Third Domain: Coping Mechanisms

The coping mechanism domain represents mechanisms that overcome problems encountered in using ERP. Use of alternatives systems such as Microsoft Excel, Project and Access was frequently cited as the strategy to overcome the deficiency of an ERP system. Such practices are consistent with the concepts of shadow system (Behrens & Sedera 2004),

workaround systems (Poelmans 1999) and feral systems (Houghton & Kerr 2006). A ‘shadow system’ is ‘a system which replicate in full or in part data and/or functionality of the legitimate system in the organisation’ (Behrens & Sedera 2004, p. 1713). Houghton and Kerr (2006, p. 137) define ‘a feral system’ as ‘an information system (computerised) that is developed by individuals or group of employees to help them with their work, but is not condoned by management nor is it part of the corporation‘s accepted information technology infrastructure. Its development is designed to circumvent existing organisational information system’. A ‘workaround’ is described as ‘a coping strategy that deviates from strategies that have been defined in the work flow system (WFS). End users work around the system to save the time or efforts or to avoid the limitations of the WFS’ (Poelmans 1999, p. 11).

While the terms ‘feral’, ‘shadow’ and ‘workaround’ systems are sometimes used interchangeably, Houghton and Kerr (2006) argued that feral systems are not the same as workarounds because a workaround is created with the intention to bypass a recognised problem and to fix the problem temporarily (Koopman & Hoffman 2003; Poelmans 1999). Feral systems, on the contrary, are deliberate attempts to permanently circumvent a fully functional and operationally sound system. Therefore, while all feral systems can be classified as workaround systems, the reverse is not true. As such, workarounds become feral systems only when they are user created and their usage is outside the formal information system. For example, Koopman & Hoffman (2003) reported how end users created a workaround system by modifying input data and operations to compensate for the deficiencies of a formal system.

In a similar way, Behrens (2009) reported on a workaround system that covertly replicates the data and functionality of a formally sanctioned system by operating at the fringes of an organisation. Boudreau & Robey (2005) also reported how users work around an ERP system after its implementation in a large government agency. Their findings indicated that despite the transformation agenda accompanying the new ERP system, users initially choose to avoid using the system as much as possible and later work around the system constraints in unplanned ways.

Based on the findings of the exploratory study and the literature on workaround (Koopman & Hoffman 2003; Poelmans 1999), shadow system (Behrens & Sedera 2004) and feral system (Houghton & Kerr 2006), it is argued that users tend to use a feral system to cope with the problems they face in using ERP systems. One notable observation from the literature is that the concept of ‘system’ in feral, shadow and workaround systems has not always been clear. Some authors have proposed the concept of ‘system’ in ‘feral system’ as ‘information

system’ (Behrens & Sedera 2004; Houghton & Kerr 2006), while others define it as a strategy (Poelmans 1999). The ‘system’ also sometimes refers to a fully functional information system which has been created outside accepted the ERP system (Behrens 2009; Houghton & Kerr 2006) or the use of personal software such as Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Access (Houghton & Kerr 2006; Kerr, Houghton & Burgess 2007).

On the basis of the above and the review of prior literature (see Section 2.4), this study proposes four types of coping mechanisms belonging to the two general forms of problem- focused and emotion-focused. Within the problem-focused form, the two types proposed are: (i) feral information systems and (ii) feral use of information technology and feral data (a by- product of feral use of IT). Within the emotion-focused form, the two types of coping mechanisms are: (iii) endure and (iv) inaction/ignore problem. These four types of coping mechanisms become an important feeder which informs the theoretical background for the coping mechanisms domain of this thesis (see Figure 3.1).

3.3.3.1

Feral Information Systems

A feral information system (feral IS) refers to an information system created and used by individuals or groups that is intended to either supplant or supplement a formal organisational information system (Houghton & Kerr 2006; Spierings, Kerr & Houghton 2012; Thatte & Grainger 2010; Thatte, Grainger & McKay 2012). Feral information systems are created as comprehensive or complete systems with many elements that are highly interrelated and interconnected. The characteristics of feral information systems are that they are reasonably well built, have some degree of sophistication in their functionality, and provide mechanisms for inputting data, processing it and extracting output (Urus, Molla & Teoh 2011a). Feral information systems are usually non-sanctioned systems and operate outside an ERP system environment. An example of a feral information system reported in the literature is MyInfocom or Webfuse. Both examples are learning management systems that provide most of the functionalities of commercial learning management systems, as reported by Behrens (2009) and Jones et al. (2004).

