436 Int. J. Business Information Systems, Vol. 29, No.

4, 2018

Analysis of causal relationship between factors

affecting the successful implementation of enterprise
resource planning using intuitionistic fuzzy
DEMATEL

Hossein Sayyadi Tooranloo*

Management Faculty,
Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan, Iran
Email: H.sayyadi@vru.ac.ir
*Corresponding author

Arezoo Sadat Ayatollah and Mohsen Karami

Information Technology Management,
University of Science and Arts,
Yazd, Iran
Email: Arezoo.ayatollah@yahoo.com
Email: Mohsenkarami68@yahoo.com

Abstract: The present study aimed is analysis of causal relationship between

factors affecting the successful implementation of enterprise resource planning
using intuitionistic fuzzy DEMATEL using case studies in Esfahan Steel
Company. Effective factors on successful implementation of enterprise
resource planning were determined by reviewing literature and similar studies
and interviewing company experts. Accordingly, the eight factors were
identified. On the basis of determinate factors, a questionnaire was designed
based on DEMATEL technique and administered to all experts to explain the
relationships between those factors. After data were collected, the importance
of assessments provided by experts was explained and comments from them
were addressed using intuitionistic fuzzy entropy. Finally intuitionistic fuzzy
based DEMATEL technique was used to show causal relationships.

Keywords: enterprise resource planning; DEMATEL; entropy; intuitionistic

fuzzy.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Sayyadi Tooranloo, H.,

Ayatollah, A.S. and Karami, M. (2018) ‘Analysis of causal relationship
between factors affecting the successful implementation of enterprise resource
planning using intuitionistic fuzzy DEMATEL’, Int. J. Business Information
Systems, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp.436–458.

Biographical notes: Hossein Sayyadi Tooranloo received his PhD in

Operational Research in 2014 from the Tarbiat Modares University. Since
2014, he is an Associate Professor of Management Faculty at the Vali-e-Asr
University of Rafsanjan, Iran. He is currently writing a book titled
Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Group Decision-Making. He has published
also fuzzy several articles in national and international scientific journals.

Copyright © 2018 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Analysis of causal relationship 437

Arezoo Sadat Ayatollah received the Information Technology Management

from the Science and Arts University, Yazd, Iran in 2014. She is doing several
researches using fuzzy logic and intuitionistic fuzzy. She is currently writing a
book titled Intuitionistic Fuzzy Group Decision-Making.

Mohsen Karami received the Information Technology Management from the

Science and Arts University, Yazd, Iran, in 2015. He is doing several
researches using fuzzy logic.

1 Introduction

Today’s world is in a constant state of change and diverse range of challenges brought
with this ever changing environment have pushed production and manufacturing
enterprises and organisations to improve their readiness to cope with new or
unpredictable conditions and competitions (Crocitto and Youssef, 2003). Meanwhile, the
immense complexity of this environment and its corresponding organisational needs
means that enterprises feel a growing need to develop and use a system that would enable
them to facilitate the flow of information throughout their structure. So to survive the
competition, organisations and enterprises feel that they should establish rational links
between the information supplied by each single organisational unit; and this need has led
to development of enterprise resource planning systems that are designed specifically to
deal with the fragmentation of data (Finney and Corbett, 2007; Koh et al., 2014).
Deployment of an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system is a critical investment for
an organisation that may significantly affect competitiveness and performance of a
company in future, as well as in monitoring the resources (Shukla et al., 2016).
Meanwhile, enterprises are also required to reduce their operating costs, enhance their
competitive advantage, reduce the time of each activity, maintain their reliability, provide
better customer service, and create a balance between demand, supply and production.
The necessity of achieving these goals has further pushed enterprises to use enterprise
resource planning systems to integrate all parts of the organisation, including order
management, production, corporate resources, and financial and distribution systems
(Gartner, 2012; Liao et al., 2007; Karsak and Özogul, 2009; Tarantilis et al., 2008;
Wagner et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2009; Wu et al., 2008; Wu, 2011; Caruso, 2003; Shang
and Seddon, 2002). A well-organised enterprise resource planning system creates an
organisation-wide transaction structure, and thereby integrates the key functions of
different units in a single platform, which can organise the organisational processes and
enhance management decision-making capabilities (Chang et al., 2008, Westrup and
Knight, 2000; Mabert et al., 2003; Norris et al., 2000; Sánchez et al., 2009; Shields,
2004). This is even more important for larger organisation and enterprises(Dezdar and
Ainin, 2011) to the point that adoption and application of enterprise resource planning
system in large and medium organisations has been described as the revolution of
resource planning in these organisations(Bradley, 2008). In this respect, resource
planning systems are considered as process-oriented integrated information systems (Liao
et al., 2007; Tsai et al., 2011; O’Leary, 2000). The capability of enterprise resource
planning systems in using a centralised database to integrate information from different
functional areas has caused these systems to be recognised as a prerequisite for success in
438 H. Sayyadi Tooranloo et al.

the 21st century (Forslund, 2010); experts suggest that enterprise resource planning
systems are the peak of the evolution of information systems at the present time and state
that without these systems achieving an optimised level of performance, decision-making
capabilities and competitive advantage is nearly impossible. However like other
enterprise information systems, enterprise resource planning systems are often very
complex and very difficult to implement (Kumar et al., 2002; Markus and Tanis, 2000;
Parry and Graves, 2008; Sammon and Adam, 2010); therefore, despite their popularity,
there is a high rate of failure in their implementation (Moohebat et al., 2010). Reports
indicate that between 69 to 90% of enterprise resource planning systems meet with
failure, of which 35% get cancelled, and the remaining 65% increase the costs and time
by 178% and 230% respectively. According to another survey, 70% of implemented
systems fail to deliver the expected results (Ganesh and Mehta, 2013). In this context,
some suggest that failure is an integral component of these projects and success can never
be guaranteed, not even in ideal conditions. Therefore, it is crucial to identify the key
factors of success of an enterprise resource planning system and analyse their relationship
within organisation (Olson, 2003). This paper seeks to examine this issue by the use of
DEMATEL method in intuitionistic fuzzy environment.

2 Literature review

2.1 Enterprise resource planning

Enterprise resource planning systems use information technology capabilities to provide a
platform for information and data sharing within the organisation (Vandaie, 2008). Many
enterprises implement this system to integrate and control processes like order
management, purchasing, procurement, and support operations (Parry and Graves, 2008).
This system also encompasses main functions of production, distribution, human
resources, finance, logistics, marketing and sale. It uses a series of interrelated modules to
standardise and integrate all resources and functions of the organisation into a single
share-based information database architecture (Upadhyay et al., 2011; Malhotra and
Temponi, 2010; Zhu et al., 2010; Pan et al., 2011).
Enterprise resource planning strategy helps organisations to effectively manage their
resources and improve their long-term efficiency and cost status by integrating the data of
different business processes. This system can meet the growing expectations of customers
and competition by facilitating the management of organisational units, increasing the
speed of providing goods and services, improving the quality of customer service,
increasing the agility and productivity, enhancing the product quality, establishing a
balance between demand, supply and production, and standardising the organisational
procedures, which undoubtedly will be followed by improved competitiveness(Yeh et al.,
2007; Motwani et al., 2002; Liao et al., 2007; Karsak and Özogul, 2009; Dey et al., 2010;
Al-Mashari et al., 2003; Sánchez et al., 2009; Grabski and Leech, 2007).
In the international research literature, enterprise resource planning system is defined
by following terms (El Sawah et al., 2008; Bernroider, 2008; Enquist and Juell-Skielse,
2010; Kayas et al., 2008):
• a system with financial, human resources, production, sales and distribution modules
• where all modules function based on a shared and integrated database
 Analysis of causal relationship 439

