ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
Management
Accounting
Research
j our na l h o me p a g e:ww w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / m a r
Accounting
logics,
reconfiguration
of
ERP
systems
and
the
emergence
of
new
accounting
practices:
A
sociomaterial
perspective
Erica
L.
Wagner
a,
Jodie
Moll
b,∗,
Sue
Newell
c,daSchoolofBusinessAdministration,PortlandStateUniversity,631SWHarrisonStreet,Portland,OR97201,UnitedStates bManchesterBusinessSchool,UniversityofManchester,OxfordRd,ManchesterM139PL,UK
cDepartmentofManagement,BentleyUniversity,175ForestStreet,Waltham,MA02452,UnitedStates dWarwickBusinessSchool,UK
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
n
f
o
Keywords:
EnterpriseResourcePlanningsystems Accountinglogics
Sociomateriality Reconfiguration Legacyassets
a
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
Thispaperextendsourknowledgeonhowsoftware-basedaccountingtoolsmightwork effectivelywithinanorganization.Theempiricaldatathatwefocusonareeventsthat unfoldedfollowingtheintroductionofanewERPsystematanIvyLeagueUniversity.We describeanegotiationprocessthatoccurredafterroll-outthatresultedinareconfiguration oftheERPtointegratesomeofthelegacyfunctionalitiesthatwerefamiliarto organiza-tionalparticipantsandwhichwereconsideredbythemtoprovideamoreeffectivewayto managetheirfinances.Ourcontributiontotheliteratureisnotonlytoshowtheimportance ofsuchpost-roll-outmodificationsforcreatingaworkinginformationsystem,butalsoto extendpreviousaccountsofnon-linearaccountingchangeprocessesbyemphasizinghow thesemodificationsaredependentontheparticularentanglementofusersandtechnology (thesociomaterialassemblage)ratherthaneitherfeaturesofthetechnologyortheagency ofthehumansinvolved.Moreover,ouranalysisofthecasedatasuggeststhatmanagement accountinginparticularmaynotbeeasilycapturedinERPpackages,evenwherethe tech-nologyarchitecturesaresupposedlydesignedforaparticularindustry.Thecasedataalso pointstoissuesofaffordabilityandthepowerofcommunitiesofpracticeasmediatingthe extenttowhichthesefamiliaraccountinglogicsmaybecomeintegratedwithintheERP system.
© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Inthefaceofcompetitiveglobalmarketsandconstant innovationsintechnologyandbusinessmodels,changes toaccountinginformationsystemsareoftenimplemented. Inparticular,manyorganizationsadoptaccounting soft-warepackages(asvariantsofEnterpriseResourcePlanning [ERP]systems)toimprovethetransactionprocessing capa-bilities(Boothetal.,2000;DechowandMouritsen,2005), co-ordinate record keeping (Chapman and Kihn, 2009),
∗ Correspondingauthor.
E-mailaddresses:elwagner@pdx.edu(E.L.Wagner), Jodie.moll@mbs.ac.uk(J.Moll),snewell@bentley.edu(S.Newell).
reduce costly duplications of data (Dillard and Yuthas,
2006;ScapensandJazayeri,2003),enablecentrallystored
information,makingiteasiertocreatedifferenttypesof financialreports(ChapmanandChua,2003)andimprove fiduciarycontrol(WagnerandNewell,2006).
Much of the literature in accounting has assumed suchtechnologytobean‘exogenous’forceofchangefor accounting work routines (Granlund and Malmi, 2002;
RomandRohde,2006,2007;ScapensandJazayeri,2003).
Fromthisview,thefunctionalityofthesystemissetwhen theadoptingorganization“flipstheswitches”ofthousands ofembeddedtemplates.Thesetemplatesprovidethe orga-nization witha catalogue of standard workpractices – theso-called ‘bestpractice’logicpurportedlyembedded withintheproduct(O’Leary,2000;Wagner andNewell,
2004;Wagneretal.,2006;SiaandSoh,2007).Oncethe configuration options are selected this will supposedly determinehow accounting will be practiced. However, technologyalonecannotforcepracticechange,especially whenthe‘bestpractice’designlogicismisalignedwiththe legacypracticelogics.Wheresuchincompatibilityexists resistanceisoftenencountered(Berenteetal.,2007).These kindsofproblemsareprominentinrelationtothe imple-mentationofERPsystemsbecausetheirintegratednature meansthat thework processes of differentgroups and departmentsbecomemoretightlycoupledthanwasoften thecase in the legacy system environment when each department/functionhaditsownstand-aloneITsystem.
Researchshowsthatoftenorganizationsonlyrealizethe incompatibilityinpracticelogicsoncetheconfigured sys-temisrolled-outandusersfindthattheycannolonger carryouttheirlegacyworkpracticesandsobegintoresist
(Wagneretal.,2010;LeonardiandBarley,2008).Thisleads
manyorganizationsintoaprolongedperiodofnegotiation andmayresultinsubstantialcustomizationstotheERP
(WagnerandNewell,2006)orotheradaptations,despite
thispracticebeingdiscouragedbyvendorsandtraditional systemsdevelopmenttheories(BoudreauandRobey,2005;
Berenteetal.,2007,2008;vanFenemaetal.,2007).For
instance,priorfield studies(Malmi,2001;Granlundand
Malmi,2002)havedemonstratedthatasERP
implemen-tation projects unfold, and there is realization that the systemis unabletocope withtheaccountingdemands, organizationsare prone todeveloping separate spread-sheetsolutionsorspecialisedsoftwaresuchasCognosthat canprovidemoreflexibleanalysisoftheaccounts.These studieshaveshownthatspecializedsoftwareusedto cap-turethespecificationsrequiredofadvancedmanagement accountingtechniques,suchasthebalancedscorecardand activitybasedcosting,mayovertimebeaddedtoERP-type technologies.ThatERPsystemsmightrequiresuch modi-ficationhasledseveralscholarstobecriticalofusingthem formanagementaccountingpurposesarguingtheyaretoo complexforthistypeofarchitecture(seeRomandRohde, 2007,p.50).TheysuggestthatERPsystemsbeviewedas transactionalmanagementsystemsthatarenotdesigned forstrategiclevelmanagement.Furthermore,stand-alone softwaresystems,whichcanprovideamoreuser-friendly andflexiblebasisforanalysisandreportingandmoread hocmanagementaccountingpractices,mayprovidealess riskyandmorecosteffectivealternative(RomandRohde,
2006;Hyvönen,2003).But,evidencefromscholarssuchas
ChapmanandKihn(2009)suggestthatmanagerscanbe
satisfiedwithsystemsthatpossesshighlevelsof integra-tionevenwheretheydonotleaddirectlytoimprovements inperformance.Inkeepingwiththelatercadreofresearch, weextendknowledgerelatedtohowERPtechnologiesare madetoworkassystems(Chapman,2005)througha non-linearprocessofchange(QuattroneandHopper,2001).We provideananalysisofacasethatshowshowERPsystems canbereconfiguredtoincorporatelegacypracticesand sat-isfytheflexibility(i.e.precisionandfrequency)demanded ofmanagerialaccounting.Indoingthis,wedemonstrate notonlytheimportanceofpost-roll-outmodificationsfor creatingaworkinginformationsystem,butalsoemphasize howthesemodificationsaredependentontheparticular
entanglementofusersandtechnology(thesociomaterial assemblage).Inadoptingthisperspective,weseektogo beyondrealistaccountsthatfocusonthefeaturesofthe technologydeterminingstructuresorsocial construction-ist accounts that emphasize the agency of the humans involved(LeonardiandBarley,2010).Weidentifyhow con-texts of usewilldiffer interms of thetypes andscope ofmodificationthataremadeinthepost-roll-outphase andtherebyextendtheliteratureonaccountingchangeas non-linearand relationalinnature(inparticular,Andon
etal.,2007;DechowandMouritsen,2005;Quattroneand
Hopper,2006).
Inthispaperthen,wedonotrejectthepotential use-fulnessofanERPsystemformanagementaccountingbut rather argue that thevalue of any information system, whetheritbeintegratedorstandalone,canonlybe under-stood by focusing on how accounting, IT and its users areentangledtoproducemanagerialaccountingpractice. Withthis in mindwefocus ontworesearchquestions: (1) whatandhowareaccountinglogicsencodedwithin ERPsystems?and(2)how,intheprocessofusers inter-actingwiththeERPand retrievinginformation, donew accountingpracticesemergeanddoesthesystembecome reconfiguredtosupportthem?Thesequestionsallowusto considerhowthelogicsunderpinningpracticearesensitive tolocalcircumstancesandcannotbefullyspecifiedinany “stronglydeterminantway”(Suchman,2007,p.53)even though ERP-architecturesinscribe, in theirvanilla-state, particularidealsaboutpractice,i.e.,particularpractice log-ics.
We explore the questions by examining the post-implementationnegotiationsofatroubledERPprojectin anIvyLeagueuniversity.Theprojectwasatriskofbeing abandonedbecauseofthepracticelogicsthatwereinitially configuredintoitsgrantaccountingmodule.TheERPwas configuredtosupportthefinancialaccountingneedsofthe centraladministrativefunctioncomposedofprofessional accountants.However,theintegratednatureofERPmeant thatthesesystemarchitectureswerenotsufficiently flexi-bleforenablingfacultytomanagetheirresearchproject budgets in theirpreferred ways. We thus identify how theERP-systemwascustomizedtoenabletheuniversity (hereafter‘Ivy’)toaccommodatethepracticesofboththe financialaccountingcentreandthefacultymanagingtheir projectbudgets.
