ERP State the Art

7/29/2019 ERP State the Art

1/30

Challenges in enterprise resourceplanning implementation:

state-of-the-artA. Momoh, R. Roy and E. Shehab

Decision Engineering Centre, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present an integrative and detailed review of the criticalfactors that cause enterprise resource planning (ERP) implementation failures, based on an in-depthliterature review (1997-2009).

Design/methodology/approach Keywords relating to the subject of this paper were defined, andused to search web engines and journal databases for papers on ERP implementation failures. These

papers were further analysed and classified into various categories.Findings Nine factors are found to be critical in the failure of ERP implementations: excessivecustomisation, dilemma of internal integration, poor understanding of business implications andrequirements, lack of change management, poor data quality, misalignment of IT with business,hidden costs, limited training and lack of top management support.

Research limitations/implications The paper proposes the development of a framework toaddress each ERP implementation failure factor in its entirety based on the frequency of its occurrencein industry, as a topic for future research.

Originality/value The paper contributes to research in the ERP domain by highlighting ERPimplementation challenges from a critical failure perspective and proportion of the failures, as opposedto presenting critical success factors. Failure factors with examples provides a clearer visibility of thecostly damages that can be introduced into organisations in the event that these failures are ignored.

Keywords Manufacturing resource planning, Literature, Management failures, Critical success factors

Paper type Literature review

1. IntroductionIn the last decade, there has been a lot of clamour over enterprise resource planning(ERP). ERP is a software solution integrating the various functional spheres in anorganisation a link through the entire supply chain, aimed at best industry andmanagement practices for providing the right product at the right place, at the righttime, at least cost (Rao, 2000a, b). ERP software is the backbone of many big enterprisesin the world today (Alshawi et al., 2004). These commercial packages promise theseamless integration of all the information flowing through a company financial andaccounting information, human resource information, supply chain information andcustomer information (Davenport, 1998; Hallikainen et al., 2006; Holland et al., 1999). Oneof the most important aspects of modern ERP systems lies in the integration thatwould be implicit in the design of the software and allows a considerable amount ofintegration between different elements of the business (Rao, 2000a, b). Hence, ERPsystems have become one of todays largest IT investments (Chung and Snyder, 2000).

The smart organisations today could anticipate and exceed customer expectationsthat are evaluated on the basis of quality, time, service, availability and efficiency(Rao, 2000a, b). The one tool that innovative and progressive organisations have

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-7154.htm

Challengein ER

implementatio

53

Business Process ManagemJour

Vol. 16 No. 4, 20pp. 537-5

q Emerald Group Publishing Limit1463-71

DOI 10.1108/146371510110659


2/30

come to increasingly depend on in this endeavour is ERP solutions (Rao, 2000a, b).According to Chung and Snyder (2000), these systems have traditionally been used bycapital-intensive industries, such as manufacturing, construction, aerospace anddefense. Additionally, they have recently been introduced to the finance, education,

insurance, retail and telecommunications sectors. Hence, the number of organisationsgoing in for ERP systems is growing rapidly (Rao, 2000a, b). Enterprise systems appearto be a dream come true (Davenport, 1998). They should be looked upon as an asset, notas expenditure (Rao, 2000a, b).

Themistocleus et al. (2001) outline some of the benefits of ERP:. solutions to the problems of legacy systems;. reduced development risk;. increased global competitiveness; and. business efficiency.

Rao (2000a, b) states that the tangible benefits that accrue due to ERP include:reduction of lead time by 60, 99 per cent on-time shipments, increased business,increase of inventory turns to over 30 per cent, cycle time cut to 80 per cent and work inprogress reduced to 70 per cent. Other potential benefits include: abundantinformation about customer wants and needs, breakthrough reductions in workingcapital, better customer satisfaction and the ability to view and manage the extendedenterprise of suppliers, alliances and customers as an integrated whole (Muscatelloet al., 2003).

Many companies began installing ERP systems in order to eliminate patchworkof their legacy systems and improve the interactions and communications with theircustomers and suppliers (Kogetsidis et al., 2008). From a business standpoint, thebenefits that a properly selected and implemented ERP system can offer an organisation

include time and cost reduction in business processes, faster transaction processing,improvement of operational performance, financial management and customer service,web-based interfaces and more effective communication (Kogetsidis et al., 2008).

ERP has attracted increasing attention from both practitioners acrossindustry, and researchers (Momoh et al., 2007). Although ERP systems have beenprogressively developed over at least a decade, and all the extensive benefits and gainfulcharacteristics of ERP solutions could apply to the implementing organisations,the continual pace of change in organisations and their environments has resulted incomplex technical organisational, cultural and political issues that have made theintegration process a very challenging task (Huang et al., 2003). Furthermore, in todaysdynamic and unpredictable business environment, companies face the tremendouschallenge of expanding markets and rising customer expectations (Razmi et al., 2009).

Hence, numerous research organisations have reported ERP implementations to befraught with failures due to a variety of challenges, thereby impeding the integrationprocess. Scott and Kaindl (2000) report that although ERP packages strive to integrate allthe major processes of a firm, customers have discovered the lack of some essentialfunctionality. Chen and Lin (2009) advise that an ERP system is a complex networkcomposed of various business processes. Although ERP applications have been widelyadopted by a variety of industries worldwide, the challenges faced during andpost-implementation remain a growing concern (Momoh et al., 2008). The Standish Group

BPMJ16,4

538


3/30

study (www.it-cortex.com/Stat_Failure_Rate.htm) reported that less than 10 per cent ofERP implementations succeedwithfullfunctionality, within forecast costandtimeframes:

. cost overruns average 178 per cent;

.

schedule overruns average 230 per cent; and. implemented functionality averages 41 per cent of desired business

requirements.

Figure 1 shows the Standish Group statistics.Figure 2 shows the number of publications on critical failure factors in this paper,

over a period of 13 years, from 1997 to 2009. There are 64 citations on critical failurefactors. In 1997, very little was reported on ERP challenges. The publications increasedin 1998, dropped slightly in 1999, and soared drastically in 2000. There was a reductionin reports of ERP challenges in 2001 and 2002. However, discussions on thistopic increased again in 2003 and soared in 2004. A slight reduction in publicationis reflected by the bar chart in 2005, and these publications reduced further over the years

until 2008 with minimal increase in 2009. This indicates that although problems do stillexist in ERP implementations, they are being addressed with the passage of time.

This paper aims to present an integrative and detailed review of theseimplementation challenges. The challenges detailed in this document are based onin-depth literature review (1997-2009) conducted on ERP implementation failures. Thesechallenges, as well as factors that need to be applied in ERP implementations to avoidfailures and ensure success, are presented.

The remainder of this paper is organised as follows: in Section 2, the methodology ofthis research is presented. Section 3 discusses further statistics on ERP failures. Basedon in-depth literature review, Section 4 presents the critical failure factors that shouldbe addressed in order to avoid some of the challenges encountered in ERPimplementations. Section 5 provides an analysis of the countries and industries that the

critical factors in this paper concern, a brief report on the shortcomings that wereobserved in some of the papers that contribute to the literature review, and discussesthe essence and implications of this study. Finally, Section 6 concludes this paper anddiscusses areas for future research in light of ERP implementation challenges.

Figure Standish Group statisti

on implementation failur0

50

100

150

200

250

Cost Schedule Planned functionality

Challengein ER

implementatio

539


4/30

2. MethodologyThe methodology used in this review focused primarily on ERP implementation issues.The first stage of the methodology was to derive keywords that would be utilized insearching for topics related to ERP implementation challenges. These keywords are:ERP, implementation, challenges, issues, problems and projects. The second stage of the

methodology was to conduct a search on journal articles, conference papers, books andweb postings based on the above keywords. A variety of tools were used to search forthese papers, as follows: internet search engines such as Googlescholar, and a series of

journal databases; ScienceDirect, IEEE, SCOPUS and Inspec. Once the articles werepresented, they were classified into different groups namely; data quality (DQ), businessprocess re-engineering (BPR), critical success factors (CSFs), change management,implementation failures, customisation, ERP internal integration and implementationchallenges in general. The papers that were shortlisted based on this classification, wereused for the literature review.

3. Statistics on ERP implementation failuresIT Cortex (2009) advise that prior to embarking on a strategic project, every

organisation should be aware of its a priori chances of success. Statistics over ERPproject failure rate provide a good measure of those chances. They are not illustrated todemoralise executives and to deter them from undertaking large projects. The purposeis to make them ponder over how to approach this endeavour in order to maximise thechances of success.

In addition to the Standish Study Group ERP implementation failure statistics(IT Cortex, 2009) discussed in Section 1, this section briefly touches on otherERP-related findings produced by two research groups:

Figure 2.Publications on ERPchallenges over time

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

ERP papers

BPMJ16,4

540


5/30

(1) the Robbins-Gioia survey; and

(2) the Conference Board survey.

