Project Management VI Research Paper
Shaun Webbs
InterprojectConflictManagementThroughCooperationinanEnterpriseSystemImplementationProgram.pdf
1Institute of Technology Management, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung 2Department of Information Management, Tunghai University, Taichung
Corresponding Author: Jamie Y. T. Chang, Department of Information Management, Tunghai University, Taichung. Email: jamie@ thu. edu. tw
Project Management Journal 2020, Vol. 51(6) 582–598
© 2020 Project Management Institute, Inc. Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub. com/ journals- permissions DOI: 10. 1177/ 8756 9728 20949058
journals. sagepub. com/ home/ pmx
Interproject Conflict Management Through Cooperation in an Enterprise System Implementation Program
Fei- Fei Cheng1, Chin- Shan Wu2, and Jamie Y. T. Chang2
Abstract To achieve desired business benefits from the implementation of an enterprise system (ES), current practitioners often adopt a multiple- project (program) approach instead of a conventional single- project strategy. Unfortunately, during such an implemen- tation, issues arising from task- related conflicts among different teams within the ES program are frequently observed; to suc- cessfully resolve these task- conflict issues, the adoption of a collaborative problem- solving strategy is essential. Collaborative conflict management theory encourages parties to develop solutions for the problems they encounter. However, less explana- tion has been provided about how collaborative problem- solving strategy influences the relationship between interteam con- flicts and the final ES implementation program outcome. In this study, based on conflict management theory, we propose that interteam cooperation effectiveness serves as a critical partial mediator between the interteam task conflict and final ES program implementation performance, whereas interteam dialectical problem solving provides a direct positive influence on interteam cooperation effectiveness. Furthermore, the negative impact of interteam task conflict on ES implementation performance is moderated by interteam cooperation effectiveness. For this study, a survey examines the relationships among the aforemen- tioned factors in ES program implementation. The results confirm that both interteam dialectical problem solving and interteam trust serve as antecedents of interteam cooperation effectiveness.
Keywords enterprise system implementation, conflict management, multiple projects, interteam cooperation, interteam task conflict
Article
Introduction Enterprise systems (ESs) are important technological investments
Bendoly et al., 2009). Various types of ESs, such as customer relationship management systems (CRMs), supply chain management systems (SCMs),
systems using a common platform (Hendricks et al., 2007), are
mentation is adopted (Seddon et al., 2010
tice (Martinsuo & Hoverfält, 2018 Vuorinen &
Martinsuo, 2018).
during ES implementation processes (Allen, 2005; Sia & Soh, 2007
).
tasks (Jiang et al., 2014
attaining overall ES goals and tasks for each individual team (Jiang et al., 2014).
in the integration team often include functional managers from
Cheng et al. 583
(e.g., one component team) and SCM (e.g., another component
ment ( ; ).
team to adopt their goals or tasks due to the changes/needs of other teams, and the interdependence of goals, tasks, and resources
Parolia et al., 2015
implementation program.
Li et al., 2007
Barki & ; Chou & Yeh, 2007
ment is a key factor to achieving cooperation among the individual Alsulami et al., 2013; Chang et al., 2014; Jiang
et al., 2014 intrateam
intrateam
and interests of the overall goals rather than those of their individ Paul et al., 2005).
Elonen & Artto, 2003; interteam
Unfortunately, there is a lack of empirical study in the con
ES implementation performance. Moreover, there is a scar city of explanation in the extant information system (IS) lit
outcomes (Chou & Yeh, 2007; )— cooperation is one of the critical outcomes of successful
Puck & Pregernig, 2014
mentation performance.
on the ES implementation program performance. Based upon a survey of 151 ES implementation programs in
ES implementation program performance. It also demonstrates
(2) they provide an alternative explanation to mechanisms
Theoretical Backgrounds and Hypotheses Conflict: Interteam Task-Related Conflicts
Barki
Project Management Journal 51(6)584
T a b
le 1
. D
iff er
en t
T yp
es o
f In
tr at
ea m
T as
k- R
el at
ed C
o nfl
ic ts
A ut
ho r(
s)
T yp
es o
f T
as k-
R el
at ed
C o nfl
ic ts
O pp
o si
ng V
ie w
s D
iff er
en t
V al
ue s/
Pe rs
pe ct
iv es
Pr o ce
ss Fe
at ur
es R
es o ur
ce s
Pr io
ri ty
Pr o ce
ss Fe
at ur
es R
es o ur
ce s
Pr io
ri ty
R o be
y et
a l.
