Critical Success factors in the Chartering Phasevietnamsupplychain.com/assets/upload/file/... ·...

International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, 4(3), 9-24, July-September 2008 9

Copyright © 2008, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

abStraCt

Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems are pervasive information systems that have been fundamental in organizations for the past two decades. ERP systems may well count as the most important develop-ment in technology in the 1990s. There are many ERP success stories; equally there are as many failure stories. This article reviews current literature of the critical success factors (CSF) of ERP implementations. This review will be used in conjunction with the case of a UK furniture manufacturer’s (Company X) implementation of an ERP system. This artcile considers the factors that resulted in the failure of the ERP at Company X in the chartering phase of the implementation.

Keywords: chartering phase; critical success factors (CSF); enterprise resource planning (ERP); implementa-tion

INtroDUCtIoNIn November 2005, the authors were recruited by a UK furniture manufacturer (Company X) to implement an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system. In April 2006, Company X de-cided not to continue with the ERP adoption. The ERP system failed to be implemented. The project was unsuccessful.

The success and failure of an ERP imple-mentation is closely related to how a company manages the process (Fang & Patrecia, 2005). How the implementation process of an ERP system is managed may vary amongst compa-nies; however, there are general points which are important in the process and could result

in ERP success or failure. Laudon and Laudon (2006) define these general points as critical success factors (CSF).

CSFs are the interest of this article. The authors wish to explore the reasons why the ERP implementation at Company X was un-successful using a specific selection of CSFs outlined in literature. Nine CSF have been selected from a combination of the work of Loh and Koh (2004), Nah and Lau (2001), and Parr and Shanks (2000). The work of these authors is utilized because they defined their CSFs in the context of their importance in each phase of the implementation process. This article will focus on the very initial phase of implementa-

Critical Success factors in the Chartering Phase:

a Case Study of an ErP ImplementationJulie Dawson, University of Lincoln, UK

Jonathan Owens, University of Lincoln, UK

IGI PUBLISHING

This paper appears in the publication, International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, Volume 4, Issue 3edited by Angappa Gunasekaran © 2008, IGI Global

701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Suite 200, Hershey PA 17033-1240, USATel: 717/533-8845; Fax 717/533-8661; URL-http://www.igi-global.com

ITJ4340

10 International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, 4(3), 9-24, July-September 2008

Copyright © 2008, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Globalis prohibited.

tion; the phase which Markus and Tanis (2000) define as the chartering phase. The findings allow conclusions to be made as to why the implementation of the ERP system at Company X was unsuccessful.

What is an ErP System?An Enterprise resource planning (ERP) system is a commercial software package (Davenport, 1998; Markus & Tanis, 2000; Kim et al., 2005) that promotes seamless integration of all the information flowing through a company (Davenport, 1998). Laudon and Laudon (2006) explain that an ERP system collects data from various key business processes in manufacturing and production, finance and accounting, sales and marketing, and human resources (Figure 1). The system then stores the data in a single comprehensive data repository where they can be used by other parts of the business. Managers have precise and timely information for coordi-nating the daily operations of the business and a firm, wide view of business processes and information flows.

Davenport (1998) explains how an ERP system can work:

A Paris-based sales representative for a U.S. computer manufacturer prepares a quote for a customer using an ERP system. The sales-person enters some basic information about the customer’s requirements into his laptop computer, and the ERP system automatically produces a formal contract, in French, speci-fying the products configuration, price and delivery date. When the customer accepts the quote the sales rep hits a key; the system after verifying the customer’s credit limit, records the order. The system schedules shipment; identifies the best routing; and then working backward from the delivery date, reserves the inventory; orders needed parts from suppliers; and schedules assembly in the company’s fac-tory in Taiwan. (pp. 2-3)

Why an ErP System?During the 1990s, ERP systems became the de facto standard for the replacement of legacy systems (Holland & Light, 1999). Somers and Nelson (2001) claim there are numerous reasons for the increasing demand of ERP systems, for example, competitive pressures to become a low-cost producer, expectations of revenue growth, ability to compete glob-ally and the desire to re-engineer the business.