Houghton and Kerr (2006), the pioneers of those who introduced the feral information system concept, also known as the feral system, suggested that among the evidence of its existence is the use of a fax machine to send work orders rather than using the ERP system and also the creation of ‘grass stock’ or ‘long grass stock’, which is an inventory of stock kept in places other than warehouses for possible emergency situations. Houghton and Kerr

added that grass stock records are usually recorded on spreadsheets or databases that are totally separate from the ERP system. According to Houghton and Kerr (2006), it is ERP users' lack of trust in the centralised inventory system of the ERP in response to emergency situations that leads to the development of grass stock.

The existing literature is equivocal about the impact of feral information systems. Some studies have associated feral information systems with a negative impact (Behrens 2009; Behrens & Sedera 2004; Houghton & Kerr 2006). For instance, one of the biggest concerns about the implementation of a feral information system, as pointed out by (Behrens 2009), is the lack of control. The IT environment is usually regulated and controlled by the IT division, but this does not apply to feral information systems, which exist outside the predefined structure that regulates and controls IT. This is in line with the findings of Ignatiadis and Nandhakumar (2009) that the use of feral information systems tends to lessen operational efficiency with consequently decreased organisational control. Yet, despite the negative impact of a feral information system, it is considered one of the important coping mechanisms since feral information technology encompasses the provision of information and functionality which meets the needs of the individual departments in the organisation (Behrens & Sedera 2004, p. 1714).

3.3.3.2

Feral Use of Information Technology

Feral use of information technology (feral IT) refers to the use of information technology by end users to either supplant an ERP system function or to supplement the limitations of an ERP system. It usually includes the development and operation of self-built applications and is dominated by personal software such as Excel or Access (Rentrop & Zimmermann 2012; Sherman 2004). This is demonstrated through Microsoft Excel being used for the customisation of reporting as described in the exploratory study. Examples from the literature include the report of Kerr, Houghton et al. (2007) on how Excel and Access are used for planning outside the SAP system and how that leads to little or no visibility of the plan to the organisation so that it is not reflected in the corporate plan. Ignatiadis and Nandhakumar (2009) also reported a feral use of IT (Excel) for report generation in the form of further processing of data produced by SAP and as a medium of communication which has resulted in portraying a false picture of the company.

The findings of the exploratory study indicate that users often rely on the feral use of IT to cope with the unavailability of essential ERP functions or because they perceive that the ERP way of doing things is complex. As such, IT is used to ‘work around’ the ERP system instead of as a ‘workaround system’. This is consistent with previous research which found that feral IT is used to fill gaps in user requirements that result from flaws in the formal system (Behrens & Sedera 2004; Sherman 2004; Behrens 2009); that it is easy to develop and cost-saving (Bayan 2004; Behrens & Sedera, 2004; Sherman 2004, Raden 2005); that it focuses on business requirements and specifications (Bayan 2004); and that it appears to be faster and more dynamic than the formal system of ERP (Bayan 2004; Sherman 2004).

Feral information systems and feral use of IT can lead to the third type of feral system, which is referred to as Feral Data. ‘Feral data’ refers to data stored outside a formal system such as ERP. From the survey and interview results of the exploratory study, it was found that users often pull data out of ERP and then rely on manual records that they create in Excel. Likewise, in the literature, it is reported that users often extract data from a formal system such as ERP and make necessary adjustments or modifications as needed (Kerr & Houghton 2008; Kerr, Houghton & Burgess 2007). However, when those users fail to integrate the data back into the formal system for operational, forecasting or knowledge management purposes, this can lead to the data being out of sync with formal systems and becoming feral data. Kerr & Houghton (2010) discussed an example of a feral data ‘grass stock’ which was different from the actual data reported in the ERP system and led to inaccurate forecasting and business analytics output (Kerr & Houghton 2010).

To encapsulate, findings from the exploratory study have identified three types of coping mechanisms: feral information system, feral use of technology and feral data, as shown in the coping mechanisms domain (see Figure 3.1).

