Henri Gardebroek - 2576036

HOW INTRAORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE SHARING

AFFECTS PATTERNS OF ERP-USAGE

MSc in Business Administration Specializing in Information & Knowledge Management

NAME : Henri William Gardebroek

STUDENT NUMBER : 2576036

INSTITUTION : Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

FACULTY : FEWEB

SUPERVISOR : Dr. A. Sergeeva

DATE : 30th June, 2016

H.W. (Henri) Gardebroek BSc – 2576036 2

Preface

Upon starting the project of my master thesis I was full of spirits and had high hopes about

completing it without much stress. Now it is done and I have to admit that I have failed regarding the

‘completing without much stress’ part dramatically. The fact is that I could not have done it without

the continuous support from a lot of people in my direct or indirect environment. They are with too

many to be named separately, although I do wish to state my thanks to my supervisors. Firstly

Anastasia, thank you very much for the quick responses and useful feedback, even during your

weekend in Paris. Secondly, Pieter, thanks for directing me towards a research area I ended up liking

quite much and providing me with the contact details of many interviewees. Without the two of you I

most definitely would not have been able to finish my thesis in time, if at all.

Furthermore, although the completion of my thesis proved to be quite stressful from time to time, in

the end I can say that I also enjoyed the writing, doing the research and discovering new elements

along the way. I have to admit that I do not feel bad about this being the provisional end of my

academic career, but who knows what the future entails.

Finally, I hope you will enjoy reading my thesis more than I enjoyed writing it. As the saying goes: the

harder the journey, the sweeter the reward.

Henri

Any opinions, statements or views expressed in this research

are solely assignable to the author and should not, in any way,

be regarded as official statements from either the Dutch

Ministry of Defence or the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam


Abstract

Research on the effects of knowledge sharing on the use of information systems has not yet reached

a mature phase and is ambiguous concerning the effects of knowledge sharing on ERP-usage. This

study aims to dissolve some of the ambiguity regarding the effects of knowledge sharing on ERP-

usage by providing an answer to the following research question: ‘How does intraorganizational

knowledge sharing affects the use of an ERP-system in the post-implementation phase?’. A qualitative

study was designed, built upon a grounded theory approach. 12 interviews were held at two

departments of the Royal Netherlands Navy (RNLN). It was found that knowledge sharing has both

positive as negative effects on ERP-usage. Behaviour towards a more integrative use and reduction in

non-compliance was found to be affected by knowledge sharing in general. Knowledge sharing via a

champion also affected a change from basic towards expanded use. Knowledge sharing via

colleagues and formal methods however, was found to have a workaround inducing effect.

Additionally, formal knowledge sharing methods increased avoidance of ERP-use and was found to

occasionally fail in showing positive effects on ERP-usage. The ambiguity in current research is thus

supported and the results of this research could also help managers in their decisions concerning the

allocation of funds with regard to knowledge sharing methods.


Abbreviations

CSF - Critical Success Factor

ERP - Enterprise Resource Planning

FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

IS - Information Systems

IT - Information Technology

LCF - Dutch Air Defence Frigate

MoD - Ministry of Defence

RNLA - Royal Netherlands Army

RNLAF - Royal Netherlands Air Force

RNLN - Royal Netherlands Navy

SaaS - Software as a Service


Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 6

1.1 Research topic ................................................................................................................................ 6

1.2 Problem statement ......................................................................................................................... 6

1.3 Research approach ......................................................................................................................... 7

1.4 Contribution to literature and practical relevance ......................................................................... 8

1.5 Thesis outline .................................................................................................................................. 9

2 Literature review ................................................................................................................................... 10

2.1 Defining ERP ................................................................................................................................. 10

2.2 Defining intraorganizational knowledge sharing .......................................................................... 16

2.3 Knowledge sharing and ERP-systems ........................................................................................... 19

2.4 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 24

3 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 25

3.1 Research setting ........................................................................................................................... 25

3.2 Data collection .............................................................................................................................. 26

3.3 Data analysis ................................................................................................................................. 28

4 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 29

4.1 Sources of ERP related knowledge ............................................................................................... 29

4.2 ERP-usage ..................................................................................................................................... 31

4.3 Knowledge sharing and ERP-system usage .................................................................................. 33

4.4 Intraorganizational knowledge sharing affecting ERP-usage ....................................................... 36

4.5 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 38

5 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................. 39

5.1 Discussion of the results ............................................................................................................... 39

5.2 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 41

5.3 Theoretical implications ............................................................................................................... 41

5.4 Managerial implications ............................................................................................................... 42

5.5 Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 43

5.6 Avenues for further research ....................................................................................................... 44

6 Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 45


1 Introduction

1.1 Research topic

Integrated organizational Information Systems (IS) have gained importance and relevance within

organizations in the past decades (Tsai, et al., 2012). By integrating the processes within an

organization and utilizing data recording and tracking, Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems

have the (potential) capability to provide multiple users of the system with very rapid and live

information (Kumar & van Hillegersberg, 2000). Within an ERP-system, “…information and

information-based processes within and across functional areas in an organization […] are

integrated.” (Kumar & van Hillegersberg, 2000, p. 23). ERP systems can be regarded as critical

organizational resources, forming the backbone of the IS in the majority of organizations (Ko, Kirsch,

& King, 2005; Yoon, 2009). After successfully implementing an ERP system, the post-implementation

phase is reached. In this phase, organizational knowledge (e.g. best practices, process design

techniques, cross-functional data) should be easily transferable (Lee & Lee, 2000), increasing the

overall rate of knowledge sharing amongst employees. Reaping this potential benefit of ERP systems

however, has been a problem ever since the first ERP systems were introduced (Markus, et al., 2000).

There has been done quite extensive research concerning knowledge sharing within organizations

(van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004; Bhatt, 2001; Smith, 2001; Reber, 1989), while research on the

effects of knowledge sharing on the use of ERP-systems has not yet reached a mature phase (Addo-

Tenkorang & Helo, 2011; Boudreau, 2003; Choi, Lee, & Yoo, 2010; Du, Ai, & Ren, 2007; Leonardi &

Bailey, 2008). Moreover, current literature shows ambiguous results regarding the effect of

intraorganizional knowledge sharing on ERP-usage (or IS-usage). On the one hand, Leonardi & Bailey

(2008) claim that the actual effects of knowledge sharing on IS-usage were negative. On the other

hand, Chou, et al. (2014) found that intraorganizational knowledge sharing has a positive impact on

ERP-system usage.

This research, amongst other things, aims to dissolve some of the ambiguity going hand in hand with

current research on the effects of knowledge sharing on IS-usage by discovering how

intraorganizational knowledge sharing affects the usage of an ERP-system in the post-

implementation phase.

1.2 Problem statement

Despite intraorganizational knowledge sharing being a highly critical success factor for ERP-system

success, little research has been done in the field of knowledge sharing within organizations with

regard to ERP-systems in the post-implementation phase (Akbulut & Motwani, 2005; Grabski, Leech,

& Schmidt, 2011). Additionally, current research have ambiguous results, ranging from the notion


that knowledge sharing has a positive influence on ERP-usage, improving the overall quality of use

(Boudreau, 2003; Chou, et al., 2014) to the notion of knowledge sharing negatively influencing ERP-

usage, creating misunderstanding and leading to misinterpretations (Leonardi & Bailey, 2008) or

simply negatively affecting ERP-usage when for example the organizational factors are not suitable

for either knowledge sharing or extensive ERP-usage (Du, Ai, & Ren, 2007). Some authors even claim

that knowledge sharing does not affect ERP-usage at all, or at least not in a direct manner (Choi, Lee,

& Yoo, 2010). In order to provide some clarity regarding this specific subject, this research will

primarily focus on the role intraorganizational knowledge sharing between two departments has on

the use of an ERP-system in the post-implementation phase.

1.2.1 Research question

Given the focus of this research (section 1.2), the main research question is as follows:

‘How does intraorganizational knowledge sharing affects the use of an ERP-system in the post-

implementation phase?’

1.3 Research approach

Research shows that knowledge sharing can be regarded as a critical success factor towards ERP-

usage (Chou, et al., 2014; Motwani, Subramanian, & Gopalakrishna, 2005; Nah & Delgado, 2006;

Nicolaou, 2004), so it seems obvious that a clear understanding of what intraorganizational

knowledge sharing entails is necessary for conducting this research. However, while a general

definition of and elaboration upon intraorganizational knowledge sharing is required, this research is

also in need of a more theoretical interpretation of knowledge sharing specified for usage of an ERP-

system in its post-implementation phase.

For this more specific definition, the contribution of knowledge sharing to ERP-success will be

discussed. Although relatively few studies have observed the effect of knowledge sharing on ERP-

systems in the post-implementation phase, scholars’ understanding regarding the effect of

knowledge sharing on ERP-system implementation and ERP-success in general is profound (Chou, et

al., 2014; Motwani, Subramanian, & Gopalakrishna, 2005; Nah & Delgado, 2006; Nicolaou, 2004).

Empirical research was conducted at two departments within the Royal Netherlands Navy (RNLN).

These departments have both been subject to an ERP-implementation, but the usage of the ERP-

system can be called sufficient at best. In order to improve the patterns of use of the employees, the

RNLN installed several (formal) knowledge sharing methods and appointed ERP-knowledge

champions. Subsequently, the employees made use of these methods, while also relying on

knowledgeable colleagues. By conducting a case study focused on the utilized knowledge sharing

methods and the effects these utilization had on actual ERP-usage, the findings may provide support


towards a better understanding of the effec(s) of intraorganizational knowledge sharing on the usage

of an ERP-system in its post-implementation phase.

1.4 Contribution to literature and practical relevance

This research would contribute to current research in two different research areas. Firstly it answers

to the call of Addo-Tenkorang & Helo (2011): “These … lowly researched and developed areas …

requires further research and development.” (p.25). This research distinguishes eight different

patterns of ERP-usage with two main concepts, i.e. ‘use’ and ‘non-use’. Three main methods of

knowledge sharing were found, being formal methods, via a champion or via colleagues. By studying

the effects of the knowledge sharing methods on the concepts of ERP-usage, this research attempts

to dissolve some of the immaturity regarding the current level of research on ERP-systems after

implementation (Addo-Tenkorang & Helo, 2011; Chou, et al., 2014).

Secondly, current research regarding this subject is ambiguous, claiming both positive and negative

effects of knowledge sharing on ERP-usage (see section 1.2). While this research tries to dissolve

some of this ambiguity, its findings predominantly add to the notion that intraorganizational

knowledge sharing has potential positive and negative effects.

It was found that the use of a knowledge champion had a predominantly positive effect on ERP-

usage, changing ERP-usage towards a more integrated, expanded and conforming pattern of ERP-

usage. Intraorganizational knowledge sharing via colleagues and formal methods also positively

affected ERP-usage, but lacked the expanding-use effect.

Paradoxically, intraorganizational knowledge sharing via colleagues and formal methods also affected

ERP-usage in a negative way, inducing workaround behaviour. Formal methods were even found to

potentially affect avoiding ERP-usage or to have no actual positive effects, while the organization

thought they would positively affect the use of the ERP-system.

In comparison with previous research, it is noteworthy that some studies found similar effects (e.g.

Boudreau (2003), Chou, et al. (2014)), while others found that knowledge sharing did not affect ERP-

usage at all (Choi, Lee, & Yoo, 2010) or that the effect of intraorganizational knowledge sharing was

negative, creating misunderstandings and misinterpretations, resulting in a drop of organizational

performance (Leonardi & Bailey, 2008).

From a practical perspective, this study provides insights in the role of the effects of

intraorganizational knowledge sharing on the use of ERP-system. Many organizations have

implemented an ERP-system, quite often at relatively high costs (Jeston & Nelis, 2000). The results of


this research could help managers in their decisions concerning the allocation of funds with regard to

knowledge sharing methods.

1.5 Thesis outline

This research will firstly provide a theoretical framework regarding intraorganizational ERP-usage,

intraorganizational knowledge sharing, and current research on the effects of intraorganizational

knowledge sharing on ERP-usage and IS-usage. Next, the methodology section elaborates on the

research setting and approach, including the case study. Section 4 will contain the results of the

findings and analysis of this research. Subsequently, these results will be discussed in section 5, with

inclusion of an answer to the main research question. Also, section 5 will contain an elaboration

regarding the theoretical contribution and managerial relevance, finalized by limitations of this

research as well as opportunities for future research.