• where main business processes of enterprise are covered by a process-driven system

• a system that is able to provide regulatory, analytic and managerial reports from
various modules
• is preferably web-based.
The review of available literature on the definition of enterprise resource planning show
that there is a wide range of different -but sometimes similar- definitions for this concept,
and they not always include all aspects of the system. Some of the more comprehensive
definitions of this concept are briefly introduced below.
Deep et al. (2008) define enterprise resource planning system as a management
information system that integrates and automates a multitude of business activities related
to different processes of organisation.
According to Klaus et al. (2000), enterprise resource planning system is a
comprehensive software system that processes a wide range of operations and procedures
to provide an overview of individual data and overall IT structure.
Hitt et al. (2002) also believe that enterprise resource planning integrates the business
and managerial processes within organisation as well as beyond its boundaries.
Davenport (1998, 2000) defines enterprise resource planning system as a commercial
software package whose aim is to integrate information and the flow of information
between all aspects of the organisation, including finance, accounting, human resources,
supply chain, and customers management.
Yaseen (2009) also believes that the enterprise resource planning system is a
hardware and software package that gives organisations the ability to manage the
effectiveness and efficiency of resource utilisation.
Another definition by Watson and Schneider (1998) describes enterprise resource
planning system as a full software package that satisfies most requirements of an efficient
system and is fully involved with all spheres of duties including financial, human
resources, production, sales and marketing spheres.
Jagan also defines enterprise resource planning systems as techniques and concepts
related integrated management of businesses, which aim to make effective use of
resources and improve the effectiveness of resource management.
In the end, Nah et al. (2001) describe enterprise resource planning system as a
business software that provides integrated and comprehensive solutions, and thereby
enables the organisations to make effective use of their resources.
Also many researchers in this field founded the following results in their studies,
including: Saravanan and Joseph (2016) they founded that the implementation issues and
cultural issues together establish a strong base for successful adoption of ERP systems in
organisations. Chakravorty et al., (2016) showed the dynamics of ‘real world’ ERP
implementation failures. Second, in studying these dynamics, relevant insights for
improving ERP implementation successes are provided for both academicians and
practitioners. Chauhan and Jaiswal, (2015) in their study showed that constant feedback,
two-way communication, realistic expectations of the client and low cost functionality
also enhance the perception of service quality. In addition, the study also confirms some
of the known factors affecting the service quality of software-as-a-service (SaaS). Thus,
the study provides insights not only to SaaS vendors but also to enterprise users for
enhancing service quality experience. Azadeh et al. (2012) founded that organisational
infrastructure has the most important effect on ERP performance and ‘strategic goals’ is
440 H. Sayyadi Tooranloo et al.

the most important critical success factor. Ranjan et al. (2016) showed literature review
presented of their work focuses on the ERP implementation challenges from four
different perspectives such as: technology selection; change management, knowledge
management, emerging technologies. Considering these perspectives in ERP
implementation projects organisations can realise several benefits such as reducing costs
and saving time or extra effort. Shatat and Udin (2013) founded that employee
involvement, top management support, and cultural fit partially affects positively and
significantly the relationship between ERP system and supply chain performance.

2.2 Critical success factors for enterprise resource planning

It should be said that successful implementation of an enterprise resource planning
project is generally a difficult and complicated task, because it triggers extensive changes
in the organisation, changes that need to be directed by a strict and careful management
to reach the intended benefits and objectives. Despite the efforts of many organisations to
implement an enterprise resource planning system, most of them fail since they lack
adequate understanding about methods and factors affecting the establishment and
implementation of these systems (Ke and Wei, 2008; Wu et al., 2008). Hence, the
identification of most important elements and factors required for success can be a sure
way to increase the chance of successful implementation of enterprise resource planning
operation (Hosein and Shakir, 2001).

2.3 Intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS)

Intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS) is one of the generalisations of fuzzy sets theory
(Zadeh, 1965). Out of several higher-order fuzzy sets, IFS, first introduced by Atanassov
(1983), have been found to be more compatible to deal with vagueness. The conception
of IFS can be viewed as an appropriate/alternative approach in cases where available
information is not sufficient to define the impreciseness by the conventional fuzzy set.
Fuzzy sets only considers the degree of acceptance, but IFS is characterised by a
membership function and a non-membership function so that the sum of both values is
less than one (Atanassov, 1986). Presently, IFSs are being studied and used in different
fields of science. Among the research works on IFS we can mention Atanassov (1986,
1989, 1999, 2000), Atanassov and Gargov (1989), Szmidt and Kacprzyk (2000), Ban
(2006) and Deschrijver and Kerre (2002).
Definition 1: Assume reference set X = {x1, x2, x3, …}. In this case, set A which is a
subset of X is an intuitionistic fuzzy set defined as below:
A = {≺ x, u A ( x), ν A ( x) ∀x ∈ X } (1)

In the above definition, uA(x), vA(x) are degree of membership and non-membership
respectively, which are defined as uA(x): x → [0, 1], vA(x): x → [0, 1] and satisfy
0 ≤ uij(x) + vij(x) ≤ 1. In addition, for each x ∈ X, intuitionistic index πx is defined as
πx = 1 – ux – vx (Atanassov, 1986).
Definition 2: uij(x), vij(x), πij(x) is an intuitionistic fuzzy number that satisfies the
following conditions:
 Analysis of causal relationship 441

uij ( x) ∈ [0, 1], νij ( x) ∈ [0, 1], πij ( x) ∈ [0, 1], 0 ≤ uij ( x)
(2)
+νij ( x) ≤ 1, πij ( x) = 1 − uij ( x) − νij ( x)

It must be noted that although intuitionistic fuzzy number is similar (in appearance) to
triangular fuzzy number (a, b, c), it is quite different. Triangular fuzzy number is a
convex normal fuzzy set with a membership function in which (a ≺ b ≺ c); while an
intuitionistic fuzzy number is a point in three-dimensional space constructed by axes
uij(x), vij(x), πij(x) (Szmidt and Kacprzyk, 2001). Atanassov and Gargov (1998) and Gau
and Buehrer (1993) have described intuitionistic fuzzy number (0.50, 0.20, 0.30) as a
scenario where votes in favour of adoption are 0.5, votes against it are 0.2 and abstained
votes are 0.30.
In this context the following relationship holds true:

μijβ ( x ) + vijβ ( x) ≤ 1, 0 ≤ μijα ( x) ≤ uijβ ( x) ≤ 1, 0 ≤ vijα ( x) ≤ vijβ ( x) ≤ 1 (3)

These numbers are better suited to deal with uncertainty and provide a more logical
mathematical framework to deal with inexact facts and incomplete information (Zhang
et al., 2010). Some of the operators and relationships between these numbers are provided
in the following. For simplicity’s sake, these numbers are expressed as [μij(x), vij(x),
πij(x)] where μij(x), vij(x) and πij(x) are numbers in the range [0, 1].
Definition 3: Assume intuitionistic fuzzy numbers A = {<x, μA(x), vA(x)|x ∈ X>} and
A1 = {<x, μA1(x), vA1(x)|x ∈ X>} and A2 = {<x, μA2(x), vA2(x)|x ∈ X>} and the real number
n. According to Xu and Cai (2012) the following relationships are defined:

