodology from JD Edwards (Rashid et al., 2002) are some
examples of methods developed by ERP vendors and ERP consulting firms. The
interest in ERP systems implementation methods originates, in particular, from
the large-scale adoption of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems during
the past decade (Davenport, 2000; Hitt et al., 2002; Kumar, 2002; Robey et al.,
Boudreau 2002). Research on ERP systems has so far been mainly focused on
implementation and impact issues (Robey et al., 2002; Hedman, 2003). Less
attention has been given to the methods used during the configuration and the
implementation of ERP systems (Gattiker & Goodhue, 2002), even though they
are commonly used in practice (George, 2000), they remain unexplored in ISD
research. There are some exceptions, including (Dolmetsch et al., 1998;
Fitzgerald et al., 2002; Avison & Fitzgerald, 2003; Esteves et al., 2003;
Hedman, 2003). The main contribution of this research is the conclusion that
the order of analysis and design in the system development life cycle is
IRIS27
Jonas Hedman: Understanding ERP Implementation Methods: The Case of
ASAP

performed in reverse order. This implies a different sequence or various steps

during the configuration and implementation of ERP systems, compared to how
the system development life cycle describes it.
The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of ISD by
analyzing the underlying assumptions of one ERP systems implementation
method. The analysis is based on Iivari’s (1991) paradigmatic framework and is
justified since it enables comparison to previous research on “contemporary”
(Iivari, 1991) and “contrasting” (Iivari et al., 1998) ISDMs1.
The plan of the paper is as follows. The following section describes the
paradigmatic framework and some empirical results based on the framework. In
section three the research approach is presented. Section four presents the ERP
implementation method. The fifth section presents the results of the analysis,
which are followed by a discussion. The final section summarizes the results and
provides suggestions for further research into ERP implementation methods.

2. Paradigmatic framework

Iivari’s framework is based on the distinction between ontology, epistemology,

methodology, and the ethics of research and is summarized in Table 1 and in the
following sections. Iivari’s (1991) paradigmatic framework was initially used to
analyse seven contemporary ISDM or schools of thought, including software
engineering, database management, management information systems, decision
support systems, implementation research, socio-technical and infological
approach. Later the framework has been used to analyse contrasting ISDMs
(Iivari et al., 1998), such as the interactionist approach, the speech act
approach, the soft system methodology approach, the trade unionist approach,
and the professional work practice approach, and to investigate the view on
ontological assumptions in eight different ISDMs (Iivari & Hirschheim, 1996).
The results of three empirical studies are presented at the end of the section.

2.1 Ontological Dimension

The ontological dimension consists of five levels; according to the view of 1)
data/information, 2) data/information systems, 3) human beings, 4)
technology, and 5) organization and society, see Table 1. The ontological
dimension was further explored in Iivari and Hirschheim’s (1996) study of two

1 Iivari et al. (1998) made a distinction between method and approach, whereas method
represents instances of methods belonging to an approach. However, this distinction is not
necessary for this paper, but it is important to recall since the approach level have been the main
analytical level of analysis of the paradigmatic framework.
IRIS27
Jonas Hedman: Understanding ERP Implementation Methods: The Case of
ASAP

underlying ontological assumptions in eight ISDMs. The first assumption

addressed was the perceived role of ISs in organization, i.e. the relationship and
function of an IS within its context. The organizational role of the IS was further
divided into three dimensions: technical (T), socio-technical (ST) and social (S).
The technical view regards the IS as a technical artifact with well-defined input
and output interfaces. The social view, on the other hand, primarily sees the IS
as an organizational and social system, i.e. an integral part of the whole or an
interdependent subsystem. The other assumption addressed what constitutes
information requirements. The information requirements category contained
objectivism (O), subjectivism (S), and intersubjectivism (I). Objectivism refers
to the impersonal features, e.g. task position and organizational role. The
subjective view, on the other hand, sees information requirements as personally
based on the user’s characteristics. The intersubjective view applies an emergent
perspective of information requirements.

Dimensions
Ontology Epistemology Methodology Ethics: the role and underlying
values of IS research
Five levels Distinction Research The role of IS Underlying
between approaches values
• The view of • Positivism • Constructive • Means and • Organization/
data and • Antipositivism • Nomothetic end Management
information • Idiographic • Interpretative • End user
• The view of • Critical • Other
data- and
information
systems
• The view of
human beings
• The view of
technology
• The view of
organization
and society

Table 1. Summary of the paradigmatic framework, based on Iivari (1991).

IRIS27
Jonas Hedman: Understanding ERP Implementation Methods: The Case of
ASAP

2.2 Epistemological, Methodological, Ethical Dimensions

Epistemology relates to knowledge and how this can be obtained. This
dimension is based on Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) distinction between
positivism and anti-positivism, i.e. the nature of scientific knowledge.
Methodology addresses the preferred research method of improving the ISDM.
Three categories are used to distinguish between research approaches, including
idiographic research methods (e.g. case studies and action research),
nomothetic research methods (e.g. formal-mathematical analysis, experiments,
field studies and surveys) and constructive research approaches (conceptual
development and technical development). The two first research approaches
(i.e. idiographic and nomothetic) are based on Burell and Morgan’s (1979)
illustration of two extremes in research. Constructive research methods on the
other hand take into account the fact that IS science is also an applied science.
In a later paper, Iivari et al. (1998) derive the constructive research approaches
to Simon’s work on the “Science of the Artificial” (1996).
Ethics of research distinguishes between the role of IS research (means-end
oriented, interpretative, and critical as potential roles) and its value
(organization/management, end user, and others).

