Sdarticle 012 177325

Critical Perspectives on Accounting 17 (2006) 202–223
Enterprise resource planning systems and

communicative action夽
Jesse F. Dillard ∗ , Kristi Yuthas
School of Business Administration, Portland State University, Portland, OR 97207-0751, USA
Received 3 October 2002; received in revised form 8 August 2004; accepted 1 August 2005
Abstract
Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems represent a quantum leap in integrated, entity-wide
information systems. Managers are implementing these enterprise-wide systems in organizations of
all sizes and types. Ironically, by implementing such all-encompassing and prespecified systems,
organizational managers in effect lose control of the strategic and operational processes and mod-
els that frame and instantiate the enterprise’s management information system and ultimately their
actions. These systems are designed and developed by the software vendor and the “best-practices” are
embedded in the standardized software by the vendor’s system developers. We develop a framework
grounded in Habermas’ theory of communicative action that provides a description of the context
within which ERP systems are developed and implemented. The framework also facilitates a critique
of the underlying ideologies and assumptions associated with, and incorporated into, the ERP system
design. The presentation opens with a discussion of ERP systems and the extent of their proliferation
over the organizational landscape. The implications for the management and control of work organi-
zations are also considered. Next, a Habermasian framework is developed and used in analyzing the
cultural and social context within which ERP systems are developed and implemented. The efficacy
of the system is illustrated using a reported system implementation.
© 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
夽 An earlier version of this paper was presented at European Critical Accounting Studies Conference, University
of Leicester, UK, 18–19 July 2002 and the AIS Research Symposium, Phoenix, AZ, USA, February 2003.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 503 725 2278; fax: +1 503 725 5850.
E-mail address: jdillard@pdx.edu (J.F. Dillard).
1045-2354/$ – see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2005.08.003
J.F. Dillard, K. Yuthas / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 17 (2006) 202–223 203
Technology, as a mode of production, as the totality of instruments, devices and

contrivances which characterize the machine age is thus at the same time a mode
of organizing and perpetuating (or changing) social relationships, a manifestation of
prevalent thought and behavior patterns, an instrument for control and domination.
Herbert Marcuse
1. Introduction
The application of computer-based information systems has steadily developed over

the past several decades following, and motivating, advances in scientific and administra-
tive technology. The first wave of computer-based management information systems were
designed to facilitate formal financial accounting functions. Next, other stand-alone systems
were developed to carry out both accounting and nonaccounting functions such as produc-
tion scheduling, product design, inventory management, and human resources. Enterprise
resource planning (ERP) systems represent the latest and most ambitious application of
administrative and computer-based technologies in developing management information
systems. This inclusive software integrates each of the separately focused information sys-
tems into one core software system designed to be the complete database and information
system for an organization at the local, regional, national, and/or international level. An
integrative architecture and relational database provide organization-wide access and anal-
ysis capabilities by standardizing data capture and providing seamless interfaces across
functions, responsibility centers, and locations.
As ERP systems become more widely implemented in organizations of all types and sizes,
our enquiries and understanding must extend beyond the technical aspects of development
and implementation. Following a developing body of accounting research,1 frameworks
grounded in Habermas’ ideas have been applied in the accounting literature in a variety
of domains with a good deal of the work addressing issues faced in the public and/or not
for profit section.2 Several studies use Habermas’ ideas for addressing accounting informa-
tion systems issues.3 Recently, ERP systems are getting some attention in the accounting
literature,4 but to date none have considered ERP systems in the light of Habermas’ social
theory.
Our proposed framework moves beyond conventional noninclusive and instrumental
perspectives. We use the theory of communicative action to formulate alternative per-
spectives and to recognize and critically evaluate the underlying assumptions and ide-
ologies associated with ERP system applications. Employing the theory of communicative
action facilitates the formulation of a more complete and balanced understanding of these
1 See Arrington and Puxty (1991), Broadbent et al. (1991), Laughlin (1987, 1995), and Power and Laughlin
(1992, 1996) for a discussion of Habermas’ social theory within an accounting context.
2 Broadbent et al. (1991a, 1991b, 1994, 1996), Broadbent and Laughlin (2003), Chua and Degeling (1993),
Dillard (2002), Dillard and Smith (1999), Dillard and Tinker (1996), Laughlin (1988), Laughlin and Broadbent
(1993).
3 Dillard and Bricker (1992), Dillard and Yuthas (1997), Drake et al. (2000), Yuthas and Dillard (2002).
4 Hayes et al. (2000), Hunton et al. (2002), Quattrone and Hopper (2000, 2005, 2001).
204 J.F. Dillard, K. Yuthas / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 17 (2006) 202–223
enterprise-wide systems and their effect within work organizations. The proposed frame-
work addresses issues regarding the scope, participation, and procedures necessary for
effective governance of ERP systems. A critical analysis of ERP systems aids in recogniz-
ing the context within which the enterprise system is implemented. A clearer understanding
of the context increases the possibility for overcoming the technocentric, managerialist
mentality that ignores the social and political implications.
Current perceptions of ERP systems, as evidenced in trade publications and the academic
literature, emphasize their roll in enhancing economic efficiency and improving financial
performance. Within such a technically rationalized and managerially dominated context,
those responsible for designing, implementing, and acquiring the enterprise-wide systems
give little attention to social considerations. As a result, implementation and integration
problems are likely to be overlooked or oversimplified, important alternatives not recog-
nized, and instrumental solutions viewed as superior. Such a perspective not only obscures
the organizational structures that embody the values, history, and background within which
the systems are implemented and used, but also obscures the structural and ideological
premises underlying their design.
ERP systems represent an extreme application of a techno-rational perspective that dom-
inates the managerialist mentality. According to Habermas (see particularly, Habermas,
1984, 1987), a set of social organizing principles determines the available learning mech-
anisms, the interpretative scope, and the institutional control boundaries (i.e., the context).
This context circumscribes the intersection of the technical and the social domain. Discur-
sive practices bring about social integration. As such, the discursive practices enable and
constrain capabilities for resolution. A balanced perspective can be achieved only through
legitimate discursive practices (communicative action). For legitimate discourse to be pos-
sible, communicative action requires that three validity claims be satisfied: truth, rightness,
and truthfulness. Speakers must be truthful, they must comply with intersubjective norms
of discourse, and they must be sincere or authentic about their interests. The communi-
cation must take place in a setting that is fair and open to interested participants and in
which mutual understanding is the goal. If these restrictions are violated, legitimate, trust-
worthy dialogue breaks down, rendering communicative action impossible, significantly
reducing the possible action set. Limitations imposed on these discursive practices restrict
the system’s integration and resolution capabilities.
ERP systems represent powerful mechanisms for structuring organizational context and
practices that do not incorporate considerations beyond economic efficiency and effec-
tiveness. As instrumental practices instigated by, and embedded in, ERP systems come to
dominate, intersubjective understanding becomes progressively more difficult. Technolog-
ical consciousness becomes more pervasive, leading to the unquestioned acceptance of the
imposed structures. User-friendly interfaces mask relationships and ideologies embodied
and institutionalized in the management information system. Within such a context, tech-
nical logic marginalizes and subordinates the ethical, political, and social considerations.
Ultimately, ERP systems make validity claims that cannot be discursively evaluated by their
users, and in many cases by the managers who are responsible for their procurement.
We translate Habermas’ ideas into a framework for evaluating enterprise system appli-
cations in work organizations. Use of such a framework could increase the likelihood that
affected parties will engage in legitimate discourse, enhancing the possibility for antici-
pating the implications of ERP adoption more extensively. For example, if an ERP system
installation is being considered, a traditional approach includes evaluating the system’s
impact on the decision-making capabilities of managers, users, and on the organization’s
economic standing. A more pluralistic approach includes nonuser employees and potential
employees, customers, suppliers, investors, and the community. Input from constituents
with alternative perspectives provides a richer context for making the system implementa-
tion decision and greater legitimacy to the choices made.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The second section describes ERP
systems, reviews their origins, and discusses the current and anticipated extent of their
application within work organizations. Next, Habermas’ theory of communicative action is
outlined, and its relevance to ERP system applications is developed. The fourth section uses
a case to illustrate how Habermas’ ideas relating to communicative action can be applied to
an ERP implementation. Closing remarks discuss the limitations of the proposals developed
and provide suggestions for further research.
2. Enterprise resource planning systems
Enterprise resource planning systems are commercial software packages designed to