A = { x, v A ( x), μ A ( x) x ∈ X } (4)

A1 ∩ A2 = { x, min { μ A1 ( x ), μ A2 ( x)} , max {v A1 ( x), v A2 ( x)} x ∈ X } (5)

A1 ∪ A2 = { x, max { μ A1 ( x ), μ A2 ( x)} , min {v A1 ( x), v A2 ( x)} x ∈ X } (6)

A1 + A2 = { x, μ A1 ( x) + μ A2 ( x) − μ A1 ( x) ⋅ μ A2 ( x), v A1 ( x) ⋅ v A2 ( x) x ∈ X } (7)

A1 ⋅ A2 = { x, μ A1 ( x) ⋅ μ A2 ( x), v A1 ( x) + v A2 ( x) − v A1 ( x) ⋅ v A2 ( x) x ∈ X } (8)

nA = { x, 1 − (1 − μ ( x)) , (v ( x))
A
n
A
n
x∈ X } (9)

= { x, ( μ ( x) ) , 1 − (1 − v ( x ) ) x∈ X }
n n
An A A (10)

where n is a positive integer.

3 The proposed model

Accurate assessment of factors affecting the success of ERP is not an easy task, and
verbal evaluations are often approximates in nature, but the theory of intuitionistic fuzzy
442 H. Sayyadi Tooranloo et al.

sets can properly deal with the inaccuracy in this type of evaluations and thereby produce
results with greater precision. On this basis, this paper presents a group decision-making
model that uses DEMATEL technique to analyse the causal relationships between ERP
implementation success factors in intuitionistic fuzzy environment. The proposed method
is composed of following steps.

3.1 Step 1: Identifying the ERP implementation success factors

As mentioned earlier, successful implementation of an enterprise resource planning
project is a difficult and complicated task, since it triggers a series of changes in the
organisation, which need to be handled with a strict and careful management approach.
While many organisations seek to successfully implement an enterprise resource planning
system, most of them fail because they lack an adequate understanding about methods
and factors affecting the establishment and implementation of these systems
(Ke and Wei, 2008; Wu et al,, 2008). So the analysis of causal relationship between
factors can help us determine the key elements required and most effective on the chance
of ERP implementation success (Hosein and Shakir, 2001). In the course of reviewing the
related literature, we found more than 80 general factors of success, but some of these
factors were repeated more frequently as follows: Support of senior management (C1),
project management (C2), change management (C3), training (C4), teamwork (C5), clarity
of goals (C6), selection of appropriate package (C7), re-engineering (C8) (Ahmad and
Cuenca, 2013; Liu, 2011; Dezdar and Sulaiman, 2009; Snider et al., 2009; Gupta and
Naqvi, 2013; Osman et al., 2006; Elmeziane et al., 2011; Zouaghi and Laghouag, 2012;
Pabedinskaite, 2010; Mukti et al., 2013; Alaskari et al., 2013; Hairul et al., 2011; Ngai et
al., 2011; Yingjie, 2005; Kronbichler et al., 2009; Arnoldina, 2010; Ifinedo, 2008;
Cebeci, 2009; Chuen, 2010; Ganesh and Mehta, 2010; Kwahk and Ahn, 2010; Velcu,
2010; Hallikainen et al., 2009; Al-Mashari et al., 2003; Yusuf et al., 2004).

3.2 Step 2: Constructing the decision matrix

The aim of the present study is explains the causal relationships between the key success
factors in the implementation of enterprise resource planning systems with the
DEMATEL technique. In this regard the n × n decision matrix is formed to evaluate the
factors identified in the previous step. This matrix is as follows.
 x11
k
… x1kj 
 
Dk =   xij = πij ( C j ) , vij ( C j ) , πij ( C j ) 
 xik1 … xijk 
 
This matrix is used to evaluate the impact of each factor in the row on each factor in the
column according to experts’ opinions. In accordance with the intuitionistic fuzzy
approach used in this study, in this step, experts use verbal expressions and intuitionistic
fuzzy numbers shown in Table 1 to fill the decision matrix.
After collecting the evaluations of experts in format of linguistic terms, the values of
linguistic terms converted into corresponding intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and construct
intuitionistic fuzzy matrix of evaluation of each experts.
 Analysis of causal relationship 443

Table 1 Intuitionistic fuzzy linguistic terms

Linguistic terms IFNs

No influence (0.1, 0.9)
Very low influence (0.35, 0.6)
Low influence (0.5, 0.45)
High influence (0.75, 0.2)
Very high influence (0.9, 0.1)

3.3 Step 3: Determining the relative importance of experts’ opinions

Suppose that decision-making team is composed of k experts and the importance of each
expert is expressed by verbal expressions and intuitionistic fuzzy numbers shown in
Table 2.
Table 2 Verbal expressions used to rank the importance of criteria and decision-makers

IFNs Linguistic terms

(0.9, 0.1) Very important
(0.75, 0.2) Important
(0.5, 0.45) Middle important
(0.35, 0.6) Low important
(0.1, ````0.9) Unimportant

Assuming that Dk = {μk, vk, πk} is an intuitionistic fuzzy number expressing the
importance of k-th expert, the weight of k-th expert is calculated as follows:

  μk  
 μk + π k   
  μk + vk  
λk = l
  μk  
  μk + π k 
k =1 
 
 μk + vk  
(11)

λ
k =1
k =1

3.4 Step 4: Constructing aggregated intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix based

on experts’ opinions (direct relation matrix)

Suppose that R ( k ) = ( rijk ) is the intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix of expert k, and
m× m
λ = {λ1, λ2, λ3, …, λk} is the weight of each expert obtained from Step 3, where
l

λ
k =1
k = 1, λk ∈ [0, 1]. Group decision-making process requires all individual decisions

to be aggregated in the form of an intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix. This can be done
by IFWA operator provided by Xu (2007). In this case R = (rijk ) m×m , and we have:
444 H. Sayyadi Tooranloo et al.

rij = IFWAλ ( rij (1) , rij (2) ,… , rij (l ) )

= λ1rij (1) ⊕ λ2 rij (2) ⊕ λ3 rij (3) ⊕ … ⊕ λl rij (l ) (12)
 l l l l 
∏ (1 − μ ) ,∏ ( v ) ,∏ (1 − μ ) − ∏ ( v )
λk λk λk λk
(k ) (k ) (k ) (k )
= 1 − ij ij ij ij 
 k =1 k =1 k =1 k =1 
where rij = (μCi(Cj), vCi(Cj), πCi(Cj))(i = j = 1, 2, …, m).
The aggregated intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix will be as shown below:

 (0.1, 0, 0.9) ( μ ( C ) , v ( C ) , π ( C ))
C1 2 C1 2 C1 2 … ( μ (C ) , v (C ) , π (C )) 
C1 n C1 n C1 n

( μ ( C ) , v ( C ) , π ( C ) ) (0.1, 0, 0.9) … ( μ ( C ) , v ( C ) , π ( C ))

 C2 1 C2 1 C2 1 C2 n C2 n
C2 n

R = ( μ ( C ) , v ( C ) , π ( C ) ) ( μ ( C ) , v ( C ) , π ( C ) )
C3 1 C3 1 C3 1 C3 2 C3 2 C3 2 … ( μ ( C ) , v ( C ) , π ( C ))
C3 n C3 n C3 n

 
 
( μ ( C ) , v ( C ) , π ( C ) ) ( μ ( C ) , v ( C ) , π ( C ) )
Cn 1 Cn 1 Cn 1 Cn 2 Cn 2 Cn 2 … (0.1, 0, 0.9) 

3.5 Step 5: Normalising the direct relation matrix

In this step, the concept of function score is used to normalise the direct relation matrix.
To do so, first equation (13) is used to obtain the sum of entries in each column of direct
relation matrix. Then, the following equation is used to determine the function score for
the summation of each column.

