Critical factors for successful ERP implementation:

Exploratory ndings from four case studies

Jaideep Motwani
a,
*
, Ram Subramanian
a
, Pradeep Gopalakrishna
b
a
Seidman School of Business, Grand Valley State University, Department of Management,
401 West Fulton, Grand Rapids, MI 49504, USA
b
Department of Marketing and International Business, Lubin School of Business, Pace University, New York, NY 10038, USA
Received 29 March 2004; received in revised form 14 December 2004; accepted 13 February 2005
Available online 21 July 2005
Abstract
As more and more organizations move from functional to process-based ITinfrastructure, ERP systems are becoming one of
todays most widespread IT solutions. However, not all rms have been successful in their ERP implementations. Using a case
study methodology grounded in business process change theory, this research tries to understand the factors that lead to the
success or failure of ERP projects. The results from our comparative case study of 4 rms that implemented an ERP system
suggest that a cautious, evolutionary, bureaucratic implementation process backed with careful change management, network
relationships, and cultural readiness have a positive impact on several ERP implementations. Understanding such effects will
enable managers to be more proactive and better prepared for ERP implementation. Managerial implications of the ndings and
future research directions are discussed.
# 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Case studies; Critical factors; ERP; Implementation
1. Introduction
The myriad challenges faced today by global
businesses are expected to grow in intensity and
complexity as we go further into this century. Expanded
global competition has become the norm rather than
the exception, with an unprecedented number and
variety of products available to satisfy consumer needs
anddesires. Inparticular, manyrms have implemented
company-wide systems called Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) systems, which are designed to
integrate and optimize various business processes such
as order entry and production planning across the entire
rm [1]. According to Davenport [2], the business
worlds embrace of enterprise systems may in fact be
the most important development in the corporate use of
information technology in the 1990s.
When used appropriately, ERP software integrates
information used by the accounting, manufacturing,
distribution, and human resources departments into a
www.elsevier.com/locate/compind
Computers in Industry 56 (2005) 529544
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 616 331 7467.
E-mail addresses: motwanij@gvsu.edu (J. Motwani),
subramar@gvsu.edu (R. Subramanian).
0166-3615/$ see front matter # 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compind.2005.02.005
seamless computing system. A successful ERP can be
the backbone of business intelligence for an organiza-
tion, giving management a unied view of its
processes [3]. Unfortunately, ERPs have a reputation
for costing a lot of money and providing meager
results, because the people who are expected to use the
application do not know what it is or how it works.
When ERP software fails, it is usually because the
company did not dedicate enough time or money to
training and managing culture-change issues. Faulty
technology is often blamed, but eight out of nine times,
ERP problems are performance related, says Pat
Begley, senior vice president of educational services at
SAP, an ERP software company in Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania [4].
Given the large nancial commitment that an ERP
project requires and the potential benets it can offer if
successfully implemented, it is important to under-
stand what is needed to ensure a successful ERP
implementation. There are two major objectives of
this study. First, using a methodology grounded in
business process change theory, this research reports
on a comparative case study of 4 U.S. rms that
implemented an ERP system. According to Tarafdar
and Roy [5], there has been no research that analyzes
and generalizes the characteristics and problems of the
ERP implementation experience, on the basis of a
systematic empirical study. Second, based on the
lessons learnt from the literature and case studies, we
than propose a framework be considered for success-
ful implementation of ERP. This framework illustrates
the critical factors/issues that need to be addressed at
all three phases of the implementation process: pre-
implementation or setting-up phase, implementation,
and post-implementation or evaluation phase.
The reasons for selecting the business process
change framework for providing a systematic com-
parative analysis are as follows: First, since ERP
implementation has come to involve changing the
business processes of companies that implement such
software [6], we felt that business process change
(BPC) theory may prove useful in explaining the
outcomes of our case studies. BPC is dened as an
organizational initiative to design business processes
to achieve signicant (breakthrough) improvement in
performance (e.g. quality, responsiveness, cost, ex-
ibility, satisfaction, shareholder value, and other critical
process measures) through changes in the relationships
between management, information technology, orga-
nizational structure, and people [7]. These initiatives
may differ in scope from process improvement to
radical newprocess designs depending on the degree of
change undertaken in each organizational subsystem
and their interactions. Second, the seven constructs and
24 variables covered by Kettinger et al. [7] in their
framework incorporate all the critical success factors
suggested in the ERP literature (Al-Mashari et al. 2003,
[811]).
2. Classication of ERP literature
In order to better understand this burgeoning eld,
the ERP literature is classied into the following two
categories: conceptual/theory building and empirical/
theory testing.
2.1. Conceptual/theory building
In reviewing the conceptual research on ERP, three
distinct research streams emerged. The rst provides
comprehensive overview of ERP systems (Appleton
1997, Bowman 1997, [1216]) and focuses on the
fundamental corporate capabilities driving ERP as a
strategic concept [1723]. These articles cover such
aspects as research agendas; motivations and expecta-
tions; and proposals on how to analyze the value of
ERP systems [24].
A second stream focuses on the details associated
with implementing ERP systems and their relative
success and cost. Specically, the articles in this stream
include topics such as the implementation procedures
[2528], critical success factors [29,810,30,11], pit-
falls and complexities in ERP implementation [3133],
and successful strategies for effective ERP implemen-
tation [34,35,1,3641].
The third stream focuses on the theoretical research
models that have been developed. The theoretical re-
search models covers aspects such as usage of modeling
tools applied in ERP contexts, new business modeling
approaches, and comparison between processes. The
major studies done under this stream include:
Al-Mudimigh et al. [26] propose an integrative
framework for ERP implementation based on an
extensive review of literature and the essential
J. Motwani et al. / Computers in Industry 56 (2005) 529544 530
elements that contribute to success in the context of
ERP implementation.
Arinze and Anandarajan [42] show how object-
oriented mapping methods can be used to rapidly
congure ERP systems.
Hedman [43] presents a competing value approach
enterprise systems framework to discuss enterprise
systems from an organizational effectiveness
perspective.
Park et al. [44] present an object class extraction
methodology of production planning and control
system as a part of ERP environment.
Sock et al. [45] suggest a technological evolution
approach to ERP adoption.
Stensrud and Myrtveit [46] propose the use of data
envelopment analysis variable return to scale to
measure the productivity of software projects.
Stewart and Rosemann [47] discuss the design of a
problem-based learning approach that seeks to
embed industrial knowledge in the ERP-related
curriculum of universities.
Stirna [48] analyzes the acquisition of enterprise
modeling tools.
2.2. Empirical/theory testing
This section deals with the assessment and specic
ERP implementations. Most of the research under this
stream done through eld studies, questionnaire
surveys or case studies illustrates the extent of ERP
implementation and the effects of various factors on
ERP implementation. Specically, these studies cover
different perspectives in particular situations such as:
ERP impacts, applied theories to specic ERP issues,
organizational change management, business process
reengineering, people roles, and decision-making [24].
