Week 2 – Shadow Systems

  1. Respond to the following: Shadow systems are frequently used as a justification for the implementation of ERPs. Shadow systems are often, but not always, reflective of practice and data storage needs in particular functional silos. Yet oddly, the implementation of an ERP doesn’t always eliminate these systems – sometimes, the number of them increases. Suggest possible causes. What threat do these systems pose to integration? Who or what else might be threatened by the existence of these systems?
  2. In relation to your assignment 1, the annotated bibliography, find an article that you can write an annotation on. Prepare a draft annotation, citing the article, in your blog.

Answer Week2: Shadow Systems

Shadow Systems can be anything from personal spreadsheets to a whole redundant ERP system, used to ensure that all the functionality and data is available after an upgrade or replacement. Often there seems to be valid reasons for these systems to exist could be to support a specialised requirement, to analyse company data in a different ways then what is available in the corporate ERP, or simply ‘because there is no other way to get the data they need for their jobs’ (Sherman, 2004).

Shadow systems are a threat to organisational control and as stated by Jones et al (2004) these systems ‘undermine ES implementation and as such should be eliminated’. The problem of staff creating thousands of disparate MS Access databases became so large for the Australian Department of Defence that their Chief Information Organisation Group (CIOG), implemented a policy in 2005 that removed the MS Access application from most users’ profiles. They then obligated each owner of these databases to submit justification as to why these shadow systems should be migrated before all remaining files were deleted.

The purpose of an Enterprise system is to provide a “seamless integration of all the information flowing through a company—financial and accounting information, human resource information, supply chain information, and customer information” (Davenport, 1998, p. 121). A shadow system is a threat to the success of ERP because it is not integrated. The consequence of this lack of integration is that inaccurate or incomplete information can lead to poor decision making. The double entry requirement needed to maintain a shadow system can:

  • Increase costs,
  • Increase the time taken to access information,  
  • Reduce customer satisfaction,
  • Reduce productivity,
  • Reduce agility, and
  • Reduce collaboration.

Shadow systems are normally generated for a specific purpose and not part of any central plan. When a company tries to make an internal assessment of their processes and business state, these shadow systems are often where the most valuable information is stored, but create a real headache for integrators in the development of ERP systems.




Davenport, T 1998, ‘Putting the Enterprise into the Enterprise System’ Harvard Business Review, July August, pp. 121–131, viewed 18 July 2013


Jones, D, Behrens, S, Jamieson, K & Tansley, E 2004, The rise and fall of a shadow system: lessons for enterprise system implementation, pp. 1-15, viewed 20 July 2013, http://davidtjones.wordpress.com/publications/the-rise-and-fall-of-a-shadow-system-lessons-for-enterprise-system-implementation/


Sherman, R 2004, ‘Shedding Light on Data Shadow Systems’, Information Management News, viewed 25 July 2013



Draft Annotation

Sherman, Ric ‘Shedding Light on Data Shadow Systems’, Information Management News (2004)


The author of this article has twenty years of experience in business intelligence and data warehousing, he is the founder of Athena IT Solutions, and has been intricately involved in more than fifty ERP implementations.


In this document the author describes the reasons given as to why Shadow systems exist and the history of their development. He explains some advantages to these systems for their creators, but also how dangerous these systems can be to the efficiency, coordination and decision making of the company as a whole.


The author describes how ES implementers can’t just take a shadow system “out behind the woolshed and shoot it”. The implementers and the owner of the shadow system, need to work together to ensure that the data is not lost. The company needs to sell the concept to its employees, that replacing multiple shadow systems with a single Enterprise System ‘lets business users increase their productivity by focusing on their work, rather than the mechanics of how it gets done.’

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: