Optimal Enterprise

“One system for everyone” has been an ideal goal for information technology (IT) management in many large organizations, and the deployment of such systems has been a major trend incorporate world under the name of enterprise systems (ES) (Brown & Vessey, 2003; Davenport,2000; Markus, Petrie, & Axline, 2000). Benefits from ES use are claimed to be significant and multidimensional, ranging from operational improvements through decision-making enhancement to support for strategic goals (Shang & Seddon, 2002). However, studies (Hanseth & Braa, 2001; Rao, 2000; Robey, Ross, & Boudreau, 2002) of the deployment of ES in private sector organizations show that the ideal is difficult to accomplish. This paper reports a case in which a major university system in the US attempted to develop an in-house enterprise system. The system is currently used by more than 4,000 individual users in almost 20 universities and state agencies. This case offers a historical analysis of the design, implementation and use of the system from its inception in the mid 1980s to the present. This case indicates that ES design and implementation in higher education are quite challenging and complex due to unique factors in the public sector — including state mandates/requirements, IT leadership/resources, value systems, and decentralized organizational structure among other things — that must betaken into account in planning, designing and implementing ES (Ernst, Katz, & Sack, 1994;Lerner, 1999; McCredie, 2000). This case highlights (1) the challenges and issues in the rationale behind “one system for everyone” and (2) some differences as well as similarities in IT management between the private and public sectors. It offers some unique opportunities to discuss issues, challenges and potential solutions for the deployment of ES in the public arena, particularly in higher education.

“One system for everyone” has been an ideal goal for information technology (IT) management in many large organizations, and the deployment of such systems has been a major trend in corporate world under the name of enterprise systems (ES) (Brown & Vessey, 2003; Davenport, 2000; Markus, Petrie, & Axline, 2000). Benefits from ES use are claimed to be significant and multidimensional, ranging from operational improvements through decision-making enhancement to support for strategic goals (Shang & Seddon, 2002). However, studies (Hanseth & Braa, 2001; Rao, 2000; Robey, Ross, & Boudreau, 2002) of the deployment of ES in private sector organizations show that the ideal is difficult to accomplish. This chapter reports a case in which a major university system in the U.S. attempted to develop an in-house enterprise system. The system is currently used by more than 4,000 individual users in almost 20 universities and state agencies. This case offers a historical analysis of the design, implementation and use of the system from its inception in the mid 1980s to the present. This case indicates that ES design and implementation in higher education are quite challenging and complex due to unique factors in the public sector—including state mandates/requirements, IT leadership/resources, value systems, and decentralized organizational structure among other things—that must be taken into account in planning, designing and implementing ES (Ernst, Katz, & Sack, 1994; Lerner, 1999; McCredie, 2000). This case highlights (1) the challenges and issues in the rationale behind “one system for everyone” and (2) some differences as well as similarities in IT management between the private and public sectors. It offers some unique opportunities to discuss issues, challenges and potential solutions for the deployment of ES in the public arena, particularly in higher education.

“One system for everyone” has been an ideal goal for information technology (IT) management in many large organizations, and the deployment of such systems has been a major trend in corporate world under the name of enterprise systems (ES) (Brown & Vessey, 2003; Davenport, 2000; Markus, Petrie, & Axline, 2000). Benefits from ES use are claimed to be significant and multidimensional, ranging from operational improvements through decision-making enhancement to support for strategic goals (Shang & Seddon, 2002). However, studies (Hanseth & Braa, 2001; Rao, 2000; Robey, Ross, & Boudreau, 2002) of the deployment of ES in private sector organizations show that the ideal is difficult to accomplish. This paper reports a case in which a major university system in the US attempted to develop an in-house enterprise system. The system is currently used by more than 4,000 individual users in almost 20 universities and state agencies. This case offers a historical analysis of the design, implementation and use of the system from its inception in the mid 1980s to the present. This case indicates that ES design and implementation in higher education are quite challenging and complex due to unique factors in the public sector — including state mandates/requirements, IT leadership/resources, value systems, and decentralized organizational structure among other things — that must be taken into account in planning, designing and implementing ES (Ernst, Katz, & Sack, 1994; Lerner, 1999; McCredie, 2000). This case highlights (1) the challenges and issues in the rationale behind “one system for everyone” and (2) some differences as well as similarities in IT management between the private and public sectors. It offers some unique opportunities to discuss issues, challenges and potential solutions for the deployment of ES in the public arena, particularly in higher education.

