Advanced Research Methods

1. 1
Institute of Technology Management, National Chung Hsing University,
Taichung
2
Department 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
Vol. 00(0) 1–17
© 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
for firms to achieve strategic objectives (Bendoly et al., 2009).
Various types of ESs, such as customer relationship management
systems (CRMs), supply chain management systems (SCMs),
enterprise resource planning systems (ERPs), and other firm-­
wide
systems using a common platform (Hendricks et al., 2007), are
implemented by the functional areas within an organization. To
achieve the desired overall benefits of an ES, a multiple-­
project
approach with an overarching goal of ensuring proper ES imple-
mentation is adopted (Seddon et al., 2010). However, the effective
management of multiple teams (i.e., each project is assigned to an
independent team) has become increasingly challenging in prac-
tice (Martinsuo & Hoverfält, 2018), as it often suffers from con-
flicts arising between global tasks and local interests (Vuorinen &
Martinsuo, 2018).
Interteam task conflicts are often observed between teams
during ES implementation processes (Allen, 2005; Sia & Soh,
2007). Each project team often has different overall cross-­
functional integration requirements, different local tasks and
individual goals, and mismatches between the overall ES and
local goals. For example, each unit usually attempts to define
serialization in their own way (Strong & Volkoff, 2010).
However, they need to agree on a solution to achieve common
ES goals instead of revisiting each subsystem’s local goals or
tasks (Jiang et al., 2014). Effective cooperation among the mul-
tiple project teams (also known as a program) is required for
attaining overall ES goals and tasks for each individual team
(Jiang et al., 2014).
The establishment of an ES integration team is due to the com-
plex interdependencies between the individual ES project teams
that must work together to achieve the overall objectives. Members
in the integration team often include functional managers from

2. Project Management Journal 00(0)
2
marketing and operations to lead the projects pertaining to CRM
(e.g., one component team) and SCM (e.g., another component
team) modules, the IT manager as the program manager, and a
member of the C-­
suite as the sponsor representing key manage-
ment (Banaeianjahromi et al., 2016; El Amrani et al., 2006).
Conflicts occur among these members due to differences in each
project team’s goals or tasks, the inability or unwillingness of a
team to adopt their goals or tasks due to the changes/needs of other
teams, and the interdependence of goals, tasks, and resources
among these individual project teams (Parolia et al., 2015). The
challenge for managers becomes how to enhance successful con-
flict management and cooperation among members in the ES
implementation program.
Empirical studies conducted in the context of a single-­
project
team have firmly established the influence of conflict manage-
ment on successful IT projects (Li et al., 2007). These studies
have concluded that collaborative problem solving is the most
effective way to resolve conflicts between stakeholders during the
IT implementation process, especially for task conflicts (Barki &
Hartwick, 2001; Chou & Yeh, 2007). The existing ES implemen-
tation studies have also concluded that effective conflict manage-
ment is a key factor to achieving cooperation among the individual
project teams (Alsulami et al., 2013; Chang et al., 2014; Jiang
et al., 2014). These existing studies have provided valuable
insights into the relationship between intrateam conflicts and
intrateam conflict management. Conflict management theorists
have suggested that collaborative problem solving is especially
effective when a group must give more precedence to the demands
and interests of the overall goals rather than those of their individ-
ual members (Paul et al., 2005).
In our study, the ES project teams are responsible for suc-
cessfully achieving the overall business objectives along
with the individual project team’s tasks and goals involved
within the ES implementation program. If the overall ES
goals are not successfully achieved, then the individual proj-
ect teams will not be successful (Elonen & Artto, 2003;
Tiwana & Keil, 2009). Thus, we argue that the interteam
collaborative problem-­
solving approach encourages the
integration of different interests to resolve encountered
problems, which is most appropriate when faced with inter-
team task-­
related conflicts during ES implementation.
Unfortunately, there is a lack of empirical study in the con-
text of interteam conflict management. One objective of this
study is to examine the impacts of interteam task conflict on
ES implementation performance. Moreover, there is a scar-
city of explanation in the extant information system (IS) lit-
erature about how the collaborative conflict management
approach influences the final system implementation perfor-
mance. However, studies have already established a positive
relationship between user-­
developer cooperation and system
outcomes (Chou & Yeh, 2007; Kankanhalli et al., 2007)—
cooperation is one of the critical outcomes of successful
conflict resolution (Puck & Pregernig, 2014). Therefore, in
this study, we propose that interteam cooperation effective-
ness is a critical mediator that explains how interteam
collaborative problem solving influences final ES imple-
mentation performance.
To achieve the two objectives mentioned above, this study
draws from conflict management theory to propose a theoreti-
cal model that explains how the interteam integrative conflict
management method (i.e., interteam dialectical problem solv-
ing) influences the negative effects arising from interteam task
conflicts on ES implementation program outcomes through
interteam cooperation effectiveness in the context of a multiple-­
project implementation. Specifically, we examine (1) whether
interteam cooperation effectiveness serves as a mediator in the
relationship between interteam task conflict and ES implemen-
tation program outcomes, (2) whether there is a positive rela-
tionship between interteam dialectical problem solving adopted
by the ES integration members and interteam cooperation
effectiveness, and (3) whether interteam cooperation effective-
ness can reduce negative effects arising from interteam conflict
on the ES implementation program performance.
Based upon a survey of 151 ES implementation programs in
a Chinese cultural context, the results of this study confirm the
proposed argument that interteam cooperation effectiveness
serves as a critical mediator between interteam task conflict and
ES implementation program performance. It also demonstrates
that an interteam dialectical problem approach positively leads
to interteam cooperation effectiveness, which in turn, mitigates
the negative effects that arise from interteam task conflict on
the ES implementation performance. These findings provide
important theoretical and practical contributions to the extant
IS project management literature because (1) they offer import-
ant empirical evidence that suggests interteam collaborative
problem solving serves as an effective conflict management
approach in the context of a multiple-­
project implementation;
(2) they provide an alternative explanation to mechanisms
influencing the impact of interteam collaborative problem solv-
ing on the final system outcomes (i.e., through cooperative
behaviors; and (3) they confirm that conflicts would have a
negative impact on the final system outcome in the context of
implementing multiple projects. However, this effect can be
mediated by the levels of cooperative behaviors—a fact that
has been overlooked in the existing literature. The implications
of these findings are discussed in this article.
Theoretical Backgrounds and Hypotheses
Conflict: InterteamTask-Related Conflicts
Roloff (1987) stated that “organizational conflict occurs when
members engage in activities that are incompatible with those
of colleagues within their network, members of other collectiv-
ities, or unaffiliated individuals who utilize the services or
products of the organization” (p. 496). In general, conflicts are
viewed as having negative impacts on system outcomes (Barki
& Hartwick, 2001). Therefore, conflicts have been an import-
ant topic for research in IS project management literature.
Table 1 presents the studies pertaining to four different task-­
related conflicts documented under an ES context, including

3. Cheng et al. 3
Table
1.
Different
Types
of
Intrateam
Task-­
R
elated
Conflicts
Author(s)
Types
of
Task-­
R
elated
Conflicts
Opposing
Views
Different
Values/Perspectives
Process
Features
Resources
Priority
Process
Features
Resources
Priority
Robey
et
al.
(2002)
Process
of
overcoming
barriers
(e.g.,
obstacles
of
ERP
implementation)
Soh
et
al.
(2003)
Workflow
changes
(e.g.,
common
data
structures,
data
ownership,
and
responsibility
for
data
entry)
Opposing
view
on
data
entry,
reports,
revenue
computation,
and
revenue
collection
Allen
(2005)
Work
priorities
(e.g.,
local
resources
and
information
needs
for
work
priority)
Boonstra
(2006)
Multiple
visions/
directions
from
different
stakeholders
Goal
priorities
from
different
stakeholders
Sia
and
Soh
(2007)
Misalignment
between
structures
in
ERP
and
organization
Users
and
developers
with
opposing
views
on
the
interface,
I/O
requirement
Resources
management
(accountability
requirements,
compliance)
Meissonier
and
Houzé
(2010)
Different
stakeholders’
views
on
system
design,
functionality
Nordheim
and
Päivärinta
(2006)
Contradictions
in
the
strategies
of
acquired
software
and
IT
infrastructure
ERP
package
functions
versus
organizational
requirements
Nordheim
(2011)
Customization
of
ERP
functionality
Alsulami
et
al.
(2013)
Requirements
change
process
(opposing
view
on
how
to
maintain
and
upgrade)
Note.
Process:
implementation
process;
Features:
project
features
within
organizational
requirements;
Resources:
resources
allocation;
Priority:
goal/work/task
priority