2.3 Empirical Research

As mentioned above the paradigmatic framework has been applied in a number
of studies of ISDM (Iivari, 1991; Iivari & Hirschheim, 1996; Iivari et al., 1998;
Iivari et al., 2001). This section reviews three studies. The result of Iivari’s
(1991) showed great similarities between the seven contemporary approaches
and is summarized in Table 2, last row. The ontological dimension showed the
greatest diversity. The seven contemporary ISDMs view IS mainly as a technical
system, where data and information are descriptive facts. Furthermore, the
contemporary approaches apply a structuralistic view of organizations and
apply a positivistic epistemology. The research approach applied have involved
both nomothetic and constructive research methodology to improve the
approaches and embracing a means-and-end oriented research ethics
emphasizing organizational and management values.
Iivari’s et al. (1998) applied the same paradigmatic analyses on five contrasting
ISDMs, including the interactionist approach, the speech act approach, the soft
system methodology approach, the trade unionist approach, and the
professional work practice approach. The selection of these five approaches was
justified by the fact that Iivari et al. (1998) assumed that they reflect different
paradigmatic assumptions than the contemporary approaches analysed by Iivari
(1991). Support for this hypothesis was also provided by the analysis. The result
of their analysis is presented in Table 2 and shows larger differences than the
contemporary ISDMs analysed by Iivari (1991). The contemporary approaches
IRIS27
Jonas Hedman: Understanding ERP Implementation Methods: The Case of
ASAP

apply a much more deterministic view of technology, whereas the contrasting

approaches have a clearer social orientation.

Dimensions
ISDM Ontology Epistemology Methodology Ethics
Interactionist Social Positivism Idiographic Interpretive
Speech act Socio- Antipositivist Nomothetic Means-end
technical
SSM Socio- Dualistic Constructive and Means-end and
technical idiographic interpretive
Trade unionist Technical Positivism Constructive and Critical
idiographic
Professional work Socio- Antipositivist Constructive and Means-end
practice technical idiographic
Contemporary Technical Positivism Constructive and Means-end
approaches nomothetic

Table 2. Summary of empirical results of analysis based on the paradigmatic

framework.

Iivari and Hirschheim (1996) analysed eight ISDMs, including information

modelling, the decision support system, the socio-technical approach, the
infological approach, the interactionist approach, the speech act-based
approach, soft systems methodology, and the trade unionist approach. The first
four approaches represent old and established tradition while the four latter
ones represent new and contemporary approaches. In their analysis, they used
textbooks based on Kuhn’s idea that books are important manifestations of
existing paradigms. A summary of their findings is shown in Table 3. The first
two traditions, i.e. information modelling and the decision support system,
apply a mechanistic view of technology. The social-technical school views the IS
as a social-technical system, whereas the infological approaches apply a
combination of the three. The so-called new approaches emphasize the social
nature of ISs. The view of information requirements did not provide the same
variety. One of their explanations was that new ISDMs have different sets of
assumptions than the old ISDMs with regard to the view on technology, human
being, and organization.
There are differences between the ISDMs analyzed with regard to their
ontological, epistemological, preferred research approaches and ethics
preferences. Nevertheless, there is one common factor in the above-mentioned
methods and approaches; they are all designed for scratch development - in-
house or by an external party. The methods and approaches assume that ISs are
developed from scratch. The recent development and increased importance of
IRIS27
Jonas Hedman: Understanding ERP Implementation Methods: The Case of
ASAP

COTS systems and the subsequent COTS approaches and methods have not yet
been analyzed.

Methods Organizational role Information

requirements
T ST S O S I
Information Modelling *** * *** ** *
Decision Support System *** * ** ***
Socio-technical approach *** *** *
Infological approach ** ** ** *** *
Interactionist approach ***
Speech Act approach *** ** ***
SSM ** ** ** **
Trade Unionist approach *** * ** * **

Table 3. Orientation of ISDMs, based on Iivari and Hirschheim’s (1996) tables

four and five, *** Strong orientation, * Weak orientation.

3. Method

The applied research method is artefact evaluation with the goal of uncovering
the underlying assumptions in ASAP. The ASAP method is viewed as an
artefact, where the paradigmatic framework has been used as an evaluation
framework for positioning constructs and concepts (March & Smith 1995). The
chosen research approach includes three presumptions: 1) the COTS method is
viewed as an artefact; 2) the artefact described in books and the actual
methodology reflect the underlying assumptions that guided the design of the
method; 3) and by performing text analysis it is possible to infer those
assumptions (Iivari et al., 1998).
The selection of ERP implementation method is based on the degree of
institutionalization in the scientific community. According to Iivari and
Hirschheim (1996), Kuhn (1970) has described six criteria to determine
institutionalization: including 1) the existence of scientific journals, 2) scientific
conferences, 3) textbooks, 4) professional associations, 5) informational and
formal communication networks, and 6) citations. ASAP is one of the few ERP
implementations methods addressed by the research community (Dolmetsch et
al., 1998; Borell & Hedman, 2000; Rosemann, 2001; Esteves et al., 2003) and is
widely described in textbooks (Bancroft et al., 1998; Hiquet & Kelly, 1998;
Miller, 1998; Hernandez et al., 1999; Jacobs & Whybark, 2000). In addition,
there are professional associations promoting ASAP and there are newsgroups
on the Internet representing informal networks and are cited in case studies,
IRIS27
Jonas Hedman: Understanding ERP Implementation Methods: The Case of
ASAP