2 Literature review

2.1 Defining ERP

Traditionally, information systems were supportive towards specific functional organizational units.

In the early 1970s so-called decision support systems, based on fundamental technology such as

databases, came along (Lee, Siau, & Hong, 2003; Kumar & van Hillegersberg, 2000). The growth and

innovation within the domain of information technologies enabled new organizations, aimed at

globalization and relying heavily on network ties. Eventually, around 1990, the call for a fully

integrated system was answered with a solution: the ERP-system (Akbulut & Motwani, 2005; Lee,

Siau & Hong, 2005). An ERP-system can be described as “… an enterprisewide software solution

designed to streamline the data flow between different functions…” (Lee, Siau, & Hong, 2003, p. 56).

According to Tsai, et al. (2012), organizations have increasingly been turning to ERP-systems since the

last the 1990’s. ERP-systems promise a seamless and fitting integration of all information flows

within an organization, ranging from administrative functions such as human resource management

and accounting, to key business processes such as warehousing, production and client management

(Addo-Tenkorang & Helo, 2011). Table 1 presents a more elaborate overview of ERP-system

definitions.

Table 1, ERP-system definitions

Since ERP-systems are able to integrate organizational processes across functional boundaries, the

number of organizations replacing specific legacy systems with a large spanning ERP-system have

increased. As an indication, the revenue of one of the market leaders in the ERP-system segment,

Author(s) Definition of ERP-system

(Aladwani, 2001) ERP-systems are an integrated set of programs that provide support for core organizational activities such as manufacturing and logistics, finance and ac-counting, sales and marketing, and human resources.

Kumar & van Hillegersberg (2000)

ERP-systems are configurable ISs that integrate information and information-based processes within and across function areas in an organization.

(Ngai, Law, & Wat, 2008)

An ERP-system is a generic term for a broad set of activities supported by multi-module application software that helps organizations to manage their resources.

(Stratman & Roth, 2001)

An ERP-system is an information system that integrates two or more functional areas (one of which must be production operations) through the use of a com-mon database, and transaction processing with the potential for decision sup-port addressing the integrated elements of the enterprise.

Tsai, et al. (2012) An ERP-system is an integrated IT that uses common databases and consistent cross-functional information flow to allow organizations to integrate information from different functional areas.


SAP, has grown from $500 million in 1992 to around $6.5 billion in 2010 (Jeston & Nelis, 2000). The

whole range of benefits provided by ERP-systems seems to be the main reason behind this rapid shift

towards using ERP-systems. Throughout literature, among others things, benefits such as increases in

productivity, IT-cost reduction, empowerment, better decision making and real-time availability of

organizational data can be found (Dhillon, 2005; Shang & Seddon, 2000).

The main difference between the old-fashioned management support systems and an ERP-system is

the fully integrated character of an ERP-system. A management support system or a database can

both be regarded as a tool which aids current working processes. An ERP-system, however, dictates

internal processes and has a much more dominant position on the input, output and throughput of

all data flows within an organization (Markus, et al., 2000). Furthermore, what distinguishes ERP

systems from other IT systems is their scale, complexity, and potential for organizational impact

(Laudon and Laudon, 2006). Put differently, an ERP-system is designed to “…enable firms to better

manage their knowledge … and have better control of information … in the organization.” (Vandaie,

2008, p. 920)

2.1.1 Trends in ERP

Since most organizations are constantly under pressure from their stakeholder to improve their

efficiency and effectiveness, ERP has seen some trends in development. According to the notion that

successful companies must be able to respond quickly and cost-effectively to change, organizations

should optimize their operations in order to become or stay responsive, demand-driven and

profitmaking (Addo-Tenkorang & Helo, 2011; Johnson, 2014). Much of an organization’s competitive

advantage depends on the use of extended ISs, such as ERP II, WEB 2.0, Software as a Service (SaaS),

etc. (Addo-Tenkorang & Helo, 2011). Within the field of ERP-systems, the most attention is drawn

towards ERP II as a future trend (Addo-Tenkorang & Helo, 2011; Johnson, 2014; Tsai, et al., 2012).

2.1.1.1 ERP II

ERP II-systems take the level of influence of an ERP-system a step further than an original ERP-

system. An ERP II-system includes, in addition to being the backbone of an organization, the

information link for an organization in the supply chain (Johnson, 2014). This creates a two-folded

challenge. Firstly, to open up the system in order to make vital information about an organization’s

own processes available to its partners in the supply chain. Secondly, a challenge to aggregate and

manage transactional data as precisely and real-time as possible can be distinguished (Addo-

Tenkorang & Helo, 2011).


2.1.2 Academic attention on ERP-systems

Academic knowledge about ERP-systems has reached a certain maturity level, especially in

addressing the multi-disciplinarity of the field of ERP-systems research (Addo-Tenkorang & Helo,

2011; Schlichter & Kraemmergaard, 2010). The scholarly interest in ERP-system research has,

however, declined since there are continuously less published researches concerning ERP-systems

(Addo-Tenkorang & Helo, 2011; Grabski, Leech, & Schmidt, 2011; Schlichter & Kraemmergaard,

2010). Where most researches focuses on implementation, more than 54% of over 150 articles

researched by Addo-Tenkorang & Helo (2011), a lot less attention is drawn towards use, future

trends and ERP-systems in their post-implementation phases (Selwyn, 2003; Stein, et al., 2015).

These elements add up to a combined value of 22% (Addo-Tenkorang & Helo, 2011).

2.1.2.1 Implementation

Much research has been done towards ERP-implementation. Markus & Tanis (2000) introduced the

idea that the integration of an ERP-system within an organization can be described as a movement

through several different phases, whereas each phase has its own key players and characteristic

problems. M. Lynne Markus and Cornelis Tanis are regarded within the research on ERP-system

implementation to be subject matter experts (Addo-Tenkorang & Helo, 2011; Akbulut & Motwani,

2005; Chou & Chang, 2008; Schlichter & Kraemmergaard, 2010; Sommer, 2011). Figure 1 presents a

summary of the four optimal phases walked through in ERP-system implementation according to

Markus & Tanis (2000). The first two phases are regarded to be the implementation phase, whilst the

latter two phases are considered to be post-implementation phases of an ERP-system.

Figure 1, ERP-system phases (from Markus & Tanis, 2000)

Phase 2 The project

(configure

and roll out)

Phase 3

Shakedown

Phase 4

Onward and

upward

Decisions defining the

business case and solution constraints

Getting system and end-users ‘up and

running’

Stabilizing, eliminating ‘bugs’, getting to normal

operations

Maintaining system, supporting users,

getting results , and upgrading

Phase 1

Project

chartering


2.1.3 ERP use

Since there are many (sub-) definitions of ‘use’ in general, this section will try to remove some of the

ambiguity related to this subject and provide a concise interpretation.

In technical studies from a sociological standpoint, the notion exists that with designing a technical

object, its use is also prescribed (Redström, 2008). According with this idea, Buchanan (1989, p.95)

suggests that “…the designer, instead of simply making an object or a thing, is actually creating a

persuasive argument that comes to life whenever a user considers or uses a product as a means to

some end.”. According to this suggestion, one could argue that ‘use’ consists of a combination

between both a designer and user, combining intended use with actual use. After all, ‘use’ does not

account for everything we do with an object, there is more. As Redström (2008) puts it: “There is a

difference between … saying that someone is ‘using’ and ‘wearing’ a piece of jewellery…”.

Narrowed down to the use of an ERP-system and in accordance with the previously presented

interpretations of ‘use’, the main interpretation of ‘use’ is this research can be described as: ‘any

action undertaken with and within the ERP-system by any user, in order to achieve something with

that action with and/or within the ERP-system’.

2.1.3.1 Academic attention on ERP use and non-use

In order to narrow down to ERP-usage instead of mere focusing on use in general, this study

conceptualizes ERP-usage to consist of three main elements being: individual adaptation behaviours,

task-technology adaptation and technology interactions (Barki, et al., 2007). Accordingly, this would

include both use and non-use (Stein et al., 2015). IT-use, including ERP-use, has been quite

extensively researched, especially when compared to non-use (Selwyn, 2003; Stein et al., 2015). One

could state that research on resistance is quite close to the examination of non-use, but non-use is

not the same as resistance to use (van Offenbeek, et al., 2013).

In current literature, several patterns of use and non-use behaviour have been detected. Table 2

presents an overview of examples from previous studies on IS patterns of use. Since an ERP-system is

de facto an IS (Kumar & van Hillegersberg, 2000; Johnson, 2014) the author feels that IS-usage

reviews are interchangable with ERP-usage.

Author(s) Pattern of use Summary

Bagayogo, Beaudry, & Lapointe (2013)

Conformity (to organizational intent)

Use is highly conformed towards organizational intent, while non-use is non-conformed towards organizational intent

Kane & Labianca (2011)

Avoidance “…consciously [choosing] to avoid IS despite having time, need, and ability” p.505

Saeed & Abdinnour (2013)

Integrative usage “…utilising IS features to total integration of the IS in [a] work environment.” p.225



Exploratory usage “…exploring … ways to apply the IS in their work.” p.226


Expanded usage “…leveraging the different features of IS to perform tasks.” p.225

Satchell & Dourish (2009)

Active resistance “…a positive effort to resist a technology…” p.11

Selander & Henfirdsson (2012)

Cynicism “…cognitively distanced resistance that constitutes negative affect towards IT” p.293

Sobreperez (2008) Non-compliance Refusal to adhere to procedures within the IS Table 2

Patterns of use are rarely assessable by face value, since not all patterns results are either positive or

negative. Additionally, Offenbeek et al. (2013) even suggest that resistant users may still use a given

IS and vice versa. The concepts acceptance and resistance should therefore not be regarded as two

absolute determinants towards use and non-use, but as a scale ranging from enthusiastic support to

aggressive resistance appears to be more viable and realistic in order to be able to measure use and

non-use (Stein et al., 2015; van Offenbeek et al., 2013).

The use of a support/resistance dimension, as defined in the previous paragraph, combined with the

constructs of (Bagayogo, Beaudry, & Lapointe, 2013)aimed at explaining use and non-use of IT in

relation to a user’s conformity towards the organizational intent of the use of an IT-system, creates a

two-dimensional set of measuring the use of an ERP-system. Burton-Jones & Grange (2013)

introduced a different idea of effective use of IT-systems. They stated that an IT-system is and should

be implemented in order to achieve a certain desired outcome (ibid., p.672). Combining their

theorized idea with the notion that an ERP-system is an IT-system (Kumar & van Hillegersberg, 2000;

Johnson, 2014), ERP-usage is effective when individual ERP-usage it is in line with the organizational

intent.

2.1.4 Defining the post-implementation phase of an ERP-system

With an understanding of an ERP-system, including the usage of an ERP-system, there are still some

main elements attached to achieving the main goal of this research that have not been elaborated

upon. Since the main question addresses not just ERP-systems in general, but addresses more

specifically ERP-systems in their post-implementation phase, it is paramount to define the ‘post-

implementation phase’. In order to do so, this section will build upon section 2.1.2.1 by using the

content presented there to be able to specify an actual definition of an ERP-system in its post-

implementation phase.

2.1.4.1 ERP post-implementation phase

As stated in subsection 2.1.2.1 the post-implementation phase consists of both the ‘shakedown’ and

‘onward and upward’ phase. Combined together, this results in an interpretation of the post-

implementation phase as taking place: ‘from the moment the organization and the ERP-system are


coming to grips with each other, until the moment where the system gets replaced’. Meaning that

the post-implementation phase starts after the ERP-system has been fully implemented and is

deemed capable of providing a stable platform upon which operational activities can take place.

2.1.5 ERP summary

In order to create a certain overview of the concepts used in subsections 2.1 and 2.2, this section will

provide summarized definitions and a brief overall summary. Since the primary goal of this research

is to provide an answer to the main question, the concepts of ERP, ERP use and the phases of an ERP-

system have been interpreted.

The ‘use of an ERP-system in the post-implementation phase’ consists of four main concepts. Each

concept and its coherent interpretation in this research is presented in Table 3.

