Henri Gardebroek - 2576036

HOW INTRAORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE SHARING
AFFECTS PATTERNS OF ERP-USAGE
MSc in Business Administration
Specializing in Information & Knowledge Management
NAME : Henri William Gardebroek
STUDENT NUMBER : 2576036
INSTITUTION : Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
FACULTY : FEWEB
SUPERVISOR : Dr. A. Sergeeva
DATE : 30th
June, 2016

H.W. (Henri) Gardebroek BSc – 2576036
2
Preface
Upon starting the project of my master thesis I was full of spirits and had high hopes about
completing it without much stress. Now it is done and I have to admit that I have failed regarding the
‘completing without much stress’ part dramatically. The fact is that I could not have done it without
the continuous support from a lot of people in my direct or indirect environment. They are with too
many to be named separately, although I do wish to state my thanks to my supervisors. Firstly
Anastasia, thank you very much for the quick responses and useful feedback, even during your
weekend in Paris. Secondly, Pieter, thanks for directing me towards a research area I ended up liking
quite much and providing me with the contact details of many interviewees. Without the two of you I
most definitely would not have been able to finish my thesis in time, if at all.
Furthermore, although the completion of my thesis proved to be quite stressful from time to time, in
the end I can say that I also enjoyed the writing, doing the research and discovering new elements
along the way. I have to admit that I do not feel bad about this being the provisional end of my
academic career, but who knows what the future entails.
Finally, I hope you will enjoy reading my thesis more than I enjoyed writing it. As the saying goes: the
harder the journey, the sweeter the reward.
Henri
Any opinions, statements or views expressed in this research
are solely assignable to the author and should not, in any way,
be regarded as official statements from either the Dutch
Ministry of Defence or the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

3
Abstract
Research on the effects of knowledge sharing on the use of information systems has not yet reached
a mature phase and is ambiguous concerning the effects of knowledge sharing on ERP-usage. This
study aims to dissolve some of the ambiguity regarding the effects of knowledge sharing on ERP-
usage by providing an answer to the following research question: ‘How does intraorganizational
knowledge sharing affects the use of an ERP-system in the post-implementation phase?’. A qualitative
study was designed, built upon a grounded theory approach. 12 interviews were held at two
departments of the Royal Netherlands Navy (RNLN). It was found that knowledge sharing has both
positive as negative effects on ERP-usage. Behaviour towards a more integrative use and reduction in
non-compliance was found to be affected by knowledge sharing in general. Knowledge sharing via a
champion also affected a change from basic towards expanded use. Knowledge sharing via
colleagues and formal methods however, was found to have a workaround inducing effect.
Additionally, formal knowledge sharing methods increased avoidance of ERP-use and was found to
occasionally fail in showing positive effects on ERP-usage. The ambiguity in current research is thus
supported and the results of this research could also help managers in their decisions concerning the
allocation of funds with regard to knowledge sharing methods.

4
Abbreviations
CSF - Critical Success Factor
ERP - Enterprise Resource Planning
FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions
IS - Information Systems
IT - Information Technology
LCF - Dutch Air Defence Frigate
MoD - Ministry of Defence
RNLA - Royal Netherlands Army
RNLAF - Royal Netherlands Air Force
RNLN - Royal Netherlands Navy
SaaS - Software as a Service

5
Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................6
1.1 Research topic ................................................................................................................................6
1.2 Problem statement.........................................................................................................................6
1.3 Research approach .........................................................................................................................7
1.4 Contribution to literature and practical relevance.........................................................................8
1.5 Thesis outline..................................................................................................................................9
2 Literature review...................................................................................................................................10
2.1 Defining ERP .................................................................................................................................10
2.2 Defining intraorganizational knowledge sharing..........................................................................16
2.3 Knowledge sharing and ERP-systems ...........................................................................................19
2.4 Summary.......................................................................................................................................24
3 Methodology.........................................................................................................................................25
3.1 Research setting ...........................................................................................................................25
3.2 Data collection..............................................................................................................................26
3.3 Data analysis.................................................................................................................................28
4 Results...................................................................................................................................................29
4.1 Sources of ERP related knowledge...............................................................................................29
4.2 ERP-usage .....................................................................................................................................31
4.3 Knowledge sharing and ERP-system usage ..................................................................................33
4.4 Intraorganizational knowledge sharing affecting ERP-usage .......................................................36
4.5 Summary.......................................................................................................................................38
5 Discussion .............................................................................................................................................39
5.1 Discussion of the results...............................................................................................................39
5.2 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................41
5.3 Theoretical implications ...............................................................................................................41
5.4 Managerial implications ...............................................................................................................42
5.5 Limitations ....................................................................................................................................43
5.6 Avenues for further research .......................................................................................................44
6 Bibliography..........................................................................................................................................45

6
1 Introduction
1.1 Research topic
Integrated organizational Information Systems (IS) have gained importance and relevance within
organizations in the past decades (Tsai, et al., 2012). By integrating the processes within an
organization and utilizing data recording and tracking, Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems
have the (potential) capability to provide multiple users of the system with very rapid and live
information (Kumar & van Hillegersberg, 2000). Within an ERP-system, “…information and
information-based processes within and across functional areas in an organization […] are
integrated.” (Kumar & van Hillegersberg, 2000, p. 23). ERP systems can be regarded as critical
organizational resources, forming the backbone of the IS in the majority of organizations (Ko, Kirsch,
& King, 2005; Yoon, 2009). After successfully implementing an ERP system, the post-implementation
phase is reached. In this phase, organizational knowledge (e.g. best practices, process design
techniques, cross-functional data) should be easily transferable (Lee & Lee, 2000), increasing the
overall rate of knowledge sharing amongst employees. Reaping this potential benefit of ERP systems
however, has been a problem ever since the first ERP systems were introduced (Markus, et al., 2000).
There has been done quite extensive research concerning knowledge sharing within organizations
(van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004; Bhatt, 2001; Smith, 2001; Reber, 1989), while research on the
effects of knowledge sharing on the use of ERP-systems has not yet reached a mature phase (Addo-
Tenkorang & Helo, 2011; Boudreau, 2003; Choi, Lee, & Yoo, 2010; Du, Ai, & Ren, 2007; Leonardi &
Bailey, 2008). Moreover, current literature shows ambiguous results regarding the effect of
intraorganizional knowledge sharing on ERP-usage (or IS-usage). On the one hand, Leonardi & Bailey
(2008) claim that the actual effects of knowledge sharing on IS-usage were negative. On the other
hand, Chou, et al. (2014) found that intraorganizational knowledge sharing has a positive impact on
ERP-system usage.
This research, amongst other things, aims to dissolve some of the ambiguity going hand in hand with
current research on the effects of knowledge sharing on IS-usage by discovering how
intraorganizational knowledge sharing affects the usage of an ERP-system in the post-
implementation phase.
1.2 Problem statement
Despite intraorganizational knowledge sharing being a highly critical success factor for ERP-system
success, little research has been done in the field of knowledge sharing within organizations with
regard to ERP-systems in the post-implementation phase (Akbulut & Motwani, 2005; Grabski, Leech,
& Schmidt, 2011). Additionally, current research have ambiguous results, ranging from the notion

7
that knowledge sharing has a positive influence on ERP-usage, improving the overall quality of use
(Boudreau, 2003; Chou, et al., 2014) to the notion of knowledge sharing negatively influencing ERP-
usage, creating misunderstanding and leading to misinterpretations (Leonardi & Bailey, 2008) or
simply negatively affecting ERP-usage when for example the organizational factors are not suitable
for either knowledge sharing or extensive ERP-usage (Du, Ai, & Ren, 2007). Some authors even claim
that knowledge sharing does not affect ERP-usage at all, or at least not in a direct manner (Choi, Lee,
& Yoo, 2010). In order to provide some clarity regarding this specific subject, this research will
primarily focus on the role intraorganizational knowledge sharing between two departments has on
the use of an ERP-system in the post-implementation phase.
1.2.1 Research question
Given the focus of this research (section 1.2), the main research question is as follows:
‘How does intraorganizational knowledge sharing affects the use of an ERP-system in the post-
implementation phase?’
1.3 Research approach
Research shows that knowledge sharing can be regarded as a critical success factor towards ERP-
usage (Chou, et al., 2014; Motwani, Subramanian, & Gopalakrishna, 2005; Nah & Delgado, 2006;
Nicolaou, 2004), so it seems obvious that a clear understanding of what intraorganizational
knowledge sharing entails is necessary for conducting this research. However, while a general
definition of and elaboration upon intraorganizational knowledge sharing is required, this research is
also in need of a more theoretical interpretation of knowledge sharing specified for usage of an ERP-
system in its post-implementation phase.
For this more specific definition, the contribution of knowledge sharing to ERP-success will be
discussed. Although relatively few studies have observed the effect of knowledge sharing on ERP-
systems in the post-implementation phase, scholars’ understanding regarding the effect of
knowledge sharing on ERP-system implementation and ERP-success in general is profound (Chou, et
al., 2014; Motwani, Subramanian, & Gopalakrishna, 2005; Nah & Delgado, 2006; Nicolaou, 2004).
Empirical research was conducted at two departments within the Royal Netherlands Navy (RNLN).
These departments have both been subject to an ERP-implementation, but the usage of the ERP-
system can be called sufficient at best. In order to improve the patterns of use of the employees, the
RNLN installed several (formal) knowledge sharing methods and appointed ERP-knowledge
champions. Subsequently, the employees made use of these methods, while also relying on
knowledgeable colleagues. By conducting a case study focused on the utilized knowledge sharing
methods and the effects these utilization had on actual ERP-usage, the findings may provide support