2. Asociomaterialityperspectiveofaccounting practice
2.1. Natureofsociomaterialpractice
Weadoptapracticetheoryperspectivetoyieldinsight intohowaccountingismadeworkablewhenitis entan-gled with an ERP system. This approach is becoming increasinglypopularforitsabilitytooffernewand inter-esting insights to accounting change (cf. Dechow and
Mouritsen,2005;JørgensenandMessner,2010;Macintosh
andQuattrone,2010;Pentlandetal.,2010).Practice
the-oriesfocusonpeople’severydayactivities,analyzinghow theyareproducedandreproducedinaparticularhistorical andsocialcontext(LevinaandVaast,2005).Thisapproach considersaccountingasathingthatpeopledo.Thismeans itcannotbereducedtoasetofroutinesthatareenacted asdesignedacrosstimeandlocations(cf.Scapens,1994;
BurnsandScapens,2000).Thefocusonpracticereflects
theidea that it is at thelevel ofeveryday activity that learningoccursaspeopleandtheirtechnologiestakeon particularshapesandmeaningthroughsituateduse. Prac-tices areconsideredtobeinaconstantstateofchange, albeitsomechangesareverysmall.Thismeansthatthere arealwaysinconsistencies,evenwhenpeopleare suppos-edly carryingoutthesamepractice:‘pursuingthesame thingnecessarilyproducessomethingdifferent’(Nicolini, 2007,p.894).
There are many variants of practice theory1;
how-ever, here we analyze technology–human interaction from the sociomateriality practice perspective outlined
byOrlikowski(2010)andSuchman(2007).This
perspec-tivedoes notassign agencyeither topersonsor things butconsidersthesocialandtechnologicaltobe ontologi-callyinseparable,yetconstitutivelyentangled(Orlikowski,
2010; Orlikowskiand Scott,2008).It providesa wayto
understand how meanings and materialities are inex-tricably related and influence the form of (accounting) practice.
Importantly, this ‘relational ontology’ suggests that onceonebeginstolookatanintegratedinformationsystem likeanERP,despiteitretaininganorganizationalidentity, multipleperson/technologyassemblagesmaybeobserved thathelptoexplainhowaccountingcanbeinterpretedand enacteddifferentlybyuserseveninthesameorganization
(QuattroneandHopper,2001,2006).Itisforthisreason
thatQuattroneandHopper(2006)refertosuchsystemsas
being‘heteromogeneous’.Thisoccurs,theyargue,because thelogicsunderpinningaccountingpracticearesensitive tolocalcircumstancesandcannotbefullyspecifiedeven though ERP-architecturesinscribe, in theirvanilla-state, particular practice logics.In sociomaterialityterms this focusonhowrelationsbetweenhumansandtechnologies become enactedin practiceis referred toas ‘performa-tivity’,whichhelpsustounderstandhowandwhysuch systemsarepronetoreconfiguration.
1Ahrens(2009)suggestssomeofthemorecommonlyusedapproaches
in accounting include governmentality, actor network theory and accountability.
2.2. Relatingnotionsofreconfigurationtoaccounting andERPtechnology
Inapackagedsoftwareproduct,thewaytheERP tech-nologyisinitiallyconstitutedisinfluencedbytheparticular configuration options selected plus any customizations introduced.Theaccountinglogicsencodedinthesoftware maybedesignedwithcertainproblemsinmind(i.e.costing andperformancemeasurement)(DechowandMouritsen, 2005)buttheyalsoinvolveinevitablyvaguecategories(i.e. inventory)sothattheycancaptureabroadrangeof orga-nizationalactivity(ChapmanandChua,2003).Trade-offs betweenorganizationalandtechnical concernswillalso add toincompleterepresentations of theorganization’s circumstances and this enables those downloading and interpretingaccountinginformationproducedbytheERP systemtotranslateitanduseitindifferentways depend-ingontheirintentionsandadaptiveabilities(Bloomfield
andVurdubaki,1997; Buscoetal.,2007;Dechowet al.,
2007;Dechow andMouritsen, 2005).More bluntlyput,
anERPsystemcannotbeunderstoodtopresent informa-tionthat objectively reflectssomereality, or asneutral technical solutions and tools (Ciborra, 2002, p. 68; in accountingseeHopwood,1983,1987).Thedesigner2/users
viewpointscan beand areinfluenced in the processof downloading, interpreting and using thedata. It is this reflexivitybetweentheERP-systemandtheuserthat sug-geststhat the design ofan ERP-system withintegrated accountingfunctionsisnotsomethingthatstopswhena systemgoeslive.Ratherdesign isanon-going socioma-terial practiceperformed over time (Suchman, 2007, p. 278).
PreviousstudiesofaccountingandIT,borrowingfrom
Ciborra(2002),usetheterm‘drift’todescribetheprocesses
bywhichthesesystemschange(Quattrone andHopper,
2001;Andonetal.,2007;seealsoMacintoshandQuattrone,
2010).It has been arguedthat drift “resembles incom-pleteattemptsatorganizing”(QuattroneandHopper,2001, p. 428) and providesanexplanation of themany ways in which ITsystemscan bealtered through encounters with those using them such as sabotage, learning-by-doing, orplain serendipity(see Ciborra,2002, p.89 for a more in-depth discussion). This concept enablesone tounderstandhow anorganizationmight endup using legacypractices whennewITisintroducedevenwhere particular legacy practices were purposefully ‘designed out’ of theIT architecture.For analytical purposes, this perspective suggests it is important to explore the ini-tialdesign/configuration,whowasinvolved/excluded,and thentofollowthroughtoexaminehowthesociomaterial assemblageis re-configured througha process of nego-tiation(Ciborra,2002; Orlikowski and Scott,2008).The manglingofthesocialandtechnicalthusproducesa
dialec-ticthatPickering(1993)depictsasaseriesofresistances
andaccommodations;hereweexplorethisdialecticacross timeandacrosspracticecommunities.
2 Inthispaperweusethetermdesignersincetheprojectinvolved
2.3. Communitiesofpractice,accountinglogicsand relationality
AsLawandSingleton(2005)indicate–thenatureof
athingdependsonitsnestsofrelationships(boththose absentaswellasthose present).For example,withthe implementationofanERPsystempeoplemaynotbeableto gettheaccountinginformationthattheyneedorexpected tobeabletoget.Thus,therecanbeaninformation asym-metrybetweenpeopleandmachineslimitingthescopeof interaction,andthecapacityforaccountingpracticeand subsequentaction (Suchman,2007).Thisview assumes thatERPisanessentialpartofpracticeinorganizations andbyinscribingspecificaccountinglogicssetslimitson formsof calculation.In Orlikowski’s(2005)terms these materialarrangements‘scaffold’socialactivityinparticular wayswithinpracticecommunities.Intheprocessofusing thesystem,individualsand/orcommunitiesmayendup questioningtheselogics.
In the past, practice communities have been rela-tivelyautonomoussothatpeople/technologyassemblages haveevolvedindistinctways,eveniftheyareusingthe ‘same’technology.WithanintegratedERPthis indepen-dentevolution becomesmore difficultand themultiple sociomaterialassemblagesbecomemoremutually consti-tutive.Thus,ifonepracticecommunitydecidesthatthe accountinglogicsinscribedwithintheERPshouldchange tobetterreflect theeconomic realityofthelocalentity oritsproductsorprocesses,theywouldneedtoimpose thisonotherswhomaybelievetheexistingpracticetobe adequate.Unlessthosecommunitieswithdiffering prefer-encesregardingwhataretheappropriateaccountinglogics canbedecoupled,sothateachcouldusetheirpreferred formofcalculation,aperiodofnegotiationwouldbegin. SuchdecouplingismoredifficultinanERPenvironment, so the emergent sociomaterial assemblage within any particularpracticecommunityisrestrainedbyother socio-materialassemblages– onepractice communitycannot evolvethesystemwithoutitinfluencingotherswhomay thenresistattemptstomodifythetechnology.Conflictis generatedbecauseforsomecommunitiestheco-evolving ERPmayenhancethesociomaterialrelationship(aswhen anaccountantinthecentralofficegetsdatafromall dis-tributeddepartmentsviatheERPinoneformatthatmakes his/herjobofreconciliationeasier) whileinothercases itmaydistractfromtherelationship(aswhenthefaculty membercannolongergettheinformationthats/hefeels isneededfromtheERPtomanagearesearchbudget).
Thesociomaterialpracticeperspectivethatwedescribe inthissectionisdesignedtoprovideamoreinclusiveview of how accounting practices emerge from thecomplex andshiftingassemblagesbetweentheaccounting calcula-tions,theITarchitectureandthepeopleintheorganization
(Orlikowski,2010).Wenextdescribethemethodologythat
allowsustoseetheseshiftingassemblages.
3. Researchmethods
Theempiricalsectionsofthispaperareinformedbya longitudinalcasestudy(138interviewswith53
employ-ees)(seeTable1)betweenJune1999andApril2010.The
majorityofthefieldworkwasconductedoverthecourse of18monthsbetweenJune1999andAugust2000buta seriesoffollow-upinterviewswereconductedwitha sub-setoftheIvypopulationin2002,2005,and2010inorderto keepcurrentwiththestateoftheERPandadministrative workpracticesattheUniversity.
The18-monthintensivefieldworkphasecorresponded withtheimplementationandpost-implementationofthe ERPproject.Thefirstauthormadefourvisitstothefield sitewhereshewasembeddedwithintheERPproject envi-ronment foreight weeksat a time(summer 99, winter 99, spring 00, and summer 00).During theseintensive datacollectionperiodstheresearcherattendedmeetings, reviewed formal documentation, and conducted inter-views.Yearspriortoconductingthisstudy,thefirstauthor was employed byIvy asan accountant. Thisproved to be helpful for understanding Ivy University norms and communicatingusinglocalcolloquialisms.Theothertwo authors becameinvolved only afterthefield studywas complete.