4. Project Management Journal 00(0)
4
(1) competition for resources; (2) implementation of methods,
processes, and strategies; (3) conflicting subgoals and features
among projects; and (4) goal priority. Two major conflict per-
spectives have been taken: (1) different views/values (e.g., con-
flict refers to the different perspectives about the implementation
process, task priorities, and resources allocation; Soh et al.,
2003), and (2) opposing views (e.g., conflict is the level of
opposing/contradicting views that arise between opposing
stakeholders on implementation tasks and methods; Robey
et al., 2002).
Furthermore, we found that existing conflict studies can be
classified into two different groups: (1) conflicts between team
members on a project (Barki Hartwick, 2001; Liang et al.,
2012), and (2) conflicts between users and IS developers during
IT implementation processes (Meissonier Houzé, 2010;
Wang et al., 2005). Users and IS developers/vendors often take
opposing views on how an ERP should be implemented; on the
other hand, the members of ES implementation teams often
experienced conflicts from different perspectives. In studies
examining conflict among different stakeholders (e.g., conflict
as different views), the conflicts observed mainly focus on the
direction of the ES implementation and priorities of the goals
and implementation means. It shows the different view of con-
flict could be due to “goal ambiguity” (e.g., interpretation vari-
ance on the ES implementation vision). The content of the
conflicts between users and IS developers focuses on the “sys-
tem features and functionality” and “the process needed to
implement the changes.” This may reflect the “best practices”
provided by the vendors and local needs of the organizations.
These studies provided valuable insights into our understand-
ing of where and with whom the conflicts occurred; however,
these prior IS studies mainly focused on the conflicts in
intrateam environments. Unfortunately, conflicts in interteam
environments have been overlooked with the exception of
Jiang et al.’s (2014) study.
Conflict Management Theory: Interteam Dialectical
Problem Solving
To understand the relationships among conflict, conflict man-
agement strategies, and group/team performance, several con-
flict management theories have been proposed (Jehn, 1995;
Pruitt Rubin, 1986; Rahim, 2002; Thomas, 1976). Among
them, the dual-­
concern theory is broadly validated and adopted
(Blake Mouton, 1964; Pruitt Rubin, 1986). This theory is
used to determine the method by which parties manage conflict
by involving two concerns: concern for self (personal interests)
and concern for others (relational interests). These two con-
cerns usually define five different conflict management strate-
gies: asserting, avoiding, accommodating, compromising, and
problem solving (De Dreu Weingart, 2003). In asserting,
accommodating, and compromising, conflict is considered as a
zero-­
sum situation. Conversely, problem solving is observed
when individuals in conflict try to fully satisfy the concerns of
all parties. In general, “integrating or problem solving” has
been argued to be the most effective strategy in managing
conflict, particularly for task-­
related outcomes and long-­
term
relations (De Dreu Weingart, 2003).
The use of a collaborative problem-­
solving style involves
openness, an exchange of information, a search for alternatives,
and an examination of differences to achieve an effective solu-
tion acceptable to all parties. Four different variations of collab-
orative conflict management are found in the IS literature: (1)
problem solving—individuals try to fully satisfy the concerns
of all parties (Barki Hartwick, 2001; Chou Yeh, 2007); (2)
collaborative problem solving—the extent to which members
perceived that project members solved problems collabora-
tively (Li et al., 2007; Paul et al., 2005); (3) integrative conflict
resolution—the extent to which different ideas and interests
integrate when resolving disagreements and friction among
members (Jiang et al., 2014; Kankanhalli et al., 2007; Song
et al., 2006); and (4) constructive conflict resolution—the
extent to which members perceive the effectiveness of resolv-
ing conflicts with other members (Parolia et al., 2015). Table 2
presents context-­
related studies that examine the impacts of
collaborative conflict management. These studies show that
different types of collaborative conflict management have been
adopted in the literature. These studies demonstrated the posi-
tive impact of collaborative conflict management on final team
performance in the context of a single-­
project implementation.
Among others, problem solving and collaborative problem
solving are the most often adopted strategies to resolve the
intrateam conflicts, including the IS field (Li et al., 2007; Paul
et al., 2005).
Problem solving or collaborative problem solving seems to
be effective for dealing with conflicts among members within
an ES project, as these members are responsible for the ES
implementation outcomes. On the other hand, the integrative
conflict resolution approach was suggested for interteam con-
flict management. For example, in an ES implementation con-
text, Jiang et al. (2014) observed that the integrative conflict
resolution approach enabled the successful completion of ES,
especially under the condition of task-­
related conflicts where
these individual projects are task interdependent. Integrative
conflict resolution was suggested to be more effective than
compromising, asserting, and avoiding in the IT-­
project con-
text. This style of conflict resolution is useful to effectively deal
with complex problems when one party cannot solve the prob-
lem alone. The study concluded that it is appropriate when
ideas must be synthesized to formulate effective alternative
solutions to a problem for all interdependent parties involved.
Also, when commitment from all parties is crucial to effec-
tively implement a solution, Lawrence and Lorsch (1967)
found that an integrative style is more effective to consolidate
the activities of different subsystems in an organization. We
propose that an integrative conflict resolution approach is more
effective in the interteam ES context when these individual
teams are interdependent. As a result, we rename this approach
as interteam dialectical problem solving to distinguish it from
the intrateam literature.

5. Cheng et al. 5
Table
2.
Collaborative
Conflict
Management
in
Studies
Pertaining
to
IS
Concepts
Problem
Solving
Collaborative
Problem
Solving
Integrative
Conflict
Resolution
Constructive
Conflict
Resolution
Unit
of
analysis
Intrateam
Interteam
Intrateam
Interteam
Intrateam
Interteam
Intrateam
Interteam
Authors
and
context
Barki
and
Hartwick
(2001):
IS
users
work
jointly
to
create
solutions
(e.g.,
goals
and
objectives),
physical
design
of
the
system,
and
when
or
how
the
system
should
be
implemented,
how
project
should
be
managed
(e.g.,
staffing
the
project
team,
calling
and
running
meetings,
reporting
to
senior
management)
to
fully
satisfy
the
concerns
of
all
parties
during
the
information
systems
development
(ISD)
process.
X
Paul
et
al.
(2005):
Group
decision
support
team
members
work
together
to
find
solutions
(e.g.,
the
best
way
to
implement
the
computer-­
u
se
fee
program)
acceptable
to
team
members.
X
Chou
and
Yeh
(2007):
Team
members
fully
satisfy
the
concern
(e.g.,
adopting
a
new
process
model
within
an
organization
structure)
of
all
parties
during
the
ERP
implementation
process.
X
Li
et
al.
(2007):
Team
members
engage
in
a
genuine
collaborative
effort
to
resolve
conflicts
during
the
new
product
development
process.
X
Kankanhalli
et
al.
(2007):
Global
virtual
team
integrates
all
team
members’
viewpoints
and
objectives
(e.g.,
risk
assessment
and
management
procedures,
global
market
for
mobile
application)
through
collaboration.
X
Song
et
al.
(2006):
RD
and
marketing
work
jointly
to
bring
all
issues
into
the
open
and
share
concerns
to
resolve
them
in
the
best
way
during
the
new
project
development
innovation
process.
X
Jiang
et
al.
(2014):
Enterprise
system
implementation
teams
integrate
diverse
ideas
on
delivery
means
during
systems
implementation.
X
Parolia
et
al.
(2015):
IS
software
and
service
teams
in
the
software
vendors,
discussion
of
disagreement
increases
the
effectiveness
in
the
IT-­
p
rogram
context.
X

