Misfits, Misalignments and Impositions

The socially constructed approach to technology and the inherent mechanical nature of the artefact identify the problems that came about due to vanilla systems and “best practice” approaches. It is acknowledged throughout the literature that an ERP and its defined processes are unlikely to include all the functionality an organisational needs (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995; Kanellis et al., 1999; Soh et al., 2000; Soh & Sia, 2004, 2007; Strong & Volkoff, 2010). This issue prompted researchers to examine instances where the artefact hinders the completion of a process and subsequently affects the outcome. The “best practices” do not “fit” the requirements of the organisation. The literature refers to these issues as misfits or misalignments.

26

Goodhue and Thompson (1995) analysed the link between IT and individual performance in IS. Their research looked specifically at the concept of fit, analysing how technology functions are supported and what is needed to achieve certain tasks. The theory is referred to as task-technology fit and extends the theory of DeLone and McLean (1992, 2003) that analyses user attitudes towards technology. Their findings highlighted the importance of fit between technology and user tasks in achieving success in organisations. The framework extended the theory on success factors of IS and raised the issue of misfit in IS literature.

The framework prompted further research into the question of task-technology fit, and specifically to what constitutes misfit in IS. Soh et al. (2000) produced an influential paper that examined organisations adopting ERP artefacts and the problems that were arising in their use. It was documented that a “common problem when adopting package software has been the issue of ‘misfits’, that is, the gaps between the functionality offered by the package and that required by the adopting organisation”. They state fairly explicitly that “organisations have had to choose among adapting to the new functionality, living with the shortfall, instituting workarounds, or customizing the package” (Soh et al., 2000:47). The research identified instances of misfits experienced by seven hospitals in Singapore that adopted package software. Their findings extended the theory of misfit and subsequently addressed the ways in which users dealt with a situation in which the artefact did not fit the business process. This introduced the concept of workaround practices to IS literature.

Soh and Sia (2004) and Hong and Kim (2002) furthered their original research by analysing the fundamental differences between the structures embedded in the organisation and what is assumed by developers of ERPs’ “best practice” business model. They began to directly reflect the problems that Swan et al. (1999) and Soh et al. (2000) addressed in terms of plain vanilla systems adopted by organisations. The research proved rich and profound due to the fact that there was a major differentiation between Western Business Practices, as defined in an ERP’s “best practices”, and their area of focus: Asian business practices. The business conducted in Asia is characterised by different processes, controls, structure and culture to that of Western Business Practice.

The argument focuses on the “mismatch between the context of the implementation environments and context embedded in the package” (Soh & Sia, 2004:376). They created a valid distinction between imposed and voluntary structures in organisations and how these affected the misalignment problem that was occurring. Sia and Soh (2007) expanded this further to incorporate deep and surface structures in their original framework and expanded the knowledge base further with regard to ERP structural misalignments. The research into deep and surface level misalignments produced

27

a greater understanding of the sources of misfits and misalignments. The research highlighted the importance of organisational structure and the socio-technical nature of the artefact.

The types of misfits and misalignments that were identified prompted Strong and Volkoff (2010) to understand the full extent of organisational and enterprise system fit solutions. The theory is developed on the premise explained previously: that the artefact is designed to support generic and not the specific requirements of the organisation. Their work introduced six misfit domains, namely functionality, data, usability, role, control and organisational culture. These misfit domains expanded on Soh et al.’s (2000) original typology regarding misfits in organisations, as well as the work done by Soh and Sia (2004, 2007). The scholars identify two types of misfit in each domain, namely deficiencies and impositions.

Deficiencies refer to “problems arising from the Enterprise System features that are missing but needed” (Strong & Volkoff, 2010:737). Users cannot perform specific functions, as the system is missing the required functionality or control. Impositions involve the “Enterprise System requiring ways of working that are contrary to organisational norms and practices or that negatively affect organisational performance” (Strong & Volkoff, 2010:737). They arise from the inherent characteristics of the artefact. Impositions are important, especially with regard to ERPs that are integrated into the functioning of the organisation, as it focuses on the social interaction with technology and not just the business functionality itself.

Soh and her colleagues were interested in the misfits that arise in organisations as a result of implementing an ERP, as well as the structure effects of such an artefact. They introduced solutions that would resolve the misfit problems and indicated how this could lead to instances of “fit” and success in organisations. Strong and Volkoff (2010) expanded on this further by incorporating four types of structural levels that they identified from their research, namely physical, deep, surface and latent structures. Physical, deep and surface structures were already recognised in research done by Wand and Weber (1995). However, it was latent structures that served as their main contribution. Latent structures are not a direct design of the artefact, but are rather the outcome of the integrated nature of the software and the users interacting with the system. “They are not designed and scripted in the same way as the other structures, but arise from them as second order structures. Roles, Control Structures and organisational culture emerge from the way a set of deep, surface and physical structures are designed” (Strong & Volkoff, 2010:750). These latent structures provide a grounded framework to understanding the interrelated problems that occur from different misfits and the various domains in them.

28

The literature presented provides a progression with regard to the development of the socio- technical difficulties that organisations adopting ERPs experience. It briefly addressed the enactment of end users in order to deal with instances of misfit. The concept of a workaround practice to combat an instance of misfit is an area in IS that requires further attention. By understanding these socio-technical problems, we are better able to analyse why instances of workarounds develop.