CHAPTER 6 – WITHIN-CASE PROCESS ANALYSIS
7.4 Deterritorialization of Assemblages: CCs Ever in Process
Abandoned CCs: In MS, the SAP implementation went well, and post-implementation was
2
underway and progressing nicely in its Canadian operations; stakeholders rallied around and
3
collaborated. Then the expected “hero’s welcome” following the Canadian implementation
4
success turned into a unpleasant competition between the team from the Canadian
5
implementation team and the US headquarters team. From the US upper management
6
perspectives, the value of centralized SAP was not there. Instead of being complemented on a
7
very successful implementation, the Canadian management teams were placed in a very
8
defensive position to provide answers to the questions, such as: “what have you done for me?”
9
Here, Me refers to the US head office. “Where are the Metrics?” “I don’t care about SAP”. In
10
the US, the upper management team involved with Canadian rollout never expected the rude
11
awakening they experienced in the US.
12
We all came out of this project on a high. This is a multi-year several-hundred-million-
13
dollar project. It was very successful. I mean, not overstating it, we were hailed as heroes
14
in Canada and then when that was over, he [CIO] couldn't care about what you did. (TD)
15 16
As the research participant stated, “BB (CIO) was a very strategic leader and he had a very good
17
vision. I think he underestimated some of the backstabbing that would go on at those executive
18
levels.” As a result, the previously successful and ‘stable’ or working assemblage began to
19
deterritorialize, as the employees retreated into their own silos and comfort zones, and instead of
20
trying to promote ES throughout the departments, they retreated to a defensive mode and started
21
to justify the SAP. When the CEO and CFO asked the price tag for implementing SAP in the US
22
similar to Canada, however, the ERP requirement for the US had already expanding far beyond
23
the scope of the ERP installment in Canada. The requirement for a new system, suddenly became
24
a “wish list” and ultimately far too expensive to develop:
“The folks and the individuals that were responsible for determining the requirement lost
1
sight of their mission. Instead of, what they did was basically, What's my wish list? And
2
that's why they came up with a 1.2 billion amount for the US implementation.” (CH)
3
The “wish list” mentioned by CH is the concept of scope creep, a negative phenomenon in
4
project management where the requirements continue to grow (Meredith and Mantel Jr 2011).
5
The scope creep having negative effect on the ERP projects are supported in ES (Chen et al.
6
2009) The findings from the research data shows the far reaching effect this scope creep has on
7
the CC for MS. Rather than focusing on the boundary limits of what was implemented in
8
Canada, in the US expectations reached an unmanageable level as the collaborative culture of
9
“we did great stuff in Canada together” turned into a deterritorializing, “every man for
10
themselves.” The height of De-territorialization at MS was marked by a mass exodus MS.
11
In MU’s CC, there was too much distance between the BU silos. Member attended formal CC
12
meetings but would not collaborate, but instead clung to established BU loyalties and feared the
13
role of the main IT. The CC and the central IT had collaborated on some projects and had
14
established a formal relationship. However, CC members did not establish the trusting
15
relationship. The Research participant EJ explained:
16
“Most of the job we need to do right now is through formal process. It’s the formal RFP process 17
for the state and my gosh, it is difficult.” “Because S. was technical and that's why he's a key 18
to my organization. We have to be careful in the Spectrum group that we don't get
19
positioned titles that sounds too technical because if you do, then MainIT wants to take
20
them away.” (EJ)
21
I interpreted the above quote as MU CC’s view that the formal procedures were a hindrance. The
22
CC also feared internal employee transfer causing deterritorialization.
23
Successful CCs: the RUs CC deterritorialized through the social connections relationship
24
developed over coffee and donuts shared by inviting key employees from different departments.
participate and present formal solutions. These meeting became informal brainstorming
1
opportunities. Once the information social connections were established people became more
2
active participants in the CC.
3
Deterritorializing in the HG CC happened around the notion of job responsibilities. In the
4
respective business units, employees have specific job titles and responsibilities, such as, “IT
5
Project Manager”, “Business Analyst”, “Configuration experts”, “ABAP Programmer” and so on
6
have specific job functions associated with them. When employees join CCs, employees’ roles
7
are transferred into an unfamiliar term of “business process champions” or “super users”. In HG,
8
these business process champions create a fluid relationship with their respective business units
9
and further the agenda of the CC. This findings supported by Rose et al. (2013) study where
10
“super users” recruited from different business units were instrumental in fostering the ES use
11
(Rose and Schlichter 2013).
12
Summary of Deterritorialization: Deterritorialization is not inherently negative process; there
13
are transitioning processes situated between territorialization and reterritorialization. For
14
instance, on the one hand, in the case of MS, this deterritorializing process turned out to be a
15
negative one while, on the other hand, HG benefited when ES employees were deterritorialized
16
from their BUs into the CC, thus creating cross-functional social relationships and fostering
17
knowledge sharing mechanisms within the CC. Whereas at MS this was a function of internal
18
political rivalries, at HG, astute managers fostered and capitalized on their understanding of how
19
employees actually aspired to become pare or the CC.
20
In this phase, the actions or events that are present in the territorialization process further evolves
21
due to the emergent interactions between the stakeholders and technology. For MS, the success
22
of the Canada roll-out and the initial creation of the CC in Canada were not replicated in the US
operations. Instead, stakeholders’ disagreement on the vision of the ES and role of the CC
1
destabilized the CC. In other organizations deterritorialization of CCs have positive effects. In
2
HG, people from different BU enter the CC and create dual ambassador role. In RU, people
3
form social relationships and connections that lead to a greater collaboration. Whether CCs were
4
struggling or performing, they continue to evolve.
5 6