Both surveys were conducted in 2001.

3.1 The perception of ERP implementation by multiple industriesRobbins-Gioia (IT Cortex, 2009) provide management consulting services in Alexandria,Virginia. They made a study over how enterprises perceive their ERP implementationsin 2001. Their survey constituted 232 respondents spanning multiple industriesincluding government, information technology, communications, financial institutions,utilities and healthcare. A total of 36 per cent of the companies surveyed had, or were inthe process of implementing an ERP solution.

The findings of the survey indicate that 51 per cent of the respondents viewedtheir ERP implementation as unsuccessful, and 46 per cent of the participantsfelt that their organisations lacked understanding of how to use the system to improvetheir business operations.

3.2 ERP implementation from an executive perspectiveThe Conference Board survey group (IT Cortex, 2009) interviewed executives at117 companies that attempted ERP implementations. The findings indicated that only34 per cent of the respondents were satisfied with what they were provided with, and40 per cent of the projects failed to achieve their business case within one year of goinglive. Implementation costs were found to average 25 per cent over budget. Additionally,support costs were underestimated for the year following implementation by an averageof 20 per cent.

The statistics presented so far indicate that an ERP implementation project is morelikely to be unsuccessful than successful. Furthermore, the larger the ERP project, the

higher the chances of failure. And finally, one out of five ERP projects is likely togenerate full satisfaction. This supports the analogy that ERP implementations are morelikely to fail, be delayed, cost more than forecast or fail to deliver full functionality, thanthey are to succeed (Aitken, 2002). Aitken (2002) further advises that in order toimplement ERP successfully, it is important to be aware of how ERP as a technologyevolved, what its strengths and weaknesses are, and the nature of importantimplementation challenges. When considering and implementing an enterprise system,managers need to be careful that their enthusiasm about the benefits does not blind themto the hazards (Davenport, 1998).

4. Critical failure factorsThe ERP industry has not been performing as originally expected (Tarn et al., 2002).

ERP implementations are notorious for taking a longer time and costing more moneythan is projected (Davenport, 1998; Reda, 1998; Jacob and Wagner, 1999; Mabert et al.,2000; Ehie and Madsen, 2005). Hence, in the last decade, organisations have struggledto implement ERP effectively, despite all of the benefits it offers. This is not becauseERP solutions are poorly designed, but because there is inadequate understandingof the way that an ERP solution should be implemented. To this effect, companies haveended up exceeding their planned implementation budgets, and time to implement.Consequently, a large number of companies have cancelled their projects completely.

Challengein ER

implementatio

54


6/30

Rao (2000a, b) estimates that 96.4 per cent of ERP implementations fail, whereasThemistocleus and Irani (2001) reports that 70 per cent of ERP implementations do notachieve their estimated benefits.

Table I is an illustration of the research conducted on each critical failure factor

discussed in Sections 4.1-4.7. It further illustrates the number of citations for eachcritical failure factor. An indication of the size of the enterprise to which each failurefactor applies, is also provided.

It has been concluded from Table I that a lack of change management, excessivecustomisation, dilemma of internal integration, poor understanding of businessimplications and requirements and poor DQ have received the most attention fromresearchers. The challenges illustrated in this table apply mostly to large organisations.Figure 3 shows the percentage of each failure factor in relation to all the critical factors.

There are 52 citations in total. Out of all the failure factors, 17 per cent apply to a lackof change management. This is the most popular citation. Excessive customisation,dilemma of internal integration, poor understanding of business implications andrequirements and poor DQ, each make up 13 per cent of the failure factors. Lack of topmanagement support constitutes 10 per cent of the failures cited. Hidden costs andmisalignment of IT with the business each make up 6 per cent of the discussedchallenges. And limited training constitutes 8 per cent of the critical failure factors.

4.1 Excessive customisationERP systems are complex, and implementing a system can be a difficult,time-consuming and expensive project for a company (Shehab et al., 2004; Hallikainenet al., 2009). A complex system decreases usefulness, which also makes users reluctant towork (Chung et al., 2008). Wheatley (2000) estimates that the average ERPimplementation takes 23 months. The target is to do the implementation within sixmonths (Arindam and Bhattacharya, 2009). Some implementations have even exceeded

three years. Chung and Snyder (2000) estimate that ERP adoption times typically takefrom a few months for firms accepting all default settings, to years for firms attemptingto make major modifications. During this long implementation period, software and userspecification change and the technicians who are implementing the package mustconstantly adapt and make adjustments in order to accommodate these changes(Mendel, 1999; Ehie and Madsen, 2005). However, care must be taken particularly whenmodifying the system, as if a company alters an ERP package, it can impede the internalintegration of ERP modules (Themistocleus and Irani, 2001; Shehab et al., 2004;McAdam and Galloway, 2005; Chung and Snyder 2000). Aloini et al. (2007) emphasisethat often, packaged software is incompatible with the organisations needs andbusiness processes. The consequence is either software modification, which is expensiveand costs heavily in maintenance, or restructuring of the organisations business

processes to fit the software (Aloini et al., 2007). Verma (2007) suggests that completingany additional work which isout of scope, is known as scope creep and this may leadto alot of customisation, which may in turn, lead to project failure. Aloini et al. (2007) stressthat if not adequately planned, personalisation and adaptation of tools may causetrouble. Shehab et al. (2004), Davenport (1998) and Sumner (1999) also stress thatorganisations face numerous problems when customising ERP packages. Laukkanenet al. (2007) caution that ERP system implementations may last several years in largecompanies, particularly if the system is heavily customised. They conducted surveys on

BPMJ16,4

542


7/30

Critical failure factors Selected referencesLarge

organisationSME

organisation

Numberof

citations

Excessive customisation Shehab et al. (2004)p p

13Wheatley (2000)

p

Chung and Snyder (2000)p

Mendel (1999)Ehie and Madsen (2005)

p p

Sumner (1999)p

Rao (2000a, b)p p

Kogetsidis et al. (2008)p

Verma (2007)p

Laukkanen et al. (2007)p p

Aloini et al. (2007)p p

Hallikainen et al. (2009)Helo (2008)

p p

Dilemma of internal Youngberg et al. (2009) 8integration Themistocleus and Irani (2001a)

p p

Shehab et al. (2004)p

Davenport (1998)p

McAdam and Galloway (2005)p p

Chung and Snyder (2000)Soh et al. (2000)Aloini et al. (2007)

Poor understanding Kogetsidis et al. (2008)p

7of business implications Elbertsen et al. (2006)

p

and requirements Davenport (1998)Themistocleus and Irani (2001a)Ndede-Amadi (2004)

p

Ash and Burn (2003)p p

Langenwalter (2000)

Lack of change McAdam and Galloway (2005)p

12management Yusuf et al. (2004)

p

Hong and Kim (2002)Markus and Tanis (2000)Al-Mashari (2003)Cissna (1998)Worley et al. (2005)Huang et al (2003, 2004)Sumner (1999)

p

Koh et al. (2006)p p

Aloini et al. (2007)Kamhawi (2008)

Poor DQ Bajgoric and Moon (2009) 9Youngberg et al. (2009)Vosburg and Kumar (2001)

p

Strong et al. (1997)Hongjiang et al. (2002)

p

Soh et al. (2000)Alshawi et al. (2004)

(continued)

TableERP critical facto

citation

Challengein ER

implementatio

54


8/30

44 organisations of various sizes in order to investigate the relationship of enterprise sizeto the objectives and constraints of ERP adoption. Kogetsidis et al. (2008) advise that animplementation approach issue that must be considered is the level of customisationthat will be applied on an ERP solution, as customising the software will avoid the BPR

Critical failure factors Selected referencesLarge

organisationSME

organisation

Numberof

citations

Park and Kusiak (2005)p

Tsamantanis and Kojetsidis (2006)p

Misalignment of IT Davenport (1998)p

3with the business Soh et al. (2000)

p

Ho et al. (2004)p

Hidden costs Al-Mashari (2003)p

3Yusufet al. (2004)

p

Wheatley (2000)Limited training Arindam and Bhattacharya (2009)

p4

Al-Mashari (2003)p

Worley et al. (2005)Huang et al. (2003)

Lack of top management Cissna (1998) 5

support Nah and Lau (2001)Rao (2000a, b)p p

Al-Mashari (2003)p

Ehie and Madsen (2005)Table I.

Figure 3.Critical failure factors

Limited training

Misalignment of IT

with business

Hidden cost

Lack of top

managementsupport

Poor data quality

Poor understanding of

business implications &requirements Dilemma ofinternal

integration

Excessive

customisation

Lack of change

management

12%

13%

8%7%

9%

5%

3%

3%4%

BPMJ16,4

544


9/30

that might result in best practices. It is more beneficial to fit business processes to theERP package rather than try to customise the package (Sumner, 1999). However, Helo(2008) argues that from a technical point of view, the key choice in ERP implementationis to find an optimal strategy to balance between customisation of the ERP system

versus changing the organisational procedure within the company.