Recognizingtheperformativenatureofsomelanguage, anarrativeinterviewconventionwasadoptedinorderto avoidaskingleadingquestions.3 Thenarrativeinterview
conventionprovidesatimeframetostructurethe inter-view[“Tellmewhathappenedsincewelastmet.”]andthen encouragesuninterruptedstorytellingrelatedtoissuesof centralimportancetotheinterviewee(Bauer,1996).Rough transcriptsofeachinterviewwereproduceddirectly fol-lowingtheday’smeetingsandanalyzedintermsofactors andissuesdiscussed.Recurrentthemeswerefollowedup in thenextroundofinterviewsinordertogather mul-tiple perspectivesofthesame situationanddevelop an understandingofthenegotiationsthatwerecentralin peo-ple’s mindsatthetime. Thisapproachwasalsohelpful forreachingthoseactorswhomighthaveremained‘silent voices’(Star,1991),becausethefieldresearcherwasguided notonlybyintervieweereferrals,butalsobycontacting alliesandcontroversialagentswhosenamesaroseinthe interviews.Whenareferencewasmadetoagroup,cause, oractionattributedtononhumanssuchastheERPitself, theresearcherinterviewedadelegateandreviewed tech-nicaldocumentation(PouloudiandWhitley,2000).After eachphaseoffieldwork,thefirstauthor“re-transcribed” theroughtranscriptsinordertocommunicatethe “spo-kenfeaturesofdiscourse”suchastone,moodandpaceof thenarration(Riessman,1993),andtofillinallmissing narrative.
Theanalysisinthispaperrepresentsare-examination oftheoriginaldatafocusedonspecificallycontributingto theaccountingliteraturerelatedtotheentanglementof accountinglogicsandERPsoftware.Thedatawasfirst ana-lyzedwiththeintentionofunderstandingthelogicsofIvy’s accountingpractices.Next,weundertookasystematicand carefulreadingofthetranscriptsusingthethree theoret-ical constructs introducedin sectiontwo: sociomaterial
3Follow-upinterviewsin2002,2005and2010weresemi-structured
Table1
InterviewsconductedatIvyLeagueUniversity.
Participants Communityof practice
Summer99 Winter99 Spring00 Summer00 Summer02 Summer05 Spring10
6 Central
administrative leader
3 1 5 3 2 2 2
9 Projectmanagers 8 5 6 6 1 1 0
17 Projectteam
members
17 12 11 11 1 0 0
32 Totalcentral administration andprojectteam
28 18 22 20 4 3 2
12 Enduser 6 5 12 5 0 0 0
9 Faculty 0 4 6 3 0 0 0
21 Totalfacultyand facultysupport staff
6 9 18 8 0 0 0
53 Total 34 27 40 28 4 3 2
practice,reconfiguration, and relationality.This enabled ustoidentifyseveralepisodesofnegotiationfromwhich theentanglementofaccountinglogicsandITarchitectures
couldbeobservedtoproduceachangeintheaccounting
practicesthatwereusedwithinIvy.Wefocusonthesein theempiricalsectionsofthepapertounderstandthe vari-ancesbetweentheaccountinglogicsinscribedintheERP systemandthosethathadshapedtheaccountingpractices thathadbeenimprovisedbystaff.Weweretherebyableto empiricallyexaminethemodificationofboththesoftware andworkpracticeswhichhasnotreceivedmuchattention intheaccountingliterature.
4. Thecase:findingsandanalysis
In this section, we first describe the organizational context.Next,weconsidertheaccountinglogics
underpin-ningthelegacypracticeofcommitmentaccounting and
itsreplacementpracticetime-phasedbudgeting.
Follow-ingthisweexaminethenegotiationprocessthatoccurred leadingtotheemergenceofnewaccountingpracticesand areconfiguredERPsystem.
4.1. Organizationalcontext
“Ivy”UniversityisoneoftheeightIvyLeague institu-tionslocatedintheNortheastregionoftheUnitedStates thataregroupedtogetherfortheiracademicexcellenceand selectiveprivateeducation.Thegovernancestructure of Ivyisrelativelydecentralizedwithadministrationtaking
placeinthedisparateacademicandsupportdepartments
andthenconsolidatedandreconciledcentrallyinorderto reportfinancialstatusandmeetregulatoryconcerns.
The lifeblood of a research university is the receipt andeffectiveuseofresearchgrantmonies.Ivyhasover 4000differentgrantsforwhichtheyhavefiduciary respon-sibility. Grants and contracts revenue account for close to30%oftheUniversity’stotaloperatingbudget.Within Ivy, grant activity is ‘rolled-up’ and reported alongside
all other University funds for two main reasons. First,
improper management of grant dollars can potentially
increasetheUniversity’sriskposition.Grantrelated activ-ities are closely scrutinized by legal counsel and Ivy’s
InternalAuditdepartmentwhoworkincollaborationwith externalauditors.Consequently,auditcomplianceisa con-cerntoCentral leadershipandbearssignificanceonany decisionsregardingmodernizationofIvy’sadministrative
systems.Second,themismanagementofgrantfundscan
becomealiabilityfortheinstitution.Assuch,Central lead-ershipismotivatedtodecreaseinconsistenciesinpractice acrossfacultygrants.
Fromtheacademicperspective,whenafaculty
mem-berisawardedfundsfromanexternalgrantagencythere arecertainreportingrequirementstiedtotheuseofthe
monies.Fundingbodiestypicallymakeawardsbasedon
the initial monetary requests in the grant application
where detailed categoriesof expensessubmittedin the
application sum up to the total grant award. Principal
Investigators (PIs)ongrants usually havemultiple
pro-posalsand awardsongoing at any given time meaning
thattheirscientificactivitiesare‘projectdriven’butthe Universitygeneralledgerandchartofaccountsdonot sup-portproject-orientedreporting.Facultyareconcernedwith scientificendeavoursthatareenabledthroughthegrant funding.ThisoftenmeansthataPIwillspendgrantfunds
basedonhow muchgrantmoney remainswithoutever
writingaformalplanforhowthefundsshouldbespent
overtime.Thevariouspracticesfacultyemployedinsuch reportingactivitiesleadtoinconsistenciesinIvy’soverall accountingpractices.
In this climate, Ivy embarked on an ERP project to
replace all administrative systems and create an
‘inte-grated operating platform for the 21st century’. The
choiceofanenterprisecomputingmodelwasexpectedto
increase fiduciarycontroland decrease auditriskwhile funnellingmoreadministrativeresponsibilitiesfromthe
centraladministration toacademicand support
depart-ments. The introduction of an ERP is an example of a
situationwhereIvyleadershipanticipatedchangearounda ‘bestpractice’ideal.Theoretically,however,weunderstand thateventhoughanERP-architecturewouldinscribea par-ticulargrant accountinglogic,actualaccountingpractice willbesensitivetolocalcircumstances(Suchman,2007).