integrate an organization’s business information systems.5 Ideally, a seamless flow of infor-
mation comes in and out of all parts of an organization, crossing geographic as well as
functional and organizational boundaries. The enterprise system effectively overcomes time
and space constraints through real-time access to a centralized database. The systems sup-
port multiple currencies and languages. Industry-specific versions of large ERP systems are
available for many industries. The ERP system integrates traditional accounting activities
concerning transaction capture and processing with the other primary functions of the orga-
nization such as production, human resources management, and sales. Integrated processing
supports and assimilates planning and control activities in addition to operations.
Systems, Applications and Product (SAP), Oracle, PeopleSoft, J.D. Edwards, and BAAN
represent the major ERP products. SAP, a German company, is the market leader, having
gained around 30–40% of the international market and reported revenue growth from US$
500 million in 1997 to US$ 7.3 billion in 2001. O’Leary (2000) states that over 60% of
multinational firms have implemented ERP systems to some degree (Bowley, 1998) and
that the number of small and medium enterprises (SME) implementing these systems is
increasing rapidly (Foley and Stein, 1997). O’Leary (2000) reports that an average cost of
ownership has been estimated to be US$ 15 million, with a US$ 53,320 cost per user.
ERP systems have fundamentally changed the way business is done in many industries.
When an industry leader implements an ERP system, competitors tend to follow along,
often implementing the same vendor’s ERP.6 The implementation of an ERP system by
5 This section draws heavily from Davenport (1998), Gelinas et al. (1999), and O’Leary (2000). These authors
provide many examples of ERP systems applications in specific companies that are supportive and informative.
The interested reader is referred to these publications.
6 For example, Davenport (1998) reports that SAP R/3 has been implemented by almost every company in the
personal computer, semiconductor, and petrochemical industries.

one or more strong firms within a supply chain alters the nature of business partnering
and provides a strong incentive for upstream and downstream firms in the chain to follow
suit.
Companies also receive pressure to implement ERPs from professional service firms that
provide ERP consulting services, including all of the major accounting firms. Davenport
(1998) estimates that consulting fees roughly equal the amount spent on purchasing the
software. Abrahamson and colleagues (e.g. Abrahamson, 1996; Abrahamson and Fairchild,
1999) have described and documented the processes through which these consultants sense
the desire for new managerial techniques and use rhetoric that appeals to the desires of
managers and other stakeholders to adopt rational and progressive techniques. In this man-
ner, psycho-social forces combine with institutional pressures and the desired technical and
economic solutions to motivate mangers to adopt ERPs.
Davenport (1997) describes the primary components of ERP systems. The backbone
of the system is a central database that stores data retrieved by various application mod-
ules and makes it readily available to the user. Application modules include: financial
functions; manufacturing/service processes; quality and plant management; inventory and
supply processes; human resources management; sales and delivery; customer service;
reporting capabilities. Other applications involve production planning, including sales and
operations planning, materials requirements, and capacity requirements. Project tracking,
budgeting, and even strategic management applications are available. The central database
standardizes and streamlines the collection, analysis, and dissemination of data throughout
the organization. The modules, or applications, carryout the activities associated with the
function.
Reengineering business processes goes hand-in-hand with the implementation of an ERP.
Processes represent “the activity and information flows necessary to accomplish a particular
task or set of tasks” (O’Leary, 2000, p. 35). Processes can differ across organizations as
well as within organizations. One of the purported primary benefits of ERP systems is the
standardization of these processes across the organization providing centralization of such
processes. To accommodate coordination, ERP companies generally standardize their chart
of accounts and other categorization schemes along with reports and reporting procedures
at the same time they standardize their operational procedures. Common practices provide
the capability of integrating across various system applications, thus facilitating the inte-
gration of corporate information systems. The choice of process is critical and can have
significant impact on the company (Glass, 1998; Sadagopan, 2001; Smyth, 2001; Stedman,
2000).
In general, when companies implement ERPs, current practices must give way to those
designed into the system (Gendron, 1996). The implementing firm replaces existing pro-
cesses with “best-practice” processes that are embedded in the system software. These
“best-practices” are purported to represent the industry standard for the most rational and
progressive business processes available. The software vendors, and sometimes a handful
of large companies upon which these “best-practices” are modeled, design the processes.7
7 These practices may not in fact be best for a given firm depending on how well that organization’s culture and
context coincide with those of the “industrial leaders” or the assumptions of the software developers.
The entity gains economic benefits through the ERP’s highly structured, tightly inte-
grated components and standardized processes. However, organizations must conform to
the “best-practice” processes in order to realize the benefits of enterprise systems (Bingi
et al., 1999; Osterland, 2000). In addition, implementation of these far-reaching systems
tends to formalize existing organizational practices, making them much more difficult to
change. Thus, most companies work through an extensive process of reengineering to opti-
mize processes prior to implementing in the system. Although early reengineering efforts
sought to use a “clean slate” approach in which optimal processes were designed without
prejudice to current ones, this approach is untenable in an ERP environment. ERP sys-
tems contain alternative sets of pre-programmed processes from which an organization
can choose. When the available processes do not match the organization’s requirements,
the system can be customized, however this is rarely done. These systems have numerous
integrated models communicating with one another and sharing an integrated database. A
change to one module can necessitate changes throughout many parts of the system, and
the cost can be prohibitive. In addition, the changes only remain active until the company
upgrades to a new version of the system. For these reasons, rather than designing their own
processes, companies implementing ERPs generally reengineer by selecting from among
the processes available and then configuring screens and other details to conform as closely
as possible to original desires.
When existing processes and structures are similar to those available in the system,
few major changes to processes are necessary. When existing processes and structures are
very dissimilar to those in ERP, the organization must make dramatic changes in order
to accommodate the system. When Microsoft implemented SAP’s financial modules, the
company switched from a departmental organization, which was not supported, to a set
of profit and cost centers (O’Leary, 2000). While most companies make the necessary
changes, others opt away from ERP solutions. Allied Waste, Waste Management, and other
members of the industry aborted their SAP projects when they realized that adoption meant
standardization and centralization of many processes that were currently under the control
of numerous decentralized business units.
Improved decision making capabilities manifested in such activities as inventory reduc-
tions, personnel reductions, and more efficient reporting capabilities produce the legitimat-
ing “economic value added” by the system. O’Leary (2000) identifies seven interrelated
and intermediate outcomes that contribute to the enhanced economic value added. First,
there is integration of information and that information flows across functional areas facil-
itating the integration of activities. Second, the choice to implement an ERP system results
in the acceptance of the best practices that have been programmed into the system soft-
ware. Third, organizational standardization occurs in both internal processes and external
interfaces. Fourth, control is enhanced because standardized, accessible information makes
visible any deviation from the norm. Fifth, access to information is enhanced from both
a content perspective as well as a timeliness one. As a result, acquisition of information
recedes as a means for exercising power. Sixth, the organization can be flattened eliminat-
ing middle-level personnel. Seventh, collaboration and communication are facilitated both
inside and outside the organization.
To gain these benefits, organizations must redesign their internal processes as well as their
inter-company interfaces so that they conform to the models and processes provided within
the system (Davenport, 1998; Gendron, 1996; O’Leary, 2000; Poston and Grabski, 2001).
As described above, this ultimately results in systemic process reengineering. According
to Davenport (1998), this emphasis of system over enterprise is one of the major problems
related to ERP systems. Prior to the introduction of ERPs, information technology was
viewed and designed as a tool for supporting business practices. With the implementation
of ERP systems, the sequence is reversed. Organization management must consider the pos-
sible tradeoffs required between modifying the system to accommodate the organization’s
processes or changing the organization’s processes to conform to those incorporated into
the system. And this should be done early, because after an ERP system has been installed,
major costs associated with changing the business processes may be incurred (Davenport,
1998; Glass, 1998; Williamson, 1997).
In addition to process changes, changes in organizational structure and human capital
investments are necessary to facilitate productivity gains in conjunction with informa-
tion technology investments (Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 1998; Hitt and Brynjolfsson, 1996,
1997). High-level corporate strategy is also interlinked with system implementation choices
(Davenport, 1997; Keen, 2000; Nolan, 1995; Venkatraman, 1994). Thus, organizational
capabilities and competitive position can suffer when core processes are reengineered
(Schragenheim, 2000; Yuthas et al., 2002).
3. A Habermasian interpretation
The work of Habermas (1975, 1984, 1987) provides a general theoretical framework
useful in understanding the social context motivating the implementation of ERP systems as
well as the effects of their use.8 The specific theoretical grounding providing the framework
for the following discussion is an extension of the interpretations and applications provided
in the accounting literature by Broadbent et al. (1991), Dillard (2002), and Laughlin (1987).
The articulation and refinements developed in Broadbent et al. (1991) and applied in Dillard
(2002) are used in specifying our framework for understanding the social context motivating
the implementation of ERP systems as well as the effects of ERP system applications within
organizations.
Further, following from Laughlin (1987), we see the application of these ideas as research
undertaken within the “middle range.” That is, we propose a general articulation that pro-
vides a skeletal framework for organizing and making sense of observed activities. The
objective is not to construct a grand theory, but to aid in understanding on the part of
both the researcher and the researched facilitating the possibility for emancipatory change.
The following discussion views ERP systems and their application through this Haber-
masian framework, providing a more in-depth perspective than the traditional technical
one affords. First, we consider the general makeup of social systems and the inherent
crisis tendencies that motivate change within market capitalism. Second, we consider
the mechanisms that control the makeup of dynamic social systems, in this case, work
organizations.
8 As one of the leading living social theorists, Habermas’ ideas have been extensively discussed. See, for example,
Held (1980), Pusey (1987), and White (1988).