8
towards a better understanding of the effec(s) of intraorganizational knowledge sharing on the usage
of an ERP-system in its post-implementation phase.
1.4 Contribution to literature and practical relevance
This research would contribute to current research in two different research areas. Firstly it answers
to the call of Addo-Tenkorang & Helo (2011): “These … lowly researched and developed areas …
requires further research and development.” (p.25). This research distinguishes eight different
patterns of ERP-usage with two main concepts, i.e. ‘use’ and ‘non-use’. Three main methods of
knowledge sharing were found, being formal methods, via a champion or via colleagues. By studying
the effects of the knowledge sharing methods on the concepts of ERP-usage, this research attempts
to dissolve some of the immaturity regarding the current level of research on ERP-systems after
implementation (Addo-Tenkorang & Helo, 2011; Chou, et al., 2014).
Secondly, current research regarding this subject is ambiguous, claiming both positive and negative
effects of knowledge sharing on ERP-usage (see section 1.2). While this research tries to dissolve
some of this ambiguity, its findings predominantly add to the notion that intraorganizational
knowledge sharing has potential positive and negative effects.
It was found that the use of a knowledge champion had a predominantly positive effect on ERP-
usage, changing ERP-usage towards a more integrated, expanded and conforming pattern of ERP-
usage. Intraorganizational knowledge sharing via colleagues and formal methods also positively
affected ERP-usage, but lacked the expanding-use effect.
Paradoxically, intraorganizational knowledge sharing via colleagues and formal methods also affected
ERP-usage in a negative way, inducing workaround behaviour. Formal methods were even found to
potentially affect avoiding ERP-usage or to have no actual positive effects, while the organization
thought they would positively affect the use of the ERP-system.
In comparison with previous research, it is noteworthy that some studies found similar effects (e.g.
Boudreau (2003), Chou, et al. (2014)), while others found that knowledge sharing did not affect ERP-
usage at all (Choi, Lee, & Yoo, 2010) or that the effect of intraorganizational knowledge sharing was
negative, creating misunderstandings and misinterpretations, resulting in a drop of organizational
performance (Leonardi & Bailey, 2008).
From a practical perspective, this study provides insights in the role of the effects of
intraorganizational knowledge sharing on the use of ERP-system. Many organizations have
implemented an ERP-system, quite often at relatively high costs (Jeston & Nelis, 2000). The results of

9
this research could help managers in their decisions concerning the allocation of funds with regard to
knowledge sharing methods.
1.5 Thesis outline
This research will firstly provide a theoretical framework regarding intraorganizational ERP-usage,
intraorganizational knowledge sharing, and current research on the effects of intraorganizational
knowledge sharing on ERP-usage and IS-usage. Next, the methodology section elaborates on the
research setting and approach, including the case study. Section 4 will contain the results of the
findings and analysis of this research. Subsequently, these results will be discussed in section 5, with
inclusion of an answer to the main research question. Also, section 5 will contain an elaboration
regarding the theoretical contribution and managerial relevance, finalized by limitations of this
research as well as opportunities for future research.

10
2 Literature review
2.1 Defining ERP
Traditionally, information systems were supportive towards specific functional organizational units.
In the early 1970s so-called decision support systems, based on fundamental technology such as
databases, came along (Lee, Siau, & Hong, 2003; Kumar & van Hillegersberg, 2000). The growth and
innovation within the domain of information technologies enabled new organizations, aimed at
globalization and relying heavily on network ties. Eventually, around 1990, the call for a fully
integrated system was answered with a solution: the ERP-system (Akbulut & Motwani, 2005; Lee,
Siau & Hong, 2005). An ERP-system can be described as “… an enterprisewide software solution
designed to streamline the data flow between different functions…” (Lee, Siau, & Hong, 2003, p. 56).
According to Tsai, et al. (2012), organizations have increasingly been turning to ERP-systems since the
last the 1990’s. ERP-systems promise a seamless and fitting integration of all information flows
within an organization, ranging from administrative functions such as human resource management
and accounting, to key business processes such as warehousing, production and client management
(Addo-Tenkorang & Helo, 2011). Table 1 presents a more elaborate overview of ERP-system
definitions.
Table 1, ERP-system definitions
Since ERP-systems are able to integrate organizational processes across functional boundaries, the
number of organizations replacing specific legacy systems with a large spanning ERP-system have
increased. As an indication, the revenue of one of the market leaders in the ERP-system segment,
Author(s) Definition of ERP-system
(Aladwani, 2001) ERP-systems are an integrated set of programs that provide support for core
organizational activities such as manufacturing and logistics, finance and ac-
counting, sales and marketing, and human resources.
Kumar & van
Hillegersberg
(2000)
ERP-systems are configurable ISs that integrate information and information-
based processes within and across function areas in an organization.
(Ngai, Law, &
Wat, 2008)
An ERP-system is a generic term for a broad set of activities supported by multi-
module application software that helps organizations to manage their
resources.
(Stratman &
Roth, 2001)
An ERP-system is an information system that integrates two or more functional
areas (one of which must be production operations) through the use of a com-
mon database, and transaction processing with the potential for decision sup-
port addressing the integrated elements of the enterprise.
Tsai, et al. (2012) An ERP-system is an integrated IT that uses common databases and consistent
cross-functional information flow to allow organizations to integrate
information from different functional areas.

11
SAP, has grown from $500 million in 1992 to around $6.5 billion in 2010 (Jeston & Nelis, 2000). The
whole range of benefits provided by ERP-systems seems to be the main reason behind this rapid shift
towards using ERP-systems. Throughout literature, among others things, benefits such as increases in
productivity, IT-cost reduction, empowerment, better decision making and real-time availability of
organizational data can be found (Dhillon, 2005; Shang & Seddon, 2000).
The main difference between the old-fashioned management support systems and an ERP-system is
the fully integrated character of an ERP-system. A management support system or a database can
both be regarded as a tool which aids current working processes. An ERP-system, however, dictates
internal processes and has a much more dominant position on the input, output and throughput of
all data flows within an organization (Markus, et al., 2000). Furthermore, what distinguishes ERP
systems from other IT systems is their scale, complexity, and potential for organizational impact
(Laudon and Laudon, 2006). Put differently, an ERP-system is designed to “…enable firms to better
manage their knowledge … and have better control of information … in the organization.” (Vandaie,
2008, p. 920)
2.1.1 Trends in ERP
Since most organizations are constantly under pressure from their stakeholder to improve their
efficiency and effectiveness, ERP has seen some trends in development. According to the notion that
successful companies must be able to respond quickly and cost-effectively to change, organizations
should optimize their operations in order to become or stay responsive, demand-driven and
profitmaking (Addo-Tenkorang & Helo, 2011; Johnson, 2014). Much of an organization’s competitive
advantage depends on the use of extended ISs, such as ERP II, WEB 2.0, Software as a Service (SaaS),
etc. (Addo-Tenkorang & Helo, 2011). Within the field of ERP-systems, the most attention is drawn
towards ERP II as a future trend (Addo-Tenkorang & Helo, 2011; Johnson, 2014; Tsai, et al., 2012).
2.1.1.1 ERP II
ERP II-systems take the level of influence of an ERP-system a step further than an original ERP-
system. An ERP II-system includes, in addition to being the backbone of an organization, the
information link for an organization in the supply chain (Johnson, 2014). This creates a two-folded
challenge. Firstly, to open up the system in order to make vital information about an organization’s
own processes available to its partners in the supply chain. Secondly, a challenge to aggregate and
manage transactional data as precisely and real-time as possible can be distinguished (Addo-
Tenkorang & Helo, 2011).

12
2.1.2 Academic attention on ERP-systems
Academic knowledge about ERP-systems has reached a certain maturity level, especially in
addressing the multi-disciplinarity of the field of ERP-systems research (Addo-Tenkorang & Helo,
2011; Schlichter & Kraemmergaard, 2010). The scholarly interest in ERP-system research has,
however, declined since there are continuously less published researches concerning ERP-systems
(Addo-Tenkorang & Helo, 2011; Grabski, Leech, & Schmidt, 2011; Schlichter & Kraemmergaard,
2010). Where most researches focuses on implementation, more than 54% of over 150 articles
researched by Addo-Tenkorang & Helo (2011), a lot less attention is drawn towards use, future
trends and ERP-systems in their post-implementation phases (Selwyn, 2003; Stein, et al., 2015).
These elements add up to a combined value of 22% (Addo-Tenkorang & Helo, 2011).
2.1.2.1 Implementation
Much research has been done towards ERP-implementation. Markus & Tanis (2000) introduced the
idea that the integration of an ERP-system within an organization can be described as a movement
through several different phases, whereas each phase has its own key players and characteristic
problems. M. Lynne Markus and Cornelis Tanis are regarded within the research on ERP-system
implementation to be subject matter experts (Addo-Tenkorang & Helo, 2011; Akbulut & Motwani,
2005; Chou & Chang, 2008; Schlichter & Kraemmergaard, 2010; Sommer, 2011). Figure 1 presents a
summary of the four optimal phases walked through in ERP-system implementation according to
Markus & Tanis (2000). The first two phases are regarded to be the implementation phase, whilst the
latter two phases are considered to be post-implementation phases of an ERP-system.
Figure 1, ERP-system phases (from Markus & Tanis, 2000)
Phase 2
The project
(configure
and roll out)
Phase 3
Shakedown
Phase 4
Onward and
upward
Decisions
defining the
business case
and solution
constraints
Getting system and
end-users ‘up and
running’
Stabilizing,
eliminating ‘bugs’,
getting to normal
operations
Maintaining system,
supporting users,
getting results , and
upgrading
Phase 1
Project
chartering