(2 00
2) Pr
o ce
ss o
f o ve
rc o m
in g
ba rr
ie rs
(e
.g .,
o bs
ta cl
es o
f ER
P im
pl em
en ta
ti o n)
So h
et a
l. (2
00 3)
W o rk
flo w
c ha
ng es
( e.
g. ,
co m
m o n
da ta
s tr
uc tu
re s,
d at
a o w
ne rs
hi p,
a nd
r es
po ns
ib ili
ty
fo r
da ta
e nt
ry )
O pp
o si
ng v
ie w
o n
da ta
e nt
ry ,
re po
rt s,
r ev
en ue
co
m pu
ta ti o n,
a nd
re
ve nu
e co
lle ct
io n
A lle
n (2
00 5)
W o rk
p ri
o ri
ti es
( e.
g. ,
lo ca
l r es
o ur
ce s
an d
in fo
rm at
io n
ne ed
s fo
r w
o rk
p ri
o ri
ty )
B o o ns
tr a
(2 00
6)
M
ul ti pl
e vi
si o ns
/ di
re ct
io ns
fr
o m
d iff
er en
t st
ak eh
o ld
er s
G o al
p ri
o ri
ti es
f ro
m
di ffe
re nt
s ta
ke ho
ld er
s
Si a
an d
So h
(2 00
7) M
is al
ig nm
en t
be tw
ee n
st ru
ct ur
es
in E
R P
an d
o rg
an iz
at io
n U
se rs
a nd
d ev
el o pe
rs
w it h
o pp
o si
ng
vi ew
s o n
th e
in te
rf ac
e, I /O
re
qu ir
em en
t
R es
o ur
ce s
m an
ag em
en t
(a cc
o un
ta bi
lit y
re qu
ir em
en ts
, co
m pl
ia nc
e)
M ei
ss o ni
er
an d
H o uz
é (2
01 0)
D iff
er en
t st
ak eh
o ld
er s’
vi
ew s
o n
sy st
em d
es ig
n,
fu nc
ti o na
lit y
N o rd
he im
a nd
Pä
iv är
in ta
(2
00 6)
C o nt
ra di
ct io
ns in
t he
s tr
at eg
ie s
o f ac
qu ir
ed s
o ft
w ar
e an
d IT
in
fr as
tr uc
tu re
ER P
pa ck
ag e
fu nc
ti o ns
v er
su s
o rg
an iz
at io
na l
re qu
ir em
en ts
N o rd
he im
(2
01 1)
C us
to m
iz at
io n
o f ER
P fu
nc ti o na
lit y
A ls
ul am
i e t
al .
(2 01
3) R
eq ui
re m
en ts
c ha
ng e
pr o ce
ss
(o pp
o si
ng v
ie w
o n
ho w
t o
m ai
nt ai
n an
d up
gr ad
e)
N ot
e. P
ro ce
ss : i
m pl
em en
ta ti o n
pr o ce
ss ; F
ea tu
re s:
p ro
je ct
f ea
tu re
s w
it hi
n o rg
an iz
at io
na l r
eq ui
re m
en ts
; R es
o ur
ce s:
r es
o ur
ce s
al lo
ca ti o n;
P ri
o ri
ty : g
o al
/w o rk
/t as
k pr
io ri
ty
Cheng et al. 585
(1) competition for resources; (2) implementation of methods,
process, task priorities, and resources allocation; Soh et al., 2003
stakeholders on implementation tasks and methods; et al., 2002).
; Liang et al., 2012
; Wang et al., 2005). Users and IS developers/vendors often take
direction of the ES implementation and priorities of the goals
study.
Conflict Management Theory: Interteam Dialectical Problem Solving
agement strategies, and group/team performance, several con Jehn, 1995;
; Rahim, 2002; ). Among
( ;
De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). In asserting,
relations (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003).
openness, an exchange of information, a search for alternatives,
of all parties ( ; Chou & Yeh, 2007); (2)
tively (Li et al., 2007; Paul et al., 2005
Jiang et al., 2014; ; Song
Parolia et al., 2015).
solving are the most often adopted strategies to resolve the Li et al., 2007; Paul
et al., 2005).
text, Jiang et al. (2014)
tively implement a solution,
as interteam dialectical problem solving to distinguish it from the intrateam literature.