3.1. Social systems and inherent crisis tendencies
Habermas9 postulates three societal systems or components: the economic system, the
administrative system, and the lifeworld. The economic system refers to the value (goods
and services) created by the society’s modes of production. The administrative system brings
technology, both administrative and scientific, to bear on the economic system as part of the
resource, both human and material, transformation process. The lifeworld represents the
social system dimension within which cultural norms and values are discursively formulated
by the participants and ideally, provides the legitimating grounds for the actions taken by the
administrators of the modes of production as well as the distribution of the wealth generated
by the economic system.
Change, or pressure for change, emanates from friction, or crises, within the social
systems of market capitalism as attempts are made to direct the activities of the material
and human resources. Within a capitalist social system, Habermas identifies four interrelated
crisis possibilities: economic, legitimation, rationality, and motivation. Following, at least
generally, from a Marxist critique of capitalist social relationships, economic crises arise
because of inherent contradictions such as the socialized production of goods and services
and the privatization of surplus (profits). The administering group, management,10 comes
under increasing pressures to satisfy the requisite resource accumulation in the face of
market fluctuations. The rationalizing response is to apply technology, either scientific,
administrative, or both. A rationality crisis occurs as the administrative system attempts
to respond to an increasingly complex set of economic failures. In order for management
to maintain its privileged position and thereby exercise influence over both material and
human resources, its actions must be perceived as legitimate by the members of the affected
society.
However, there are two potentially opposing constituencies the administrators are
attempting to satisfy—owners/capitalists and other organizational stakeholders. Given the
privileged position of the owners/capitalists, management must respond to the best interest
of the privileged group. A legitimation crisis arises as the actions of the administrative
system are no longer seen by the members of the society as apolitical and unbiased, which
occurs as the distribution of wealth, life opportunities, etc., are increasingly recognized as
favoring certain groups. The rationalizations for the inequitable distributions of wealth can
no longer be legitimized by claims of natural selection by unbiased market mechanisms
and technological determinism. As the administrative system loses legitimacy, members of
the society are no longer motivated to support the prevailing social arrangements. At this
point, coercion, overt and/or covert, is required in order to maintain the prevailing social
order. Coercion results in the subordination of the rights of the oppressed group(s).
9 Habermas’ ideas are more fully presented in Broadbent et al. (1991a, 1991b) and Dillard (2002); therefore,
only a brief discussion is presented here.

10 While Habermas addresses his theoretical framework primarily at the societal level, we apply them specifi-
cally to the context and processes surrounding and associated with work organizations within a market capitalist
economy. This interpretation is consistent with much of the previous accounting work cited, especially see the
body of work by Broadbent and Laughlin (1998).
ERP systems represent a technology that is implemented under the guise of increased
economic efficiency and cloaked in claims of technological determinism. Ideally, according
to Habermas, lifeworld-inspired social and cultural norms and values guide the application
of technology. These norms and values are not imposed from above, but arise through the
discursive interactions of members of the ongoing community. However, as described in
the previous section, the primary justification for implementing ERP systems reduces to
market pressures to attain or maintain adequate returns to capital, with little regard for
other constituencies or stakeholders. Restated in terms of the Habermasian framework,
the administrative system rationalizes the imposition of the ERP system as the necessary
(i.e., market driven) application of administrative and information technology. In appealing
to this type of technological determinism, the administrative system maintains control of
resources and the distribution of the returns thereto.
Looking at ERP phenomena from a crisis perspective provides a dire image of their con-
sequences. As information technology, such as ERP systems, becomes more heavily relied
upon to reduce costs and enhance profits and few of the benefits are shared with those dis-
placed, deskilled, or reengineered, the administrative system’s ability to provide apolitical,
scientifically rational justifications for such decisions begins to break down. Participants
must perceive the actions as legitimate, grounded in, and consistent with the prevailing
cultural norms and values, otherwise the administrative apparatus’ legitimacy to maintain
control over resources is increasingly questioned. Contradictions in the justifications for
ERP systems become more obvious as the ability to rationalize them as evolutionary and
requisite market solutions erodes. Appeals to market forces by the administrative system do
not provide adequate rationalization for exploitation and elimination. Privileged positions
become increasingly challenged. As technical rationality and instrumental objectives come
to dominate, participants are no longer motivated to give their allegiance to the administra-
tive system. As a result, some form of coercion is required. In this scenario, ERP systems
can be used as a tool for imposing management’s will.
An ERP system reflects the dominance of formal rationality and the exclusion of more
comprehensive, social-oriented, logical structures such as normatively regulated commu-
nicative action.11 Habermas (1984, 1987) argues that formal rational action is not in itself
undesirable but that problems arise when this logic becomes totalizing. The ability to
develop and engage lifeworld-based social norms and values in evaluating the desirability
and legitimacy of technology is superceded by those based on the purposive rationality of the
administrative system. Information system implementation under such circumstances gives
little regard to implications beyond the instrumental perspective of enhancing the entity’s
competitive position, generating adequate profits, and thus, maintaining management’s pre-
eminent position (Burris, 1993; Scott and Hart, 1989; Smith, 2000; Zuboff, 1988).
Administrators implement rationalizing devices such as ERP systems in an attempt to
control the factors of production, markets, and the socio-political context. As a result, man-
agement pursues strategies directed toward rationalizing their operating context in terms
11 Habermas (1996) considers the implications of communicative action within the context of constitutional law.
As Power and Laughlin (1996) point out, communicative action is recognized as being idealistic and ultimately
unattainable especially within work organizations, but this does not reduce its relevance as a basis for a critique
of extant social situations.
of control predicated on the necessity of economic efficiency. ERP systems represent the
technological manifestation of purposeful rationality and are justified by resorting to argu-
ments of technological determinism.12 With Habermas, ERP systems as manifestations of
purposeful rationality are not within themselves undesirable. However, as they have been
developed, these global systems are outgrowths of managerialist inclinations exclusively
embodying the methods and models of purposeful rationality. ERP systems embed these
methods and models within organizational structures and processes to the exclusion of all
other considerations.
ERP systems represent totalizing technological applications that attempt to rationalize
the production process and to legitimate existing social relations within an organization
through management actions. The central motivation behind enterprise systems is the same
as such “innovations” as scientific management. The objective is to monitor and control in
order to seek economic gains, perpetuating the underlying, often unrecognized, ideology
of capitalist exploitation.13
3.2. Mechanisms that control the makeup of dynamic social systems
Social systems, be they entire societies or work organizations, are concrete represen-
tations manifested as functionally definable, tangible networks held together by steering
media and, ideally grounded in the prevailing norms and values of the participants. Steer-
ing media are the basis of influence and control exercised within a social organization.
Steering mechanisms are motivated by the steering media and provide the means whereby
social organizations are influenced and controlled and include policies, procedures, and
processes. Steering mechanisms, which are developed by the administrative system, guide
the economic systems and are ideally grounded in the social norms and values of the partic-
ipants. If, as we argue below, purposeful rationality, as represented by advance information
technology such as ERP systems, replaces the societal norms and values as the basis for
social organization and behavior, then the social systems and their accompanying organiz-
ing principles can become oppressive and exploitative. Habermas refers to these steering
mechanisms as constitutive. On the other hand, if the steering mechanisms are grounded in
the norms and values of the community, then social systems may be facilitating and support-
ive. Habermas refers to these steering mechanisms as regulative. The primary difference
between constitutive and regulative steering mechanisms is the degree to which they are
formulated and legitimized through the process of communicative action.
Constitutive steering mechanisms may be required as the administrative system, in this
case management, reacts to the crisis cycle described above. The policies, processes, and pro-
cedures are not the result of the discursive interaction among the constituents but the coercive
12 Technological determinism is an argument that has been used over the centuries as justification for the imple-
mentation of rationalizing technology such as the cotton gin, mechanized looms, Fordist production processes,
and robotics. For a more complete and varied treatment of the historical context of business organizations, and the
related accounting systems, see Hopper and Armstrong (1991), Johnson and Kaplan (1987), Clawson (1980), and
Chandler (1977).
13 See Smith (2000) for a discussion of the relevance of these traditional ideas within the current economic and
political context.
measures required to maintain the exploitative relationship with other social constituents.
Here, the formal rationality of the economic and administrative systems overwhelms the
discursively developed norms and values of the community, imposing an alternative set of
norms and values. Habermas refers to this as the colonization of the lifeworld by an admin-
istrative system imposing purposeful rationality without regard to alternative perspectives.
The steering mechanisms reflect the logic and demands of the economic system, not the
discursively formulated norms and values of the lifeworld, and the participants lose the
capacity to question and criticize because they lack the ability to formulate alternatives.
The imposed position is reified and perceived to be the unalterable context within which
one must function.
Steering mechanisms can be classified as constitutive, regulative, or both, depending
on the level of evaluation, the time frame, and the outcome. For example, an ERP system
can facilitate a work environment where the well being of those involved is paramount.
The development and implementation of the information system could be the result of
the involved participation by all affected parties. The software could include processes
that would reduce the tedium and enhance self-development and communication among
the participants. Unfortunately, ERP system design does not generally incorporate these
capabilities. Alternatively, the information system could be imposed on the organization
with the purpose of eliminating personnel, reducing costs, deskilling tasks, and channeling
communication toward exploitive ends with no concern for the implications beyond market
valuations. Again, these characteristics represent the dominant ones for design as well as
the justification for acquisition and implementation.
To summarize, enterprise resource planning systems are a powerful means for imposing
business processes within a work organization. Their application appears to be justified
on a narrowly-defined, economically-focused perspective articulated in terms of competi-
tive market pressures and technological determinism. In general, these systems represent
constitutive steering mechanisms that are motivated and controlled by top management.
In the next section, we interpret an actual case situation using the framework discussed in
this section. The analysis illustrates how Habermas’ ideas are useful in understanding how
and why ERP system implementations evolve and their lifeworld implications for organi-
zational constituents. The example used is developed from a case presented by O’Leary
(2000) as illustrative of a small/medium sized entity’s (SME) activities as the company
selects, implements, and applies an ERP system.
4. Geneva Steel
Geneva Steel, a medium-sized steel company operating in Vineyard, Utah, produces