13
2.1.3 ERP use
Since there are many (sub-) definitions of ‘use’ in general, this section will try to remove some of the
ambiguity related to this subject and provide a concise interpretation.
In technical studies from a sociological standpoint, the notion exists that with designing a technical
object, its use is also prescribed (Redström, 2008). According with this idea, Buchanan (1989, p.95)
suggests that “…the designer, instead of simply making an object or a thing, is actually creating a
persuasive argument that comes to life whenever a user considers or uses a product as a means to
some end.”. According to this suggestion, one could argue that ‘use’ consists of a combination
between both a designer and user, combining intended use with actual use. After all, ‘use’ does not
account for everything we do with an object, there is more. As Redström (2008) puts it: “There is a
difference between … saying that someone is ‘using’ and ‘wearing’ a piece of jewellery…”.
Narrowed down to the use of an ERP-system and in accordance with the previously presented
interpretations of ‘use’, the main interpretation of ‘use’ is this research can be described as: ‘any
action undertaken with and within the ERP-system by any user, in order to achieve something with
that action with and/or within the ERP-system’.
2.1.3.1 Academic attention on ERP use and non-use
In order to narrow down to ERP-usage instead of mere focusing on use in general, this study
conceptualizes ERP-usage to consist of three main elements being: individual adaptation behaviours,
task-technology adaptation and technology interactions (Barki, et al., 2007). Accordingly, this would
include both use and non-use (Stein et al., 2015). IT-use, including ERP-use, has been quite
extensively researched, especially when compared to non-use (Selwyn, 2003; Stein et al., 2015). One
could state that research on resistance is quite close to the examination of non-use, but non-use is
not the same as resistance to use (van Offenbeek, et al., 2013).
In current literature, several patterns of use and non-use behaviour have been detected. Table 2
presents an overview of examples from previous studies on IS patterns of use. Since an ERP-system is
de facto an IS (Kumar & van Hillegersberg, 2000; Johnson, 2014) the author feels that IS-usage
reviews are interchangable with ERP-usage.
Author(s) Pattern of use Summary
Bagayogo, Beaudry, &
Lapointe (2013)
Conformity (to
organizational intent)
Use is highly conformed towards organizational intent,
while non-use is non-conformed towards
organizational intent
Kane & Labianca
(2011)
Avoidance “…consciously [choosing] to avoid IS despite having
time, need, and ability” p.505
Saeed & Abdinnour
(2013)
Integrative usage “…utilising IS features to total integration of the IS in
[a] work environment.” p.225

14
Saeed & Abdinnour
(2013)
Exploratory usage “…exploring … ways to apply the IS in their work.”
p.226
Saeed & Abdinnour
(2013)
Expanded usage “…leveraging the different features of IS to perform
tasks.” p.225
Satchell & Dourish
(2009)
Active resistance “…a positive effort to resist a technology…” p.11
Selander &
Henfirdsson (2012)
Cynicism “…cognitively distanced resistance that constitutes
negative affect towards IT” p.293
Sobreperez (2008) Non-compliance Refusal to adhere to procedures within the IS
Table 2
Patterns of use are rarely assessable by face value, since not all patterns results are either positive or
negative. Additionally, Offenbeek et al. (2013) even suggest that resistant users may still use a given
IS and vice versa. The concepts acceptance and resistance should therefore not be regarded as two
absolute determinants towards use and non-use, but as a scale ranging from enthusiastic support to
aggressive resistance appears to be more viable and realistic in order to be able to measure use and
non-use (Stein et al., 2015; van Offenbeek et al., 2013).
The use of a support/resistance dimension, as defined in the previous paragraph, combined with the
constructs of (Bagayogo, Beaudry, & Lapointe, 2013)aimed at explaining use and non-use of IT in
relation to a user’s conformity towards the organizational intent of the use of an IT-system, creates a
two-dimensional set of measuring the use of an ERP-system. Burton-Jones & Grange (2013)
introduced a different idea of effective use of IT-systems. They stated that an IT-system is and should
be implemented in order to achieve a certain desired outcome (ibid., p.672). Combining their
theorized idea with the notion that an ERP-system is an IT-system (Kumar & van Hillegersberg, 2000;
Johnson, 2014), ERP-usage is effective when individual ERP-usage it is in line with the organizational
intent.
2.1.4 Defining the post-implementation phase of an ERP-system
With an understanding of an ERP-system, including the usage of an ERP-system, there are still some
main elements attached to achieving the main goal of this research that have not been elaborated
upon. Since the main question addresses not just ERP-systems in general, but addresses more
specifically ERP-systems in their post-implementation phase, it is paramount to define the ‘post-
implementation phase’. In order to do so, this section will build upon section 2.1.2.1 by using the
content presented there to be able to specify an actual definition of an ERP-system in its post-
implementation phase.
2.1.4.1 ERP post-implementation phase
As stated in subsection 2.1.2.1 the post-implementation phase consists of both the ‘shakedown’ and
‘onward and upward’ phase. Combined together, this results in an interpretation of the post-
implementation phase as taking place: ‘from the moment the organization and the ERP-system are

15
coming to grips with each other, until the moment where the system gets replaced’. Meaning that
the post-implementation phase starts after the ERP-system has been fully implemented and is
deemed capable of providing a stable platform upon which operational activities can take place.
2.1.5 ERP summary
In order to create a certain overview of the concepts used in subsections 2.1 and 2.2, this section will
provide summarized definitions and a brief overall summary. Since the primary goal of this research
is to provide an answer to the main question, the concepts of ERP, ERP use and the phases of an ERP-
system have been interpreted.
The ‘use of an ERP-system in the post-implementation phase’ consists of four main concepts. Each
concept and its coherent interpretation in this research is presented in Table 3.
Concept Definition
Use Take, hold, or deploy (something) as a means of accomplishing or achieving
something
ERP-system An enterprisewide software solution designed to streamline the data flow
between different functions designed to enable firms to better manage their
knowledge and have better control of information in the organization
ERP use Any action undertaken with and within the ERP-system by any user, in order
to achieve something with that action with and/or within the ERP-system
Post-implementation
phase of an ERP-system
From the moment the organization and the ERP-system are coming to grips
with each other, until the moment where the system gets replaced or
updated.
Table 3, ERP concepts and definitions
In short, an ERP-system spans as wide as the organization it is fitted in and interconnects many
processes previously not-connected. Although academic attention towards ERP-systems has slightly
declined over the last decade (Addo-Tenkorang & Helo, 2011), the most expected trend is the
development of ERP II, similar to the internet’s development towards Web 2.0. In accordance with
the sociotechnical notion of ‘use’, this research interprets ‘use’ as any element a user employs with
an artefact in order to create a certain outcome (Redström, 2008). Focused on ERP-usage, this
research regards integrative usage, exploratory usage and expanded usage as indicators for use,
while avoidance, active resistance, cynicism and non-compliance are regarded as indicators for non-
use. Combined with conformity to organizational intent, being regarded as an indicator for both use
and non-use, these elements form a multi-dimensional set with which use and non-use of an ERP-
system in its post-implementation phase can be measured. The dimensions of ERP-usage are briefly
presented in Table 4.

16
Use Non-use
Exploratory Active resistance
Expanded Non-compliance
Integrative Avoidance
(yes) Conformity to organizational intent (no)
Table 4, ERP-usage dimensions
In order to get to actually measuring the usage of an ERP-system in its post-implementation phase, it
is also paramount to define this phase. Markus & Tanis (2000) researched several ERP-phases,
starting from the very implementation of an ERP-system –called “project chartering”- to the system
phasing out or being wholly updated – called “onward and upward”. In order to understand which
stadium of an ERP-system can be called the ‘post-implementation phase’ as stated in the main
question (see section 1.2), this study interprets the post-implementation phase as being the latter
two phases of Markus & Tanis’s (2000) model.
2.2 Defining intraorganizational knowledge sharing
This section will mainly deal with the knowledge sharing aspects of this study. The author felt it
necessary to define the elements of intraorganizational knowledge sharing in order to be able to
dissolve some ambiguity that may be associated with the subject. First, knowledge in general will be
briefly addressed. Then a definition of knowledge sharing will be presented, followed by
intraorganizational knowledge and its effects. Since this section is mainly used for conceptualization,
it will not be very elaborative.
2.2.1 Knowledge
Most scholars agree on the notion that knowledge itself can be divided into explicit -organizational,
structured knowledge which can be processed by a computer and database-, and tacit knowledge –
associative, intuitive, informal, and strongly related to personal experience- (Chou, et al. 2014; van
den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004; Levy, Loebbecke, & Powell, 2003; Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002; Smith,
2001; Reber, 1989). On the other hand, this seemingly strict division between different types of
knowledge is contradictory, since “… explicit knowledge … deprived of their tacit coefficients [is]
strictly meaningless…” (Polanyi, 1969, p. 195). There exists an extensive grey area in which the two
elements of knowledge have an overlap (Hyslop, 2002). This study combines the two elements of
knowledge into one overlapping defintion of knowledge, being “facts, information, and skills
acquired through experience or education…” (Oxford Dictionaries, 2016). After all, explicit knowledge
has little to no meaning without tacit elements and vice versa (Hyslop, 2002; Polanyi, 1969; Smith,
2001).

17
2.2.2 Knowledge sharing
Knowledge sharing is considered to be one of the key elements within knowledge management
(Bhatt, 2001; van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004), although terms as knowledge management,
knowledge exchange, and knowledge sharing are used interchangeably (Vandaie, 2008; Bhatt, 2001;
Smith, 2001). Knowledge sharing has been defined many times, including the notion that knowledge
sharing consists of “…bringing (or ‘donating’) knowledge and getting (or ‘collecting’) knowledge…”
(van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004, p. 118), stating that knowledge sharing is to be seen as an active
process and dividable into two main elements (van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004). Other researchers
claim that knowledge sharing or knowledge exchange should be seen as one broader activity, since
“… sharing of knowledge, ideas, and experience … add further value for the original sender, creating
exponential total growth.” (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002, p. 691), focusing more on the (potential)
effects of knowledge sharing. This study uses the definition of van den Hooff & de Ridder (2004).
2.2.3 Knowledge sharing methods
Since knowledge sharing have been quite extensively studied, it is of some importance to extract
knowledge sharing dimensions from the vast amount of literature. Although most researches have
chosen their own approach towards a form of measurement regarding knowledge sharing, several
overlapping elements can be witnessed and are presented in this subsection.
Colleagues
According to Boudreau (2003), colleagues form an important pool of knowledge for their fellow
employees to tap into. She even states that utilizing colleagues in order to gain knowledge is the
most preferred way to acquire knowledge (ibid.). It is not just Boudreau who recognizes the use of
colleagues as an important knowledge sharing element, many researchers agree with her. Amongst
those researchers are Bhatt (2001), Cabrera & Cabrera (2002), Cabrera, Collins & Salgado (2006),
Chou, et al. (2014), Hyslop (2002), Leonardi & Bailey (2008), Levy, Loebbecke, & Powell (2003), Lin,
Hung & Cheng (2009), Paroutis & Al Saleh (2009), and van den Hooff & de Ridder (2004). All
mentioned researchers agree that colleagues are an important asset in knowledge sharing.
Champions
Van den Hooff & de Ridder (2004) state that the role of management within knowledge sharing is to
be valued. “… people are more willing to share their knowledge if they are convinced that doing so is
useful…” (ibid. p.119). It is up to organizations whether or not to appoint a knowledge sharing
champion, but the use of a knowledge sharing champion, potentially being someone in a
management position, has been recognised by different authors as well. In addition to van den Hooff
& de Ridder (2004), Bhat (2001) also recognizes the role of knowledge sharing champions in
management positions, accompanied by Cabrera & Cabrera (2002), Cabrera, Collins & Salgado