4.2 Dilemma of internal integrationERP implementations are challenging due to cross-module integration, datastandardisation, adoption of the underlying business model, compressed implementationschedule and the involvement of a large number of stakeholders (Soh et al., 2000).Elbertsen et al. (2006) advise that the strength of ERP systems lies in integrating modulesby coupling them, but this strength can be considered its weakness; the close coupling ofmodules means less responsiveness to the local requirements in particular functionalareas. By theirvery ownnature, enterprise systems impose their ownlogic on a companysstrategy, organisation and culture (Davenport, 1998). Themistocleus and Irani (2001)

emphasizes that the non-flexible nature of ERP solutions forces organisations to fit thepackage and abandon their way of doing business. This problem affects companies and insome cases, has led organisations like FoxMayer drugs, to bankruptcy (Davenport, 1998;Muscatello et al., 2003). Furthermore, to highlight the fact that ERP solutions constitutecross-module integration, Ndede-Amadi (2004) argues thatone key to a successful processredesign effort in an ERP implementation is to examine end-to-end processes, which arevital to the success of a company. End-to-end process design enables the strengthening ofprocess integration. Davenport (1998) discusses the fact that ERP solutions are modularand in light of integration, the greater the modules selected, the greater the integrationbenefits, but also, the greater the costs, risks and changes involved. Aloini et al. (2007)caution that the number of implementation modules increases project complexity.Although, internal integration can pose problems, when distorted, Ash and Burn (2003) in

a global study of ERP implementation, found that an added complexity is the integrationof ERP environments with non-ERP environments, which has complex managementimplications. Youngberg et al. (2009) reveal that for businesses, the ever-expandingamount of information that has to be managed leads to an increase in system integrationand complexity.

Koh et al. (2006) understudied the ERP adoption in six Greek manufacturingcompanies, and explored the effects of uncertainty on the performance of these systemsand the methods used to cope with uncertainty. In the case study conducted by Kohet al. (2006), they discuss ERP Integration in the Literature Review section of theirarticle. However, their focus is on intra-enterprise integration with other functions andinter-enterprise integration in a supply chain. These are the areas of integration thatare most commonly discussed in ERP research. Laukkanen et al. (2007) also discuss

these types of integration in their paper. The concept and importance of ERP internal(or module) integration is sparsely discussed. It is essential to educate practitioners onthe impact of intra-enterprise integration with other functions, and module integrationon one another. Owing to the fact that ERP modules have been defined based on bestpractice business processes, which are coherently linked to each other, it is imperativethat implementing organizations business processes are correctly mapped to the ERPprocesses. Implementing these processes incorrectly may lead to very poor integrationbetween the modules in the system. This challenge will in turn, affect the daily

Challengein ER

implementatio

54


10/30

operations of the business. Furthermore, it would be useful if practitioners understoodthe kinds of operational challenges that they may be faced with should their systemlack proper module integration. Additionally, Koh et al. (2006) have not discussed theimpact of customization on module integration.

4.3 Poor understanding of ERP business implications and requirementsA number of companies that implement ERP do not realise the full benefits that thesolution offers because most organisations are not organised in the correct fashion toachieve the benefits (Yusuf et al., 2004; Ehie and Madsen, 2005). Langenwalter (2000)stipulates that many companies that attempt to implement ERP solutions run intodifficulty because the organisation is not ready for integration and the variousdepartments within it have their own agendas and objectives that conflict with each other.The critical challenge in ERP implementation has been to first identify the gaps betweenthe ERP generic functionality and the specific organisational requirements (Soh et al.,2000). According to Davenport (1998), even though some of the causes of ERP failures lie

withtechnical challenges,these arenotthe main reasonenterprisesystems fail. He stressesthat the biggest challenges are business problems in the sense that companies fail toreconcile the technological imperatives of the enterprise system with the business needs ofthe enterprise. One of the biggest sins in the implementation of an ERP system is not tounderstand the true significance of what you have taken on and, therefore, not commit theright resources to the project (Kogetsidis et al., 2008). Kogetsidis et al. (2008) reached thisconclusion by conducting a case study on a large Cypriot retail company, where the CSFsof their SAP implementation were examined. Thus, if a company rushes to install anenterprise system without first understanding the business implications, the dream ofintegration can quickly turn into a nightmare (Davenport, 1998).

4.4 Lack of change managementIn a case study on a large manufacturing organisation carried out by McAdam andGalloway (2005), they observed that a lack of change management was one of the majorcauses of implementation failures. The manufacturing company, known as GUDV NI, ismultinational and employs 10,000 employees across Ireland, UK, Europe and the USA.They implemented SAP. The essence of the case study was to explore the organisationalissues involved in implementing an ERP solution as the main approach to changemanagement. Two change management failings that became apparent early on andwere rectified during the ERP project were the lack of communication with theemployees, and an apparent failure to recognise the impact and complexity that such achange project would have on the entire business (McAdam and Galloway, 2005). Hence,it is essential to manage successful ERP implementations as a program of wide-ranging

organisational change initiatives rather than as a software installation effort (Yusufet al., 2004). This approach involves intertwining technology, task, people, structure andculture. Consequently, the implementation process is transparent and enables the easyidentification, avoidance and mitigation of risks. Additionally, as all the relevant areasare addressed as part of the implementation, resistance to change is reduced and in somecases, eliminated. Thus, organisational resistance to change is identified as a CSF(Hong and Kim, 2002), and cultural readiness for an ERP implementation must becarefully planned (McAdam and Galloway, 2005). Aloini et al. (2007) advise that to

BPMJ16,4

546


11/30

underestimate the effort involved in change management may result in project failure.Moreover, conflict arising due to the differing needs of stakeholders must be addressedas and when it arises, rather than in a summative manner. The congruence between ERPsystems and organisational culture is the prerequisite to successful ERP implementation

(Hong and Kim, 2002; Markus and Tanis, 2000).There are several common problems associated with ERP implementation

(Al-Mashari, 2003; Kamhawi, 2008). Among these is the resistance to change. Factorsrelating to top management support, assignment of best people to implementationteams, and strong involvement of people from the field are important in reducing theresistance to changes involved in ERP implementation (Cissna, 1998). Anotherproblem is related to unplanned cost associated with new requirements emergingafter the freezing stage. A third problem is poor training of end-users, who, when thesystem is up and running, do not know how to use it and maintain it continually. Kohet al. (2006) illustrates this fact amongst other premises by conducting a case studyon six manufacturing organisations of all sizes. They report that human factorsconstituted a major problem, particularly for small- and medium-sized companies.Their findings highlighted the fact that many employees were not trained to usethe systems and many were unfamiliar with computers. Consequently, a number ofissues arose, such as erroneous data input, poor use of the systems, increasing costsof training services offered by the vendors, employee resistance to integration of theERP system into the business process and the need to hire information technologypersonnel. Implementation requires extensive employee training (Arindam andBhattacharya, 2009).

Although an extensive training and education is considered as a CSF by mostauthors, Worley et al. (2005) state that the appropriation of the system post-implementation does not only depend on training; it also requires to define how theinformation system and the actor will be mutually adapted to the other, not only at the

level of the position of a person within the company, but also with reference to hisknowledge and competencies. In this context, an unsatisfactory operation of the systemmay cause irreversible drifts like demotivation, partial use of the system or theintroduction of local information systems (e.g. Excel sheets) in order to mitigate thesupposed deficiencies of the ERP system (Worley et al., 2005). Worley etal. (2005) arrivedat this inference through a university case study. Peoplesoft was implemented at theuniversity. The essence of the case study was to illustrate how ERP is optimised byadapting business processes to human actors by explicitly taking into account, the role,competence and knowledge of human resources.

4.5 Poor data qualityThe integrity of the data used to operate and make decisions about a business affects the

relative efficiency of operations and quality of decisions made; protecting data integrity isa challenging task (Vosburg and Kumar, 2001). One of the issues in informationmanagement is getting the right information to the right person at the right time and in ausable form (Youngberg et al., 2009). Information research has demonstrated thatinaccurate and incomplete data may severely affect the competitive success of anorganisation (Hongjiang et al., 2002). Poor quality information can have significant socialand business impacts (Strong et al., 1997). Hongjiang et al. (2002) discuss DQ problems.They advise that in order to ensure DQ in implementing ERP, it is important to

Challengein ER

implementatio

54


12/30

understand the underlying factors that influence DQ and the underlying problems withold systems need to be investigated. Hongjiang et al. (2002) conducted a case study in twolarge Australian organisations in both the transport and mining industries, where theyapplied the framework, which they developed for the understanding of DQ issues in

implementing ERP. Data misfits arise from incompatibilities between organisationalrequirements and ERP package in terms of data format; resolving these misfits iscumbersome, since this requires changing the structure and relationship of the tableobjects, which are viewed as prohibitive core changes to the ERP packages (Soh et al.,2000). Poor DQ at the operational level increases operational cost because time and otherresources are spent detecting and correcting errors (Park and Kusiak, 2005). Alshawi et al.(2004) argue that data accuracy is an issue in the sense that if the data that goes into asystem is not accurate or immediately accessible, the whole system becomes suspect.Tsamantanis and Kojetsidis (2006) conducted a case study on two medium sizedmanufacturing companies in Greece in order to examine how both companies introducedERP in their effort to increase competitive advantage and market share. They concludedfrom their findings that in order to function properly, an ERP system has increaseddemandforinformation input.Additionally, since ERP integrates different functions of thecompany and uses data from several departments, delays in the system by onedepartmenthave a direct impact on the operations of the others. To be truly competitive in todaysinformation era, the business should be able to operate continuously, maintain dataavailabilityall the time, and be agile in accessing available data (Bajgoric and Moon, 2009).