(
α1 + α2 = μij1 ( C j ) + μij 2 ( C j ) − μij1 ( C j ) × μij 2 ( C j ) , vij1 ( C j ) × vij 2 ( C j ) )
(13)
( ) (
π = 1 − μij1 ( C j ) + μij 2 ( C j ) − μij1 ( C j ) × μij 2 ( C j ) − vij1 ( C j ) × vij 2 ( C j ) )
Sij = μij ( C j ) − vij ( C j ) (14)

Now assume that Nij = (nij ) m×m is the normalised matrix, L is the inverse of maximum
function score in direct relation matrix (R); on this basis, the normalised matrix can be
obtained by the following equation:

( Nij )m×m = L × ( Rij )m×m (15)

where

 L 
nij =  1 − 1 − μij ( C j )  ,  vij ( C j )  
( )
L
(16)
 
  

 n11 … n1 j 
 
N ij =  
 ni1 … nij 
m× m
 Analysis of causal relationship 445

3.6 Step 6: Defuzzification of normalised matrix

To defuzzify the normalised matrix, we use the preference risk coefficient (β); this
coefficient is proposed and described by Xie et al. (2014) as below.
Preference risk coefficient β ∈ [0, 1] represents an expert’s uncertainty in a decision;
so 1 – β is the certainty of expert regarding the decision. A β 0.5 indicate that
decision-maker is willing to take risks, and higher βs represent greater risk in decisions;
in contrast β ≺ 0.5 indicate a more risk-averse approach. When β = 0.5, expert has a
balanced approach toward risks in decisions.
nij = μij ( C j ) − vij ( C j ) + (2 β − 1)πij ( C j ) (17)

where β ∈ [0, 1]

3.7 Step 7: Calculating the total relation matrix (T)

After defuzzifying the normalised direct relation matrix (R), we obtain the total relation
matrix(T) via the following equation:
−1
(Tij )m×m = ( Nij )m×m × ( I − Nij ) (18)

where I is the identity matrix.

3.8 Step 8: Developing the causal diagram

The sum of entries of each row (D) shows how much a variable affect other variables,
and the sum of entries of each column (R) shows how much a variable is affected by
other variables. The horizontal vector (Di + Ri) represent how influencing and influenced
a factor is; this means that a factor with higher D + R has more interaction with other
variables. The vertical vector (Di – Ri) shows the overall influence of each variable; so
generally, when Di – Ri is positive variable is a ‘cause’, and when Di – Ri is negative
variable is an ‘effect’. Finally we plot a Cartesian coordinate system, where longitudinal
axis represents D + R and transverse axis represent D – R; so status of each variable is
represent by a point with coordinates (D + R, D – R).

4 Research findings

This research is a applied research that it’s aim is explains the causal relationships
between the key success factors in the implementation of enterprise resource planning
systems with the DEMATEL technique in intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Research
proposed model was implemented case study in Esfahan Steel Company. The results of
research proposed model are provided in the form of the following steps.
 D1
446
Items
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 Table 3
C1 (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.9, 0.1, 0)
C2 (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05)
C3 (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.9, 0.1, 0)
C4 (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05)
C5 (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.1, 0.9, 0) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05)
C6 (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05)
C7 (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05)
C8 (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.5, 0.5, 0)
D2
Items
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
H. Sayyadi Tooranloo et al.

C1 (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.9, 0.1, 0)
C2 (0.1, 0.9, 0) (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05)
C3 (0.1, 0.9, 0) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05)
C4 (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.9, 0.1, 0)
C5 (0.1, 0.9, 0) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.1, 0.9, 0) (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.9, 0.1, 0)
C6 (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.1, 0.9, 0) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05)
C7 (0.1, 0.9, 0) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.1, 0.9, 0) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05)
C8 (0.1, 0.9, 0) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.1, 0.9, 0) (0.1, 0.9, 0) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.5, 0.5, 0)
D3
Items
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
C1 (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05)
C2 (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05)
Evaluation of ERP success factors by intuitionistic fuzzy numbers

C3 (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.9, 0.1, 0)
C4 (0.1, 0.9, 0) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05)
C5 (0.1, 0.9, 0) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.9, 0.1, 0)
C6 (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05)
C7 (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.9, 0.1, 0)
C8 (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.5, 0.5, 0)
 Table 3

Items D4
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
C1 (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.9, 0.1, 0)
Analysis of causal relationship

C2 (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05)
C3 (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.9, 0.1, 0)
C4 (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05)
C5 (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.35, 0.6, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05)
C6 (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.9, 0.1, 0)
C7 (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.9, 0.1, 0)
C8 (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.9, 0.1, 0) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.5, 0.45, 0.05) (0.75, 0.2, 0.05) (0.5, 0.5, 0)
Evaluation of ERP success factors by intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (continued)
447
448 H. Sayyadi Tooranloo et al.

4.1 Step 1: Identifying the ERP implementation success factors

Based on research literature and experts opinions, a total of eight criteria including
support of senior management, project management, change management, training,
teamwork, clarity of goals, selection of appropriate package, and re-engineering were
selected as the factors affecting the success of ERP implementation.

4.2 Step 2: Constructing the decision matrix

After identifying the ERP implementation success factors and their evaluation criteria, a
Questionnaire was designed and distributed among experts. The results of evaluation of
ERP success factors based on opinions of 4 Experts are shown in Table 3. These results
are based on conversion of verbal expressions listed in Table 1 to their corresponding
intuitionistic fuzzy numbers.

4.3 Step 3: Determining the relative importance of experts’ opinions

The importance of each of the experts based on verbal expressions of Table 2 is shown in
Table 4.
Table 4 Importance of each expert

K1 K2 K3 K4
Linguistic terms Middle important Important Very important Very important

Weight of each expert (λk) was determined by converting the verbal expressions of
mentioned table to intuitionistic fuzzy numbers of Table 2 and then using the
equation (11). The obtained weights are presented below:
K1 K2 K3 K4
λk =
0.168 0.253 0.288 0.288

4.4 Step 4: Constructing aggregated intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix based

on experts’ opinions (direct relation matrix)
The weights obtained for experts were used along with equation (12) to form the
aggregated decision matrix ( R (m × m)) as Table 5.

4.5 Step 5: Normalising the direct relation matrix

In this step, equations (13) to (16) were used to normalise the direct relation matrix. This
matrix is presented Table 6.

4.6 Step 6: Defuzzification of normalised matrix

In this step, preference risk coefficient (β) and equation (17) were used to defuzzify the
normalised direct relation matrix. This resulting defuzzified matrix is presented in
Table 7 (note that at this stage β = 0.5).
 Table 5

Items C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
C1 (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.83, 0.149, 0.021) (0.841, 0.154, (0.791, 0.199, 0.01) (0.777, 0.192, 0.03) (0.814, 0.174, (0.715, 0.255, (0.87, 0.122, 0.008)
0.005) 0.012) 0.029)
C2 (0.346, 0.612, (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.627, 0.32, 0.054) (0.799, 0.184, (0.874, 0.119, (0.555, 0.392, (0.771, 0.201, (0.702, 0.246,
0.042) 0.017) 0.007) 0.052) 0.028) 0.052)
C3 (0.488, 0.461, (0.487, 0.459, (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.538, 0.406, (0.436, 0.513, 0.05) (0.441, 0.508, 0.05) (0.543, 0.402, (0.85, 0.146, 0.004)
Analysis of causal relationship

0.051) 0.054) 0.055) 0.055)

C4 (0.286, 0.675, 0.04) (0.507, 0.437, (0.761, 0.226, (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.883, 0.112, (0.693, 0.277, 0.03) (0.764, 0.227, (0.758, 0.212, 0.03)
0.056) 0.013) 0.004) 0.008)
Aggregated decision matrix R (m × m)

C5 (0.499, 0.452, (0.638, 0.341, (0.664, 0.3, 0.036) (0.488, 0.461, (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.363, 0.591, (0.538, 0.406, (0.848, 0.137,
0.049) 0.021) 0.051) 0.045) 0.055) 0.015)
C6 (0.507, 0.437, (0.771, 0.201, (0.808, 0.164, (0.544, 0.402, (0.784, 0.188, (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.799, 0.184, (0.725, 0.249,
0.056) 0.028) 0.028) 0.054) 0.028) 0.017) 0.026)
C7 (0.374, 0.583, (0.559, 0.387, (0.527, 0.418, (0.558, 0.416, (0.572, 0.374, (0.528, 0.416, (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.812, 0.177,
0.043) 0.055) 0.055) 0.026) 0.054) 0.056) 0.011)
C8 (0.346, 0.612, (0.607, 0.337, (0.742, 0.246, (0.443, 0.508, (0.374, 0.583, (0.397, 0.552, 0.05) (0.671, 0.275, (0.5, 0.5, 0)
0.042) 0.055) 0.013) 0.049) 0.043) 0.055)
449
 450

Table 6

Items C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
C1 (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.83, 0.149, 0.021) (0.841, 0.154, (0.791, 0.199, 0.01) (0.777, 0.192, 0.03) (0.814, 0.174, (0.715, 0.255, (0.87, 0.628,
0.005) 0.012) 0.029) –0.498)
C2 (0.346, 0.612, (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.627, 0.32, 0.054) (0.799, 0.184, (0.874, 0.119, (0.555, 0.392, (0.771, 0.201, (0.703, 0.245,
0.042) 0.017) 0.007) 0.052) 0.028) 0.052)
H. Sayyadi Tooranloo et al.

C3 (0.488, 0.461, (0.487, 0.459, (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.538, 0.406, (0.436, 0.513, 0.05) (0.441, 0.508, 0.05) (0.543, 0.402, (0.85, 0.817,
0.051) 0.054) 0.055) 0.055) –0.667)
C4 (0.286, 0.675, 0.04) (0.507, 0.437, (0.761, 0.226, (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.883, 0.112, (0.693, 0.277, 0.03) (0.764, 0.227, (0.758, 0.379,
0.056) 0.013) 0.004) 0.008) –0.138)
C5 (0.499, 0.452, (0.638, 0.341, (0.664, 0.3, 0.036) (0.488, 0.461, (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.363, 0.591, (0.538, 0.406, (0.848, 0.478,
0.049) 0.021) 0.051) 0.045) 0.055) –0.326)
Normalised direct relation matrix N (m × m)

C6 (0.507, 0.437, (0.771, 0.201, (0.808, 0.164, (0.544, 0.402, (0.784, 0.188, (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.799, 0.184, (0.725, 0.484,
0.056) 0.028) 0.028) 0.054) 0.028) 0.017) –0.209)
C7 (0.374, 0.583, (0.559, 0.387, (0.527, 0.418, (0.558, 0.416, (0.572, 0.374, (0.528, 0.416, (0.5, 0.5, 0) (0.813, 0.669,
0.043) 0.055) 0.055) 0.026) 0.054) 0.056) –0.482)
C8 (0.346, 0.612, (0.607, 0.337, (0.742, 0.246, (0.443, 0.508, (0.374, 0.583, (0.397, 0.552, 0.05) (0.671, 0.275, (0.501, 0.499, 0)
0.042) 0.055) 0.013) 0.049) 0.043) 0.055)
 Analysis of causal relationship 451

Table 7 Defuzzified normalised direct relation matrix

Items C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
C1 0.000 0.691 0.689 0.597 0.600 0.647 0.475 0.752
C2 –0.245 0.000 0.334 0.624 0.758 0.189 0.584 0.483
C3 0.052 0.056 0.000 0.160 –0.052 –0.041 0.168 0.705
C4 –0.369 0.098 0.541 0.000 0.773 0.430 0.542 0.561
C5 0.072 0.308 0.382 0.052 0.000 –0.205 0.160 0.718
C6 0.098 0.584 0.659 0.169 0.611 0.000 0.624 0.489
C7 –0.187 0.199 0.137 0.155 0.225 0.140 0.000 0.641
C8 –0.245 0.298 0.502 –0.041 –0.187 –0.130 0.423 0.000

Table 8 Total relation matrix (T)

Items C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
C1 –1.930 1.210 2.490 0.808 0.484 –0.370 2.642 3.953
C2 –0.734 –0.038 0.559 0.300 0.303 –0.276 0.799 1.069
C3 –0.177 0.008 0.046 0.048 –0.242 –0.124 0.243 0.557
C4 –0.599 0.050 0.538 –0.194 0.175 –0.117 0.587 0.850
C5 –0.220 0.155 0.346 0.015 –0.287 –0.320 0.255 0.681
C6 –1.048 0.755 1.500 0.335 0.318 –0.586 1.669 2.322
C7 –0.284 0.038 0.043 –0.020 –0.060 –0.085 –0.025 0.363
C8 0.002 –0.119 –0.181 –0.172 –0.357 –0.079 –0.163 –0.680

Table 9 The importance and effectiveness of criteria

Criteria Di – Ri Di + Ri
C1 4.297 14.278
C2 4.041 –0.077
C3 5.699 –4.980
C4 2.410 0.170
C5 0.959 0.290
C6 3.306 7.221
C7 5.975 –6.037
C8 7.367 –10.865

4.7 Step 7: Calculating the total relation matrix (T)

In this step, equation (18) and the identity matrix (I) were used to calculating the total
relation matrix. Results of this step are presented in Table 8.

4.8 Step 8: Developing the causal diagram

Once the total relation matrix was obtained, the sum of entries in each row and each
column were calculated separately. The values were then used to measure the importance
452 H. Sayyadi Tooranloo et al.

of each variable (Di + Ri) and the status of relationship between them (Di – Ri). The
results are presented in Table 9. By definition, when Di − Ri 0, the corresponding
variable can be considered as a ‘cause’, and when Di − Ri ≺ 0, the corresponding
variable can be considered as an ‘effect’.