Concept Definition

Use Take, hold, or deploy (something) as a means of accomplishing or achieving something

ERP-system An enterprisewide software solution designed to streamline the data flow between different functions designed to enable firms to better manage their knowledge and have better control of information in the organization

ERP use Any action undertaken with and within the ERP-system by any user, in order to achieve something with that action with and/or within the ERP-system

Post-implementation phase of an ERP-system

From the moment the organization and the ERP-system are coming to grips with each other, until the moment where the system gets replaced or updated.

Table 3, ERP concepts and definitions

In short, an ERP-system spans as wide as the organization it is fitted in and interconnects many

processes previously not-connected. Although academic attention towards ERP-systems has slightly

declined over the last decade (Addo-Tenkorang & Helo, 2011), the most expected trend is the

development of ERP II, similar to the internet’s development towards Web 2.0. In accordance with

the sociotechnical notion of ‘use’, this research interprets ‘use’ as any element a user employs with

an artefact in order to create a certain outcome (Redström, 2008). Focused on ERP-usage, this

research regards integrative usage, exploratory usage and expanded usage as indicators for use,

while avoidance, active resistance, cynicism and non-compliance are regarded as indicators for non-

use. Combined with conformity to organizational intent, being regarded as an indicator for both use

and non-use, these elements form a multi-dimensional set with which use and non-use of an ERP-

system in its post-implementation phase can be measured. The dimensions of ERP-usage are briefly

presented in Table 4.


Use Non-use

Exploratory Active resistance

Expanded Non-compliance

Integrative Avoidance

(yes) Conformity to organizational intent (no)

Table 4, ERP-usage dimensions

In order to get to actually measuring the usage of an ERP-system in its post-implementation phase, it

is also paramount to define this phase. Markus & Tanis (2000) researched several ERP-phases,

starting from the very implementation of an ERP-system –called “project chartering”- to the system

phasing out or being wholly updated – called “onward and upward”. In order to understand which

stadium of an ERP-system can be called the ‘post-implementation phase’ as stated in the main

question (see section 1.2), this study interprets the post-implementation phase as being the latter

two phases of Markus & Tanis’s (2000) model.

2.2 Defining intraorganizational knowledge sharing

This section will mainly deal with the knowledge sharing aspects of this study. The author felt it

necessary to define the elements of intraorganizational knowledge sharing in order to be able to

dissolve some ambiguity that may be associated with the subject. First, knowledge in general will be

briefly addressed. Then a definition of knowledge sharing will be presented, followed by

intraorganizational knowledge and its effects. Since this section is mainly used for conceptualization,

it will not be very elaborative.

2.2.1 Knowledge

Most scholars agree on the notion that knowledge itself can be divided into explicit -organizational,

structured knowledge which can be processed by a computer and database-, and tacit knowledge –

associative, intuitive, informal, and strongly related to personal experience- (Chou, et al. 2014; van

den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004; Levy, Loebbecke, & Powell, 2003; Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002; Smith,

2001; Reber, 1989). On the other hand, this seemingly strict division between different types of

knowledge is contradictory, since “… explicit knowledge … deprived of their tacit coefficients [is]

strictly meaningless…” (Polanyi, 1969, p. 195). There exists an extensive grey area in which the two

elements of knowledge have an overlap (Hyslop, 2002). This study combines the two elements of

knowledge into one overlapping defintion of knowledge, being “facts, information, and skills

acquired through experience or education…” (Oxford Dictionaries, 2016). After all, explicit knowledge

has little to no meaning without tacit elements and vice versa (Hyslop, 2002; Polanyi, 1969; Smith,

2001).


2.2.2 Knowledge sharing

Knowledge sharing is considered to be one of the key elements within knowledge management

(Bhatt, 2001; van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004), although terms as knowledge management,

knowledge exchange, and knowledge sharing are used interchangeably (Vandaie, 2008; Bhatt, 2001;

Smith, 2001). Knowledge sharing has been defined many times, including the notion that knowledge

sharing consists of “…bringing (or ‘donating’) knowledge and getting (or ‘collecting’) knowledge…”

(van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004, p. 118), stating that knowledge sharing is to be seen as an active

process and dividable into two main elements (van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004). Other researchers

claim that knowledge sharing or knowledge exchange should be seen as one broader activity, since

“… sharing of knowledge, ideas, and experience … add further value for the original sender, creating

exponential total growth.” (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002, p. 691), focusing more on the (potential)

effects of knowledge sharing. This study uses the definition of van den Hooff & de Ridder (2004).

2.2.3 Knowledge sharing methods

Since knowledge sharing have been quite extensively studied, it is of some importance to extract

knowledge sharing dimensions from the vast amount of literature. Although most researches have

chosen their own approach towards a form of measurement regarding knowledge sharing, several

overlapping elements can be witnessed and are presented in this subsection.

Colleagues

According to Boudreau (2003), colleagues form an important pool of knowledge for their fellow

employees to tap into. She even states that utilizing colleagues in order to gain knowledge is the

most preferred way to acquire knowledge (ibid.). It is not just Boudreau who recognizes the use of

colleagues as an important knowledge sharing element, many researchers agree with her. Amongst

those researchers are Bhatt (2001), Cabrera & Cabrera (2002), Cabrera, Collins & Salgado (2006),

Chou, et al. (2014), Hyslop (2002), Leonardi & Bailey (2008), Levy, Loebbecke, & Powell (2003), Lin,

Hung & Cheng (2009), Paroutis & Al Saleh (2009), and van den Hooff & de Ridder (2004). All

mentioned researchers agree that colleagues are an important asset in knowledge sharing.

Champions

Van den Hooff & de Ridder (2004) state that the role of management within knowledge sharing is to

be valued. “… people are more willing to share their knowledge if they are convinced that doing so is

useful…” (ibid. p.119). It is up to organizations whether or not to appoint a knowledge sharing

champion, but the use of a knowledge sharing champion, potentially being someone in a

management position, has been recognised by different authors as well. In addition to van den Hooff

& de Ridder (2004), Bhat (2001) also recognizes the role of knowledge sharing champions in

management positions, accompanied by Cabrera & Cabrera (2002), Cabrera, Collins & Salgado


(2006), Lin, Hung & Cheng (2009), and Paroutis & Al Saleh (2009). It seems noteworthy that Leonardi

& Bailey (2008) did not take the role of a knowledge sharing champion into account when adressing

knowledge sharing within organizations.

Formal methods

Lastly, lots of organizations have installed at least one or more formal methods in order for the

employees to be able to successfully share their knowledge amongst each other. According to Bhatt

(2001) “…predetermined channel will minimize the interactions and consequently reduce …

transferred knowledge…” (p.72), while simultaneously claiming that “… organizational policy [may]

speed up knowledge flow between different participants and departments.” (p.72). In accordance

with Bhat (2001), Cabrera & Cabrera (2002) also mention the use of formal methods, including

training, procedures and standardized, mandatory communicational channels. Additionally, Cabrera,

Collins & Salgado (2006), Paroutis & Al Saleh (2009), and van den Hooff & de Ridder (2004). Chou, et

al. (2014) and Lin, et al. (2009) make no specific notion of knowledge sharing through formal

methods, while Leonardi & Bailey (2008) even state that formal methods can have an adverse effect

on the actual result of knowledge sharing (ibid. p.411).

2.2.4 Intraorganizational knowledge sharing

Intraorganizational knowledge sharing enhances the same concepts as ‘regular’ knowledge sharing,

but merely takes place within an organization. This internal facet makes that the type of knowledge

being shared can be regarded as being mostly a balanced combination of explicit and tacit knowledge

(Reber, 1989; Smith, 2001).

Organizational knowledge is more and more awarded with the title of being (one of) the most

important strategic asset in organizations and crucial for achieving a sustainable competitive

advantage (Hyslop, 2002; Polanyi, 1969; Saraf, Langdon, & Sawy, 2013; van den Hooff & de Ridder,

2004). A significant amount of organizational knowledge resides however in the minds of an

organization’s employees and managers, so sharing this knowledge within an organization appears to

be crucial in utilizing it. Extensive knowledge sharing can potentially lead to (an improvement of)

streamlining of organizational processes and reduction of organizational waste (Cabrera & Cabrera,

2002).

2.2.5 Knowledge sharing within an ERP-system

Given the previous sub-section, it appears that knowledge sharing bears potential positive effects.

The question remains whether these potential effects are always acquired. It is noteworthy that

there are also researchers who state that knowledge sharing can have adverse effects on ERP-usage,


or in broader terms, on the use of an IS. Section 2.3 will provide a textual overview of several

researches on knowledge sharing in and about ISs.

2.2.6 Knowledge sharing summary

In order to create a certain overview of the concepts used in section 2.5, this subsection will provide

summarized definitions and a brief overall summary. Since the primary goal of this research is to

provide an answer to the main question, the concepts of knowledge, knowledge sharing and

intraorganizational knowledge sharing have been interpreted. These three main concepts and their

coherent interpretations in this study are presented in Table 5.

Concept Definition

Knowledge Facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education

Knowledge sharing Bringing (or ‘donating’) knowledge and getting (or ‘collecting’) knowledge

Intraorganizational knowledge sharing

Knowledge sharing within an organization

Table 5, knowledge sharing concepts

In short, knowledge can be divided into two main forms, a tacit and explicit one. Explicit knowledge

can be described as formal knowledge, captured in procedures and standard operating procedures.

Tacit knowledge has a more fluent form and is mostly captured in employees’ minds. Since the

difference between these two main forms is not at all times as strict as presented in theory, this

research combines the two forms in the definition as stated in Table 5. Knowledge sharing is simply

put the sharing, being both giving and receiving, of knowledge.

The three main knowledge sharing methods recognized in this research are the utilization of

colleagues, champions and formal methods.

Intraorganizational does not differ that much from regular knowledge sharing, although the effects

can be regarded one of the most important strategic assets of an organization for achieving a

sustainable competitive advantage (Akbulut & Motwani, 2005; van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004).

2.3 Knowledge sharing and ERP-systems

Since ERP-systems usually have a large impact on organizational processes, extensive knowledge

sharing regarding the new processes within an ERP-system is considered critical in order to reach a

certain level of ERP success (Chou, et al., 2014; Levy, Loebbecke, & Powell, 2003). The previous

section, e.g. section 2.2, elaborated on the importance and definitions knowledge sharing within an

organization. Knowledge sharing within and about an IS can even create and/or sustain a competitive

advantage (Levy, Loebbecke, & Powell, 2003). The extent to which knowledge sharing affects ERP-


usage has been quite sparsely studied, but this section aims to provide an overview of the effects

found in literature.

2.3.1 Knowledge sharing about ERP-systems

Since ERP-systems play an extensive role in an organization’s processes (see section 2.1), creating

and sustaining a sufficient level of knowledge within an organization about how to use the ERP-

system appears to be crucial for organizational success (Lee & Lee, 2000). Because of the broad

interpretation of knowledge sharing used in this research, “bringing … and getting … knowledge”

(van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004, p. 118), the same broadness applies to knowledge sharing about

ERP-systems. Knowledge about how to use the ERP-system should be shared in order to streamline

organizational processes, but the ways in which this can be done are abundant, for example utilizing

a formal helpdesk, weekly meetings, formal instructions (with timely updates), water cooler

conversations, creating a very intuitive ERP interface, creating product (or system) champions, etc.

2.3.2 Effects of knowledge sharing on ERP-usage

While the effects of IS-usage on knowledge sharing have been researched, not much is known about

the effects of knowledge sharing on IS-usage. With most research towards ERP-systems on

implementation (see subsection 2.1.2), Grabski, Leech & Schmidt (2011) created a future research

agenda for understanding determinants in ERP-usage. They suggested, as one of their future

research propositions, to research the effects of knowledge sharing on ERP-usage. Chou, et al. (2014)

conducted a research to the incentives for knowledge sharing and its effect(s) on ERP-system usage.

They found that intrinsic motivation, social capital and self-efficacy, all three incentives for

knowledge sharing, positively affected ERP-system usage.