context(includingmanagingprojectsassociatedwithgrant awards)that would befirst implemented in Ivy. Vision wasexpected toprovidea robustfinancial systemthat wouldintegrateaccountingandbudgetfunctionalitywith all other administrative functions.This strong financial functionalitydrovevendorselection:
“Iheavilyleanedin[the]directionofwantingtogowith thestrongestfinancialsystem.Ithoughtthatthelargest pay-offfromtheproject,whenyoureallylookedatit,
ultimatelywouldbeinbetterfinancialdataandthe abil-itytodo more interesting thingsontheclinicaland grantsmanagementside...[these]thingsseemedtome
woulddrivetheprocesstocreatearobustbusiness envi-ronment.”[VPforFinanceandAdministration,summer 1999]
Ivy conducted system-modernization and business-processredesigneffortswithinthekeyfunctionalareasof financialmanagement,humanresourcesandpayroll,and grantsandcontractsadministration.Thefinancial manage-mentcomponentsincludedgeneralaccounting,financial planningandreporting,purchasingandaccountspayable. Becauseoftheimportanceattachedtothemanagement ofprojectfunds,thecapabilityofthesystemtomonitorthe presentstateofaccountsinrelationtopastexpectations andfutureplanswerekeycriteria indesigning the sys-tem.Itwasalsorationalizedthatanintegratedapproach would simplify future upgradesand promised to mini-mizethe needfor expensive migration efforts later on. Institution-wideall-fundbudgetingwouldalsobepossible withouttime-consuminganderror-pronemanual recon-ciliations.Suchmotivationsarenotuncommonespecially whenseekingtoretrieveaccounting-basedinformationin anintegratedmannertocreatedifferenttypesofreports
(Chapman and Chua, 2003). Ivy’s academic
communi-ties,thathadhistoricallybeenrelativelyautonomousand evolvedpracticesthatweredistinct,wouldnowbecome more interdependent. This approach was expected to “professionalizetheworkforce” byshiftingthe typesof questionsandanalysesthatfacultyandtheirsupportstaff wereaskingwithregardstotheirfinancialposition:
“By making a decision to go with [Vision] finan-cialssenior management either consciouslyor semi-consciously–Ithinkitwasforformer–wasmakingit impossiblefor[Ivy]tocontinuedoingbusinessin frag-mentedsilos.Likeitornot,you’vegottoworkwitha newwayofaccounting.It’sintegrated–it’sslower,it’s apainintheass...andtheblue-hairedladieswhoused
todoittheoldwayforyearsdecideit’sabsolutely ter-rible–theydon’twanttodoit‘causeitsnotIvy’sway. Butimplementationisaboutsettingupanenvironment. Youmakeasetofdecisions–asetofchangesatthetop thatforcechangeregardlessofwhetherit’sconsensusor not–‘causeyousay–youchangetheirabilitytodoitany otherway.Youjustcan’tdograntaccountinglikeyou usedtodograntaccounting!Nothingyoudoisgoingto changethat–noamountofmoaningisgoingtochange it...Theycanfire[theVP],theycanfire[thecontroller],
theycanfireme,butnothing’sgoingtochangethe fun-damentalyoucan’tgobackandyoucan’tspendenough
moneytomakeitlooklikeitusedto...Youdon’tlike
it?You’reoutoftheconsensuspicture.Ifyouaremore inclinedtoacceptthechangesanddealwiththem,then youareinthenarrowuniverseofpeoplewewillworkto haveconsensuswith.”[Technicalteamleader,summer 2000]
Academic constituencies4 and Central administrators
allrecognizedtheimportanceofmovingawayfrom dis-cretesilosofactivitytoanintegratedandmoretransparent accountingpracticetomanageinstitutional risk,comply with regulatorybodies, avoid litigious hazards, and act ascompetentfiduciaries.TheDirectorofFinancial Plan-ning, a spokesperson for Ivy’s institutional perspective, stressedtheimportanceofaccountabilityandcontrolfor Ivy’sfuture:
“...Certainlythemotivationforhavingthismorehigh
powered enterprise software is that the place has becomemorecomplexandweneedbetterdata.Weneed tomakebetter decisionsbasedondata...it’sa
recog-nitionoftheneedtodothatbecausewe’rerunninga
hugefinancial behemoth.We’rethehighestgraded financialinstitutioninthestate.Allthese...for-profit
companiesaren’tratedashighlyasweare.We’re‘Triple A’:‘TripleA’inbothMoody’sandStandard&Poors.I mean–youknow–it’sextraordinary.Wehaveabillion dollarsofdebt.That’sabilliondollarsofbondholdersout therethatare,youknow,trustinguswiththeirmoney.So it’sextraordinary,...”[summer,2000]
ThisfinancialmanagementvisionspearheadedtheERP project.Ivyneededtoinstitutenewpracticesthatwould increasetheircontroloffinancialtransactionsandaddress accountabilitythroughofficialstatementsofrecord. Shift-ing accounting practice was also seen to be important formanagingfutureoperatingactivitiesthroughiterative cyclesofplanning,budgeting,review,andreporting.This leddesignersoftheoriginalERPtopurposefullydesign-out, thebudgetingpracticelogicof‘commitmentaccounting’ and design-inwhat theyconsideredshouldbethenew practicelogic,thatwouldbemandatedastheinstitutional standard, of ‘time-phasing’. From the practice perspec-tive,weexpectnegotiationstoensuebecausepreviously autonomous practice communities are coupled and no longerabletousetheirpreferredformofcalculationfor grantsmanagement.Indeed,thisturnedouttobea con-tentiousissuefortheUniversitythatresultedinacademics refusingtoworkwiththefinancialmanagementmodule. InthiswaytheIvystudysupportsexistingaccounting lit-eraturethatfoundERPsystemstoencroachonvitalbut idiosyncraticlocalknowledge leadingtothecreation of work-arounds(ChapmanandChua,2003;Quattroneand
Hopper,2006;Hyvönenetal.,2006,2008;Granlund,2007).
Over a shortperiod of time thesociomaterial assem-blage was upset and the accounting practices began to
4Theacademicconstituencyincludedfaculty,theirsupportstaff(FSS)
shiftfromthosethathadbeenpre-definedandconfigured.
InCiborra’s(2002)termsitbegantodrift.Longstanding
legacy assetswerebolted-ontotheERPsystemin order to create a working information system that was used by both academicand administrativecommunities. The notionthatevenwhendoingthe‘samething’differences in practice are inevitable (Nicolini, 2007) foreshadows thesociomaterialnegotiationsinvolved.We identifythe post-implementationphaseasoneofre-figuringthegrant accountingpracticesandasonethatwasreflectiveofthe wayinwhichtheusersandtechnologywereconstitutively entangled. The relationality between different fields-of-practice at Ivy helps us to understand how a working information systemwascreatedthat involved socioma-terialaccommodationsthatincludedthesupportofsome legacy-typepractices(commitmentaccounting)alongside thesystem-supported‘bestpractices’(time-phased bud-geting).
Thisorganizationalcontextsetsthestagefor investigat-ingpeople’severydayactivitiesandanalyzinghowthese activitiesareproducedandreproducedinaparticular his-toricalandsocialcontext(LevinaandVaast,2005).Each construct,alongwiththenegotiationprocessexplaining how newaccounting practicesemerged, is described in
Table2.
4.2. Sociomaterialpractice:thelogicsofcommitment accountingandtimephasedbudgeting
LongbeforetheconceptualizationofERP moderniza-tionatIvy, personsandthingswerefiguredtogetherin a particularway inorder tomanagescientific activities fundedthroughgrantmonies.Thissociomaterial config-urationwasformallyknownascommitmentaccounting where peopleand theirtechnologies tookonparticular shapesandmeaningthroughsituateduse.Facultyandtheir SupportStaff(FSS)werelargelyresponsibleforadjusting all discrepanciesbetween whatthe PIactually spentin aparticularbudgetarycategoryandwhathadbeen bud-geted. This reconciliationprocess involved handwritten notes/emails to administrators from faculty abouttheir spending activities,printedreports fromtheMainframe financialsystem,PIReportsfromtheDistributed Account-ingSystem(DAS),andMSExcel.TheDASwaswrittenin Focusprogramminglanguagebyfacultyandstaffinthe late1970sandhada verybasicinterfaceallowingusers toenteranddownloaddatafromthemainframefinancial chartofaccounts,matchthemwithdetailedcategoriesthat thefacultydecidedandthenreconcilethatbalancewith whatfacultywascommittedtospend.
PIstoldadministratorshowmuchmoneytosetaside for projectactivities. Theyreferred tothese obligations as ‘commitments’. Administrators classified these com-mitmentsintooneoftwoconceptualcategories:pending actualsandfutureplans.Theformer representexpenses that had been incurred but for reasons of timing, had notyet‘hit’Ivy’sgeneralledgerandwereexcludedfrom thatcycle’smainframefinancialreports;whereas commit-tingforfutureplanstookintoaccountactivitiesthatPIs expectedtooccuratalatertime,butbeforethecompletion ofthegrant.Tobudgetforthesecategoriesadministrators
hadtoprobethePIabouttheirscientificactivitiestoget themtoidentify,classify,andearmarkasmanydollarsas possiblefromthecurrentinstalmentofthegrant.While theseconversationswereheldwithallPIsthegranularity andfrequencyofthesediscussionswasalocallynegotiated outcome.Individualtemperaments,availabletime, depart-mentalnorms,professionalworkingrelationships,andthe stageandnatureofresearch,allinfluencedtheextentto whichfuture expenseswereidentified,enteredthrough theDASinterface,andclassifiedascommitmentsthatwere expectedtooccurduringaspecificgrantperiod.Theadhoc natureofgrantaccountingmakesitevidentwhyapractice theorylensissoimportantbecauseitallowsustoseehow smallvariationsinprocessareinherenttoconductingwork –evenwhenitissupposedlythesamepractice,inthiscase monitoringgrantdollars.Theprojectmanagementprocess linksthePIbacktothefundingbodyremindingherofwhat shesaidshewoulddotoachieveheracademicgoalsand whileeachPIhasreportingobligations,howshegetstothis stagewillvary(Nicolini,2007).
PIsviewedthependingcommitmentsasmoneythat hadbeenspentthereforeitwasexpectedthatthebalance ofthegrant reflectedthis.Thisamountwasrecordedin aPI report.ThisPIreportwasdifferentfromthe finan-cial statement of record aka “the Greens” which were colour-codedfinancialstatementsreportingonlytheactual incomeandexpensesthathitthegeneralledgerinthat financialcycle.Fromtimetotime,administrators recon-ciledtheGreen reportsagainsttheDASsystemand the PIReporttomakesurethecommitmentaccounting sys-temwaspullingthecorrectnumbersfromthemainframe financial system.Together these material arrangements scaffoldcommitmentaccountinggrantmanagement prac-ticesandinturn,theviewpointsofuserswereinfluenced intheprocessofdownloading,interpreting,andusingthis accountingdatainareflexivemanner.ThePIshad“learned tosee”inaparticularwaythatwassupportedbythe socio-materialarrangementsofcommitmentaccounting.EachPI wasinvolvedinthepracticeofcreatinga“closeenough match”ofactualresearchactivitiestotheartefactofthe financialsystemanditsstatementofrecord.Goodwincalls this processof learning themeta-data of workpractice partofdevelopingaprofessionalvision(withinSuchman, 2009)–inthisinstancethevisionofbeingascientific prin-cipal investigator. Thenatureof grant accounting,thus, dependedonthenestofrelationsbetweenthepeopleand thingsinvolvedintheaccountingpractice.
Table2
Keyconstructsforexplaininghownewaccountingpracticesemerge.
Theoreticalconstruct Illustration
SociomaterialPractice–technicalagenciesaretiedtogetherwith thoseinvolvedinthepractice;anERPsetsupaparticular sociomaterialconfiguration.
Manylocalgrantmanagementpracticesexistedthatwere accommodatedbythecommitmentaccountingsociomaterial configurationbutwereunderminedbythenewtime-phased budgetingconfiguration.
Reconfiguration– focusesonhowpersonsandthingsmightbefigured togetherdifferentlywhenresistanceisencounteredtoanew sociomaterialarrangementfollowingERPimplementation.
