Available

Available online
online at
at www.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia
Procedia Computer
Computer Science
Science 00
00 (2022)
(2022) 000–000
000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia Computer Science 219 (2023) 879–888

CENTERIS
CENTERIS –– International
International Conference
Conference on
on ENTERprise
ENTERprise Information
Information Systems
Systems // ProjMAN
ProjMAN ––
International Conference
International Conference on
on Project
Project MANagement
MANagement // HCist
HCist –– International
International Conference
Conference on
on Health
Health
and Social
and Social Care
Care Information
Information Systems
Systems and
and Technologies
Technologies 2022
2022

Exploring Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods in

ERP Selection
Kjetil
Kjetil Hansen,
Hansen, Moutaz
Moutaz Haddara*,
Haddara*, Marius
Marius Langseth
Langseth
Kristiania University College,
Kristiania University College, 0107 Oslo, Norway.
0107 Oslo, Norway.

Abstract
Abstract

Enterprise
Enterprise resource
resource planning
planning (ERP)
(ERP) adoption
adoption literature
literature has
has aa consensus
consensus that
that selecting
selecting the
the right
right ERP
ERP system
system is is one
one of
of the
the most
most
critical
critical success
success factors
factors in
in the
the ERP
ERP adoption
adoption lifecycle.
lifecycle. While
While choosing
choosing aa non-fitting
non-fitting ERPERP system
system may
may lead
lead to
to adoption
adoption failures,
failures,
however
however very
very few
few papers
papers focus
focus solely
solely on
on this
this selection
selection phase.
phase. Hence,
Hence, given
given the
the criticality
criticality of
of the
the ERP
ERP selection
selection phase,
phase, this
this paper
paper
aims to
aims to identify
identify and
and review
review thethe different
different ERP
ERP selection
selection methods
methods in in extant
extant literature.
literature. This
This research
research also
also presents
presents the
the factors
factors and
and
variables included
variables included inin each
each identified
identified selection
selection method
method in in ERP
ERP literature.
literature. As
As aa result,
result, each
each method
method identified
identified was
was reviewed,
reviewed, analyzed,
analyzed,
and
and summarized.
summarized. Our Our main
main findings
findings suggest
suggest that
that ERP
ERP selection
selection isis aa multi-criteria
multi-criteria decision-making
decision-making (MCDM)
(MCDM) problem,
problem, with
with various
various
methods
methods and techniques that can be utilized for such problems. Several MCDM methods have been used in literature, but
and techniques that can be utilized for such problems. Several MCDM methods have been used in literature, but often
often
complementing more
complementing more than
than one
one method
method combined
combined at at aa time.
time. This
This is is since
since some
some methods
methods excel
excel in
in considering
considering factors
factors inin uncertain
uncertain
environments, and
environments, and other
other methods
methods are are best
best in
in evaluating
evaluating qualitative
qualitative andand quantitative
quantitative factors.
factors. Finally,
Finally, while
while there
there are
are some
some methods
methods
that
that were
were used
used for
for cloud-ERP
cloud-ERP selections,
selections, there
there is
is no
no clear
clear consensus
consensus in in extant literature if
extant literature if some
some methods
methods could
could best
best fit
fit specifically
specifically
cloud-ERP contexts
cloud-ERP contexts in
in contrast
contrast toto on-premises
on-premises counterparts.
counterparts.
©
© 2022
© 2023 The
2022 The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by
by ELSEVIER
Elsevier B.V.B.V.
ELSEVIER B.V.
This
This is
This is an
is an open-access
an open access article
open-access article under
under the
the CC
CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review
Peer-review under
Peer-review under responsibility
responsibilityofof
underresponsibility the
ofthe scientific
thescientific committee
committee
scientific committee of
of the
of the CENTERIS
CENTERIS
the CENTERIS –– International
– International Conference
Conference
International on
on ENTERprise
on ENTERprise
Conference Information
ENTERprise
Information Systems
Systems- //International
Systems / ProjMAN
Information ProjMAN
ProjMAN -- Conference
International
International onConference on
on Project
Project /MANagement
Project MANagement
Conference // HCist
HCist - International
MANagement -- International
HCistConference Conference
on Health
International Conference on
and Social
on Care
Health and
and Social
Information
Health Care
Systems
Social andInformation
Care Technologies
Information Systems
2022 and
Systems and Technologies
Technologies 20222022
Keywords: ERP
Keywords: ERP selection;
selection; Literature
Literature Review;
Review; Multi-Criteria
Multi-Criteria Decision-Making.
Decision-Making.