Zooming out from ERP-usage to IS-usage, it stands out that the relation between the concepts IS-

usage and knowledge sharing is located in a research niche. Where Chou, et al. (2014) showed a

positive influence of knowledge sharing on ERP-usage, Leonardi & Bailey (2008) found that

knowledge sharing has a potential negative influence on IS-usage. In order to provide an overview of

researched (potential) effects of knowledge sharing on IS- and ERP-usage, the next subsections will

present several studies on the effect of knowledge sharing on IS- and ERP-usage, and on overall

performance. Additionally, knowledge sharing methods found in current research on the effects of

knowledge sharing on IS-usage will be briefly addressed.

2.3.2.1 Knowledge sharing positively affecting IS-usage

Several authors found that knowledge sharing may have a positive effect on IS-usage. Some authors,

like Boudreau (2003) claim that the knowledge sharing directly affects IS-usage, while other authors

claim that these effects have a more indirect nature.


In her research, Marie-Claude Boudreau (2003) found that merely a successful implementation of an

IS does not have effective IS-usage as a logical result. She revealed several main elements resulting in

a construct of “quality of use.”, consisting of two main factors, i.e. extended and limited use. The key

contributor of an employee’s quality of use was ‘learning’ (ibid.). She found that the level of system

knowledge of an employee was predominantly responsible for the employee’s quality of ERP-system

usage. Chou, et al. (2014) studied the effect of knowledge sharing on ERP-system usage and the

factors affecting intraorganizational knowledge sharing. One of the findings of their research is that

intraorganizational knowledge sharing has a positive impact on ERP-system usage, or as they

themselves state: “…the amount of knowledge users can absorb before usage is limited. … users could

effectively use the ERP system via gaining knowledge from others…” (p.19). They state that

knowledge sharing can be regarded as being potentially essential for effectively using an ERP-system.

A similar conclusion regarding the effects of knowledge sharing on ERP-usage can be found in the

research of Nah & Delgado (2006). They identified seven Critical Success Factors (CSFs) from which

change management and communication (CSF2 and CSF3) had the greatest impact on actual ERP-

usage, with management support and championship (CSF5) also having a significant positive

influence on ERP-usage. Although Nah & Delgado (2006) do not specifically dug into the effects of

knowledge sharing on ERP-usage, their CSFs responsible for effective ERP-usage can be regarded as

being reliant on knowledge sharing, thus leading to the notion that Nah & Delgado (2006) concur

with Chou, et al. (2014) and Boudreau (2003) that, whether the effects are direct or indirect,

knowledge sharing positively affects ERP-usage.

2.3.2.2 Knowledge sharing negatively affecting IS-usage

While several authors found positive effects of knowledge sharing on IS-usage, some authors also

found that knowledge sharing can have negative effects. Leonardi & Bailey (2008) conducted a

research on knowledge transfer problems associated with transformational technologies and the

digital artefacts created for using these technologies. They studied a firm that “…sent engineering

tasks from home sites in Mexico and the United States to an offshore site in India.” (p. 411). They

found that, despite having a decent formal educational level as well as proper skills and experience,

the Indian engineers had “…difficulty interpreting the implicit knowledge embodied in artifacts sent

to them from Mexico and the United States.” (p.411), resulting in the Indian engineers losing precious

time with knowledge transfers which lead to the risk of not meeting project deadlines. Basically,

although knowledge sharing was used within an IS, the actual effects of knowledge sharing on IS-

usage were negative.

Du, Ai & Ren (2007) found a similar effect of knowledge sharing, but instead of focusing on ERP-

usage, these authors focused on individual performance. Du, Ai & Ren (2007) suggest that several


knowledge sharing dimensions, such as environmental factors and organizational factors including

integration of activities, have a significant effect on individual and organizational performance. Also,

the effectiveness of knowledge sharing on the performance can be both negatively and positively

influenced, dependable on the suitableness of these contingent factors. Simplified, they state that

knowledge sharing can lead to a decrease of performance when the contingent factors used are not

suitable for a current situation. Effectively using an ERP-system can be regarded as an element of

individual performance, hence the notion of Leonardi & Bailey (2008) is partially supported by Du, Ai

& Ren, claiming that knowledge sharing can negatively affect IS-usage.

Choi, Lee & Yoo (20100) found that the relationship between IT and knowledge sharing is too highly

valued in current literature, since much, if not most, of the relationship is mediated through

Transactive Memory Systems (TMSs). These authors define a TMS as: “…a specialized division of

cognitive labour among team members that relates to the encoding, storage, and retrieval of

knowledge…” (p.855). Choi, Lee & Yoo (2010) state that there is a “…lack of direct impact of

knowledge sharing on team performance.” (p.866). This is in direct contrast with the notion of Nah &

Delgado (2006), but also in contrast with the findings of Leonardi & Bailey (2008); Du, Ai & Ren

(2007); and Chou, et al. (2014) who claim that knowledge sharing does actually have a direct impact

on performance and IS-usage.

Figure 2 provides a simplified overview of scholarly findings regarding the relationship(s) between

the concepts ERP-usage and knowledge sharing.

Figure 2, effect of knowledge sharing on ERP-usage

As Figure 2 aims to present, research focusing on the effects of knowledge sharing on ERP-usage is

ambiguous. Although the author was only able to use a mere selection of the vast amount of

available literature, the author feels that Figure 2 is a proper visualization of the current research

regarding the relationship(s) between knowledge sharing and ERP-usage.

Obviously, the studies mentioned in this subsection did not solely provide insights in the effects of

knowledge sharing on IS-usage, but can also prove to be useful for determining knowledge sharing

methods.

Knowledge sharing ERP-usage ???


2.3.2.3 Knowledge sharing methods affecting ERP-usage

Regarding knowledge sharing methods, several methods can be distinguished in current research on

knowledge sharing and IS-usage, as presented in section 2.2.3.

Colleagues

Boudreau (2003) emphasizes the role of colleagues with regard to knowledge sharing. As she

mentions it, intraorganizational knowledge sharing consists primarily of “… support from

colleagues…” (p.239). Boudreau (2003) found that a high amount of knowledge sharing would lead to

an increase of correct and desired usage of the ERP-system. An interesting element of her findings

consisted of the notion that employees would rather ask colleagues for help than turn towards an

official helpdesk installed by the organization to deal with system usage issues. Nah & Delgado (2006)

mentioned a similar result, with employees preferring to ask their fellow employees for assistance

regarding problems with ERP-system usage. Leonardi & Bailey (2008) also mention the use of

colleagues as a knowledge sharing methods, but they found it posed a potential negative effect on

knowledge sharing. Choi, Lee & Yoo (2010) stated that, although they also recognized the utilization

of colleagues as a knowledge sharing method, it did not affect the performance of the employees.

Champion

The use of champions/a champion is mentioned specifically by Nah & Delgado (2006). Chou, et al.

(2014) also mention it indirectly as a major element in intrinsic motivation. As they state that “much

of the knowledge is complex and mainly tacit … [and] cannot be easily observed by managers.

Managers … rely on employees who … transfer knowledge to their colleagues” (p.18), while also

claiming that these knowledge transferring employees should have a high level of system knowledge

and are willing to share. Nah & Delgado (2006) also mention champions. They specify a champion as

“… a high ranking official that … can facilitate monitoring due to the individual’s knowledge …”

(p.101). Both studies found that a champion affected IS-usage in a positive way, increasing the

effectiveness of the employees’ ERP-usage (Chou, et al., 2014; Nah & Delgado, 2006).

Formal methods

Additionally, formal knowledge sharing methods are also mentioned by several authors. Boudreau

(2003) mentions a helpdesk, although she found that employees preferred going to their colleagues,

as a formal knowledge sharing methods positively influencing ERP-usage. She also mentions training

as a formal method to enable employees to learn to use an ERP-system, resulting in a positive effect

on ERP-usage (ibid.). The same applies to Choi, Lee & Yoo (2010). They state that knowledge sharing

consists of formal and informal knowledge sharing, but do not specify what both concepts consists

of. Leonardi & Bailey (2008) also mention formal methods for intraorganizational knowledge sharing,

but found that it could negatively affect performance.


2.4 Summary

When it comes down to the relation between ERP-systems -or ISs in general- and knowledge sharing,

it appears that previous studies predominantly focused on the effects of IS-usage on knowledge

sharing. Academic research on knowledge sharing affecting ERP-usage is unclear about whether the

effects are positive or negative, but show ambiguous results. Since any ERP-system is bound to have

a major impact on organizational processes, knowledge sharing regarding the use of an ERP-system

can have a major impact on the efficiency and effectivity of the very processes demanded by the

ERP-system, but whether these knowledge sharing positively or negatively affects ERP-usage remains

unclear. Several researchers found different knowledge sharing methods, mainly being the use of a

champion, colleagues and formal methods. Since the effect of knowledge sharing on ERP-usage is

ambiguous, the effect of these methods on ERP-usage remains ambiguous as well.

This current (ambiguous) research on the effects of knowledge sharing on the use of an ERP-system

can thus be called nascent (Edmondson & McManus, 2007), resulting in a so-called literature gap

concerning this very subject.

In order to create an overview of how the three defined intraorganizational knowledge sharing

methods affecting ERP-usage, as mentioned by several authors, Table 6 presents the found results in

six different studies.

Table 6, knowledge sharing methods effects on ERP-usage

Bo

ud

reau

(20

03)

Ch

oi, Le

e & Y

oo

(2010

)

Ch

ou

, et al., (20

13)

Du

, Ai &

Re

n (2

007)

Leo

nard

i & B

ailey (2008

)

Nah

& D

elgado

(200

6)

Colleagues 0 /

Champion /

Formal methods 0 /

Legend: = positive effect = negative effect 0 = no effect = not mentioned by author(s) / = both positive as negative effect


3 Methodology

The aim of this research is to gain insight and a better understanding of how and if

intraorganizational knowledge sharing affects patterns of use of an ERP-system in its post-

implementation phase. This relates to one primary body of literature, being (intraorganizational)

knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing has been researched quite extensively (Cabrera, Collins, &

Salgado, 2006; Hyslop, 2002; Lee & Lee, 2000; Paroutis & Al Saleh, 2009; Polanyi, 1969; van den

Hooff & de Ridder, 2004). Intraorganizationl knowledge sharing is more or less an outsider in current

research, but theory regarding this area can also be called mature (Bhatt, 2001, Chou, et al., 2014;

Lin, Hung & Cheng, 2007; , Yoon, 2009) in accordance with Edmonson and McManus (2007).

The maturity of a secondary body of literature, being ERP-systems and its coherent implementation

phases, can be regarded as a precondition. Regarding the aim of this research, establishing the ERP-

system used as study object is in its post-implementation phase is necessary. In order to determine

whether or not this is the case, a limited literature review concerning ERP-implementation phases

was made (Akbulut & Motwani, 2005; Maas, 2015; Markus & Tanis, 2000; Markus, et al., 2000).

Moreover, a review of several studies on use, IS-usage, and ERP-usage was conducted in order to be

able to conceptualize patterns of ERP-usage.

The overlap of these areas, specifically aimed at understanding the effects of intraorganizational

knowledge sharing on the use of ERP-systems, can be regarded as being nascent in current literature

(Edmondson & McManus, 2007). In order to create a methodological fit, a qualitative study was

designed.

This study builds on the grounded theory approach congruent with Corbin & Strauss’s (1961; 1990)

ideas. In accordance with this approach, the research is regarded to be an iterative process,

continuously requiring the researcher to asses and interpret the data throughout the research.

Consequently, changes in the research design may be deemed necessary, since the constructs can be

subject to change as well.

3.1 Research setting

This research was conducted at the RNLN, more specifically at the two departments concerning

operational use and maintenance of the Dutch Air Defence Frigates (LCF). Both departments have

been subject to an ERP-implementation which was finalized in 2013, but found it difficult to change

their working methods due to adherence to legacy systems.