The major empirical studies on theory testing include:
Akkermans and van Helden [49] analyze and
explain project performance in one ERP imple-
mentation in the aviation industry.
Akkermans et al. [50] present results from a Delphi
study on the future impact of ERP on supply chain
management.
Al-Mashari and Al-Mudimigh [51] describes a
case study of a failed implementation of ERP to
reengineer the business processes of a major
manufacturer.
Ash and Burn [52] demonstrate the integration
of ERP and non-ERP systems using web-based
technologies.
Bernroider and Koch [53] detail the ERP selection
process in midsized and large organizations.
Everdingen et al. [54] discuss the ERP adoption by
European midsize companies.
Huang and Palvia [55] identify a range of issues
concerning ERP implementation by making a
comparison of advanced and developing countries.
Koch and Buhl [56] discuss and study the concept of
ERP-supported teamworking in Danish manufac-
turing.
Mirchandani and Motwani [57] examine the end-
user perception of ERP systems at an international
automobile supplier.
Motwani et al. [58] uses a case study methodology
to compare a successful ERP implementation with
an unsuccessful one.
Olhager and Selldin [59] present a survey of ERP
implementation in Swedish manufacturing rms.
Robey et al. [60] report on a comparative case study
of 13 industrial rms that implemented an ERP
system. They compare rms on their dialectic
learning process.
Sheu et al. [61] investigate the relationships
between national differences and multi-national
ERP implementation.
Tarafdar and Roy [5] analyze the adoption of ERP
systems in Indian organizations.
Tatsiopoulos et al. [62] propose a structured risk
management approach for the successful imple-
mentation of ERP systems. The application of the
proposed methodology is demonstrated with a case
study company from the oil industry.
Trimmer et al. [63] indicate support for the
continuing use of critical success factors to help
focus on the benets of ERPs in rural health
care.
Schniederjans and Kim [64] discuss survey results
on implementing ERPs with total quality manage-
ment and business process reengineering.
Sheng et al. [65] examine the relationship between
organizational culture and employees self-efcacy
for a sample of 352 subjects.
Voordijk et al. [66] discuss the factors that lead to
the success or failure of ERP in large construction
rms.
J. Motwani et al. / Computers in Industry 56 (2005) 529544 531
It is clear from the review of the literature that
much work has been done in the area of ERP
implementation. However, what is lacking in the
extant literature is a systematic, theory-linked study of
characteristics of successful and unsuccessful ERP
implementation.
3. Methodology
A case study approach was employed to identify
the factors that facilitate and inhibit the success of
ERP implementation. The criterion used to select the
case study companies was that each of the case studies
should use ERP software from the same vendor. Data
was collected primarily through interviews, observa-
tions, and archival sources. Interviews were conducted
with executives who were familiar with the ERP
implementation progress. Archival documentation
was the third major source of data used in the
research. Feasibility studies, reports, memos, minutes
of meetings, proposals, newspaper articles, and books
that were available were reviewed and the contents
analyzed. These documents were collected and
analyzed to identify and/or validate data.
During the data collection, special attention was
given to ascertaining whether evidence from different
sources converged on a similar set of facts. Guidelines
in the existing literature on the enhancement of
retrospective data accuracy were followed in the
process of data collection. When all the evidence had
been reviewed, and after an initial case study narrative
was documented, the factual portion of the case study
was reviewed by the major informants in the company.
Such a review was not only a minimal procedure
for validating the data collection process, but also
a courtesy to those who had cooperated with the
research.
4. Case analysis
4.1. Background of case study companies and
identication of business need
In this section, a brief background of the four
companies and the need for implementing ERP is
provided.
4.1.1. Company A (pharmaceutical)
Company A is one of the nations largest
manufacturers of over-the-counter (non-prescription)
pharmaceutical and nutritional products for the
store brand market. The companys products include
over-the-counter pharmaceuticals such as analgesics,
coughs and cold remedies, antacids, laxatives,
feminine hygiene, smoking cessation products,
vitamins, nutritional supplements and nutritional
drinks. Over the years, Company A has seen
substantial growth with net sales now exceeding
$900 million. To serve its customers better, the
company recently decided to upgrade its inventory
management process that ran on an AS/400
system. An ERP solution seemed to be the logical
answer, providing the ability to integrate account-
ing, inventory, production planning and materials
management.
4.1.2. Company B (footwear)
Company B is a leading designer, manufacturer,
and marketer of a broad line of casual shoes, work
footwear, and constructed slippers and moccasins. The
company employs approximately 6600 production,
ofce and sales employees. Products are distributed
domestically to over 65,000 department stores, foot-
wear chains, catalogs, specialty retailers, and mass
merchant accounts. The products are also distributed
worldwide in 134 markets through licensees and
distributors. The company sold over 38 million pairs
of its footwear in 1999. Prior to the implementation of
ERP, the sales, marketing and operations functions of
the company ran on an AS/400 system. The system
required an extremely long time to complete a task,
from shipping an order to entering a production
schedule for the factory. To obtain even the most basic
information, a 68 h process was necessary. Also, the
inventory reports would only show current on hand
inventory unadjusted for orders already in the system.
Promises were made to customers without knowing
if the gross available inventory was earmarked for
another customer. The drawbacks of the legacy AS/
400 system were the driving forces behind the
implementation of the ERP system.
4.1.3. Company C (energy)
Company C is a global energy company with
revenues exceeding 50 billion dollars. The company is
J. Motwani et al. / Computers in Industry 56 (2005) 529544 532
engaged in exploration, production, rening, market-
ing, and distribution of energy products and technol-
ogies. Prior to the implementation of ERP, the sales,
marketing and operations functions of the company
ran on about 30 different legacy systems. The mix of
aging legacy systems that led to high cost support and
lack of data visibility was the driving forces behind the
implementation of the ERP system.
4.1.4. Company D (automobile)
Case company D is primarily a supplier of wiring
harnesses for the automotive industry. It was formed
in 1986 as a result of a joint venture between 2
Japanese companies. The company has 28 facilities
in the United States, Mexico and Canada. The
company is broken down into three divisions:
wireless, components, and electronics. Case com-
pany D began operations with an information system
that was owned by one of the parent companies in
Japan. This system was designed to work well in a
decentralized manufacturing environment. As com-
pany D rapidly grew, it developed a centralized
supply chain. Since the original system was written
and supported by the parent company it was difcult
for the case company to tailor the existing system to
support its own unique business needs. Another
weakness with the system included the fact that the
general ledger system was not year 2000 compliant.
The more important fact was that the parent company
had abandoned development of the system and it
would not be made year 2000 compliant. The
programming language used for the legacy system
was not mainstream, and therefore, it was difcult to
nd and retain experts to support the system. These
were the two primary factors that lead the senior
management to determine in 1996 that changes were
in order.
