CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS FOR ENTERPRISERESOURCE PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION

AND UPGRADE

FIONA FUI-HOON NAH 'University of Nebraska-LincolnLincoln, Nebraska 68588-0491

SANTIAGO DELGADONational Instruments

Austin, Texas 78759-3504

ABSTRACT

Seven categories of critical success factors were identifiedfrom the ERP literature: (I) business plan and vision; (2) changemanagement; (3) communication; (4) ERP team composition,skills and compensation; (5) management support andchampionship; (6) project management; (7) system analysis,selection and technical implementation. We conducted a casestudy of two organizations thai had implemented and upgradedERP systems. We adopted Markus and Tanis' four-phase modeland compared the importance of these critical success factorsacross the phases of ERP implementation and upgrade. Theimportance of these factors across the phases of ERPimplementation and upgrade is very similar. 'Business Plan andVision' and 'Top Management Support and Championship" arecritical during the Chartering phase. *ERP Team Composition,Skills and Compensation,' 'Project Management' and 'SystemAnalysis, Selection and Technical Implementation' are mostimportant during the Project phase. 'Change Manj^ement' and'Communication' are very important during the Project andShakedown phases.

Keywords: Enterprise resource planning, implementation,upgrade, maintenance, critical success factors.

INTRODUCTION

In the past two decades, companies around the world haveimplemented Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Systems.ERP systems are software packages that enable companies tointegrate their business processes and all the informationrelevant to their organi2ation. With ERP systems, firms are ableto manage all their resources (i.e.. physical or intangible assets,finances, human resources, production, etc.) more effectively.The ERP system not only aids in standardizing businessprocesses across an enterprise but also helps managementincrease their visibility of the business by providing real-timefinancial and production information.

Companies have expressed multiple reasons to implementERP (20). Some companies chose to perform an ERPimplementation because of their need to integrate disparatesystems throughout the enterprise. ERP systems enablecompanies to consolidate the disparate data sources into onedatabase and radically increase the ability to create reports fromdata originating in multiple departments across the enterprise. Asecond reason why companies implemented ERP systems wasdue to the Year 2(X)0 (Y2K) bug. Some companies owned non-Y2K compliant software and decided to switch to ERP insteadof moving their old system to the next vereion because of the

Special Issue 2006

functionality provided by ERP.The wave of ERP implementation reached a high point at

the tum of the century. Now, several years later, many of thesecompanies are faced with issues of maintenance and upgrade.For example, their implementation may lack the functionalityprovided by higher versions of the product or vendors may nolonger support their version of the product. In consequence, ERPcustomers need to periodically upgrade their system. Researchon ERP upgrade is of the utmost importance because of itsimpact on companies around the world that are undergoing thismajor step or process in ERP maintenance. This impact can besignificant because upgrade is an iterative process that isrecurring throughout the life of an ERP implementation.

In particular, our study seeks to compare critical successfactors between ERP implementations and upgrades acrossdifFerent stages of each project. Although a large amount ofresearch has been done on the critical success factors of ERPimplementation projects, none has been done for upgradeprojects (21). More specifically, our study will examine theimportance of the critical success factors in the different stagesof both the ERP implementation and upgrade projects,

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Critical success factors for ERP projects have been studiedfrom a number of different perspectives (22). Sarker and Lee(27) emphasized social enablers such as strong comminedleadership, open and honest communication, and a balanced andempowered implementation team as necessary antecedents to asuccessful implementation. Holland et al. (13) focused onstrategic factors that span the whole project and tactical factorsthat can be applied to particular parts of the project. Issues of ITstrategy, innovation and creativity as applied to ERPimplementation have also been studied (32). Other studies (14,23) examined problems arising from a lack of fit between theorganization and the ERP system. More specifically, Sieber etal. (33) discussed the fit-gap analysis that is critical to ERPimplementation, and Soh et al. (34) investigated problems withmisalignments in ERP implementalion. Umble et al. (37)emphasized the selection of the software in their discussion ofcritical success factors. Akkermans and van Helden (1) focusedon how an ERP implementation affects IT throughout theorganization and how the attitude of the project's stakeholdersaffects the success of the project. Shanks (29) used the projectphase model to study the differences between twoimplementations in the same organization. One project failedand the other succeeded. The differences in the successful andunsuccessftil projects were determined to be critical success

Journal of Computer Information Systems 99

factors. Others have used particular development tools ormethodologies to increase the chances of success in ERPimplementation (31, 35). Nah et a!. (24) studied ChiefInformation Officers' perspectives of the critical success factorsfor ERP implementation and found the most important factors tobe top management support, project champion, ERP teamworkand composition, project management, and change managementprogram and culture. Loh and Koh (17) focused on the criticaJsuccess factors for ERP implementations in small and mediumsized enterprises and found that the discovery and managementof critical elements and their respective constituents at eachphase of the ERP implementation project leads to a successfulimplementation.

We reviewed the literature on critical success factors inERP implementation and upgrade to identify a comprehensivelist of factors and then organized them into seven maincategories - (I) Business Plan and Vision, (2) ChangeManagement, (3) Communication, (4) ERP Team Composition,Skills and Compensation, (5) Project Management, (6) TopManagement Support and Championship, and (7) SystemAnalysis, Selection and Technical Implementation. These sevencategories and their sub-factors arc discussed next

Business Plan and Vision

It is very important to have a clear vision, goal, andbusiness plan for an ERP project. A business case should beestablished for both ERP implementation and upgrade (6). Abusiness plan is very critical (26) and should specify benefits,resources, costs, risks and a timeline (38). The project also needsa clear vision to guide the ERP implementation (5, 12). Thevision and mission of the project must also specify measurablegoals and targets (2, 13). The goals and benefits of the projectmust be clear and well understood (30, 35). A justification forthe investment in an ERP system should also be made based onthe change in work processes to align with the fiiture directionof the business (8). Hence, the project should lead to alignmentof the business strategy with IT strategy.

Change Management

Recognizing the need for change in order to staycompetitive is very important (8). A culture of shared values anda strong corporate identity is critical to facilitate change, and anenterprise wide structure and culture change should be managed(8. 26). Shared values should emphasize functional, product,market segment, or task focused perpectives (3). Formaleducation and training should be provided so users can gain anunderstanding of how the system works and how it will impacttheir work (2, 3, 4, 13, 30, 35). Even though training tends to beone of the areas to be cut in the case of budget overruns, it iscritical to the success of the implementation project as well asthe quality of decisions that will be taken based on the system(3,19).

User involvement and feedback in the des i^ of the systemis also important (2, 13). In order to effectively solve userproblems and manage organizational change, a supportorganization (i.e., help desk, on-line user manuals) should be inplace (38). The IT workforce should be trained on the newsystem and processes (3, 36). The company's commitment tochange will be expressed by its perseverance and determinationin solving implementation problems (30).