Project Management Journal 51(6)586
T a b
le 2
. C
o lla
bo ra
ti ve
C o nfl
ic t
M an
ag em
en t
in S
tu di
es P
er ta
in in
g to
I S
C o nc
ep ts
Pr o bl
em S
o lv
in g
C o lla
bo ra
ti ve
P ro
bl em
So
lv in
g In
te gr
at iv
e C
o nfl
ic t
R es
o lu
ti o n
C o ns
tr uc
ti ve
C o nfl
ic t
R es
o lu
ti o n
U ni
t o f an
al ys
is In
tr at
ea m
In te
rt ea
m In
tr at
ea m
In te
rt ea
m In
tr at
ea m
In te
rt ea
m In
tr at
ea m
In te
rt ea
m
A u
th o
rs a
n d
c o
n te
x t
B ar
ki a
nd H
ar tw
ic k
(2 00
1) : I
S us
er s
w o rk
jo in
tl y
to c
re at
e so
lu ti o ns
( e.
g. , g
o al
s an
d o bj
ec ti ve
s) , p
hy si
ca l d
es ig
n o f th
e sy
st em
, a nd
w he
n o r
ho w
t he
s ys
te m
s ho
ul d
be
im pl
em en
te d,
h o w
p ro
je ct
s ho
ul d
be m
an ag
ed (
e. g.
, s ta
ffi ng
t he
p ro
je ct
t ea
m , c
al lin
g an
d ru
nn in
g m
ee ti ng
s, r
ep o rt
in g
to s
en io
r m
an ag
em en
t) t
o f ul
ly s
at is
fy t
he c
o nc
er ns
o f al
l p ar
ti es
d ur
in g
th e
in fo
rm at
io n
sy st
em s
de ve
lo pm
en t
(I SD
) pr
o ce
ss .
X
Pa ul
e t
al . (
20 05
): G
ro up
d ec
is io
n su
pp o rt
t ea
m m
em be
rs w
o rk
t o ge
th er
t o fi
nd
so lu
ti o ns
( e.
g. , t
he b
es t
w ay
t o im
pl em
en t
th e
co m
pu te
r- us
e fe
e pr
o gr
am )
ac ce
pt ab
le t
o t
ea m
m em
be rs
.
X
C ho
u an
d Y
eh (
20 07
): T
ea m
m em
be rs
f ul
ly s
at is
fy t
he c
o nc
er n
(e .g
., ad
o pt
in g
a ne
w
pr o ce
ss m
o de
l w it hi
n an
o rg
an iz
at io
n st
ru ct
ur e)
o f al
l p ar
ti es
d ur
in g
th e
ER P
im pl
em en
ta ti o n
pr o ce
ss .
X
Li e
t al
. ( 20
07 ): T
ea m
m em
be rs
e ng
ag e
in a
g en
ui ne
c o lla
bo ra
ti ve
e ffo
rt t
o r
es o lv
e co
nfl ic
ts d
ur in
g th
e ne
w p
ro du
ct d
ev el
o pm
en t
pr o ce
ss .
X
K an
ka nh
al li
et a
l. (2
00 7)
: G lo
ba l v
ir tu
al t
ea m
in te
gr at
es a
ll te
am m
em be
rs ’ v
ie w
po in
ts
an d
o bj
ec ti ve
s (e
.g .,
ri sk
a ss
es sm
en t
an d
m an
ag em
en t
pr o ce
du re
s, g
lo ba
l m ar
ke t
fo r
m o bi
le a
pp lic
at io
n) t
hr o ug
h co
lla bo
ra ti o n.
X
So ng
e t
al . (
20 06
): R
& D
a nd
m ar
ke ti ng
w o rk
jo in
tl y
to b
ri ng
a ll
is su
es in
to t
he o
pe n
an d
sh ar
e co
nc er
ns t
o r
es o lv
e th
em in
t he
b es
t w
ay d
ur in
g th
e ne
w p
ro je
ct
de ve
lo pm
en t
in no
va ti o n
pr o ce
ss .
