Walking a mile in their shoes: user workarounds in a SAP environment

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine workarounds from the perspective of the users of the system, focusing on the outcomes of workarounds and their effect on the quality of accounting information. Design/methodology/approach Interviews were conducted with employees in the accounting functions at two international organizations using SAP for their enterprise system. Results were coded by two experienced researchers and one undergraduate student, and included a categorization of the outcomes of workarounds. Findings The most striking result is the difference in views of workarounds between the two organizations. While workarounds are discouraged by the accounting function at both organizations, one seeks out workarounds and enforces standards while the other has not yet achieved process standardization. Not surprisingly, users view the workarounds of others as very detrimental to the quality of accounting information, but view their own workarounds as critical to maintain quality. Practical implications Organizations should obtain input from system users to document the extent that workarounds are used within the organization to determine the impact on the quality of their financial reporting. Originality/value The focus on outcomes of workarounds is an important shift in the literature, and more work is needed to further refine the categories used in this research, particularly for the effect of workarounds on internal controls and information quality. Additionally, this research surfaced a very strong difference in the actions taken to deal with workarounds, which may be due to organizational cultures.

Workaround behaviour in information systems research

“…From the sampled articles, Alter (2014) was the most quoted author with 157 citations, followed by Alvarez (2008) with 135 citations. However, the authors with more publications on the theme are Azad and King (2008, p. 212), Malaurent and Avison (2015, 2016) and Drum et al (2016, 2017), respectively.…”

“…However, from employees’ point of view, the system does not always fulfill their needs and so they resort to other means to accomplish their jobs, utilizing other softwares or resources, such as Excel sheets. Therefore, the adoption of alternative solutions by the employees leads to unnecessary IS investments by the companies and to the implementation of systems that will not be fully utilized due to the provided information incapacity to fulfill the needs to accomplish the tasks and the decision-making process (Drum et al , 2016). Figure 3 shows the word cloud of abstract, title and keywords.…”

“…The research developed by Laumer et al (2017) used the key constructs in the DeLone and McLean's model and validated a measuring scale for the workaround behavior. Drum et al (2016Drum et al ( , 2017 used only the quality of accounting information in the SAP ISs' dimension.…”

“…Alternative solutions may produce different results for the actors involved: on one hand, the employees adopt an alternative solution according to their needs, with the finality of overcoming obstacles in their work activities. On the other hand, there is the organization’s concerns about the risks related to the adoption of these solutions (Drum et al , 2016). The alternative solutions can be essential sources for analyzing and learning policies and procedures, or enabling a positive resistance ensuring the continuity of a work task (Campbell, 2011) or the unfavorable environment perceives alternative solutions as breaching and resisting business process standards and security policies restrictions (Boudreau and Robey, 2005).…”

“…However, the organization is often not aware that the employees are applying other solutions for the job completion. The workaround behavior can have different results for the employees and for the organization, because the adoption and use of alternative solutions are individual, according to the necessities and abilities of each user, and the result of its adoption may not be desired by the organization (Drum et al , 2016).…”