4.2. Constructs: denition and analysis
This section briey describes each construct of the
research model [67] and then provides summative
ndings of our case studies for each variable under the
construct. Whenever appropriate, respondents state-
ments are quoted to illustrate the construct. Consistent
with the research objectives, specic questions were
asked concerning each construct. The research
ndings are summarized in Table 1.
4.2.1. Construct 1: strategic initiatives
Process change typically begins with strategic
initiatives (often included in the corporate strategic
plan) from the senior management team [68]. These
could be a reaction to a need (e.g., companys inability
to provide adequate customer service) or a proactive
push to leverage potential opportunities [69]. Evi-
dence also exists that strategic change, and arguably
process change, is often incremental, informal,
emergent, and is based on learning through small
gains [70] versus being revolutionary and radical. This
construct consists of four variables discussed below.
4.2.1.1. Stimuli. Both companies A and B were
strategically reactive to the environment and the
needs of their customers. Company A realized that it
needed a new inventory system to keep track of its
more that 30,000 stock keeping units. Company B
realized a need to reduce production lead times and to
provide real time order information to customers. In
contrast, Companies C and D realized the problems
with their legacy systems and therefore, were more
proactive in their desire for ERP systems.
4.2.1.2. Formulation scope. Company A formulated
and maintained a strategy of revolutionary change
from the start. They envisioned a sweeping all-at-
once approach of replacing the legacy system with
the ERP system. Company B on the other hand started
out by implementing the ERP system in only their
Marketing and Finance functions on advise from the
ERP vendor. They envisioned an incremental, phased
approach of introducing the system into the company.
Company Cs scope emulated A while Ds scope was
more in keeping with B.
4.2.1.3. Decision making. This construct indicates an
important difference in the top management styles of
the two companies. Company As managerial style
may be described as autocratic with the top manage-
ment mandating initiative without taking into con-
sideration the majority sentiment of the company. As
one interviewee candidly remarked:
We (Company A) tried to prepare ourselves for the
implementation in every means possible. Thousands
of hours of training classes were completed and
selected individuals were polled for their opinion of
J. Motwani et al. / Computers in Industry 56 (2005) 529544 533
J
.
M
o
t
w
a
n
i
e
t
a
l
.
/
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
s
i
n
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
5
6
(
2
0
0
5
)
5
2
9

5
4
4
5
3
4
Table 1
Comparative analysis
Construct Company A Company B Company C Company D
Strategic Initiatives
Stimuli Reactive Reactive Proactive Proactive
Formulation scope Revolutionary Incremental Revolutionary Incremental
Decision making Autocratic Bureaucratic Semi bureaucratic Bureaucratic
Strategy led Not strategy led From onset (tied in with BPC
and ERP efforts)
From onset From onset (tied in with
BPC and ERP efforts)
Learning capacity
Adaptation Response to technology
change, however,
underestimated the complexity
Response to technology change Response to technology change Response to technology
change
Improved efciency Learning by doing Learning by doing and consultants
prior knowledge
Learnt more from others Learning by doing and
consultants prior knowledge
Declarative knowledge Did not develop knowledge base Developed knowledge base Developed partial knowledge base Developed knowledge base
External information use Boundary spanners (consultants)
and customers
Technology gatekeepers (employees),
boundary spanners, customers
Less of employees and customers,
more of consultants
Employees, consultants and
voice of customers
Learning type Deutero type of learning Deutero type of learning Deutero type of learning Deutero type of learning
Cultural readiness
Change agents and leadership
(initiative for ERP)
Senior management and CEO Senior management and middle
management teams
More Senior management and less
middle management.
Senior management and
middle management teams.
Risk aversion Aggressive Cautious Semi aggressive Semi cautious
Open communications Low High Medium Medium to high
Cross-training Very minimal Some Some Some
IT leveragibility and knowledge-sharing
IT role Enabling Enabling Enabling Enabling
Use of communication technology Medium High High High
Network relationships
Interorganizational linkages Low (focused on IT staff) High (with vendor) Medium (with vendor) High (with vendor)
Cross-functional cooperation Medium High High High
Change management
Pattern of change Semiformal process Formal phased process Formal phased process Formal phased process
Management readiness to change Committed Committed Committed Committed
Scope of change Radical Improvement Semi radical Improvement
Management of change Inadequate (ignored employees) Adequate Semi adequate (involved
employees partially)
Adequate
Process management
Process measurement Little (process mapping and
diagnostic techniques)
Use of process metrics Use of process metrics Use of process metrics
Tools and techniques High High High High
Team based No Yes Semi Yes
readiness for the go-live date. However, upper
management ultimately made the decision to throw
the ON switch before the employees believed in or
understood the software. The result was extremely
costly, not only in dollars, but also in lost customers
and customer service. Many employees wondered
why the switch was ever made fromthe legacy AS/400
system to the ERP. Employees were disturbed and
frightened by the new and complicated ERP system.
On the other hand, a team-approach was followed
at Companies B, C, and D that eventually received a
bureaucratic consensus to proceed at a corporate-level.
4.2.1.4. Strategy led. Company As approach to
implementing the ERP in retrospect seems to be
hurried and not strategically thought out. The company
tried to introduce a complex new system all-at-once
within a time frame of only 6 months of preparation
(January 1998 through July 1998). They did not take
into account that disruptions to the information systems
in their peak production season of September through
December could prove fatal. Company B, as was the
case with Cand D, on the other hand devised a strategic
plantiedinwithits ERPandBPCefforts that focusedon
incremental improvements.
For example, the project leader in Company D was
tasked with developing the master plan and imple-
mentation deadline. The rst step was to determine
which modules of Business Process Change System
(BPCS) to implement. BPCS is like many ERP
systems in that it has a modular design. The project
team determined that the nance function (Congur-
able Enterprise Financials including sub-modules for
accounts payable, accounts receivable, general ledger
and xed assets) would be the rst to be converted to
the new system, giving users time to get used to the
new system. Converting the operations function to the
ERP system would follow (Supply Chain Manage-
ment including sub-modules for congurable order
management and out-bound logistics management,
Manufacturing Data Management, Shop Floor Con-
trol, Master Production Scheduling, Manufacturing
Resource Management, Distribution Resource Plan-
ning, Purchasing, Inventory Control, and various other
implied support modules).
The modules were selected in conjunction with the
determination of which facilities would be imple-
mented rst. Senior management further determined
that BPCS would be installed concurrently in the main
components division plant in Kentucky. This plant was
selected because of the unique business needs of this
plant compared to a wire harness division plant. This
facility was different in that it performed its own
material control functions and directly shipped to the
end customer. Wire harness plants relied on centra-
lized distribution facilities for the material control
functions and shipped nished goods to centralized
customer service centers. The legacy system was
designed to support wire harness needs and was a poor
t for the components division plant.
At the time of implementation, the project team
was modied to include more individuals who were
going to be directly using or supervising those who
would be using the software. The nal project team
consisted of forty associates. They were divided into
eight functional teams that focused on one aspect or
module for implementation. These teams met weekly
during the implementation. The team captains met
collectively once per month. In addition to the asso-
ciates there were three fulltime consultants from New
Century Systems (NCS) that worked with the teams to
organize activity and provide product expertise.