such as Geneva (Bhattacherjee, 2000). Furthermore, ASAP is well established

on the market as regards implementing a market leading ERP system and it is
used in education via the university alliance program between SAP and about
400 universities around the world. Thus, the method has both practical and
educational relevance and meets several of Kuhn’s institutional assessment
criteria.
There are limitations of the chosen approach and the selected ERP
implementation method. An important limitation of this work is the fact that
only one ERP systems implementation method is analyzed. This limits the
possibilities of interpreting and discussing the results. Another limitation of the
study, but also a consequence of the chosen approach, is that the analysis was
based on material published on the method and not related to how it is used in
practice. However, text books have been used previously (Iivari & Hirschheim,
1996; Iivari et al., 1998). Another limitation is that the paradigmatic framework
has previously been used to analyse approaches or schools of thought – not
instances of approaches such as a method. However, in this particular case of
ERP implementation methods it is not possible to apply an approach level, since
it does not yet exist on a theoretical and conceptual level.

4. The Case: AcceleratedSAP

In this section, we will be providing a review of ASAP, including a brief

historical overview and a description of its phases. Following Iivari and
associates, textbooks were chosen (such as Hernandez et al., 1999; Hiquet &
Kelly, 1998; Jacobs & Whybark, 2000; Keller & Teufel, 1998) and official
training material (SAP, 1998) and the actual methodology (SAP, 1999). In
addition, current research on ASAP is briefly reviewed.
The ASAP implementation methodology was introduced in 1996 with the
specific goal of structuring implementation projects and thereby reducing the
time to implement R/3 (Miller, 1998). The previous, and to some extent
competing implementation method Procedure Model, was introduced in 1995
and included four phases (organizational and conceptual design, detailed design
and system setup, preparations for going live, and productive operations) with
three levels of detail (project phases, work packages, and project activities).
Hernandez et al. (1999) present the main differences between the two
implementation methods. The main difference between the two methods is that
the Procedure model has a stronger focus on reengineering, whereas ASAP is
more focused on short implementation projects. This is expressed as “the
absence of Business Process Reengineering” (Hiquet and Kelly, 1998, p. 18). The
procedure model resembles more traditional ISD than ASAP. For instance, the
focus on reengineering and the adaptation of the system to firms’ requirements
illustrate this. ASAP was initially developed by SAP AG’s American subsidiary
IRIS27
Jonas Hedman: Understanding ERP Implementation Methods: The Case of
ASAP

and is based on best practice by a number of implementation projects in the

USA (Hernandez et al., 1999). There had been many customer complaints
regarding the long implementations. Dolmetch et al. (1998) studied the
implications and use of ASAP in four implementation projects. They concluded
that the strength of the method lies in forcing companies to focus on essentials,
on keeping implementation projects on time and within budget, on control of
the project’s organization, and on managing documentation. Two key areas were
found to be insufficiently supported, including end user training and change
management.
The ASAP method is packaged as an independent software application with
connections to the IMG in R/3. IMG stands for Implementation Guide, which is
used to configure the R/3 system. The ASAP software comprises four
components: The ASAP Implementation Assistant, The SAP R/3 Concept Check
Tool, The Question and Answer (Q&A) database, and The ASAP Administration
Tool. The administration tool is used to create and manage the projects and the
users of ASAP. The concept tool is used to test and verify the system and the
implementation project. The Q&A database is used to organize and document
requirements. The implementation assistant structures and organizes the
project, by stipulating what tasks are to be performed and when, as well as by
whom.

4.1 Phases of included in ASAP

The methodology consists of five phases presented as a roadmap. The roadmap
only contains one road, making navigation much easier, with checkpoints:
Phase I. Project Preparations provide assistance in the initial planning and
preparation for an R/3 project. This involves defining the project, specifying the
scope, deciding on an implementation strategy, specifying the project schedule
and sequence of implementation, establishing the project organization and
steering committees, and assigning resources.
Phase II. The Business Blueprint is the requirements specification phase
during which detailed documentation is gathered in from workshops. The Q&A
database supports the creation of the Business Blueprint, documenting the
business requirements and identifying the scope of the project. The Business
Blueprint covers, for instance, business strategy, organizational structure,
general settings, master data, and the documentation of business processes. The
goal is to create a common understanding of how to run the business with R/3.
Phase III. Realization involves configuration of the system using guidelines
decided in the Business Blueprint. Testing the system is important during this
phase. Configuration is done in a two-step procedure. Initially, baseline
configuration is done, which involves general configuration options, e.g. global
settings such as currencies master data, the most important processes and the
IRIS27
Jonas Hedman: Understanding ERP Implementation Methods: The Case of
ASAP

organizational structure. Final configuration involves configuring other

processes, printing options, and background processing.
Phase IV. Final preparation mainly includes testing the system and end-user
training on it. Loose ends from previous phases are also dealt with during this
phase. The future system administration is set up and stress tests are
performed.
Phase V. The Go Live and Support phase is when the actual installation takes
place and the system comes into use. Initially, support for the users is essential
since most problems are likely to arise at the beginning. The long-term goal is to
optimize the system.
Each of the phases includes a large number of tools and utilities for simplifying
work. The hierarchy of the methodology is that each phase includes a group of
work packages, which are divided into activities consisting of groups of tasks
that have to be completed. In some cases, the activities are structured into six
hierarchical levels. Most of the activities are supported via Word, Excel, and MS
project documents and files. For instance, there are document templates for
convening a start-up meeting and to organize a kick off meeting.