3.4 SUMMARY OF THE CHAPTER

This chapter proposed the initial conceptual framework based on the literature review and the findings from the exploratory study. The initial model is based on three main domains: End User Problems, Antecedents Factors and Coping Mechanisms. For the ERP use problem domain, the analysis from the exploratory study suggested four categories of ERP usage problems: unavailability of functions, system underutilisation, data incompleteness and interface problems. These become the initial constructs for the theoretical framework of the first domain. For the second domain, Antecedent Factors, the constructs selected to

inform the causes of ERP usage issues were taken from the lens of Gap Framework, the Task-Technology Fit theory and the Computer Self-Efficacy concept. Development of the third domain, Coping Mechanisms, of the initial conceptual framework was also based on the results from the exploratory study. It comprises feral information system, feral user of technology (feral IT) and feral data. This chapter highlights the individual initial construct based on the adopted theories and concepts.

Table 3.3 summarises the basic definitions used in developing the initial conceptual framework. This chapter serves as a preamble to Chapter 4 on research methodology.

Table 3.3: Summary of Basic Definitions Used for the Initial Framework

Domain Concept Definition Reference

Problem End Users’ Usage Problem Domain

Problem encountered by end user in using ERP system during the post- implementation phase

Elbertsen, Benders & Nijssen (2006); Soja & Paliwoda- Pekosz (2009); Topi, Lucas & Babaian (2005)

Unavailability of Functions

Lack of SAP functionality to perform a required task in a timely way

Based on ISO EC 9126

System

Underutilisation

SAP features have not been fully exploited by SAP users

Jasperson, Carter & Zmud ( 2005) Data

Incompleteness

Omission of or incomplete data entered into SAP

Ballou & Pazer 1985) Interface SAP’s screen has not been designed in

an attractive way for SAP users

Longinidis & Gotzamani (2009) Antecedent

Factor (User)

Control The governance of SAP system through the availability of the control mechanism

Behrens & Sedera (2004)

Resources The availability of funds in the organisation to finance the SAP system’s maintenance and upgrading, training and people to provide users with skills and expertise in SAP system use

Behrens & Sedera (2004)

Antecedent Factor (User)

Magnitude The ERP (SAP) users with low SAP self-efficacy in SAP perceive

themselves as unable to accomplish difficult SAP tasks

Compeau & Higgins (1995)

Individual Strength

Level of conviction about the judgment and confidence of users with regard to their ability to carry out the tasks by using SAP

Compeau & Higgins (1995)

Antecedent Factor (Technology)

Affordance The functions and operations which are provided by technology (ERP)

Behrens & Sedera (2004)

System Reliability The dependability of access and up- time of system

Goodhue & Thompson (1995)

Domain Concept Definition Reference

Antecedent Factor

Task

Interdependence

The degree to which individuals interact and depend upon others to accomplish their work via ERP system

Campion, Medsker & Higgs (1993, p. 827)

Non Routines Lack of analysable search behaviour Goodhue & Thompson (1995) Task-Technology Fit The degree to which technology

assists an individual in performing his/her portfolio of task

Goodhue & Thompson (1995) Coping Mechanisms Feral Information System, Feral Use of Information systems, Feral Data

The coping mechanisms employed in dealing with ERP system usage problems

Behrens & Sedera (2004); Houghton & Kerr (2006); Gasser (1986); Ignatiadis & Nandhakumar (2009) Individual concepts use as Coping Mechanisms for ERP system use

problems

Feral Information Systems

An information system (computerised) that is developed by individuals or group of employees to help them with their work, but is not condoned by management nor is part of the corporation‘s accepted information technology infrastructure. Its

development is designed to circumvent existing organisational information system

Houghton & Kerr (2006, p. 137)

Feral Use of Information Technoloy

Use of Information Technology by end users to either supplant an ERP system function or supplement the limitations of an ERP system

Author’s Definition

Feral Data Data that are stored outside the formal system (such as ERP)

Author’s Definition Endure Endure problems rather than actively

try to reduce them

Benamati & Lederer (2001 p.40)

Inaction/ Ignore Do not taken any necessary action but ignore the problem

Benamati & Lederer (2001 p.40)

Chapter