*
* Corresponding
Corresponding author.
author.
E-mail address: moutaz.haddara@kristiania.no
E-mail address: moutaz.haddara@kristiania.no

1877-0509
1877-0509 ©© 2022
2022 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published byby ELSEVIER
ELSEVIER B.V.
B.V.
This
This is
is an
an open
open access
access article
article under
under the
the CC
CC BY-NC-ND
BY-NC-ND license
license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under
Peer-review under responsibility
responsibility of
of the
the scientific
scientific committee
committee of
of the
the CENTERIS
CENTERIS –– International
International Conference
Conference on
on ENTERprise
ENTERprise Information
Information Systems
Systems //
ProjMAN
ProjMAN -- International
International Conference
Conference on on Project
Project MANagement
MANagement // HCist
HCist -- International
International Conference
Conference on
on Health
Health and
and Social
Social Care
Care Information
Information Systems
Systems
and Technologies
and Technologies 2022
2022
1877-0509 © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the CENTERIS – International Conference on ENTERprise
Information Systems / ProjMAN - International Conference on Project MANagement / HCist - International Conference
on Health and Social Care Information Systems and Technologies 2022
10.1016/j.procs.2023.01.363
880 Kjetil Hansen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 219 (2023) 879–888
2 Kjetil Hansen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000

1. Introduction

Enterprise Resource Planning systems, simply known as ERP systems, are large information systems (IS) platforms
where businesses can automate and optimize their competitive business processes and enable seamless cross-
functional transactions [1]. The applications of ERP have ties to Material Requirements Planning, also known as MRP
[2]. MRP is a term first coined by the Gartner Group back in the 1990s, and these days ERP has evolved from MRP
into a complete system. Many organizations adopt ERP systems to reduce costs and optimize their business processes;
some could be at a substantial economic loss. This is because selecting the right ERP system for your organization is
critical to success. If one chooses an ERP unsuitable for the organization, one would be predestined to fail [3].
The selection of an ERP system is a critical phase in the ERP adoption and implementation lifecycle, which is (the
lifecycle) comprising several phases. Several studies provided adoption and implementation lifecycles and
frameworks, which usually differ in naming and number of phases. However, most models cover the main tasks when
adopting a new system [4]. One of the established ERP lifecycle models is the ERP lifecycle model developed by [5].
The lifecycle model [5] is a six-phase model and was one of the earliest frameworks to include the retirement phase
in the ERP literature [6]. As mentioned above, the ERP lifecycle model comprises several phases that an ERP system
goes through during its lifetime in organizations. The phases (see Fig. 1) are adoption decision, acquisition (where the
ERP selection is undertaken), implementation, use and maintenance, evolution, and the retirement phase. The
acquisition phase is the stage that follows the organization’s assessment of whether they are ready for and need an
ERP system. The acquisition phase includes several tasks and operations, including the requirements analysis and the
ERP selection that matches the needs of the adopting organization. It is also important to note that the ERP lifecycle
is a recursive model, which means that the retirement phase is the point where the current system (e.g., ERP, manual)
is no longer capable of scalability or is obsolete and needs to be replaced with newer and state-of-the-art technologies
[5]. While the ERP lifecycle phases may differ between on-premises ERP vs. cloud-ERP systems, the selection phase
will always be a part of any ERP adoption project and product lifecycle.

Adoption Use &

Acquisition Implementation Evolution Retirement
Decision Maintenance

Fig. 1. ERP lifecycle framework. Adapted from [1].