During the implementation of an ERP system, constantbusiness process recnginccring should take place in order to takeadvantage of the new system (2, 38). Business process

reengineering will also help companies reduce the amount ofcustomization needed in the implementation (4, 13, 19, 30), thusincreasing the likelihood of system success. However, redesignof business processes can increase the complexity, risks andcosts of the project (35).

Communication

Expectations and goals must be communicated effectivelyamong stakeholders and throughout all levels of the organizati(H)(2, 8, 13, 26, 30, 35, 38). It is very important for stakeholders tounderstand the capabilities and limitations of the ERP system.ERP systems may fail to meet expectations due to "overselling"the software (35). Communication should be complete and opento guarantee honesty. Any feedback offered by users must beseen as being received and acted on (8). The communicationplan should include the rationale for the ERP implementation,details of the business process management change,demonstration of the software, change management strategies,contact points, scope and project progress (2, 36).

ERP Team Composition, Sldlls and Compensation

An ERP project includes all functional areas of anenterprise. The effort and cooperation of technical and businessexperts as well as end-users is necessary for the success of anERP implementation. Therefore, involving people with bothbusiness and technical knowledge into the project is essential forsuccess (2. 3, 4, 30, 35, 36). The involvement of theimplementor, vendors and consultants is also critical (10, II).

The best people in the organization should make part of theimplementation team in order to foster innovation and creativitythat are important for success (4, 5, 8, 26, 30, 32, 38). It isimportant that the functional team members in the organizationbe involved in the project on a full time basis (30). These teammembers must be empowered to make quick decisions (30) andperformance should be tied to compensation (8).

The project team should be balanced, cross-functional, andhave representatives of the internal stalT as well as consultants(10, 13, 30, 35, 36). The sharing of information, especially fix)mvendors and consultants, is very important and requirespartnership trust (9, 10, 25, 35). Creating incentives and risk-sharing agreements will help the achievement of common goals(38).

Project Management

Effective project management is critical to the success ofERP implementation. Not only should responsibility for theproject be clearly assigned (26), the scope of the ERPimplementation project also needs to be clearly defmed andcontrolled (3, 13, 26, 30, 35). Any changes in the originalproject should be evaluated based on their business benefits and,if possible, implemented at a later time (36, 38). Furthermore,changes to the scope of the project must be assessed based onthe additional time and cost it would entail (36). The milestonesand delivery dates of the project must be realistic and clearlystated (2, 3, 13, 19,30).

Due to the large number of parties involved in an ERPimplementation, it is critical to coordinate project activitiesacross all affected parties (8). Internal integration tools areessential to coordinate activities involving the project teamwhile external integration tools are necessary to facilitatecollaboration with external stakeholders and to assure that userand process requirements are being integrated into the system

Special Issne 2006 Journal of Computer Information Systems 100

(3). In order for an ERP implementation project to be a success,timeliness must be enforced and progress must he tracked bymonitoring milestones and targets (2, 19, 26, 35, 36). Thesuccess ot the project can be gauged by completion dates, costs,quality, and system performance.

Top Management Support and Championship

Top management support is a necessary condition for ERPimplementation success (27). It is critical to have support andapproval from top management for an ERP implementation (2,3, 4. 5. 19. 30, 35, 36). The ERP project must be clearly andexplicitly designated as top priority by top management (30. 38).In addition, the top management must be willing to allocatevaluable resources to the implementation project (13, 30, 35).These resources include time, money and personnel necessaryfor the ERP implementation.

T^e importance of a project champion in an ERPimplementation is greater than in other IS implementationsbecause the project relies heavily on organizational suppwrtperseverance (36). The commitment of the project champion iscritical to drive consensus and to oversee the entireimplementation project (26). The project champion should be anadvocate for the project (30) and must continually manageresistance and change (19). The project champion must be ahigh level official in the organization to facilitate goal settingand legitimizing change. Having a high ranking official as thechampion for the project can facilitate monitoring due to theindividual's knowledge of the business and his/her ability toacquire resources in the organization (8, 35).

System Analysis, Selection and Technical Implementation

For an ERP implementation to be successful, thecomplexities of existing business legacy systems must besuccessfully managed (2, 13. 15). Customization of the ERPsystem should be avoided as much as possible (3, 19, 16, 26, 30,36). Customizing an ERP system has been associated with anincrease in IT costs, a longer implementation time, and theinability to benefit from the vendor's software maintenance andupgrades. To justify customizing the system, a strong businesscase on the loss of competitive advantage should be developed(35). The overall architecture of the system must be configuredbefore the deployment. Defining the architecture before theimplementation prevents reconfiguration at later stages (38).Rigorous and sophisticated testing is very important for thesuccess of the implementation (2, 26). In order to achieve thefull benefits of an ERP system, integration of data frompreviously used systems and with the company's other systemsis critical (35). To ease the integration process, organizationsmay develop their own middleware (4) or employ EnterpriseApplication Integration (EAI) which uses special middlewarethat serves as a bridge between different applications for systemintegration (15). Implementation methodologies anddevelopment tools provided by the vendor should be used asmuch as possible (31, 35). These tools and methodologiesusually lead to a reduction of costs and implementation time andincrease the amount of knowledge transferred to the client. Theuse of appropriate tools and methods for modeling, developmentand implementation (19, 28) is essential. It is critical to haveefl'ective troubleshooting if there are errors with the system (13).

One of the first and most important steps in an ERPimplementation is the selection of an ERP package (3, 37). Theorganizational fit of ERP is essential (14, 23, 34) to minimizecustomization. The ERP package selected must meet the

information and functional needs of the organization, and mustsupport the organization's business processes (33. 35)- In orderto have a comprehensive view of the enterprise's requirementsfor an ERP system, it is important for all functional areas to beinvolved in the selection of the pack^e. It is also critical thattest scenarios represent as many departments and cover currentand future processes (2). The architecture that will run the ERPapplication also constitutes an important choice. Some keyconsiderations are whether the system will be centralized ordecentralized and how compatible it will be with existingsystems (35).

A fundamental requirement for a successful ERPimplementation is the availability and accuracy of the system'sdata. Problems with data can lead to serious delays in theproject. Before any data is even converted, the organizationmust decide what information will be loaded onto the system.This can be very difficult if one understands that the data cancome from a number of disparate data sources in countlessdifferent formats (3, 35). The data conversion can be even moredit^cult if the company does not understand what information itwants to include into the system, and what it wants to leave out(35).

Table I provides a summaiy of the broad categorization ofERP critical success factors in the literature.

THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

A process theory approach (18) is used in this research tounderstand the importance of the different critical successfactors for ERP implementations and upgrades. This theoryorganizes the series of events that lead to an ERP projectcompletion into 4 phases (18): chartering, project, shakedown,and onward and upward- The chartering phase focuses oncrejUing the business case for the project and identifying thesolutions constraints. The project phase comprises systemconfiguration and rollout where the system is integrated withother systems in the business, the system is tested, and users aretrained on its functionality. The shakedown phase occursbetween the time from "going live" until "normal operation" or"routing use." During this phase, outstanding bugs are fixed, thesystem is fine tuned for performance, and users may be retrainedif necessary. The onward and upward phase refers to ongoingmaintenance and enhancement of the ERP system and relevantbusiness processes to fit the evolving business needs of theorganization.

A similar mode! was proposed by Cooper and Zmud (7)which focuses on IT implementation in general and whichcomprises six stages; initiation, adoption, adaptation,acceptance, routinization. and infusion. The initiation andadoption stages describe the events in the chartering phase of theERP project Hfecycle. The adaptation stage maps directly to theproject phase. The acceptance and routinization stages match theshakedown phase, and finally, the infiision stage is the same asthe onward and upward phase.

Markus and Tanis' 4-phase model is used in this researchinstead of Cooper and Zmud's 6-stage model because of itssimplicity and conciseness. Even though Cooper and Zmud'smodel might involve a higher level of granularity, we adoptMarkus and Tanis' model because it is easier for the studyparticipants to understand these phases and it provides enoughdetail to make the results meaningful. Next, we explain thephases in Markus and Tanis' model in greater detail.

The first phase in the ERP Hfecycle is the chartering phase.This part of the project is characterized for including the originalidea to adopt (or upgrade) an ERP system- Other activities

Special Issue 2006 Jonrnal of Computer Information Systems 101

include the decision to implement (or upgrade) an ERP system planning of the project- The key players of the chartering phaseor not. the selection of a project leader and/or champion, the are IT experts, upper management, consultants and vendors,selection of an implementation consultant, and scheduling and

TABLE ICategorization of ERP Critical Success Factors

1. Business plan and vision1.1 Business plan/vision (2, 5, 6, 12, 13,26, 38)1.2 Project mission/goals (2, 30, 35)1.3 Justification for investment in ERP (&)

2. Change management2.1 Recognizing the need for chEtnge (8)2.2 Enterprise wide culture and structure management (3, 8. 26, 35)2.3 Commitment lo change-perseverance and determination (30)2.4 Business Process Reengineering (2. 4, 13, 19, 30, 35, 38)2.5 Analysis of user feedback (2, 13)2.6 User education and training (2, 3, 4, 13. 19.30. 35)2.7 User support organization and involvement (38) •2.8 IT workforce re-skilling (3, 36)

3. Communication3.1 Targeted and effective communication (2. 8. 35. 38)3.2 Communication among stakeholders (13, 30)3.3 Expeclalions communicated al all levels (13,26, 30,35, 36)3.4 Project progress a)mmunication (13, 36)

4. ERP team composition, sldlls and comprnsation4.1 Best people on team (4, 5. 8, 26, 30, 32, 38)4.2 Balanced or cross-functional team (13.30,35,36)4.3 Full-time team members (30)4.4 Partnerships, trust, risk-sharing, and incentives (9,10, 25,35, 38)4.5 Empowered decision makers (30)4.6 Performance tied to compensation (8)4.7 Business and technical knowledge of team members and consultants (2. 3,4. 10. 11,30,35,36)

5. Project management5.1 Assign responsibility (26)5.2 Clearly establish project scope (3,13, 30)5.3 Control project scope (26, 30, 35)5.4 Evaluate any proposed change (36, 38)5.5 Control and assess scope expansion requests (36)5.6 Define project milestones (2. 3,13) ,5.7 Set realistic milestones and end dates (19. 30)5.8 Enforce project timeliness (2. 26)5.9 Coordinate project activities across all affected parties (3, 8)5.10 Track milestones and targets (2. 19,26.35,36)

6. Top management support and championship6.1 Approval and support from top management (2, 3. 4, 5, 19, 27,30, 35,36)6.2 Top management publicly and explicitly identified project as top priority (30, 38)6.3 Allocate resources (2. 3. !3. 30, 35)6.4 Existence of project champion (30. 35. 36)6.5 High level executive sponsor as champion (8. 19, 26, 35)6.6 Project sponsor commitment (26)

7. Systems analysis, selection und technical implementation7.1 Legacy system (2. 13. 15)7.2 Minimum customization (3. 16, 19, 26,30, 35, 36)7.3 Configuration of overall ERP architecture (38)7.4 Vigorous and sophisticated testing (2. 26)7.5 Integration (4. 15,35)7.6 Use of vendor s development tools and implementation methodologies (31,25)7.7 ERP package selection (2. 3, 14. 23, 33, 34.35, 37) . •7.8 Selection of ERP Architecture (35)7.9 Selection of data to be converted (35)7.10 Data conversion (3. 35)7.11 Appropriate modeling methods/techniques (19, 28)7.12 Troubleshooting (13)

The project phase is the next phase of the ERP lifecycle. players are the consultants, vendors. IT experts from iheThe most important tasks are the rollout of the system, training, organization, the project manager, and the implementationdata conversion from previous systems, testing, integration with project team.legacy systems, and the contlguration of the software. The key The shakedown phase begins at the point when the system

Special Issue 2006 Journal of Computer Information Systems 102

is fully functional and accessible by users and ends at the pointwhen normal or routine use of the system is achieved. Stafi'ingup to deal with temporary inefficiencies, retraining, systemperformance tuning, and bug fixing are the key activities in thisphase. Most problems in previous stages can be felt in theshakedown phase, so it is important to monitor and deal withproblems that arise in order to stabilize the system. The keyplayers are operations managers, end-users, the projecl team,and IT support personnel.

The final stage is the onward and upward phase of the ERPlifecycle. This phase begins after normal or routine use of thesystem is achieved and ends when the system is replaced orupgraded. The most important activities of this stage includeassessing the benefits of the implemented system, increasing theskills of users, upgrading the software, and carrying outcontinuous business improvements. The key players are ITsupport personnel, end-users, and operational managers.

Each of the four stages of tbe ERP lifecycle can be appliedto both upgrade and implementation projects. In the case ofimplementation projects, the chartering phase begins when theorganization recognizes it has a problem that couid be solved byimplementing an ERP system. The beginning of the projectphase is marked by the decision to implement an ERP systemand ends once the system goes live. Tbe shakedown picks upwhen the system goes live and ends when its usage becomesroutine throughout the organization. Finally, the onward andupward phase begins at the point when the system's usagebecomes commonplace and ends once the system is replacedeither by a different type of system or a newer version of theERP.