Figure 1 Cause and effect diagram of factors affecting the successful implementation of
enterprise resource planning

20

15 C1
10
C6
5
C5 C4
0
0 1 2 3 4 C2 5 6 7 8
-5 C3 C7
-10 C8
-15

5 Conclusions

Given the recent developments in information technology, it is quite obvious that in the
near future manual quality control system is less amenable to production and services and
there is an urgent need for a novel quality control method in the organisation.
ERP system offers many advantages including process automation and proceeding
time reduction, resulting in a certain information structure and balanced production
caused by coordination and easy, fast and secure information exchange between related
sectors.
ERP is a system that integrates the data available in an organisation and properly
provides them to users at a suitable time. In other words, it creates a unique database into
which data are collected and stored in a number of applications supporting company
business activities (Horngren et al., 1997).
As expected, EPR deployment causes to provide accurate and timely business
information and reach optimal management decisions (Poston and Grabski, 2001). Heath
et al. believe that companies investing in EPR have a stronger performance and receive
greater financial benefits (Bradley, 2008). It requires reducing investment risks in EPR
implementation. Accordingly, success factors identification for ERP implementation and
their relationships explanation to better understand their effects can be highly effective in
minimising EPR implementation risks and planning its execution. The aim of this study
was to provide a model based on the relationships explanation between success factors
for ERP implementation in an intuitionistic fuzzy environment using case studies in
Esfahan Steel Company. Expert comments-based assessment using intuitionistic fuzzy set
theory gives more accurate results compared to certain fuzzy set. Intuitionistic fuzzy
based DEMATEL technique was employed to explain the relationships between success
factors for ERP implementation. The results obtained from the proposed model
 Analysis of causal relationship 453

implementation to assess the relationships between eight protection factors associated

with top management, project management, change management, training, work team,
clarity of purpose, appropriate package selection and reengineering in Esfahan Steel
Company showed that top management, project management and clarity of purpose
protection factors were influential and change management, training, work
team, appropriate package selection and reengineering were impressionable. Factors
C1 (top management protection) and C8 (re-engineering) were the most influential and
impressionable factors, respectively. Providing motivation is the final stage in ERP
implementation process. Top management approval and protection is the first step to
take. Management obligation and protection is an optimal strategy that creates necessary
conditions under which changes due to ERP implementation are successfully introduced.
Today, successful companies in business fields have found that applying the strategic
management principles of human resources and establishing the relation between its
strategies and overall organisational strategies is an inevitable fact. The process involves
top management protection and cooperation between first-line managers and human
resources management. It was also found that factor C8 (re-engineering) was of utmost
importance among the success factors for ERP implementation. Experience has shown
that employees using the applications in different sectors are considered as the major
failure factor to implement and execute this project. If they do not accept to improve their
activities process through ERP implementation, they resist implementing it. Therefore,
the execution of change management is referred to as a central issue in the management,
giving successful results.

References
Ahmad, M.M. and Cuenca, R.P. (2013) ‘Critical success factors for ERP implementation in SMEs’,
Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp.104–111.
Alaskari, O., Ahmad, M., Dhafr, N. and Pinedo-Cuenca, R. (2013) ‘Critical successful factors
(CSFs) for successful implementation of lean tools and ERP systems’, Proceedings of the
World Congress on Engineering, Vol. 3.
Al-Mashari, M., Al-Mudimigh, A. and Zairi, M. (2003) ‘Enterprise resource planning: a taxonomy
of critical factors’, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 146, No. 2, pp.352–364.
Arnoldina, P. (2010) ‘Factors of successful implementation of ERP systems’, Economics and
Management, Vol. 15.
Atanassov, K. (1983) Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set’, VII ITKR’s Session, Deposed in Central Sci. Techn.
Library of Bulg. Acd. of Sci. Sofia June, pp.1697–1684.
Atanassov, K. (1999) Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, New York.
Atanassov, K. and Gargov, G. (1998) ‘Elements of intuitionistic fuzzy logic’, Part I. Fuzzy Sets
and Systems, Vol. 95, No. 1, pp.39–52.
Atanassov, K.T. (1986) ‘Intuitionistic fuzzy sets’, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, No. 1,
pp.87–96.
Atanassov, K.T. (1989) ‘More on intuitionistic fuzzy sets’, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 33, No. 1,
pp.37–45.
Atanassov, K.T. (2000) ‘Two theorems for intuitionistic fuzzy sets’, Fuzzy Sets and Systems,
Vol. 110, No. 2, pp.267–269.
Azadeh, A., Afshari-Mofrad, M. and Khalojini, M. (2012) ‘The role of organisational infrastructure
in successful ERP implementation: an empirical study by hierarchical regression and PCA’,
Int. J. Business Information Systems, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.40–67.
454 H. Sayyadi Tooranloo et al.

Ban, A.I. (2006) ‘Nearest interval approximation of an intuitionistic fuzzy number computational
intelligence’, Theory and Applications, pp.229–240, Springer, Berlin.
Bernroider, E.W. (2008) ‘IT governance for enterprise resource planning supported by the
DeLone–McLean model of information systems success’, Information & Management,
Vol. 45, No. 5, pp.257–269.
Bradley, J. (2008) ‘Management based critical success factors in the implementation of enterprise
resource planning systems’, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 9,
No. 3, pp.175–200.
Caruso, D. (2003) ‘The world class challenge: six critical issues midmarket manufacturers must
address’, SVP Research, AMR Research Inc.
Cebeci, U. (2009) ‘Fuzzy AHP-based decision support system for selecting ERP systems in textile
industry by using balanced scorecard’, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36, No. 5,
pp.8900–8909.
Chakravorty, S.S., Dulaney, R.E. and Franza, R.M. (2016) ‘ERP implementation failures: a case
study and analysis’, Int. J. Business Information Systems, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.462–476.
Chang, M-K., Cheung, W., Cheng, C-H. and Yeung, J.H. (2008) ‘Understanding ERP system
adoption from the user’s perspective’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol.
113, No. 2, pp.928–942.
Chauhan, S. and Jaiswal, M. (2015) ‘Exploring factors affecting service quality of ERP on cloud: a
revelatory case study’, Int. J. Business Information Systems, Vol. 19, No. 1,
pp.87–102.
Chuen, A. (2010) Critical Success Factors in Enterprise Resource Planning System
Implementation: An Analysis, UMI 3425878, Pro Quest, USA.
Crocitto, M. and Youssef, M. (2003) ‘The human side of organizational agility’, Industrial
Management & Data Systems, Vol. 103, No. 6, pp.388–397.
Davenport, T.H. (1998) ‘Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system’, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 76, No. 4.
Davenport, T.H. (2000) Mission Critical: Realizing the Promise of Enterprise Systems, Harvard
Business Press.
Deep, A., Guttridge, P., Dani, S. and Burns, N. (2008) ‘Investigate factors affecting ERP selection
in made-to-order SMEs sector’, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 19,
No. 4, pp.430–446.
Deschrijver, G. and Kerre, E.E. (2002) ‘On the relationship between intuitionistic fuzzy sets and
some other extensions of fuzzy set theory’, J. Fuzzy Math., Vol. 10, No. 3, pp.711–724.
Dey, P.K., Clegg, B.T. and Bennett, D.J. (2010) ‘Managing enterprise resource planning projects’,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.282–296.
Dezdar, S. and Ainin, S. (2011) ‘Examining ERP implementation success from a project
environment perspective’, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 17, No. 6,
pp.919–939.
Dezdar, S. and Sulaiman, A. (2009) ‘Successful enterprise resource planning implementation:
taxonomy of critical factors’, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 109, No. 8,
pp.1037–1052.
El Sawah, S., Abd El Fattah Tharwat, A. and Hassan Rasmy, M. (2008) ‘A quantitative model to
predict the Egyptian ERP implementation success index’, Business Process Management
Journal, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.288–306.
Elmeziane, K., Chuanmin, S. and Elmeziane, M. (2011) ‘Critical success factors of enterprise
resource planning implementation in China: case study in Shanghai City, China’, IEEE
Transactions, 978-1-4244-8694- 6/11.
Enquist, H. and Juell-Skielse, G. (2010) ‘Value propositions in service oriented business models for
ERP: case studies’, Paper presented at the International Conference on Business Information
Systems.
 Analysis of causal relationship 455