4.6 Misalignment of IT with the businessHo et al. (2004) argue that system implementation is a challenging management issue andis no less important than system research and development. They further emphasise thatowing to the rapidly changing business environment, ERP implementation is seldom asimple matter of realising a plan; instead, it is often a dynamic process of mutual

adaptation between IT and the surrounding environment. Given the slim possibility ofachieving a perfect match between technology and organisation, misalignment can occurwhich can be rectified through technological measures, organisational measures or acombination of both. A case study was conducted by Ho et al. (2004) to examine threedimensions of alignment between organisation and ERP systems, by employing atechnology adaptation perspective and case research methodology. They adopt theLeonard-Barton model as a research framework. This framework addresses critical issuesaccording to the dimension into which they fall. There are three dimensions in thisframework; technology, delivery system and performance criteria. The technologydimension issues are; adequacy for specification,users maturity forthe application of newtechnology, and evaluation and integration for legacy system. As regards the deliverysystem, its issues are: role of the MIS department in organisation, process adaptation,

harmonious implementation, system establishment, project management, employeeeducation and training, external partner support and internal staff involvement. Finally,the issue for performance criteria is performance evaluation.

Ho et al. (2004) advise that during implementation, all three dimensions influence eachother. A successful implementation will benefit from the application of all threedimensions, and not a single one. To this effect, and basedon the results of their case studysurveys, they develop an adaptation framework for ERP implementations as shown inFigure 4.

BPMJ16,4

548


13/30

4.7 Hidden costs in ERP implementations

Yusufet al. (2004) report that an ERP system has problems of uncertainty in acquisitionand hidden costs in implementation. Tarn et al. (2002) argue that cost is a critical part of anERP implementation for both large and small businesses alike. They further emphasisethat companies that install ERP solutions may underestimate cost that is hidden. An ERPsystem has an average total cost of ownership of $15 million butrewards thebusinesswithan average negative net present value of $1.5 million (Wheatley, 2000). The followingtypes of common hiddencostmayincreaseimplementationcost dramatically(Slater, 1998;Soh et al., 2000):

. training is the most underrated hidden cost the cost to train an entire staff on anew system is enormous and often taken for granted;

. integration and implementation are often overlooked;

.

the cost of data conversion is hidden companies often do not recognise the costassociated with transferring data from the old system to the new package;included in this cost is the need to modify the data to fit into the new system andthe need to hire professionals can send this type of cost higher certain date;

. high-consulting cost becomes inevitable as a consequence of many companiesnot budgeting consulting fees properly; and

. a cost often overlooked is the notion that the project will end on a certain date.

4.8 Organisational, management and technical challengesMcAdam and Galloway (2005) report that key organisational issues were teamwork,change management, top management support, plan and vision, business processmanagement and development, project management, monitoring and review, effectivecommunication, software development and testing, the role of the project champion andappropriate business and IT legacy systems. The results of their study indicate that thecomplex organisational change issues must be comprehensively addressed. These issuescannot be resolved solely with technical solutions. To support these results, Huang et al.(2003, 2004) suggest that in addition to developing the technical aspects of ERP, moreeffort is required in understanding the more complex organisational issues involved.

4.8.1 Organisational issues within a large organisation. A case-based researchapproach was used by McAdam and Galloway (2005) to explore the organisational

Figure 4Adaptation framewor

of ER

ERP system

Process integration

Process reengineering

Source:Adopted from Ho et al. (2004)

* System specification

* Solution for integrating legacy

systems

* Suggested managementmechanism

* Change management

* MIS role

* Top management support

* Training of staff

* IT-enabled process

integration

* Change management

approach

Performance

Challengein ER

implementatio

549


14/30

issues involved in implementing an ERP system within a large global organisationwhere SAP R/3 was implemented. They report the key implementation issues based ontheir interview data as follows:

. Roles and responsibilities. Although some managers perceived they faced achallenge due to processchange and enrichedroles,there were also concerns that theERP package removes duplicity, replaces or removes manual and decentralisedcommon tasks and results in many back offices being consolidated into one, withemployee redundancy implications. Therefore, some roles could potentiallydisappear. Clearer communication of the business drivers for the change andreassurance on this issue could have increased management commitment (Nah andLau, 2001).

. Management capability. One common outcome from the interview data were thatability, experience and communication capabilities were all prerequisites forgood ERP implementations and adopting changed processes (Huang, 2002; Stijnand Wensley, 2001). Where any manager had evidence that their staff had these

qualities in relation to ERP, then the change became more effective. Many of theproblems associated with the SAP R/3 delivery in the case organisationhighlighted a lack of these prerequisites as a common denominator among manymanagers.

. Management behaviours. The interview data also showed that there were noguarantees that being more mature in years or with more managerial experiencemade managers better at adapting to innovation or process changes. The abilityto effectively manage ERP change was found to be either as a consequence ofprevious training or the preferred style or behaviour of individual managers(Huang et al., 2003). There was evidence to suggest that training along withpractical awareness of the change drivers regarding ERP implementation couldhelp managers and staff to understand the issues and therefore become morecomfortable in working with the SAP R/3 driven changes. Many managersfrequently went back to the most accomplished SAP or IT-literate members oftheir teams and tended to ignore the other staff, leading to bottlenecks.

. Training and development. Limited training in SAP R/3 skills was a concern formost of the managers, as also found by Huang et al. (2003). However, there was adesire to know more about SAP and to learn how to use it more effectively. Thereis a need for a more systematic SAP training and development approach, whichshould include exposing managers to the practical examples of SAP and majorbusiness process changes implementation.

4.8.2 Types of managerial and technical issues. Themistocleus et al. (2001) conducted a

survey to identify, analyse and present the problems of ERP systems. Their findings oftheir survey highlight two types of ERP implementation problems:

(1) managerial; and

(2) technical.

The surveys conducted by Themistocleus et al. (2001) demonstrates that project costoverruns and delays were significant problems and affected seriously, theimplementation phase and the whole project (Themistocleus et al., 2001). Other kinds

BPMJ16,4

550


15/30

of problems encountered during implementation were conflicts with external entitiessuch as consultants and ERP vendors, as well as internal conflicts. These conflicts wereinstrumental to project delays and cost overruns. Approximately, 42 per cent of thesurveyed companies faced severe problems with their business strategies

(Themistocleus et al., 2001) as the ERP system imposed its own way of doing business(Davenport, 1998). Additionally, these surveys conducted by Themistocleus et al. (2001)indicates that ERP solutions caused organisational restructuring, and consequently ledto employees resistance to change, which in turn, led to project delays experienced by58 per cent of the surveyed companies. This supports Sumners (1999) argument thatthere is a major resistance to change after an organisation rolls out ERP.

The surveys further indicate that serious customisation problems encountered by72 per cent of the companies surveyed, were caused during and post-implementation.Customisation also led to integration problems. Furthermore, according to 82 per cent ofthe companies that participated in the surveys, integration problems were experiencedin an attempt to tie up the ERP systems with a number of existing applications.

Ehie and Madsen (2005) suggests that unfortunately, many organisations equatesuccessful ERP implementations with the choice of ERP software. While it is imperativethat the choice of the software should be carefully considered, ERP software should notdrive the business decision-making process. Implementing an ERP solution requiresthorough strategic thinking that allows companies to gain a better understanding of theirbusiness processes. It is imperative for companies to be aware of critical issues affectingERP implementation and give careful considerations to the issues which would lendthemselves to streamlined rollouts and timely implementation of ERP systems.

5. DiscussionsThe papers that were studied in this literature review examined ERP implementationsin various countries, regions and continents. These countries are; the USA, the UK,

Germany, Cyprus, India, France, Canada, Japan, Australia, Ireland, Taiwan, Mexico,Greece and Bahrain. Some of these countries belong to some of the continents andregions, which were part of the literature review; Asia, The Netherlands, and theMiddle East. The number of citations for each country is illustrated in Table II.