The upgrade project starts the chartering phase when thecompany realizes the need to upgrade their ERP system. Theend of this phase occurs when the company decides whatversion they want to upgrade. As the upgrade project is in thechartering phase, the original implementation is in the onwardand upward phase. Because the original system has beenstabilized, tbe organization now has time to judge tbe system'seffectiveness and decide on whether it is meeting their needs orneeds to be upgraded. After the chartering phase of the upgradeproject is complete, the project phase will follow. During thisphase, the upgrade project will determine what is necessary tomake a successful transition to the new version. As the upgradeproject phase is taking place, the original implementation is stillin the onward and upward. It isn't until the new version of tbesystem goes live that the original implementation will end theonward and upward phase and therefore, complete the ERPlifecycle. On the other hand, the fact that the upgraded systemhas gone live means that the upgrade project made a jump fromthe project phase to the shakedown phase. This phase willultimately end once the upgraded system's usage becomesroutine at which time tbe onward and upward phase of theupgrade will begin. The relationship between the phases of theoriginal implementation and the upgrade can be seen in Figure1.

During the last phase of the upgrade project, it is possiblethat another upgrade is planned. Tbe second upgrade, mucb likethe first, will follow the same four phases of the ERP lifecycle.The relationship between tbe phases of the first and secondupgrade will be tbe same as those of the original implementationand the first upgrade. Wben tbe second upgrade goes throughthe chartering and project phases, the first up^^de will be goingthrough the onward and upward phase. Finally, at the end of thesecond upgrade's project phase, the first upgrade will completethe ERP lifecycie.

Special Issue 2006

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The multiple case study approach was chosen as themethodology for this study. The case study methodology wasundertaken because it is effective in studying phenomena intheir early stages. It also enables the researchers to study thephenomena in their natural setting and leam about the state ofthe art. In particular, the multiple'case study approach wasemployed to increase generalizability of the results by studyingmore than one ERP site.

Two organizations were selected for tbe study. Structuredinterviews were performed and questionnaires were completedby members of the ERP implementation and upgrade teams. Toretain the anonymity of tbe two organizations and theiremployees, the names of the organizations and their employeeswill not be revealed. Both organizations had implemented anERP system and upgraded the system at least once. One of theorganizations implemented ERP in a single site while anotherperformed their implementation across multiple sites in the samestate. The following is a short description of the twoorganizations.

State University

State University is a large public university that hasimplemented SAP R/3 across all its campuses. Theimplementation of the ERP system was motivated by the lack ofYear 2000 compliancy and the need for more and betterfunctionality. Some of the functionality that was not provided byits current systems included the integration of all the enterprises'information and other administrative functionality. The modulesimplemented were Fixed Assets. Project Systems. Financials,Human Resources, Procurement, and Payroll. Slate Universityupgraded their implementation to guarantee system support andto leverage functionality provided by the newer version of thesystem-Public Power Company

Public Power Company is a government owned utility thatprovides electricity to the city in which it is located. Much likeState University, it implemented an SAP R/3 ERP systembecause its system was not Year 2000 compliant and it wasseeking better functionality than its disparate systems couldprovide. The implementation consisted of three wavemethodology in which different modules were brought on-line atdifferent times. The first wave consisted of Asset Management,Materials Management, Controlling, and Fin2ince. ProjectSystem Plant Management was implemented in the secondwave. In the third wave, the Investment Management Modulewas implemented. For Public Power Company, lack of supportfor their ERP system was tbe number one priority to upgradetheir system. The support for their version of the system wasgoing to run out and, although future support was available, itwould be more costly. Improved functionality was a secondarymotivation for the system upgrade.

Data Collection

Data collection for tbe study was carried out with thepersons involved in the original implementation and upgrades oftbe system. In the case of State University, we collected tbe datafrom the Associate Chief Information Officer (CIO), theDirector of Administrative Systems as well as five ERP moduleowners. For the Public Power Company, we collected the data

Journal of Computer Information Systems 103

as

I20.

I

EQ.

UJ

Special Issue 2006 Journal of Computer Information Systems lM

from the CIO, the ERP upgrade Project Manager, and five ERPmodule owners.

The case study consisted of two sets of interview questions(one set for original implementation and the other set forupgrade - see the Appendix) as well as two sets ofquestionnaires to supplement the interviews. The first set ofinterview questions sought to determine the occurrence of eventsor behaviors during the original implementation of the ERPsystem related to the critical success factors identified from theliterature. The second set of interview questions were similar tothose in the first interview but differed in that they were meantto elicit the occurrence of behaviors or events related to theidentified critical success factors during the upgrade (rather thaninitial implementation) of the ERP. The questions in bothinterviews were used to start a discussion about the criticalsuccess factors. In the case that its occurrence was elicit, furtherprobing questions would follow to gather more details on thesubject.

The questionnaires provided to all participants gave themthe opportunity to rate the importance of the seven categories ofcritical success factors in the four phases of the ERPImplementation and Upgrade Project Lifecycles. Theparticipants were asked to rate each critical success factorcategory for each phase on a 5-point scale from 0 to 4 where 0meant "not important" I "of little importance," 2 "important," 3"very important," 4 "extremely important (i.e. critical)." Othersources of information such as archival documentation andinterviews were used to gain a better understanding of both theimplementation and upgrade projects.

The participants in Public Power Company went throughtwo interviews (on both ERP implementation and upgrade) andresponded to both questionnaires. In the case of StateUniversity, due to the participants' workload, three intervieweesfilled out the upgrade questionnaire, two fliled out theimplementation questionnaire, and the Associate CIO as well asthe Director of Administrative Systems responded to both sets ofinterview protocol and their supporting questionnaires.

RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS

The data collected captured the importance of the 7 criticalsuccess factor categories across the four phases of ERPimplementation and upgrade. The results for the rating of eachcritical success factor category for the original implementationand upgrade can be found in Table 2. For the originalimplementation, the most important factor was 'ERP TeamComposition. Skills and Compensation' followed closely by'Top Management Support and Championship.' The next groupof important factors consists of 'Communication,' 'ChangeManagement,' and 'Project Management' The final group offactors was 'Systems Analysis, Selection and TechnicalImplementation' and 'Business Plan and Vision.' In the case ofthe HRP upgrade, the most important factor was 'ERP TeamComposition, Skills and Compensation' with 'Communication'taking second place. The second group of factors in order ofimportance consisted of "Project Management,' 'TopManagement Support and Championship,* and 'ChangeManagement.' The third group of factors consisted of 'SystemsAnalysis, Selection and Technical Implementation' and'Business Plan and Vision.'