4.2.2. Construct 2: learning capacity
The major goal of learning is to provide positive
outcomes through effective adaptation to environmen-
tal changes and improved efciency in the process of
learning [71]. Adaptation involves making appropriate
responses to technological changes and learning from
other organizations that have achieved the best practices
in the industry [72]. Increased efciency can come from
learning by doing [73] and accumulation of knowl-
edge through cross-functional interfaces [74]. Learning
can also be brought about by scanning external
information [71]. This can come from organizational
employees who constantly review the environment
for new developments and opportunities (technology
gatekeepers), consultants who span the boundary
between the environment and the organization
(boundary spanners), and from customers. Construct
2 consists of ve variables that are discussed below.
4.2.2.1. Adaptation. All the companies showed some
tendency to create a learning environment based on
appropriately responding to technological changes or
J. Motwani et al. / Computers in Industry 56 (2005) 529544 535
learning from other organizations that had achieved
best practices in the industry. Though company Awas
aware of the ERP mishaps of other companies they
assumed they would be easily able to adapt to the
new technology with the help of ERP consultants,
some training and a live system in place. But they
seriously underestimated the complexity of the new
technology.
4.2.2.2. Improved efciency. Company A as well as
B and D had a tendency to improve learning efciency
through learning by doing. After the initial shock of
being thrown into the new system, Company As
employees gradually became more comfortable with
the system. By February of 1999, they were starting to
master the transactions needed to complete normal
business operations, and production and shipment
levels returned to normal levels. Company Bs
employees were ready in time for Phase two of the
implementation process. This involved bringing
live additional features the ERP system had to offer
that had not been fully recognized in Phase one. In
contrast, Company C learnt from others, primarily
from consultants.
4.2.2.3. Declarative knowledge. Company As
approach of bringing the ERP system live all-at-
once did not allow for the building of a collective
knowledge base (of experiences) for the company. On
the other hand, the other three companies phased
implementation of the ERP system into the Marketing
and Finance areas in Phase one allowed for the
Operations area to learn from their experiences in
Phase two of the implementation.
4.2.2.4. External information use. All four compa-
nies made use of external information to enhance their
learning capacity. While Company A used consultants
who acted as boundary spanners, they also listened
to the voice of the customer. Company B made
use of technology gatekeepers who were company
employees aware of the advantages and pitfalls of
new technology. They too widely used consultants
(boundary spanners) and surveyed customers to assess
gaps in customer service.
4.2.2.5. Learning type. All four companies adopted a
deutero type of learning, and were willing to adopt a
strategy for learning based on past failures. Deutero
learning can be dened as higher-level learning that
occurs when members reect on past learning
experiences to discover new strategies for learning.
For example, an employee of Company A commented:
In retrospect, the implementation should have been
pushed back to January of 1999. In turn, customer
service during the busy season would not have been
as adversely affected. It also would have given more
time for the employees to gain knowledge and become
comfortable with the new applications. Upper man-
agement even admitted they were in error when they
decided to go live in September and apologized to
the employees.
4.2.3. Construct 3: cultural readiness
Organizational culture facilitates (or inhibits) the
integration of individual learning with organizational
learning by inuencing the organizations ability to
learn, share information, and make decisions [75].
According to [71], leadership (top management)
support or change agents (e.g., BPCS team) may be
considered important prerequisites for business
process change. Open communication and informa-
tion sharing can promote a common culture and
innovative behavior in the organization. So also can
cross-functional training and personnel movement
within the organization [71]. This construct comprises
of the following four variables.
4.2.3.1. Change agents and leadership. Company
As initiative for the ERP system came directly from
the senior management and the chief executive ofcer.
On the other hand, Company Bs initiative, similar to
C and D, for the ERP system came from both senior
management and middle management teams. Three
crucial teams were assembled to ensure successful
implementationa strategic thinking team, a business
analysts group, and an operations group.
4.2.3.2. Risk aversion. With respect to risk aversion,
Company A was clearly more aggressive than
Company B as was C in relation to D in deciding
to implement the ERP system in a short time frame
and also all-at-once. Company B cautiously chose
to follow a phased implementation of a chosen few
features of the ERP system.
J. Motwani et al. / Computers in Industry 56 (2005) 529544 536
4.2.3.3. Open communications. Company B encour-
aged participation of its employees in the process of
ERP implementation much more than Company A
did. In fact, A scored the lowest in all four companies.
4.2.3.4. Cross-training. None of the four companies
attached much importance to cross-training and
personnel movement within the organization. In fact
the re-distribution of job responsibilities caused by the
ERP systemgreatly confused Company As employees.
4.2.4. Construct 4: information technology
leveragability and knowledge-sharing capability
The role of ITin the business process change project
could be either dominant or as an enabler. Evidence
suggests that IT led projects often fail to capture the
business and human dimensions of processes, and are
likely to fail ([76,77]). A case is often made for the
socio-technical design approach that suggests a mutual,
bi-directional relationship between IT and the organi-
zation (Mumford, 1994). Such an approach recom-
mends synergy between the business, human and IT
dimensions of an organization and could be promoted
through cross-functional teams. The following two
variables represent this construct.
4.2.4.1. ITrole. All companies used their information
technology departments as facilitators of the process
of ERP implementation. Company B took steps to
ensure that users and all functional areas were
considered in the systems development process.
For example, at Company A, interface to existing
systems was created at two levels. The IT department
played a very active role at both these levels. The rst
being interfaces of the systems at non-BPCS facilities
into the nancial elements of the BPCS general ledger
system. This was accomplished via a mechanism that
is supplied with the BPCS for performing this type of
integration. It is referred to as Batch Transaction
Processing (BTP). The second level was the interfa-
cing of the new data collection system dcServ into
the BPCS inventory and shop oor control modules.
Since a vendor, dcServ, was selected because of the
pre-existing relationship with BPCS this interface
was purchased as a component of the data collection
system. The individual shop oor and inventory control
transactions were dened and congured during this
phase. In addition to these on-going interfaces, there
was a need to convert data from existing nancial
applications over to BPCS. Examples of these les
were: item master, bills of material, customer master,
vendor master, and many others. In all there were about
thirty les that required conversion. There was no
existing tool to accomplish this so the case company
hired a consultant familiar with the BPCS le structures
to write the programs necessary to convert this data.
Company C also used their IT department as
facilitators of the process of ERP implementation.
They took steps to ensure that users and all functional
areas were considered in the systems development
process. A business analyst group was formed to
provide additional feedback to the ERP experts. This
group was involved with piloting. They were given
access to the ERP virtual screens. They would spend
time entering orders and tracking them as they
downloaded to the warehouse. Financial reports and
transactions were also included in the dry run. This
process began as soon as the ERP crew set up the
system and continued through until 2 months before
the go live date date. When the business analysts
were comfortable with the system, trainers were
brought on board from each divisions different
functional areas. Team leaders were assigned to each
area of the business and were responsible for coordi-
nating training sessions. Hundreds of hours were
spent on training the trainers. The trainers were
responsible for teaching the other members of their
division. Again many hours were spent bringing all
employees of the company up to speed with the ERP.