As with any large-scale project, many risk factors are involved in ERP adoption projects. Thus, many internal and
external factors must be considered when selecting an ERP system, like organization size, organization readiness,
requirements, number of departments, vendor support, and cost of ERP adoption and implementation. When selecting
an ERP system, whether it would turn out to be the right fit or not would imply an economic investment. Therefore,
choosing an ERP system that does not fit the organization could be costly. This could, thus, fail the project entirely or
cripple the company's performance [7]. Selecting an ERP system is a risky investment, and switching from one system
to another could prove expensive due to switching costs. Choosing the best selection method could prove crucial in
securing the best ERP fit for your company. According to [8], selecting an ERP system can be a complex problem.
Because of this, this study attempts to investigate the various multi-criteria decision-making methods adopted in ERP
systems’ evaluations in extant literature. While some approaches rely on complex mathematical equations to calculate
the weighted score of the factors included, other studies provide a more straightforward approach to identifying and
considering the different vital factors during ERP selection stages.
While the ERP literature is rich and broad, there is little focus on ERP selection methods, especially when
comparing the other issues discussed in the ERP lifecycle phases [7]. In addition, little is known about which methods
(e.g., from other disciplines) have been proven successful in ERP selection efforts. Therefore, this paper attempts to
identify and provide an overview of the various multi-attribute ERP selection methods presented in the existing ERP
literature and evaluate those identified methods. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2
explains the methodology utilized in this research. A presentation of the literature review findings is provided in
section 3. Section 4 presents a discussion of the findings, and finally, the conclusion and our future research
recommendations are provided in section 5.
 Kjetil Hansen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 219 (2023) 879–888 881
Kjetil Hansen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000 3

2. Methodology

2.1. Literature collection

ERP selection is considered a multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem. While the primary papers
employed in this literature focused on ERP selection methods, however, due to the few articles that satisfy these
criteria, articles that present multi-criteria decision-making methods outside the ERP domain and were used in other
enterprise systems contexts (e.g., CRM), were also sought after. Unfortunately, the authors were not able to identify
such studies. Hence, to create a better foundation for the discussion part of this paper, it was found beneficial to discuss
articles that provide a case or review of the usefulness of the different MCDM methods. Investigating how the different
MCDM processes work and how they are being applied (in other contexts) was found helpful in gaining a better and
a more holistic view of the selection process and activities in general. In addition, this review utilizes both papers on
ERP selection methods that have their basis on real-world cases and papers that focus solely on some essential factors
related to ERP selection in the discussion.

2.2. Literature selection sources, criteria, and scope

Google Scholar and the Web of Science (WoS) databases were used when searching for relevant research
publications. When using Google Scholar, Boolean searches were used with “OR” and “AND” to limit or expand our
search results. The keywords used were “enterprise resource planning systems”, “selection”, “acquisition”, “enterprise
systems”, “methods”, and their abbreviations and combinations. When looking at different ERP selection methods,
the unique techniques have their research-based (in most cases) on real-world case studies. These papers provided
detailed case studies to aid in understanding the circumstances surrounding the various presented ERP selection
scenarios. WoS was the primary source used for finding relevant research papers. This is because, unlike Google
scholar, it can ensure that the articles have gone through the peer-review process. This research reviewed articles
published between 1990 to 2022. Initially, sixty-six articles qualified the search criteria, and the authors scanned all
the identified potential papers to double-check their fitness for the research scope. Several articles were initially
identified but were later discarded as they did not provide details of the selection methods used in their cases, nor the
selection process was the focus of those papers. There are limited but different types of ERP selection methods
reported in the existing literature, and an effort was made to find articles that covered the selection process in detail.
However, WoS and Google Scholar searches showed that the literature within the domain is scarce. Thus, finally,
seven papers were identified and deemed relevant for this review.

3. Findings

3.1. Single Methodologies

3.1.1. Simple multi-attribute rating technique (SMART technique)

Haddara [7] presented a case study utilizing the Simple multi-attribute rating (SMART) technique. The paper
provided a selection method based on developing business process maps, and then utilizing a simple multi-attribute
rating technique to rating the ERP vendors and packages’ fitness to requirements. This SMART-based ERP selection
method was then used in the case study of a middle eastern strategic business unit (subsidiary), namely the ABC
Company. This company is a part of a more significant international organization with the SAP ERP All-in-One
installed at its premises. For the ABC Company, the choice was between SAP A1 (SAP All-in-one) and SAP B1 (SAP
Business-one), as these were the only two systems to be short-listed, because the organization already had SAP in
other branches and at the headquarters. The selection method utilized in this case was mainly based on developing
visualized business process maps for all the critical business processes within the organization, and then checking the
degree of fit of the potential process capabilities of the ERP packages with those identified critical processes [7].
Qualitative research in the “Business process form” is the foundation for the method. This information was gathered
from employees who were asked to fill in a form to describe their day-to-day operations [7]. While the process map
882 Kjetil Hansen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 219 (2023) 879–888
4 Kjetil Hansen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000

visualizes their business processes, the other part of the selection process utilizes a structured multi-criteria evaluation
of 11 factors (Table 1).