Eventuallytheprojectteamrespondedtothedemandsoffacultyand workedwiththemtore-configuretheERPtoaccommodatefaculty waysofworkingandsetupvarioussupportstructures.
Relationality–multiplepracticecommunitiesexistacrossthefieldof accountingwithinanorganization;differentcommunitieswillhave moreorlesspowertoinfluencethesociomaterialpractices surroundinganERPconfiguration/reconfigurationandthiscan changeovertime.
Duringdesign,theERP-projectteamconfiguredtheERPtomeettheir needs.Followingimplementationthismetwithfacultyresistance; facultywerepowerfulvoiceswithinthisenvironmentandsowere abletoforceotherstolistentotheirneedsandinterestsandsoeffect thereconfiguration.
for10monthsandthelast60dayscharged$85,000)inthe spendingprocessmakingthetransferssuspectintermsof reflectingactualscientificpractice.Next,weconsiderthe proposedintegrationofmanagementaccountingactivities
throughtime-phasedbudgeting.
AsSuchmannotes(2009)“professionsconstitutethose
thingsthataretheirobjects”.Forexample,partofbecoming ascientificscholarandPIonagrantisbecoming config-uredwiththe relevantmaterials and tools. Thesetools extendbeyondthetools oflaboratoryexperiments and dataanalysis software toinclude the materialsused to managethefundssupportingtheresearch.ThePI’s pro-fessionaltrainingenablesthemtoworkwithimperfectly designedtoolsandmakedecisionswhentheoutputisnot exact–thisisaformofsociomaterialpractice.Similarly thisistrueofaccountantsandbudgetleaderswhomust reconcileincompleteandimperfectdatasourcesinorder toaccuratelyreportinstitutionallevelscientificactivities. Fromasociomaterialperspectivethis‘imperfect’ configu-rationispart-and-parcelofpractice(Nicolini,2007).Itis themultiplepartialinformationsources(bothhumanand technical)that,whenbroughttogether,createaworking system;indeed,itistheadhocnatureofthe configura-tionthatis partofwhat makestheinformation system
work(Suchman,2009).Next,we considertheproposed
integrationofmanagementaccountingactivitiesthrough time-phasedbudgeting.
The time-phased budgeting practice was a standard informationarchitecturethatwasanintegralpartofthe ERPsystem that wasimplemented. It had beenin use within the Central Budget Office for over a decade in order toimprove Ivy’sinstitutional planningand over-allcorporate governance activities.The Directorof that office spearheaded the time-phased budgeting practice asthelogicforERP-basedgrantaccounting.Theshiftin grantaccountingpracticetellsusalotaboutthenatureof accountingpracticebeingproducedattheendofthe20th centuryduringatimeofsocietaluncertaintyrelatedtoY2K andlargecorporatescandalsrelatedtofinancial report-ing.ThetechnicalagenciesofERPandthetime-phasing algorithmweretobetiedtogetherwiththeacademic con-stituencies.
Time-phased budgeting is based on recording each financial transaction in a chart of accounts category (expense,revenue,capital,etc.)therebyallowing Univer-sitymanagerstobudgetforfutureyearsbyestimatingthe
sumofeachcategoryattheinstitutionallevel.The capac-ityforaction wasquitedifferentfromthesociomaterial assemblageofcommitmentaccounting.Time-phased bud-getingbeginswhenfacultyandstaffmeetatthebeginning ofthefiscalyearforanextendedfinancialbudgeting ses-sion.Thisprovidestheopportunityforallprojectstobe mappedoutintermsofspendingovertime.Thereareno printedfinancialreports,ratherthetwoindividualssitin front ofacomputerscreenandviewallfacultyprojects fromwhatiscalledthe“project-centricview”ofgrants. Thedecisiontodisallowtheprintingofmonthlystatements wasdonebothtosaveIvymoneyinprintingand distribu-tionandmostlytoencourageamorefluidinterpretationof numberswhereusersreflectonfinancialnumbersas“fixed onlyforashortperiodintimebeforetheychange”(Director ofFinancialPlanning).Insteadofprovidingtoolsthatwould perpetuatethedetailedtrackingoffinancialcommitments, facultyandstaffwereaskedtoinvestigate‘materially sig-nificant’variancestothebudgetplanalwaysconsidering thecurrentexpenditureinrelationtothegrant’stimeline. Persistent overspending would be investigated because itcouldimpactagrant’slongevityifthepattern contin-ued.Throughtime-phasedbudgetingboththefaculty/staff (subject)andtheirgrants(object)aretransformedintheir relationswitheachother(Suchman,2009).Faculty them-selveswerenotcapableorinterestedintime-phasingtheir grant monies,buttheERPdesign-inscribed time-phased budgetingasaparticularaccountinglogicsetlimitsaround whatprocessesofgrantmanagementwouldbeconsidered appropriatefortheUniversity.
reportsattheendofeachmonthcomparinghowclosely thePImatchedthebudgetforthatperiodintimethereby scaffoldingthepracticeofmonitoringgrants.
Overthelongertermtheintentionwasforthe time-phased budgetingto befurther decentralizedremoving administrativeinterventionandaskingfacultytomonitor, review,and reportontheirgrantsthemselves.Thiswas madeplaininthefollowinginterview:
Imeanlet’sgivethejobdirectlytothefaculty.Itdoesn’t takeaNobelPrizewinnertosayI’vegot$50,Ispent$65, I’mintroublefor$15.That’sreallyallwe’retalkingabout. Anditdoesn’ttakeaNoblePrizewinnertodoa busi-nessplanthat’stimedoutbymonthsorquarters.Soyou know,whenwetalkaboutsomebodywhoisasecretary who’sputintoapositionwiththeERPthatisnowtotally toocomplicatedforthem,that’sreallydifferent.Imeanif youhadsomebodywithanIQof90andit’sajobfora personwithanIQof110,there’saproblem.Butwith thefaculty– thefactofthematteristhey’reallsmart! Imeantheymaybenuttyashellbutthey’resmartand there’snothingherethattheycan’tfigureout...Ireally
believe–youputpressureonpeopletotake responsibil-ityforthingsthattheyshouldberesponsibleforandthen youholdthemaccountableforit.It’sliketheoldthingthat somebodyoncesaid,ifyoutreatpeoplelikechildren,
theybehavelikechildren.Ifyoutreatthemlikeadults, theybehavelikeadults.[Directoroffinancialplanning, summer2000]
4.3. Reconfiguration
Toreinventthewayfaculty‘doaccounting’,theproject teamhadthuspurposelydesignedtheERPfinancial man-agementmodulewithoutincorporatingthepossibilityfor commitmentaccountingcalculations.Facultywereinvited toparticipateinprojectinformationsessionsbutfewdid, believingthatbecausethesystemwasbeingdesignedfor themitwould,bydefinition,accommodatetheirneeds.The lackoffacultyinvolvementmeantthatduringthe config-uration/designstagethechoice toexcludecommitment accountingwasnotcontentious.However,oncetheERP wasrolled-out, thereconfigurationof thesociomaterial assemblagetoexcludecommitmentaccounting immedi-atelybecameasourceoftensionandresistance.Itwasat thispointthataninformationasymmetrybecame appar-entbetweenthePIsand theERP–betweenpeopleand machines–wherethenestofrelationshipshadbeen re-configuredinamannerthatlimitedthescopeofinteraction withthegrantaccountingfigures andthecapacities for humanaction(Suchman,2007)–inthiscaseforcingfaculty toallocate/spendmoneyinamannerpreferredbycentral accountingleadership.TheERPhadnotbeenprogrammed toemulatethesamereports asthelegacy assetsand it wasnotsufficientlyinteractionalthatitcouldaccessthe PIssituationtoprovideusefulinformation.