18
(2006), Lin, Hung & Cheng (2009), and Paroutis & Al Saleh (2009). It seems noteworthy that Leonardi
& Bailey (2008) did not take the role of a knowledge sharing champion into account when adressing
knowledge sharing within organizations.
Formal methods
Lastly, lots of organizations have installed at least one or more formal methods in order for the
employees to be able to successfully share their knowledge amongst each other. According to Bhatt
(2001) “…predetermined channel will minimize the interactions and consequently reduce …
transferred knowledge…” (p.72), while simultaneously claiming that “… organizational policy [may]
speed up knowledge flow between different participants and departments.” (p.72). In accordance
with Bhat (2001), Cabrera & Cabrera (2002) also mention the use of formal methods, including
training, procedures and standardized, mandatory communicational channels. Additionally, Cabrera,
Collins & Salgado (2006), Paroutis & Al Saleh (2009), and van den Hooff & de Ridder (2004). Chou, et
al. (2014) and Lin, et al. (2009) make no specific notion of knowledge sharing through formal
methods, while Leonardi & Bailey (2008) even state that formal methods can have an adverse effect
on the actual result of knowledge sharing (ibid. p.411).
2.2.4 Intraorganizational knowledge sharing
Intraorganizational knowledge sharing enhances the same concepts as ‘regular’ knowledge sharing,
but merely takes place within an organization. This internal facet makes that the type of knowledge
being shared can be regarded as being mostly a balanced combination of explicit and tacit knowledge
(Reber, 1989; Smith, 2001).
Organizational knowledge is more and more awarded with the title of being (one of) the most
important strategic asset in organizations and crucial for achieving a sustainable competitive
advantage (Hyslop, 2002; Polanyi, 1969; Saraf, Langdon, & Sawy, 2013; van den Hooff & de Ridder,
2004). A significant amount of organizational knowledge resides however in the minds of an
organization’s employees and managers, so sharing this knowledge within an organization appears to
be crucial in utilizing it. Extensive knowledge sharing can potentially lead to (an improvement of)
streamlining of organizational processes and reduction of organizational waste (Cabrera & Cabrera,
2002).
2.2.5 Knowledge sharing within an ERP-system
Given the previous sub-section, it appears that knowledge sharing bears potential positive effects.
The question remains whether these potential effects are always acquired. It is noteworthy that
there are also researchers who state that knowledge sharing can have adverse effects on ERP-usage,

19
or in broader terms, on the use of an IS. Section 2.3 will provide a textual overview of several
researches on knowledge sharing in and about ISs.
2.2.6 Knowledge sharing summary
In order to create a certain overview of the concepts used in section 2.5, this subsection will provide
summarized definitions and a brief overall summary. Since the primary goal of this research is to
provide an answer to the main question, the concepts of knowledge, knowledge sharing and
intraorganizational knowledge sharing have been interpreted. These three main concepts and their
coherent interpretations in this study are presented in Table 5.
Concept Definition
Knowledge Facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or
education
Knowledge sharing Bringing (or ‘donating’) knowledge and getting (or ‘collecting’)
knowledge
Intraorganizational knowledge
sharing
Knowledge sharing within an organization
Table 5, knowledge sharing concepts
In short, knowledge can be divided into two main forms, a tacit and explicit one. Explicit knowledge
can be described as formal knowledge, captured in procedures and standard operating procedures.
Tacit knowledge has a more fluent form and is mostly captured in employees’ minds. Since the
difference between these two main forms is not at all times as strict as presented in theory, this
research combines the two forms in the definition as stated in Table 5. Knowledge sharing is simply
put the sharing, being both giving and receiving, of knowledge.
The three main knowledge sharing methods recognized in this research are the utilization of
colleagues, champions and formal methods.
Intraorganizational does not differ that much from regular knowledge sharing, although the effects
can be regarded one of the most important strategic assets of an organization for achieving a
sustainable competitive advantage (Akbulut & Motwani, 2005; van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004).
2.3 Knowledge sharing and ERP-systems
Since ERP-systems usually have a large impact on organizational processes, extensive knowledge
sharing regarding the new processes within an ERP-system is considered critical in order to reach a
certain level of ERP success (Chou, et al., 2014; Levy, Loebbecke, & Powell, 2003). The previous
section, e.g. section 2.2, elaborated on the importance and definitions knowledge sharing within an
organization. Knowledge sharing within and about an IS can even create and/or sustain a competitive
advantage (Levy, Loebbecke, & Powell, 2003). The extent to which knowledge sharing affects ERP-

20
usage has been quite sparsely studied, but this section aims to provide an overview of the effects
found in literature.
2.3.1 Knowledge sharing about ERP-systems
Since ERP-systems play an extensive role in an organization’s processes (see section 2.1), creating
and sustaining a sufficient level of knowledge within an organization about how to use the ERP-
system appears to be crucial for organizational success (Lee & Lee, 2000). Because of the broad
interpretation of knowledge sharing used in this research, “bringing … and getting … knowledge”
(van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004, p. 118), the same broadness applies to knowledge sharing about
ERP-systems. Knowledge about how to use the ERP-system should be shared in order to streamline
organizational processes, but the ways in which this can be done are abundant, for example utilizing
a formal helpdesk, weekly meetings, formal instructions (with timely updates), water cooler
conversations, creating a very intuitive ERP interface, creating product (or system) champions, etc.
2.3.2 Effects of knowledge sharing on ERP-usage
While the effects of IS-usage on knowledge sharing have been researched, not much is known about
the effects of knowledge sharing on IS-usage. With most research towards ERP-systems on
implementation (see subsection 2.1.2), Grabski, Leech & Schmidt (2011) created a future research
agenda for understanding determinants in ERP-usage. They suggested, as one of their future
research propositions, to research the effects of knowledge sharing on ERP-usage. Chou, et al. (2014)
conducted a research to the incentives for knowledge sharing and its effect(s) on ERP-system usage.
They found that intrinsic motivation, social capital and self-efficacy, all three incentives for
knowledge sharing, positively affected ERP-system usage.
Zooming out from ERP-usage to IS-usage, it stands out that the relation between the concepts IS-
usage and knowledge sharing is located in a research niche. Where Chou, et al. (2014) showed a
positive influence of knowledge sharing on ERP-usage, Leonardi & Bailey (2008) found that
knowledge sharing has a potential negative influence on IS-usage. In order to provide an overview of
researched (potential) effects of knowledge sharing on IS- and ERP-usage, the next subsections will
present several studies on the effect of knowledge sharing on IS- and ERP-usage, and on overall
performance. Additionally, knowledge sharing methods found in current research on the effects of
knowledge sharing on IS-usage will be briefly addressed.
2.3.2.1 Knowledge sharing positively affecting IS-usage
Several authors found that knowledge sharing may have a positive effect on IS-usage. Some authors,
like Boudreau (2003) claim that the knowledge sharing directly affects IS-usage, while other authors
claim that these effects have a more indirect nature.

21
In her research, Marie-Claude Boudreau (2003) found that merely a successful implementation of an
IS does not have effective IS-usage as a logical result. She revealed several main elements resulting in
a construct of “quality of use.”, consisting of two main factors, i.e. extended and limited use. The key
contributor of an employee’s quality of use was ‘learning’ (ibid.). She found that the level of system
knowledge of an employee was predominantly responsible for the employee’s quality of ERP-system
usage. Chou, et al. (2014) studied the effect of knowledge sharing on ERP-system usage and the
factors affecting intraorganizational knowledge sharing. One of the findings of their research is that
intraorganizational knowledge sharing has a positive impact on ERP-system usage, or as they
themselves state: “…the amount of knowledge users can absorb before usage is limited. … users could
effectively use the ERP system via gaining knowledge from others…” (p.19). They state that
knowledge sharing can be regarded as being potentially essential for effectively using an ERP-system.
A similar conclusion regarding the effects of knowledge sharing on ERP-usage can be found in the
research of Nah & Delgado (2006). They identified seven Critical Success Factors (CSFs) from which
change management and communication (CSF2 and CSF3) had the greatest impact on actual ERP-
usage, with management support and championship (CSF5) also having a significant positive
influence on ERP-usage. Although Nah & Delgado (2006) do not specifically dug into the effects of
knowledge sharing on ERP-usage, their CSFs responsible for effective ERP-usage can be regarded as
being reliant on knowledge sharing, thus leading to the notion that Nah & Delgado (2006) concur
with Chou, et al. (2014) and Boudreau (2003) that, whether the effects are direct or indirect,
knowledge sharing positively affects ERP-usage.
2.3.2.2 Knowledge sharing negatively affecting IS-usage
While several authors found positive effects of knowledge sharing on IS-usage, some authors also
found that knowledge sharing can have negative effects. Leonardi & Bailey (2008) conducted a
research on knowledge transfer problems associated with transformational technologies and the
digital artefacts created for using these technologies. They studied a firm that “…sent engineering
tasks from home sites in Mexico and the United States to an offshore site in India.” (p. 411). They
found that, despite having a decent formal educational level as well as proper skills and experience,
the Indian engineers had “…difficulty interpreting the implicit knowledge embodied in artifacts sent
to them from Mexico and the United States.” (p.411), resulting in the Indian engineers losing precious
time with knowledge transfers which lead to the risk of not meeting project deadlines. Basically,
although knowledge sharing was used within an IS, the actual effects of knowledge sharing on IS-
usage were negative.
Du, Ai & Ren (2007) found a similar effect of knowledge sharing, but instead of focusing on ERP-
usage, these authors focused on individual performance. Du, Ai & Ren (2007) suggest that several