X
Jia ng
e t
al . (
20 14
): E
nt er
pr is
e sy
st em
im pl
em en
ta ti o n
te am
s in
te gr
at e
di ve
rs e
id ea
s o n
de liv
er y
m ea
ns d
ur in
g sy
st em
s im
pl em
en ta
ti o n.
X
Pa ro
lia e
t al
. ( 20
15 ): I S
so ft
w ar
e an
d se
rv ic
e te
am s
in t
he s
o ft
w ar
e ve
nd o rs
, d is
cu ss
io n
o f di
sa gr
ee m
en t
in cr
ea se
s th
e ef
fe ct
iv en
es s
in t
he I T
- p ro
gr am
c o nt
ex t.
X
Cheng et al. 587
generate insights (Hong et al., 2014). In partic ular, argued that context shapes the interpretation and meaning of theoretical relationships and may, in fact, change the functional form, strength, and directionality of rela
analysis in this study is the ES implementation program itself. Figure 1 that an ES implementation program should adopt the interteam
Constructs Formation
ment) has appeared in studies on management for many years.
integration ( Li
et al., 2007
ing and leading to higher achievement (Jiang et al., 2014; ; ). In a
Parolia et al., 2015). In the studies pertaining to ES, integrative decision
Figure 1. Proposed model.
Project Management Journal 51(6)588
ments and friction in the ES implementation program) in an ES
ect management research, cooperation is the degree or extent of
Pinto et al., 1993).
(Yang et al., 2015
collective and individual goals (Jiang et al., 2014; Parolia et al., 2011 is due to the complex interdependencies among each individual
tion must conduct a thorough analysis of the interaction or
extent of disagreements in the ES implementation program during
procedures/process (Alsulami et al., 2013; Nordheim & Päivärinta, ;
Sia & Soh, 2007; Soh et al., 2003
; Nordheim, 2011; ; Sia & Soh, 2007; Soh et al., 2003 Sia & Soh, 2007 (Allen, 2005;
terms of their methods for completing their local tasks and achiev ing their goals (Rahim, 1990
Jehn, 1995).
program.
ideas, feelings, and hopes, grounded in reciprocated interpersonal
cern for others (Rahim, 1983
resolution process ( ).
De Dreu & Weingart, 2003
implementation.
Chang et al., 2014
tional areas (Seddon et al., 2010). Shang and Seddon (2002) specif
sharing.
Control Variables Number of projects and size of the ES implementation program. Some studies have demonstrated that the num
gram may affect ES implementation performance (Yetton et al., 2000
mentation program.
Cheng et al. 589
Hypotheses
De Dreu & Weingart, 2003
ties, procedures, and stakeholder relationships (Allen, 2005; Alsulami et al., 2013; Sia & Soh, 2007
overall goals and implementation methods, failure to under
from achieving team goals, and hindrances to performance (
Spector et al., 2000). In the ERP implementation context, Yeh and Chou (2005) indicated
H1: Interteam among ES teams is negatively asso- ciated with ES implementation performance.
de Wit et al., 2012 Jehn et al. (2008) argue
Jehn, 1995; Medina et al., 2005 Jehn et al., 2008; ). For example, (2009)
Puck and Pregernig (2014)
teams, and the interdependence of goals (Chang et al., 2014; Jiang et al., 2014). Jiang et al. (2014) addressed that interteam
approaches to completion of required tasks, and individual
H2: Interteam among ES project teams is negative- ly associated with interteam cooperation effectiveness in the ES implementation program.
one module might impede the functionality of another during an ES implementation. Due to this interdependent nature, mul
the ES implementation program enhances the achievement of Parolia et al.,
2011
Chan et al., 2008
nected tasks (Rico et al., 2008
H3a: The effectiveness of interteam cooperation in the ES im- plementation program is positively associated with ES imple- mentation performance.
time through the interaction of the various interdependent
Chen et al. (1998)
deliver superior performance. Rather, the interdependence on
in turn shape the ES program capacity for interteam coopera tion, and it is the interteam cooperation that leads to superior
(Jehn, 1995; Medina et al., 2005 Jehn et al., 2008; ).
Project Management Journal 51(6)590
enhance the levels of interteam cooperation needed for success
H3b: Interteam among ES teams also has an indi- rect effect on ES implementation performance, where the effect of interteam on ES implementation performance will be partially mediated by interteam cooperation.