Table II indicates that most of the study in this paper was conducted in the USA,which reports 36 citations. Then the UK presents 13 citations, indicating a substantialgap with studies done in the USA. Cyprus follows this estimate closely with ninecitations. The othercitations by country range from six, which is for Ireland, to one beingthe lowest for Bahrain. These numbers indicate that the majority of the implementationchallenges have been encountered in the USA because it holds the highest number ofimplementations. However, this emphasizes the need to address implementationchallenges in less cited countries, so that experiences are not as unpleasant as that of the

USA. It is imperative to educate both organisations that have implemented ERP andthose that have not, on ERP failure factors.

A number of the literature reviewed in this study are based on case studies, whilstothers are based on either literature review or research. Some ERP applications havebeen used in some of the literature in order to achieve its objectives. Table III illustratesthe ERP system that has been used in the specified study.

The applications that were referenced the most in this study are SAP, Oracle andBaan. Peoplesoft and J.D. Edwards were also referred to in literature, but very sparsely.

Challengein ER

implementatio

55


16/30

There were other ERP products used in some case, but the most popular and mostlyused solutions were selected by the author.

Most of the papers studied in this literature review are journal articles. These areshown in Table IV by selected reference, as well as the number of citations made ineach literature paper. The table also indicates the industry for which the citations weremade.

It is illustrated in Table IV that the manufacturing industry has implemented ERP

more than other industries cited in this paper. Some of the other industries are retail,banking and finance, telecommunications, energy, brewery, transport and services.This is an indication that this literature review covers a wide range of industries, andas such, its failure factors must be addressed very seriously since they apply to amultitude of industries. Furthermore, the fact that multiple industries were referencedis an indication of the reliability of the sources of this review.

In addition to, the critical factors that have been highlighted in this paper forconsideration in ERP implementations, it was observed during the review that someof the papers studied lack depth. Some of these papers are discussed in this section forfuture research.

Woo (2007) conducted a case study to examine the ERP implementation experiencesof a leading Chinese enterprise. The objective of this study was to provide Chinese

enterprises implementing ERP with knowledge about ERP implementation CSFs.Based on the findings of Woos (2007) case study, Woo (2007) stresses the importanceof using the best people in an organization, on an ERP implementation project. Thesepeople will make up the project team composition. This critical factor was suggested asa consequence of the case study organization not releasing their best people onto theirERP project. However, Woo (2007) has not clearly stated what value the team willcontribute to the project. Additionally, the paper does not highlight the ramifications ofnot using the right project team at the initial stage of the project.

Country/region Number of citations

USA 36Cyprus 9

UK 13Germany 3India 6France 3Canada 3Japan 3Australia 4Ireland 6Asia 4The Netherlands 2Middle East and Africa 2Taiwan 3Mexico 2

Finland 5Greece 4Bahrain 1

Table II.Number of citationsby country

BPMJ16,4

552


17/30

Releasing the best people onto ERPprojects is oneof the least discussed critical factors inliterature. Besides, companies still struggle to fully understand the importance of thisfactor. Second, even when companies have some understanding of its essence,management still struggle to release the people because of fear that their normal dailyactivities will suffer, should other people be used to replace the former staff.For this reason, it is absolutely imperative to clearly highlight the consequences of notapplying the CSF of not releasing the right people onto projects. These consequences

Selected reference SAP Oracle Baan Peoplesoft J.D. Edwards

Shehab et al. (2004) X X X X Chung and Snyder (2000) X X X X

Mendel (1999) X XEhie and Madsen (2005) X X X X XSumner (1999) X X X Rao (2000a, b) X X X X XYoungberg et al. (2009) X Themistocleus and Irani (2001a) Davenport (1998) X McAdam and Galloway (2005) X Soh et al. (2000) Kogetsidis et al. (2008) X Elbertsen et al. (2006) X X X Ndede-Amadi (2004) Ash and Burn (2003) X

Langenwalter (2000) Hong and Kim (2002) X X X Markus and Tanis (2000) X X Cissna (1998) X X X X XHuang et al. (2003, 2004) X X X X XBajgoric and Moon (2009) Vosburg and Kumar (2001) X Strong et al. (1997) Hongjiang et al. (2002) X Alshawi et al. (2004) X X Ho et al. (2004) X Al-Mashari (2003) X X X X XYusufet al. (2004) X Wheatley (2000)

Arindam and Bhattacharya (2009) X X Worley et al. (2005) X Nah and Lau (2001) Kogetsidis et al. (2008) Verma (2007) Laukkanen et al. (2007) Hallikainen et al. (2009) X Helo (2008) X X Aloini et al. (2007) Koh et al. (2006) X Kamhawi (2008) X X X X XPark and Kusiak (2005)Tsamantanis and Kojetsidis (2006)

Table IIERP Applicatio

referenced in literatureviewe

Challengein ER

implementatio

55


18/30

Selectedreference

Number

ofcitations

Papertype

Source

Industryreferred

Shehabetal.(2004)

3

Journal

BusinessProcessManagement

Journal

ChungandSnyder(2000)

4

Journal

InternationalJournalofAgileM

anagementSystems

Chungetal.(2008)

1

Journal

JournalofComputinginCivilE

ngineering

Mendel(1999)

1

Journal

Infoworld

Manufacturing

EhieandMadsen(2005)

6

Journal

ComputersinIndustry

Energy

Construction

Manufacturing

Comunications

Sumner(1999)

3

ConferenceP

aper

ProceedingsoftheSIGCPR

Manufacturing

Rao(2000a,b)

5

Journal


Journal

Rao(2000a,b)

3

Journal

IndustrialManagement&DataSystems

Youngbergetal.(2009)

1

Journal

InternationalJournalofInform

ation

Management

ThemistocleusandIrani(2

001)

3

ConferenceP

aper

IEEEProceedingsofthe34thHawaii

InternationalConferenceonSy

stemSciences

Manufacturing

Retail

Bankingandfina

nce

Computer

Wholesaleanddistribution

Communications

Services

Food,beverageandtobacco

Davenport(1998)

11

Journal

LogisticsInformationManagem

ent

Manufacturing

McAdamandGalloway(2005)

6

Journal


Retail

Sohetal.(2000)

4

Journal

CommunicationoftheACM

Kogetsidisetal.(2008)

4

Journal

JournalofInternationalBusiness&

EntrepreneurshipDevelopment

Retail

Elbertsenetal.(2006)

1

Journal


Electrical,engineeringand

metalindustry

Ndede-Amadi(2004)

1

Journal


Journal

Manufacturing

AshandBurn(2003)

1

Journal

EuropeanJournalofOperationalResearch

Manufacturing

Langen-Walter(2000)

Book

StLuciaPress

HongandKim(2002)

2

Journal

Information&Management

MarkusandTanis(2000)

1

WhitePaper

Internet

(continued)

Table IV.Number of citationsby selected reference

BPMJ16,4

554


19/30

Selectedreference

Number

ofcitations

Papertype

Source

Industryreferred

Cissna(1998)

1

Journal

ElectricLightandPower

Energy

Huangetal.(2003)

4

Journal

JournalofBusiness&Management

Huangetal.(2004)

1

Journal


Manufacturing

Finance

BajgoricandMoon(2009)

1

Journal


VosburgandKumar(2001)

1

Journal


Manufacturing

Strongetal.(1997)

1

Journal

DataQualityinContext

Hongjiangetal.(2002)

3

Journal


Transport

Mining

Alshawietal.(2004)

2

Journal

TheJournalofEnterpriseInfor

mationManagementTelecommunications

Hoetal.(2004)

3

Journal


Manufacturing

Al-Mashari(2003)

1

Journal


Yusufetal.(2004)

3

Journal

InternationalJournalofProductionEconomics

Manufacturing

Wheatley(2000)

CIO

ArindamandBhattacharya(2009)

2

Journal

BusinessStrategySeries

Manufacturing

Worleyetal.(2005)

2

Journal

ComputersinIndustry

Education

NahandLau(2001)

1

Journal


Journal

Kogetsidisetal.(2008)

4

Journal

JournalofInternationalBusinessand

EntrepreneurshipDevelopment

Verma(2007)

Laukkanenetal.(2007)

5

Journal

JournalofEnterpriseInformationManagement

Retail

Manufacturing

Logistics

Hallikainenetal.(2009)

2

Journal

InternationalJournalofProductionEconomics

Manufacturing

Helo(2008)

1

Journal


Manufacturing

Aloinietal.(2007)

5

Journal

Information&Management

Kohetal.(2006)

4

Journal

JournalofManufacturingTech

nologyManagementManufacturing

Kamhawi(2008)

1

Journal

JournalofEnterpriseInformationManagement

ParkandKusiak(2005)

1

Journal

InternationalJournalofProductionResearch

Manufacturing

TsamantanisandKojetsidis(2006)

1

Journal

BritishFoodJournal

Brewery

Energy

Telecommunications

Manufacturing

Table IV

Challengein ER

implementatio

55


20/30

should be drawn from case studies, where business problems were actually experiencedafter neglecting to apply a critical factor. It would be most useful to highlight the exactbusiness issues that were encountered in terms of loss of revenue or inefficientoperations. This true business scenario will force managers to release their best people.