Contributors

Doctoral education has been the primary conduit for social workers to develop research skills and is an important component in achieving a long-term research-based career genson, Briar-Lawson, & Flanzer, 2008). In social work, doctoral training affords students opportunities to identify and study meaningful substantive topics and acquire advanced methodological and analytical skills (Jenson et al., 2008). This preparation alone, however, may not be a sufficient foundation for all social workers to build a successful research career. Postdoctoral research training can help social workers strengthen their research skills and build a collaborative research agenda. Although postdoctoral training for social workers is not a new phenomenon, it is a pathway for social work research training that has not gained the momentum it has in other social science fields (for example, psychology). The limited experience with formal postdoctoral training within the field of social work may create challenges for students interested in postdoctoral research positions and the faculty members who are mentoring such students. Further, unfamiliarity with postdoctoral training presents challenges for graduates who pursue these positions as they may not fully understand their role, the role of postdoctoral mentors, and the opportunities available to them as trainees. Although career development articles exist for students considering postdoctoral training in a variety of fields (for example, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy [COSEPUP], 2000; DeMets et al., 2006; Gennaro, Deatrick, Dobal, Jemmott, & Ball, 2007; Khalsa & Pearson, 2007), the linfited number of articles related to postdoctoral training for social workers have focused on individual experiences (for example, Fenster, 2006) and specific funding mechanisms (for example, Matthieu, Bellamy, Pena, & Scott, 2008). To help fill this gap in the social work literature, this article provides an overview of postdoctoral research training opportunities for a variety of substantive areas and describes the potential benefits of postdoctoral training. In addition, this article highlights some potential drawbacks that should be considered when deciding whether to complete a postdoctoral research position. This practical advice may be particularly helpful for students or junior scholars considering postdoctoral research training and doctoral faculty members who supervise students considering such training. POSTDOCTORAL TRAINING Although postdoctoral training has been a traditional step in the education process for the physical sciences, it has not played a similar role in the career of most social work scholars. As many fields grow more complex, the difficulty of familiarizing one's self with interesting and relevant material has increased, at least within the time limits of traditional graduate programs (COSEPUP, 2000; DeMets et al., 2006). Postdoctoral training is one way to balance the need to train students in new and evolving methodologies and ensure that they receive training in the basic core of theory, methods, and their substantive areas. Irrespective of discipline, the primary purpose of postdoctoral training is to expand research skills and grow intellectually (O'Mara & Bakos, 2003). Postdoctoral positions can help recent graduates expand their collaborative research base and develop independent research programs (COSEPUP, 2000; DeMets et al., 2006). Postdoctoral training also provides opportunities for early career researchers to interact intensively with senior investigators and establish collaborations with other junior researchers. In certain settings, this type of training can help promote interdisciplinary research that brings together different disciplines and combines their respective theoretical and methodological approaches. POSTDOCTORAL TRAINING FOR SOCIAL WORKERS Research capacity at the postgraduate level has been a relatively neglected part of the social work research training continuum (Fraser, Jenson, & Lewis, 1993; National Association of Deans and Directors Task Force, 1997). …