5. Result of the analysis

The assumptions embedded into ASAP, related to its ontological,

epistemological, research methodology, ethics, and view of information
requirements, are presented in the following sections.

5.1 Ontological assumptions

In relation to the ontological position ASAP view data and information as
descriptive facts. In the method there are references to the R/3 reference model.
The reference model includes the conceptual design of R/3 (including process
models, organizational models and data models) and descriptions of data
objects with their attributes and relationships. This is a reflection of a
descriptive view of data and information, since the method takes it for granted,
and even presumes what data and information are.
The view of IS (technical versus organizational/social system), ASAP does not
explicitly define. Implicitly, ASAP assumes the existence of one and only one IS,
namely R/3 – thus there is no need for any other IS. This conclusion is based on
a reverse logic, since there are no references to other ISs there is no need for
other IS. The view of IS is a technical view with organizational implications. The
implication of this is that the method assume that the organization is adapted to
the system and the role of the ASAP is to support the organizational adaptation.
IRIS27
Jonas Hedman: Understanding ERP Implementation Methods: The Case of
ASAP

ASAP express this as “moving from an existing system and way of doing
business to using R/3 to run the entire, or a part of, the business.”
The view of the human being is deterministic, where humans have to adapt to
the system. This can also be expressed as a Theory X view of the human being
which assumes that most people have an inherent dislike for work and therefore
have to be controlled and directed in order to accomplish organizational goals.
People are controlled by the ‘order’ enforced by R/3, which defines individual
work tasks. The roles of humans are to perform tasks and roles and only those
that the system cannot do. This is based on an instrumental view of humans and
organizations similar to information modelling.
ASAP applies a general view of technology that is deterministic with casual
effects, i.e. success will follow the use of ASAP, cf. the contemporary ISDMs.
Technological choices are stressed during all phases of ASAP and the Concept
check tool is mainly a technical test. The choice that organizations might have
concerns using the system at all, and what parts or modules to use.
The organizational view inherent in ASAP is structuralistic, whereby the system
is a reflection of the organization or more precisely the system is the
organization. The organizational view is that the organization is subordinate to
the system which also defines the organizational surroundings. Society are
competitors, customers and suppliers, which the system knows how to manage.
The view of information requirements is the most distinguishing characteristic
of ASAP in comparison to the other ISDM, e.g. the infological approach, the
structured approach or the SSM approach. In comparison with other kinds of
ISDM, there is no such need – the system provides the best solution to any
information requirements. The view is clearly objective and emphasizes the
organizational and task position of information requirements. However, there is
one major difference between ISDMs in general and ASAP. In the traditional
view of information requirements, e.g. in the contemporary ISDMs analyzed by
Iivari (1991), it is the organizational role or task that determines the user’s
information requirements. In ASAP, on the other hand, this is presented in a
similar way but in the reverse order. ASAP informs the user of the information
options he or she has, so instead of user requirements, there is a system
specification of information. This view of information requirements can be
labelled as ‘information predetermined’. This is a composition of ‘information’
requirements and technology ‘determinism’.

5.2 Epistemological, research and ethical assumptions

The epistemological assumptions of ASAP, which deal with the nature of
knowledge, include two opposite poles: positivism and antipositivism. ASAP is
clearly positivistic. This is expressed in the method as “it systematically guides
you through the tasks involved in getting R/3 up and running in your business”
IRIS27
Jonas Hedman: Understanding ERP Implementation Methods: The Case of
ASAP

(Jacobs & Whybark, 2000, p. 39). This can be interpreted as ASAP is the
knowledge needed to implement R/3 and there is not need for complementary
knowledge residing within human beings. ASAP include laws and procedures of
how to effectively implement R/3. This is a similar to other positivistic ISDM.
The development of the method was initially conceptually based on surveys
regarding implementation consultants and customer complaints. Further
development has involved several research methodologies including surveys,
case studies and action-based research. The research strategies for improving
ASAP have included both nomothetic and idiographic research methods even
though the methodology is initially based on a constructive research approach
(March & Smith, 1995).
The ethics of ASAP, referring to the role of IS science and the value of IS
research, indicate a clear means-end orientation, i.e. the role of IS research is to
provide knowledge to improve the method. This opens up for interpretative and
critical research on ASAP, which can be used to understand the human and
organizational implications of the method. The value of research has a strong
organizational/management orientation and thus neglecting end users and
critical aspects.

Dimensions analysed in ASAP

Ontology Epistemology Methodology Ethics Information
requirements
• ASAP view • The nature of • The • The ethics • ASAP apply
data and knowledge is development of are means and information
information as positivistic and the method has end oriented predetermination
descriptive facts, ASAP is the involved with clear as view on
where R/3 is the knowledge to constructive, organizational information
only data and implement R/3. nomothetic, and and requirements, i.e.
information No other idiographic management there is a need for
system. knowledge is research values requirements since
• Human beings needed – if you methods. the method or
have to be follow ASAP the system knows
controlled and the implementation which requirements
technology is will be a success are best.
deterministic.
• Organizations
and society are
viewed as
structure.