PIsandotheracademicstaffwhowerethemainusers of thesystemwere puzzledwhentheybegan touseit, notunderstandingwhytheirvaluedcommitment account-ing logics wereabsent when the projectteam had not beenconstrainedbyastandardizedinformation
architec-tureandbenefitedfrombeingthefirstindustry-specific solution:
“Whydidtheintegratedtechnologyhavetobe time-phasedbudgetingwhenwehad[asystem]beforethat workedforthefaculty?Imeanthelegacy[commitment accounting]systemcouldhavebeenfullyintegratedas anERP–itwastechnicallysupportedasone,butwas onlyevermanagedandusedatthedepartmentallevel. Whynotdesign[commitmentaccounting]asthe inte-grated,standardizedtechnology?Itworkedforfaculty foryears...Ihopeyouunderstandthatit’snot[theERP]
itselfthat’stheissue.It’sthelackofunderstandingand regardforthepeoplebringinginthemoneyand the peopledoingtheworkthat’ssofrustrating.”[Academic manager,follow-upemail2002]
PIs felt the ERP systemhad reduced their ability to manage and control their spending. Furthermore, the accountinglogicthatunderpinnedcommitment account-ing was consistent with deeply held values of faculty related toacademicfreedom:italloweda flexible form ofaccounting thatwascapableof adjustingthebottom linetorepresentcommitmentsintermsoffuture spend-ing;and alsogavethemflexibilityinterms ofspending whenprojectswerenearingcompletionwithoutanyone askingquestionsaboutthis.Ataspurofthemoment, fac-ultywereknowntodemandfromtheirsupportstaffthe balanceintheiraccountandnowthisinformationcouldnot beretrieved.Theyalsocouldnolongerrelyuponthe cus-tomizedmonthlyreportsthatwereprovidedinthelegacy environmenttoevaluatetheirfinancialposition.Thisput supportstaffunderagreatamountofpressuresincethe ERPwasfailingtocaptureandrecordaccuratelychangesin researchactivities.NotlongaftergoinglivewiththeERP, tensionsbetweenfacultyandtheirsupportstaffbecame evident:
“Oneofmy[staff]isquitting.Shecameoutofameeting
sobbingaftertalkingwithanewhot-shotfaculty mem-berfromtheUnitedNationswho said‘Iwill getthe informationIneedonewayoranother,yougiveittome orIwillgetconsultantsinheretogetitforme.[This ERPproject]isanexcusethatyouhavebeenusingfor
fartoolong’.Shesaidtome‘Ican’tdeal–Ishouldn’thave todeal–Idon’twanttotakeworkhomelikeIhavebeen’. Thesehighlevelprojectguysknowthatthestaffare havingahardtimeandyettheyarenot communicat-ingto[Ivy]leadershiptogetbettersolutions.Lastweek abunchof[FSS]approached[theDirectorofFinancial Planning]andsaid‘Tellthefacultythatwedon’thave thetoolsweneedtodoourjobs.Weknowwearenot equipped,andyouknowtoo–whyareyounottelling thefaculty?”’[Academicmanager,spring2000]
AsLaw andSingleton note(2005),it is asmuch the
sensitivetolocalcircumstancesandcannotbefully spec-ified(Suchman,2009).Academicconstituenciesbeganto expressdisagreement withtheproposedgrant manage-mentpractice:
“Wedon’tknow of even oneresearch schoolthat is usingthismethodology.We’vedonesomeresearchas aninstitutionandnouniversityweknowofisusing the[time-phased]methodasimplementedinthe[Ivy] ERP.”[Academicmanager,spring2000]
Theirdispleasurebecameevidenttotheprojectteam whobegantosenseagulfbetweencentraladministrative perceptionsandthoseoffacultyandtheirstaff:
“We’regoingtogetafacultyrevolt‘cause[Ivyleaders] aregoingtotalkabouthowgreattheimplementation wasfromacorporatelevelandthey’regoingtotalkabout howgreatthenewtoolsarefromacorporateleveland facultyaregoingtojustbeincensed.”[Academicleader, spring2000]
The above sentiment foreshadows events to come, whicharehighlightedinthenexttwoquotes:
“...youlookatthefacultyandtheysay‘well,whatdo
youmean[theERP’s]asuccess?Idon’thavemyreports. Ihavenoideahowmuchmygrantaccountormygrant balancesare’.Sothereisanenormousdisconnect...”
[Projectmember,spring2000]
Inthesummerof2000anacademicleaderstates: “[Ivy]reallymissedanopportunitytounderstandthe business that ran teachingand researchand patient care...theyfocusedwaytoomuchongiving[Central]
theinformationtheyneededandnotworryingabout givingfacultytheinformationtheyneededtomanage thebusiness.Sowejustfocusedonthewrongthingsfirst.” RatherthanacquiescetotheERP’sdesign,facultyand theirstaffbegantoexpressconcernabouttheERP-enabled internal control environment in general, and the time-phasedbudgetingapproach,specifically:
“Wetriedtosay,‘Idon’treally understandwhyyou madethedecisiontogowithtime-phasingbutlet’stry toworkwithit’andwetriedto,buttherealityiswestill don’thavebasicbusinessfunctionalitythatourfaculty require.”[Academicmanager,winter1999]
Seeingthedifficultiestheirstaffwerehavingintryingto workwiththeERPandworriedthatthenewacademicyear wouldbringwithitcomplicationsbecauseofthis,several PIsandacademicstaffapproachedcentraladministration –thesponsorsoftheERPproject–withtheirconcerns:
“TheEconomicsprofessor[whowas]theProvostand usedtobetheVPforFinanceandAdministration[for Ivy]...calledthe[current]Provostreallyangrybecause
hecouldn’treadhisgrantreport.The[Financial Con-troller]satdownwithhimandeveryconcepthewas askingforwasonthatreport.Buthecouldn’tseeitand his[FSS]couldn’texplainit,soshe’sbeenmakinghim
Excelreports.Thisguy’ssmart– heknowswhathe’s doingandhecan’tevenreadthereportandIthoughtthat
wasprettytelling.Sonowfacultyaren’tusingtheERP andwhatwehaveasaresultisaveryexpensivedata repositoryandstillalotofsilosofmicro-computing.” [Aprojectmanager,summer1999]
Ivy had configured the practice of grant account-ing for the integrated ERP environment in such a way thattherelationshipbetweenthepeopleandthingshad causedinformationandknowledgetobelost(Suchman, 2009). Principal Investigators and their administrators wereunabletoconstitutetherelevantobjectsintheworld aroundthembecausethepracticecommunityof adminis-tratorshadevolvedthetechnologyinawaythatenhanced thesociomaterialrelationshipforcentralaccountantsbut detractedfromtherelationshipbetweenfacultyandtheir grantaccounts.VerypowerfulconstituenciesatIvywere contactingtheProvostincludingoneoftheprofessional schoolsthatbroughtinthemajorityofallIvy’sgrantdollars. ThisisillustratedinthefollowingquotefromtheDirector ofFinanceatsaidprofessionalschool:
“Westruggledforquiteawhile[withtheERP]but even-tually–inlisteningtoourenduserssay‘wehaveto havecommitments’andthe[projectteam]saying–‘oh, they’rejustusedtotheoldsystemeventuallythey’llget overit’,itbecameclear–notonlytothem–buttous, thatno,thatisn’tthecase,there’salwaysgoingtobea needforbeingabletodocommitments.Sowhatwedid, wetookthatmessageovertothe[projectteam],andI said‘lookguys,departmentsreallyneedcommitments. WehavelookedateverycreativewayofusingtheERP ineitherbudgeting,reporting,whatever,andit’sbecome cleartousthatweneedacommitment[accounting] sys-tem’.AndIsaid‘we’repoisedat[ourprofessionalschool] tocreateourowncommitmentsystembutwhatIwould likeistopresentthisasaUniversityissueandIwantto knowwhetherornotyouwouldliketojoinusinthis effort’?”[spring2000]
These acts of resistanceand confusion triggeredthe Provosttoorganizeaseriesoflunchmeetingswith fac-ultymembers,theirstaff,andERP-project teamleaders. ThesediscussionsconvincedtheProvostthatcommitment accountingwasanon-negotiablepracticeforIvyandwas important for managing its institutional risk. She then demandedthatchangesbemadetotheERPsoftwareto reinstatecommitmentaccountingfunctionality.Itwasat thispointthattherhetoricoftheprojectteamchanged:
“Webecameappeasementorientedandsowhenpeople beganhurtingus,wesaid‘yes’.Andsowestarted build-ing thesethingsthatcouldcreate commitments and managecommitments...eventhoughitwasagainstour
original ideas about what was the way forward for [Ivy]”.[Aprojectmanager,summer2000]
allowPIstousethelegacycommitmentaccountingSystem. Third,theywouldmakeorganizationalchangestosupport thetransitiontoanERP-enabledenvironment.
4.4. Relationality
Given thatgrantsmanagement practiceshad histori-callybeenrelativelyautonomousatIvyandfacultyevolved technologies in distinct ways to meet their reporting needs, one solution would have been to decouple the grant accountingpractices. However,withanintegrated ERP platform, this independent evolution is unrealistic. Instead,theperiodofnegotiationdescribedaboveledto findingasociomaterialassemblagethateffectively comin-gled practice logics within anintegrated infrastructure. To remedy faculty resistance, the projectteam reorga-nizedpost-installationdevelopmentprioritiesandcreated ERP-based commitment functionality. The standardized information architectureof the ERP wascustomized to incorporatecommensuratereportstotheexcelbased com-mitmentaccountingreportsthatwerestillbeingprepared atthemargins:
“...Boom,boom,boom.Allofasuddenitjusthappened
like overnight.They had a workinggroup that very quicklywentintodesigningacustomizedsystem...We
identified theissue, we got a very smallgroup who reallyknewwhattheywantedtodesign,werefinedthat design...andthengottheresourcestargetedtowork
onit...andit’sadonedealwithintwomonthstime....I
guessthat’saverygoodexampleofusstartingtolisten toenduserneeds–realizingthatweneeded commit-ments–Imeanatfirstwetalkedtothefacultyandstaff andsaid‘wellwhatifwecreatea[time-phased budget-ing]reportwherewemassagedithereandmassagedit there?’andfinally[we]wokeupandsaid‘youknow, asmuchaswetry,it’sreallynotgoingtowork,we’re tryingtogoaroundtheissueratherthanfacingithead on’.Wefinallydidfaceit.”[Academicmanager,spring 2000]
The customized ERP application was added to Ivy’s financial management moduleand wasinternally mar-keted as a user-friendly solution with a web-based interface. While the staff foundthe custom application functionality tobe clunky and frustrating as compared totheircommitmentaccountingsystem,theweb-based interfacewaseasytonavigateandtheyweregladtohave commitmentdataavailablethroughtheERP.Ivy’s manage-mentaccountinginformationhaddriftedbacktothepoint whereitwasimitatingwhatithadbeenpriortotheERP implementation. Staff began to download commitment datafromtheERP,importingthedataintoexcelto repro-duce what lookedandfelt likecommitmentaccounting faculty reports. These material arrangementssupported heterogeneous management accounting practices while stillenablingcentralaccountingtodownload,interpretand useaccountingdatafromwithintheERP.