Table 1. ERP SMART Selection Method. Adapted from [2].

Factor Description
The functionality of the ERP system The ERP solution should have adequate modules related to the organization's main activities.
Must support critical business processes
Technical criteria Regards the selection of hardware and software and the ERP system's technical features
Cost & budget Pricing and costs of not only the ERP package but also consulting, training, etc.
Service and support Considers maintainability and support from suppliers in the provision of IT expertise
Supplier evaluation Regards the vendor`s vision, status, background, and history
System reliability Whether or not the system is mature and is performing according to specifications
Compatibility How compatible and interoperable is the system with other systems?
Market position The market position of the ERP supplier. Status, reputation, and industry experience are of
importance
Modularity and integration ERP systems should have their modules integrated and be independent
Implementation methodology How reliable, tested, and consistent is the methodology?
ERP package fitness with the organization Organization size and how well the ERP system would match

While the paper concluded that after comparing both the SAP A1 and SAP B1 systems, B1 would be approved and
chosen, it also makes the case that the eleven selection factors aided in widening the selection scope and ensured that
every business requirement was accounted for [7].

3.1.2. Analytic Hierarchy Process method

The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) utilized by [9], was employed for ERP selection in a reported case study.
The main focus of the research was to provide an AHP model that could be applied to other contexts beyond ERP
systems, where managers could input different factors and requirements depending on their setting and context [9].
Initially, the study revealed 40 criteria to be considered while selecting systems. However, after two refinement
iterations, the authors selected nine criteria to build their AHP model. Under the creation of the AHP model, pairwise
comparisons were the only information missing, but this issue was solved qualitatively [9]. This research paper relies
more on qualitative research, consisting of interviews, human evaluation, and evaluation of expertise. However, the
AHP method appears to be an efficient method for the researchers to explain and consider intangible qualitative
measures.

3.1.3. Cloud-based design optimization method

Another paper utilizes a decision-making approach named cloud-based design optimization, or CBDO for short
[10]. This method provides a heuristic-based method that applies operation research tools that can be tailored for
system selection [10]. According to the authors, there was no current research utilizing this method in the ERP
selection problem area, at the time of publishing [10]. The authors argue that the CBDO method was chosen as it has
adaptive construction and iterative process capabilities that can mimic real-life design strategies [10]. CBDO also
enables domain experts to track the outcomes of changes in probability distributions and proposes outputs under
different confidence levels. Thus, CBDO allows experts to systematically overcome uncertainties and what-if
scenarios, even when there is incomplete information (uncertainty) [10]. The CBDO also reduces CPU time and
consumption when dealing with a high volume of uncertainties [10]. Thus, the authors of the study argue that the
CBDO method can be beneficial in ERP selection stages, as it could handle high uncertainties which usually occur
during the ERP system selection and evaluation processes. The initial contribution of this study is a model (see fig 2.)
that the authors argue for its adaptability and readiness for use in ERP selection stages. As a result, from different
 Kjetil Hansen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 219 (2023) 879–888 883
Kjetil Hansen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000 5

scenarios that feature uncertain factors, the CBDO method is a functioning MCDM technique in the decision-making
process when selecting ERP systems in uncertain environments (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Overview of CBDO method. Adopted from [3].

3.2. Hybrid Methodologies

3.2.1. TOPSIS and AHP methods

The technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) is another selection method that has
been employed in extant literature. A case study at Turkish Airlines [11], explored the ERP selection process using
the TOPSIS method in combination with the AHP method. In this study, the authors attempt to identify all the criteria
to be considered while selecting the ERP and calculate weights for all of those identified criteria. Turkish Airlines
specifically wanted to choose an ERP system for its maintenance center in the provided case. The technical, corporate,
and financial criteria were the focus during the ERP selection process at Turkish Airlines. After eliminating other
potential packages, four finalists were chosen for the ERP selection method. These were AMOS, MXI, SAP, and
TRAX systems. A combination of the AHP and TOPSIS methods was then performed on these four candidates. The
result from that analysis provided an analytic hierarchy tree, which was constructed to provide transparency of the
selection process, and objectivity among the participants. By combining the fuzzy AHP method and the TOPSIS
approach, the methodology was proven to be technically sound and organizationally acceptable [11]. The hierarchy
tree can be viewed in Fig. 3 below.

