2. KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN AN ERP PROJECT TEAM: THE UNEXPECTED DEBILITATING IMPACT OF SOCIAL CAPITAL Professor Sue Newell (Royal Holloway, University of London) + Jimmy Huang & Carole Tansley

3. Enterprise Resource Planning Systems New IT system designed to integrate corporate activities across globe Common IT infrastructure & common business processes Diffused rapidly but success? Here – consider micro-processes surrounding design & implementation

4. ERP Systems cont. ERP vs. BPR BPR – blank sheet ERP – ‘best practices’ Change organization to ‘fit’ technology not vv. (Soh et al., 2000) Business process change rather than technical problems key (Holland & Light, 1999)

5. Research Focus In-depth case study of project team Design Configure system Integration of knowledge dispersed within & across organizations (Lee & Lee, 2000) Implementation Modification/ introduction of org. processes Gain commitment from users

6. Project Team Selected on basis of intellectual capital AND Social capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998) Broadens reach of project team Social capital mobilized to access knowledge & gain commitment

7. Definitions (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998) Intellectual capital – the knowledge and knowing capability of the collectivity Social capital – the sum of actual and potential resources within, available through, and derived from the network of relationships possessed by an individual or social unit. Social capital thus comprises both the network and the assets that may be mobilized through the network

8. Research Methodology Ethnography – study of the culture(s) a given group more or less share (Van Maanen, 1988); to understand fundamental meanings (Kakabadse, 97) On-site observation over 18 months Semi-structured interviews with project team members and process owners Interviews with project leader monthly

9. Case – Quality Engineering Ltd (QEL) HR pillar of large organization-wide ERP project (SAP/R3) Replaced 1600 legacy systems 2 ‘waves’ of implementation HR forgotten! But recognized as central

10. Project Team HR ERP project initiated by HR Director But no interest in IT! Passed over initiative to Nick & team

11. Project Team Nick (project team leader)

12. Project Team Caroline IT skills, PT, strategic career reasons

13. Project Team Bob HR exp., no IT skill, cut-off from Bristol

14. Project Team Robin payroll, IT skills dev., maintained links

15. Project Team Susan line role - unhappy, permanent search

16. Project Team Rebecca placement student, excited – frustrated

17. Project Team + 2 IT outsourced company personnel no ERP experience, no business involvement, never seen job through to completion!

18. HR ERP Project Team Diverse knowledge needed for project Personal goals & desires Nick – emphasized risks Tendency to face outwards rather than inwards Used personal networks for personal objectives Little team cohesion (quotes p. 12/13)

19. Team Activitives ‘Work package owners’ Senior managers – ‘process owners’ Based on functional role Little involvement or interest HR Director similarly uninterested (e.g. conference) Justification problematic – demoralizing Eventually project put ‘on hold’

20. Discussion & Analysis Nahapiet and Ghoshal – social capital seen as generally beneficial for org. Here used for personal goals Social capital as a private vs. a public good (Leana & Van Buren, 1999) Project team – need balance between interests of individual & collective Requires conscious effort to create balance

21. Strategic Exchange Watson (1994) Strategic exchange perspective Personal goals and project goals Project goals over-ridden by personal goals in context of insecurity Social capital distracted from focus on project goals Knowledge sharing community not developed

22. Conclusions Social capital – appropriable organization Here appropriated for personal gain Effects of social capital ambivalent Strategic exchange – heuristic device

23. Model of the impact of low commitment and project priority on the appropriation of social capital and project team community development. Context Low senior management commitment Low project priority Project Team Interaction Outward-facing project team members Social Capital Appropriation Appropriated for personal goal fulfillment Project Team Community Little knowledge sharing & integration within team

24. Strategic Exchange Personal Goals/Desires Project Goals/ Requirements

25. Strategic Exchange in QEL Case Personal goals / desires Project goals/ requirements Project team insecurity

26. Project Team IDEAL SITUATION CASE REALITY

27. Social Capital Ideal type - use Project reality – use SC for SC for benefit of project personal benefit

28. Innovation Processes and Social Capital Innovation Episodes (Robertson et al.,) Agenda formation Design Implementation Appropriation

29. Innovation Processes and Social Capital Social Capital (Adler and Kwon) Bridging vs Bonding emphasis Source Structure – closed (Coleman), open (Burt) Content – relational (trust and norms) and cognitive (shared understanding) embeddedness Effects

30. Innovation and Social Capital Agenda formation DesignImplemen- tation Appropria- tion BondingBridgingBondingBridging ClosedOpenClosedOpen Consumm- atory Instrumen- tal Consumm- atory Instrumen- tal Kn.sharingKn. accessKn.sharingKn.access Team building Network building Comm. building Kn. Hub building Inn. Episode Focus Structure Content Effects Types of SC

31. Agenda formation Team Building (bonding) Design Network Building (bridging) Implementation Community Building (bonding) Appropriation Knowledge Hub Building (bridging) Figure 1. The relationship between the innovation episode and the focus of social capital