6. Project Management Journal 00(0)
6
In this study, we explore a multiple project ES implementa-
tion dedicated to achieving specified overall ES goals. ES proj-
ect teams are provided with autonomy in how their teams will
implement assigned goals or tasks. However, each team affects
the chance of achieving the local goals of other remaining proj-
ects as well as the overall ES goal. Such contextually focused
application of conflict management theory is appropriate to
generate context-­
specific insights (Hong et al., 2014). In partic-
ular, Johns (2006) argued that context shapes the interpretation
and meaning of theoretical relationships and may, in fact,
change the functional form, strength, and directionality of rela-
tionships. Therefore, we posited relationships between inter-
team task conflict and interteam cooperation effectiveness
among the members in the ES implementation program.
The ES implementation program (1) is responsible for the
success of ES implementation and the realization of its benefits,
(2) has decision-­
making authority over individual ES project
goals and implementation, and (3) is responsible for resolving
conflicts between individual projects. Therefore, the unit of
analysis in this study is the ES implementation program itself.
Figure 1 illustrates the research model. In this study, we argue
that an ES implementation program should adopt the interteam
dialectical problem-­
solving conflict management approach to
deal with interteam task-­
related conflicts to solicit necessary
cooperative behaviors among members in the ES implementa-
tion program, which, in turn, affects the final performance.
Specifically, three key propositions are proposed in this study:
(1) interteam cooperation effectiveness is a critical mediator
between interteam task-­
related conflict and ES implementation
performance; (2) a positive relationship exists between inter-
team dialectical problem solving and interteam cooperation
effectiveness; and (3) the magnitude of the direct negative rela-
tionship between interteam task-­
related conflict and ES imple-
mentation performance is moderated by interteam cooperation
effectiveness.
Constructs Formation
Interteam dialectical problem solving is the integration extent
of different ideas and interests when resolving disagreements
and friction in the ES implementation program. The topic of
collaborative problem solving (i.e., integrated conflict manage-
ment) has appeared in studies on management for many years.
In such cases, definitions of integrated conflict resolution have
considered the extent of problem solving through support and
integration (Aram Morgan, 1976) or the extent to which par-
ties exchange complete information to resolve conflicts (Li
et al., 2007). Typically, the collaborative approach ensures that
all opposing or different points of view are clearly addressed,
thereby reducing the possibility of oversights in decision mak-
ing and leading to higher achievement (Jiang et al., 2014;
Kankanhalli et al., 2007; Kumar van Dissel, 1996). In a
multiple-­
project environment, success is enhanced through col-
laborative decision processes for IS management (Parolia et al.,
2015). In the studies pertaining to ES, integrative decision
approaches lead to the integration of different ideas and inter-
ests while reducing disagreements and friction between key
members (El Amrani et al., 2006). Similarly, we consider inter-
team dialectical problem solving (defined as the integration
Figure 1. Proposed model.

7. Cheng et al. 7
extent of different ideas and interests when resolving disagree-
ments and friction in the ES implementation program) in an ES
implementation program as a method to solve problems by
ensuring collaboration among project team leaders and to elim-
inate conflict by addressing the concerns of all parties.
Interteam cooperation effectiveness is the extent to which
members of the ES implementation program effectively work
together on the ES mission during implementation. In IT proj-
ect management research, cooperation is the degree or extent of
intrateam collaborative behaviors that unify independent con-
tributions toward attaining common goals (Pinto et al., 1993).
IT project management studies for single-­
project implementa-
tion have considered situations and cooperative behaviors
(Yang et al., 2015). Cooperation is also crucial for multiple-­
project implementation, which represents a social system in
which members must collaborate with each other to complete
collective and individual goals (Jiang et al., 2014; Parolia et al.,
2011). The requirement for interteam cooperation effectiveness
is due to the complex interdependencies among each individual
team working together on the overall ES goals while retaining
local goals. Each project team involved in an ES implementa-
tion must conduct a thorough analysis of the interaction or
interfaces in each project and of other actions that are part of
the overall ES goal. For our model, we considered the actions
of interteam cooperation effectiveness as the desired behaviors
and the motivation established by the collaborative problem
solving (i.e., interteam dialectical problem solving) method and
interteam trust levels among individual project teams. ES
implementation requires interteam cooperation effectiveness
among individual teams to structure a cross-­
functional system
and improve information flow (Strong Volkoff, 2010). The
concept of cooperation between ES project teams (i.e., inter-
team cooperation effectiveness) enables us to capture coopera-
tion efforts during ES implementation—a property not captured
by cooperation constructs for single-­
project implementation.
Interteam task conflict in the ES implementation program is the
extent of disagreements in the ES implementation program during
program implementation concerning ideas and opinions about the
tasks being performed for projects within an ES program. Conflicts
in the traditional intrateam environment have been broadly
addressed in prior studies in the following four major categories: (1)
old knowledge or procedures contradicting with new knowledge or
procedures/process (Alsulami et al., 2013; Nordheim Päivärinta,
2006; Robey et al., 2002)―misfit between the organizational prac-
tices of ES structures and the overall organizational objectives (Sia
Soh, 2007; Soh et al., 2003), (2) conflict on project features
within organizational requirements (Meissonier Houzé, 2010;
Nordheim, 2011; Nordheim Päivärinta, 2006; Sia Soh, 2007;
Soh et al., 2003), (3) conflict on resources allocation (Sia Soh,
2007), and (4) conflicting objectives and priorities between projects
(Allen, 2005; Boonstra, 2006). Conflict occurs when an incompati-
bility exists between two or more entities (e.g., project teams) in
terms of their methods for completing their local tasks and achiev-
ing their goals (Rahim, 1990). Task conflict refers to logistical and
delegation issues, including how the accomplishment of tasks
should proceed for a work unit, who is responsible for what, and
how things should be delegated (Jehn, 1995).
In this study, we conceptualize interteam task conflict as an inter-
active process manifested by incompatibility, disagreement, and/or
dissonance in ES implementation task-­
related issues among indi-
vidual project teams. This conceptualization would allow us to
examine different perspectives of interteam task-­
related conflicts
among the ES teams. For multiteam projects, the most common
sources of interteam task-­
related conflicts include conflicts in indi-
vidual team objectives and priorities; the interpretation of the over-
all goals and overall implementation methods; teams’ failure to
understand and appreciate differences in implementation proce-
dures; and means, communication barriers, and competition for
resources. The proposed construct in this study enables us to cap-
ture the interteam task conflicts among the teams within the ES
program.
Interteam trust is the extent to which project teams share their
ideas, feelings, and hopes, grounded in reciprocated interpersonal
care and concern during the ES program implementation. Trust is a
key outcome of favorable social exchange. Collaborative conflict
management involves a high level of self-­
concern as well as a con-
cern for others (Rahim, 1983), which conforms to the norms of rec-
iprocity. Interteam trust leads the conflicting parties (e.g., teams) to
more likely believe they will not be exploited during the conflict
resolution process (Blau, 1964). Trust enables parties to be less cal-
culative and instead focus on long-­
term outcomes (Scanzoni, 1979).
In summary, trust is an essential factor in building a cooperative
relationship. High levels of trust lead to more cooperative behavior,
and low trust leads to competitive conflict behavior (De Dreu
Weingart, 2003). The concept of interteam trust enables us to cap-
ture trust among the teams within the ES program—a property not
captured by the trust-­
among-­
members construct for a single-­
project
implementation.
ES implementation performance is the extent to which the ES
implementation program realizes the desired ES implementation
results. ES implementations target the organization, thus leaving the
local objectives of time, cost, and functional scope to the individual
projects (Chang et al., 2014). From a benefits perspective, an ES
must target the organizational level by enhancing multiple func-
tional areas (Seddon et al., 2010). Shang and Seddon (2002) specif-
ically considered how ES benefits must consider operational,
managerial, strategic, IT, and organizational benefits. Thus, multi-
ple projects in an ES must accomplish their local goals to accom-
plishtheorganizationalobjectives.Otherwise,anEScannotaddress
the global objectives of business process integration and data
sharing.
Control Variables
Number of projects and size of the ES implementation
program. Some studies have demonstrated that the num-
ber of projects and the size of the ES implementation pro-
gram may affect ES implementation performance (Yetton
et al., 2000). These factors were measured by asking IT
managers the number of projects involved in the ES imple-
mentation program.