Fig. 3. Hierarchy tree. Adapted from [4].

3.2.2. ANP and PROMETHEE methods

Other methods were also combined and utilized in ERP selection processes in the extant literature. For example,
research by [5], presents two multi-criteria decision-making techniques: analytic network process (ANP) and
preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation (PROMETHEE). The ANP, was first proposed by
[6], and is considered one of the most widely used MCDM techniques [5]. Outside the ERP domain, the ANP method
884 Kjetil Hansen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 219 (2023) 879–888
6 Kjetil Hansen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000

is commonly used in vendor selection scenarios [7]. On the other hand, the PROMETHEE method provides an
inclusive and rational framework for structuring multi-criteria decision-making problems, by identifying and
quantifying its conflicts and collaborations [8]. Hence, these methods were then applied to several SMEs within the
region of Istanbul in Turkey to demonstrate the viability of the proposed methodology. The goal of this study was to
provide a solution to the problem of selecting the “right” ERP system. The combined methods in this study utilized
the ANP method to determine the value or weight of all the criteria. Then, together with PROMETHEE, they were
used to optimally rank the alternative system choices [5]. The Fig. 4 below illustrates the combined methodology of
ANP and PROMOTHEE, as presented by [5].

Fig. 4. Hierarchy tree. Adapted from [5].

The research describes ANP further as the more general form of the analytic hierarchy process method, or AHP for
short. The difference between these two methods is that ANP can provide a more holistic view by considering
dependence and feedback among the criteria [5, 9]. In contrast, the ANP method determines the weights of all the
ERP selection criteria but ignores dependencies and feedback mechanisms. The second part of the methodology used
by [5] was focused on the PROMETHEE method. This method was used in that case to rank all the alternative system
choices optimally. The PROMETHEE method consists of several sub-methods known as PROMETHEE I, II, III, IV,
V, and VI (1-6). In this instance, PROMETHEE II was employed in their research [5]. What makes the PROMETHEE
II´s properties unique will be covered later in the findings section of this paper. The study concluded by the suitability
of applying the ANP and PROMETHEE methods to weigh the importance of the different criteria with ERP selection
projects. The cost would be the most important criteria and scored a 43% value, which the authors of the paper remark
as expected since this reflects the perception of ERP systems in SMEs in Turkey [5]. After successfully ranking criteria
and identifying the best ERP systems based on the information in the SME studies, the authors recommended
expanding upon different multi-criteria decision-making techniques such as the VIKOR and ELECTRE methods. This
information and the information from the other articles will help make a better recommendation for future research.

3.2.3. ANP and Choquet Integral methods

In existing literature, another research employed a hybrid and combined MCDM methodology [10]. The paper
utilized the ANP method combined with choquet integral (CI), and the measuring attractiveness by a categorical
based evaluation technique (MACBETH) method, in an ERP selection context [10]. The ANP method is capable of
prioritizing alternatives concerning interdependent evaluation criteria [10]. The CI metho allows decision makers to
find an average of factors weighted individually and in conjunction with each other. This is deemed useful because it
enables the weights to change when two factors interact together and considers factor dependencies. The authors find
the required weighted scores by combining ANP, CI, and MACBETH. The authors then proposed a decision model
(see Fig. 4) that can, with few modifications, be utilized in other contexts beyond ERP [10].

3.2.4. GAHPSort and ANP

In their research, [11] presented the group analytic hierarchy process sorting method or GAHPSort in cloud-ERP
selection. This method, while new, has been used previously to select cloud-based ERP systems [11]. The paper uses
a real-world case study to demonstrate the case on how the GAHPSort method can be used in cloud-based ERP vendor
selection. However, this method cannot be utilized alone since GAHPSort is a sorting process, not a ranking one.
Therefore, this method was used in conjunction with ANP. GAHPSort also differs from other methods previously
presented in this literature review because it relies on the decision makers` preferences [11]. The selection process
consisted of two stages. Firstly, they sorted all cloud-based ERP candidates, and secondly, they utilized ANP to look
 Kjetil Hansen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 219 (2023) 879–888 885
Kjetil Hansen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000 7

at the interactions between the different criteria. Since GAHPSort is based on the AHP concept, it takes advantage of
its properties [11]. The paper concludes that the combined method of GAHPSort and ANP proved useful in selecting
the most suitable cloud-ERP package (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5. Decision-making process. Adapted from [10].