The results for the importance of the critical success factorsacross all phases of the original ERP implementation can befound in Figure 2. One can describe each of the 7 criticalsuccess (actor categories for ERP implementation as being partof one of three groiyjs. The first group consists of the fectors

whose importance increased from the Chartering to the Projectphase and later dropped in importance during the Shakedownphase only to drop again during Onward & Upward phase."Systems Analysis, Selection and Technical Implementation.''ERP Team Composition, Skills and Compensation,' 'ProjectManagement' and 'Change Management' are part of this group.The second group consists of 'Business Plan and Vision' and'Top Management Support and Chtmipionship' whoseimportance fell or stayed the same from the Chartering to theProject Phase and fell during the Shakedown and Onward &Upward Phases. Finally, 'Communication' was part of the thirdgroup because it increased in importance from the Chartering,Project and Shakedown phases and fell dtuing the Onward &Upward Phase.

Figure 3 describes the results for the importance of thecritical success factor categories across all phases of the ERPupgrade. These fectors fall into two main groups. The factorswhose importance increased from the Chartering to the Projectphase and fell during the Shakedown and Onward & Upwardphases are 'Systems Analysis, Selection and TechnicalImplementation,' 'ERP Team Composition, Skills andCompensation,' 'Project Management,' 'Communication' and'Change Management.' The second group describes thosefactors whose importance decreased from the Chartering to theProject Shakedown and Onward & Upward Phases. Thesefactors are 'Business Plan and Vision' and 'Top ManagementSupport and Championship.'

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Of the seven categories of critical success factors, 'ERPTeam Composition, Skills and Compensation' is found to be themost important overall for both implementation and upgrade.Throughout the interviews, the participants in both organizationsemphasized the importance of the team responsible for both theimplementation and the upgrade. During the initialimplementation, both companies tried to have "the best and thebrightest...the people you can't afford to lose," as the CIO ofPublic Power Company described it, in the project team.Another factor that was evident for both organizations was theimportance they put on empowering the project team. It is veryimportant for the success of both the implementation andupgrade projects that the project members are trusted to takehard decisions and not have to constantly ask for approval fromtheir managers. The importance that was given to this factor wasdemonstrated in State University when top management senteveryone in the project team a letter explicitly describing theircommitment to empowering the ERP team during theimplementation.

The amount of involvement of the team members and theincentives to complete the project decreased from the originalimplementation to upgrade. In one of the two organizations, theteam members were offered to be eligible for overtime duringthe original implementation. Before the start of the project noneof the team members were eligible. This bonus was not offeredduring the upgrade. Furthermore, in the same organization, eventhou^ the participants were involved full time in the originalimplementation, they were only involved part time in theupgrade project. The importance of the ERP team also changedthroughout the project. This category of critical success fectorswas shown to be critical during the project phase. In the end, itis the project team who is implementing the system. If thegroup's skills and knowledge are not sufficient, the project canbe compromised.

Special Issue 2006 Journal of Computer Inrormation Systems 105

Efr,

(ft

Uo

" •^ •^ • i ;?

felOl

(O

00

O)

to

(O

392

4.06

4.31

4.37

4.17

4.13

3.87

Ave

rage

Rat

ing:

CO

vn

Ci

Ran

king

: oa

a>

CM

CO

375

4.04

4.00

4.35

4.12

4.00

3.63

Ave

rage

Rat

ing:

(0

CO

CM

Ran

king

:

Special Issue 2006 Journal of Computer Information Systems 106

U lU Q.

Special Issue 2006 Journal of Computer Informatiou Systems ivr

Special Issue 2006 Joninal of Computer Information 108

In the original implemenlation, 'Top Management Supportand Championship" was critically important. Due to the amountof change to business processes and the way information isacquired, stored, accessed and analyzed, it is very important fortop management to show its support in order to facilitate change.Support can be demonstrated in a number of ways such aspublicly communicating support and allocating necessaryresources for the project. In the case of both organizations, topmanagement showed their support in both ways. Championshipis very important in the original implementation as well. Botfiorganizations had a project champion who sold the projectthroughout the organization and was the "cheerleader" ormotivator of the project team. One of the best examples of theimportance of senior management support is demonstrated in thecase of one of the organizations where a senior manager did notsupport the ERP implementation. Due to his negative opiniontoward the project, the managers working in his/her departmentbegan to share his/her disdain and communicated it to otheremployees. On the other hand, in the departments where seniormanagement did support the implementation, managers andother employees shared their enthusiasm.

'Top Management Support and Championship' was not asimportant during the upgrade project. One of the module ownerssaid that even though they did have top management support forthe upgrade, it wasn't as necessary because the new systemwould not affect users to the extent that the originalimplementation did. It was necessary to gain the support ofmanagement in order to attain the necessary resources, but dueto the relatively smaller amount of resourees necessary for thisproject the highest levels of management didn't have to getinvolved. Furthermore, the project team didn't emphasize theimportance of the project champion during the upgrade. In theinterviews, the participants either stated that championshipwasn't as important or indicated a lower level of agreement onwho was the project champion than in the originalimplementation.

Top management support is one of the few critical successfactors that is most important during the Chartering phase of theproject and decreases in importance as the projeet progresses. Itsimportance in the first phase of the project is due to the need forthe allocation of resources that occurs at the beginning of theproject. If there is no support for the project from topmanagement at the beginning of the project, the ERP systemmight not be implemented at all. This occurs both in theimplementation and the upgrade of the ERP system.

'Communication' is very important in both theimplementation and upgrade. Both organizations took steps tofacilitate and encourage communication between the projectteam members and stakeholders in the organizations. In the caseof State University, the project team was relocated to an officewith no cuhicle subdivisions that one of the module ownerscalled the "bullpen" because it forced them to come into contactwith the team members. Each person had only a desk tofacilitate the communication and "overhearing" what are theissues with other parts of the system. For Public PowerCompany, their way of facilitating communication was to movethe project team to a rented building in order to create a newwork environment. Because the people implementing the systemwere collocated for the duration of the project, many of themexpressed the feeling of being part of a team. Communicationwith stakeholders outside of the project was also very important.Expectations for the project and the project's progress werecommunicated using a number of channels including posters andthe intranet. During Uie implementation, fiiture users knew that

an EPR system was being implemented and when to expectdifferent milestones.

During the upgrade, the communication between projectteam members continued being very important. Althoughconscious steps were not taken to facilitate communication,channels had already been defined to facilitate thiscommunication. In the case of State University, the project teamof the original implementation became responsible for thesystem once it was implemented. Therefore, they werecollocated to facilitate communication among the teammembers. In the case of Public Power Company, the teammembers already knew each other and had experience workingtogether. This contact facilitated communication.

