Abstract
Can ERP be studied from the point of view of Science and Technology Studies? What kind of insights this approach can bring to the comprehension of the phenomenon? These are the questions we are trying to answer with this paper. In the Information Systems field, ERP have been studied according to three main approaches: ethnomethodology, phenomenology, and deconstructivism. We show how these accounts are not able to describe ERP as complex artifacts.
We suggest that an actor — network theory approach, without making a priori assumptions about the role that technology, society, politics and economics can enact, is a powerful theoretical instrument in the study of ERP. Drawing from a comparative analysis of four systems (Compiere, Erp5, GNUe and Open for Business), we show how the choice of a free/open source license was made according to different goals, and entered in the translation processes taking place in the ERP development; shaping communities, customers and developers.
In conclusion, we believe that our approach can be fruitfully applied to the study of other topics connected to ERP, such as accountability, thanks to its ability to show how the different aspects are relationally shaped.
Chapter PDF
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
S. Sismondo, An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies (Blackwell, Oxford, 2004).
M. Callon, Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay, First published in J. Law, Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? (Routledge, London, 1986), pp. 196–223.
J. Law, Traduction/Trahison: Notes on ANT, published by the Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YN (1997); http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/Law-Traduction-Trahison.pdf [31/01/2006].
B. Latour, On Recalling ANT, published by the Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YN, (1998); http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/Latour-Recalling-ANT.pdf[31/01/2006].
Garfinkel, Studies in Ethnometodology (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1967).
L. Suchman, Representing practice in cognitive science in Representation in scientific practice, Michael Lynch (ed.), (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1990).
Schutz, Scritti Sociologici (UTET, Torino, 1979).
L. Winner, Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus 109, 121–136 (1980).
S. L. Star, The Ethnography of Infrastructure, American Behavioural Scientist 43, 377–391 (1999).
B. Latour, We Have Never Been Modern (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1993).
Lanzara and M. Morner, Artifacts Rule! How Organizing Happens in Open Software Projects, in Actor Network Theory and Organizing. B. Czarniawska, T. Hernes (eds.), (Copenhagen Business School Press, Copenhagen, 2005).
P. Bourdieu, Le sens pratique (Edition de la maison des sciences de l’homme, Paris, 1980).
Free Software Foundation, Various Licenses and Comments about Them (2005); http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html [31/01/2006].
S. De Paoli An Actor-Network Theory for the GNU/GPL Software License, Berlin. 21th EGOS Colloquium (2005).
D. Hakken, The Knowledge Landscapes of Cyberspace (Routledge, London, 2003).
C. Geertz, Interpretation of Cultures (Basic Books, New York, 1973).
P. T. Have, Understanding Qualitative Research and Ethnomethodology. (Sage, London, 2004).
D. M. Berry, The Contestation of Code: A Preliminary Investigation into the Discourse of the Free/Libre and Open Source Movement, Critical Discourse Studies 1(1), 65–89 (2004).
La Spina and G. Majone, Lo Stato Regolatore (Il Mulino, Bologna, 2000).
L. Suchman, Located Accountabilities in Technology Production. Sawyer Seminar on Heterarchies, Santa Fe Institute, October (2000).
Nissenbaum, Accountability in a computerized society, Science and Engineering Ethics 2(2), 25–42 (1996).
S. David, Opening the Sources of Accountability, First Monday 9(11), (2004).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 International Federation for Information Processing
About this paper
Cite this paper
Erbizzoni, E., Teli, M., Campagnolo, G., De Paoli, S., D’Andrea, V. (2006). Free/Open Source ERP and Translation Processes: Four Empirical Cases. In: Tjoa, A.M., Xu, L., Chaudhry, S.S. (eds) Research and Practical Issues of Enterprise Information Systems. IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, vol 205. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-34456-X_76
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-34456-X_76
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-34345-7
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-34456-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)