Spector et al., 2000; Yeh & Chou, 2005) due to lack of cooperation and coordination
Jehn et al., 2008; 2004
Puck & Pregernig, 2014). Under this ES implementation context, due
H4: Interteam cooperation effectiveness mitigates the relation- ship between interteam in the ES implementation program and ES implementation performance (i.e., the magni-
on ES implementation performance is reduced with increased levels of interteam cooperation effectiveness).
an alternative that not only provides an avenue for the manage
among ES implementation programs.
identifying alternative solutions, (3) selecting a mutually
rather than a reactive function. Furthermore, for all the mem
programs, and a greater focus on positive outcomes (Behfar et al., 2008). In the literature on ES implementation, Chang et al. (2014)
H5: The levels of interteam dialectical problem solving adopted by the ES integrated teams is positively associated with interteam cooperation effectiveness among members of the ES implementa- tion program.
example, Schlichter and Rose (2013) indicated that a high level
De Dreu & Weingart, 2003
understanding, support, and cooperation in order to achieve
quences, for example, a lack of support and cooperation of Schlichter & Rose,
2013
lost (Schlichter & Rose, 2013). In the ES implementation pro
H6: Interteam trust is positively associated with interteam co- operation effectiveness in the ES implementation program.
Research Methodology Sample
company to introduce the purpose of this study and explain
took an appointment for an advance visit and assigned a contact
Cheng et al. 591
person in each company to identify appropriate informants.
constructs (Van Bruggen et al., 2002
the ES implementations are presented in .
Measurement
Janssen et al. (1999). Interteam Jehn
(1995) Campion et al. (1993)
McAllister (1995)
Chang (2017). All measurement
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
ensure that the Chinese and English versions matched.
validated the Chinese versions. During this procedure, the
presented in .
Data Analysis and Results Assessment of the Measurement Model
Gefen et al., 2011) and uses
assumptions (Gefen et al., 2011 ical procedure, the measurement model assessed the conver
after each item). In this
(Hair et al., 1995
lishing convergent validity. When the square root of the AVE
other constructs, the discriminant validity is evident (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) (see ).
Assessment of the Structural Model Hierarchical regression (employed SmartPLS 2.0) incorporates predictors to the regression in all stages. At each stage, an addi tional predictor enters the regression, and the variation in R2 is
). Model 1 tested the
p
p < 0.05) and p
p = .705, p
Table 3. Characteristics of Respondents
Categories Percentage
Revenue Less than TWD$50 million 1.9 TWD$51–TWD$250 million 17.2 Over TWD$251 million 80.9
Implementation duration
Shorter than 1 year 69.5 1–2 years 21.2 Longer than 2 years 9.3
Number of projects for implementation
2 14.6 3–6 83.4 ≥7 2.0
Number of departments involved
≤3 7.3 4–8 39.7 ≥9 53.0
Size of the implementation program
<5 11.3 6–10 23.8 11 or above 64.9
Project Management Journal 51(6)592
results of the hierarchical regression are presented in . Second, in , Model 1 examined that ES implementation
p < 0.05) had a
p < 0.05) and p < 0.05) had sig
p
.130, p p
implementation program performance. For testing the modera
Table 4. Measurement Items
Construct Items Respondent
Interteam dialectical problem solving
(Cronbach’s alpha [α] = .88, average variance extracted [AVE] = .81)
Opposite visions were utilized to obtain comprehensive decisions (factor loading = .92) IT manager Diverse ideas were integrated into comprehensive decisions (.96) Arguments were replied to with counterarguments until suitable solutions were found
(.96)
Interteam cooperation effectiveness
(α = .81, AVE = .73)
There was little competition among projects during the ES implementation (.64) Functional managerProjects within the ES implementation cooperated effectively to get the work done (.95)
Projects within the ES implementation successfully communicated to accomplish the mission (.93)
Interteam task conflict (α = .96, AVE = .92)
Project teams had conflicts about work matters (.96) Functional managerProject teams had many conflicts pertaining to the implementation ideas (.96)
Project teams’ viewpoints on implementation decisions differed considerably (.96) ES implementation performance (α = .93, AVE = .87)
According to the results, ES implementation performance can be regarded as successful (.92)
Functional manager
All objectives or goals of ES implementation were satisfied (.93) From the company’s perspective, all the project goals were achieved (.95) The organization was satisfied with ES implementation results (.96)
Interteam trust (α = .94, AVE = .88)
Members representing each individual project could freely talk to other members representing other teams about their difficulties at work (.92)
Functional manager
When a member representing a project team shared problems, they knew that other members representing other project teams would respond constructively and caringly (.96)
All members in the ES implementation program made considerable emotional investments in their working relationships (.96)
Table 5. Correlations
1 2 3 4 5
Interteam dialectical problem solving
0.899
Interteam cooperation effectiveness
0.205 0.854
Interteam task conflict −0.131 −0.382 0.959 Interteam trust 0.130 0.761 −0.339 0.935 ES implementation
performance 0.237 0.506 −0.309 0.418 0.939
Note. Square roots of AVE values are presented in bold.