In order to study to which extent the current literature regarding knowledge sharing and succes of an

ERP-system in its post-implementation phase is supported by literature regarding knowledge sharing


and ERP-succes in general, empirical research was conducted at two departments within the Royal

Netherlands Navy (RNLN). As stated in section 1, these departments have both been subject to an

ERP-implementation, but the usage of the ERP-system can be called sufficient at best, according to

several high ranking officers responsible for the operational management of the RNLN. In order to

improve the patterns of use of the employees, the RNLN installed several (formal) knowledge sharing

methods and appointed ERP-knowledge champions. Subsequently, the employees made use of these

methods, while also relying on knowledgeable colleagues. The ERP-system used by te RNLN can be

regarded as being in the post-implementation phase, since the system and its end-users are ‘up-and-

running’ and, in accordance with Maas (2015), the ERP-system used by the RNLN can be regarded as

being in the ‘shakedown’ phase (Markus & Tanis, 2000).

3.1.1 Explaining the two departments

The departments are strictly divided by their role within the RNLN. On one side, the maintenance

department is situated. The main responsibility of the maintenance department is to ensure a

frigate’s seaworthiness and readiness for action when needed. One of the main elements required

for this responsibility is a short downtime of the frigate’s machinery, sensory and weapon systems,

and platform systems when repair is needed.

The operational users are on the other side of the coin. This department’s main responsibility is to

utilize the ship for (crisis-)operations, warfare(-exercises), anti-piracy, peacekeeping, disaster relieve,

etc. One of the main elements required for this responsibility is also a short downtime of the frigate’s

machinery, sensory and weapon systems, and platform when repair is needed.

It is noteworthy that for both departments one the main goals for answering to their responsibilities

is a short downtime. This shared goal was one of the reasons to implement an ERP-system. Yet

somehow, this goal is still not always reached. This creates interest for this case, since the ERP-

system is, amongst other things, designed to reduce the downtime in order to create an increased

availability of the frigate and all its components (Maas, 2015).

3.2 Data collection

The data were collected through interviews. A total of 12 interviews was held by the author. The

selection of the interviewees was primarily based upon job description, without taking gender, race,

background, etc. into account. Within the interviewee selection, a wide variety in educational level

and military rank exists, varying from high ranking officers with an academic background to

practitioners with high school and military training as highest educational level. This increases the

overall generalizability of this research. The interview questions were made based upon a pre-

created interview protocol which was based upon the theoretical framework as presented in section


2 of this research. The questions were used as a guiding thread during the interviews, with the

interviewer focusing on items of interest when touched upon by the interviewee. During the semi-

structured interviews, interviewees were asked to elaborate on their ERP-usage and about their

intraorganizational knowledge sharing. The duration of each interview differed between 29 minutes

and 116 minutes with a mean length of approximately 51 minutes, and took place from May 9th 2016

to June 1st, 2016.

All interviews were held in Dutch, audio recorded, transcribed in Dutch and finally coded in English.

Dutch was chosen as main interview language, since both the interviewer and the interviewees were

Dutch with a variable proficiency in English, ranging from a beginner level to being fluent. In order to

minimize the barriers of the interviewee speaking freely, the interviewer regarded Dutch to be the

best option, although it may prove to create difficulties for non-Dutch readers of this research.

Another element that was deliberately added by the interviewer in order to make the interviewees

feel comfortable was that he dressed up in military gear in accordance with the interviewees. All

interviewees were also dressed in military gear, since the interviews took place during work hours in

the interviewees’ work environment. The interviewer felt that by dressing accordingly, the

interviewees felt more at ease to speak freely.

Additionally, all interviews were transcribed and sent back to the interviewees for their approval.

Every interviewee had the chance to change, add or delete some elements of the interview before

giving their authorization for the interviewer to use it as data in this study. The main reason behind

this method was that some elements in the interview concerned classified information. Additionally,

by stating this method clearly before commencing the interview, the interviewees did not need to

worry about breaching confidence levels during the interview, since the transcriptions were subject

to their approval. A downside to this method was that 10 of the 12 interviewees decided to delete

parts of the transcribed content due to confidentiality issues. This resulted in a decrease of written

data and imposed a threat to this research. The author chose to use what was left of the interviews

as data and include some of the examples provided during the interviews and recorded in the audio

files, without breaching the confidentiality classifications. The approved versions of the transcribed

interviews still contained all the data, but were mostly stripped of expressive examples. Since these

examples were mentioned quite often during the interviews, the audio files were also deployed to

extract some of these examples to be used in the result section.

A final element of validity regarding the interviews is that all interviewees are anonymous. Several

interviewees insisted on staying anonymous, while others did not. Since some answers may appear

discriminating towards colleagues, the interviewer chose to keep all interviewees anonymous and


made sure that the interviewees were aware of this. By doing so, all interviewees did not have to fear

for their reputation or image by participating in an interview.

3.3 Data analysis

The data analysis started from the moment the first data was gathered, since this research concerns

grounded theory (Edmondson & McManus, 2007). The interviews were recorded via a voice recorder

and afterwards fully transcribed. The interview transcription was then sent back to the interviewee in

order to make sure that the ideas, opinions and facts stated in the interviews were truly

representative with the actual ideas, opinions and facts of the interviewees. Interviews 1-3 and 6-12

were altered by the interviewee after transcription. After receiving approval of the transcription, the

interviews were entered in Atlas.ti and labelled using open coding. Firstly, codes were assigned to

ERP-usage elements such as avoidance of ERP-usage and ‘discovering the ERP-system through using

it’ . Next, codes were assigned to elements of knowledge sharing. After this, the knowledge sharing

elements of the data were scanned for a relation to elements of ERP-usage and these data parts

were also coded for showing some sort of relationship between knowledge sharing and ERP-usage.

For instance, one interviewee stated that “Sometimes, I find an extra use for [the ERP-system]. I then

share it with my colleagues via mail, so that they can utilize the extra function as well. Obviously [this]

also works the other way around.1” This quote was coded with ‘expanded’ use, ‘colleague’

knowledge sharing, and ‘colleague’ knowledge sharing affecting ‘expanded’ use. In this particular

case, and many others, knowledge sharing clearly affected ERP-usage. Finally, all codes were sorted

into coherent families.

1 This quote and all other interview quotes presented in this research are translated from the Dutch

transcription of the interview. This means that all quotes do not derive directly from an interviewee, but have been translated by the author. While the author took caution to make sure every quote was translated as correctly as possible, some of the interviewee’s meaning may have gone lost in translation.


4 Results

This section will start with elaborating on sources of ERP related knowledge, creating an overview of

the several knowledge sharing methods found in the data. Secondly, ERP-usage will be discussed.

This section will also provide some concepts of ERP-usage. Finally, this section concludes with

determining the found effects of intraorganizational knowledge sharing on ERP-usage, resulting in a

conclusion on the found effects of different concepts of intraorganizational knowledge sharing on

ERP-usage.

4.1 Sources of ERP related knowledge

Knowledge sharing is being marked as being crucial to firm performance by some researchers

(Akbulut & Motwani, 2005; van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004), while others do not share the notion

of knowledge sharing being entirely positive (Leonardi & Bailey, 2008). During the interviews it

appeared that employees were using several methods of knowledge sharing in order to receive or

donate operational knowledge or knowledge about the use of the ERP-system. During most of the

interviews, going to their colleagues for an informal chat about encountered problems or to talk

about tips & tricks was a recurring subject. Additionally, the RNLN has installed extensive formal

ways in order to get the employees to share knowledge amongst each other. Examples of these

formal methods are a news bulletin, and a user, superuser and key-user system (a layered and

hierarchical system with the most experienced and knowledgeable employees being the key-users).

Most employees would make use of at least several of the formal elements provided, if not all.

Furthermore, employees could also make use of champions regarding ERP-usage knowledge. These

champions mastered the ERP-system and its related processes, or as a champion stated himself:

“By now I have mastered most to all processes within [the ERP-system] and I use this

knowledge to assist lots of users.” (Interview 1, chief ERP-processes support element)

Both Nah & Delgado (2006) and Boudreau (2003) found that employees rather turned to their

colleagues for information sharing instead of utilizing other methods. In accordance with Nah &

Delgado (2006) and Boudreau (2003), most interviewees stated that they preferred going to their

colleagues for knowledge sharing as well, instead of using the formal procedures:

“Whenever I encounter [an issue], I prefer just going to my colleague next door and ask him

how to deal with it. … it is just the easiest and fastest way.” (Interview 11, chief weapons &

sensors mechanic)

“It [discovering a new ‘trick’] does not happen often, but when I do discover something, I

usually just e-mail my colleagues right away … or tell them during coffee breaks. I know them


all very well and I like it when we help each other in performing well in our jobs. That is what it

is all about, I think.” (Interview 6, chief casco & support systems mechanic)

Also, the use of a champion in order to gain critical knowledge regarding ERP-usage was mentioned

quite often by different interviewees. Some regarded the ability to reach an ERP-knowledge

champion as vital in order to be able to work with the ERP-system:

When I just started my current job I was struggling with the use of [the ERP-system], so I called

or emailed [Interview 1] quite often to ask for help. (Interview 7, operational manager casco &

support systems)

In Table 7 the concepts of intraorganizational knowledge sharing are presented. The concepts are

categorized in two subsequent levels, with the second order of concept being a specific method and

the first concept order being a premise element regarding intraorganizational knowledge sharing.

1st order of concept

2nd order of concept

Definition Example (translated from Dutch transcription)

Form

al

Use dictated hierarchical system

Sharing knowledge through hierarchical layers (with a certain knowledge level of the ERP-system at a certain level) created by the RNLN

“If I [user] encounter a problem, my first move is to go to a superuser. When he cannot help me, he will go to his key-user. The key-user will tell the superuser and finally the superuser will tell me”. (Interview 8, weapon & systems manager LCF)

News bulletin Monthly bulletin regarding updates, tips & tricks, recurring mistakes and faults, or appraisal for proper system-usage, published among ERP-system users

“I do not read [the newsbulletin] regularly. Sometimes it is useful, sometimes it is not.” (Interview 7, operational manager casco & support systems)

Training General ERP-training for the use of the Dutch Defence’s ERP-system

“I have had a course to work with [the ERP-system], …” (Interview 5, weapons & sensors engineer)

Handbook Step-by-step guide for ERP-usage

“When I [got this function] I received a handbook… with [the ERP-system]-instructions. It … is like a recipe book.” (interview 10, operational manager weapons & sensors)

Ch

amp

ion

Call/e-mail (unofficial) helpdesk

Reaching out to a small group of people informally designated to help the RNLN’s employees to understand the ERP-system and to solve encountered problems

“I used to call [interview 1] quite often with [the ERP-system] related issues. He just almost always knows what to do and … if he does not know what to do, he most likely knows someone who does!” (Interview 7, operational manager casco & support systems)

Demonstration (by champion)

Once in a while, the ERP-usage champions

“I can go to [a consultant from the ERP-system’s firm] to show us as exact as


demonstrate several usage procedures which can be attended by any employee

possible what to do … every once in a while his instructions are … regarding [my area of expertise].” (Interview 8, weapons & systems manager LCF)

Co

lleag

ues

Ask colleagues for help

Simply asking colleagues (with likeminded work) if they have encountered likewise issues and what their reaction was

“I have ... four colleagues on board with a very likewise job. I just walk to their office to ask them what they did when they encountered the same issues I did…” (Interview 6, chief casco & support systems mechanic)

Water cooler conversations

Discussing several elements in a very informal setting, during coffee breaks, lunch hours, or (at sea) when relaxing in common rooms.

“During night shifts or coffeebreaks or whatever it is very easy to meet your colleagues and briefly discuss some work issues” (Interview 6, chief casco & support systems mechanic)

Sharing through e-mail

Instead of face-to-face meeting with colleagues, contacting them through electronic devices.

“When it does not have much priority, or the knowledgeable people are not on board, I just email them or colleagues from other ships with a newly discovered trick” (Interview 9, chief propulsion mechanic)

Table 7, knowledge sharing concepts

4.2 ERP-usage

During the interviews, it appeared that the main elements of ERP-usage consisted of ‘use’ and ‘non-

use’. Some interviewees would make use of the ERP-system, while others tried to avoid using it too

much or actively tried to resist using the ERP-system. Within the two main concepts of ‘use’ and

‘non-use’, several other sub-concepts were distinguished. For example, ‘non-use’ was for example

expressed by an active resistance against the usage of the ERP-system, but also by avoiding the ERP-

usage when possible, while only utilizing it when there was no other possibility left.

