Multi-Dimensional Architecture of ERPII Performance Evaluation Based on Symbolic Informatics Theory

Xianhao Wu

Management School, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.

DOI: 10.4236/jssm.2015.84063                

Abstract

Based on single dimension of economics, IT Performance evaluation model can no longer perfectly explain IT productivity paradox. This paper proposes a multidimensional evaluation framework including social, psychological, cognitive, economic, managerial dimensions. Drawing on symbolic informatics theory, this paper analyzes several questions. What is the ERPII performance? What is personalized performance architecture? How does the performance dynamically form and what is the specific structure of performance? How to demonstrate performance? In this paper, we propose that ERPII performance evaluation should be multidimensional. During the implementation of ERP/ERPII, not only enterprises should focus on economic and management performance, but social and cognitive performance should also be considered. This model will make contribution to the study of the symbolic informatics theory and research methods. It will produce profound effect on studying information system by the methods of sociology and psychology.

Keywords

Symbolic Informatics Theory, ERP, Performance, Architecture Model

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Fu, S.C. and Wang, H.F. (2010) Collaborative Implementation of ERPII Systems in Modular Industry Cluster. The 2010 International Conference on Management Science and Engineering (MSE 2010). Engineering Technology Press, Wuhan, 215-220.
[2]	Koh, S.C.L., Gunasekaran, A. and Goodman, T. (2011) Drivers Barriers and Critical Success Factors for ERPII Implementation in Supply Chains: A Critical Analysis. Journal of strategic Information System, 20, 385-402
[3]	Brynjolfsson, E. (1993) The Productivity Paradox of Information Technology: Review and Assessment. Communications of ACM, 36, 66-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/163298.163309
[4]	Bakos, Y. (1998) The Productivity Payoff of Computers. Science, 281, 52-52.
[5]	Hosking, D.M. (1991) Chief Executives, Organizing Processes, and Skill. European Review of Applied Psychology, 41, 95-103.
[6]	Goldkuhl, G. and Lyytinen, K. (1982) A Language Action View of Information Systems. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Information Systems, Ann Arbor, 13-29
[7]	Feldman, M. and March, J. (1981) Information as Signal and Symbol. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 171-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392467
[8]	Eriksson, O. and Ågerfalk, P.J. (2010) Rethinking the Meaning of Identifiers in Information Infrastructures. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11, 433-454.
[9]	March, J.G. and Simon, H.A. (1958) Organizations. Wiley, New York.
[10]	March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1976) Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 765-767.
[11]	Weick, K.E. (1979) The Social Psychology of Organizing. 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
[12]	Archer, M. (2003) Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139087315
[13]	Archer, M. (2007) Making Our Way through the World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618932
[14]	Sirgy, M.J. (1982) Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 287-300.