4. Discussion

4.1. ERP selection methods summary

The previous section of this paper provided an overview of the different articles and the methods used in the various
case studies reported in those articles. In the discussion section of this paper, an effort was made to discuss the methods
in more details. The table 2 below summarizes the different methods and their main strengths and weaknesses.

Table 2. Summary of findings.

Method Strengths Weaknesses
SMART May depend on business process models and process
Using the different criteria scores ensures that every variable
visualizations, which could be challenging and time
is accounted for and is based on weights.
consuming. Doesn’t consider factor-dependency.
ANP + PROMETHEE does not possess the structuring possibility.
PROMETHEE If there are too many criteria factors, it might become hard
A simple method with regards to conception and application.
II for the decision-maker to gain a clear view of the situation,
Allows evaluation of both tangible and intangible factors.
as the ANP is very dependent on experts’ experiences and
judgments.
886 Kjetil Hansen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 219 (2023) 879–888
8 Kjetil Hansen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000

Fuzzy AHP + Values are both objective and subjective factors. Aids in
TOPSIS ranking alternatives are based on the distance between Does not account for weight elicitation and judgment
positive and negative ideal situations. Takes fuzzy/uncertain checks.
factors into account.
ANP + CI + The combined methods allow decision makers to find an The selection outcomes may change if one chooses to
MACBETH average of factors weighted individually and in conjunction. ignore specific interactions among the various factors.
AHP Excels at explaining the value of intangible and qualitative
Lacks numerical measure, values, and indicators.
measures.
CBDO Supportive MCDM method in high uncertainty Relatively new, it has not gone through enough
environments. applications in ERP literature.
ANP + Allows the consideration of the decision-maker’s Relying on decision-makers’ own judgements and can
GAHPSort preferences. possibly entail potential risk or bias.

4.2. Strengths and weaknesses of reviewed methods

The SMART way of selecting ERP systems is proven to be a suitable method to ensure all the most critical factors
are considered and numerically evaluated and ranked. By utilizing this method in a case study [7], the findings suggest
the effectiveness of such a method in MCDM problems. The method's strengths lie in combining the process mapping
method and the multi-criteria evaluation. Access to a company's employee information is a great way to construct
business process maps that ensure that all the critical business processes are covered by the chosen system. However,
one could make the argument that this method's strength is also its weakness. If, for any reason, the selection experts
were unable to obtain information about the employee’s day-to-day operations and processes, the selection process in
this case will be very challenging. On the other hand, the critical process visualization, evaluation, and re-engineering
are universally recommended efforts before ERP system selections [7].
The ANP and PROMETHEE II method presented by [8], was chosen for several reasons in that case. First, it
allowed the evaluation of intangible and tangible factors. While the strength of using ANP is that it incorporates
interrelationships among factors [8], the PROMETHEE method allowed the ranking of alternatives, specifically
among conflicting criteria [8]. Which is deemed potentially a good complementary method to ANP. However, the
PROMETHEE method lacks the structuring possibility, which would be solved by utilizing AHP instead of ANP
[18].
The fuzzy AHP method is used to determine the weights of the decisions and incorporate vagueness, and the
TOPSIS method is used to evaluate and rank the decision alternatives [11]. While, the authors did not cover
weaknesses in the fuzzy AHP TOPSIS method within their case, however, [19] points out a weakness in the traditional
TOPSIS methodology. The article argues that evaluation of a system by employing realistic projected values is not
always achievable in real-life problems and cases [19]. Another weakness of TOPSIS, and perhaps the most critical
drawback, is that it does not provide weight elicitation and consistent checks and feedback loops for judgments [20],
making it subjective to an extent. Those mentioned drawbacks could be potentially reduced or eliminated by
employing the fuzzy AHP method. Hence, the fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods were combined and employed by
[11], as those methods fit the fuzzy or uncertain decision-making environments. So instead of making unrealistic
assumptions, the study used fuzzy logic to capture the imprecision inherited in the decision situation [11].
The combination of the strengths of the ANP, CI, and MACBETH methods lies in the way they complement each
other. For example, the CI method determines similar or different behaviors among the chosen criteria and then utilizes
MACBETH to define the parameters for each criterion [16]. Another strength lies in the use of the choquet integral,
as it allows finding an average of weighted factors, both individually and in conjunction with each other [16]. Once
again, the literature does not provide a discussion on the weaknesses of this method, however, the [16] states that
ignoring factor interactions could drastically change the selection outcome and, in this case, may reverse or alter the
result. According to [9] a strength of utilizing only the AHP method is its uncomplex modeling primitives and
straightforward analysis capabilities for the decision-making process [9]. However, according to another research that
covers the strengths and weaknesses of the AHP method, it would appear not to be as useful when the decision is
based on numerical variables and qualities [21].
 Kjetil Hansen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 219 (2023) 879–888 887
Kjetil Hansen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000 9