8. Project Management Journal 00(0)
8
Hypotheses
Task conflicts often involve the distribution of scarce resources,
and sometimes equate with resource conflict (e.g., De Dreu
Weingart, 2003). Task conflict inevitably occurs at any time in
the process of any teamwork. Interteam task conflicts are often
observed in ES implementation programs, such as task priori-
ties, procedures, and stakeholder relationships (Allen, 2005;
Alsulami et al., 2013; Sia Soh, 2007). Other common sources
of interteam task-­
related conflicts include conflicts in goal pri-
orities among individual teams, different interpretations of the
overall goals and implementation methods, failure to under-
stand and appreciate differences in implementation, communi-
cation barriers, and competition for resources. In prior literature,
task-­
related conflicts have been found to negatively affect team
performance and teamwork behaviors, including a lack of
cooperation, obstacles to achieving consensus, a distraction
from achieving team goals, and hindrances to performance
(Hambrick et al., 1996). Some studies even observed that high
levels of task-­
conflict might generate stress and harm psycho-
logical well-­
being, subsequently influencing team perfor-
mance, satisfaction, and viability (Spector et al., 2000). In the
ERP implementation context, Yeh and Chou (2005) indicated
that task-­
related conflicts had a negative association with team
performance. Thus:
H1: Interteam task conflict among ES teams is negatively asso-
ciated with ES implementation performance.
Studies indicate that team members are often unable to sep-
arate challenges to their viewpoints and opinions from “a neg-
ative assessment of their own abilities and competences” (de
Wit et al., 2012, p. 362). As a result, Jehn et al. (2008) argue
that if team members constantly challenge each other’s opin-
ions, cooperation is negatively affected. In effect, they will
cooperate less because such behavior impairs the positive atti-
tudes and perceptions they have toward each other. Empirical
studies have demonstrated that conflict is one of the most criti-
cal challenges to effective teamwork (Jehn, 1995; Medina et al.,
2005), as it can be an impediment to effective cooperation (Jehn
et al., 2008; Swann et al., 2004). For example, King et al.
(2009) observe that task conflict issues arising from group
diversity could lead to low levels of cooperation among mem-
bers in groups. Puck and Pregernig (2014) found that there was
less cooperative behavior among team members experiencing
task conflict.
In an ES implementation context, conflicts occur within
project teams due to differences in team goals or tasks, a team’s
inability or unwillingness to adopt the goals or tasks of other
teams, and the interdependence of goals (Chang et al., 2014;
Jiang et al., 2014). Jiang et al. (2014) addressed that interteam
conflict occurs amidst a pursuit of individual goals, unique
approaches to completion of required tasks, and individual
needs for limited resources. Furthermore, the project teams
might disagree about goal priorities, the implementation
processes being utilized, and the timing in which to complete
different individual projects. Thus:
H2: Interteam task conflict among ES project teams is negative-
ly associated with interteam cooperation effectiveness in the ES
implementation program.
To improve the functionality of an ES, each project team
must cooperate with others through both formal and informal
interactions with the implementation program. The work of one
individual ES project generates implications for the work and
progress of other projects. Thus, improvements in the quality of
one module might impede the functionality of another during
an ES implementation. Due to this interdependent nature, mul-
tiple projects must cooperate to integrate cross-­
functional inter-
ests and achieve collective goals. Effective cooperation within
the ES implementation program enhances the achievement of
both individual projects and the overall ES goal (Parolia et al.,
2011). Studies pertaining to related disciplines found that ben-
efits are realized when individual projects are harmoniously
managed as a cooperative and collective effort (Chan et al.,
2008). In contrast, a lack of interteam cooperation between
individual projects hinders interteam processes and intercon-
nected tasks (Rico et al., 2008). Thus:
H3a: The effectiveness of interteam cooperation in the ES im-
plementation program is positively associated with ES imple-
mentation performance.
Furthermore, we argue that interteam cooperation effective-
ness mediates the relationship between the interteam task con-
flict and ES implementation performance. That is, the interteam
task conflict influences the ES implementation performance
through the decreasing of interteam cooperation effectiveness.
When interteam cooperation has not been developed, the inter-
team task conflict, in and of itself, may or may not influence ES
implementation performance. The reason for hypothesizing a
mediating effect is that interteam cooperation is seen as a meta-
capability that is developed (or not developed) gradually over
time through the interaction of the various interdependent
events (e.g., interteam task conflicts) among the teams. As
Chen et al. (1998) showed, the development of this sort of
capability takes time. Stated slightly differently, it would be
wrong to suggest that an ES program could simply impose the
interdependence among the project teams and expect them to
deliver superior performance. Rather, the interdependence on
various features shape individual and collective behaviors that
in turn shape the ES program capacity for interteam coopera-
tion, and it is the interteam cooperation that leads to superior
performance. Empirical studies have demonstrated that conflict
is one of the most critical challenges to effective teamwork
(Jehn, 1995; Medina et al., 2005), as it can be an impediment
for effective cooperation (Jehn et al., 2008; Swann et al., 2004).
The mediating effect of interteam cooperation also occurs
because the interteam task conflict itself can create and amplify

9. Cheng et al. 9
interteam tensions if they do not contribute to the development
of the needed interteam cooperation effectiveness. Interteam
task conflict is an interdependent task that must be resolved to
enhance the levels of interteam cooperation needed for success-
ful ES implementation. Thus:
H3b: Interteam task conflict among ES teams also has an indi-
rect effect on ES implementation performance, where the effect
of interteam task conflict on ES implementation performance
will be partially mediated by interteam cooperation.
Studies regarding teamwork have argued that high levels of
task conflict were often associated with lower levels of team
performance, satisfaction, and viability (Spector et al., 2000;
Yeh Chou, 2005) due to lack of cooperation and coordination
among the conflicting members (Jehn et al., 2008; Swann et al.,
2004). The lack of cooperation is the main consequence of con-
flict. In a single IS project context, studies have also demon-
strated that cooperation among members reduces the negative
impact of conflict on final project team performance (Puck
Pregernig, 2014). Under this ES implementation context, due
to the interdependent nature among individual ES projects,
these ES projects must collaboratively integrate cross-­
functional barriers to achieve collective goals. Without cooper-
ative actions, the ES implementation cannot be implemented
effectively. The importance of cooperation among individual
projects is even more critical when interteam task-­
related con-
flicts occur. Overall, ES goals can still be achieved even when
some parties and/or projects may have to sacrifice some of their
self-­
interest. Interteam cooperation effectiveness would reduce
the negative impacts of task-­
related conflicts on the overall ES
implementation outcomes. Thus:
H4: Interteam cooperation effectiveness mitigates the relation-
ship between interteam task conflict in the ES implementation
program and ES implementation performance (i.e., the magni-
tude of the negative influence of interteam task conflict on ES
implementation performance is reduced with increased levels of
interteam cooperation effectiveness).
The interteam dialectical problem-­
solving approach offers
an alternative that not only provides an avenue for the manage-
ment of disputes but also builds a more collaborative culture
among ES implementation programs. Weitzman and Weitzman
(2006) observed the dialectical problem solving of four general
phases in conflict resolution: (1) diagnosing the conflict, (2)
identifying alternative solutions, (3) selecting a mutually
acceptable solution, and (4) committing to and implementing
the decision. These activities would generate necessary cooper-
ation among the conflicting members. This approach provides
a foundation for future cooperation, as well as a proactive
rather than a reactive function. Furthermore, for all the mem-
bers involved in interteam dialectical problem solving, this
approach would generate feelings of achievement, heightened
levels of self-­
esteem, elevated commitment to goals, improved
communication among members of the ES implementation
programs, and a greater focus on positive outcomes (Behfar
et al., 2008). In the literature on ES implementation, Chang
et al. (2014) observed that collaborative problem solving could
lead to greater commitment and trust among individual project
managers in working toward overall ES goals. Thus:
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.
Trust is an essential factor in building a cooperative relation-
ship. High levels of trust lead to cooperative behaviors. For
example, Schlichter and Rose (2013) indicated that a high level
of trust in the project acts as a form of social capital, facilitating
progress by allowing project staff to pursue their objectives
with the support and cooperation of their stakeholders. On the
other hand, low trust leads to competitive conflict behavior (De
Dreu Weingart, 2003). When trust is insufficient, team mem-
bers expend time and energy inspecting each other as opposed
to collaborating and providing value-­
added ideas. That is, a low
level of trust among members in the project hinders the prog-
ress of the project by requiring project staff to build common
understanding, support, and cooperation in order to achieve
project outcomes. Studies have demonstrated that a lack of trust
in the large system implementation project had serious conse-
quences, for example, a lack of support and cooperation of
stakeholders in project implementation (Schlichter Rose,
2013); additionally, project members became stressed and
uncomfortable, employees resigned, and their expertise was
lost (Schlichter Rose, 2013). In the ES implementation pro-
gram, interteam trust can enhance cooperation effectiveness
among teams within the ES program. Thus:
H6: Interteam trust is positively associated with interteam co-
operation effectiveness in the ES implementation program.
Research Methodology
Sample
The target sample for this study is SME (small and medium-­
sized enterprises) companies that recently implemented ES.
The sampling was from top performance companies (published
by China Credit Information Services Ltd.). To obtain a repre-
sentative sample, we followed three restrictions: (1) the com-
pany implemented at least two projects within the
implementation, (2) the ES had been put into action, and (3)
two key informants were available from the company for
answering questionnaires. We first contacted the CIO in each
company to introduce the purpose of this study and explain
how the results of this study can help them improve future ES
implementations. For those willing to participate, researchers
took an appointment for an advance visit and assigned a contact