sheet and plate steel, pipe, and coil for use in the manufacture of industrial equipment and
for construction projects. The company was formed and its plant constructed during World
War II in response to the demand for steel in the construction of seagoing vessels. After the
war, U.S. Steel continued to operate the plant until the late 1980s. At that time, the plant was
closed temporarily in the face of economic difficulties. It changed ownership and reopened
under new ownership. The facts used in this case analysis are drawn from O’Leary (2000),
where the case was used to introduce and illustrate elementary ERP concepts.
4.1. Economic crisis
In the mid-1980s, the company faced continuing economic pressure resulting from
increasing foreign competition and increasing labor costs. The steel companies operating
with traditional technologies also faced increasing competition from small steel companies
that were using electric arc furnaces or “mini-mill” technology. The mini-mills had lower
operating costs and flexible organizational practices.
In the face of continuing operating losses, Geneva began a major reengineering effort,
seeking to become a flat, streamlined organization and to improve production efficiency.
Geneva made the decision to implement SAP to facilitate this change. When commenting
on the reengineering initiative, Chairman Joseph Cannon discussed the problem of how
the company would move from a traditional steel culture to a mini-mill culture: “How do
you do that? Of course . . . nothing is a real silver bullet. One of the drivers in any case
was that we needed to change our systems . . . We have a really outdated and primitive
accounting system; that needs to be changed.” It was noteworthy that the Chairman linked
the accounting system directly to the need for change, implying the critical linkage between
information systems and organizational structures. Administrators at Geneva possessed the
power and resources to control the development of the ERP. They used the system as a
constitutive steering mechanism to drive changes in the processes, structures, and culture
of the organization.
4.2. The administrative response to the economic crisis
In the mid-1990s, Geneva began to address its growing economic crisis through the “Delta
Project.” The project sought to reduce costs by 20% during 1997 through a reengineering
effort designed to “effect systemic and pervasive change with respect to corporate systems,
process and structures.” A press release in 1997 describing the initiatives justified them
with standard economic logic: “These initiatives are necessary to remain competitive in
the current steel market place.” In conjunction with this project, Geneva Steel began the
implementation of SAP’s R/3 ERP software. In a 10-K report in 1998, Geneva stated that
“This system [SAP] affects nearly every aspect of the Company’s operations.” Within a
two-year period, Geneva had reengineered critical business processes in all major functional
areas and replaced the systems that had traditionally supported those functions.
At the inception of the project, Geneva anticipated dramatic headcount reductions, char-
acteristic of ERP implementations. Within information technology and accounting functions
that could now be streamlined and automated as a result of the ERP implementation, the
company expected staff to be reduced by more than 80%. Through force reductions along
with increased efficiency in manufacturing and other functions, Geneva believed that the
ERP would be a key force in addressing the economic crisis.
Within a Habermasian framework, change of this scope should not be predicated entirely
upon economic forces but should be driven by, and consistent with, lifeworld demands of
the organizational community upon whom the changes would be imposed. Although few
employees participated in the ERP decision-making process, it is likely that employees had
a desire for systematic change at that time. Employees were frustrated by the inability of
systems to communicate with each other resulting in the inability to obtain the information
they needed to effectively carry out their jobs. In addition, during that time employees were
concerned with Y2K issues and competitive pressures. The organizational structure was
hierarchical and according to Cannon, the organization climate was characterized by “quite
a bit of fear. That is, fear of failure, fear of challenging people that were your superiors in
the organization.”
However, Geneva’s decision to implement an ERP to address these problems was driven
by top management and geared toward the achievement of goals relating directly to produc-
tivity and economic success. Employees had few opportunities to participate in discussions
surrounding the desirability and nature of change, and as a result resistance to the ERP
project began to emerge. Despite early resistance, top management pursued changes with-
out providing meaningful opportunities for communicative action and without apparent
concern for violation of lifeworld norms and values. Cannon recognized and exercised his
power in mandating the ERP. Rather than seek underlying causes for resistance to the sys-
tem, which might have surfaced areas in which the system was perceived to be encroaching
on the lifeworld, Cannon dismissed criticism as simplistic and irrational “Oh it costs a lot
of money, It’s just a big hassle,” and ultimately became convinced that this resistance was
short-lived and that the coercive approach was providing the desired results: “. . .as a matter
of fact, people have now finally figured out that whether you did not like or whether they
liked it, it is going to happen.”
4.3. Design of steering mechanisms
In Habermasian terms, steering mechanisms developed through cooperative discursive

processes are regulative if they help regulate activities in a manner consistent with lifeworld
values. Steering mechanisms imposed by administrative systems and driven by the economic
motives of capitalism are constitutive in that they not only regulate the activities of the
regulated, but they play a role in constituting the actor and the values and interests that
govern the lifeworld.
Communicative action requires that regulative steering mechanisms be developed
through discursive processes involving members of the community affected by those mech-
anisms and grounded in the community values and norms. During the implementation phase
of an ERP, there are many opportunities for communicative action. Conventional wisdom
about the ERP implementation suggests the following sequence of events. First, the company
engages in a preliminary process of reengineering in which it develops an initial sketch of
the processes to be reengineered in order to accomplish organizational goals. Then, a system
is selected that best accommodates the organization’s core business processes. Finally, the
company reengineers business processes and configures the system to accommodate organi-
zational preferences. New reporting relationships and policies are established in conjunction
with these changes. Each of these stages provides numerous opportunities for discursive
interaction among the employees and other constituents. The community can collaborate to
develop value-driven understandings about the collective goals, the appropriate design of
the ERP, and desired organizational changes. The steering mechanisms resulting from ERP
implementation could thus theoretically be more consistent with the needs of the lifeworld
and, because they were developed through collaborative action, carry more normative force
with constituents.
A lifeworld-driven process of communicative action, however, is largely inconsistent

with the standard ERP implementation. ERPs are very broad in scope and their components
are tightly integrated, leading to a lack of flexibility once a system has been selected. Costs
associated with customizing an ERP can be prohibitive, and like most organizations, Geneva
chose to select from the process options provided by the software rather than relying on
concerted action to design their own. In doing so, the organization subordinated its own
policies and processes, developed internally through years of employee interaction and
experience, to those processes mandated by the ERP. Traditional processes are embedded
with the knowledge, interests, and values of those who have participated in developing and
maintaining these routines.14 Geneva’s processes were designed to meet the idiosyncratic
and diverse needs of many business units and functions. Processes embedded in ERP systems
represent generic or industry-wide practices that replace these traditional routines with
processes designed to optimize economic efficiency across the organization. Choices among
the menu of available processes were made with the guidance of professional service firm
consultants, to whom managers and information technology personnel often defer in matters
requiring ERP expertise.
At Geneva, existing processes were put forth by top management as the primary source of
the economic crisis. Following this reasoning, it seemed logical, even necessary to embrace
the rationalized processes available in the ERP. Geneva’s operating processes were more
representative of traditional large steel companies, but they were able to replace these pro-
cesses with those used by the more competitive mini-mills. In addition, as the traditional
process had evolved over time, so too had the information systems supporting them. Ulti-
mately, the company had a variety of heterogeneous systems that made integration difficult.
Cannon noted, “we have . . . a mainframe . . . [and] . . . a primitive accounting system . . .
[We] have lots and lots of different kinds of computers. They have a hard time talking to
each other . . . Our system is a roadmap from hell.”15
Geneva hoped to solve their problems by replacing 50–90% of existing company-specific
software applications with software developed by SAP. Rather than selecting modules pro-
viding the greatest fit with the organization, Geneva implemented all of the major SAP
modules relating to accounting, production, and sales. In adopting these modules, and the
associated business processes, the company pursued a top-down approach, seeking little
input from lower level employees who were slated to use these systems.
In an ERP implementation such as Geneva’s, the policies and processes that are developed
to accommodate the system are driven neither by employee nor managerial interests. These
mechanisms are driven by the values embedded into the system by the software developers
and the corporations upon which the ‘best-practice’ templates were built, along with the
professional service firms whose values motivate the selection of process and configuration
options. So, rather than crafting steering mechanisms to pursue the organization’s unique
political and economic interests, Geneva by default adopted steering mechanisms that built
14 We are presuming the current processes are regulative. If they too are constitutive, then the company is replacing
one set of constitutive practices for another.