With regard to the case of the two researched departments within the RNLN, the employees did

actually use the system instead of trying to find ways to utilize non-use behaviour. This partially

concurs with the notion of Soeters, Winslow, & Weibull (2006) who state that military personell have

a strong adherence to organizational rules and procedures. Examples of this adherence are shown in

the following quotes:

“… I accept using [the ERP-system], since ‘the boss’ [MoD] wants me to. ... I can receive parts

and conduct the necessary maintenance, and that is essentially what it is all about”.

(Interview 6, chief casco & support systems mechanic)

“… When I just follow the mandated procedures, I sometimes do not have a clue at all what

the duration of an order is going to be. It can be a day, two weeks or five months. … this

makes it very annoying, but hey, it is what it is. Does not mean I like it though.” (Interview 9,

chief propulsion mechanic)


On the other hand, the strong adherance to ‘pre-ERP’ legacy systems should, based on the notion by

the same authors that military personell is very likely to be adverse to change, have lead to a larger

extent of non-use behavioral patterns. In this research, this adversity against change appears to be

less present.

“… the entire organization is using [the ERP-system], so who am I to decide that I am so

special… that I need to do my work different than everyone else…” (Interview 5, weapons &

sensors engineer)

One interviewee even stated that he did not care that much of the quality of the system or his

knoweldgeability regarding different patterns of use, as long as he could be effective in doing his

work (e.g. reaching his targets in time), he was completely fine with using it and did not see the need

to display non-use behaviour.

Accompanying this element, merely two interviewees mentioned active resistance as one their ERP-

usage behaviours. Mostly, the interviewees simply stated that they had to use the ERP-system, since

the organizational structure and way of working demanded it from them, as shown in the following

quote:

“… so the logistic department is reliant on my orders and … every department is now

connected. It only works if everyone uses [the ERP-system], so basically I have no other option

than to work with [the ERP-system].” (Interview 10, operational manager weapons &

sensors)

Table 8 presents an overview of the concepts of ERP-usage on different levels.

1st order of

concept

2nd order of concept

Definition Example (translated from Dutch transcription)

Use Integrative Maximizing the integration ERP-usage in daily practices

“My work consists of … [planning] the capacity, in terms of money, hours and workforce. I use [the ERP-system] to do all that …” (Interview 8, weapon & systems manager LCF)

Exploratory Explorative discovering how ERP-system works

“The best method for me is to just try and find out how I have to do something in [the ERP-system]. That way I may also even find new possibilities I did know of before”. (Interview 1, chief ERP-process support)

Expanded Extending patterns of use for extra utilization of ERP-system

“I have quite a broad authorization which means that, amongst other things, I can create, delete and change parts within SAP. Although it is merely meant for observation, I make use of it to solve related problems when I deem it necessary”. (Interview 3, chief ERP-data support)


Conformity Using ERP in accordance with organizational intent

“I do not like to always have to follow the procedures in [the ERP-system] and I do not think it is always necessary … but [I do it] anyway, since I also do not know what all the information I entered is being used for”. (Interview 11, chief weapons & sensors mechanic)

Non-use Avoidance Avoiding ERP-usage when possible

“[I] have never used that part of [the ERP-system] since I rather just walk towards my colleagues to ask them face-to-face…” (Interview 6, casco & support systems mechanic)

Active resistance

Resist using the ERP-system when possible

“I have been using the [legacy system] for thirty years and it always worked perfectly. Now all of a sudden I have to use [the ERP-system]. Well, I will postpone that for as long as I can”. (Interview 4, managing weapons & sensors engineer)

Non-compliance

Not adhering to the standard procedures within the ERP-system

“…sometimes I just call the person whom I know to be on the end of the line to make sure that my order gets prioritized. I should actually not do that, but [it is the] fastest way…” (Interview 7, operational manager casco & support systems)

Non-conformity

Usage of ERP, but not in accordance with organizational intent

“I can order parts for other ships as well, and so now and then [when someone else has a day off] I get a call to order something for them, since they need it the next week or so.”. (Interview 11, chief weapons & sensors mechanic)

Table 8, ERP-usage concepts

4.3 Knowledge sharing and ERP-system usage

As stated in section 3.3 and section 1, the primary area of interest of this research are the effects of

knowledge sharing on ERP-usage. This section presents an overview of the findings regarding these

effects.

4.3.1 ‘Champion’ affecting ERP-system usage

During the interviews, none of the interviewees mentioned that knowledge sharing via an ERP-

knowledge champion had any effect on non-use behaviour. Knowledge sharing via a champion

mostly affected integrative use, e.g. learning new features, achieving a wider extent of use, etc.

“Whenever I am not sure how to fill my order in such a manner that the departments whom

my order also might concern would like it to see, I call [anonymous], since he is one of the

most knowledgeable people regarding [the ERP-system]” (Interview 12, chief logistics and

resupply administrator)

The use of a champion was only found to have benevolent effects on ERP-usage. Several

interviewees stated that they sometimes wanted to know more about the system, so they would

reach out to an ERP-champion. On other occasions, the a champion would, on his own initiative, call


employees who were making (minor) errors and explain to them what went wrong and how to be

more compliant:

“The moment we recognize an error [by monitoring the processes] a user does not necessarily

have to find us, since we will find him and explain what is going wrong and should be done

differently.” (Interview 1, chief ERP-processes support element)

The connections between ‘champion’ knowledge sharing and the affected concepts of use are

presented in Figure 3.

4.3.2 ‘Colleagues’ affecting ERP-system usage

‘Colleagues’ knowledge sharing marginally affected non-use behaviours. It mostly affected

integrative use just like the other two intraorganizational knowledge sharing methods defined in this

research. A quote demonstrating how knowledge sharing via colleagues affects expanded use, is

depicted below.

“Wat does happen occasionally is the sharing of particular tips or tricks when we encounter it.

We usually use e-mail to do this and if I look at myself … I will just tell everyone about

something new that can be done with [the ERP-system] that I did not know of…” (Interview

12, chief logistics and resupply administrator)

The quote provides an example of a change in ERP-usage from basic use to a more expanded use.

Intraorganizational knowledge sharing trough colleagues was also affecting the conformity of ERP-

usage. On several occasions, interviewees mentioned that they wanted to conform their ERP-usage

to the organizational intent, but did not exactly know how to do so. The quote below provides an

example of this yearning to adhere to organizational intent and procedures.

“I know that the logistics element needs a correct order from me, but sometimes I do not

know exactly what they want. Then, … I will just give them a call” (interview 5, weapons &

sensors engineer)

In order to increase their conformity, employees asked their colleagues for help, as show in the

quote below. In other occasions, when someone saw or heard that one of their colleagues were

making mistakes, or were not adhering to the procedures regarding their ERP-use, they would tell

their colleague what was going wrong and how to improve their conformity.

“When asked, we will together [with my colleagues] search for and find the solution. So far,

we have been able to localise all errors and find the proper way to handle them. … that is one


of the great things about [the ERP-system], there is always just one way to …. do something

right...” (Interview 4, managing weapons & sensors engineer)

The notion, however, that there is “… always just one way…” is not completely true. Sometimes, as

the following quotes shows, workarounds were shared through colleagues and used by the

employees.

“… we made some working agreements with the maintenance section. For example, I put the

BSMI-number in front of the order number. This makes it easier to trace back, but it is not

taught like this during the courses.” (Interview 7, operational manager casco & support

systems)

Moreover, the connections between ‘colleague’ knowledge sharing and the affected concepts of use

are presented in Figure 3.

4.3.3 ‘Formal methods’ affecting ERP-system usage

‘Formal’ intraorganizational knowledge sharing mostly affects integrative usage patterns, while also

affecting other patterns of use and non-use defined in this research. The quote below provides an

example where formal intraorganizational knowledge lead to changing limited use to a more

integrative behavioural usage.

“After every key-user meeting … they [the key-users] talk to their superusers. Since I [as a

user] have asked [my superuser] several questions about, let say, requesting working hours

for a certain part replacement … my superuser will tell me how I should properly use [the ERP-

system] to fill in the request …”. (Interview 8, weapon & systems manager)

Another distinguishable effect of ‘formal’ intraorganizational knowledge sharing on ERP-usage were

non-use behavioural patterns. According to several interviewees, as long as they can reach their

targets, they do not need to know other possible ways to utilize the ERP-system, even though it may

prove to be benevolent. This would imply that, as soon as users reached a mature level of integrative

usage, they did not bother to expand their ERP-use.

“I know of the FAQ-section, but I do not use it. I know enough to conduct my job right now.

…although I am quite sure I could improve my work with [the ERP-system] I would rather not,

since the minute I will found out about new ‘tricks’, I will just get more work and … will have

to spend more time working with [the ERP-system]. Now that is something I would rather not

want, …” (Interview 9, chief propulsion mechanic)


Although the lack of increasing the ‘use’ concepts of the ERP-system cannot be regarded as a direct

result from ‘formal’ intraorganizational knowledge sharing, the avoidance of utilizing some elements

of ‘formal’ knowledge sharing affects ERP-usage behaviour. The effects of ‘formal’ methods are

deemed to be positive by the organization, for example by training its personnel for ERP-use, but

many interviewees stated the opposite:

“I did learn things I do not have to know during [the ERP-systems]’s course. At the same time,

I did not learn things I do have to know and am doing now on a regular basis…” (Interview 9,

chief propulsion mechanic)

This is obviously not a direct negative result of ‘formal’ intraorganizational knowledge sharing, but

the lack of a positive result, while expected by the organization, is regarded as an organizational loss.

Thus some effects of ‘formal’ knowledge sharing are deemed to have a negative impact on ERP-

usage.

The connection between ‘formal’ knowledge sharing and the affected concepts of use are presented

in Figure 3.

4.4 Intraorganizational knowledge sharing affecting ERP-usage

Based upon the results presented in sections 4.1 – 4.3, Figure 3 provides a schematic overview of the

results. Although all concepts of use defined in this research were found to be present during the

interviews, not all those concepts were affected by intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Figure 3 is

merely an overview of the patterns of ERP-usage actually affected by intraorganizational knowledge

sharing.


Figure 3 intraorganizational knowledge sharing methods affecting ERP-usage concepts

This research found that integrative usage is affected by all three defined intraorganizational

knowledge sharing concepts. The same applies to conformity usage. It is noteworthy that only

‘formal’ knowledge sharing methods and the utilization of colleagues affected non-use behaviour,

meaning that the use of a champion for intraorganizational knowledge sharing merely showed to

have positive effects on the use of the ERP-system.

Also, most interviewees stated that most of their knowledge sharing activities were used to (at least

partially) dissolve their previous lack of knowledge. The interviewees wanted to use the ERP-system

appropriately, but did not always know how to do so.

In partial agreement with respectively Boudreau (2003), Chou et al., (2014), and Nah & Delgado

(2006), stating that knowledge sharing has a positive influence on ERP-use. Two major assumption in

order to claim this are that knowledge sharing affecting ‘use’ is a positive influence, while knowledge

sharing affecting non-use is regarded as a negative influence. Consequently, the notion of Boudreau

(2003), Chou et al., (2014), and Nah & Delgado (2006) is again supported in this research with regard

to conformity. In addition to intraorganizational knowledge sharing having a positive effect on ERP-

usage in terms of interpretative use, the same thing can be said regarding the effect of

intraorganizational knowledge sharing on ERP-usage in terms of conformity.

In short, several changes in positive ERP-usage behaviour affected by intraorganizational knowledge

sharing can be distinguished in this research. To provide a brief overview, the three defined


knowledge sharing methods and their effects on different ERP-usage behavioural changes are shown

in Table 9.

When looked at the negative effects of intraorganizational knowledge sharing, this research did not

find any regarding knowledge sharing via ERP-champions. When looked at Figure 3, formal

intraorganizational knowledge sharing appears to be the least positive determinant for ERP-usage

compared to the other two methods of intraorganizational knowledge sharing used in this research.

An example of a negative effect on use of formal intraorganizational knowledge sharing is presented

in the quote below:

“I think that the course teaches us the correct way to handle [the ERP-system], but still… I do

it differently on board. The taught methods just will not do the job.” (interview 10,

operational manager weapons & sensors)

This would suggest that the findings of Du, Ai & Ren (2007), and Leonardi & Bailey (2008) are also

(partially) reflected in this research. After all, they found that knowledge sharing has potential

negative effects on overall performance, with Leonardi & Bailey (2008) having specifically monitored

IS-usage.