22
knowledge sharing dimensions, such as environmental factors and organizational factors including
integration of activities, have a significant effect on individual and organizational performance. Also,
the effectiveness of knowledge sharing on the performance can be both negatively and positively
influenced, dependable on the suitableness of these contingent factors. Simplified, they state that
knowledge sharing can lead to a decrease of performance when the contingent factors used are not
suitable for a current situation. Effectively using an ERP-system can be regarded as an element of
individual performance, hence the notion of Leonardi & Bailey (2008) is partially supported by Du, Ai
& Ren, claiming that knowledge sharing can negatively affect IS-usage.
Choi, Lee & Yoo (20100) found that the relationship between IT and knowledge sharing is too highly
valued in current literature, since much, if not most, of the relationship is mediated through
Transactive Memory Systems (TMSs). These authors define a TMS as: “…a specialized division of
cognitive labour among team members that relates to the encoding, storage, and retrieval of
knowledge…” (p.855). Choi, Lee & Yoo (2010) state that there is a “…lack of direct impact of
knowledge sharing on team performance.” (p.866). This is in direct contrast with the notion of Nah &
Delgado (2006), but also in contrast with the findings of Leonardi & Bailey (2008); Du, Ai & Ren
(2007); and Chou, et al. (2014) who claim that knowledge sharing does actually have a direct impact
on performance and IS-usage.
Figure 2 provides a simplified overview of scholarly findings regarding the relationship(s) between
the concepts ERP-usage and knowledge sharing.
Figure 2, effect of knowledge sharing on ERP-usage
As Figure 2 aims to present, research focusing on the effects of knowledge sharing on ERP-usage is
ambiguous. Although the author was only able to use a mere selection of the vast amount of
available literature, the author feels that Figure 2 is a proper visualization of the current research
regarding the relationship(s) between knowledge sharing and ERP-usage.
Obviously, the studies mentioned in this subsection did not solely provide insights in the effects of
knowledge sharing on IS-usage, but can also prove to be useful for determining knowledge sharing
methods.
Knowledge sharing ERP-usage???

23
2.3.2.3 Knowledge sharing methods affecting ERP-usage
Regarding knowledge sharing methods, several methods can be distinguished in current research on
knowledge sharing and IS-usage, as presented in section 2.2.3.
Colleagues
Boudreau (2003) emphasizes the role of colleagues with regard to knowledge sharing. As she
mentions it, intraorganizational knowledge sharing consists primarily of “… support from
colleagues…” (p.239). Boudreau (2003) found that a high amount of knowledge sharing would lead to
an increase of correct and desired usage of the ERP-system. An interesting element of her findings
consisted of the notion that employees would rather ask colleagues for help than turn towards an
official helpdesk installed by the organization to deal with system usage issues. Nah & Delgado (2006)
mentioned a similar result, with employees preferring to ask their fellow employees for assistance
regarding problems with ERP-system usage. Leonardi & Bailey (2008) also mention the use of
colleagues as a knowledge sharing methods, but they found it posed a potential negative effect on
knowledge sharing. Choi, Lee & Yoo (2010) stated that, although they also recognized the utilization
of colleagues as a knowledge sharing method, it did not affect the performance of the employees.
Champion
The use of champions/a champion is mentioned specifically by Nah & Delgado (2006). Chou, et al.
(2014) also mention it indirectly as a major element in intrinsic motivation. As they state that “much
of the knowledge is complex and mainly tacit … [and] cannot be easily observed by managers.
Managers … rely on employees who … transfer knowledge to their colleagues” (p.18), while also
claiming that these knowledge transferring employees should have a high level of system knowledge
and are willing to share. Nah & Delgado (2006) also mention champions. They specify a champion as
“… a high ranking official that … can facilitate monitoring due to the individual’s knowledge …”
(p.101). Both studies found that a champion affected IS-usage in a positive way, increasing the
effectiveness of the employees’ ERP-usage (Chou, et al., 2014; Nah & Delgado, 2006).
Formal methods
Additionally, formal knowledge sharing methods are also mentioned by several authors. Boudreau
(2003) mentions a helpdesk, although she found that employees preferred going to their colleagues,
as a formal knowledge sharing methods positively influencing ERP-usage. She also mentions training
as a formal method to enable employees to learn to use an ERP-system, resulting in a positive effect
on ERP-usage (ibid.). The same applies to Choi, Lee & Yoo (2010). They state that knowledge sharing
consists of formal and informal knowledge sharing, but do not specify what both concepts consists
of. Leonardi & Bailey (2008) also mention formal methods for intraorganizational knowledge sharing,
but found that it could negatively affect performance.

24
2.4 Summary
When it comes down to the relation between ERP-systems -or ISs in general- and knowledge sharing,
it appears that previous studies predominantly focused on the effects of IS-usage on knowledge
sharing. Academic research on knowledge sharing affecting ERP-usage is unclear about whether the
effects are positive or negative, but show ambiguous results. Since any ERP-system is bound to have
a major impact on organizational processes, knowledge sharing regarding the use of an ERP-system
can have a major impact on the efficiency and effectivity of the very processes demanded by the
ERP-system, but whether these knowledge sharing positively or negatively affects ERP-usage remains
unclear. Several researchers found different knowledge sharing methods, mainly being the use of a
champion, colleagues and formal methods. Since the effect of knowledge sharing on ERP-usage is
ambiguous, the effect of these methods on ERP-usage remains ambiguous as well.
This current (ambiguous) research on the effects of knowledge sharing on the use of an ERP-system
can thus be called nascent (Edmondson & McManus, 2007), resulting in a so-called literature gap
concerning this very subject.
In order to create an overview of how the three defined intraorganizational knowledge sharing
methods affecting ERP-usage, as mentioned by several authors, Table 6 presents the found results in
six different studies.
Table 6, knowledge sharing methods effects on ERP-usage
Boudreau(2003)
Choi,Lee&Yoo(2010)
Chou,etal.,(2013)
Du,Ai&Ren(2007)
Leonardi&Bailey(2008)
Nah&Delgado(2006)
Colleagues  0  /  
Champion  / 
Formal methods  0 / 
Legend:
 = positive effect
 = negative effect
0 = no effect
= not mentioned by author(s)
/ = both positive as negative effect

25
3 Methodology
The aim of this research is to gain insight and a better understanding of how and if
intraorganizational knowledge sharing affects patterns of use of an ERP-system in its post-
implementation phase. This relates to one primary body of literature, being (intraorganizational)
knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing has been researched quite extensively (Cabrera, Collins, &
Salgado, 2006; Hyslop, 2002; Lee & Lee, 2000; Paroutis & Al Saleh, 2009; Polanyi, 1969; van den
Hooff & de Ridder, 2004). Intraorganizationl knowledge sharing is more or less an outsider in current
research, but theory regarding this area can also be called mature (Bhatt, 2001, Chou, et al., 2014;
Lin, Hung & Cheng, 2007; , Yoon, 2009) in accordance with Edmonson and McManus (2007).
The maturity of a secondary body of literature, being ERP-systems and its coherent implementation
phases, can be regarded as a precondition. Regarding the aim of this research, establishing the ERP-
system used as study object is in its post-implementation phase is necessary. In order to determine
whether or not this is the case, a limited literature review concerning ERP-implementation phases
was made (Akbulut & Motwani, 2005; Maas, 2015; Markus & Tanis, 2000; Markus, et al., 2000).
Moreover, a review of several studies on use, IS-usage, and ERP-usage was conducted in order to be
able to conceptualize patterns of ERP-usage.
The overlap of these areas, specifically aimed at understanding the effects of intraorganizational
knowledge sharing on the use of ERP-systems, can be regarded as being nascent in current literature
(Edmondson & McManus, 2007). In order to create a methodological fit, a qualitative study was
designed.
This study builds on the grounded theory approach congruent with Corbin & Strauss’s (1961; 1990)
ideas. In accordance with this approach, the research is regarded to be an iterative process,
continuously requiring the researcher to asses and interpret the data throughout the research.
Consequently, changes in the research design may be deemed necessary, since the constructs can be
subject to change as well.
3.1 Research setting
This research was conducted at the RNLN, more specifically at the two departments concerning
operational use and maintenance of the Dutch Air Defence Frigates (LCF). Both departments have
been subject to an ERP-implementation which was finalized in 2013, but found it difficult to change
their working methods due to adherence to legacy systems.
In order to study to which extent the current literature regarding knowledge sharing and succes of an
ERP-system in its post-implementation phase is supported by literature regarding knowledge sharing

26
and ERP-succes in general, empirical research was conducted at two departments within the Royal
Netherlands Navy (RNLN). As stated in section 1, these departments have both been subject to an
ERP-implementation, but the usage of the ERP-system can be called sufficient at best, according to
several high ranking officers responsible for the operational management of the RNLN. In order to
improve the patterns of use of the employees, the RNLN installed several (formal) knowledge sharing
methods and appointed ERP-knowledge champions. Subsequently, the employees made use of these
methods, while also relying on knowledgeable colleagues. The ERP-system used by te RNLN can be
regarded as being in the post-implementation phase, since the system and its end-users are ‘up-and-
running’ and, in accordance with Maas (2015), the ERP-system used by the RNLN can be regarded as
being in the ‘shakedown’ phase (Markus & Tanis, 2000).
3.1.1 Explaining the two departments
The departments are strictly divided by their role within the RNLN. On one side, the maintenance
department is situated. The main responsibility of the maintenance department is to ensure a
frigate’s seaworthiness and readiness for action when needed. One of the main elements required
for this responsibility is a short downtime of the frigate’s machinery, sensory and weapon systems,
and platform systems when repair is needed.
The operational users are on the other side of the coin. This department’s main responsibility is to
utilize the ship for (crisis-)operations, warfare(-exercises), anti-piracy, peacekeeping, disaster relieve,
etc. One of the main elements required for this responsibility is also a short downtime of the frigate’s
machinery, sensory and weapon systems, and platform when repair is needed.
It is noteworthy that for both departments one the main goals for answering to their responsibilities
is a short downtime. This shared goal was one of the reasons to implement an ERP-system. Yet
somehow, this goal is still not always reached. This creates interest for this case, since the ERP-
system is, amongst other things, designed to reduce the downtime in order to create an increased
availability of the frigate and all its components (Maas, 2015).
3.2 Data collection
The data were collected through interviews. A total of 12 interviews was held by the author. The
selection of the interviewees was primarily based upon job description, without taking gender, race,
background, etc. into account. Within the interviewee selection, a wide variety in educational level
and military rank exists, varying from high ranking officers with an academic background to
practitioners with high school and military training as highest educational level. This increases the
overall generalizability of this research. The interview questions were made based upon a pre-
created interview protocol which was based upon the theoretical framework as presented in section