10. Project Management Journal 00(0)
10
person in each company to identify appropriate informants.
Correlations increase between constructs due to systematic
errors if survey data for those constructs are obtained from the
same source. One way to reduce the effect of correlation due to
systematic errors is to use different informants for different
constructs (Van Bruggen et al., 2002). However, relying on too
many informants will also reduce the precision of the responses
and result in fewer correlations. On the basis of the suggestion
of the informants, two informants within an ES implementation
were identified: one functional manager and one IT manager.
On the introduction page of each questionnaire, we notified
informants that their responses would be confidential, and only
the research team had access to the identification information to
match questionnaires. In total, 151 paired responses were
obtained from 151 ES implementations. The characteristics of
the ES implementations are presented in Table 3.
Measurement
Existing measurement scales served as the basis for this study;
however, they were modified for the interteam context and
investigated rigorously to evaluate their validity. The items for
interteam dialectical problem solving were adapted to our con-
text from the scales proposed by Janssen et al. (1999). Interteam
task conflict was adapted from the scale proposed by Jehn
(1995). For interteam cooperation effectiveness, items were
adapted from the study by Campion et al. (1993). The items for
the interteam trust were adapted from the study by McAllister
(1995). The items for ES implementation performance were
adapted from the study by Chang (2017). All measurement
items were anchored on 7-­
point Likert scales, ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
All measurement items were translated from English into
Chinese by using the forward-­
back translation approach. We
invited two bilingual researchers to perform the translation
tasks independently and then evaluated their work together to
ensure that both English and Chinese versions of the measure-
ment items were comparable. To further ensure that the respon-
dents could fully understand the measurement items, we invited
two MIS (management information system) professors who
were familiar with ES studies to refine the questionnaire and
ensure that the Chinese and English versions matched.
Moreover, two senior ES managers with industrial experience
validated the Chinese versions. During this procedure, the
questionnaire was modified to clarify items. The final items are
presented in Table 4.
Data Analysis and Results
Assessment of the Measurement Model
We employed SmartPLS 2.0 to obtain estimates for the study.
The partial least squares path modeling shares with least
squares regression the ability to obtain parameter estimates
with relatively low sample sizes (Gefen et al., 2011) and uses
bootstrapping to estimate empirically standard errors for its
parameter estimates, which can avoid restrictive distributional
assumptions (Gefen et al., 2011). Based on a two-­
stage analyt-
ical procedure, the measurement model assessed the conver-
gent validity, reliability, and discriminant validity. All item
loadings were above the recommended 0.5 threshold and thus
were statistically significant (Table 4 after each item). In this
study, Cronbach’s alpha for each construct was above the rec-
ommended 0.7 threshold, as shown in Table 4 (Hair et al.,
1995). The average variance extracted (AVE) value for each
construct exceeded the recommended value of 0.5, thus estab-
lishing convergent validity. When the square root of the AVE
value for each construct is greater than its correlation with all
other constructs, the discriminant validity is evident (Fornell
Larcker, 1981) (see Table 5).
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
determined. First, interteam cooperation effectiveness was
regressed on interteam task conflict (Table 6). Model 1 tested the
influence of interteam task conflict on interteam cooperation
effectiveness. The results indicated that interteam task conflict (β
= −0.382, p 0.05) had a significant influence on interteam coop-
eration effectiveness. Therefore, H2 was supported. Model 2
tested the influence of interteam task conflict and dialectical prob-
lem solving on interteam cooperation effectiveness. The results
indicated that interteam task conflict (β = −0.361, p 0.05) and
interteam dialectical problem solving (β = .159, p 0.05) both
significantly influenced interteam cooperation. Therefore, H5 was
supported. Model 3 tested the influence of interteam task conflict,
interteam dialectical problem solving, and interteam trust on
interteam cooperation effectiveness. The results indicated that
interteam task conflict (β = −0.126, p .05) and interteam trust (β
= .705, p 0.05) had significant influences on interteam
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

11. Cheng et al. 11
cooperation effectiveness. Therefore, H6 was supported. The
results of the hierarchical regression are presented in Table 6.
Second, in Table 7, Model 1 examined that ES implementation
performance was regressed on interteam task conflict. The results
indicated that interteam task conflict (β = −0.316, p 0.05) had a
significant influence on ES implementation program perfor-
mance. Therefore, H1 was supported. Model 2 tested the influ-
ence of interteam task conflict and interteam cooperation
effectiveness on ES implementation performance. The results
indicated that interteam task conflict (β = −0.120, p 0.05) and
interteam cooperation effectiveness (β = .491, p 0.05) had sig-
nificantinfluencesonESimplementationperformance.Therefore,
H3a was supported. Model 3 tested the influence of interteam task
conflict, interteam cooperation effectiveness, and interteam dia-
lectical problem solving on ES implementation program perfor-
mance. The results indicated that interteam task conflict
(β = −0.113, p 0.05), interteam dialectical problem solving (β =
.130, p 0.05), and interteam cooperation effectiveness (β = .467,
p .05) had significant influences on ES implementation program
performance. Model 4 tested the moderation effect of interteam
task conflict and interteam cooperation effectiveness on ES
implementation program performance. For testing the modera-
tion effect, interaction terms were first generated by multiplying
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
manager
Projects 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
manager
Project 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