15 It might be noted that such complexity also obscures the ability of top management to know what is taking
place within segments of the organization. By opening up the segments to top management’s gaze, possibilities
for responding effectively to the encroaching rationalizing processes is diminished.
upon the broader managerialist values driven by the more general economic forces of market
capitalism.
Geneva’s management was apparently willing to adopt steering mechanisms representa-
tive of the broader steel industry in order to pursue the cost efficiencies and other economic
outcomes that had previously been illusive. In doing so, not only do they adopt processes
and policies that were constitutive of the actions of the operating level employees, they also
adopted steering mechanisms that were constitutive of managerial action as well.
Prior to ERP adoption, Geneva’s managers had played a primary role in coordinating
activities across divisions and in integrating information from various sources. Cannon
stated, “Integration is mostly mental. In other words . . . managers are the integrators . . . on
a daily operating basis, the integration is in the mind of the person and hopefully that person
is working with other people.” After the implementation, the information system would take
on this role and many staff functions were to be carried out by the system. Providing an
example relating to cost accounting, Chairman Cannon said that post-ERP “We will know
what the cost is . . . all of that will be integrated in a system that will be that much more
transparent. You would not need to have a cost accountant for every single department.”
The system would similarly be responsible for integrating key data from sales, opera-
tions, and finance into a single report that would not require analytical combination by the
managers.
The company also adopted structural changes to accommodate the process-orientation
of the ERP. Traditional hierarchical relationships with units organized by function were
no longer appropriate. ERPs operate by prioritizing process over function, and the new
processes adopted with ERP implementations cut across functional boundaries. For each
major process, there is a ‘process-owner’ or responsible manager. These processes function
horizontally and managing these structures most effectively requires radical changes to the
existing ones.
At Geneva, these changes were readily adopted, or imposed, and justified through stan-
dard economic arguments: “The changes in our management structure are intended to focus
our resources on those areas with the potential of yielding the greatest improvements to the
company . . . The changes in reporting relationships are intended to reflect the company’s
commitment to a flat streamline organization . . ..” Thus, the traditional lines of authority,
responsibilities, and reporting relationships were abandoned in favor of the technical effi-
ciency of the structures prescribed by the SAP software and the consultants installing it.
Discursive interaction was replaced by preprogrammed delinguistified interaction.
As noted in the previous section, the possibility exists for steering mechanisms such as
ERP systems to be regulative, constitutive, or both. In the case of Geneva Steel, the ERP
system appears to be, for the most part, constitutive. One group, top management, made the
decision to implement change via a technology-driven reengineering program. The project
did not facilitate the discursive interaction among the participants. Management was not able
to adequately rationalize the need for the system implementation and the related reduction in
force, deskilling of tasks, and redistribution of power and resources. As a result, coercion was
required to implement the system and the associated reengineering program. Delinguistified,
coercive actions imposing the will of one group on another reduce the possibilities for the
participants to engage in discourse required for enlightened, socially integrative action.
Such coercive actions result in the colonization of the lifeworld. At Geneva, the methods
and metrics of the reengineering project represent tangible manifestations of the means by
which the lifeworld of these participants was colonized.
4.4. Colonization of the lifeworld
In conjunction with the Delta Project, organizational objectives, work routines, and
communication patterns at Geneva were all changed to accommodate the ERP mandate.
Individually and collectively, these changes generated important impacts on the norms and
values of organizational constituents as well as on the evolutionary path of traditions and
beliefs.
Geneva developed a set of outcome measures toward which ERP activity would be
addressed. The primary metrics were: on-time deliveries, order fulfillment accuracy, manu-
facturing cost per tonne, administrative cost per tonne, customer complaints, manufacturing
yields by activity, and inventory levels and product. Within the new ERP system and work
processes, the primary concern of the organization was to improve these measures. Improv-
ing the measures required very tight control over a broad range of activities, and large
reductions in the number of operating and administrative staff. Top management moni-
tored the measures regularly. Consistent with the push toward technological or instrumental
rationality, Geneva subordinated other interests to the accomplishment of these goals. Both
everyday work processes and communication patterns within the organization were directed
by the new technology.
The ERP-driven reengineering project created dramatic changes in the day-to-day work
lives of the employees who survived the workforce reductions. Standard ERP practice
reconstructs jobs to be more expansive. To reduce costs and improve productivity and
throughput, reengineering attempts to reduce hand-offs between employees or units, and
tries to centralize tasks so that the fewest possible employees and units perform the task.
And the hand-offs that remain are regulated and coordinated by the system. This creates
an environment where employees have less interaction with one another and spend more
time using the information system to guide and coordinate activities. This redefinition of
everyday work situations reduces the propensity of employees to engage in cooperative
social action. Their prior claims to expertise are diminished by their new roles, and their
opportunities for collaborative discourse are reduced.
Work in an ERP environment is highly structured and routinized, and employees across
divisions and geographic boundaries perform the same work in the same way. Non-standard
transactions are generally minimized. Thus, once the new work routines are adopted, the
need for interaction to accommodate these routines is reduced. In addition to changing
the specific tasks performed by the employees, the ERP changes communication patterns.
With less interaction necessary to facilitate work, employees have reduced need for task-
related communication. Communication is mediated through the system, taking the form of
transactions, and opportunities for collaboration through discursive processes are reduced.
This reduction in face-to-face communication is accompanied by an increase in the
availability of information from the system. ERPs bring about greater vertical and horizontal
dispersal of information, and allow employees to obtain a great deal of information that
was previously only available through human interaction. Outward communication from
the employee is also mediated by the ERP, which captures and maintains detailed and real-
time information about the work being performed. This reduces the need to communicate
many activities and issues, because these are already identified and reported by the system.
This systematic integration of action, over time, begins to undermine functions essential
to the reproduction of the lifeworld. The character and depth of social integration and
cultural reproduction are transformed as they are integrated by the system rather than through
communicative action.
With the widespread availability of standardized information accompanied by the stan-
dardization of capturing and reporting information, through time employees will come to
adopt a shared vision of the organization and their own activities. This vision is mediated
by the ERP and framed from the perspective of economic goal accomplishment. System
users begin to speak in the language pervasive throughout the ERP and address the objective
work world using a common set of reports and procedures. Thus, rather than cooperatively
redefining goals and interests through a process of open discourse, employees enact the
goals communicated to and imposed upon them by the system. The lifeworld interests and
values shared by the social group, normally sustained through ongoing discursive engage-
ment, begin to give way to the corporate vision embedded within the processes and reports
of the ERP. Any resistance to this new order is rapidly deflated as the organization begins
to achieve its economic goals.
To retain their status in the organization, employees must ultimately be capable of adopt-
ing a generalized willingness to follow directives imposed by the ERP initiative, even when
these initiatives are unrelated to the norms and goals shared by the social group or are incon-
sistent with their own experiences and goals. Thus, rather than integrating actions through
coordination built upon communication, the actions of the employees at Geneva became
functionally integrated. The previous functional activities were reorganized to accommo-
date and promote objectives of centralized control and efficiency institutionalized in the
ERP system. The change required the adoption of a set of overriding values consistent
with the SAP imposed workflows and the information captured by the system. Overriding
values embedded by the systems, workflows, reports, and reporting relationships focused
on manufacturing yields, cost reduction, and order fulfillment to the exclusion of a broad
range of values and interests.
The colonization process results in the organizational participants gradually losing oppor-
tunities for communicative action and thereby losing the capacity to engage in cooperative
social action. Thus, future evolution of the lifeworld is obstructed. The massive downsizing
that accompanies most ERP projects creates an environment that places the livelihoods
of employees at risk. To survive, they must avoid administrative conflict and embrace the
system and its objectives. Even constituents who retain the power to critically evaluate the
system find that their efforts are impotent. After the reengineered work processes are for-
malized through configuration of the ERP, changes are difficult and costly. The totalizing
logic and global reach of the ERP creates an environment in which change in one aspect
of the system necessitates changes throughout the organization. Thus efforts to critique or
resist various elements of the new organization are blocked. Adoption of ERP systems by
trading partners further solidifies existing practices because organizational changes may
impose costs on these trading partners. For these reasons, ERPs present a systemic threat to
the communicative infrastructure through which symbolic reproduction occurs and impairs
the ability of agents to reproduce the lifeworld in a conscious and critical way.
4.5. Postscript
Geneva Steel’s efforts toward economic revival were unsuccessful and the company
ultimately declared bankruptcy in 1999, however, the ERP system was considered a success.
Despite the current economic downturn, companies continue to adopt and expand ERP
systems. While the initial wave of ERP software and implementations were directed at
very large companies, the phenomena has spread downward to medium sized and smaller
enterprises. Microsoft’s Great Plains Dynamics and a host of other middle-market packages
are available, and ERP adoptions continue to grow. Application service providers have also
entered the ERP market. These companies provide hosting services for organizations lacking
the human or technical resources to maintain their own system in-house. These systems are
even more generic and standardized than in-house systems, because hosting companies
can support only a fraction of the configuration options available. At the same time ERP
adoptions are increasing, industry consolidation in the ERP sector is taking place. At the
time of this writing, PeopleSoft has just acquired J.D. Edwards and the newly merged
company is facing a takeover bid from Oracle. This suggests that while more companies
may be using ERPs, the variety of systems is reduced and business processes and practices
are subject to increasingly strong pressure toward standardization.
At the same time that ERP software is becoming increasingly standardized, it is also
becoming more pervasive. Vendors have expanded their industry-specific solutions to now
accommodate almost every major Western industry. ERP vendors have expanded their mod-
ule offerings, which originally emphasized transacting processing within an organization to
include e-commerce applications for interacting with customers and suppliers. Thus con-
vergence on ERP solutions within industries is intensifying, and entire supply chains are
controlled by a handful of large vendors.
The scope of ERPs within individual organizations is also expanding. Today, many ERP
vendors are focusing efforts on providing standardized processes and software for business
analytics and knowledge management. These processes are designed to utilize the massive
data structures underlying ERPs and are combined with standardized templates for business
modeling, analysis, and reporting, providing guidance bounded by tight constraints on orga-
nizational decision-making processes. While the lifeworld effects of these developments
are unknown and under researched, it is clear is that the reach of these systems is expanding
and the resulting effects are becoming more severe.
5. Closing remarks
ERP systems are viewed by top managers and other organizational constituents as objec-
tive responses to technological conditions and economic competition. These systems are
widely viewed as politically neutral instruments that can be abstracted from consideration
of the fundamental issues of exploitation and control. Because these instruments are viewed
as politically neutral, their effects on the background knowledge and communal interests
of ERP users and other affected parties are often overlooked.
This preceding discussion uses Habermasian principles to explore the forces that lead to
ERP adoptions and to examine their consequences. The institutionalization of ERP systems
among most large firms and major industries is a result of a combination of complex and
powerful forces. Firms in capitalist environments face continual pressure to maximize profits
and enhance wealth. ERP systems are viewed as mechanisms that rationalize processes,
reduce workforce, and enhance productivity, among other benefits. They are viewed as
inevitable technological advances that must be adopted by firms seeking to remain at the
forefront in the modern business environment. Institutional forces that reward firms for
mimicking the most successful firms in their industries and industrial forces that reward
firms which use standard transactional protocol also promote ERP use. Alliance partners,
especially professional service firms, play on psychosocial factors promoting ERP systems
as a management advancement that is both rational and progressive. All of these forces
combine to promote continual growth in ERP use among new adopters as well as expansion
among existing users.
ERP systems are adopted by top management with the objective of imposing a variety
of changes upon the organization. These administrators seek personnel and cost reduc-
tions and associated improvements in productivity and profits. ERPs promise to deliver
these outcomes by integrating systems, standardizing processes, and providing organiza-
tions access to the best practices in the industry. In actuality, the consequence of ERP
systems is that processes which evolved over time following unique historical paths and
trajectories are being replaced by new processes. In general, adoption of the ERP frame-
work and the associated mindset more emphatically imposes administrative interests on to
the organization. However, the new ERP processes, and the policies and structures driven
by them, embody the beliefs and interests of actors who developed the software and are
not part of the organization. The use of consultants to help choose from among available
processes and configuration options further embeds outside interests (or disinterests) into
the organization’s operations and systems.
Imposing such steering mechanisms on organizational constituents can have broad and
serious effects on the lifeworld. The background knowledge and patterns of interaction
taken for granted by organizational participants are disrupted and replaced through these
system-oriented changes. ERP systems impose radical changes on the everyday work lives of
organizational constituents. Interaction between employees and among stakeholder groups
is altered, reducing opportunities for collaborative discourse. The nature of social integration
is transformed as communication is standardized and mediated through the system. Organi-
zational goals and reporting language shift, changing perspectives regarding work objectives
and subordinating objectives not in concert with those of the ERP systems. Employees adapt
to these global and tightly interwoven changes to avoid the risk of sanctions in the newly
competitive and downsized organization. Through these developments, organizational par-
ticipants lose the capacity to engage in cooperative social action and future evolution of the
lifeworld is obstructed.
This discussion is a preliminary attempt to use Habermasian principles to explore the
context and consequences of ERP implementations. As the forces toward ERP adoption and
further standardization across industries and supply chains marches forward, changes in the
everyday lives of those affected by these systems become more pervasive and profound.
It appears to us that Marcuse’s observation presented at the beginning of the discussion
is being magnified as we move further into the information age. ERP systems are the
manifestations of prevalent thought and behavior represented in the devices, contrivances,
and instruments that characterize the “information age” and dictate the mode of production.
As such, this technology as an instrument for control and domination imposes a mode of
organizing, perpetuating, or changing social relationships such that they conform to the
dominant ideology of global market capitalism. Research on these systems is still in its
infancy, but the sheer size and impact of the phenomena warrants studies that go well
beyond technical efficiency and economic goals.
References
Abrahamson E. Management fashion. Acad Manage Rev 1996:254–85.