27
2 of this research. The questions were used as a guiding thread during the interviews, with the
interviewer focusing on items of interest when touched upon by the interviewee. During the semi-
structured interviews, interviewees were asked to elaborate on their ERP-usage and about their
intraorganizational knowledge sharing. The duration of each interview differed between 29 minutes
and 116 minutes with a mean length of approximately 51 minutes, and took place from May 9th
2016
to June 1st
, 2016.
All interviews were held in Dutch, audio recorded, transcribed in Dutch and finally coded in English.
Dutch was chosen as main interview language, since both the interviewer and the interviewees were
Dutch with a variable proficiency in English, ranging from a beginner level to being fluent. In order to
minimize the barriers of the interviewee speaking freely, the interviewer regarded Dutch to be the
best option, although it may prove to create difficulties for non-Dutch readers of this research.
Another element that was deliberately added by the interviewer in order to make the interviewees
feel comfortable was that he dressed up in military gear in accordance with the interviewees. All
interviewees were also dressed in military gear, since the interviews took place during work hours in
the interviewees’ work environment. The interviewer felt that by dressing accordingly, the
interviewees felt more at ease to speak freely.
Additionally, all interviews were transcribed and sent back to the interviewees for their approval.
Every interviewee had the chance to change, add or delete some elements of the interview before
giving their authorization for the interviewer to use it as data in this study. The main reason behind
this method was that some elements in the interview concerned classified information. Additionally,
by stating this method clearly before commencing the interview, the interviewees did not need to
worry about breaching confidence levels during the interview, since the transcriptions were subject
to their approval. A downside to this method was that 10 of the 12 interviewees decided to delete
parts of the transcribed content due to confidentiality issues. This resulted in a decrease of written
data and imposed a threat to this research. The author chose to use what was left of the interviews
as data and include some of the examples provided during the interviews and recorded in the audio
files, without breaching the confidentiality classifications. The approved versions of the transcribed
interviews still contained all the data, but were mostly stripped of expressive examples. Since these
examples were mentioned quite often during the interviews, the audio files were also deployed to
extract some of these examples to be used in the result section.
A final element of validity regarding the interviews is that all interviewees are anonymous. Several
interviewees insisted on staying anonymous, while others did not. Since some answers may appear
discriminating towards colleagues, the interviewer chose to keep all interviewees anonymous and

28
made sure that the interviewees were aware of this. By doing so, all interviewees did not have to fear
for their reputation or image by participating in an interview.
3.3 Data analysis
The data analysis started from the moment the first data was gathered, since this research concerns
grounded theory (Edmondson & McManus, 2007). The interviews were recorded via a voice recorder
and afterwards fully transcribed. The interview transcription was then sent back to the interviewee in
order to make sure that the ideas, opinions and facts stated in the interviews were truly
representative with the actual ideas, opinions and facts of the interviewees. Interviews 1-3 and 6-12
were altered by the interviewee after transcription. After receiving approval of the transcription, the
interviews were entered in Atlas.ti and labelled using open coding. Firstly, codes were assigned to
ERP-usage elements such as avoidance of ERP-usage and ‘discovering the ERP-system through using
it’ . Next, codes were assigned to elements of knowledge sharing. After this, the knowledge sharing
elements of the data were scanned for a relation to elements of ERP-usage and these data parts
were also coded for showing some sort of relationship between knowledge sharing and ERP-usage.
For instance, one interviewee stated that “Sometimes, I find an extra use for [the ERP-system]. I then
share it with my colleagues via mail, so that they can utilize the extra function as well. Obviously [this]
also works the other way around.1
” This quote was coded with ‘expanded’ use, ‘colleague’
knowledge sharing, and ‘colleague’ knowledge sharing affecting ‘expanded’ use. In this particular
case, and many others, knowledge sharing clearly affected ERP-usage. Finally, all codes were sorted
into coherent families.
1
This quote and all other interview quotes presented in this research are translated from the Dutch
transcription of the interview. This means that all quotes do not derive directly from an interviewee, but have
been translated by the author. While the author took caution to make sure every quote was translated as
correctly as possible, some of the interviewee’s meaning may have gone lost in translation.

29
4 Results
This section will start with elaborating on sources of ERP related knowledge, creating an overview of
the several knowledge sharing methods found in the data. Secondly, ERP-usage will be discussed.
This section will also provide some concepts of ERP-usage. Finally, this section concludes with
determining the found effects of intraorganizational knowledge sharing on ERP-usage, resulting in a
conclusion on the found effects of different concepts of intraorganizational knowledge sharing on
ERP-usage.
4.1 Sources of ERP related knowledge
Knowledge sharing is being marked as being crucial to firm performance by some researchers
(Akbulut & Motwani, 2005; van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004), while others do not share the notion
of knowledge sharing being entirely positive (Leonardi & Bailey, 2008). During the interviews it
appeared that employees were using several methods of knowledge sharing in order to receive or
donate operational knowledge or knowledge about the use of the ERP-system. During most of the
interviews, going to their colleagues for an informal chat about encountered problems or to talk
about tips & tricks was a recurring subject. Additionally, the RNLN has installed extensive formal
ways in order to get the employees to share knowledge amongst each other. Examples of these
formal methods are a news bulletin, and a user, superuser and key-user system (a layered and
hierarchical system with the most experienced and knowledgeable employees being the key-users).
Most employees would make use of at least several of the formal elements provided, if not all.
Furthermore, employees could also make use of champions regarding ERP-usage knowledge. These
champions mastered the ERP-system and its related processes, or as a champion stated himself:
“By now I have mastered most to all processes within [the ERP-system] and I use this
knowledge to assist lots of users.” (Interview 1, chief ERP-processes support element)
Both Nah & Delgado (2006) and Boudreau (2003) found that employees rather turned to their
colleagues for information sharing instead of utilizing other methods. In accordance with Nah &
Delgado (2006) and Boudreau (2003), most interviewees stated that they preferred going to their
colleagues for knowledge sharing as well, instead of using the formal procedures:
“Whenever I encounter [an issue], I prefer just going to my colleague next door and ask him
how to deal with it. … it is just the easiest and fastest way.” (Interview 11, chief weapons &
sensors mechanic)
“It [discovering a new ‘trick’] does not happen often, but when I do discover something, I
usually just e-mail my colleagues right away … or tell them during coffee breaks. I know them

30
all very well and I like it when we help each other in performing well in our jobs. That is what it
is all about, I think.” (Interview 6, chief casco & support systems mechanic)
Also, the use of a champion in order to gain critical knowledge regarding ERP-usage was mentioned
quite often by different interviewees. Some regarded the ability to reach an ERP-knowledge
champion as vital in order to be able to work with the ERP-system:
When I just started my current job I was struggling with the use of [the ERP-system], so I called
or emailed [Interview 1] quite often to ask for help. (Interview 7, operational manager casco &
support systems)
In Table 7 the concepts of intraorganizational knowledge sharing are presented. The concepts are
categorized in two subsequent levels, with the second order of concept being a specific method and
the first concept order being a premise element regarding intraorganizational knowledge sharing.
1st
order of
concept
2nd
order of
concept
Definition Example (translated from Dutch
transcription)
Formal
Use dictated
hierarchical
system
Sharing knowledge through
hierarchical layers (with a
certain knowledge level of
the ERP-system at a certain
level) created by the RNLN
“If I [user] encounter a problem, my first
move is to go to a superuser. When he
cannot help me, he will go to his key-user.
The key-user will tell the superuser and
finally the superuser will tell me”.
(Interview 8, weapon & systems manager
LCF)
News bulletin Monthly bulletin regarding
updates, tips & tricks,
recurring mistakes and
faults, or appraisal for proper
system-usage, published
among ERP-system users
“I do not read [the newsbulletin]
regularly. Sometimes it is useful,
sometimes it is not.” (Interview 7,
operational manager casco & support
systems)
Training General ERP-training for the
use of the Dutch Defence’s
ERP-system
“I have had a course to work with [the
ERP-system], …” (Interview 5, weapons &
sensors engineer)
Handbook Step-by-step guide for ERP-
usage
“When I [got this function] I received a
handbook… with [the ERP-system]-
instructions. It … is like a recipe book.”
(interview 10, operational manager
weapons & sensors)
Champion
Call/e-mail
(unofficial)
helpdesk
Reaching out to a small
group of people informally
designated to help the
RNLN’s employees to
understand the ERP-system
and to solve encountered
problems
“I used to call [interview 1] quite often
with [the ERP-system] related issues. He
just almost always knows what to do and
… if he does not know what to do, he most
likely knows someone who does!”
(Interview 7, operational manager casco
& support systems)
Demonstration
(by champion)
Once in a while, the ERP-
usage champions
“I can go to [a consultant from the ERP-
system’s firm] to show us as exact as