Woo (2007) also stressed the importance of ERP training. Training users to use ERPis important because ERP is not easy to use even for highly educated managers withgood IT skills (Woo, 2007). Woo (2007) proceeds to discuss the reasons for providingERP users with proper training. However, Woo (2007) did not offer any insight on theconsequences of not training ERP users.

Woo (2007) discussed other CSFs on communication and process change that wereexperienced as challenges by the case study organization at the onset of the project.However, the ramifications that were encountered by the business in not applyingthese critical factors, were not discussed.

Kamwahi (2008) carried out some research to provide a better understanding of ERPsystems adoption, as well as non-adoption practices in a less developed country setting,

namely Bahrain. It is inferred in this study that the main challenges to ERPimplementations are simply high start-up costs and long implementation periods. Thesewere rated highly on the Likert scale used to measure the severity of the challenges. Oneof the other challenges highlighted in this study is change management. However, this isgrouped under the third level of challenges. In comparison to the failure factors cited inthis literature review, the latter reports that a lack of change management is the mostcited failure factor. This stands to reason because if the change being introduced by theERP system is not properly managed, then the users will not appreciate the system.Consequently, the system will not be properly used and this could lead to a barrage ofproblems for the organization. Therefore, the fact that change management has not beenrecognized in Bahrain based on Kamwahis (2008) study, simply implies that moreeducation on the impact of change management on an ERP implementation, should beconducted for practitioners in Bahrain.

Laukkanen et al. (2007) contributed to the discussion on ERP system adoption, byinvestigating the relationship of enterprise size to the objectives and constraints ofERP adoption. In their paper, they focus their discussions on small, medium and largeorganizations. They begin by defining each organization size. However, thesedefinitions provided are not concretely and widely supported by literature or otherratified paper. Furthermore, Laukkanen et al. (2007) did not categorise their definitionsby country. The size factor in relation to a company may differ in different countries,depending on the population of the country. Also, various constitutions may define sizedifferently.

Laukkanen et al. (2007) proceed to discuss their findings on the correlations between

various risk factors and the size of an ERP implementing company. However, some ofthe risk factors (e.g. schedule and budget overruns) are rather vague. What constitutesa budget overrun for a small company in one country may not be what constitutes thesame for another small company in a different country. Besides, one of the risk factors;criticality of the changes imposed by the ERP system is documented as a risk factor,but could contribute to budget or schedule overruns. These risk factors should havebeen broken down further into failure factors which are discussed in this literaturereview.

BPMJ16,4

556


21/30

In light of the study conducted in this literature review, this paper seeks tocontribute to research by addressing ERP implementation challenges from a failureperspective. This motive gives a better visibility of the problems encountered inthe process of implementing an ERP solution in an organisation, and as such, stresses

the need to urgently counter the failures.The practical implications of the failure factors discussed in this paper are targeted at

ERP implementing organisations. These companies will use these factors as a guide forfuture implementations, in order to aid them in avoiding the failures that have beenexperienced in other implementations. The authenticity of the failures withcorresponding examples provides the implementers with the reality of their existenceand the potential damage they could cause in terms of both financial and humanresources. As opposed to CSFs that are interpreted as the factors that should be appliedin an implementation in order to attain success, critical failure factors present the actualfailures that would occur in an implementation if the factors are ignored. The formerdoes not critically guarantee a failure if all the CSFs are not adhered to. The latter has amore imminent sense of urgency and reality about it. The proportion of the failurefactors guides the ERP implementers in prioritising the critical factor that must beavoided during implementation.

Future research should focus on creating a framework to address and correct eachfailure factor in its entirety, for use by implementing organisations in futureimplementations.

6. Conclusions and implications for future researchERP solutions are appropriate whena company is seeking the benefits of integration andbest practices in its information system, and looking for a full range of functionalityacross its organisation. Thus, there is an increasing number of organisationsimplementing ERP today. However, it has been reported that implementing ERP mostly

results in failures. A number of studies have been conducted on these implementations,and the results have led to the conclusion that less than 10 per cent of ERPimplementations are successful due to a variety of challenges.

This paper presented a number of critical failure factors based on a comprehensiveliterature review. Whilst, the papers that were studied provided a good insight into thefactors that lead to both the successes and failures of ERP implementations, the lack ofcertain content in some of these papers indicates some degree of incompleteness of thevarious studies.

A citation which lacks correlation with this paper is that of Ehie and Madsen (2005),where they reported the results of an empirical research on the critical issues affectingsuccessful ERP implementation. Through the study, eight factors were identified thatattempts to explain 86 per cent of the variances that impact ERP implementation. Six of

these critical factors were correlated with the success of the respective ERPimplementations. However, of the eight factors, only human resource development bearsany relationship with the failure factors discussed in this paper, with respect to training.Even more amazing, is the fact that the failure factor, lack of change management, whichis amongst the top cited in this literature review, was not discussed by Ehie and Madsen(2005). This means that these failure factors have not beentaken into consideration in thestudy carried out by Ehie and Madsen (2005). Therefore, the results of their study is verylimited, and clearly does not cover a wide spectrum of critical factors that affect an ERP

Challengein ER

implementatio

55


22/30

implementation. Hence, it is impractical for only these eight success factors to be used toguide a practitioner in their ERP implementation. Similarly, the eight factors do notprovide a wide enough spectrum for further research to be based upon.

The review of all the literature in this study, as well as the shortcomings above,

emphasises the need to present the critical factors that challenge ERP implementations,from a failure perspective. This stresses the urgency to address and correct thesefactors, from both a research and industry perspective.

The challenges discussed in this paper are:. a lack of change management;. lack of commitment from top management;. a substantial amount of customisation thereby leading to problems with internal

integration and misalignment with the ERP underlying business model;. misalignment of business strategy with the ERP solution;. lack of adequate training at all levels for both management and employees to

ensure that there is a good understanding of the impact of implementing ERP aswell as what it is and is not; and

. inadequate understanding of business requirements and the implication of ERPbefore implementation.

All these issues lead to large cost overruns and sometimes, project cancellations.In light of the above highlighted failures, for future research, it is imperative to

conduct a detailed research on each failure factor in its entirety. This brings about anin-depth focus for each critical factor. Furthermore, a methodology to disable thestudied failure factor should be developed.

References

Aitken, P. (2002), Enterprise resource planning considerations, available at: www.sei.cmu.edu/plp/EI_IRAD/ERP-Solutions.pdf (accessed 26 April 2009).

Al-Mashari, M. (2003), Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems: a research agenda,Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 22-7.

Aloini, D., Dulmin, R. and Mininno, V. (2007), Risk management in ERP project introduction:review of the literature, Information & Management, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 547-67.

Alshawi, S., Themistocleus, M. and Almadani, R. (2004), Integrating diverse ERP systems: a casestudy, The Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 454-62.

Arindam, S. and Bhattacharya, R. (2009), Analysis of fitment of ERP and conceptualization of

its substitute in small segment a strategic approach, Business Strategy Series, Vol. 10No. 1, pp. 28-39.

Ash, C. and Burn, J. (2003), A strategic framework for the management of ERP enablede-business change, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 146 No. 2, pp. 374-94.

Bajgoric, N. and Moon, Y.B. (2009), Enhancing systems integration by incorporating businesscontinuity drivers, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 109 No. 1, pp. 74-97.

Chen, S. and Lin, Y. (2009), On performance evaluation of ERP systems with fuzzymathematics, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36, pp. 6362-7.

BPMJ16,4

558


23/30

Chung, B.Y., Skibniewski, M.J., Lucas, H.C. Jr and Kwak, Y.H. (2008), Analyzing enterpriseresource planning system implementation success factors in the engineering-constructionindustry, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 373-82.

Chung, S.H. and Snyder, C.A. (2000), ERP adoption: a technological evolution approach,

International Journal of Agile Management Systems, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 24-32.Cissna, T. (1998), ERP software implementation brings pains with its gains, Electric Light and

Power, Vol. 76 No. 11, pp. 43-4.

Davenport, T.H. (1998), Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system, Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 121-31.

Ehie, I.C. and Madsen, M. (2005), Identifying critical issues in enterprise resource planning(ERP) implementation, Computers in Industry, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 545-57.

Elbertsen, L., Benders, J. and Nijssen, E. (2006), ERP use: exclusive or complemented?,Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 106 No. 6, pp. 811-24.

Hallikainen, P., Kimpimaki, H. and Kivijarvi, H. (2006), Supporting the module sequencingdecision in the ERP implementation process, Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International

Conference on Systems Sciences, Washington, DC.Hallikainen, P., Tuominen, M. and Kivijarvi, H. (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. 259-70.

Helo, P. (2008), Expectation and reality in ERP implementation: consultant and solutionprovider perspective, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 108 No. 8, pp. 1045-59.