Finney, S. and Corbett, M. (2007) ‘ERP implementation: a compilation and analysis of critical
success factors’, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.329–347.
Forslund, H. (2010) ‘ERP systems’ capabilities for supply chain performance management’,
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 110, No. 3, pp.351–367.
Ganesh, L. and Mehta, A. (2010) ‘Critical success factors for successful enterprise resource
planning implementation at Indian SMEs’, International Journal of Business, Management
and Social Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.65–78.
Ganesh, L. and Mehta, A. (2013) ‘Accessing the role of critical success factors for successful ERP
implementation at Indian SMEs: a statistical validation’, Int. J. Business and Globalization,
Vol. 10, No. 4, pp.408–438.
García-Sánchez, N. and Pérez-Bernal, L.E. (2007) ‘Determination of critical success factors in
implementing an ERP system: a field study in Mexican enterprises’, Information Technology
for Development, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.293–309.
Grabski, S.V. and Leech, S.A. (2007) ‘Complementary controls and ERP implementation success’,
International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.17–39.
Gartner Research (2012) 'Reimagining It: A Survey of CIO, GartnerResearch [online]
http://www.gartner.com (accessed 19September 2012).
Gau, W.L. and Buehrer, D.J. (1993) ‘Vague sets’, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern., Vol. 23,
pp.610–614.
Gupta, R. and Naqvi, K. (2013) ‘A completeness framework for CSF of ERP implementation
projects: a stakeholders’ perspective’, International Journal of Management & Information
Technology, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.541–62.
Hairul, M., Nasir, N. and Sahibuddin, S. (2011) ‘Critical success factors for software projects: a
comparative study’, Scientific Research and Essays, Vol. 10, pp.2174–2186 [online]
http://www.academicjournals.org/SRE (accessed 24 November 2012).
Hallikainen, P., Kivijärvi, H. and Tuominen, M. (2009) ‘Supporting the module sequencing
decision in the ERP implementation process—an application of the ANP method’,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 119, No. 2, pp.259–270.
Hitt, L.M. and DJ Wu, X.Z. (2002) ‘Investment in enterprise resource planning: business impact
and productivity measures’, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 19,
No. 1, pp.71–98.
Horngren, C.T., Foster, G. and Datar, S.M. (1997) Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis,
Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Hosein, L. and Shakir, M. (2001) ‘SIF for understanding the ERP selection in New Zealand’,
Journal of Decision Systems-Special Issue on ERP and their Impact on Decission Making,
Vol. 10.
Ifinedo, P. (2008) ‘Impacts of business vision, top management support, and external expertise on
ERP success’, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.551–568.
Karsak, E.E. and Özogul, C.O. (2009) An integrated decision making approach for ERP system
selection, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp.660–667.
Kayas, O.G., McLean, R., Hines, T. and Wright, G.H. (2008) ‘The panoptic gaze: analysing the
interaction between enterprise resource planning technology and organisational culture’,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp.446–452.
Ke, W. and Wei, K.K. (2008) ‘Organizational culture and leadership in ERP implementation’,
Decision Support Systems, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp.208–218.
Klaus, H., Rosemann, M. and Gable, G.G. (2000) ‘What is ERP?’, Information Systems Frontiers,
Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.141–162.
Koh, S.C.L., Ganesh, K., Pratik, V. and Anbuudayasankar, S.P. (2014) ‘Impact of ERP
implementation on supply chain performance’, Int. J. Productivity and Quality Management,
Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.196–227.
456 H. Sayyadi Tooranloo et al.

Kronbichler, S.A., Ostermann, H. and Staudinger, R. (2009) ‘A review of critical success factors
for ERP-projects’, The Open Information Systems Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1.
Kumar, V., Maheshwari, B. and Kumar, U. (2002) ‘ERP systems implementation: best practices in
Canadian government organizations’, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2,
pp.147–172.
Kwahk, K-Y. and Ahn, H. (2010) ‘Moderating effects of localization differences on ERP use: a
socio-technical systems perspective’, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26, No. 2,
pp.186–198.
Liao, X., Li, Y. and Lu, B. (2007) ‘A model for selecting an ERP system based on linguistic
information processing’, Information Systems, Vol. 32, No. 7, pp.1005–1017.
Liu, P-L. (2011) ‘Empirical study on influence of critical success factors on ERP knowledge
management on management performance in high-tech industries in Taiwan’, Expert Systems
with Applications, Vol. 38, No. 8, pp.10696–10704.
Mabert, V.A., Soni, A. and Venkataramanan, M.A. (2003) ‘The impact of organization size on
enterprise resource planning (ERP) implementations in the US manufacturing sector’, Omega,
Vol. 31, No. 3, pp.235–246.
Malhotra, R. and Temponi, C. (2010) ‘Critical decisions for ERP integration: small business
issues’, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp.28–37.
Markus, M.L. and Tanis, C. (2000) ‘The enterprise systems experience-from adoption to success’,
Framing the Domains of it Research: Glimpsing the Future Through the Past, Vol. 173,
pp.207–173.
Moohebat, M., Asemi, A. and Jazi, M.D. (2010) ‘A comparative study of critical success factors
(CSFs) in implementation of ERP in developed and developing countries’, International
Journal of Advancements in Computing Technology, Vol. 2, No. 5, pp.99–110.
Motwani, J., Mirchandani, D., Madan, M. and Gunasekaran, A. (2002) ‘Successful implementation
of ERP projects: evidence from two case studies’, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 75, No. 1, pp.83–96.
Mukti, S.K., Tripathi, P. and Rawani, A.M. (2013) ‘Identification of progress and success factors
during implementation of ERP package in Indian Steel Industry’, Journal of Innovative
Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.41–47.
Nah, F-H., Lee-Shang Lau, J. and Kuang, J. (2001) ‘Critical factors for successful implementation
of enterprise systems’, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.S285–296.
Ngai, W.T., Dorothy, C.K. and Chan, T.L.A. (2011) ‘Information technology, operational, &
management competencies for supply chain agility: findings from case studies’, Journal Of
Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 20, pp.232–249.
Norris, G., Balls, J.D. and Hartley, K.M. (2000) E-business and ERP: Transforming the Enterprise,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
O’Leary, D.E. (2000) Enterprise Resource Planning Systems: Systems, Life Cycle, Electronic
Commerce, and Risk, Cambridge University Press.
Olson, D.L. (2003) Managerial Issues of Enterprise Resource Planning Systems, McGraw-Hill,
Inc.
Osman, M., Yusuff, R.M., Tang, S.H. and Jafari, S.M. (2006) ‘ERP systems implementation in
Malaysia: the importance of critical success factors’, International Journal of Engineering and
Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.125–131.
Pabedinskaite, A. (2010) ‘Factors of successful implementation of ERP Systems’, Economics &
Management, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.691–697.
Pan, K., Baptista Nunes, M. and Chao Peng, G. (2011) ‘Risks affecting ERP post-implementation:
insights from a large Chinese manufacturing group’, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.107–130.
Parry, G. and Graves, A. (2008) ‘The importance of knowledge management for ERP systems’,
International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, Vol. 11, No. 6, pp.427–441.
 Analysis of causal relationship 457