31
demonstrate several usage
procedures which can be
attended by any employee
possible what to do … every once in a
while his instructions are … regarding [my
area of expertise].” (Interview 8, weapons
& systems manager LCF)
Colleagues
Ask colleagues
for help
Simply asking colleagues
(with likeminded work) if
they have encountered
likewise issues and what
their reaction was
“I have ... four colleagues on board with a
very likewise job. I just walk to their office
to ask them what they did when they
encountered the same issues I did…”
(Interview 6, chief casco & support
systems mechanic)
Water cooler
conversations
Discussing several elements
in a very informal setting,
during coffee breaks, lunch
hours, or (at sea) when
relaxing in common rooms.
“During night shifts or coffeebreaks or
whatever it is very easy to meet your
colleagues and briefly discuss some work
issues” (Interview 6, chief casco & support
systems mechanic)
Sharing through
e-mail
Instead of face-to-face
meeting with colleagues,
contacting them through
electronic devices.
“When it does not have much priority, or
the knowledgeable people are not on
board, I just email them or colleagues
from other ships with a newly discovered
trick” (Interview 9, chief propulsion
mechanic)
Table 7, knowledge sharing concepts
4.2 ERP-usage
During the interviews, it appeared that the main elements of ERP-usage consisted of ‘use’ and ‘non-
use’. Some interviewees would make use of the ERP-system, while others tried to avoid using it too
much or actively tried to resist using the ERP-system. Within the two main concepts of ‘use’ and
‘non-use’, several other sub-concepts were distinguished. For example, ‘non-use’ was for example
expressed by an active resistance against the usage of the ERP-system, but also by avoiding the ERP-
usage when possible, while only utilizing it when there was no other possibility left.
With regard to the case of the two researched departments within the RNLN, the employees did
actually use the system instead of trying to find ways to utilize non-use behaviour. This partially
concurs with the notion of Soeters, Winslow, & Weibull (2006) who state that military personell have
a strong adherence to organizational rules and procedures. Examples of this adherence are shown in
the following quotes:
“… I accept using [the ERP-system], since ‘the boss’ [MoD] wants me to. ... I can receive parts
and conduct the necessary maintenance, and that is essentially what it is all about”.
(Interview 6, chief casco & support systems mechanic)
“… When I just follow the mandated procedures, I sometimes do not have a clue at all what
the duration of an order is going to be. It can be a day, two weeks or five months. … this
makes it very annoying, but hey, it is what it is. Does not mean I like it though.” (Interview 9,
chief propulsion mechanic)

32
On the other hand, the strong adherance to ‘pre-ERP’ legacy systems should, based on the notion by
the same authors that military personell is very likely to be adverse to change, have lead to a larger
extent of non-use behavioral patterns. In this research, this adversity against change appears to be
less present.
“… the entire organization is using [the ERP-system], so who am I to decide that I am so
special… that I need to do my work different than everyone else…” (Interview 5, weapons &
sensors engineer)
One interviewee even stated that he did not care that much of the quality of the system or his
knoweldgeability regarding different patterns of use, as long as he could be effective in doing his
work (e.g. reaching his targets in time), he was completely fine with using it and did not see the need
to display non-use behaviour.
Accompanying this element, merely two interviewees mentioned active resistance as one their ERP-
usage behaviours. Mostly, the interviewees simply stated that they had to use the ERP-system, since
the organizational structure and way of working demanded it from them, as shown in the following
quote:
“… so the logistic department is reliant on my orders and … every department is now
connected. It only works if everyone uses [the ERP-system], so basically I have no other option
than to work with [the ERP-system].” (Interview 10, operational manager weapons &
sensors)
Table 8 presents an overview of the concepts of ERP-usage on different levels.
1st
order
of
concept
2nd
order of
concept
Definition Example (translated from Dutch transcription)
Use Integrative Maximizing the
integration ERP-
usage in daily
practices
“My work consists of … [planning] the capacity, in
terms of money, hours and workforce. I use [the
ERP-system] to do all that …” (Interview 8,
weapon & systems manager LCF)
Exploratory Explorative
discovering how
ERP-system works
“The best method for me is to just try and find out
how I have to do something in [the ERP-system].
That way I may also even find new possibilities I
did know of before”. (Interview 1, chief ERP-
process support)
Expanded Extending patterns
of use for extra
utilization of ERP-
system
“I have quite a broad authorization which means
that, amongst other things, I can create, delete
and change parts within SAP. Although it is merely
meant for observation, I make use of it to solve
related problems when I deem it necessary”.
(Interview 3, chief ERP-data support)

33
Conformity Using ERP in
accordance with
organizational intent
“I do not like to always have to follow the
procedures in [the ERP-system] and I do not think
it is always necessary … but [I do it] anyway, since
I also do not know what all the information I
entered is being used for”. (Interview 11, chief
weapons & sensors mechanic)
Non-use Avoidance Avoiding ERP-usage
when possible
“[I] have never used that part of [the ERP-system]
since I rather just walk towards my colleagues to
ask them face-to-face…” (Interview 6, casco &
support systems mechanic)
Active
resistance
Resist using the ERP-
system when
possible
“I have been using the [legacy system] for thirty
years and it always worked perfectly. Now all of a
sudden I have to use [the ERP-system]. Well, I will
postpone that for as long as I can”. (Interview 4,
managing weapons & sensors engineer)
Non-
compliance
Not adhering to the
standard procedures
within the ERP-
system
“…sometimes I just call the person whom I know
to be on the end of the line to make sure that my
order gets prioritized. I should actually not do
that, but [it is the] fastest way…” (Interview 7,
operational manager casco & support systems)
Non-
conformity
Usage of ERP, but
not in accordance
with organizational
intent
“I can order parts for other ships as well, and so
now and then [when someone else has a day off] I
get a call to order something for them, since they
need it the next week or so.”. (Interview 11, chief
weapons & sensors mechanic)
Table 8, ERP-usage concepts
4.3 Knowledge sharing and ERP-system usage
As stated in section 3.3 and section 1, the primary area of interest of this research are the effects of
knowledge sharing on ERP-usage. This section presents an overview of the findings regarding these
effects.
4.3.1 ‘Champion’ affecting ERP-system usage
During the interviews, none of the interviewees mentioned that knowledge sharing via an ERP-
knowledge champion had any effect on non-use behaviour. Knowledge sharing via a champion
mostly affected integrative use, e.g. learning new features, achieving a wider extent of use, etc.
“Whenever I am not sure how to fill my order in such a manner that the departments whom
my order also might concern would like it to see, I call [anonymous], since he is one of the
most knowledgeable people regarding [the ERP-system]” (Interview 12, chief logistics and
resupply administrator)
The use of a champion was only found to have benevolent effects on ERP-usage. Several
interviewees stated that they sometimes wanted to know more about the system, so they would
reach out to an ERP-champion. On other occasions, the a champion would, on his own initiative, call

34
employees who were making (minor) errors and explain to them what went wrong and how to be
more compliant:
“The moment we recognize an error [by monitoring the processes] a user does not necessarily
have to find us, since we will find him and explain what is going wrong and should be done
differently.” (Interview 1, chief ERP-processes support element)
The connections between ‘champion’ knowledge sharing and the affected concepts of use are
presented in Figure 3.
4.3.2 ‘Colleagues’ affecting ERP-system usage
‘Colleagues’ knowledge sharing marginally affected non-use behaviours. It mostly affected
integrative use just like the other two intraorganizational knowledge sharing methods defined in this
research. A quote demonstrating how knowledge sharing via colleagues affects expanded use, is
depicted below.
“Wat does happen occasionally is the sharing of particular tips or tricks when we encounter it.
We usually use e-mail to do this and if I look at myself … I will just tell everyone about
something new that can be done with [the ERP-system] that I did not know of…” (Interview
12, chief logistics and resupply administrator)
The quote provides an example of a change in ERP-usage from basic use to a more expanded use.
Intraorganizational knowledge sharing trough colleagues was also affecting the conformity of ERP-
usage. On several occasions, interviewees mentioned that they wanted to conform their ERP-usage
to the organizational intent, but did not exactly know how to do so. The quote below provides an
example of this yearning to adhere to organizational intent and procedures.
“I know that the logistics element needs a correct order from me, but sometimes I do not
know exactly what they want. Then, … I will just give them a call” (interview 5, weapons &
sensors engineer)
In order to increase their conformity, employees asked their colleagues for help, as show in the
quote below. In other occasions, when someone saw or heard that one of their colleagues were
making mistakes, or were not adhering to the procedures regarding their ERP-use, they would tell
their colleague what was going wrong and how to improve their conformity.
“When asked, we will together [with my colleagues] search for and find the solution. So far,
we have been able to localise all errors and find the proper way to handle them. … that is one

35
of the great things about [the ERP-system], there is always just one way to …. do something
right...” (Interview 4, managing weapons & sensors engineer)
The notion, however, that there is “… always just one way…” is not completely true. Sometimes, as
the following quotes shows, workarounds were shared through colleagues and used by the
employees.
“… we made some working agreements with the maintenance section. For example, I put the
BSMI-number in front of the order number. This makes it easier to trace back, but it is not
taught like this during the courses.” (Interview 7, operational manager casco & support
systems)
Moreover, the connections between ‘colleague’ knowledge sharing and the affected concepts of use
are presented in Figure 3.
4.3.3 ‘Formal methods’ affecting ERP-system usage
‘Formal’ intraorganizational knowledge sharing mostly affects integrative usage patterns, while also
affecting other patterns of use and non-use defined in this research. The quote below provides an
example where formal intraorganizational knowledge lead to changing limited use to a more
integrative behavioural usage.
“After every key-user meeting … they [the key-users] talk to their superusers. Since I [as a
user] have asked [my superuser] several questions about, let say, requesting working hours
for a certain part replacement … my superuser will tell me how I should properly use [the ERP-
system] to fill in the request …”. (Interview 8, weapon & systems manager)
Another distinguishable effect of ‘formal’ intraorganizational knowledge sharing on ERP-usage were
non-use behavioural patterns. According to several interviewees, as long as they can reach their
targets, they do not need to know other possible ways to utilize the ERP-system, even though it may
prove to be benevolent. This would imply that, as soon as users reached a mature level of integrative
usage, they did not bother to expand their ERP-use.
“I know of the FAQ-section, but I do not use it. I know enough to conduct my job right now.
…although I am quite sure I could improve my work with [the ERP-system] I would rather not,
since the minute I will found out about new ‘tricks’, I will just get more work and … will have
to spend more time working with [the ERP-system]. Now that is something I would rather not
want, …” (Interview 9, chief propulsion mechanic)

36
Although the lack of increasing the ‘use’ concepts of the ERP-system cannot be regarded as a direct
result from ‘formal’ intraorganizational knowledge sharing, the avoidance of utilizing some elements
of ‘formal’ knowledge sharing affects ERP-usage behaviour. The effects of ‘formal’ methods are
deemed to be positive by the organization, for example by training its personnel for ERP-use, but
many interviewees stated the opposite:
“I did learn things I do not have to know during [the ERP-systems]’s course. At the same time,
I did not learn things I do have to know and am doing now on a regular basis…” (Interview 9,
chief propulsion mechanic)
This is obviously not a direct negative result of ‘formal’ intraorganizational knowledge sharing, but
the lack of a positive result, while expected by the organization, is regarded as an organizational loss.
Thus some effects of ‘formal’ knowledge sharing are deemed to have a negative impact on ERP-
usage.
The connection between ‘formal’ knowledge sharing and the affected concepts of use are presented
in Figure 3.
4.4 Intraorganizational knowledge sharing affecting ERP-usage
Based upon the results presented in sections 4.1 – 4.3, Figure 3 provides a schematic overview of the
results. Although all concepts of use defined in this research were found to be present during the
interviews, not all those concepts were affected by intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Figure 3 is
merely an overview of the patterns of ERP-usage actually affected by intraorganizational knowledge
sharing.