Ho, C., Wu, W. and Tai, Y. (2004), Strategies for the adaptation of ERP systems, IndustrialManagement & Data Systems, Vol. 104 No. 3, pp. 234-51.

Holland, C., Light, B. and Gibson, N. (1999), Enterprise resource planning: a business approachto systems development, Proceedings of 32nd Hawaii International Conference on SystemSciences, Maui, Hawaii.

Hong, K. and Kim, Y. (2002), The critical success factors for ERP implementation:an organisational fit perspective, Information & Management, Vol. 40, pp. 25-40.

Hongjiang, X., Nord, J.N., Brown, N. and Nord, G.D. (2002), Data quality issues in implementingan ERP, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 102 No. 1, pp. 47-58.

Huang, A., Yen, D.C., Chou, D.C. and Xu, Y. (2003), Corporate applications integration:challenges, opportunities, and implementation strategies, Journal of Business and

Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 137-50.

Huang, C.Y. (2002), Distributed manufacturing execution systems: a workflow perspective,Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 13, pp. 485-97.

Huang, M., Wang, J., Yu, S. and Chiu, C. (2004), Value-added ERP information into informationgoods: an economic analysis, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 104 No. 8,

pp. 689-97.IT Cortex (2009), Failure rate: statistics over IT projects failure rate, available at: www.it-cortex.

com/Stat_Failure_Rate.htm (accessed 26 April 2009).

Jacob, G. and Wagner, T. (1999), Rapid ERP implementation: the Tuolomne County, Californiaexperience, Government Finance Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 33-6.

Kamhawi, E.M. (2008), Enterprise resource planning systems adoption in Bahrain: motives,benefits, and barriers, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 21 No. 3,pp. 310-34.

Challengein ER

implementatio

559


24/30

Kogetsidis, H., Kokkinaki, A. and Soteriou, V. (2008), Enterprise resource planningimplementation in the retail sector: a case study on the effects of the implementation ofan ERP system in Cyprus, Journal of International Business and Entrepreneurship

Development, Vol. 3 Nos 3/4, pp. 270-83.

Koh, S.C.L., Simpson, M., Padmore, J., Dimitriadis, N. and Misopoulos, F. (2006), An exploratorystudy of enterprise resource planning adoption in Greek companies, Industrial

Management & Data Systems, Vol. 106 No. 7, pp. 1033-59.

Langenwalter, G.A. (2000), Enterprise Resource Planning and Beyond Integrating your EntireOrganisation, St Lucie Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Laukkanen, S., Sarpola, S. and Hallikainen, P. (2007), Enterprise size matters; objectives andconstraints of ERP adoption, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 20No. 3, pp. 319-34.

McAdam, R. and Galloway, A. (2005), Enterprise resource planning and organisationalinnovation: a management perspective, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 105No. 3, pp. 280-90.

Mabert, V.A., Soni, A. and Venkataramanan, M.A. (2000), Enterprise resource planning surveyof US manufacturing firms, Production & Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 2,pp. 52-8.

Markus, M.L. and Tanis, C. (2000), The enterprise systems experience from adoption tosuccess, available at: http://pro.unibz.it/staff/ascime/documents/ERP%20paper.pdf(accessed 26 April 2009).

Mendel, B. (1999), Overcoming ERP project hurdles, Infoworld, Vol. 21 No. 29, p. 87.

Momoh, A., Roy, R. and Shehab, E. (2008), A work breakdown structure for implementing andcosting an ERP project, Communications of the IBIMA Journal, Vol. 6 No. 15, pp. 94-103.

Momoh, A., Roy, R., Shehab, E. and Snowden, D. (2007), Challenges in enterprise resourceplanning (ERP) phased approach implementation within a large organisation: a casestudy, paper presented at 5th International Conference on Manufacturing Research

(ICMR2007), Bedford.

Muscatello, J.R., Small, M.H. and Chen, I.J. (2003), Implementing enterprise resource planning(ERP) systems in small and midsize manufacturing firms, International Journal ofOperations & Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 850-71.

Nah, F.F. and Lau, J.L. (2001), Critical factors for successful implementation of enterprisesystems, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 285-96.

Ndede-Amadi, A.A. (2004), What strategic alignment, process redesign, enterprise resourceplanning, and e-commerce have in common: enterprise-wide computing, Business Process

Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 184-99.

Park, K. and Kusiak, A. (2005), Enterprise resource planning (ERP) operations support systemfor maintaining process integration, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 43

No. 19, pp. 3959-82.Rao, S.S. (2000a), Enterprise resource planning: business needs and technologies, Industrial

Management & Data Systems, Vol. 100 No. 2, pp. 81-8.

Rao, S.S. (2000b), Enterprise resource planning in reengineering business, Business ProcessManagement Journal, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 376-91.

Razmi, J., Sangari, M.S. and Ghodsi, R. (2009), Developing a practical framework for ERPreadiness using fuzzy analytic network process, Advances in Engineering Software,Vol. 40 No. 11, pp. 1168-78.

BPMJ16,4

560


25/30

Reda, S. (1998), The ERP dilemma: packaged solution or best-of-breed?, Stores, Vol. 80 No. 10,p. 24.

Scott, J.E. and Kaindl, L. (2000), Enhancing functionality in an enterprise software package,Information and Management, Vol. 37, pp. 111-22.

Shehab, E.M., Sharp, M.W., Supramaniam, L. and Spedding, T.A. (2004), Enterprise resourceplanning: an integrative review, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4,pp. 359-86.

Slater, D. (1998), The hidden costs of enterprise software, CIO, Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 48-55.

Soh, C., Kien, S.S. and Tay-Yap, J. (2000), Cultural fits and misfits: is ERP a universal solution?,Communication of the ACM, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 47-51.

Stijn, E. and Wensley, A. (2001), Organisational memory and the applications of processmodelling in ERP systems, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 181-5.

Strong, D.M., Lee, Y.W. and Wang, R.Y. (1997), Data quality in context, Communications of theACM, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 103-10.

Sumner, M. (1999), Critical Success factors in enterprise wide information management systems

projects, Proceedings of the SIGCPR, New Orleans, LA.Tarn, J.M., Yen, D.C. and Beaumont, M. (2002), Exploring the rationales for ERP and SCM

integration, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 102 No. 1, pp. 26-34.

Themistocleus, M. and Irani, Z. (2001), Benchmarking the benefits and barriers of applicationintegration, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 317-31.

Themistocleus, M., Irani, Z., OKeefe, R.M. and Paul, R. (2001), ERP problems and applicationintegration issues: an empirical survey, IEEE Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI.

Tsamantanis, V. and Kojetsidis, H. (2006), Implementation of enterprise resource planningsystems in the Cypriot brewing industry, British Food Journal, Vol. 108 No. 2, pp. 118-26.

Verma, K. (2007), Project management challenges and best practices for enterprise packaged

applications, PM World Today, Vol. 9 No. 8.Vosburg, J. and Kumar, A. (2001), Managing dirty data in organisations using ERP: lessons

from a case study, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 101 No. 1, pp. 21-31.

Wheatley, M. (2000), ERP training stinks, CIO, Vol. 13 No. 16, pp. 86-96.

Woo, H.S. (2007), Critical success factors for implementing ERP: the case of a Chinese electronicsmanufacturer, Journal of Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 431-42.

Worley, J.H., Chatha, K.A., Weston, R.H., Aguirre, O. and Grabot, B. (2005), Implementation andoptimisation of ERP systems: a better integration of processes, roles, knowledge and usercompetencies, Computers in Industry, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 620-38.

Youngberg, E., Olsen, D. and Hauser, K. (2009), Determinants of professionally autonomous enduser acceptance in an enterprise resource planning system environment, International

Journal of Information Management, Vol. 29, pp. 138-44.

Yusuf, Y., Gunasekaran, A. and Abthorpe, M.S. (2004), Enterprise information systems projectimplementation: a case study of ERP in Rolls-Royce, International Journal Production

Economics, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 251-66.

Further reading

Adam, F. and Sammon, D. (2004), The Enterprise Resource Planning Decade: Lessons Learnedand Issues for the Future, Idea Group Publishing, London.

Challengein ER

implementatio

56


26/30

Arif, M., Kulonda, D., Jones, J. and Proctor, M. (2005), Enterprise information systems: technologyfirst or process first?, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 5-21.

Asprey, L. (2004), Information strategies: are we aligning the business case with enterpriseplanning?, Records Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 7-13.

Badii, A. and Sharif, A. (2003), Information management and knowledge integration forenterprise innovation, Logistics Information Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 145-55.

BearingPoint (2004), Implementing ERP systems in the public sector: nine sure ways to fail orsucceed, Enterprise Solutions White Paper, available at: www.bearingpoint.com/portal/binary/com.epicentric.contentmanagement.servlet.ContentDeliveryServlet/published/pdfs/public/C2871_ERP_WP.pdf (accessed 24 February 2006).

