NECESIDADES DE LAS PERSONAS CON DISCAPACIDAD E INTERVENCIONES EN ENTORNOS ESPECÍFICOS

The research question addressed at the commencement of this study is complex with regard to identifying the socio-technical dynamics prevalent in organisations post ERP adoption. Understanding user behaviour in an IT artefact is multidimensional due to the very nature of its enactment. Users have subjective understandings of the world around them, and the way they understand their context affects their enactment. Understanding users’ enactment of technology is at the heart of this research study.

110

One cannot simply understand workarounds as a holistic construct. Each workaround is different and is enacted in a specific context. Categorising workaround practices helps to identify how users adopt a procedure to deal with an instance of misfit experienced in the business process. By unpacking this complex social dynamic, we are better able to understand the reasons for IS success or failure in organisations that adopt proprietary ERP products.

By conducting the analysis in terms of business processes and specifically the integrity thereof, research could be focused on a particular element of user enactment. The complex question that was analysed in terms of business processes produced a complex answer. Workaround practices cannot be viewed as a general practice that users adopt. There are a multitude of factors that influence enactment, such as policy, managers, developers, environment and the artefact itself. These factors influence users’ behaviour and the way they enact technologies.

The BPI framework, while allowing the relationship between the two phenomena to be investigated, also reveals the complex dynamics of workaround practices. Although the workaround that a user performs may be deemed a safeguard to the integrity of the business process, as identified by formal workaround practices, there are dimensions in the framework to which it may pose a threat. Therefore each workaround needs to be considered in terms of each dimension of the BPI framework in order to understand the multifaceted relationship between the two phenomena and the complex dynamics of artefact enactment.

The results of this study reveal the complex relationship between BPI and workarounds. However, it is important to bridge the gap between research and practice. The results offer insight to organisations that adopt an IT artefact that integrates business processes, such as ERPs. In most instances organisations try to oust workaround practices in order to subscribe to “best practice” methodologies that are built into the system. This research, however, suggests that the objective should not be to drive out workarounds, but rather to identify instances in which workarounds are necessary in the organisation’s environment. Formalising necessary workarounds and building them into the business process are crucial to the success of an organisation in current complex and changing environments.

Formalising required workarounds and ousting unwanted workarounds appear to be an appropriate recommendation to practice. However, the argument still needs to be defined in the context of the problem. Formalising necessary workarounds does not imply that the artefact needs to be completely customised to “fit” the needs of the organisation. This is not necessarily the only viable solution. In fact, business process integrity can be achieved without extensive artefact customisation. Customisation complicates the artefact and its maintenance, raising the chances of

111

project failure. Rather, it can be argued that necessary workarounds, such as Emergency Processes, Verbal Signature and Changing Roles as identified, need to be built into the business processes of the organisation. This would enable the organisation to be more flexible at user-level. The ERP team confirms this:

“We use [the ERP] standard and this is very important. [The ERP] as we refer to it in general terms. We don’t try and build a new report or new functionality through other means and so forth, we try and stick to the general straightforward [ERP] because once it comes to upgrades, it is easy to upgrade. There are still people who sit on their old system, [the ERP] does not make enhancements on the old systems; they refuse. You need to move over to the new solution and they can’t because of all the customisation that they have done within their [ERP] and it becomes difficult for them to move forward. So we try and stick to [the ERP] standard as far as possible. It needs a very good reason to move outside of that if need it be.”

Formalised workarounds enhance an organisations ability to deal with non-standard business processes. This proves to be a necessary benefit to organisations adopting a proprietary ERP product and operating in a complex business environment. Ousting informal workarounds, by means of improved training and change management principles, is essential, but formalised workarounds prove pivotal. However, formal workarounds developed in an organisation’s business process and policy still need to be understood in terms of their complex nature. All formal workarounds identified in this research posed some form of threat to the integrity of the business process. Therefore managing the risks of formalised workarounds is a fundamental element of the complex nature of workaround practices. According to the results, formal workaround practices enable organisations to acquire the necessary balance between control and flexibility needed to maintain integrity of the business process.