4.2.4.2. Use of communication technology. Commu-
nications technology such as e-mail enabled effective
communication and team work. Companies B, C, and
D used teams effectively during the implementation,
and thus leveraged communication technology better
in the process.
4.2.5. Construct 5: network relationships
Research indicates that under most circumstances
cooperative, interpersonal and group behavior results
in superior performance [78]. In terms of inter-
organizational processes, research indicates the
benets of partnering with external suppliers [79].
Organizations that can manage these aspects of
competition and cooperation continuously can benet
from employee incentives and controls, as well as
J. Motwani et al. / Computers in Industry 56 (2005) 529544 537
instill change more effectively [71]. Two variables
account for this construct.
4.2.5.1. Interorganizational linkages. Company B
(similar to C and D) worked very closely with the
ERP vendor during the implementation process,
even allowing vendor consultants remote access to
their system. When any problems were discovered,
managers would meet to discuss the same and contact
vendor consultants for xes. One manager described
this:
The project managers would convene to discuss each
problem. If they felt it was an issue they could remedy
immediately, they would again call upon the vendor
consultants. Vendor consultants could remotely access
our ERP system to make the changes requested.
On the other hand, Company A chose to rely on its
own IT staff and hired external consultants to work in-
house to correct problems. For example, at company
A, the project team and NCS initially worked with the
various software and hardware vendors to develop
the project budget. The initial project budget would
include the cost of the AS/400 system, the BPCS
software, dcServ software, a full education curriculum,
consulting services, and multitude of incidental
expenses. The initial implementation was $1.9 million.
They tentatively dened the phase II costs that would be
incurred when expanding the system to the other
facilities. The phase II budget was $4.93 million to
expand BPCS to all facilities in North America.
4.2.5.2. Cross-functional cooperation. Company Bs
phased implementation plan mandated close coopera-
tion between the functional areas that rst imple-
mented the ERP system with those that implemented
the system later. Company As all-at-once imple-
mentation led to lower cross-functional cooperation. C
and D were similar to B.
4.2.6. Construct 6: change management practice
Change management involves effectively balan-
cing forces in favor of a change over forces of
resistance [80]. Organizations, groups, or individuals
resist changes that they perceive threaten them [71]. It
has been suggested that corporate transformation
require a general dissatisfaction with the status quo by
employees who have to change (i.e. a readiness to
change), a vision of the future, and a well-managed
change process. Revolutionary and evolutionary
change theorists propose contrasting tactics for
accomplishing change [81] that vary depending on
the type of employee involvement, communication
about the change, and leadership nature.
Thus, the pattern of change (formal versus
informal), managements readiness to change (i.e.
being committed to it, participative in the process, or
resistant to it), scope of change (continuous improve-
ment versus radical change), management of change
(alleviation of dissatisfaction, top managements
vision for change, well managed process of change,
and use of evolutionary versus revolutionary change
tactics) are the key constructs in practicing change
management [67].
4.2.6.1. Pattern of change. Company A showed little
or no formality in the process of change whereas the
other three followed a structured methodology
recommended by the ERP vendor.
4.2.6.2. Management readiness for change. The
management of all four companies was committed
and ready for the change process. However while
Company As management underestimated the com-
plexity of the process, On the other hand, the man-
agement of the other three case study companies had
taken into consideration that glitches would occur in the
process and were not alarmed when they did occur.
4.2.6.3. Scope of change. The radical scope of the
ERP project at Company A created expectations for
immediate improved performance. When this did not
happen, frustration and disappointment crept into the
company. Company B, however was not prepared to
make any radical changes to the organization (as did C
and D) and quickly found out that the best way to
succeed was through incremental change. Credibility
established with these small successes eventually
paved the way for larger-scale changes.
4.2.6.4. Management of change. Clearly, Company
A inadequately managed the change process. They did
not take into account employee readiness or satisfac-
tion with the new system. Top management was
unable to convey to the employees their vision for
change. Most employees did not understand the need
J. Motwani et al. / Computers in Industry 56 (2005) 529544 538
for change from the legacy system. The process of
change too was not well managed with the aid of a
formal methodology. The revolutionary change scared
the employees and left them confused. The other three
companies followed just the opposite approach and
management was able to take all employees in their
fold. Employees were willing to allocate a large
amount of their time to the project. They were aided by
training sessions that were available both day and
night. The open communication encouraged by
management gave users a sense of ownership of the
system.
4.2.7. Construct 7: process management practice
Process management is dened as a set of concepts
and practices aimed at better stewardship of business
processes [2]. It combines methodological approaches
with human resource management to improve the
outcome of business process change [71]. Successful
process management uses process measurement (use
of process metrics, process information capture,
improvement feedback loop, and process audit), tools
and techniques (e.g. quality control tools, data ow
diagrams, CASE tools, and simulation) and docu-
mentation (e.g. process ow chart analysis, shbone
and root cause analysis). This construct comprises of
the following three variables.
4.2.7.1. Process measurement. Company A used
some process mapping and diagnosis techniques to
study the as-is process as well as measurements of
process performance. The others used formal techni-
ques and process metrics successfully for process
measurement. Business analyst teams would regularly
measure changed processes and articulate their value
to management and functional groups.
4.2.7.2. Tools and techniques. All four companies
for process analysis and design successfully used
techniques and methods such as CASE tools and
simulation.
4.2.7.3. Team basis. Company A did not choose to
use a team-approach for implementing or for designing
new processes. This however was fundamental to the
other three companies that used three core teams: a
strategic thinking team, a business analysts group, and
an operations group.
5. Lessons learnt from ERP implementation
According to Davenport [82], Awell-planned and
well-executed ERP implementation, in conjunction
with a good change management program, can create
a dramatic turnaround for the company. The
successful implementation of ERP at our case study
companies clearly support the point. There are several
lessons that can be learnt from the ndings of the
comparative case analysis. These lessons are also
consistent with the ndings of prior research
studies
(1) Ross [83] noted that there are six reasons for a
company to implement ERP. The chief reason is
a need for a common IT platform. In our study, a
common IT platform was one of the primary
reasons for implementing ERP, according to the
experts interviewed.
(2) The implementation time at all four case studies
was between 12 months and 4 years. The project
length supports the ndings of Bancroft et al.
[84] who estimated that an implementation
might vary between 6 months and several years.
(3) The literature states that it is unusual for a case
company to implement all modules (for exam-
ple, SAP R/3 has eleven core modules and each
of these in-turn have sub-modules). Of the four
companies documented in this study, only one
had opted for full functionality.