Table 6. Results of the Moderation Effect of Task Conflict and Interteam Dialectical Problem Solving on Interteam Cooperation Effectiveness
Predict Variable
Interteam Cooperation Effectiveness
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Interteam task conflict (TC) −0.382* −0.361* −0.126* Interteam dialectical problem
solving (DPS)
0.159* 0.094* Trust 0.705* R2 14.6 17.1 60.3 Variation in R2 2.5 43.2
Note. Values are standardized regression coefficients. *p < 0.05
Cheng et al. 593
p
in .
Preacher and Hayes (2004)
tion maintain ES implementation program performance under
.
Discussion and Implications
Table 7. Results of the Interaction Effect of Interteam Task Conflict and Interteam Cooperation Effectiveness on ES Implementation Performance
Predict Variable
ES Implementation Performance
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Interteam dialectical problem solving (DPS)
.130* .089
Interteam task conflict (TC)
−.316* −.120* −.113* −.128*
Interteam cooperation effectiveness (CO)
.491* .467* .467*
CO × TC .196* Number of projects
involved −.069
Size of the implementation program
.173*
R2 10.0 30.2 31.8 36.6 Variation in R2 20.2 1.6 4.8
Note. Values are standardized regression coefficients. *p < 0.05
Table 8. The Results of Hypotheses Testing
Hypotheses Results
H1: The interteam task conflict in the ES teams is negatively associated with ES implementation performance. Support H2: The interteam task conflict in the ES teams is negatively associated with interteam cooperation effectiveness in the
ES implementation program. Support
H3a: Interteam cooperation effectiveness in the ES implementation program is positively associated with ES implementation performance.
Support
H3b: Interteam task conflict among ES teams also has an indirect effect on ES implementation performance, where the effect of interteam task conflict on ES implementation performance will be partially mediated by interteam cooperation.
Support
H4: Interteam cooperation effectiveness moderates the relationship between interteam task conflict in the ES implementation program and ES implementation performance.
Support
H5: The levels of interteam dialectical problem solving adopted by the ES integrated teams is positively associated with interteam cooperation effectiveness among the members in the ES implementation program.
Support
H6: Interteam trust is positively associated with interteam cooperation effectiveness in the ES implementation program. Support
Project Management Journal 51(6)594
ES implementation performance) and H4 (interteam cooperation
implementations. As a result, this increases the application
Barki conclude that avoidance and dominant reso
Chou & Yeh, 2007; et al., 2007; Liang et al., 2012; Paul et al., 2005). Barki and
cooperation could
each party, thus leading to a higher level of cooperation among
mentation context. Second, cooperation often represents a positive relationship
among stakeholders that facilitates information sharing that Pellegrinelli,
1997). IS empirical studies have indicated that cooperation
Wang & Wei, 2007). Studies in other disciplines have argued that inter
potentially strong individual team identities and facilitates Druskat &
Wheeler, 2003
Furthermore, in addition to examining the mechanisms for
incorporating interteam cooperation as an antecedent of other team outcomes, such as innovation and system design quality
and coordination as mediators to examine their relative impor
Cheng et al. 595
during an ES implementation process serves a critical role in
of competing for resources and gaining advantages for individ
Second, this study indicates the importance of interteam
mentation program must consider the motivation and interests
Given the importance of trust on its impact of cooperation, pro
Conclusion
completion of ES implementation.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
Funding
References
Information Technology & People, 18
Alsulami, M., Rahim, M., & Scheepers, H. (2013). Development of a
ERP post- implementation change process: A dialectic perspective
oration in R&D performance. Management Science, 22(10),
Integration obstacles during ERP development
agement in information system development. MIS Quarterly, 25
Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 93
envelopment analysis. Journal of Operations Management, 27(4),
The managerial grid. Gulf. Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley and
Sons.