When it comes to the CBDO method, there is not much information about its drawbacks in the ERP literature.
However, some scholars argue that this novel method is suitable in uncertain decision-making situations, where CBDO
becomes an efficient tool if more than five uncertainties are present in the decision problem [10, 22]. Considering the
method's novelty, then it is fair to assume it has not gone through enough testing in the ERP domain.
The ANP and GAHPSort methods combined allow for integrating the benefits and strengths of both ANP and AHP
methods combined. What sets GAHPSort apart from other methods like AHP or TOPSIS, is that other methods are
capable of prioritizing alternatives, while the GAHPSorts extends the classical AHP and is capable of sorting problems
with a large number of alternatives. Lastly, as a part of this method, the ANP method allows for feedback and enables
the ERP selection team to deal with direct and indirect problems [17]. No specific weaknesses were covered in the
extant literature, and the search for other papers that combined the ANP and GAHPSort methods yielded no results.
While most of the reviewed studies based their cases on companies from different sectors, most of these were from
small and medium-sized enterprises. Hence, it is also preferred to look at instances where the MCDM methods have
been proven successful in businesses that fall under micro or large size categories. This is because most of the literature
acknowledges organization size as a factor that directly impacts ERP implementation and adoption projects [1, 3, 23].
As in almost all the reviewed papers, the methods utilized in the reported cases and selection methods yielded adequate
results, and the selected system fulfilled the requirements of the organizations. Thus, it is clear from the ERP selection
methods literature that it considers MCDM methods as the state-of-the-art techniques in ERP selection. While all the
presented methods in the literature were deemed successful, it is unclear if specific methods of those will be equally
successful if adopted in different organizations sizes or contexts.

5. Conclusion and future research

ERP selection methods can be considered an MCDM problem since multiple criteria are assessed during the ERP
selection process. While each method is distinctive, most of those methods share some properties and the considered
factors with other methods. It is clear from looking at how the different methods work that they have their strengths
and weaknesses. While some excel at considering factors in uncertain environments, others evaluate how the weight
of factors are valued individually, and in conjunction with other factors (factor relationships and influences). In
comparison, the ERP selection research has presented a few successful selection methods and cases but did not discuss
the weaknesses, generalizability, or transferability of the selection methods to other organizations or contexts. This is
also expected, as ERP adoption projects are very contextual, and the factors identified for the selection may vary in
nature, impact, or value.
As technology and our access to information are constantly evolving and scaling, so is the field of ERP in general
and ERP selection in specific. The future may see a rise of new factors or methods that play even more prominent
roles in ERP system selection landscape in the future, especially in the cloud ERP research domain. Reducing risk in
ERP selection is critical, and a field that we recommend should see more up-to-date research. Considering there´s still
a few experimentations with different selection methods in existing literature, one could argue that the research area
focusing on ERP selection methods is still in its infancy. It is clear from the literature that many researchers try new
ways to select the right ERP system and find a consistent and efficient method. While this literature review has
provided an overview of methods and their respective strengths and weaknesses, it was challenging to conclude how
to rank the reviewed methods based on their success and viability for other target cases or contexts.