Abrahamson E, Fairchild G. Management fashion: lifecycles, triggers, and collective learning processes. Admin
Sci Quart 1999:708–40.
Arrington E, Puxty A. Accounting, interests and rationality: a communicative relation. Crit Perspect Acc
1991:31–58.
Bingi P, Sharma MK, Godla JK. Critical issues affecting an ERP implementation. Inf Syst Manage
1999;16(3):7–15.
Bowley G. Silicon Valley’s transplanted sapling. Financial Times. March 27; 1998.
Brynjolfsson E, Hitt LM. Beyond the productivity paradox. Commun ACM 1998;41(8):49–55.
Broadbent J, Dietrich M, Laughlin R. The development of principle-agent, contracting and accountability
relationships in the public sector: conceptual and cultural problems. Crit Perspect Acc 1996;7(4):259–
84.
Broadbent J, Laughlin R. The ‘new public management’: absorption and absorbing groups in schools GP practices
in the UK. Acc Audit Accountability J 1998;11(4):403–35.
Broadbent J, Laughlin R. Control and legitimation in government accountability processes: the private finance
initiative in the UK. Crit Perspect Acc 2003;14:23–48.
Broadbent J, Laughlin R, Read S. Recent financial and administrative changes in the NHS: a critical theory analysis.
Crit Perspect Acc 1991a(March):1–30.
Broadbent J, Laughlin R, Willig-Atherton H. Financial controls and schools: accounting in ‘public’ and ‘private’
sphere. Br Acc Rev 1991b:255–79.
Burris B. Technocracy at work. New York: SUNY Press; 1993.
Chandler A. The visible hand. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1977.
Chua W, Degeling P. Interrogating an accounting based intervention on three axes: instrumental, moral and
aesthetic. Acc Organ Soc 1993:291–318.
Clawson D. Bureaucracy and labor process: transformation of US industry 1860–1920. New York: Monthly Review
Press; 1980.
Davenport TH. Mission critical: realizing the promise of enterprise systems. Boston MA: Harvard Business School
Press; 1997.
Davenport T. Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system. Harvard Bus Rev 1998(July–August):121–31.
Dillard J. Dialectical possibilities of thwarted responsibilities. Crit Perspect Acc 2002;13(5–6):621–42.
Dillard J, Bricker R. A critical evaluation of expert systems in the audit environment. Crit Perspect Acc
1992(September):205–24.
Dillard J, Smith H. Health care, cost accounting and technological domination: a critical study of accountability
in rural hospitals. Acc Forum 1999:327–56.
Dillard J, Tinker T. Commodification of business and accounting education: the implications of accreditation. Crit
Perspect Acc 1996(February/April):215–26.
Dillard J, Yuthas K. Ethical issues in expert systems: lessons from moral philosophy. Res Acc Ethics 1997:99–117.
Drake B, Yuthas K, Dillard J. It’s just words—impacts of information technology on moral dialogue. J Bus Ethics
2000;23:41–59.
Foley J, Stein T. Oracle aims at applications midmarket. Inf Week 1997(July (7)):55–7.
Gelinas U, Sutton S, Cram A. Accounting information systems. 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College
Publishing; 1999.
Gendron M. Learning to live with the electronic embodiment of reengineering. Harvard Manage Update
1996(November):3–4.
Glass RL. Enterprise resource planning—breakthrough and/or term problem? Data Base Adv Inf Syst
1998;29(2):14–6.
Habermas J. In: McCarthy T, translator. Legitimation crisis. Boston: Beacon Press; 1975.
Habermas J. In: McCarthy T, translator. The theory of communicative action, vol. 1. Boston: Beacon Press;
1984.
Habermas J. In: McCarthy T, translator. The theory of communicative action, vol. 2. Boston: Beacon Press; 1987.
Habermas J. In: Rehg W, translator. Between facts and norms: contributions to a discourse theory of law and
democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1996.
Hayes D, Hunton J, Reck J. Market reactions to ERP implementations. J Inf Syst 2000;15(1):3–18.
Held D. Introduction to critical theory: Horkheimer to Habermas. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1980.
Hitt LM, Brynjolfsson E. Productivity, business profitability, and consumer surplus: three different measures of
information technology value. MIS Quart 1996(June):121–42.
Hitt LM, Brynjolfsson E. Information technology and internal firm organization: an exploratory analysis. J Manage
Inf Syst 1997;14(2):81–101.
Hopper T, Armstrong D. Cost accounting, controlling labour and the rise of conglomerates. Acc Organ Soc
1991:405–38.
Hunton J, McEwen R, Wier B. The reaction of financial analysts to Enterprise resource planning (ERP) imple-
mentation plans. J Inf Syst 2002;16(1).
Johnson T, Kaplan R. Relevance lost. Boston: Harvard Business School Press; 1987.
Keen PGW. The process edge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press; 2000.
Laughlin R. Accounting systems in organizational contexts: a case for critical theory. Acc Organ Soc
1987;12(5):479–502.
Laughlin R. Accounting and its social context: analysis of the accounting systems of the Church of England. Acc
Audit Accountability J 1988:19–42.
Laughlin R. Empirical research in accounting: alternative approaches and a case for middle-range thinking. Acc
Audit Accountability J 1995;8(1):63–87.
Laughlin R, Broadbent J. Accounting and the law: partners in the juridification of the public sector. Crit Perspect
Acc 1993:337–68.
Nolan RL. Reengineering: competitive advantage and strategic jeopardy. President and fellows of Harvard College.
HBS No. 9-196-019; 1995. p. 1–11.
O’Leary D. Enterprise Resource Planning systems: systems, life cycle, electronic commerce, and risk. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
Osterland A. Blaming ERP. CFO Magazine, vol. 16, No. 1; 2000. p. 89–93.
Poston R, Grabski S. Financial impacts of Enterprise resource planning implementations. Int J Acc Inf Syst
2001;2(4):271–94.
Power M, Laughlin R. Critical theory and accounting. In: Alverson M, Willmott H, editors. Critical management
studies. London: Sage; 1992. p. 113–35.
Power M, Laughlin R. Habermas, law and accounting. Acc Organ Soc 1996;21(5):441–65.
Pusey M. Jurgen Habermas. New York: Tavistock; 1987.
Quattrone P, Hopper T. A ‘time-space odyssey’: management control systems in multinational organisations. Acc
Organ Soc 2000;30(7–8):735–64.
Quattrone P, Hopper T. If I don’t see it I cannot manage it: the quasi-ontology of SAP. “Translations” and boundary-
making in multinational organisations. In: Proceedings of the 24th European Accounting Association; 2005.
Quattrone P, Hopper T. What does organizational change mean? Speculations on a taken for granted category.
Manage Acc Res, 2001.
Sadagopan S. From ERP to XRP. CIO 2001;2(3):12–3.
Schragenheim E. When worlds collide. APICS 2000(February):55–7.
Scott W, Hart D. Organizational values in America. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers; 1989.
Smith T. Technology and capital in the age of lean production. Albany, NY: SUNY Press; 2000.
Smyth RW. Threats to ERP success: a case study. In: Fifth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems; 2001.
p. 1141–51.
Stedman C. Order entry flexibility an ERP issue. Computerworld 2000;34(4):10.