Figure 1. An enterprise system (Laudon & Laudon et al., 2006)



Markus and Tanis (2000) explain that ERP systems are rich in terms of functionality and potential benefits. They continue to explain that companies are implementing ERP systems for many different reasons: some companies have largely technical reasons for investing in ERP systems; other companies have mainly business reasons (Table 1).

rEVIEW of lItEratUrEOne of the most enduring research topics in information systems literature is that of systems success. With the emergence of new types of technology, the question of success comes up again and again (DeLone & McLean, 1992). In ERP implementations, the topic of success takes on particular importance as the risks and costs associated with implementations are extremely high. It is therefore inevitable that a large amount of research has been carried out on the CSFs of ERP implementation projects (Nah & Delgado, 2006). The motive for compiling CSFs, according to the work of Parr and Shanks (2000), is to provide guidance for practitioners when implementing ERP systems and also to

provide researchers with a foundation for further empirical research.

Holland and Light (1999) developed a CSF research framework based on a review of literature. They conducted eight case studies to build their theory about ERP implementa-tions in companies. Their research reveals that particular CSFs have a critical influence on the ERP implementation process and outcome (Parr & Shanks, 2000). Developing a CSF research framework from secondary research and em-ploying a case study(s) of ERP implementation as the primary research approach is a popular research method among researchers and has been repeatedly practiced (Parr & Shanks, 2000; Umble et al., 2003; Loh & Koh, 2004). It is usually the case that more than one case study is addressed (Parr & Shanks, 2000). However, there are still papers produced using one empirical case (Umble, 2003).

Surveys are also utilized as primary re-search, particularly when the research objec-tive is to gain the perspective of a particular user group. Nah and Lau (2003) surveyed the perceptions of chief information officers from Fortune 1000 companies. They identified eleven

Technical reasons Business reasons

• Solve Y2K and similar problems

• Integrate applications cross- functionally• Replace hard-to-maintain interfaces• Consolidate multiple different systems of the same

type (e.g., general ledger packages)• Reduce software maintenance burden through

outsourcing• Eliminate redundant data entry and concomitant

errors and difficulty analyzing data• Improve IT architecture• Ease technology capacity constraints• Decrease computer operating costs

• Accommodate business growth • Acquire multi-language and multi-currency IT sup-

port • Provide integrated IT support• Standardize different numbering, naming, and cod-

ing schemes• Improve informal and/or inefficient business pro-

cesses • Clean up data and records through standardization • Standardize procedures across different locations• Reduce business operating and administrative

expenses • Present a single face to the customer• Reduce inventory carrying costs and stockouts • Acquire worldwide “available to promise” capability• Eliminate delays and errors in filling customers’

orders for merged businesses• Streamline financial consolidations• Improve companywide decision support

Table 1. Reasons for adopting enterprise systems (Markus & Tanis, 2000)



CSFs and assessed the degree of criticality of these success factors in the survey adminis-tered to the chief information officers. Kim et al. (2005) also surveyed chief information officers and high-level IT managers. Wu and Wang (2006) considered a completely different perspective and measured the ‘ultimate users view.’ Focusing work from the perspective of different user groups has added validity to the CSFs of the ERP field.

The size of the organization studied is also an area for focus in the research of CSFs of ERP implementations. It has been observed that a substantial amount of ERP research has been concentrated on large organizations (Nah & Lau, 2003; Kim et al., 2005). However, there is an increasing amount of research on SMEs. Koh (2004) considered the CSFs for a successful ERP implementation in a SME. As did Gable and Stewart (1999). Gable and Stewart (1999) also focused on the implementation issues of a particular ERP system, namely SAP. Gargeya and Brady (2005) more recently reported on factors critical to the success of adopting SAP. Producing papers on a niche size organization or a particular ERP system aids practitioners who are implementing an ERP system in that size organization or implementing that particular ERP system.

Somers and Nelson (2001) suggest that CSFs are much richer when viewed within the context of their importance in each phase of the implementation process. Numerous authors share this view. Parr and Shanks (2000) present a project phase model. Two case studies of ERP implementation within the same organization are reported and analyzed, one unsuccessful and the later successful in order to determine which CSFs are necessary within each phase of the project phase model. Nah et al. (2001) devised eleven CSFs from a thorough review of the literature. They continued to classify these factors into the respective phases in Markus and Tanis’ (2000) ERP lifecycle model and discussed the importance of each factor within that phase. Loh and Koh (2004) deduced ten CSFs from literature and then linked each CSF to a particular phase of ERP implementation

adapted from the established phases and defini-tions from Markus and Tanis (2000).