It is interesting to note that tbe importance ofcommunication from the Project to the Shakedown phase isdifferent between the implementation and upgrade lifecycles. Inthe case of ERP implementation, communication grows inimportance from the Project to the Shakedown phase sincemultiple stakeholders (such as users, consultants and vendors)play a key part in fine-tuning the system. Staffing may alsoincrease to deal with temporary inefficiencies while usersreceive fiarther training or retraining. The implementation teamworks closely with users during the Shakedown phase to fixhugs and to deal with problems that arise in stabilizing thesystem. On the other hand, the importance of communicationdecreases from the Project to the Shakedown phase of the ERPupgrade lifecycle since the system is largely stabilized af̂ er theinitial implementation. After the Project phase of the ERPupgrade lifecycle. users would have been trained on theupgraded system and the implementation team would havecompleted the configuration and testing of the upgraded system.Unless major problems arise with the rollout of̂ the upgradedsystem, communication with stakeholders would decrease. Sincemost upgrades are purely technical and involved only minorchanges to user interfaces and business processes,communication with stakeholders decreases from the Project tothe Shakedown phase.

'Change Management' is shown to be very importantthroughout the implementation and upgrade. In order todetermine tbe type and amount of change an organization isundertaking, one could look at the effects of business processreengineering (BPR) in the organization. In the case of PublicPower Company, the organization took a decision at thebeginning of the project to change their business processes inorder to match those of the ERP system and take advantage ofthe best practices it ofiers- "We wanted to remain as close tovanilla as possible," said the CIO. On the other hand. StateUniversity changed some of its business processes butmaintained some if its own and therefore had to customize itsimplementation.

Another large part of change management is training. Inboth organizations, training for end-users was done by membersof the project team. Team members would go to training in theirparticular modules of expertise and come hack to theorganization to teach the other employees in their area. Trainingfor IT personnel was slightly different because all employees inthe systems administration (Basis) and programming (ABAP)had to go to classes. Along with training, making sure a usersupport organization was available for the users proved to becritical during the project. User support usually followed anumber of tiers in both organizations. If users had a problem,they would contact the first level of support. If the problem wasnot solved, it would be sent to a higher level of support,probably one of the module owners. If U\e problem was not

Special Issue 2006 Journal of Computer Information Systems 109

fixed, the vendor would be contacted and the problem would besolved.

During the upgrade, change managenient remained a veryimportant factor and training was just as important as theoriginal implementation. In both organizations, the rollout ofthis service was facilitated due to the existing infrastructure. Inthe case of State University., classrooms had already beenestablished solely for BRP system training and were leveragedduring the upgrade. For Public Power Company, many of tbemanuals for tbe systems had already been written and only hadto be updated to refleet the upgraded functionality. There wasvery little BPR due to the technical nature of the upgrade in bothorganizations.

Tbe importance of cbange management follows a similarpattem across the four phases of EPR implementation andupgrade. It proves to be most important during the Project andShakedown phases. During the Project phase, it is importantbecause future end-users need to be informed about the changesthat will come with the system. During the Shakedown phase. Itis critical to have training for any users who did not know howto use the system and a support organization to deal with anyproblems that may arise. In the Chartering and Onward &Upward phases, change management is nol as critical. Tbe tasksin the Chartering phase center around planning and there is veryfew execution. During the Onward & Upward phase, changesare minimal and users are already very knowledgeable andcomfortable with the system.

•project Management' was very important during both tbeoriginal implementation and the upgrade. Before tbeimplementation or upgrade project even began, bothorganizations defined the scope of their projects very precisely.It was very important for everyone in the teams to have a clearidea of what was tbe goal for the projecl. Furthermore, it wasn'tsufficient for the scope to be well defined; any requests toexpand tbe project scope had to be evaluated very critically.Both organizations defined "scope creep" as the problem arisingfrom increasing the scope of the project. Proposed changes inthe project, in particular those related to an increase in theftinctionality of the system, were common because of the largeamount of ftinctionality provided by ERP. Even though ERPsoftware includes a large amount of functionality, bothorganizations only used a subset. Therefore, if people in theproject leamed about additional functionality that could beincorporated, they might lobby to add functionality to theproject. In both organizations, this decision to include additionalftinctionality was made as a team taking into account its effecton all pieces of the system.

Due to the complexity of the implementation and upgradeprojects, it was very critical for the project team to define andenforce clear and reasonable milestones. One organization wasnot very rigorous at defining or enforcing its milestones duringthe upgrade project. This problem led to increased cost of tbeproject in order to complete it on time. Furthermore, some tasks,such as training, had to be pedbrmed in less time because other,more critical, tasks to tbe operation of the system had beendelayed significantly. This increased the risks to tbe project.

Anotber factor of project management that is criticalthroughout the implementation and upgrade is the coordinationof project activities across all afTectcd parties. Due to the highdegree of integration between all the modules in an ERP system,it was critical for any decision or change to be done taking intoaccount its effect on tbe whole system. State Universityfacilitated the coordination of project activities by locating itsentire project team in the same ofTice to facilitatecommunication. Public Power Company sent the project

members to a different building to facilitate their communicationas well. In the case of the upgrade projects, not as many stepswere taken to coordinate activities, although every week, or twoweeks, both project teams would meet to discuss issues affectingdifferent modules.

Tbe importance of project management is the greatestduring the Project phase of both the implementation and theupgrade project. It is during this phase thai tasks necessary tooperate the system take place, and the greatest amount ofmanagement and coordination is necessary.

'System Analysis, Selection and Implementation' is mostimportant during the Project phase of both the implementationand tbe upgrade of the ERP systems in both organi7.ations. Tbiscategory is most important during the Project phase because itdeals with the technical aspects of implementing or upgradingthe system. For example, tbe amount of customization must bekept to a minimum in order to facilitate tbe implementation ofthe system, and fiirtber upgrades. State University did somecustomization wbile Public Power Company did none. The lackof customization benefited Public Power Company byfacilitating the installation of'Hot Packs" which assume that thesystem is a "plain vanilla" installation. Furthermore, the upgradewas facilitated because no custom application had to be testedwith the new version and no interfaces had to be created.

The configuration of the ERP modules was most importantduring the implementation but not as much during the upgrade.During the implementation, the configuration task was verychallenging because it involved leaming tbe software and all itsfunctionality. In comparison, during the upgrade, a large amountof the configuration was passed over to the new systemseamlessly, reducing the amount of work that had to be done.Tbis was particularly the case for Public Power Company whichimplemented the system in "plain vanilla" form.