(4) There are two standard approaches to connecting
each module to existing systems: either imple-
ment module-by-module or alternatively imple-
ment all modules and than connect them to the
existing system(s) [3]. The literature clearly
suggest that a company which selects the full
functionality of the ERP are committing them-
selves to a radically more complex task and are
likely to use the implement all modules strategy.
The ndings of our case study are consistent with
the literature as far as module implementation
strategy is concerned.
(5) As far as the nature of the change is concerned, it
is widely believed that BPR is a necessary
feature of ERP implementation. In our case
studies, the experts interviewed emphasized
this point and saw the adoption of ERP as an
opportunity for comprehensive BPR. In all four
J. Motwani et al. / Computers in Industry 56 (2005) 529544 539
cases, some BPR did occur, it occurs more in
situations where legacy systems were involved.
(6) According to Esteves and Pastor [24], the
implementation phase of the ERP cycle deals
with the customization or parameterization and
adaptation of ERP package acquired to meet the
needs of the organization. Usually this task is
performed with the help of consultants who
provide implementation methodologies, know-
how, and training. Experts interviewed in three
of our four case studies totally agreed with the
above viewpoint and also stated that the largest
training investments was made in the imple-
mentation phase.
(7) The composition of the project team is crucial
and must convey the strong will to ensure the
representatives of the various company functions
[85]. In all four instances, the project team did
represent the main processes of the company.
(8) The literature states that project management,
process and systems integrity, and change man-
agement are essential threads to ensure success-
ful ERP implementation. The experts interviewed
strongly agreed with the above statement and also
stated that a lack of attention to the above threads
could actually inhibit the project.
(9) According to Lee [22], top management needs to
publicly and explicitly identify the project as a top
priority. In all four cases, this was true. However,
the three case study companies that implemented
a cautious, evolutionary, and bureaucratic imple-
mentation strategy were more successful as the
top management was able to develop a shared
vision of the organization and was also able to
communicate the newsystemand structures more
effectively to their employees.
(10) A clear business plan and vision to steer the
direction of the project is needed throughout the
ERP life cycle [86]. Of the four companies
documented in this study, three of them had a
clear business model of how the organization
should operate behind the implementation effort.
(11) Project championis critical todrive consensus and
to oversee the entire life cycle of implementation
J. Motwani et al. / Computers in Industry 56 (2005) 529544 540
Fig. 1. Theoretical framework for ERP Implementation Management (adapted from Kettinger and Grovers model of BPC Management, 1995).
[87]. In all four cases, a high level executive
sponsor was selected to be the project leader.
(12) According to Holland and Light [88], organiza-
tions implementing ERP should work well with
vendors and consultants on software develop-
ment, testing, and troubleshooting. In three of
the four cases, the project teams worked very
closely with vendors to obtain interorganiza-
tional linkages.
(13) The progress of the project should be monitored
actively through set milestones and targets.
According to the experts interviewed, process
metrics and project management based criteria
was used to measure against completion dates,
costs, and quality.
Based on the lessons learnt from the literature and
case studies, we propose the following framework
(See Fig. 2) be considered for successful implementa-
tion of ERP. This framework illustrates the critical
factors/issues that need to be addressed at all three
phases: pre-implementation or setting-up phase,
implementation, and post-implementation or evalua-
tion phase. All the factors/issues proposed in Fig. 2
relate to the seven constructs illustrated in Fig. 1 and
are consistent with the frameworks proposed by
Al-Mashari et al. (2003) and [28].
6. Conclusion
This research attempted to answer the following
two questions. First, What factors facilitate and
inhibit the success of ERP projects? Through a case
study comparison of four ERP implementations, it was
determined that a cautious, evolutionary, bureaucratic
implementation process backed with careful change
management, network relationships, and cultural
readiness can lead to successful ERP implementa-
tions. On the other hand, a revolutionary project scope
that is mandated autocratically by top management
without organizational readiness and proper change
management is likely to lead to a troubled ERP
implementation, as was in the case of Company A.
Second, What critical factors/issues need to be
considered during each stage of the implementation?
Fig. 2 clearly depicts the critical factors/issues that
need to be addressed at all three phases: pre-
implementation or setting-up phase, implementation,
and post-implementation or evaluation phase. These
critical factors/issues are consistent with the seven
constructs proposed in Fig. 1.
The two frameworks presented in this study clearly
indicate that a clear vision and top management
commitment are fundamental for successful ERP
implementation. Also, the evaluation and proper
monitoring of ERP systems implementation (post-
ERP implementation stage) can make an organization
more adaptable to the change programs and therefore,
help them derive maximum benets from investing in
ERP.
The results of this study should assist both
practitioners and academicians. The frameworks
presented in the study, along with the lessons learnt,
should provide practitioners (especially non-technical
managers) with insights on how to better understand
and prepare for ERP implementation. Specically, the
factors that help and hinder ERP success, the critical
factors that need to be focused on in each phase of
implementation and the wide arrays of benets (both
tangible and intangible) that can be achieved from
ERP implementation are some areas that practitioners
can benet from our ndings. Also, the frameworks
J. Motwani et al. / Computers in Industry 56 (2005) 529544 541
Fig. 2. ERP implementation framework.
recommended in this study should assist academicians
who undertake studies that focus on rigorous theory
building and testing. For example, the results of our
case studies will be benecial for identifying
comparable cases. We strongly believe that future
case study research would serve to reinforce and
validate the ndings of this study. In the area of theory
building, the critical constructs identied can be used
by academicians as the basis of undertaking rigorous
empirical studies that test ERP success in relationship
to these factors.
ERP systems offer many potential areas for
research in both theory building and theory testing.
Five specic areas, which we feel are important, and
need to be addressed in the future. First, although
several theory testing articles dealing with case studies
exist in the literature, very few discuss ERP systems
other than SAP. It would be benecial to generalize the
ndings to other ERP systems. Second, more effort
should be put in the denition and subsequent
validation of critical success factors since majority
of these studies focus on only one case company. It
would also important to relate critical success factors
with implementation methodologies [24]. Thirdly, we
recommend that more comprehensive empirical
studies be conducted to study the direct and indirect
relationships among the critical factors and the actual
benets of ERP implementation. Fourth, there is a
need for empirical studies to examine the approaches
adopted for the evaluation, selection and project
management of ERP systems and ERP success.
Lastly, we feel research needs to be conducted
to better understand the different roles played by
various stakeholders (steering committees, consul-
tants, vendors, among other) in ERP implementation
projects.
References
[1] V. Mabert, A. Soni, M. Venkataramanan, Enterprise resource
planning: managing the implementation process, European
Journal of Operational Research 146 (2) (2003) 302.
[2] T. Davenport, Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system,
Harvard Business Review (1998) 121131.
[3] A. Parr, G. Shanks, A model of ERP project implementation,
Journal of Information Technology 15 (4) (2000) 289304.
[4] S. Gale, For ERP success, create a culture change, Workforce
81 (9) (2002) 8892.