12. Project Management Journal 00(0)
12
the interteam task conflict and interteam cooperation effective-
ness values. The results of Model 4 indicated that the interaction
term of interteam task conflict and intercooperation effectiveness
for ES implementation performance had a positive coefficient (β
= .196, p 0.05). These positive coefficients supported H4. The
relationship between interteam task conflict and ES implementa-
tion performance was moderated by interteam cooperation effec-
tiveness. The results of the hierarchical regression are presented
in Table 7.
To test hypothesis H3b, we followed the procedures of
Preacher and Hayes (2004) by bootstrapping 5,000 samples to
estimate indirect effects. We calculated 95% bias-­
corrected
confidence intervals (CIs) for indirect and direct effects to test
the significance of mediated relationships. The mediated effects
of interteam cooperation effectiveness conflict on interteam
task conflict and ES implementation performance (β = −0.107,
95% CI = [-0.180, -0.054], Sobel Z test = −3.218) was signifi-
cant. Further, the direct effect of interteam task conflict on ES
implementation performance was significant (95% CI =
[-0.282, -0.199]), which indicates that interteam cooperation
effectiveness partially mediates the relationship between inter-
team task conflict and ES implementation performance. Thus,
H3b is supported. Further, higher levels of interteam coopera-
tion maintain ES implementation program performance under
higher task conflict more than for lower task levels, supporting
H4+. The summary of hypotheses testing is shown in Table 8.
Discussion and Implications
To implement an ES, practitioners often adopt the multiple-­
project approach that requires cooperation between the projects
involved in an ES implementation. Unfortunately, interteam task-­
related conflicts between project teams are often unavoidable. As
a result, an ES implementation program is established as a
decision-­
making team to lead overall ES implementation. The
collaborative conflict management approach for conflict resolu-
tion is recommended by studies on IS during single-­
project
implementation. However, few studies have investigated the
influence of collaborative problem solving under a multiple-­
project implementation context. Furthermore, studies have pro-
vided little explanation on how the collaborative problem-­
solving
strategy (i.e., interteam dialectical problem solving in the context
of ES multiple-­
project implementation) positively influences
final IS project team performance. Therefore, this study proposes
the following scenarios based on conflict management theory: (1)
a positive relationship between interteam task conflict and coop-
erative behaviors within the ES implementation program, (2) a
positive relationship between interteam dialectical problem solv-
ing and cooperative behaviors, and (3) the moderating effect of
interteam cooperation effectiveness on the relationship between
interteam task conflict and ES implementation performance. The
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

13. Cheng et al. 13
results confirmed hypotheses H1 (interteam task conflict in the ES
teams is negatively associated with ES implementation perfor-
mance) and H2 (interteam task conflict in the ES teams is nega-
tively associated with interteam cooperation effectiveness in the
ES implementation program). The results also supported H3a
(interteam cooperation effectiveness is positively associated with
ES implementation performance) and H4 (interteam cooperation
effectiveness moderates the relationship between interteam task
conflict in the ES implementation program and ES implementa-
tion performance). This implies that a reduction of the negative
influence resulting from interteam task conflict is associated with
interteam cooperation effectiveness. Furthermore, a positive rela-
tionship between interteam dialectical problem solving, trust, and
cooperation in the ES implementation program was observed
(i.e., H5 and H6). These results successfully answered the ques-
tions raised by this study.
This study provides several theoretical contributions and
implications. First, interteam dialectical problem solving is the-
oretically tested under a new context: ES multiple-­
project
implementations. It concludes that interteam dialectical prob-
lem solving is not only an effective conflict resolution strategy
for single-­
project implementations but also for multiple-­
project
implementations. As a result, this increases the application
scope of the collaborative problem-­
solving conflict manage-
ment theory. Furthermore, this study examines task conflicts at
an interteam level instead of task conflicts within a team
(intrateam task conflict). This demonstrates that collaborative
problem solving is applicable to the resolution of interteam task
conflicts. Second, this study provides an alternative explana-
tion of how interteam task conflicts influence final team perfor-
mance, while cooperation serves as a mediator. The present
study also suggests that interteam cooperation effectiveness is a
critical factor when the interteam dialectical problem-­
solving
approach is used to resolve interteam task conflict. This finding
provides new insight into our understanding of how and why
interteam dialectical problem solving is effective when inter-
team task conflicts occur. In summary, this study not only
increases the application of collaborative problem-­
solving the-
ory but also provides alternative explanations on how it influ-
ences team performance when task conflicts occur.
This study provides several implications for researchers. First,
conflict and conflict management are extensively examined in
studies pertaining to IS for single-­
project implementation. Barki
and Hartwick (2001) conclude that avoidance and dominant reso-
lution left members with low-­
cohesion and team efficacy, thus
leading to low performance. On another end, some studies per-
taining to IS development have indicated that the collaborative
conflict management approach may generate the most positive
outcomes for task conflicts (Chou Yeh, 2007; Kankanhalli
et al., 2007; Liang et al., 2012; Paul et al., 2005). Barki and
Hartwick (2001) suggest that collaborative conflict management
is effective not only for task conflicts but also for relational con-
flicts. The present study confirms that interteam dialectical prob-
lem solving is an effective strategy for managing interteam
conflicts for multiple-­
project ES implementation. This study
provides evidence on the generalization of these studies and
shows that conflict management is crucial not only for a single IS
project development, but also for multiple-­
project implementa-
tions. However, this study further suggests that cooperation could
serve as a critical mediator in explaining the effects of interteam
task conflict resolution. Interteam dialectical problem solving
resolves task-­
related conflicts by meeting the requirements of
each party, thus leading to a higher level of cooperation among
the parties or members involved. This cooperative behavior may
also explain why other conflict management approaches (e.g.,
dominance or avoidance) lower the coherence and performance
levels. Other teamwork behaviors, such as task coordination,
monitoring, and mutual support could be included as mediators in
future studies to examine the influence of interteam dialectical
conflict management approaches in the context of multiple-­
project implementations. Future studies should also examine
whether interteam dialectical problem solving is an effective
approach for resolving interteam relational conflicts to advance
our understanding of this approach in the multiple-­
project imple-
mentation context.
Second, cooperation often represents a positive relationship
among stakeholders that facilitates information sharing that
extends across multiple levels and boundaries (Pellegrinelli,
1997). IS empirical studies have indicated that cooperation
among members is positively associated with a high willing-
ness among stakeholders to provide feedback, seek clarifica-
tion, express new ideas, and develop an understanding about
technology, processes, and business requirements (Wang
Wei, 2007). Studies in other disciplines have argued that inter-
team cooperation effectiveness decreases the harmful effects of
potentially strong individual team identities and facilitates
adjustment to meet other teams’ requirements (Druskat
Wheeler, 2003). The results of this study provide empirical evi-
dence that confirms these valuable insights. Cooperation is crit-
ical not only for single-­
project IS implementation, but also for
multiple-­
project IS implementation. Cooperation among mem-
bers and stakeholders serves a critical role in single or multiple
IS projects. This finding opens up a path of research to identify
the processes through which cooperation among interteams in
the multiple-­
project implementation context could be enhanced.
Furthermore, in addition to examining the mechanisms for
enhancing interteam cooperation effectiveness, future studies
incorporating interteam cooperation as an antecedent of other
team outcomes, such as innovation and system design quality
in the multiple-­
project context, are encouraged. Researchers
could also incorporate both interteam cooperation effectiveness
and coordination as mediators to examine their relative impor-
tance on final outcomes.
This study leads to two crucial implications for practitioners.
First, for organizations implementing multiple projects under
systems, such as an ES, conventional wisdom has typically
focused on the planning of interdependent tasks performed by
each individual project, so that tasks assigned to each project
are neither overworked nor underworked. The results of this
study, however, also indicate that the interteam dialectical