Table 4. The underlying assumptions of ASAP.

5.3 Summary or the result

To summarize, ASAP is a technically-oriented ISDM with the specific goal of
installing R/3 in organizations. The success of implementing R/3 depends on
IRIS27
Jonas Hedman: Understanding ERP Implementation Methods: The Case of
ASAP

ASAP. It applies an instrumental view of humans and organizations. The

guiding principle is to install the best technical solution, which will solve all data
and information issues, both now and in the future. The overall view is that an
effective and efficient organization is controlled and run by R/3, where all
information requirements are pre-decided. This is in particular shown in the
view of information requirements underlying ASAP – i.e. information
determinism. A summary is provided in Table 4.

6. Discussion

This section attempts to discuss the result of the paradigmatic analysis of ASAP.
Initially, we will discuss the result along the ontological, epistemological,
methodological, and ethical dimensions of Iivari and associates’ framework. In
addition, there will be a section on the practical implications of the analysis.

6.1 Ontological assumptions

ASAP’s view on data and information is similar to most of the ISDMs analyzed
by Iivari (1991). The information modelling approach and the decision science
approach show the strongest resemblance to ASAP. A possible explanation for
this is the strong link between R/3 and the embedded reference model which
includes both process models and data models. In-depth description of the
process- and data models can be found in Scheer (1998) and Keller and Teufel
(1998). Another approach which includes similar assumptions is the trade
unionist. This could, potentially, be explained by the German heritage of both
R/3 and the trade unionist approach. The trade unionist approach was initially
inspired by the German ideologist, i.e. Karl Marx, and R/3 supports the
installation of a modern version of Weber’s theory of bureaucracy, He wrote:
The decisive reason for the advance of bureaucratic organisation has
always been its purely technical superiority over any former
organisation. The fully developed bureaucratic mechanism compares
with other organisations exactly as does the machine with non-
mechanical modes of production (Weber, 1946).
The technical view of data and information is also evident in how information
requirements are perceived, where ASAP view information requirements as
predetermined, i.e. there is no need for a requirements specification, since the
ASAP has specified data and information. ASAP’s view is most similar to the
objective view except for knowing what information requirements organizations
have. Support for this interpretation can be found in Fitzgerald et al. (2002),
Hedman (2003) and Rosemann (2001). Information predetermination might be
a fourth perspective on information requirements compared to the three
categories objective, subjective and intersubjective (Iivari & Hirschheim, 1996).
IRIS27
Jonas Hedman: Understanding ERP Implementation Methods: The Case of
ASAP

Furthermore, ASAP defines how to succeed with R/3 implementations thus: 1)

full commitment by the entire organization, 2) clearly defined and consistent
project scope, 3) no customization of the system, 4) follow all SAP guidelines
regarding implementation. Support for this interpretation of success can be
found in research on ERP systems critical success factors (e.g. Somers & Nelson,
2001; Parr et al., 1999). The perception that methods are good is a common one
among IS researchers, but also a flaw which has to be questioned be ourselves.
Hernandez et al. (1999) question ASAP by stating “… most important to the
project success is that the project manager and consultants working in a
methodological framework are experienced and capable”. Hernandez et al.
(1999) stress the skills the cognitive capacity of individuals and states that
individuals are more important than the method. Robey et al. (2002) and
Kalling (2003) have also stressed the cognitive capacity and learning as critical
issues in overcoming problems related to the implementation of ERP systems.
ASAP view data and information systems as technical systems, which are similar
to all contemporary ISDM, such as the trade unionist approach and the decision
science approach. Regarding one aspect ASAP is different. ASAP regard R/3 as
the only data and information system an organization has need for. This could
be explained by R/3’s market penetration, which might have made the
developers of ASAP believe that R/3 is the only information system an
organization needs.
The view on human beings resembles the contemporary approaches. In that
sense, ASAP has taken a giant step back to the 1970s. One can only wonder why.
One conclusion one can make is that the IS discipline has not been successful in
selling its ideas to the developers of ASAP. There are other potential
explanations: Firstly, that IT maturity has increased to such a level that there is
no longer a need for user participation. Secondly, it might be that ERP
implementation method developers do not have an IS background and therefore
have not read any of our literature. Thirdly, there might be other more
important requirements on IS projects, such as time and budget, than involving
end users. Regardless of what reason, it can be anticipated that old IS problems
will remain, such as reluctance to use the intended system (Kennerley & Neely,
2001) or creating antipathy to the system (Aladwani, 2001).
The view on organisations is technical (cf. the information modelling-, the
decision science-, and the trade unionist approach), but with a twist, namely
ASAP view R/3 as the organization, i.e. the technical system is superior to the
social system. This implies that all other aspects of an organization can be
replaced, except for the system, which is the backbone and infrastructure of an
organization. See for instance Hanseth and Braa (1998) who conclude that ERP
systems can evolve to an infrastructure which finally even becomes the
organization’s traitor. The technical view of the system is further reinforced
when looking at the view of society and the environment. All important part of
society and the environment can and is controlled by the system. This implies a
IRIS27
Jonas Hedman: Understanding ERP Implementation Methods: The Case of
ASAP

certain view of IT in general and R/3 in particular. This might be the result of
the world-leading market position of SAP, which has influence the developers of
ASAP that R/3 is the best and only ERP system needed.
To conclude: The ontological stand point of ASAP shows very strong
resemblance to the contemporary approaches identified and studied by Iivari
(1991) and can be summarized as: data and information are descriptive facts,
ISs are R/3, human beings have to be controlled, technology is deterministic,
and a structuralistic view of organizations and society. This is a common view in
IS research and the cause of many problems (Hirschheim & Smithson, 1998).
The technical interpretation of ERP systems leads to the installation of a new
technical system for data processing (Hedman, 2003) and the
institutionalization of ERP systems as a technical system (Hanseth & Braa,
1998).