[5] M. Tarafdar, R. Roy, Analyzing the adoption of enterprise
resource planning systems in Indian organizations: a process
framework, Journal of Global Information Technology Man-
agement 6 (1) (2003) 31.
[6] M. Kremers, H. van Dissel, ERP system migrations, Commu-
nications of the ACM 43 (4) (2000) 5256.
[7] W. Kettinger, S. Guha, J. Teng, The process engineering
lifecycle methodology: a case study, in: V. Grover, W. Ket-
tinger (Eds.), Business Process Change: Reengineering Con-
cepts, Methods and Technologies, Idea Publishing, Harrisburg,
PA, 1995.
[8] S. Clemmons, S. Simon, Control and coordination in global
ERP conguration, Business Process Management Journal 7
(3) (2001) 205.
[9] R. Davison, cultural complications of ERP, Communications
of the ACM 45 (7) (2002) 109.
[10] K. Hong, Y. Kim, The critical success factors for ERP imple-
mentation: an organizational t perspective, Information and
Management 40 (1) (2002) 25.
[11] J. Stratman, A. Roth, Enterprise resource planning (ERP)
competence constructs: two-stage multi-item scale develop-
ment and validation, Decision Sciences 33 (4) (2002) 601.
[12] I. Chen, Planning for ERP systems: analysis and future trend,
Business Process Management Journal 7 (5) (2001) 374.
[13] A. Gupta, Enterprise resource planning: the emerging organi-
zational value systems, Industrial Management and Data Sys-
tems 100 (3) (2000) 114.
[14] L. Kerbache, Enterprise resource planning (ERP): the dynamics
of operations management, Interfaces 32 (1) (2002) 104.
[15] W. Payne, The time for ERP? Work 51 (2/3) (2002) 91.
[16] S. Rao, Enterprise resource planning: business needs and
technologies, Industrial Management and Data Systems 100
(2) (2000) 81.
[17] M. Al-Mashari, Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems: a
research agenda, Industrial Management and Data Systems
103 (1/2) (2003) 22.
[18] S. Beretta, Unleashing the integration potential of ERP sys-
tems, Business Process Management Journal 8 (3) (2002) 254.
[19] L. Hitt, D. Wu, X. Zhou, Investment in enterprise resource
planning: business impact and productivity measures, Journal
of Management Information Systems 19 (1) (2002) 71.
[20] F. Jacobs, E. Bendoly, Enterprise resource planning: develop-
ments and directions for operations management research,
European Journal of Operational Research 146 (2) (2003)
233.
[21] K. Kumar, J. Hillergersberg, ERP experiences and evolution,
Communication of the ACM 43 (4) (2000) 2326.
[22] A. Lee, Researchable directions for ERP and other new
information technologies, MIS Quarterly 24 (1) (2000) 3.
[23] J. Sarkis, A. Gunasekaran, Enterprise resource planningmod-
eling and analysis, European Journal of Operational Research
146 (2) (2003) 229.
[24] J. Esteves, J. Pastor, Enterprise resource planning systems
research: an annotated bibliography, Communications of the
Association for Information Systems, 2003, pp. 136.
[25] S. Abdinnour-Helm, M. Lengnick-Hall, C. Lengnick-Hall,
Pre-implementation attitudes and organizational readiness
J. Motwani et al. / Computers in Industry 56 (2005) 529544 542
for implementing an enterprise resource planning system,
European Journal of Operational Research 146 (2) (2003)
258.
[26] A. Al-Mudimigh, M. Zairi, M. Al-Mashari, ERP software
implementation: an integrative framework, European Journal
of Information Systems 10 (4) (2001) 216.
[27] P. Mandal, A. Gunasekaran, Issues in implementing ERP: a
case study, European Journal of Operational Research 146 (2)
(2003) 274.
[28] E. Umble, R. Haft, M. Umble, Enterprise resource planning:
implementation procedures and critical success factors, Eur-
opean Journal of Operational Research 146 (2) (2003) 241.
[29] M. Al-Mashari, A. Al-Mudimigh, M. Zairi, Enterprise
resource planning: a taxonomy of critical factors, European
Journal of Operational Research 146 (2) (2003) 352.
[30] F. Nah, J. Lee-Shang Lau, J. Kuang, Critical factors for
successful implementation of enterprise systems, Business
Process Management Journal 7 (3) (2001) 285.
[31] W. Ip, K. Chau, S. Chan, Implementing ERP through contin-
uous improvement, International Journal of Manufacturing 4
(6) (2002) 465.
[32] S. McAlary, Three pitfalls in ERP implementation, Strategy
and Leadership 27 (6) (1999) 49.
[33] P. Ribbers, K. Schoo, Program management and complexity of
ERP implementations, Engineering Management Journal 14
(2) (2002) 45.
[34] A. Aladwani, Change management strategies for successful
ERP implementation, Business Process Management 7 (3)
(2001) 266.
[35] S. Cliffe, ERP implementation, Harvard Business Review 77
(1) (1999) 16.
[36] M. Markus, S. Axline, D. Petrie, C. Tanis, Learning from
adopters experiences with ERP: problems encountered and
success achieved, Journal of Information Technology 15 (4)
(2000) 245266.
[37] M. Markus, C. Tanis, P. Fenema, Multisite ERP implementa-
tions, Communications of the ACM 43 (4) (2000) 4246.
[38] M. Markus, C. Tanis, P. Fenema, Multisite ERP implementa-
tions, Communications of the ACM 43 (4) (2000) 4246.
[39] A. Scheer, F. Habermann, Making ERP a success, Commu-
nications of the ACM 43 (4) (2000) 57.
[40] A. Scheer, F. Habermann, Making ERP a success, Commu-
nications of the ACM 43 (4) (2000) 5761.
[41] T. Willis, A. Willis-Brown, Extending the value of ERP,
Industrial Management and Data Systems 102 (1/2) (2002)
35.
[42] B. Arinze, M. Anandarajan, A Framework for using OO
mapping methods to rapidly congure ERP systems, Commu-
nications of the ACM 46 (2) (2003) 61.
[43] J. Hedman, The CES framework for discussing Es, in: Amer-
ican Conference on Information Systems, USA, 2000.
[44] H. Park, Y. Kim, C. Kim, S. Park, J. Baik, An object oriented
production planning system development in ERP environment,
Computers and Industrial Engineering 35 (1/2) (1998) 157.
[45] Sock, Chung, C. Snyder, ERP Adoption: a technological
evolution approach, International Journal of Agile Manage-
ment Systems 2 (1) (2000) 24.
[46] E. Stensrud, I. Myrtveit, Identifying high performance ERP
projects, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 29 (5)
(2003) 398.
[47] G. Stewart, M. Rosemann, Industry-oriented design of ERP-
related curriculuman Australian initiative, Business Process
Management Journal 7 (3) (2001) 234.