Finally. 'Business Plan and Vision' is found to be criticalduring the chartering phase of both the implementation andupgrade projects. Most of the participants agreed that having aclear business plan and vision for the project was critical for itssuccess. Both of the companies' systems were not Year 2000compliant so it made sense to implement a more integratedsystem such as ERP. Both organizations then upgraded tbe ERPsystem because support for the system was going to bediscontinued and as a secondary motivation, to take advantageof new functionality. Having a clear business plan is criticalduring the chartering pbase of both projects because it is witbtbese clear goals tbat an argument can be made for animplementation or upgrade of the ERP system. ERP is a veryexpensive endeavor, so unless iLs benefits can be justified, thenecessary resources might not be acquired-

In conclusion, the importance of the seven categories ofcritical success factors across the four phases of the ERPlifecycle is very similar for both the implementation andupgrade projects. 'ERP Team Composition. Skills andCompensation.' 'Project Management." and 'System Analysis.Selection and Technical Implementation" are most importantduring the Project phase. 'Business Plan and Vision' and "TopManagement Support and Championship' are critical during theChartering phase while 'Communication' and 'ChangeManagement' are very important during the Project andShakedown phases. Hence, at the beginning of an ERPimplementation or upgrade project, 'Business Plan and Vision'and 'Top Management Support and Championship' should betbe focus. As the project progresses, the focus shifts toward therest of the factors. 'Change Management' and 'Communication'continue to be very important even after the system has beenrolled out. Among all the factors, 'ERP Team Composition.

Special Issue 2006 Journal of Computer Information Systems no

Skills and Compensation" play the most critical role In both ERPimplementation and upgrade projects.

REFERENCES

1. Akkermans, H. and K. van Melden. "Vicious and VirtuousCycles in ERP Implementation: A Case Study ofInterrelations between Critical Success Factors,'' EuropeanJournal of Information Systems, 11:1. 2002, pp. 35-47.

2. Al-Masbari. M.. A, Al-Mudlmigh. and M. Zairi."Enterprise Resource Planning: A Taxonomy of CriticalFactors," European Journal of Operational Research,146:2, 2003. pp. 352-365,

3. Bajwa, D.S., J.E. Garcia, and T. Mooney. "An IntegrativeFramework for the Assimilation of Enterprise ResourcePlanning Systems: Pbases. Antecedents, and Outcomes,"Journal of Computer Information Systems, 44:3, 2004,pp. 81-90.

4. Bingi, P., M.K. Sharma, and J. Godla. "Critical IssuesAffecting an ERP Implementation," Information SystemsManagement, 16:2, 1999, pp. 7-14.

5. Buckbout, S., E. Frey, and J. Nemec. "Making ERPSucceed: Turning Fear into Promise," IEEE EngineeringManagement Review, 19, 1999, pp. 116-123.

6. Collins, K. "Strategy and Execution of ERP Upgrades,"Government Finance Review, 15:4, 1999, pp. 43-48.

7. Cooper. R.B. and R.W. Zmud. "Informaiion TechnologyImplementation Research: A Technological DiffusionApproacb," Management Science, 36:2. 1999, pp. 123-139.

8; Falkowski, G., P. Pedigo, B. Smith, and D. Swanson. "ARecipe for ERP Success," Beyond Computing. September,1998, pp. 44-15.

9. Gefen, D. "What Makes an ERP ImplementationRelationship Worthwhile: Linking Trust Mechanisms andERP Usefulness." Journal of Management InformationSystems, 21: K 2004, pp. 263-288.

10. Haines, M.N. and D.L. Goodhue. "Implementation PartnerInvolvement and Knowledge Transfer in the Context ofERP Implementation," International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 16:1, 2003, pp. 23-38.

11. Hirt, S.G. and E.B. Swanson. "Emergent Maintenance ofERP: New Roles and Relationships," Journal of SoftwareMaintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice, 13,2001, pp. 373-397.

12. Holland, C.P. and B. Light. "A Stage Maturity Model ofEnterprise Resource Planning Systems Use," The DATABase for Advances in Information Systems, 32:2, 2001,pp, 34-45.

13. Holland. C.P., B. Light, and N. Gibson. "A Critical SuccessFactors Model for Enterprise Resource PlanningImplementation," Proceedings of the 7th EuropeanConference on Information Systems, Copenhagen,Denmark, 1999, pp. 273-297.

14. Hong, K.K. and Y.G. Kim. "The Critical Success Factorsfor ERP Implementation: An Organizational FitPerspective," Information and Management 40:1, 2002,pp. 25-40.

15. Lee. J., K. Siau, and S. Hong. "Enterprise Integration withERP and EAI," Communications of the ACM, 46:2, 2003,pp. 54-60.

16. Light, B. "The Maintenance Implications of Customizationof ERP Software," Journal of Software Maintenance andEvolution: Research and Practice. 13, 2001, pp 415-429.

17. Loh, T.C. and S.C.L. Koh. "Critical Elements for a

Successfiil Enterprise Resource Planning Implementationin Small-and Medium-sized Enterprises." InternationalJournal of Production Research, 42:17, 2004, pp. 3433-3455.

18. Markus, M.L. and C. Tanis. "The Enterprise SystemExperience - From Adoption to Success," in R.W. Zmud(ed.) Framing the Domains of IT Management:Projecting the Future... Through the Past, PinnaflexEducational Resources, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio, 2000, pp,173-207.

19. Murray, M. and G. Coffin. "A Case Study Analysis ofFactors for Success in ERP System Implementations,"Proceedings of the Seventh Americas Conference onInformation Systems, Boston, Massachusetts, 2001, pp.1012-1018,

20. Nadkami, S. and F, Nah, "Aggregated Causal Maps: AnApproach to Elicit and Aggregate the Knowledge ofMultiple Bxperts." Communications of the Associationfor Information Systems. 12:25, 2003. pp. 406-436

21. Nah. F., S, Faja, and T. Cata. "Characteristics of ERPSoftware Maintenance: A Multiple Case Study," Journalof Software Maintenance and Evolution. 13:6, 2001. pp.399-414.

22. Nah. F.. J. Lau, and J- Kuang. "Critical Factors forSuccessful implementation of Enterprise Systems,"Business Process Management Journal, 7:3, 2001. pp.285-296.

23. Nah, F., X. Tan, and S.H. Teh. "An Investigation on End-Users' Acceptance of Enterprise Systems," InformationResources Management Journal, 17:3. 2004, pp. 32-53.

24. Nah, F.. K. Zuckweiler, and J, Lau. "ERP Implementation:i Chief Information Officers' Perceptions of Critical Success

Factors," International Journal of Human-ComputerInteraction, 16:1, 2003, pp. 5-23.

25. Robey, D., J.W. Ross, and M.-C. Boudreau. "Leaming toImplement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study ofthe Dialectics of Change," Journal of ManagementInformation Systems. 19:1, 2002, pp 17-46.