4.5 Summary

To conclude, this research found eight different ERP-usage patterns, consisting of four ERP-use

behavioural patterns (e.g. integrative, exploratory, expanded, and conformity) and four ERP-non-use

patterns (e.g. non-conformity, avoidance, non-compliance, and active resistance). These eight usage

patterns have been divided into two main concepts, being ‘use’ and ‘non-use’.

Also, three methods were intraorganizational knowledge sharing were defined (e.g. ‘formal’,

‘champion’, and ‘colleagues’) and empirically tested in interviews with two departments of the RNLN.

The results showed that the three different intraorganizational knowledge sharing methods affected

different ERP-usage patterns. Figure 3 shows which knowledge sharing methods was found to affect

which ERP-use concept, while Table 9 provides an overview of the found affecting changes in ERP-

usage behaviour affected by intraorganizational knowledge sharing methods.

Table 9, ERP-usage behavioural patterns affected by intraorganizational knowledge sharing

Champion Colleagues Formal methods

Limited use integrative

Non-compliant use conformity

Basic use expanded

Basic use non-conformity (workarounds)

Avoiding usage

No positive effects shown


5 Discussion

In order to provide an answer to the main research question, this section will combine previous

literature with the findings of this study. After this, implications for theory will be discussed, followed

by an elaboration regarding managerial implications. Subsequently, limitations of this research will

be presented. Finally, directions for further research will be addressed.

5.1 Discussion of the results

Previous studies by Boudreau (2003), Chou, et al. (2014) and Nah & Delgado (2006) found similar

results to this research. According to the mentioned authors, knowledge sharing increases the

(effectiveness of the) use of an ERP-system, whereas this research firstly found that

intraorganizational knowledge sharing positively effects ERP-usage, by increasing expanding and

integrating ERP-usage behaviours and conformity to organizational intent. Despite the similarities,

there are also some notable differences, related to the conceptualization of knowledge sharing and

ERP-usage. Boudreau (2003) for example does not acknowledge the role of knowledge champions in

her research, but simply refers to a champion as either a ‘colleague’ or, when working at a helpdesk,

as a formal method as illustrated by this quote: “… casual support from colleagues ... Formal support

from the help desk, …” (p. 239). Chou, et al. (2014) and Nah & Delgado (2006) are leaving formal

methods of knowledge sharing out of their research focus and researched the effects of colleagues

and champions as knowledge sharing methods. Despite these differences in the underlying concepts

of the effects of knowledge sharing on ERP-usage, overall the findings regarding the effects of the

main concept of knowledge sharing on ERP-usage are quite similar.

Another similarity appears to be present when comparing this research’s results to those of Du, Ai &

Ren (2007). They found that knowledge sharing does not necessarily positively or negatively affects

ERP-usage, but speak of contingent factors which need to be suitable, claiming a potential positive

and negative effect of knowledge sharing on ERP-usage. This is in partial accordance with the findings

of this research, showing that knowledge sharing does not have mere positive effects on ERP-usage.

Although the overall effect is primarily positive since patterns of ERP-usage appeared to improve

thanks to knowledge sharing, negative effects of knowledge sharing affecting ERP avoidance and

non-conformity as a pattern or ERP-usage were also found. Based upon this comparison, one could

state that knowledge sharing is affecting ERP-usage, but the impact of these effects can be called

ambiguous or multilateral. Especially when focusing on the effects of formal methods, since these

have found to be conformity inducing, while also affecting non-conformity behaviour. With the help

of the notion of Du, Ai & Ren (2007) one could argue that these paradoxical effects could potentially

be grounded upon the suitability of the contingent factors described by Du, Ai & Ren (2007).


Leonardi & Bailey (2008) found a result opposite to this research. They conceptualized knowledge

sharing in accordance with Boudreau (2003), leaving a knowledge champion out of the equation, but

found that knowledge sharing, either via colleagues or via formal methods, negatively affected

performance. One of the key determinants for this discrepancy in results, is that Leonardi & Bailey

conducted a case study within an international organization. The primary negative effects of

knowledge sharing Leonardi & Bailey (2008) found, ware based upon a lack of mutual understanding

between engineers from respectively the U.S.A. and Mexico, and India. The negative performance

was a result from a misunderstanding and misinterpretation between the geographically and

culturally distant organizational elements (Leonardi & Bailey, 2008). The interviewees of this research

can be regarded as being the opposite of geographically and culturally distant from each other. The

RNLN has a strong organizational culture with most employees very much adhering to this culture

(Soeters, Winslow, & Weibull, 2006). This strong adherence could likely be a key determinant for

mutual understanding (Soeters, van Fenema, & Beeres, 2010), negating the determinants of the

negative effects of intraorganizational knowledge sharing found by Leonardi & Bailey (2008).

Upon the comparison of this research with the findings of Choi, Lee & Yoo (2010), the results appear

to be in complete contrast with each other. Choi, Lee & Yoo (2010) found that there is a “…lack of

direct impact of knowledge sharing on team performance.” (p.866). As stated in section 2, ERP-usage

is regarded as being an element of team performance, translating the notion of Choi, Lee & Yoo

(2010) towards this study, claiming a lack of effect of intraorganizational knowledge on ERP-usage.

This study, however, found that the actual effects of intraorganizational knowledge sharing on ERP-

usage are mostly positive, measurable and lead to different usage patterns as described in section 4.

One of Choi, Lee & Yoo’s (2010) primary conclusions is that “Organizations must ensure that shared

knowledge is in fact applied in order to improve team performance.” (p.855). This result does not

take into account whether or not the shared knowledge is applied, resulting in a major difference in

the conclusion. Although the notion that knowledge, when shared, affects ERP-usage appears to be a

logical one, Choi, Lee & Yoo (2010) claim that it is not. Combining their results with this research’s

results, one could argue that, in order for intraorganizational knowledge sharing to actually affect

ERP-usage, organizations and employees should try to make sure the shared knowledge is actually

applied in order to reap the benefits. Accordingly, the lack of application of knowledge which is

negatively affecting ERP-usage could potentially lead to evading non-conforming or avoiding patterns

of ERP-usage. In order to determine the value of this argument, further research on this specific

subject should be conducted.


5.2 Conclusion

With the vast amount of ERP-systems being installed and implemented in various organizations,

conducting research on the usage of these systems is paramount. This research tried to add to this

field by trying to explain the effect(s) of intraorganizational knowledge sharing on an ERP-system in

its post-implementation phase. A case study was conducted at two departments of the RNLN to

explore utilized knowledge sharing methods and patterns of ERP-usage. Also, current literature

regarding the effects of knowledge sharing on ERP- and IS-usage was studied.

The ambiguous results shown in current literature are reflected in the findings of this research.

Intraorganizational knowledge sharing affects the usage of an ERP-system in its post-implementation

phase in a multilateral way. Three main knowledge sharing methods were distinguished: via

colleagues, a champion and formal methods. These knowledge sharing methods affected both use

and non-use behaviours, which consisted of several sub-concepts of use.

Firstly, it was found that knowledge sharing via a champion affected ERP-usage positively, changing

usage patterns from limited use to integrative use, from non-compliance to conformity and from

basic use to an expanded usage pattern. Knowledge sharing via colleagues showed the same positive

effects with exemption of the change towards expanded use. Additionally, knowledge sharing via

colleagues also had a workaround-inducing effect, thus having both a positive and a negative effect

on ERP-usage. Formal methods shared the negative effect on ERP-usage from knowledge sharing via

colleagues (i.e. workaround-inducing effect), while also having a potential effect of avoiding usage

altogether or failing to show positive effects on ERP-usage while the organization assumed these

positive effects would show. On the other hand, formal methods also potentially affected ERP-usage

in a positive way, also changing patterns of ERP-usage from limited to integrative and non-

compliance towards conformity.

In conclusion, intraorganizational knowledge sharing mainly has a positive effect on the use of an

ERP-system in its post-implementation phase. It affords the employees to change their patterns of

ERP-usage from limited use towards integrative use, from basic towards expanded use, and from

non-compliance to conformity. On the other hand, the found ambiguity in current research regarding

this subject is supported since intraorganizational knowledge sharing can also potentially affect ERP-

usage in a negative way: it potentially leads to a workaround-inducing effect and formal methods

may affect avoidance of ERP-usage, or fail to have a positive effect.

5.3 Theoretical implications

This research adds to existing theory in three fields. Firstly, it adds to ERP-usage literature in a way

that it provides a conceptual division in patterns of use. Additionally, this research adds to the


steadily growing body of literature regarding ERP-systems after their implementation phase. As

mentioned by Addo-Tenkorang & Helo (2011), this is called for in current research and seemed to be

the next logical step to make: “The ERP research area is diverse and very broad, … as more

experiences have been gained with the implementation process, different topics… seem to be

becoming of interests to both the researchers, businesses and industrial organizations as they are

potential areas for future research.” (p. 26).

Secondly, research on the effects of knowledge sharing on ERP-usage is at a relatively low maturity

level (Chou, et al., 2014). This study tries to attract attention to this research area and can maybe

even function as a starting point for future researchers.

Finally, although a goal of this research was to dissolve some of the ambiguity going hand in hand

with the effects of knowledge sharing on IS-usage, this research strengthens the notion of ambiguity

and adds to the multidisciplinarity and –dimensionality of these effects.

5.4 Managerial implications

With regard to practical implications, this research differs between very broad implications to very

specific ones. With regard to broad implications, it appears that a lot of companies assume that a

successful implementation of an ERP-system is sufficient for reaping the potential benefits of the

ERP-system (Maas, 2015). This research shows, amongst other things, that a high level of

intraorganizational knowledge sharing about the use of the ERP-system may potentially lead to

improved patterns of ERP-usage. The change of ERP-usage patterns from limited towards integrative

use, from basic towards expanded use and from non-compliance to conformity are all affected by

intraorganizational knowledge sharing, hence emphasizing the importance of stimulating knowledge

sharing in the organization in order to reap the potential benefits.

Additionally, since this research specifies three main methods of intraorganizational knowledge

sharing (i.e. formal methods, via colleagues, and via champions), the results of this research could

help managers in their decisions concerning the allocation of funds with regard to knowledge sharing

methods. This study found that formal knowledge sharing methods have, in addition to positive

effects of knowledge sharing, also a potential negative effect on ERP-usage, leading to non-

conformity and avoiding usage. The use of an ERP-knowledge champion however, turned out to be

benevolent, potentially leading users to a more integrative, expanded and conforming pattern of

ERP-usage. Formal methods, quite often preferred to deploy by organizations in order to stimulate

knowledge sharing, turned out to have the most negative effects on ERP-usage. With regards to the

findings of this research, managers might want to reconsider using formal methods as a knowledge

sharing stimulation tool in favour of the use of a knowledge champion or colleagues.


More specifically, the practical implications for the RNLN and potentially other high-demanding

organizations operating in rapid changing circumstances, are multilateral. While the RNLN is prone to

install formal procedures, the use of less formal methods appeared to have a larger and more

positive effect. Additionally, practical results not relevant for this research, but who were deemed

relevant for the RNLN itself (i.e. operational vulnerability due the ERP-system, suggestions for

improvement of communication through the system provided by several interviewees) were found.

Due to confidentiality issues, several elements of these results could not be included in this research.

5.5 Limitations

This research is subject to several limitations. Firstly, the interviews’ audio and transcriptions are in

Dutch, while the codes, quotes and research itself is in English. While the author took care when

translating, some of the meaning of the interviews may have gone lost in translation.

Additionally, as stated in section 3, most of the interviews contained data to a confidentiality level of

NATO top secret. This implied that it could not be used directly and was deleted from the

transcriptions. Although the audio files still contain the original audio from the interviews, examples

were deleted by the interviewees themselves due to confidentiality issues.

Thirdly, since the author is an employee of the RNLN. This could imply that a certain level of bias and

prejudice towards research on the RNLN and decrease the author’s capability of being objective in

his judgements towards colleagues and employers.