In addition to software modifications, two local administrative supportcentres werecreated byCentral Leadership to help solve problems faculty were facing includinga BusinessSupportCenter(BSC),and a
Trans-action Support Center (TSC). The three BSC staff were requiredtoevaluatethevalidity ofdepartmental trans-actions,eliminatetheneedtomakepost-hocaccounting correctionsandwereexpectedtoactasacontrol mech-anismtoenableasmoothflowofdataintotheERP.The TSCstaffcomprisedfourERPspecialistseachwitha pri-maryareaofconcentrationbutallcross-trainedsothatthey couldcoverforoneanother.Twoofthefourspecialists con-centrateonaccountingfunctionality.Oneofthemactsasa liaisonbetweenIvy’soldchartofaccountsandthe project-centricchart,speakingwithscience-basedadministrators andclerical workershelpingthem tomake the connec-tionbetweenthelegacyandERPenvironments.Theother financialspecialistisconcernedwithprocessing account-ingtransactionsshereceivesfromthedepartments.These entriesinclude grantsmanagementand labour distribu-tiontransactionsthatarecentraltothenewtime-phased budgetingapproach.DespitethedismayofCentral lead-ership,thisadministrativesupportwaswell-receivedand used by thedepartments especially when the account-inginformationthatwasrequiredwasforthosedecisions thatwereinfrequentlymade.Ivy’swealthierprofessional schoolssuchasMedicinechosenottousethese administra-tivesupportcentres,butinsteaddesignedtheirown,very similarsupportmechanisms.TheMedicalSchoolinstituted aBusinessCenterwherestaffareresponsibleforanswering questions,understandingandinterpretingpolicies, proce-dures,andthen interpretingtheproject-centricchartof accounts.
Onecentraladministratorcalledtheseadministrative add-ons,Ivy’s“fullytrainedtempagency”[summer2000] designedtoassistfacultysupportstaffwhose responsibil-itieshad increasedintheERP-enabledenvironment. An academicmanagerinvolvedontheprojectdescribesthe creationoftheTSC:
“SoIrecommendedthattherebesometypeofasupport centerforgivingdepartmentsacrutch...Wethought
modernization–itshould bequicker.WellIthink the questionhastobe asked,quicker for whom?...what
used to be a faculty appointment form became 25
screensofentry...therewasarealneedforhavingthis
placewheretheycouldjusthandlealotofthese trans-actionsuntilwecameuptospeed.Atleastthatwas myargument‘causeIknew[they]weren’tgoingtogo forsomethingonapermanentbasis.SoIsaid,let’stry sixmonths...wequicklywentforwardandbroughtthe
[Center’smanager]onboardandthenwestaffeditand it’sreallytakenoff.”[summer2000]
instrumen-talinlegitimizingfacultyinterestsbecausethestructures enabledthemoretime-consumingprocessofERP-based grantsmanagementtobeviableforacademic constituen-cies.
Meanwhile,theprojectteamwasstill tryingto con-vincetheacademicconstituenciesofthelong-termvalue ofthetime-phasedbudgetinglogic,whichwasa prereq-uisitefor acceptance of the standard configuration and thesubsequentcreationoftheirpreferredintegrated bud-getandplanningenvironment.Inanattempttodothis, three central administrative units merged and formed theAccounting&Budget Department,which integrated theController’s office(including accountingand finance offices)withtheBudget and Planningdepartment. This consolidation was considered long overdue and it was hoped that by breaking down silosof central adminis-trativepractice,facultymightfinallyhearaunifiedvoice espousingthevirtuesoftime-phasedbudgetingpractices. Thisdepartmentissuedaprocedureforacademicstaff con-ductingmonthlyfinancialreconciliationsthatwasfocused onhigh-levelfinancialreviewrather thandetailedbook keepingactivitiesthatcomprisedcommitmentaccounting. Duringthistimemanydepartmentsdidbegintousethe ERPmoreregularly:
“Soin terms of what’shappened betweenApril and now?We’veworkedalotwithdepartments–they’ve cleanedupalotofproblemsthatwerepersistentfor thefirst6months...Ithinkmostdepartmentswould
tellyou thattheypretty muchknowwhere theyare withtheirfundsnowandtheywouldn’thavetoldyou thatatthebeginningofApril.Butthey’dprobablyalso tellyou thattheywouldn’tliketodo ayearlikethis again...mostofthemarenotinterestedincomplaining
forthesakeofcomplaining,they’reinterestedinmaking thingsbetter.”[Projectleader,summer2000]
Therecursive relationshipbetween accounting prac-tices, technologies and human agency exhibited above demonstrates a story of re-configuring, or better re-figuring, ERP, which we argue is not the exception to therulebutratheranaccuratereflectionofthe technol-ogydriftingandinevitableinconsistenciesinmanagement accountingpractice.AnERPmayscaffoldpractice,butdrift willstillexistwithinorganizations.
4.5. Epilogue
The customized commitment application combined withtheERP’soriginalconfigurationeventuallyallowed thesystemtoworkacrossdepartmentsandfacultywere abletogettheinformationtheyrequiredtooptimizethe useoftheirgrants.Therewasagreementthatthe recon-figurationofthesystem,which enabledittomirrorthe legacypractices,providedabetterreflectionofthefinancial positionofthePI’sprojectsandwasseentocontributeto reducingtheinstitutionalrisk.In2008,time-phased bud-getingwashoweverstill“anon-starter”andthemostIvy leadershiphadbeenabletodowasencouragefacultyand theirstafftoentersomebudgetfiguresintotheERPsystem forallgrants–therebyenablingall-fundsbudgetingatthe institutionallevel.EvenIvy’sseniorleadershiphadshifted
theiropinionsofthisformofaccountingasthefollowing quotefromtheDirectorofFinancialPlanningsuggests:
“We’re stillstrugglingwiththecommitmentvs. pro-jection[time-phasedbudgeting]approach...We have
beensuccessful...inhavingthempulltheautomated
commitmentsfromthesystemonthelastdayofthe month,andcombinethosewithactualsandprojections. Thatwaytheycanatleasttakeadvantageofthe[ERP] system functionality related to budgeting and plan-ning.Manydepartmentsaredoingthis,butIthinkthey oftenmanuallysupplementtheinformationwithother commitmentstheycan’tgetautomaticallyandcreate Excelreportsfortheirfaculty.Asfarasthetime-phased approachgoes,thatisprettymuchanon-starterhere.I don’tevensupportitmyself.”
Administrators have taken on the responsibility of downloadingthecommitmentdataforeachPIandthey import this into exceltocreate custom PIreports. This process means the financial transactions are recorded in duplicate intwo systems:theERP andtheirshadow systems.Theexpectedcostsavingsoftransferringthe own-ership of grants management to faculty did not occur. InsteadIvy hasincurredadditionalcoststosupportthe newlycreatedCentres.Furthermore,sincegoinglivethe ERP hasbeenupgradedonseveraloccasions and while thishasbeenasomewhatmorecostlyexercisethanwas anticipatedinpurchasingthesystembecauseofthe bolt-onnatureoftheERPreconfiguration,Ivybudgetedforthe additionalexpenseandtimethatwasnecessary:
“Theonlyimpactforanupgradeistodotestingofthe processes.IngeneralIdon’trecallanychanges intro-duced duringan upgradethat created anyproblems withtheseprocesses.Wehavetoperformimpact anal-ysisand testingfor allofthemajorprocesses inthe system,sothisisjustpartofthatmix.”[Spring2010] In2010seniormanagementreportedthattime-phased budgetinghadbeenadoptedatIvy:
“Finally,after10+years,time-phasedbudgetingisnow beingdone.Wejuststarted[reinstatingtheapproach] whentheUSfinancialcrisisbeganandweneededtocut expensesacrosstheboardandmorecarefullymonitor spending.Theadministrationusedthis financial situ-ationtoleveragetime-phasedbudgeting.Theyargued thatmorecarefulmonitoringofcashflows month-by-monthandbudgetingmonthlywasnecessary...Itisnot
thatfacultyaremorereceptive,itisjustthattheclimate isdifferent.[Spring2010]
assemblagetorespondtochangingenvironmental condi-tionsthateventuallyshiftedthesociomaterialassemblage surroundinggrantaccountingatIvy,atleasttemporarily.
5. Discussion
Ourcasefirstdemonstrates,throughalongitudinalfield study,theprocessofimplementingso-called“best prac-tice” ERP systems and their influence on management accountingpractices whileatthesametime illustrating howexistingmanagementaccountingpracticescan influ-encetheERPsystem.Thisempiricalstudywhenviewed throughthekeyconstructofsociomaterial practice pro-videsrichinsightintoexistingliteraturethathasreported onstandardizedinformationarchitecturesandinflexible accounting logics of enterprise software. Our theoreti-cal explanationmoves beyondthesimple attribution of changetoeitherhumanortechnicalagency(i.e., under-orover-socializedaccounts)toproduceamorecompelling theoretical explanation of the wayin which a working informationsystememergesthroughnegotiationsaround processesofuse.
Second,weprovideatheoreticalexplanationforwhat happensbetweenpeopleandtheirtechnologytoolswhen theERPisinproductionandusersareworkinginthenew environment.Throughthekeyconstructofreconfiguration wewereabletofocusonhowpersonsandthingsmight befiguredtogetherdifferentlywhenresistanceis encoun-teredtoanewsociomaterialarrangementfollowingERP implementation. We found that supplementing, and so changing,thebestpracticedesignisaviableandvaluable toolfor creatingaworkinginformationsystemandthat indeedsociomaterialassemblagesevolveovertime,always subjecttoredefinition.