Venkatraman N. IT-enabled business transformation: from automation to business scope redefinition. Sloan Manage
Rev 1994(Winter):73–87.
White S. The recent works of Jurgen Habermas. NY: Cambridge University Press; 1988.
Williamson M. From SAP to ‘nuts’. Computerworld 1997;13(45):68–9.
Yuthas K, Banbary C, Brown D. ERPs and strategy: first, do no harm. Working paper; 2002.
Yuthas K, Dillard J. A responsibility-based approach to the development and implementation of advanced account-
ing and information technology. Res Acc Ethics 2002;12(4):403–35.
Zuboff S. In the age of the smart machine. New York: Basic Books; 1988.

Sdarticle 012 177325

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sdarticle 012 177325

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Perspectives on Accounting 17 (2006) 202–223

Enterprise resource planning systems and

E-mail address: jdillard@pdx.edu (J.F. Dillard).

Technology, as a mode of production, as the totality of instruments, devices and

The application of computer-based information systems has steadily developed over

2. Enterprise resource planning systems

Enterprise resource planning systems are commercial software packages designed to

personal computer, semiconductor, and petrochemical industries.

Held (1980), Pusey (1987), and White (1988).

3.1. Social systems and inherent crisis tendencies

only a brief discussion is presented here.

3.2. Mechanisms that control the makeup of dynamic social systems

Geneva Steel, a medium-sized steel company operating in Vineyard, Utah, produces

4.1. Economic crisis

4.2. The administrative response to the economic crisis

4.3. Design of steering mechanisms

In Habermasian terms, steering mechanisms developed through cooperative discursive

A lifeworld-driven process of communicative action, however, is largely inconsistent

one set of constitutive practices for another.

4.4. Colonization of the lifeworld

Abrahamson E. Management fashion. Acad Manage Rev 1996:254–85.

Stedman C. Order entry flexibility an ERP issue. Computerworld 2000;34(4):10.

You might also like