14. Project Management Journal 00(0)
14
problem solving adopted to achieve a conflicting agreement
during an ES implementation process serves a critical role in
determining the levels of cooperative effectiveness between the
interdependent interteam projects involved. To achieve this, all
ES implementation project managers must jointly resolve
potential conflicts on goals and plans for every project, instead
of competing for resources and gaining advantages for individ-
ual projects’ local interests. Management must incorporate the
interteam dialectical problem-­
solving approach to resolve the
potential interteam task conflicts, especially if interdependent.
Second, this study indicates the importance of interteam
cooperation effectiveness on the final ES implementation out-
comes. To obtain the desired level of interteam cooperation
among these individual interteam ES projects, the ES imple-
mentation program must consider the motivation and interests
of each major stakeholder, in addition to the alignment of goals
with the organizational strategy. So, program managers should
be responsible for all the projects within the program and the
overall program goal achievement. Furthermore, the project
managers would be rewarded only by the overall program per-
formance instead of individual project outcomes. In other
words, project managers are not only responsible for their indi-
vidual projects but also the overall program goal achievement.
Given the importance of trust on its impact of cooperation, pro-
gram managers should also establish required levels of trust
among the stakeholders involved. A project team would be
willing to share their resources and/or knowledge with other
project teams, only when they perceive such behavior would
also benefit their objects.
Conclusion
The unique setting of ES implementation raises questions over the
time and functions of independent projects to achieve goals related
to scope, functionality, and resources. The process of integrating
multiple projects with different functions to reach collective goals
lies beyond the scope of managing single projects. Conflict man-
agement theory sparks consideration of promoting beneficial inter-
team cooperation effectiveness across teams by establishing
solutions with overlapping interests across independent interteam
projects. Without a satisfactory resolution, task conflicts in inter-
team projects can have a negative influence on the success of each
project team and the overall ES implementation performance.
Behaviors conducive to interteam cooperation effectiveness pro-
vide better ES implementation results. This required level of inter-
team cooperation could be directly enhanced through the interteam
dialectical problem solving adopted by the ES implementation pro-
gram. The theoretical implication is that the collaborative conflict
management theory can be applied in a multiple-­
project imple-
mentation context, and that interteam cooperation effectiveness
serves as an alternative explanation for the effectiveness of inter-
team dialectical problem solving. During ES implementations,
organizations must not only attain the ES program goals while sat-
isfying local functional requirements but also promote interteam,
“win–win” dialectical problem-­
solving behavior to facilitate the
completion of ES implementation.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/ or publication of this article: The
author gratefully acknowledges the sponsorship of the Ministry of
Science and Technology of Taiwan, ROC, under the projects MOST
106-2410-­
H-029 -017 -MY2 and MOST 108-2410-­
H-029 -053
-MY2.
References
Allen, J. P. (2005). Value conflicts in enterprise systems. Information
Technology People, 18(1), 33–49.
Alsulami, M., Rahim, M., Scheepers, H. (2013). Development of a
model to understand how consultants manage conflicts during
ERP post-­
implementation change process: A dialectic perspective
[Conference session]. Proceedings of the 24th Australasian Con-
ference on Information Systems (ACIS), Melbourne, Australia,
1–11
Aram, J. D., Morgan, C. P. (1976). The role of project team collab-
oration in RD performance. Management Science, 22(10),
1127–1137.
Banaeianjahromi, N., Kähkönen, T., Alanne, A., Smolander, K.
(2016). Integration obstacles during ERP development [Confer-
ence session]. Proceedings of the 49th Hawaii International Con-
ference on System Sciences (HICSS), Koloa, Hawaii, United
States, 4697–4706.
Barki, H., Hartwick, J. (2001). Interpersonal conflict and its man-
agement in information system development. MIS Quarterly,
25(2), 195–228.
Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., Trochim, W. M.
(2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close
look at the links between conflict type. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 93(1), 170–188.
Bendoly, E., Rosenzweig, E. D., Stratman, J. K. (2009). The effi-
cient use of enterprise information for strategic advantage: A data
envelopment analysis. Journal of Operations Management, 27(4),
310–323.
Blake, R. R., Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Gulf.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley and
Sons.
Boonstra, A. (2006). Interpreting an ERP-­
implementation project
from a stakeholder perspective. International Journal of Project
Management, 24(1), 38–52.
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., Higgs, C. A. (1993). Relations
between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implica-
tions for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology,
46(4), 823–850.

15. Cheng et al. 15
Chan, C. L., Jiang, J. J., Klein, G. (2008). Team task skills as a
facilitator for application and development skills. IEEE Transac-
tions on Engineering Management, 55(3), 434–441.
Chang, J. Y. T. (2017). Mutual monitoring of resources in an enterprise
systems program. Project Management Journal, 48(1), 100–114.
Chang, J. Y. T., Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., Wang, E. T. G. (2014). Do too
many goals impede a program? A case study of enterprise system
implementation with multiple interdependent projects. Informa-
tion Management, 51(4), 465–478.
Chen, C. C., Chen, X. P., Meindl, J. R. (1998). How can cooperation
be fostered? The cultural effects of individualism-­
collectivism.
Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 285–304.
Chou, H. W., Yeh, Y. J. (2007). Conflict, conflict management, and
performance in ERP teams. Social Behavior and Personality,
35(8), 1035–1048.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relation-
ship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction:
A meta-­
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4),
741–749.
De Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of
intragroup conflict: A meta-­
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 97(2), 360–390.
Druskat, V. U., Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing from the boundary:
The effective leadership of self-­
managing work teams. Academy
of Management Journal, 46(4), 435–457.
El Amrani, R., Rowe, F., Geffroy-­
Maronnat, B. (2006). The effects of
enterprise resource planning implementation strategy on cross-­
functionality. Information Systems Journal, 16(1), 79–104.
Elonen, S., Artto, K. A. (2003). Problems in managing internal
development projects in multi-­
project environments. Interna-
tional Journal of Project Management, 21(6), 395–402.
Fornell, C. G., Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Jour-
nal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Gefen, D., Rigdon, E., Straub, D. (2011). Editor’s comments: An
update and extension to SEM guidelines for administrative and
social science research. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), iii–14.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., Black, W. C. (1995).
Multivariate data analysis with readings (4th ed.). Prentice Hall
Publishers.
Hambrick, D. C., Chho, T. S., Chen, M. J. (1996). The influence of
top management team heterogeneity on firms’competitive moves.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4), 659–684.
Hendricks, K. B., Singhal, V. R., Stratman, J. K. (2007). The impact
of enterprise systems on corporate performance: A study of ERP,
SCM, and CRM system implementations. Journal of Operations
Management, 25(1), 65–82.
Hong, W., Chan, F. K. Y., Thong, J. Y. L., Chasalow, L. C., Dhil-
lon, G. (2014). A framework and guidelines for context-­
specific
theorizing in information systems research. Information Systems
Research, 25(1), 111–136.
Janssen, O., Van De Vliert, E., Veenstra, C. (1999). How task and
person conflict shape the role of positive interdependence in man-
agement teams. Journal of Management, 25(2), 117–142.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and
detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 40(2), 256–282.
Jehn, K. A., Greer, L., Levine, S., Szulanski, G. (2008). The effects
of conflict types, dimensions, and emergent states on group out-
comes. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(6), 465–495.
Jiang, J. J., Chang, J. Y. T., Chen, H. G., Wang, E. T. G., Klein, G.
(2014). Achieving it program goals with integrative conflict man-
agement. Journal of Management Information Systems, 31(1),
79–106.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational
behavior. The Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 386–408.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., Wei, K. K. (2007). Conflict and per-
formance in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Infor-
mation Systems, 23(3), 237–274.
King, E. B., Hebl, M. R., Beal, D. J. (2009). Conflict and coopera-
tion in diverse workgroups. Journal of Social Issues, 65(2),
261–285.
Kumar, K., Van Dissel, H. G. (1996). Sustainable collaboration:
Managing conflict and cooperation in inter-­
organizational sys-
tems. MIS Quarterly, 20(3), 279–300.
Lawrence, P. R., Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integra-
tion in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,
12(1), 1–47.
Li, H., Bingham, J. B., Umphress, E. E. (2007). Fairness from the
top: Perceived procedural justice and collaborative problem solv-
ing in new product development. Organization Science, 18(2),
200–216.
Liang, T. P., Wu, J. C. H., Jiang, J. J., Klein, G. (2012). The impact
of value diversity on information system development projects.
International Journal of Project Management, 30(6), 731–739.
Martinsuo, M., Hoverfält, P. (2018). Change program management:
Toward a capability for managing value-­
oriented, integrated
multi-­
project change in its context. International Journal of Pro-
ject Management, 36(1), 134–146.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect and cognition based trust as founda-
tions for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of
Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59.
Medina, F. J., Munduate, L., Dorado, M. A., Inés, M., José, M. G.
(2005). Types of intragroup conflict and affective reactions. Jour-
nal of Managerial Psychology, 20(3/4), 219–230.
Meissonier, R., Houzé, E. (2010). Toward an ‘IT conflict-­
resistance
theory’: Action research during IT pre-­
implementation. European
Journal of Information Systems, 19(5), 540–561.
Nordheim, S. (2011). Towards understanding contradictions in enter-
prise system implementations-­
insights from a case study. In
R. Pooley, J. Coady, C. Schneider, H. Linger, C. Barry, M. Lang
(Eds.), Information systems development (pp. 563–574).
Springer.
Nordheim, S., Päivärinta, T. (2006). Implementing enterprise con-
tent management: From evolution through strategy to contradic-
tions out-­
of-­
the-­
box. European Journal of Information Systems,
15(6), 648–662.
Parolia, N., Chen, J. V., Jiang, J. J., Klein, G. (2015). Conflict resolu-
tion effectiveness on the implementation efficiency and achievement