Poston, R.S. and Grabski (2001) ‘Financial impacts of enterprise resource planning
implementations’, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 2,
pp.294–271.
Ranjan, S., Kumar Jha, V. and Pal, P. (2016) ‘Literature review on ERP implementation
challenges’, Int. J. Business Information Systems, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp.388–402.
Sammon, D. and Adam, F. (2010) ‘Project preparedness and the emergence of implementation
problems in ERP projects’, Information & Management, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp.1–8.
Sánchez, P.J., Martı, L., Garcı, C., Herrera, F. and Herrera-Viedma, E. (2009) ‘A fuzzy model to
evaluate the suitability of installing an enterprise resource planning system’, Information
Sciences, Vol. 179, No. 14, pp.2333–2341.
Saravanan, D. and Joseph, D. (2016) ‘Implementation and cultural issues going together for
successful adoption of ERP systems’, Int. J. Business Information Systems, Vol. 23, No. 1,
pp.87–96.
Shang, S. and Seddon, P.B. (2002) ‘Assessing and managing the benefits of enterprise systems: the
business manager’s perspective’, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp.271–299.
Sharifi, H. and Zhang, Z. (1999) ‘A methodology for achieving agility in manufacturing
organisations: an introduction’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 62,
No. 1, pp.7–22.
Shatat, A.S. and Udin, Z.M. (2013) ‘Factors affecting ERP system effectiveness in
post-implementation stage within Malaysian manufacturing companies’, Int. J. Business
Information Systems, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.348–392.
Shields, M.G. (2004) E-Business and ERP: Rapid Implementation and Project Planning, John
Wiley & Sons.
Shukla, S., Mishra, P.K., Jain, R. and Yadav, H.C. (2016) ‘An integrated decision making approach
for ERP system selection using SWARA and PROMETHEE method’, Int. J. Intelligent
Enterprise, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.120–147.
Snider, B., da Silveira, G.J. and Balakrishnan, J. (2009) ‘ERP implementation at SMEs: analysis of
five Canadian cases’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.4–29.
Szmidt, E. and Kacprzyk, J. (2000) ‘Distances between intuitionistic fuzzy sets’, Fuzzy Set Syst.,
Vol. 114, No. 3, pp.505–518.
Szmidt, E. and Kacprzyk, J. (2001) ‘Entropy for intuitionistic fuzzy sets’, Fuzzy Set Syst., Vol. 118,
pp.467–477.
Tarantilis, C.D., Kiranoudis, C.T. and Theodorakopoulos, N. (2008) ‘A web-based ERP system for
business services and supply chain management: application to real-world process
scheduling’, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 187, No. 3, pp.1310–1326.
Tsai, W-H., Shaw, M.J., Fan, Y-W., Liu, J-Y., Lee, K-C. and Chen, H-C. (2011) ‘An empirical
investigation of the impacts of internal/external facilitators on the project success of ERP: a
structural equation model’, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp.480–490.
Upadhyay, P., Jahanyan, S. and Dan, P.K. (2011) ‘Factors influencing ERP implementation in
Indian manufacturing organisations: a study of micro, small and medium-scale enterprises’,
Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp.130–145.
Vandaie, R. (2008) ‘The role of organizational knowledge management in successful ERP
implementation projects’, Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 21, No. 8, pp.920–926.
Velcu, O. (2010) ‘Strategic alignment of ERP implementation stages: an empirical investigation’,
Information & Management, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp.158–166.
Wagner, E.L., Moll, J. and Newell, S. (2011) ‘Accounting logics, reconfiguration of ERP systems
and the emergence of new accounting practices: a sociomaterial perspective’, Management
Accounting Research, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp.181–197.
458 H. Sayyadi Tooranloo et al.

Wang, P., Chow, T.W. and Chiu, C.W. (2009) ‘Computational accounting in determining chart of
Accounts using nominal data analysis and concept of entropy’, Expert Systems with
Applications, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp.6966–6977.
Watson, E.E. and Schneider, H. (1998) ‘Using ERP in education’, Communications of the AIS,
Vol. 1, No. 9, pp.1–48.
Westrup, C. and Knight, F. (2000) ‘Consultants and enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems’,
ECIS 2000 Proceedings, Vol. 178.
Wu, L-C., Ong, C-S. and Hsu, Y-W. (2008) ‘Active ERP implementation management: a real
options perspective’, Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 81, No. 6, pp.1039–1050.
Wu, W-W. (2011) ‘Segmenting and mining the ERP users’ perceived benefits using the rough set
approach’, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 38, No. 6, pp.6940–6948.
Xie, H., Duan, W., Sun, Y. and Du, Y. (2014) ‘Dynamic DEMATEL group decision approach
based on intuitionistic fuzzy number’, TELKOMNIKA (Telecommunication Computing
Electronics and Control), Vol. 12, No. 4, pp.1064–1072.
Xu, Z. (2007) ‘Intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators’, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems,
Vol. 15, No. 6, pp.1179–1187.
Xu, Z. and Cai, X. (2012) Intuitionistic Fuzzy Information Aggregation, Springer Heidelberg, New
York Dordrecht London.
Yaseen, S.G. (2009) ‘Critical factors affecting enterprise resource planning implementation: an
explanatory case study’, International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security,
Vol. 9, No. 4, pp.359–363.
Yeh, T-M., Yang, C-C. and Lin, W-T. (2007) ‘Service quality and ERP implementation: a
conceptual and empirical study of semiconductor-related industries in Taiwan’, Computers in
Industry, Vol. 58, No. 8, pp.844–854.
Yingjie, J. (2005) ‘Critical success factors in ERP implementation in Finland’, The Swedish School
of Economics and Business Administration, Vol. 71.
Yusuf, Y., Gunasekaran, A. and Abthorpe, M. (2004) ‘Enterprise information systems project
implementation: a case study of ERP in Rolls-Royce’, Int. J. Prod. Economics, Vol. 87,
pp.251–266.
Zadeh, L.A. (1965) ‘Fuzzy sets’, Information and Control, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.338–353.
Zhang, Q-s., Jiang, S., Jia, B. and Luo, S. (2010) ‘Some information measures for interval-valued
intuitionistic fuzzy sets’, Information Sciences, Vol. 180, No. 24, pp.5130–5145.
Zhang, Z. and Sharifi, H. (2000) ‘A methodology for achieving agility in manufacturing
organisations’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20,
No. 4, pp.496–513.
Zhu, Y., Li, Y., Wang, W. and Chen, J. (2010) ‘What leads to post-implementation success of
ERP? An empirical study of the Chinese retail industry’, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp.265–276.
Zouaghi, I. and Laghouag, A. (2012) ‘aligning key success factors to ERP implementation strategy:
learning from a case study’, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Information
Systems, Logistics and Supply Chain Creative Logistics for an Uncertain World.