This article is important because it builds on the existing literature on CSFs of ERP implementations. It contributes an empirical case study to the research; the case study of Company X. Company X is a SME, so practi-tioners from SMEs can employ the findings of the case of Company X with confidence that there will be similarities. The case is observed from the perspective of the project manager of the implementation. The literature review did not find any papers that have been taken from this perspective. This factor makes this research unusual and valuable to the research area. This article concurs with the view that CSFs are much richer when viewed within the context of their importance in a particular phase of ERP implementation. The chartering phase identified by Markus and Tanis (2000) is the focus of this study as this is the phase that Company X is concerned with.

Chartering Phase of an ErP Implementation

An organisations’ experience with an Enterprise Resource Planning System can be described as moving through several phases, characterised by key players, typical activites, characteristic problems, appropriate performance metrics and a range of possible outcomes. (Markus & Tanis, 2000, p. 189)

As mentioned previously, this article will concentrate on what Markus and Tanis (2000) define to be the ‘chartering phase’ of the ERP implementation life cycle. According to Markus and Tanis (2000), the chartering phase is: building a business case, selecting a software package, identifying a project manager and approving a budget and a schedule.

Critical Success factorsAppendix 1 displays a table which outlines the CSFs defined by thirteen different authors between 1999 and 2006. There are many differ-ences between the CSFs that the authors define;



this can be observed in Appendix 1. The differences may have occurred because of the varying aims of the research and the research methods. For example, those conducting research on a SME enterprise might compile a different set of CSFs to those conducting research on large originations. We found that is often the case that authors use different terminology to refer to the same CSF, and even encompass one CSF into what another author defines as two CSFs. The number of CSFs that authors define can vary. Hong and Kim (2002) concentrated on just one CSF for their work, while Somers and Nelson (2001) provided a compre-hensive list of twenty-two CSFs (although you will notice in Appendix A the twenty-two CSFs have been consolidated to thirteen).

The CSFs that have been uncovered during this content analysis are enlightening. However, these are CSFs which span the whole ERP imple-mentation cycle and this is not the focus of this research. This research intends to uncover the CSFs that are present at the chartering phase of an ERP implementation to analyze the case of Company X.

Critical Success factors in the Chartering Phase of an ErP ImplementationOnly a limited amount of authors have produced research which presents CSFs in the context of

their importance in each phase of the implementa-tion process. Namely: Parr and Shanks (2000), Nah et al. (2001) and Loh and Koh (2004). As a result of their research, Parr and Shanks (2000) state that there are four CSFs which are important in the chartering phase (or as they call it, the planning phase); Nah et al. (2001) believe that there are seven CSFs; and Loh and Koh (2004) conclude that there are six CSFs in the chartering phase.

This article has combined the work of Parr and Shanks (2000), Nah et al. (2001) and Loh and Koh (2004) to obtain a unified framework of CSFs in the chartering phase of an ERP implementa-tion (Table 2) which will be analyzed against the case of Company X. By combining the work of these three authors, a comprehensive framework of the CSFs at the chartering phase of an ERP implementation is achieved.

Project ChampionParr and Shanks (2000) state that a project champion is an advocate for the system who is unswerving in promoting the benefits of the new system. The project champion should be a high-level executive sponsor who has the power to set goals and legitimize change (Nah et al., 2000). It is a CSF that there is a project champion with these attributes involved in the ERP implementation.