6.2 Epistemological, research and ethical assumptions

The view on the nature of knowledge of ASAP is the same as the contemporary
ISDMs, such as the interactionist approach, and the trade unionist approach
(see, Table 3). This implies that the developers of ASAP have similar
assumptions regarding the nature of knowledge as, for instance, those who
developed the contemporary ISDMs. The lack of evolution in method
developer’s epistemological view is worrying. Since it implies that the IS
discipline has not been able to promote and spread the conceptual ideas of the
speech act approach or the empirical insights gained from the interactionist
approach, to those who develop methods in practise. This problem has
previously been stressed by Iivari (1991) who suggested that IS education passes
along poor work practice by teaching the tools practitioners use. Thus, we have a
catch 22 situation.
ASAP has had a similar evolutionary development process as the contemporary
approaches (Iivari, 1991) and the contrasting approaches (Iivari & Hirschheim,
1996). In principle, Wohed (2000) has made the same argument, namly that
ISD is an evolutionary and path dependent process, where new programming
techniques has been followed by complementary ISDM. For instance,
Information Engineering (IE) followed database technology while Object
Oriented programming was followed by Object Oriented development methods
(Wohed, 2000). In addition, the diversity of ISs and the innovation of new ISs,
such as ERP systems, lead to an increased number of ISDM and the continuous
development of existing ones. See, for instance, Vigden (2002) who enhanced
Multiview for Internet-based ISs and the development of ERP systems has led
to ERP implementation methods. Thus, it is likely that ASAP will continue to
evolve in a path-dependent way with the same underlying assumptions.
IRIS27
Jonas Hedman: Understanding ERP Implementation Methods: The Case of
ASAP

The ethical side of ASAP is means-ends oriented with clear organizational and
management values. This is no surprise since the method stems from an ERP
vendor, which incorporates such values.

6.3 Practical implications

The practical implications are discussed along two paths. The first addresses
ERP systems implementation issues. The other path highlights some issues,
from a consultant perspective, related to the practical aspects of the
paradigmatic framework.
Failure is a recurrent phenomenon in IS and ERP research (). In this paragraph
we will try to provide explanations for ERP failure due to the use of methods
embracing the assumptions of ASAP. ASAP users are in most cases
implementation consultants working for large external ERP consulting firms,
such as Accenture, CAP Gemini, KMPG etc, with an academic background in
business administration or engineering. They have little or no training in ISD.
As a means to reduce their uncertainty they will become rule followers, i.e. they
will adopt the procedures and phases of ASAP and the underlying assumptions.
Consequently, the consultants will believe that society and organizations are
mainly structures, where human beings, i.e. the users of R/3 have to be
controlled and can be controlled by the one and only IS, namely R/3. One can
only wonder why not all implementations fail? If this illustration is, at least, to a
small portion true. It is likely that this explains some ERP failure. Especially, in
organizations characterised as professional bureaucracies, such as research
organizations and the health care sector. To stress this point further one can ask
why do organizations adopt such methods. It has probably to do with the
perception of time and related budget constraints, i.e. it is perceived that on
time and budget are equal to project success. However, this perception of
success was questioned by Stabell (1983), how stated that a used system does
not necessarily have to be useful.
The other path of practical implications addresses the potential of applying the
paradigmatic framework to understand the management consultant toolkit.
With the management toolkit we refer to all the frameworks used by consultant,
such as balanced scorecard, strategic grid, Gartner’s Magic quadrant, five forces,
value chain analysis, Total Quality Management, Capability Maturity Model,
Seven-S Framework, ISO 9000, SWOT etc. All frameworks are based on some
underlying assumptions regarding ontology, epistemology, methodology and
ethics, which affect the method in use. However, the assumptions are explicit or
implicit into each framework. By analysing these frameworks it could be
possible to reveal the underlying assumptions and thereby better understand
the implications and consequences of these frameworks. This would of course
contribute to a more critical attitude towards the use of the management toolkit
and lead to a more reflective use of management toolkit. Caulkin (2004),
IRIS27
Jonas Hedman: Understanding ERP Implementation Methods: The Case of
ASAP

building on ideas from the late Sumatra Ghoshal, presented one important
point in promoting the need of a more critical attitude, by claiming that
management schools are the creators of the people behind most business
scandals, such as Enron, Tyco, World Com etc (All the senior executives of these
firms were products of world leading business schools). Therefore, it is urgent
that management schools replace literature presenting organization behaviour
as impersonal patterns and laws, with literature focusing of behaviour “in terms
of human choices and actions”.