Boersma, K. and Kingma, S. (2005), Developing a cultural perspective on ERP, Business ProcessManagement, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 123-36.

Bose, R. (2006), Understanding enterprise integration systems for enterprise performancemanagement, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 106 No. 1, pp. 43-59.

Bozarth, C. (2006), ERP implementation efforts at three firms: integrating lessons from the SISP

and IT-enabled change literature, International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, Vol. 26 No. 11, pp. 1223-39.

Buonanno, G., Faverio, P., Pigni, F., Ravarini, A., Sciuto, D. and Tagliavini, M. (2005), Factorsaffecting ERP adoption: a comparative analysis between SMEs and large companies,

Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 384-426.

Burca, S., Fyans, B. and Marshall, D. (2005), Strategic technology adoption: extending ERPacross the supply chain, The Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 18No. 4, pp. 427-40.

Carroll, B.J. (2002),Lean Performance: ERP Project Management, St Lucie Press,Delray Beach,FL.

Chen, I.J. (2001), Planning for ERP systems: analysis and future trend, Business ProcessManagement Journal, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 374-86.

Clemmons, S. and Simon, S.J. (2001), Control and coordination in global ERP configuration,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 205-15.

Curran, T.A. and Ladd, A. (1999), SAP R/3 Business Blueprint: Understanding Enterprise SupplyChain Management, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Davenport, T.H. and Brooks, J.D. (2004), Enterprise systems and the supply chain, The Journalof Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 8-19.

Eknayaka, Y., Currie, W.L. and Seltsikas, P. (2002), Delivering enterprise resource planningsystems through application service providers, Logistics Information Management,Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 192-203.

Elbama, A.R. (2007), Implementing an integrated system in a socially dis-integrated enterprise:a critical view of ERP enabled integration,Information Technology & People,Vol.20No.2,pp. 121-39.

Floyd, T.H. (2000), Phased ERP Implementation Instead of The Big Bang, ERP World West,Anaheim, CA.

Gulledge, T.R. and Sommer, R.A. (2003), Public sector enterprise resource planning, IndustrialManagement & Data Systems, Vol. 103 No. 7, pp. 471-83.

Gupta, A. (2000), Enterprise resource planning: the emerging organisational value systems,Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 100 No. 3, pp. 114-8.

Hedman, J. and Borell, A. (2004), Narratives in ERP systems evaluation, The Journal ofEnterprise Information Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 283-90.

BPMJ16,4

562


27/30

Helo, P. and Szekely, B. (2005), Logistics information systems: an analysis of software solutionsfor supply chain co-ordination, Logistics Information Systems, Vol. 105 No. 1, pp. 5-18.

Huang, Z. and Palvia, P. (2001), ERP implementation issues in advanced and developingcountries, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 276-84.

Jacobs, F.R. and Bendoly, E. (2003), Enterprise resource planning: developments and directionsfor operations management research, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 146No. 2, pp. 233-40.

Kim, Y., Lee, Z. and Gosain, S. (2005), Impediments to successful ERP implementation process,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 158-70.

Koch, C. (2001a), BPR and ERP: realising a vision of process with IT, Business ProcessManagement Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 258-65.

Koch, C. (2001b), Enterprise resource planning: information technology as a streamroller formanagementpolitics,Journalof Organisational Change Management,Vol.14No.1,pp.64-78.

Koh, S.C.L. (2006), Competing in the 21st century supply chain through supply chainmanagement and ERP integration, International Journal of Physical Distribution &

Logistics Management, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 455-65.

Koh, S.C.L. and Simpson, M. (2005), Change and uncertainty in SME manufacturingenvironments using ERP, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 16No. 6, pp. 629-53.

Lambert, A.J.D., Jansen, M.H. and Splinter, M.A.M. (2000), Environmental information systemsbased on enterprise resource planning, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 11 No. 2,pp. 105-12.

Lee, G. and Bai, R. (2003), Organisational mechanisms for successful IS/IT strategic planning inthe digital era, Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 32-42.

Light, B., Holland, C.P. and Wills, K. (2001), ERP and best of breed: a comparative analysis,Business Process Management, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 1463-7154.

Mabert, V.A., Soni, A. and Venkataramanan, M.A. (2003), Enterprise resource planning:managing the implementation process, European Journal of Operational Research,Vol. 146, pp. 302-14.

Martin, I. and Yen, C. (2005), Business process reengineering pays after enterprise resourceplanning, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 185-97.

Moller, C. (2005), ERP II: a conceptual framework for next-generation enterprise systems?,The Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 483-97.

Okrent, M.D. and Vokurka, R.J. (2004), Process mapping in successful ERP implementations,Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 104 No. 8, pp. 637-43.

Pickett, L. (2004), Focus on technology misses the mark, Industrial and Commercial Training,

Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 247-9.Ptak, C.A. and Schragenheim, E. (2004), ERP: Tools, Techniques, and Applications for

Integrating the Supply Chain, 2nd ed., St Lucie Press, New York, NY.

Redman, T.C. (1998), The impact of poor data quality on the typical enterprise,Communications of the ACM, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 79-82.

Schniederjans, M.J. and Kim, C.K. (2003), Implementing enterprise resource planning systemswith total quality control and business process reengineering: survey results,

International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 418-29.

Challengein ER

implementatio

56


28/30

Scott, C. (2000), New systems and the public finance management act, SCOPA and the PublicSector Financial Management, pp. 4-9, available at: www.ipfa.co.za/journal/j_may00.htm(accessed 24 February 2006).

Sharif, A.M., Elliman, T., Love, P.E.D. and Badii, A. (2004), Integrating the IS with the

enterprise: key EAI research challenges, The Journal of Enterprise InformationManagement, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 164-70.

Stein, T. (1998a), ERP links to supply chain, InformationWeek, Vol. 663, pp. 103-4.

Stein, T. (1998b), SAP moves beyond ERP, InformationWeek, No. 701, p. 36.

Steinke, G. and Nickolette, C. (2003), Business rules as the basis of an organisations informationsystems, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 52-63.

Stensrud, E. (2000), Alternative approaches to effort prediction of ERP projects, Informationand Software Technology, Vol. 43, pp. 413-23.

Sutton, S.G. (2006), Extended-enterprise systems impact on enterprise risk management,The Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 97-114.

Veasey, P.W. (2001), Use of enterprise architectures in managing strategic change, Business

Process Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 420-36.Verville, J. and Bernadas, C. (2005), So youre thinking of buying an ERP? Ten critical success

factors for successful acquisition, The Journal of Enterprise Information Management,Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 665-77.

Verville, J. and Halingten, A. (2003), Analysis of the decision process for selecting ERP software:the case of Keller manufacturing, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 14 No. 5,pp. 423-32.

Wallace, T.F. and Kremzar, M.H. (2001), ERP: Making it Happen The Implementers Guide toSuccess with Enterprise Resource Planning, Wiley, Toronto.

Walt, P.W. and Toit, A.S.A. (2007), Developing a scaleable information architecture for anenterprise-wide consolidated information management platform, Aslib Proceedings:

New Information Perspectives, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 80-96.

Wei, C., Chien, C. and Wang, M.J. (2004), An AHP-based approach to ERP system selection,International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 96 No. 1, pp. 47-62.

Wery, R. and Waco, M. (2004), Why good strategies fail, pp. 153-7, available at: www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename/published/emerafulltextarticle/pdf/2890050124.pdf (accessed 29 February 2006).

White, J.W. (2002), Making ERP work the way your business works, a new approach improvesERP simplicity, productivity and ROI, ERP White Paper.

Williams, D. and Parr, T. (2004), Enterprise Programme Management: Delivering Value,Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.

Wu, L., Ong, C. and Hsu, Y. (2008), Active ERP implementation management: a real optionsperspective, The Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 81 No. 6, pp. 1039-50.

Yingjie, J. (2005), Critical success factors in ERP implementation in Finland, MSc thesis inAccounting The Swedish School of Economics and Business Accounting, available at:www.pafis.shh.fi/graduates/yinjia03.pdf (accessed 24 February 2006).

About the authorsA. Momoh is a Senior SAP Consultant. She is currently a part-time PhD student atCranfield University. A. Momoh is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

BPMJ16,4

564


29/30

R. Roy is the Head of the Decision Engineering Centre. He is a leading Cost Engineeringresearch at Cranfield and is known for his qualitative cost modelling and design optimisationresearch and has published over 20 journal and 100 conference papers. He is the PrincipalInvestigator of an IMRC funded Network of Excellence in Affordability Engineering. He is also

leading an IMRC project on Whole Life Cost of technical PSS. Roy is leading the PSS Futures LabDevelopment at Cranfield and the PSS-design project within the Cranfield IMRC. As recognitionof his contribution in Cost Engineering and Design, he was elected as the President of theAssociation of Cost Engineers (ACostE) a

ERP State the Art

Documents

Transcript of ERP State the Art