16. Project Management Journal 00(0)
16
of business objectives in IT programs: A study of IT vendors. Infor-
mation and Software Technology, 66, 30–39.
Parolia, N., Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., Sheu, T. S. (2011). The contribu-
tion of resource interdependence to it program performance: A
social interdependence perspective. International Journal of Pro-
ject Management, 29(3), 313–324.
Paul, S., Samarah, I. M., Seetharaman, P., Mykytyn, P. P. (2005).
An empirical investigation of collaborative conflict management
style in group support system-­
based global virtual team. Journal
of Management Information Systems, 21(3), 185–222.
Pellegrinelli, S. (1997). Programme management: Organising project-­
based change. International Journal of Project Management,
15(3), 141–149.
Pinto, M. B., Pinto, J. K., Prescott, J. E. (1993). Antecedents and
consequences of project team cross-­
functional cooperation. Man-
agement Science, 39(10), 1281–1297.
Preacher, K. J., Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures
for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models.
Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, Computers, 36(4),
717–731.
Pruitt, D. G., Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict. McGraw-­
Hill.
Puck, J., Pregernig, U. (2014). The effect of task conflict and coop-
eration on the performance of teams: Are the results similar for
different task types? European Management Journal, 32(6),
870–878.
Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal
conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 368–376.
Rahim, M. A. (1990). Theory and research in conflict management.
Greenwood Publishing Group.
Rahim, M. A. (2002). Toward a theory of managing organizational
conflict. The International Journal of Conflict Management,
13(3), 206–235.
Rico, R., Sánchez-­
Manzanares, M., Gil, F., Gibson, C. (2008).
Team implicit coordination processes: A team knowledge-­
based
approach. The Academy of Management Review, 33(1),
163–184.
Robey, D., Ross, J. W., Boudreau, M. (2002). Learning to imple-
ment enterprise systems: An exploratory study of the dialectics of
change. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(1),
17–46.
Roloff, M. E. (1987). Communication and conflict. In C. R. Berger
S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp.
484–534). Sage Publications.
Scanzoni, J. (1979). Social exchange and behavioral interdependence.
In R. L. Burgess T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in devel-
oping relationships. Academic Press.
Schlichter, B. R., Rose, J. (2013). Trust dynamics in a large system
implementation: Six theoretical propositions. European Journal
of Information Systems, 22(4), 455–474.
Seddon, P. B., Calvert, C., Yang, S. (2010). A multi-­
project model of
key factors affecting organizational benefits from enterprise sys-
tems. MIS Quarterly, 34(2), 305–328.
Shang, S., Seddon, P. B. (2002). Assessing and managing the bene-
fits of enterprise systems: The business manager’s perspective.
Information Systems Journal, 12(4), 271–299.
Sia, S. K., Soh, C. (2007). An assessment of package–organisation
misalignment: Institutional and ontological structures. European
Journal of Information Systems, 16(5), 568–583.
Soh, C., Sia, S. K., Boh, W. F. (2003). Misalignments in ERP imple-
mentation: A dialectic perspective. International Journal of
Human-­Computer Interaction, 16(1), 81–100.
Song, M., Dyer, B., Thieme, R. J. (2006). Conflict management
and innovation performance: An integrated contingency perspec-
tive. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(3),
341–356.
Spector, P. E., Zapf, D., Chen, P. Y., Frese, M. (2000). Why negative
affectivity should not be controlled in job stress research: Don’t
throw out the baby with the bath water. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 21(1), 79–95.
Strong, D. M., Volkoff, O. (2010). Understanding organization-­
enterprise system fit: A path to theorizing the information technol-
ogy artifact. MIS Quarterly, 34(4), 731–756.
Swann, W. B., Polzer, J. T., Seyle, D. C., Ko, S. J. (2004). Finding
value in diversity: Verification of personal and social self-­
views in
diverse groups. Academy of Management Review, 29(1), 9–27.
Thomas, K. W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In
M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology (pp. 889–935). Rand McNally.
Tiwana, A., Keil, M. (2009). Control in internal and outsourced
software projects. Journal of Management Information Systems,
26(3), 9–44.
Van Bruggen, G. H., Lilien, G. L., Kacker, M. (2002). Informants in
organizational marketing research: Why use multiple informants
and how to aggregate responses. Journal of Marketing Research,
39(4), 469–478.
Vuorinen, L., Martinsuo, M. (2018). Program integration in multi-­
project change programs: Agency in integration practice. Interna-
tional Journal of Project Management, 36(4), 583–599.
Wang, E. T. G., Chen, H. H. G., Jiang, J. J., Klein, G. (2005). Inter-
action quality between is professionals and users: Impacting con-
flict and project performance. Journal of Information Science,
31(4), 273–282.
Wang, E. T. G., Wei, H. L. (2007). Interorganizational governance
value creation: Coordinating for information visibility and flexi-
bility in supply chains. Decision Sciences, 38(4), 647–674.
Weitzman, E. A., Weitzman, P. F. (2006). The PSDM model: Inte-
grating problem solving and decision making in conflict resolu-
tion. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The
handbook of conflict resolution theory and practice (pp. 197–
222). Jossey-­
Bass.
Yang, X. M., Li, J. H., Guo, X. S., Li, X. J. (2015). Group interac-
tive network and behavioral patterns in online English-­
to-­
Chinese
cooperative translation activity. The Internet and Higher Educa-
tion, 25, 28–36.
Yeh, Y. J., Chou, H. W. (2005). Team composition and learning
behaviors in cross-­
functional teams. Social Behavior and Person-
ality: An International Journal, 33(4), 391–402.
Yetton, P., Martin, A., Sharman, R., Johnston, K. (2000). A model of
information systems development project performance. Informa-
tion Systems Journal, 10(4), 263–289.

17. Cheng et al. 17
Author Biographies
Fei-­Fei Cheng is an associate professor at the Institute of
Technology Management, National Chung Hsing University,
Taichung, Taiwan. She received her PhD degree in information
management from the National Sun Yat-­
sen University in 2006.
Her current research focuses on e-­
commerce, online store
design, consumer behavior, decision making, and internet mar-
keting. Her research articles have been published in academic
conferencesandjournalsincludingInformationManagement,
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
Information Management, Tunghai University, Taiwan. He was
a Department Chair in the Department of Information
Management, Tunghai University. He received his PhD degree
in information management from National Sun Yatsen
University in 2005. Dr. Wu has published in academic
conferences and refereed journals including Information
Management, Decision Support Systems, Computers in Human
Behavior, Electronic Commerce and Research Applications,
Cyberpsychology Behavior, Behavior Information
Technology, and others. His research focuses on e-­
commerce,
management information systems, consumer behavior, deci-
sion making, and internet marketing.
Jamie Y. T. Chang is an associate professor of information
management at Tunghai University, Taiwan. She received her
PhD in information management from the National Central
University, Taiwan. Her research interests include IS project
management, IS program management, and enterprise systems
implementation. Her current research projects involve innova-
tion projects such as game development projects. She has been
published in Journal of Management Information Systems,
Information Management, International Journal of Project
Management, Journal of Systems and Software, and
International Journal of Commerce and Strategy.