[48] J. Stirna, Managing enterprise modeling tool acquisition pro-
cess, International Workshop on enterprise Management
Resource and Planning System, Venice, Italy, 1999, pp. 283
298.
[49] H. Akkermans, K. van Helden, Vicious and virtuous cycles in
ERP implementation: a case study of interrelations between
critical success factors, European Journal of Information Sys-
tems 11 (1) (2002) 35.
[50] H. Akkermans, P. Bogerd, E. Yucesan, L. van Wassenhove,
The impact of ERP on supply chain management: exploratory
ndings from a European Delphi study, European Journal of
Operational Research 146 (2) (2003) 284.
[51] M. Al-Mashari, A. Al-Mudimigh, ERP implementation: les-
sons from a case study, Information Technology and People 16
(1) (2003) 21.
[52] C. Ash, J. Burn, A strategic framework for the management of
ERP enabled E-business change, European Journal of Opera-
tional Research 146 (2) (2003) 374.
[53] E. Bernroider, S. Koch, ERP selection process in midsized and
large organizations, Business Process Management Journal 7
(3) (2001) 251.
[54] Y. Everdingen, J. Hillengersberg, E. Waarts, ERP adoption by
european midsize companies, Communications of the ACM43
(4) (2000) 2731.
[55] Z. Huang, P. Palvia, ERP implementation issues in advanced
and developing countries, Business Process Management Jour-
nal 7 (3) (2001) 276.
[56] C. Koch, H. Buhl, ERP-supported teamworking in Danish
manufacturing? New Technology, Work, and Employment
16 (3) (2001) 164.
[57] D. Mirchandani, J. Motwani, End-user perceptions of ERP
systems: a case study of an international automotive supplier,
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Manage-
ment 1 (4) (2001) 416.
[58] J. Motwani, D. Mirchandani, M. Madan, A. Gunasekaran,
Successful implementation of ERP projects: evidence from
two case studies, International Journal of Production Econom-
ics 75 (1/2) (2002) 83.
[59] J. Olhager, E. Selldin, Enterprise resource planning survey of
swedish manufacturing rms, European Journal of Operational
Research 146 (2) (2003) 365.
[60] D. Robey, J. Ross, M. Boudreau, Learning to implement
enterprise systems: an exploratory study of the dialectics of
change, Journal of Management Information Systems 19 (1)
(2002) 17.
[61] C. Sheu, H. Rebecca Yen, D. Krumwiede, The effect of
national differences on multinational ERP implementation:
an exploratory study, Total Quality Management and Business
Excellence 14 (6) (2003) 639.
[62] I. Tatsiopoulos, N. Panayiotou, K. Kirytopoulos, K. Tsitsiriggos,
Risk management as a strategic issue for the implementation of
J. Motwani et al. / Computers in Industry 56 (2005) 529544 543
ERP systems: a case study from the oil industry, International
Journal of Risk Assessment and Management 4 (1) (2003) 20.
[63] K. Trimmer, L. Pumphrey, C. Wiggins, ERP implementation in
rural health care, Journal of Management in Medicine 16 (2/3)
(2002) 113.
[64] M. Schniederjans, G. Kim, Implementing enterprise resource
planning systems with total quality control and business process
reengineering: survey results, International Journal of Opera-
tions and Production Management 23 (3/4) (2003) 418.
[65] Y. Sheng, J. Pearson, L. Crosby, Organizational culture and
employees computer self-efcacy: an emperical study, Infor-
mation Resources Management 16 (3) (2003) 42.
[66] H. Voordijk, A. Van Leuven, A. Laan, Enterprise resource
planning in a large construction rm: implementation analysis,
Construction Management and Economics 21 (5) (2003) 511.
[67] W. Kettinger, V. Grover, Toward a theory of business process
change management, Journal of Management Information
Systems 12 (1) (1995) 130.
[68] J. Kotter, Leading change: why transformation efforts fail,
Harvard Business Review 73 (2) (1995) 5967.
[69] M. Earl, Viewpoint: new and old business process redesign,
Journal of Strategic Information Systems 3 (1) (1994) 522.
[70] H. Mintzberg, J. Waters, Of strategies deliberate and emergent,
Strategic Management Journal 6 (1985) 257272.
[71] S. Guha, V. Grover, W. Kettinger, J. Teng, Business process
change and organizational performance: exploring an antece-
dent model, Journal of Management Information Systems 14
(1) (1997) 119154.
[72] C. Freeman, C. Perez, Structural crisis of adjustment: business
cycles and investment behavior, in: G. Dosi, al. et (Eds.), Tech-
nical Change and Economic Behavior, Pinter, London, 1988.
[73] K. Arrow, The implications of learning by doing, Review of
Economic Studies 29 (1962) 166170.
[74] P. Adler, Shared learning, Management Science 36 (8) (1990)
938957.
[75] R. Kilman, M. Saxton, R. Serpa, Issues in understanding and
changing culture, California Management Review 28 (2)
(1986) 8794.
[76] M. Markus, M. Keil, If we build it they will come: designing
information systems that users want to use, Sloan Management
Review 35 (1994) 1125.
[77] M. Keil, D. Robey, Turning around troubled software projects:
an exploratory study of the deescalation of commitment to
failing courses of action, Journal of Management Information
Systems 15 (4) (1999) 6387.
[78] D. Johnson, R. Johnson, Cooperation and Competition: Theory
and Research, Interaction, Edina, MN, 1989.
[79] P. Crosby, Completeness: Quality for the 21st Century, Plume
Books, New York, 1994.
[80] P. Stebel, Breakpoints: How Managers Exploit Radical
Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1992.
[81] D. Stoddard, S. Jarvenpaa, Businesss process reengineering:
tactics for managing radical change, Journal of Management
Information Systems 12 (1) (1995) 81108.
[82] T. Davenport, Realizing the Promise of Enterprise Systems,
Harvard Business School Press, 2000 February.
[83] J. Ross, Dow Cornings Corporation: Business Processes and
Information Technology, Journal of Information Technology
14 (3) (1999) 253266.
[84] N. Bancroft, H. Seip, A. Sprengel, Implementing SAP R/3,
2nd ed., Manning Publications, 1998.
[85] C. Brown, I. Vessey, ERP implementation approaches: toward
a contingency framework, in: Proceedings of the International
Conference on information Systems, 1999, pp. 411416.
[86] N. Amin, M. Hinton, P. Hall, M. Newton, R. Kayae, A study of
strategic and decision-making issues in adoption of ERP
systems resulting froma merger in the nancial services sector,
18 International Workshop on Enterprise Management
Resource and Planning Systems EMRPS, Venice, Italy,
1999, pp. 173181.
[87] P. Bingi, M. Sharma, J. Godla, Critical issues affecting an ERP
implementation, Information Systems Management 16 (3)
(1999) 78.
[88] C. Holland, B. Light, Critical success factors model for ERP
implementation, IEEE Software, May/June, 1997, pp. 1630
1636.
J. Motwani et al. / Computers in Industry 56 (2005) 529544 544