Third,wecontributetoaccountingliteratureby extend-ingknowledge onhowsoftware-based accountingtools mightworkeffectivelywithinanorganization.The con-struct of relationality helped explain why multiple practicecommunitiesthatexistacrossthefieldof account-ing withinanorganization willlikely beatodds. These different communities willhave more or less powerto influencethesociomaterialpracticessurroundinganERP configuration/reconfiguration and this can change over time.Forinstance,itwastheEconomicsProfessor’s posi-tionofProvostandhispriorheldpositionasVPFinanceand Administrationthatenabledhimtohavesomeinfluence overthenegotiationsregardingthereinstatementof com-mitmentaccounting.Inasimilarvein,thewealthystatus ofprofessionalschoolssuchasMedicinehadenabledthem todesigntheirownsupportmechanismsforcommitment accounting.Insum,this studyhelpsdevelopour under-standingofthelinkagesbetweenaccounting,information technologyandintegratedadministrativesystemslikeERP thatarewidelyusedincontemporaryorganizations.We discusseachoftheseissuesnext.
5.1. Sociomaterialpractice
Normativeaccountingliteraturehastreatedtechnology asan‘absentpresence’,neglectingtoconsiderthe material-itythatthesetypesofarchitecturesprovideinthepractice
ofaccounting.Whenmaterialityistakenintoaccount,a unidirectionalrelationshipistheorizedwherebythefocus has been to understandthe impact of ERP-systems on accountingthrougheitherprivilegingITinexplainingthe formofaccounting,orthereverse:emphasizing manage-mentaccounting’simpactonITdevelopment/modification. ThesociomaterialperspectivedemonstrateshowanERP canbeenactedindifferentwaysasitconnectswith prac-ticesofdifferentcommunitiesofusers(LawandSingleton, 2005).Nevertheless,thisdifferentialenactmenthas lim-itscreatedbythematerialconfiguration.InIvy,the‘best practice’wasdefinedbyprofessionalaccountantsfromthe centraladministrationwhoencodedaccountinglogicsthat suitedtheirparticularinterestsrelatedtoinstitutionalrisk. Indoingthis,theneedsofthedistributedfacultywhohad notbeen professionallytrained tomanage theirproject budgetsandmoreover,haddifferentinterestscompared tothecentralaccountants(i.e.,tospendalltheirbudgetin theinterestsoftheirresearchprojectsvs.toreduce institu-tionalrisk)wereignored.Thisledtopost-implementation negotiations,andouranalysisshowshowanaccounting systemcanbemadefunctionalasdifferentcommunities resist and accommodate the ‘best practices’ (Pickering, 1993)untileventuallyareconfiguredsystemiscreatedthat includesvaluedfunctionalitythatallowsdifferent commu-nitiestoaccommodatetheirneeds.
Demonstrating this recursive relationship between accountingpractices,technologiesanditsuserscontributes totherecentcallinthemanagementaccountingliterature forfurtherlongitudinalstudiesofaccountingthat exam-inein-depththebidirectionalnatureof therelationship betweenmanagement accounting and ERPtechnologies
(seeRomandRohde,2007;Luftand Shields,2003).The
detailed Ivy case contributes to our understanding of howworkingaccountinginformationsystemsarecreated aroundanERP.Wehaveshownthataccountingisnotan objectinitsownrightbutisbetterseenasasetofpractices thatarescaffoldedbymaterialobjects(e.g.,ERP)thatare usedbydiversecommunitiestoperformdifferenttasks.
QuattroneandHopper(2006)thusdescribeERPasbeing
pointthathowthemanagementaccountingpracticewas performedwaschangedand,asweshownext,exploring howthischangecameaboutshedslightonquestionsabout stabilityandchangeandhumanandnon-humanagency.
5.2. Reconfiguration
Our study challenges the notion of accounting as a largely predictable/routine practice that operates as designedacross timeand locations.Instead we demon-strateaccountingaslivedandenactedexperiencewhere theperformativenatureisforegrounded.However,while weneedtorecognizetheperformabilityofanERPwealso needtorecognize thatitsintegratednaturedepends on achievingsomesortofstabilityandorderacrossdiverse communitiesofusers;inthis senseitis differenttothe implementationofa balanced scorecard which canstill beeffectiveevenifitsuseisverydivergentacross com-munities.A workingERPneedstobecomestableacross communitiesandthisrequirestherealizationofoneset of relations over others for a period of time. Thus, the sociomaterialpracticeperspectivesteersustoexplorethe technology–humaninteractionsand howtheyare influ-encedbyongoingpowerdynamicsandpoliticalbehaviours tounderstandhowpastaccountingsystemscancontinue tooperateatthemarginsofERPimplementationuntilthey becomepartoftheagreedongoingpractices(Miller,1998). Inauniversityenvironment wherefacultyarepowerful, theirreconfigurationdemands were added tothe best-practicedesignratherquickly.Inothersituations,where usersarelesspowerful,reconfigurationsmayexistas add-onsatthemarginforaconsiderabletime(Ciborra,2002).
This finding extends the analysis of Dechow and
Mouritsen(2005)whoidentifyhowtheconfigurationofan
ERPconditionsthevariousactorsacrossanorganizationto usetheERPindifferentways,leadingsomegroupsto sup-plementtheERP,otherstousetheERPasalevertoalign otherfunctions,andstillotherstouseitaspartofa brico-lageoftechnologies.Thesekindsofadaptationsaroundand withtheERPwereevidentintheIvycaseaswell,for exam-pleinthecreationofthenewtransactioncentres.TheIvy casealsohighlightsin-usecustomizationsthatenabled dif-ferentusergroupstohavetheiraccountingdemandsmet oncetheERP“wentlive”.Inourcase then,itisnotthat ‘theaccountingstructureisonlyplasticinthepre-practice projectmode’(DechowandMouritsen,2005,p.729)but thatemergentrequirementscanbeaccommodatedin pro-ductionmode.Reconfiguration throughcustomizing the ERP may be more likely in situations where users are powerful,asinauniversity,buttheeffectivenessofthese customizations(i.e.,reconfigurations)foraccommodating thedifferentneedsofthemultiplegroupsofusers,attests tothepotentialeffectivenessofthisstrategymore gener-ally.Theoretically,theconceptofreconfigurationreminds usthatdesignanduseshouldnotbeviewedastwo inde-pendentstates,apointwereturntobelow.
Itisalsoimportanttonotethattechnologies-in-practice willbemoreorlessreconfigurable.Forexample,Quattrone
andHopper(2006)alsofoundconsiderable
reconfigura-tionintheirERPimplementationcase,anddiscussthisin relationtotheABAPcodethatunderpinsSAP,themost
popularERPsoftware.Havingtheopportunityforthelocal businessunitstocustomizetheERPintheirmulti-national case, ledtotheERPbeingused.In theirwords: “SAPin itsstandardformat...hadbeenabsentasanITsystembut
oncemanagersrealizeditcouldbehouse-trained[through customizingusingABAP]toreproducelocallyacceptable controlstheyperceiveditaslessofa‘monster”’(p.232). However,toprogramcustomizationsusingtheABAPcode requiresahighlevelofknowledgeandexpertise.Inmany implementations,thoseinvolvedwillnothavethis knowl-edge and expertise so that such reconfigurations may bemuchmorerestricted(DechowandMouritsen,2005). Moreover,inothercases,itmaybeastrategicdecisionto ‘govanilla’(Robeyetal.,2002)sothatagaininthese situa-tions,reconfigurationmayberestricted.Thisreinforcesthe importanceofseeinganERPasasociomaterialassemblage –in acontextwhere thepackage cannotbeconfigured, eitherbecauseoflackofexpertiseorstrategicintransigence –theERPwillbea quitedifferentsociomaterial assem-blageascomparedtotheIvycase(andtheQuattroneand Hoppercase).Inotherwords,anERPsystemwilllookand functionquitedifferentlyineachcontext,sometimesthe assemblagewillenablereconfigurationwhileinother sit-uationsitwillnotsothatotherformsofwork-aroundmay bemoreevident.
5.3. Relationality
GiventhatIT-basedaccountingpracticeshave histori-callybeenpackagedwithindiscreteproductsthatenable preferredwaysofworkingforaspecializedgroupof pro-fessionals,itisnotsurprisingthattheaccountingliterature emphasizes thetechnologyas an‘absentpresence’.ERP systems,however,aredifferentbecauseindependent evo-lutionbecomesmoredifficultasthemultiplesociomaterial assemblagesbecomemoreinterdependent.Ouranalysis, thus,enablesustoprovidesomeinsightstothequestion posedbyHyvönenetal.(2008)whoasked:‘how ‘ready-to-use’and‘packaged’arethese[ERP]softwarepackages?’ Ourdiscussiondemonstratingwhyandhow reconfigura-tionoccurs,leadsustoconcludethattheyaretypicallynot ready-to-useandwillinevitablychangeasusersinterpret andenactthesystemdifferently.Thisdirectlyaddresses ourtworesearchquestions.Thus,ourcasefirstshowshow theaccountinglogicsencodedintotheERPsystem pur-posefully ignoredtheless professionalizedmanagement accounting practices ofnon-accountants and prioritized thefinancial accounting interestsofcentral administra-tors.Thatthiswasthecaseeveninasituationwherethe adoptingorganizationwasactuallyinvolvedindesigning theindustrystandardsuggeststhatsuchprioritizationis likelytobethenorm.However,andinanswertooursecond question, theupshot of this financial accounting domi-nanceduringconfiguration,ledtoanextensiveperiodof praxis, duringwhich time differentgroups vieover the sociomaterialpracticelogicthatwillbeadopted.Theresult ofthiscontestationisthecreationofareconfiguredsystem thatbetteraccommodatesthepracticelogicsofthecentral administratorsandthedistributedgrantmanagers.
InonesensethisanalysisconcurswiththatofAndon