26. Rosario, J,G, "On the Leading Edge: Critical SuccessFactors in ERP Implementation Projects," Business World(Philippines), May 17, 2000, p, 27.

27. Sarker, S. and A. Lee. "Using a Case Study to Test the Roleof Three Key Social Enablers in ERP Implementation,"Information and Management, 40:8, 2003, pp 813-829.

28. Scheer, A. and F. Habermann. "Enterprise ResourcePlanning: Making ERP a Success," Communications oftbe ACM, 43:4, 2000, pp. 57-61.

29. Shanks, G. "A Model of ERP Project Implementation,", Journal of Information Technology. 15:4, 2000, pp. 289-i 304.30. Shanks, G., A. Parr, B. Hu. B. Corbitt T. Thanasankit, and

P. Seddon. "Differences in Critical Success Factors in ERPSystems Implementation in Australia and China: A CulturalAnalysis," Proceedings of the 8th European Conferenceon Information Systems. Vienna, Austria, 2000. pp. 537-544,

31. Siau, K. "Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)Implementation Methodologies," Journal of DatabaseManagement, 15:1, 2004, pp. i-vi.

32. Siau, K. and J. Messersmith. "Analyzing ERPImplementation at a Public University Using the InnovationStrategy Model," International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 16:1. 2003, pp. 57-80,

33. Sieber, T,, K. Siau, F, Nah, and M. Sieber. "SAPImplementation at the University of Nebraska," Journal of

Special Issue 2006 Journal of Computer Information Systems 111

Information Technology Cases and Applications. 2:1,2000, pp. 41-72.

34. Soh. C , S.K. Sia, W.F. Boh, and M. Tang, "Misalignmentsin ERP Implementation: A Dialectic Perspective,"International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction,16:1, 2003, pp. 81-100.

35. Somers. T.M. and K. Nelson. "The impact of CriticalSuccess Factors across the Stages of Enterprise ResourcePlanning Implementations," Proceedings of the 34thHawaii International Conference on System Sciences,WaileaMaui. Hawaii. 2001. pp. 1-10.

36. Sumner, M. "Critical Success Factors in Enterprise WideInformation Management Systems Projects." Proceedingsof the Americas Conference on Information Systems,Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1999, pp. 232-234.

37. Umble, E., R. Haft, and MM. Umble. "Enterprise ResourcePlanning: Implementation Procedures and Critical SuccessFactors," European Journal of Operational Research,146:2, 2003. pp. 241-258.

38. Wee, S. "Juggling toward ERP Success: Keep Key SuccessFactors High," ERP News. February, 2000. Retrieved June1. 2000, from http://www.erpnews.com/erpnews/erp904/02get.html

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to acknowledge the PepsiEndowment for providing the funding for this research throughthe Undergraduate Creative Activities and Rcsearcb Experiences(UCARE) program at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Special Issue 2006 Journal of Computer Information Systems 112

APPENDIXERP Implementation/Upgrade Critical Success Factors

. - . -, Questionnaire

1. Business Plan and Visiona. Did you perform any kind of business planning before the ERP implementation/upgrade project took place? If so. please explain

(1.1.1.3)b. What were the overall goals of the ERP implementation/upgrade project? (1.2) ' • . •

2. Change Management .a. Was there any change management involved in the implementation/upgrade project? Is so, please explain. (2.1,2.2,2.3)b. Did you change any of your business processes to match those of the ERP system during the implementation/upgrade? (2.4)c. Did the implementation/upgrade project involve any kind of user training? (2.6)d. Did your IT personnel go through training to leam the ERP system during the implementation/upgrade? (2.8)e. What kind of user support was offered during and after the implementation/upgrade? (2.7)

3. Communicationa. How would you describe the communication between stakebolders during tbe implementation/upgrade project? (3.1. 3.2)b. Were tbe expectations for the project clearly communicated throughout the implementation/upgrade project's span? (3.3)c. Was the project's progress communicated as the implementation/upgrade took place? (3.4)

4. ERP Team Composition, Skills and Compensation i. .a. Who was part ofthe implementation/upgrade project's team and what were their skills? (4.1, 4.2.4.7)b. Were the icam members involved in the implemenial ion/upgrade spending full-time with tbe ERP project? If so. did their

compensation change compared to before? (4.3. 4.6)c. Was the implementation/upgrade team empowered to make decisions relating to the project? (4.5)

5. Project Management 'a. Was the scope of the implementation/upgrade project clearly defined? (5.2)b. Did the scope cbange during tbe implementation/upgrade project, and if so, bow was the decision taken? (5.3, 5.5)c. Were milestones defined for the implementation/upgrade project? Were they realistic? (5.6, 5.7)d. Were milestones and targets tracked during the implementation/upgrade? (5.10)e. Were there steps taken to enforce the implementation/upgrade project's timeliness? (5.8)f. What did you do to coordinate implementation/upgrade project activities across the affected parties? (5.9)g. Was the responsibility for certain partsof tbe implementation/upgrade project clearly assigned to certain parties? (5.1)b. Were cbanges made during the implementation/upgrade project? How were they evaluated? (5.4)

6. Top Management Support and Championshipa. Was there support for the implementation/upgrade project from top management? (6.1)b. In the case that there was support, was this public and clear? Was the implementation/upgrade project identified as a top

priority? (6.2)c. Were tbe necessary resources allocated to tbe implementation/upgrade project? (6.3)d. Did the implementation/upgrade project have a project champion, and if so, what was his/her hierarchical level in the

organization? (6.4, 6.5)e. How committed was the project champion to the implementation/upgrade? (6.6)

I

7. System Analysis, Selection and Technical Implementationa. Did you have to deal will legacy systems during the implementation/upgrade project? If so, during which part of the

implementation/upgrade project? (7.1)b. Did you have any problems witb previous custom izations of your ERP system during the implementation/upgrade project? (7.2)c. Did you customize any parts of the implemented/upgraded system?(7.2)d. Describe tbe process of configuring tbe implemented/upgraded system. (7.3)e. Was there any testing of the system during the implementation/upgrade? If so, please explain. (7.4)f. Describe the process of integrating the system into your organization during the implementation/upgrade from a technical point

of view. (7.5) How about organizational point of view? Managerial point of view?g. How did you select the version of the software to implement/upgrade and its architecture? (7.7, 7.8)h. Describe the process of converting data from the old system into the new one during the implementation/upgrade. How did you

decide what data to convert or port over? (7.9, 7.10)i. Did you use the vendor's development tools or did you use your own during the implementation/upgrade? (7.6)

j . Mowdidyoutroubleshoot problems with the system during the implementation/upgrade? (7.12)k. Were any types of modeling tools or techniques used in the implementation/upgrade project? (7.11)

Special Issue 2006 Journal of Computer Information Systems 113