CSFs at the Chartering Phase Loh and Koh (2004)

Nah et al. (2001)

Parr and Shanks (2000)

Project Champion

Project Management

Business Plan and Vision

Top Management Support

ERP team and composition

Effective Communication

Appropriate Business and Legacy systems

Commitment to the Change

A Vanilla ERP Approach

Table 2. Unified framework of CSFs at the chartering phase of an ERP implementation



Project ManagementAccording to Loh and Koh (2004), good project management is vital and the scope of the ERP implementation project should be established and controlled. This includes the system imple-mented, the involvement of business units and the amount of project reengineering needed. They continue to explain that the project should be defined in terms of milestones and critical paths. Deadlines should also be met to help stay within the schedule and budget and to maintain credibility (Loh & Koh, 2004).

business Plan and VisionA clear business plan and vision to steer the direction of the project is needed throughout the ERP lifecycle (Buckhout et al., 1999). There should be a clear business model, a justification of investment, a project mission and identified goals and benefits (Nah et al, 2000).

top Management SupportParr and Shanks (2000) describe top manage-ment support as top management advocacy, provision of adequate resources and commit-ment to the project. Top management need to publicly and explicitly identify the project as a top priority (Nah et al., 2001). Senior manage-ment must be fully committed with their own involvement and have a willingness to allocate valuable resources to the implementation effort (Holland & Light, 1999).

ErP team and CompositionThe ERP team should consist of the best people in the organization (Buckhout et al., 1999). Building a cross-functional team is also critical (Nah et al., 2001). The team should have a mix of consultants and internal staff so the internal staff can develop the necessary technical skills for design and implementation. Both business and technical knowledge are essential for suc-cess (Nah et al., 2001). Managers should be assigned full time to the implementation and partnerships should be managed with meetings scheduled regularly (Loh & Koh, 2004).

Effective CommunicationEffective communication is critical to the success of ERP implementations (Loh & Koh, 2004). Communication includes the formal promotion of project teams and the advertisement of project progress to the rest of the organization (Holland & Light, 1999). Expectations at every level need to be com-municated (Nah et al., 2001). Nah et al. (2001) state that communication should penetrate all levels in the company; from upper managers to bottom operators, everyone should know what to expect in the business process change. They continue to explain that communication increases the willingness of people to change and take part.

appropriate business and legacy SystemsNah et al. (2001) believe that appropriate business and legacy systems are important in the chartering phase of the project as a stable and successful business setting is essential. They continue to explain that business and IT systems involving existing business processes, organizational structure, culture, and informa-tion technology effect success. The existing business and legacy systems determine the IT and organizational change required for success (Holland & Light, 1999).

Commitment to the ChangeParr and Shanks (2000) define the commitment to the change as perseverance. They state that a company should have determination in the face of inevitable problems with implementation.

a Vanilla ErP approachAccording to Parr and Shanks (2000), a compa-ny should have a vanilla ERP approach in order to be successful. Parr explains that essentially a vanilla approach involves a minimum custom-ization and an uncomplicated implementation strategy. Organizations should be willing to change the business to fit the software with minimal customization (Holland & Light, 1999). Holland and Light (1999) state that an

International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, 4(3), 9-24, July-September 2008 1�


organization should try to purchase the package that fits best into its business processes.

MEtHoDoloGY This research belongs to the qualitative school of research in information systems. The case study approach was selected as the methodology for this study. The case study methodology was undertaken because it is effective in studying phenomena in their early stages. The research-ers were able to study the phenomena in their natural setting.

An ethnographic approach is adopted. Ethnographies in there most characteristic form involves the ethnographer participating, overtly or covertly, in peoples lives for an extended period of time, watching what has happens, listening to what is said, asking questions, in fact, collecting all the data that is available to throw light on the issues that are the focus of the research (Hammersley et al., 1995). My-ers (1999) states that ethnographic research is well suited to providing information system researchers with rich insights into the human, social and organizational aspects of informa-tion systems.

The authors were employed by Company X to project manage the adoption of an ERP system. This gave the authors the opportunity to immerse themselves in the area of study. The ethnography data was collected between November 2005 and April 2006—a six month period. Data was collected via participant observation and social contact with the par-ticipants as well as referring to documentation such as project proposals, vendor contracts and company research. Note taking was carried out constantly throughout the ethnographical period. Not only observations were noted, the impressions and feelings which emerged were also recorded.

CaSE: CoMPaNY XCompany X specialize in manufacturing storage furniture for the healthcare industry. They offer a service to the industry in which they design, supply and install not only storage furniture but

third party products to equip a hospital room all the furniture it needs.