from a stakeholder perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 24
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, C. A. (1993). Relations
Personnel Psychology, 46
Project Management Journal 51(6)596
facilitator for application and development skills. IEEE Transac- tions on Engineering Management, 55
systems program. Project Management Journal, 48
many goals impede a program? A case study of enterprise system Informa-
tion & Management, 51
Academy of Management Review, 23
performance in ERP teams. Social Behavior and Personality, 35
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4),
Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 97
Academy of Management Journal, 46
functionality. Information Systems Journal, 16
Interna- tional Journal of Project Management, 21
Fornell, C. G., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation Jour-
nal of Marketing Research, 18
update and extension to SEM guidelines for administrative and social science research. MIS Quarterly, 35
Multivariate data analysis with readings (4th ed.). Prentice Hall
Administrative Science Quarterly, 41
SCM, and CRM system implementations. Journal of Operations Management, 25
Information Systems Research, 25
agement teams. Journal of Management, 25
Administrative Science Quar- terly, 40
comes. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17
agement. Journal of Management Information Systems, 31(1),
The Academy of Management Review, 31
Journal of Management Infor- mation Systems, 23
Journal of Social Issues, 65(2),
tems. MIS Quarterly, 20
Administrative Science Quarterly, 12
Li, H., Bingham, J. B., & Umphress, E. E. (2007). Fairness from the
Organization Science, 18(2),
International Journal of Project Management, 30
International Journal of Pro- ject Management, 36
Academy of Management Journal, 38
Jour- nal of Managerial Psychology, 20
European Journal of Information Systems, 19
R. Pooley, J. Coady, C. Schneider, H. Linger, C. Barry, & M. Lang (Eds.), Information systems development Springer.
European Journal of Information Systems, 15
Cheng et al. 597
Infor- mation and Software Technology, 66
social interdependence perspective. International Journal of Pro- ject Management, 29
Paul, S., Samarah, I. M., Seetharaman, P., & Mykytyn, P. P. (2005).
Journal of Management Information Systems, 21
International Journal of Project Management, 15
Man- agement Science, 39
Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4),
European Management Journal, 32
Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal Academy of Management Journal, 26
Rahim, M. A. (1990). .
, 13
approach. The Academy of Management Review, 33(1),
change. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(1),
Handbook of communication science (pp.
Social exchange in devel- oping relationships. Academic Press.
European Journal of Information Systems, 22
tems. MIS Quarterly, 34
Information Systems Journal, 12
European Journal of Information Systems, 16
International Journal of Human- Computer Interaction, 16
tive. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(3),
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21
ogy artifact. MIS Quarterly, 34
diverse groups. Academy of Management Review, 29
M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology
Journal of Management Information Systems, 26
Journal of Marketing Research, 39
Interna- tional Journal of Project Management, 36
Journal of Information Science, 31
Decision Sciences, 38
The
Yang, X. M., Li, J. H., Guo, X. S., & Li, X. J. (2015). Group interac
cooperative translation activity. The Internet and Higher Educa- tion, 25
Social Behavior and Person- ality: An International Journal, 33
Informa- tion Systems Journal, 10
Project Management Journal 51(6)598
Author Biographies
Fei- Fei Cheng is an associate professor at the Institute of
Information & Management, Decision Support Systems, Electronic Commerce and Research Applications, Computers in Human Behavior, Cyberpsychology & Behavior, Behavior & Information Technology, and others.
Chin- Shan Wu is currently a professor in the Department of
a Department Chair in the Department of Information
in information management from National Sun Yatsen
Information & Management, Decision Support Systems, Computers in Human Behavior, Electronic Commerce and Research Applications, Cyberpsychology & Behavior, Behavior & Information Technology
sion making, and internet marketing.
Jamie Y. T. Chang is an associate professor of information
PhD in information management from the National Central
management, IS program management, and enterprise systems
Journal of Management Information Systems, Information & Management, International Journal of Project Management, Journal of Systems and Software, and International Journal of Commerce and Strategy.
Copyright of Project Management Journal is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