Subsequently, the chosen conceptual methods for intraorganizational knowledge sharing and

concepts of usage may not be exhaustive. Amongst other influences, the timeframe of this thesis’

trajectory and the need for defining the research subjects, forced the author to limit the concepts.

When critically looked upon, one may find more knowledge sharing methods and usage concepts and

the lack of these elements in this research is a threat to the level of validity of this study.

A fifth limitation concerns the transferability of these findings to other organizations. Like stated in

section 5.4, the RNLN is heavily organizational pluralistic. While this can be regarded as a strength of

this research since such organizations are usually not prone to research done by outsiders (Soeters,

Winslow, & Weibull, 2006), it remains questionable to which extent the findings of this research

holds up with less extreme and/or nongovernmental organizations. Moreover, with conducting a

single case study, the transferability of the results to similar organizations is also questionable. A

multiple case study would have improved both the transferability and validity of this research.


5.6 Avenues for further research

Future research could redo this this study with a larger amount of interviewees. This way the validity

of the research can be dramatically improved. Additionally, both governmental as non-governmental

organization could be studied for the effects of intraorganizational knowledge sharing on the use of

an ERP-system to compensate for the relatively low transferability of this research.

Additionally, this research found that the adherence to organizational procedures within the ERP-

system was quite high, despite the negative attitude the employees showed at times towards using

the ERP-system. Although this phenomenon is more a sociological subject, it may prove to be a

relevant and viable research subject.

Furthermore, this research conceptualized three main knowledge sharing methods and eight main

concepts of ERP-usage patterns. These concepts could be investigated at a lower level, or researchers

could provide a stricter definition on the concepts used by delving into literature regarding these

concepts.

Also, since intraorganizational knowledge sharing is a quite broad term, researchers could study the

effects of a single knowledge sharing method on ERP-usage, or even more specified: on a single

pattern of use. This could eventually lead to a better understanding of how knowledge sharing

affects patterns of use of an ERP-system.


6 Bibliography

Addo-Tenkorang, R., & Helo, P. (2011). Enterprise resource planning (ERP): A review literature report.

Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science, 2, pp. 19-28.

Akbulut, A., & Motwani, J. (2005). The road to ERP success: Understanding end-user perceptions.

Journal of International Technology and Information Management, 14, 13-26.

Aladwani, A. (2001). Change management strategies for successful ERP implementation. Business

Process Management Journal, 7(3), 266-275.

Bagayogo, F., Beaudry, A., & Lapointe, L. (2013). Impacts of IT acceptance and resistance behaviors: a

novel framework.

Bhatt, G. (2001). Knowledge management in organizations: examining the interaction between

technologies, techniques, and people. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 68-75.

Boudreau, M. C. (2003). Learning to use ERP technology: A causal model. Proceedings of the 36th

annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, (pp. 235-243). Big Island, HI.

Buchanan, R. (1989). Declaration by design: rhetoric, argument, and demonstration in design

practice. In V. Margolin (ed), Design discourse; history, theory, criticism (pp. 91-109). Chicago,

USA: The University of Chicago Press.

Burton-Jones, A., & Gallivan, M. J. (2007). Toward a deeper understanding of system usage in

organizations: a multilevel perspective. MIS quarterly, 31(4), 657-679.

Cabrera, A., & Cabrera, E. F. (2002). Knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organization Studies, 23(5), pp.

687-710.

Cabrera, A., Collins, W., & Salgado, J. (2006). Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge

sharing. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(2), 245-264.

Choi, S. Y., Lee, H., & Yoo, Y. (2010). The impact of information technology and transactive memory

systems on knowledge sharing, application, and team performance: A field study. MIS

Quarterly, 34(4), 855-870.

Chou, S.-W., & Chang, Y.-C. (2008). The implementation factors that influence the ERP (enterprise

resource planning) benefits. Decision Support Systems, 46(1), 149-157.

Chou, W.-H., Lin, Y.-H., Lu, H.-S., & Chang, H.-H. (2014). Knowledge sharing and ERP system usage in

post-implementation stage. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 16-22.


Choy, L. (2014). The strenghts and weaknesses of research methodology: Comparison and

complimentary between qualitative and quantitative approaches. IOSR Journal of Humanities

and Social Science, 19(4), 99-104.

Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative

criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 3(1), 3-21.

Dhillon, G. (2005). Gaining genefits from IS/IT implementation: Interpretations from case studies.

International Journal of Information Management, 25(6), 502-515.

Du, R., Ai, S., & Ren, Y. (2007). Relationship between knowledge sharing and performance: A survey

in Xi’an, China. Expert systems with Applications, 32(1), 38-46.

Edmondson, A., & McManus, S. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of

Management Review, 32(4), 1155-1179.

Grabski, S. V., Leech, S. A., & Schmidt, P. J. (2011). A review of ERP research: A future agenda for

accounting information systems. Journal of Information Systems, 25(1), 37-78.

Hyslop, H. (2002). Mission impossible? Communicating and sharing knowledge via information

technology. Journal of Information Technology, 17(3), 165-177.

Jeston, J., & Nelis, J. (2000). Business process management. Communications of the ACM, 43(4), 22-

26.

Johnson, G. (2014). Trends in ERP software: Mobility, adaptability and collaboration. Quality, 53(3),

30-34.

Kane, G. C., & Labianca, G. (2011). IS avoidance in health-care groups: A multilevel investigation.

Information Systems Research, 22(3), 504-522.

Ko, D. G., Kirsch, L. J., & King, W. R. (2005). Antecedents of knowledge transfer from consultants to

clients in enterprise system implementations. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 59-85.

Kumar, K., & van Hillegersberg, J. (2000). Enterprise resource planning: Introduction.

Communications of the ACM, 43(4), 22-26.

Lavigne, V., & Gouin, D. (2011). Applicability of visual analytics to defense and security operations.

Defense Research and Development.

Lee, J., Siau, K., & Hong, S. (2003). Enterprise integration with ERP and EAI. Communications of the

ACM, 46(2), 54-60.


Lee, Z., & Lee, J. (2000). An ERP implementation case study from a knowledge transfer perspective.

Journal of Information Technology, 15(4), 281-288.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1990). A dual methodology for case studies: Synergistic use of a longitudinal

single site with replicated multiple sites. Organization Science, 1(3), 248-266.

Leonardi, P. M., & Bailey, D. E. (2008). Transformational technologies and the creation of new work

practices: Making implicit knowledge explicit in task-based offshoring. MIS quarterly, 32(2),

411-436.

Levy, M., Loebbecke, C., & Powell, P. (2003). SMEs, co-opetition and knowledge sharing: the role of

information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 12(1), pp. 3-17.

Li, X., Hsieh, J., & Rai, A. (2013). Motivational differences across post-acceptance information system

usage behaviors: An investigation in the business intelligence systems context. Information

Systems Research, 24(3), 659-682.

Lin, M.-J. J., Hung, S.-W., & Chen, C.-J. (2009). Fostering the determinants of knowledge sharing in

professional virtual communities. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 929-939.

Maas, J. G. (2015). Taking the next step: Managing ERP systems in the post-implementation phase.

PhD dissertation: Ipskamp.

Markus, M. L., & Tanis, C. (2000). The enterprise systems experience-from adoption to success.

Framing the Domains of IT research: Glimpsing the Future Through the Past, 173, 173-207.

Markus, M. L., Axline, S., Petrie, D., & Tanis, S. C. (2000). Learning from adopters' experiences with

ERP: problems encountered and success achieved. Journal of Information Technology, 15(4),

245-265.

Motwani, J., Subramanian, R., & Gopalakrishna, P. (2005). Critical factors for successful ERP

implementation: Exploratory findings from four case studies. Computers in Industry, 56(6),

529-544.

Nah, F., & Delgado, S. (2006). Critical success factors for Enterprise Resource Planning

implementation and upgrade. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46(5), 99.

Ngai, E., Law, C., & Wat, F. (2008). Examining the critical success factors in the adoption of enterprise

resource planning. Computers in Industry, 59(6), 548-564.


Nicolaou, A. (2004). ERP-systems implementation: drivers of post-implementation success. Decision

Support in an Uncertain and Complex World: The IFIP TC8/WG8. 3 International Conference,

(pp. 589-597).

Oxford Dictionaries. (2016). Retrieved April 4, 2016, from Knowledge:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/knowledge

Oxford Dictionary. (2016). Retrieved May 16, 2016, from Use:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/use

Paroutis, S., & Al Saleh, A. (2009). Determinants of knowledge sharing using Web 2.0 technologies.

Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 52-63.

Polanyi, M. (1969). Knowing and being. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology:

General, 118(3), 219.

Redström, J. (2008). Definitions of use. Design Studies, 29(4), 410-423.

Saeed, K. A., & Abdinnour, S. (2013). Understanding post‐adoption IS usage stages: An empirical

assessment of self‐service information systems. Information Systems Journal, 23(3), 219-244.

Saraf, N., Langdon, C. S., & Sawy, O. E. (2013). IS integration and knowledge sharing in multi-unit

firms: the winner's curse†. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(6), 592-603.

Satchell, C., & Dourish, P. (2009). Beyond the user: Use and non-use in HCI. Proceedings of the 21st

Annual Conference of the Australian Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group:

Design: Open 24/7, (pp. 9-16). ACM.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research methods for business students. Edinburgh:

Pearson Education/Prentice Hall.

Schlichter, B. R., & Kraemmergaard, P. (2010). A comprehensive literature review of the ERP research

field over a decade. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 23(4), 486-520.

Selander, L., & Henfridsson, O. (2012). Cynicism as user resistance in IT implementation. Information

Systems Journal, 24(2), 289-312.

Selwyn, N. (2003). Apart from technology: Understanding people’s non-use of information and

communication technologies in everyday life. Technology in Society, 25(1), 99-116.


Shang, S., & Seddon, P. (2000). A comprehensive framework for classifying the benefits of ERP-

systems. American Conference of Information Systems.

Smith, E. (2001). The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace. Journal of Knowledge

Management, 5(4), 311-321.

Sobreperez, P. (2008). Technological frame incongruence, diffusion, and noncompliance. In Open IT-

based innovation: Moving towards cooperative IT transfer and knowledge diffusion (pp. 179-

196). US: Springer.

Soeters, J., van Fenema, P., & Beeres, R. (2010). Managing military organizations. London: Routledge.

Soeters, J., Winslow, C., & Weibull, A. (2006). Military culture. In G. Caforio, Handbook of the

sociology of the military (pp. 237-254). Springer.

Sommer, R. (2011). Public sector ERP implementation: Successfully engaging middle-management.

Communications of the IBIMA, 1, 1-11.

Stein, M. K., Newell, S., Wagner, E. L., & Galliers, R. D. (2015). Coping with information technology:

Mixed emotions, vacillation, and nonconforming use patterns. MIS Quarterly, 39(2.), 367-

392.

Stratman, J., & Roth, A. (2001). Enterprise resource planning (ERP) competence constructs: two-stage

multi-item scale development and validation. Decision Sciences, 33(4), 601-628.

Taylor, W. A. (2004). Computer-mediated knowledge sharing and individual user differences: an

exploratory study. European Journal of Information Systems, 13(1), pp. 52-64.

Tsai, W., Lee, K., Liu, J., Lin, S., & Chou, Y. (2012). The influence of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)

systems' performance on earnings management. Enterprise Information Systems, 6(4), 491-

517.

van den Hooff, B., & de Ridder, J. (2004). Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of

organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing.

Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(6), 117-130.

Vandaie, R. (2008). The role of organizational knowledge management in successful ERP

implementation projects. Knowledge-Based Systems, 21(8), 920-926.

Verschuren, P. (2011). Ontwerp van organisatie- en beleidsonderzoek. In Praktijkgericht Onderzoek

(pp. 55-80). Den Haag: Lemma.


Verschuren, P., & Doorewaard, H. (2007). Het ontwerpen van een onderzoek. Den Haag: Lemma.

Yoon, C. (2009). The effects of organizational citizenship behaviors on ERP system success.

Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 421-428.

Zhang, Y., & Hiltz, S. R. (2003). Factors that influence online relationship development in a knowledge

sharing community. Proceedings of the ninth American conference on information systems,

(pp. 410-417).

Henri Gardebroek - 2576036

Documents

Transcript of Henri Gardebroek - 2576036