References

[1] A. Elragal and M. Haddara, "The use of experts panels in ERP cost estimation research," in International Conference on ENTERprise
Information Systems, 2010: Springer, pp. 97-108.
[2] V. Kumar, B. Maheshwari, and U. Kumar, "An investigation of critical management issues in ERP implementation: empirical evidence from
Canadian organizations," Technovation, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 793-807, 2003.
[3] M. Haddara, "ERP systems selection in multinational enterprises: a practical guide," International Journal of Information Systems and Project
Management, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 43-57, 2018.
888 Kjetil Hansen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 219 (2023) 879–888
10 Kjetil Hansen et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2022) 000–000

[4] S. Yasiukovich and M. Haddara, "Tracing the Clouds. A research taxonomy of cloud-ERP in SMEs," Scandinavian Journal of Information
Systems, vol. 32, no. 2, p. 9, 2020.
[5] J. Esteves and J. Pastor, "An ERP lifecycle-based research agenda," in 1st international workshop in enterprise management & resource
planning, 1999: Citeseer.
[6] A. Elragal and M. Haddara, "The Future of ERP Systems: look backward before moving forward," Procedia Technology, vol. 5, pp. 21-30,
2012.
[7] M. Haddara, "ERP selection: the SMART way," Procedia Technology, vol. 16, pp. 394-403, 2014.
[8] H. S. Kilic, S. Zaim, and D. Delen, "Selecting “The Best” ERP system for SMEs using a combination of ANP and PROMETHEE methods,"
Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 2343-2352, 2015.
[9] R. M. Czekster, T. Webber, A. H. Jandrey, and C. A. M. Marcon, "Selection of enterprise resource planning software using analytic hierarchy
process," Enterprise Information Systems, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 895-915, 2019.
[10] G. T. Temur and B. Bolat, "A robust MCDM approach for ERP system selection under uncertain environment based on worst case scenario,"
Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 2018.
[11] H. S. Kilic, S. Zaim, and D. Delen, "Development of a hybrid methodology for ERP system selection: The case of Turkish Airlines," Decision
Support Systems, vol. 66, pp. 82-92, 2014.
[12] T. L. Saaty, Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network process (no. 2). RWS publications Pittsburgh, 1996.
[13] O. Bayazit, "Use of analytic network process in vendor selection decisions," Benchmarking: An International Journal, 2006.
[14] J.-P. Brans and P. Vincke, "Note—A Preference Ranking Organisation Method: (The PROMETHEE Method for Multiple Criteria Decision-
Making)," Management science, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 647-656, 1985.
[15] M. Sevkli, A. Oztekin, O. Uysal, G. Torlak, A. Turkyilmaz, and D. Delen, "Development of a fuzzy ANP based SWOT analysis for the airline
industry in Turkey," Expert systems with Applications, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 14-24, 2012.
[16] T. Gürbüz, S. E. Alptekin, and G. I. Alptekin, "A hybrid MCDM methodology for ERP selection problem with interacting criteria," Decision
Support Systems, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 206-214, 2012.
[17] C. López and A. Ishizaka, "GAHPSort: A new group multi-criteria decision method for sorting a large number of the cloud-based ERP
solutions," Computers in Industry, vol. 92, pp. 12-25, 2017, doi: doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2017.06.007.
[18] C. Macharis, J. Springael, K. De Brucker, and A. Verbeke, "PROMETHEE and AHP: The design of operational synergies in multicriteria
analysis.: Strengthening PROMETHEE with ideas of AHP," European journal of operational research, vol. 153, no. 2, pp. 307-317, 2004.
[19] B. Efe, "An integrated fuzzy multi criteria group decision making approach for ERP system selection," Applied Soft Computing, vol. 38, pp.
106-117, 2016.
[20] H.-S. Shih, H.-J. Shyur, and E. S. Lee, "An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making," Mathematical and computer modelling, vol. 45,
no. 7-8, pp. 801-813, 2007.
[21] R. Karthikeyan, K. Venkatesan, and A. Chandrasekar, "A comparison of strengths and weaknesses for analytical hierarchy process," Journal
of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 12-15, 2016.
[22] M. Fuchs, Uncertainty modeling in higher dimension: towards robust design optimization. Citeseer, 2008.
[23] L. Staehr, G. Shanks, and P. B. Seddon, "An explanatory framework for achieving business benefits from ERP systems," Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, vol. 13, no. 6, p. 2, 2012.