About Authors

Notes on Contributors

Previous article FreeContributors to This IssuePDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreAlexsia T. Chan is assistant professor of government at Hamilton College. Her research focuses on comparative politics, the political economy of development, and Chinese politics, and her interests include inequality, authoritarian rule, labor, public service provision, and social control.Xi Chen is associate professor in the Department of Government and Public Administration, Chinese University of Hong Kong. He is the author of Social Protest and Contentious Authoritarianism in China (2012) and is currently completing another book, Disempowering Contention: Restructuring, Resistance, and State Domination in China. He has also published articles in journals such as Comparative Politics, Comparative Political Studies, Politics and Society, China Quarterly, and Journal of Democracy.Wing-Chung Ho (何榮宗) is associate professor of sociology at City University of Hong Kong. He holds a PhD in anthropology from SOAS, University of London. Ho has published broadly on community studies and social problems in relation to subordinate people in Hong Kong and China in journals that include China Quarterly, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, Journal of Contemporary China, Journal of Contemporary Asia, and China Review.Carsten A. Holz, an economist, is a professor in the Social Science Division at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. His research focuses on China’s reform-period economy, most recently on the quality of Chinese statistics, issues of economic growth, and economic development in underdeveloped regions of the PRC.Yu Huang (黄瑜) is a postdoctoral fellow in the Division of Social Science, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Her research interests include industrial automation and robotization, science and technology studies, labor studies, agrarian change and rural development in China.Tao-chiu Lam teaches at the College of Professional and Continuing Education, Hong Kong Polytechnic University. His research interests are local government and politics and governance issues in China.Carlos Wing-Hung Lo is professor and head of the Department of Government and Public Administration at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and director of the Centre for Business Sustainability in the Faculty of Business Administration. His main research interests are in the areas of law and government, environmental governance, public sector management, and corporate social and environmental responsibility.Jian Lu (陆健) is a postdoctoral research fellow at the School of Public Policy and Management of Tsinghua University in Beijing. His research interests include contentious politics, environmental governance, and environmental nongovernmental organizations in China.Kevin J. O’Brien is the Alan P. Bedford Professor of Asian Studies and Political Science and director of the Institute of East Asian Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. His research focuses on Chinese politics since 1978, and his interests include policy implementation, legislative politics, village elections, popular resistance and protest policing.Naubahar Sharif is associate professor in the Division of Social Science and the Division of Public Policy at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. His current research is on the process of industrial automation, including robotics, unfolding in southern China. Previous article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The China Journal Volume 81January 2019 Published on behalf of the Australian Centre on China in the World at the Australian National University Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/700669 Copyright 2019 by The Australian National University. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Focus on Authors

Optical Bioimaging and Therapy

About Our Authors

Enterprise systems are gaining interest from both practitioners and researchers because of their potential linkages to organizational and individual user's productivity. Information systems (IS) researchers have been investigating the implementation and adoption issues of enterprise systems based on the organizational IS management perspectives. However, there are few papers that investigate enterprise systems management and implementation issues based on the informal control mechanisms, although the enterprise systems are control tools in the organization. Specifically, this paper applies Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) adoption and implementation to the informal controls, such as cultural control and self-control, which can be viewed as a tacit perspective in knowledge management. Uncertainty avoidance and perceived enjoyment are used as informal controls in the ERP implementation in this paper, and are linked to the technology acceptance variables to investigate the relationships among them. Sociotechnical design, organizational control mechanism, knowledge management, and individual motivation are reviewed to support this potential linkage in the model. Field data via the online survey of ERP systems user group (n=101) are analyzed with partial least squares and supported our hypotheses. Uncertainty avoidance cultural control and intrinsic motivation as self-control are the important antecedents of ERP systems adoption. Furthermore, the result helps the systems manager understand that informal controls should be applied to the ERP systems implementation to enhance tacit and social aspects of IS management.

Electronic resource planning (ERP) software is a valuable tool for optimizing business processes. The primary purpose of these packages is to improve information exchanges throughout organizations. The modular design of Electronic Resource Planning software allows companies to tailor it to their particular business practices.Many factors must be considered when choosing an Electronic Resource Planning package such as return on investment calculations, training, management support, and the current IT infrastructure. Omitting any of these considerations can increase costs and waste valuable company time.Electronic Resource Planning packages may be purchased outright or one module at a time. Leasing options are also available which offer Internet-based ERP. This represents the latest trend in Electronic Resource Planning computing; however, security issues may outweigh the benefits associated with this method.An ERP package must be properly implemented and maintained. The preferred method of implementation is a step-by-step approach as opposed to an immediate approach. Some factors to consider when implementing an Electronic Resource Planning package include project planning, “feature creep,” business process mapping, customization, training, time, and rapid implementation packages.Electronic Resource Planning buyers can help to ensure that they are obtaining the optimal solution for their companies by arming themselves with adequate information. A properly chosen and implemented Electronic Resource Planning solution will likely improve business processes, increase efficiency, and accurately measure results.

Contributors

in 2010 and joined UAB, chasing his dreams of becoming a successful scientist. His research focuses on deciphering the molecular signaling linked with disease progression and its clinical manifestation so that an efficient interventional approach can be achieved. The primary area of his research is diabetes and its microvascular complications in the retina and heart. He is interested in exploring key mechanism(s), initiated by disturbed gut axis, which result in aberrant angiogenesis in retina and development of retinopathy and perivascular and interstitial cardiac fibrosis in diabetes. Outside the lab, he likes to spend time with his family and participate in indoor and outdoor activities. He can be found on Twitter @ramprasadUAB.