7. Conclusions

The main contribution of this paper is the paradigmatic analyses of one ERP
implementation method, i.e. ASAP. This corroborates the usefulness of the
paradigmatic framework, leading to some insight regarding our understanding
of ISD and ERP implementation methods. The analyses of ASAP complement
the prior work on ISD by addressing a type of ISDM which has not previously
been addressed. One distinguishing feature of ASAP is that it is designed to
implement ISs purchased off the shelf, instead of methods designed for an IS to
be developed from scratch. Another contribution provided by this paper is
related to the underlying assumptions embedded into ASAP. The ontological
assumptions are very similar to the contemporary ISDMs, which apply logic or
assumptions that are well-known for not fulfilling their stated promises. One
could conclude that the use of ASAP is a quick return to the 1970s. And, thus, we
can expect that implementation applying ASAP as support will fail with regard
to meeting their promises in the same way as the contemporary approaches. See
for instance Iivari and Hirchheim’s (1996) critique of the contemporary
approaches. The main distinguishing characteristic of ASAP is the view of
information requirements. ASAP embeds a view, which “knows” what
information requirements and organization has. This is diametrically opposed
to all other ISDMs analysed by Iivari and associates. An implication information
determination is the sequence of analysis and design are performed in reverse
order.
This leads to a number of further research topics and some suggestions for
education: 1) Research in the future should include other ERP system
implementation methods, e.g. the BIS procedural model and Method One. This
is justified by a need to build knowledge concerning off the shelf
implementation methods and ERP systems implementation methods. 2) The
shortcomings of ASAP leads to the possibilities and opportunities for
researchers to develop new methods or improve existing ones (i.e. method
engineering). This research could be based on research paradigms that are
derived from critical or interpretative frameworks, such as the SSM or the
interactionist approaches. 3) Another interesting issue is related to how the
method is actually used in practise. See for instance Russo and Stolterman
IRIS27
Jonas Hedman: Understanding ERP Implementation Methods: The Case of
ASAP

(2000) for suggestions in this direction. 4) Paradigmatic analyses of the

management toolkit. 5) To conclude this paragraph, I would like to make some
personal suggestions concerning IS education. The first is if we would introduce
ERP systems implementation methods in our curricula, we have to stress the
draw-backs of such methods and thereby force the students to critically reflect
upon such methods and any other method.
Concluding words: This paper has contributed to the discussion on
philosophical and conceptual assumptions underlying ISD. The analysis of
ASAP is based on Iivari’s (1991) analytical framework of investigating
underlying paradigmatic assumptions in ISD. The main distinguishing features
of ASAP is that it includes an information predetermined view. In a sense ASAP
supports the introduction of an external parties’ ‘world view’ onto an
organization. In this particular case, it is R/3.

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank the reviewers and other people for their constructive
suggestions.
IRIS27
Jonas Hedman: Understanding ERP Implementation Methods: The Case of
ASAP

References

Aladwani, A.M. (2001). Change Management Strategies for Successful ERP

Implementation, Business Process Management Journal, Vol 7, No. 3, pp. 266-
275.
Avison, D.E. & Fitzgerald, G. (2003). Information Systems Development:
Methodologies, Techniques, and Tools, McGraw-Hill: New York, NY.
Bancroft, N. H., H. Seip & Sprengel, A. (1998). Implementing SAP R/3: How to
Introduce a Large System into a Large Organization, Manning: Greenwich, CT.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2000). Beginning SAP R/3 Implementation at Geneva
Pharmaceuticals, Communications of the AIS Vol. 4, No. 2.
Borell, A. & Hedman, J. (2000). CVA Based Framework for ERP Requirements
Specification, Proceedings of the 23rd Information Systems Research Seminar
in Scandinavia, University of Trollhättan, Uddevalla, Sweden.
Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational
Analysis, Heineman: London.
Caulkin, S. (2004-03-28). Business Schools for Scandal. Observer Business.
Davenport, T. H. (2000). Mission Critical: Realizing the Promise of Enterprise
Systems, , Harvard Business School Press: Boston, Ma.
Dolmetsch, R., T. Huber & Fleisch, E. (1998). Accelerated SAP 4 Case Studies,
Institute for Information Management, University of St: Gallen.
Esteves, J., R. Chan, J. Pastor & Rosemann, M. (2003). An Exploratory Study of
Knowledge Types Relevance along Enterprise Systems Implementation Phases,
Proceedings of the Organizational Knowledge and Learning Conference.
Fitzgerald, B., N. L. Russo & Stolterman, E. (2002). Information Systems
Development: Methods in Action, McGraw Hill: London.
Gattiker, T. & Goodhue, D. (2002). Organization Structure and Enterprise
Systems: An Empirical Study of Intra-Organizational Interdependency and ERP
Impact, MIS Department, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia.
George, J. F. (2000). The Origins of Software: Acquiring Systems at the End of
the Century, in R. Zmud (Ed.), Framing the Domains of IT Management:
Projecting the Future....Through the Past, Pinnaflex Educational Resources:
Cincinnati, Ohio, pp. 263-284.
Hanseth, O. & Braa, K. (1998). Technology as Traitor: Emergent SAP
Infrastructure in a Global Organization, Proceedings of the 19th International
Conference on Information Systems, Helsinki, Finland.
IRIS27
Jonas Hedman: Understanding ERP Implementation Methods: The Case of
ASAP