37
Figure 3 intraorganizational knowledge sharing methods affecting ERP-usage concepts
This research found that integrative usage is affected by all three defined intraorganizational
knowledge sharing concepts. The same applies to conformity usage. It is noteworthy that only
‘formal’ knowledge sharing methods and the utilization of colleagues affected non-use behaviour,
meaning that the use of a champion for intraorganizational knowledge sharing merely showed to
have positive effects on the use of the ERP-system.
Also, most interviewees stated that most of their knowledge sharing activities were used to (at least
partially) dissolve their previous lack of knowledge. The interviewees wanted to use the ERP-system
appropriately, but did not always know how to do so.
In partial agreement with respectively Boudreau (2003), Chou et al., (2014), and Nah & Delgado
(2006), stating that knowledge sharing has a positive influence on ERP-use. Two major assumption in
order to claim this are that knowledge sharing affecting ‘use’ is a positive influence, while knowledge
sharing affecting non-use is regarded as a negative influence. Consequently, the notion of Boudreau
(2003), Chou et al., (2014), and Nah & Delgado (2006) is again supported in this research with regard
to conformity. In addition to intraorganizational knowledge sharing having a positive effect on ERP-
usage in terms of interpretative use, the same thing can be said regarding the effect of
intraorganizational knowledge sharing on ERP-usage in terms of conformity.
In short, several changes in positive ERP-usage behaviour affected by intraorganizational knowledge
sharing can be distinguished in this research. To provide a brief overview, the three defined

38
knowledge sharing methods and their effects on different ERP-usage behavioural changes are shown
in Table 9.
When looked at the negative effects of intraorganizational knowledge sharing, this research did not
find any regarding knowledge sharing via ERP-champions. When looked at Figure 3, formal
intraorganizational knowledge sharing appears to be the least positive determinant for ERP-usage
compared to the other two methods of intraorganizational knowledge sharing used in this research.
An example of a negative effect on use of formal intraorganizational knowledge sharing is presented
in the quote below:
“I think that the course teaches us the correct way to handle [the ERP-system], but still… I do
it differently on board. The taught methods just will not do the job.” (interview 10,
operational manager weapons & sensors)
This would suggest that the findings of Du, Ai & Ren (2007), and Leonardi & Bailey (2008) are also
(partially) reflected in this research. After all, they found that knowledge sharing has potential
negative effects on overall performance, with Leonardi & Bailey (2008) having specifically monitored
IS-usage.
4.5 Summary
To conclude, this research found eight different ERP-usage patterns, consisting of four ERP-use
behavioural patterns (e.g. integrative, exploratory, expanded, and conformity) and four ERP-non-use
patterns (e.g. non-conformity, avoidance, non-compliance, and active resistance). These eight usage
patterns have been divided into two main concepts, being ‘use’ and ‘non-use’.
Also, three methods were intraorganizational knowledge sharing were defined (e.g. ‘formal’,
‘champion’, and ‘colleagues’) and empirically tested in interviews with two departments of the RNLN.
The results showed that the three different intraorganizational knowledge sharing methods affected
different ERP-usage patterns. Figure 3 shows which knowledge sharing methods was found to affect
which ERP-use concept, while Table 9 provides an overview of the found affecting changes in ERP-
usage behaviour affected by intraorganizational knowledge sharing methods.
Table 9, ERP-usage behavioural patterns affected by intraorganizational knowledge sharing
Champion Colleagues Formal methods
Limited use  integrative   
Non-compliant use  conformity   
Basic use  expanded 
Basic use  non-conformity (workarounds)  
Avoiding usage 
No positive effects shown 

39
5 Discussion
In order to provide an answer to the main research question, this section will combine previous
literature with the findings of this study. After this, implications for theory will be discussed, followed
by an elaboration regarding managerial implications. Subsequently, limitations of this research will
be presented. Finally, directions for further research will be addressed.
5.1 Discussion of the results
Previous studies by Boudreau (2003), Chou, et al. (2014) and Nah & Delgado (2006) found similar
results to this research. According to the mentioned authors, knowledge sharing increases the
(effectiveness of the) use of an ERP-system, whereas this research firstly found that
intraorganizational knowledge sharing positively effects ERP-usage, by increasing expanding and
integrating ERP-usage behaviours and conformity to organizational intent. Despite the similarities,
there are also some notable differences, related to the conceptualization of knowledge sharing and
ERP-usage. Boudreau (2003) for example does not acknowledge the role of knowledge champions in
her research, but simply refers to a champion as either a ‘colleague’ or, when working at a helpdesk,
as a formal method as illustrated by this quote: “… casual support from colleagues ... Formal support
from the help desk, …” (p. 239). Chou, et al. (2014) and Nah & Delgado (2006) are leaving formal
methods of knowledge sharing out of their research focus and researched the effects of colleagues
and champions as knowledge sharing methods. Despite these differences in the underlying concepts
of the effects of knowledge sharing on ERP-usage, overall the findings regarding the effects of the
main concept of knowledge sharing on ERP-usage are quite similar.
Another similarity appears to be present when comparing this research’s results to those of Du, Ai &
Ren (2007). They found that knowledge sharing does not necessarily positively or negatively affects
ERP-usage, but speak of contingent factors which need to be suitable, claiming a potential positive
and negative effect of knowledge sharing on ERP-usage. This is in partial accordance with the findings
of this research, showing that knowledge sharing does not have mere positive effects on ERP-usage.
Although the overall effect is primarily positive since patterns of ERP-usage appeared to improve
thanks to knowledge sharing, negative effects of knowledge sharing affecting ERP avoidance and
non-conformity as a pattern or ERP-usage were also found. Based upon this comparison, one could
state that knowledge sharing is affecting ERP-usage, but the impact of these effects can be called
ambiguous or multilateral. Especially when focusing on the effects of formal methods, since these
have found to be conformity inducing, while also affecting non-conformity behaviour. With the help
of the notion of Du, Ai & Ren (2007) one could argue that these paradoxical effects could potentially
be grounded upon the suitability of the contingent factors described by Du, Ai & Ren (2007).

40
Leonardi & Bailey (2008) found a result opposite to this research. They conceptualized knowledge
sharing in accordance with Boudreau (2003), leaving a knowledge champion out of the equation, but
found that knowledge sharing, either via colleagues or via formal methods, negatively affected
performance. One of the key determinants for this discrepancy in results, is that Leonardi & Bailey
conducted a case study within an international organization. The primary negative effects of
knowledge sharing Leonardi & Bailey (2008) found, ware based upon a lack of mutual understanding
between engineers from respectively the U.S.A. and Mexico, and India. The negative performance
was a result from a misunderstanding and misinterpretation between the geographically and
culturally distant organizational elements (Leonardi & Bailey, 2008). The interviewees of this research
can be regarded as being the opposite of geographically and culturally distant from each other. The
RNLN has a strong organizational culture with most employees very much adhering to this culture
(Soeters, Winslow, & Weibull, 2006). This strong adherence could likely be a key determinant for
mutual understanding (Soeters, van Fenema, & Beeres, 2010), negating the determinants of the
negative effects of intraorganizational knowledge sharing found by Leonardi & Bailey (2008).
Upon the comparison of this research with the findings of Choi, Lee & Yoo (2010), the results appear
to be in complete contrast with each other. Choi, Lee & Yoo (2010) found that there is a “…lack of
direct impact of knowledge sharing on team performance.” (p.866). As stated in section 2, ERP-usage
is regarded as being an element of team performance, translating the notion of Choi, Lee & Yoo
(2010) towards this study, claiming a lack of effect of intraorganizational knowledge on ERP-usage.
This study, however, found that the actual effects of intraorganizational knowledge sharing on ERP-
usage are mostly positive, measurable and lead to different usage patterns as described in section 4.
One of Choi, Lee & Yoo’s (2010) primary conclusions is that “Organizations must ensure that shared
knowledge is in fact applied in order to improve team performance.” (p.855). This result does not
take into account whether or not the shared knowledge is applied, resulting in a major difference in
the conclusion. Although the notion that knowledge, when shared, affects ERP-usage appears to be a
logical one, Choi, Lee & Yoo (2010) claim that it is not. Combining their results with this research’s
results, one could argue that, in order for intraorganizational knowledge sharing to actually affect
ERP-usage, organizations and employees should try to make sure the shared knowledge is actually
applied in order to reap the benefits. Accordingly, the lack of application of knowledge which is
negatively affecting ERP-usage could potentially lead to evading non-conforming or avoiding patterns
of ERP-usage. In order to determine the value of this argument, further research on this specific
subject should be conducted.

Henri Gardebroek - 2576036

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Henri Gardebroek - 2576036

Similar to Henri Gardebroek - 2576036 (20)

Henri Gardebroek - 2576036