Hedman, J. (2003). On Enterprise Systems Artifacts: Changes in Information

Systems Development and Evaluation, Department of Informatics, Lund, Lund
University.
Hernandez, J. A., E. R. Bueno, S. A. Servera & Elechiguerra, J. R. S. (1999). SAP
R/3 Implementation Guide, McGraw-Hill: New York, NY.
Hiquet, B. D. & Kelly, A. F. (1998). SAP R/3 Implementation Guide: A
Manager’s Guide to Understand SAP, MacMillan Technical Publishing:
Indianapolis, In.
Hitt, L. M., D. J. Wu & Zhou, X (2002). Investment in Enterprise Resource
Planning: Business Impact and Productivity Measures, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol 19, No. 1, pp. 71-98.
Iivari, J. (1991). A Paradigmatic Analysis of Contemporary Schools of IS
Development, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol 1, No. 4, pp. 249-
272.
Iivari, J. & Hirschheim, R. A. (1996). Analyzing Information System
Development: A Comparison and Analysis of Eight Development Approaches,
Information and Systems, Vol. 21, No. 7, pp. 551-575.
Iivari, J., R. A. Hirschheim & Klein, H.-K. (1998). A Paradigmatic Analysis
Contrasting Information Systems Development Approaches and
Methodologies., Information Systems Research, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 164-193.
Iivari, J., R. A. Hirschheim & Klein, H.-K. (2001). A Dynamic Framework for
Classifying Information Systems Development Methodologies and Approaches,
Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 179-218.
Iivari, J., & Maansaari, J. (1998). The usage of systems development methods:
are we stuck to old practices?, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 40,
No. 9, pp. 501-510.
Jacobs, F. R. & Whybark, D. C. (2000). Why ERP? A Primers on SAP
Implementations, McGraw-Hill: Boston, Ma.
Kalling T, (2003). ERP Systems and the Strategic Management Processes that
Lead to Competitive Advantage. Information Resource Management Journal,
Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 46-67.
Kennerley, M. & Neely, A. (2001). Enterprise Resource Planning: Analyzing the
Impact, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 103-113.
Kumar, M. (2002). Enterprise Resource Planning Systems Adoption Process: A
survey of Canadian Organizations, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 509-523.
March, S. & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on
information technology, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 251-266.
IRIS27
Jonas Hedman: Understanding ERP Implementation Methods: The Case of
ASAP

Markus, M. L. & Tanis, C. (2000). The Enterprise Systems Experience-From

Adoption to Success, In R. W. Zmud. (Ed.), Framing the Domains of IT
Management: Projecting the Future....Through the Past, Pinnaflex Educational
Resources, Inc. Cincinnati, OH, pp. 173-207.
Miller, S. S. (1998). AcceleratedSAP: Implementation at the Speed of Business,
McGraw-Hill: New York, NY.
Nielsen, P. A. (1990). Approaches to Appreciate Information Systems
Methodologies: A Soft Systems Survey, Scandinavian Journal of Information
Systems, Vol. 2, pp. 43-60.
Olle, T. W. (1991). Information Systems Methodologies: A Framework for
Understanding. Addison-Wesley: Wokingham.
Orlikowski, W. J. & Iacono, C. S. (2001). Research Commentary: Desperately
Seeking the IT in IT research - A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact, Information
Systems Research, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 121-134.
Rashid, M. A., L. Hossain & Patrick, J. D. (2002). The Evolution of ERP
Systems: A Historical Perspective, in Hossain, L., Patrick, J. D. & Rashid, M. A.
(Eds.), Enterprise Resource Planning: Global Opportunities & Challenges. Idea
Group Publishing: Hersey, PA, 1-16.
Robey, D., J. W. Ross & Boudreau, M.-C. (2002). Learning to Implement
Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of Dialectics of Change, Journal of
Management Information Systems, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 17-46.
Rosemann, M. (2001). Requirements Engineering for Enterprise Systems,
Proceedings of the 7th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston,
MA.
Russo, N. L., & Stolterman, E. (2000). Exploring the assumptions underlying
information systems methodologies. Information Technology & People, Vol. 13,
No. 4, pp. 313-327.
SAP (1998). CA091 ASAP R/3 Implementation.
SAP (1999). GlobalASAP for 4.6A. Walldorf, Germany, SAP AG.
Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Stabell, C.B. (1983). A Decision-Oriented Approach to Building Decision
Support Systems, in Bennet J. (Ed.), Building Decision Support Systems,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, pp. 221-260.
Taggart, W. and M. O. Tharp (1977). A Survey of Information Requirements
Analysis Techniques. Computing Survey Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 273-290.
Vidgen, R. (2002). Constructing a Web Information System Development
Methodology. Information Systems Journal Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 247-261.
 IRIS27
Jonas Hedman: Understanding ERP Implementation Methods: The Case of
ASAP

Wohed, P. (2000). Schema Quality, Schema Enrichment, and Reuse in

Information Systems Analysis. Department of Computer and System Sciences.
Stockholm, Sweden, Stockholm University and Royal Institute of Technology.
Wood-Harper, T. & Fitzgerald, G. (1982). A Taxonomy of Current Approaches to
Systems Analysis, The Computer Journal, Vol. 25, pp. 12-16.
Wynekoop, J.L. & Russo, N. (1993). Systems Development Methodologies:
unanswered questions and the research-practice gap, Proceedings of the 14th
International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando, FL.

View publication stats