The notion of adopting an ERP system in Company X transpired after a systems review exercise in mid 2004. It became apparent that there was an immense need to improve their information systems. Company X’s annual growth rate was recorded at approximately 20%. It was deemed that this level of growth was not sustainable with the current IT infrastructure. The company was acquiring larger projects that increased in complexity and expanded over longer periods of time. Excel spreadsheets were used to an elaborate degree to project manage a project; however, the spreadsheets were very large and prone to crashing. The unreliability of Excel spreadsheets increased the need for an advanced IT system. Company X’s inventory and purchasing processes were seen as weak areas; processes were manual and relied on the knowledge of employees to know which suppliers to use and what items were currently in stock. A purchasing employee was quoted describing current systems by commenting upon the authors arrival at the company ‘System, what system?’

Current systems were restricting the ca-pacity of the recently improved production facilities improvements needed to be made in the companies order processing and scheduling systems to meet the capacity now available. The quality of management information that could be extracted from current systems was at best limited and often inaccurate and out of date. This aspect needed to be improved consider-ably to allow management to make informed, timely strategic decisions. The accountancy system utilized in Company X was renowned for its excellence, it was a leading accountancy package. However it was not used to its full potential; this was mainly due to inappropri-ate implementation and no updates added for approximately five years. Company X spent hours correlating one system with another. For example, the delivery note values from the project management system needed to correlate with the invoice values in the accountancy sys-

1� International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, 4(3), 9-24, July-September 2008


tem, the time between notifying the accounts department that the delivery had been made to when the accounts department need to raise an invoice, often put both actions in different months. So when monthly sales figures are required, both systems say different things. At the time of the decision to implement an ERP system, the departments within Company X were extremely fragmented. Current systems reflected this as generally each department had their preferred system. The number of different systems for different departments caused excess data entry, a customer enquiry was recorded in three separate computer systems and one paper system by an administrator. It was also observed that a new database was introduced just before the authors’ arrival at the company. However, the data entry of this database was sporadic for numerous reasons; complexity, lack of training and non- buy-in. This list is not exhaustive; Company X saw countless benefits of a unified system, some large some small.

In October 2004, IT exhibitions were at-tended and ERP vendors were asked to dem-onstrate their products at the company. After seeing a demonstration of Microsoft Dynamics GP, the Company X was suitably impressed. The company was able to compile a case for the ERP system and convince those reluctant parties that an ERP system was the paramount option. In July 2005, a final version of the contract was compiled by the ERP vendor. The contract was later signed between both parties to implement Microsoft Dynamics GP. Company X decided to enlist an external consultant to put together an implementation plan for the ERP system, a plan was compiled before the authors’ recruit-ment. In November 2005, the authors were recruited to project manage the implementation of Microsoft Dynamics GP.

The authors were confronted with an ERP system which had been selected and conse-quently had been contracted to be implemented. An implementation plan had been devised by a consultant and everything was set for the implementation to proceed.

PrElIMINarY fINDINGSThese preliminary findings describe the experi-ences that Company X had as they progressed through the chartering phase of their ERP implementation. They assess whether or not Company X achieved each CSF identified earlier in this article.

Project ChampionThe project managers (the authors) were mainly responsible for the role as the project champion. As new employees employed to project manage implementation, most questions and queries were directed towards them. The product Company X had chosen to implement was a well-known ERP system, Microsoft Dynamics GP. The product had been implemented in many companies worldwide. The project managers were able to promote the product knowing the functionality and the quality of the ERP system. However, as the project progressed and the project managers confidence in the system dropped due to the mismatch of the system and the companies requirements, the project managers no longer felt the same way about the system and this fact was picked up on by other members of staff.

The project champion was not a high-level executive but still had the ability to set goals and legitimize change to a certain extent.

Project ManagementProject management at Company X could have been better. At the beginning of the project there was much uncertainty of the tasks that needed to be involved to complete the project. Communication errors had led the ERP vendors to believe they were implementing a smaller system than was required, for example, they had not been informed that any manufactur-ing modules were required. They were also not enlightened as to the timescales that the company wished to work to, so consequently their initial implementation dates and plans were effectively useless. The company created their own project plan including milestones. Again, this suffered from being produced with com-

International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, 4(3), 9-24, July-September 2008 1�


munication errors as the ERP vendors’ input was not used. The company plan was created not knowing any detail of the ERP system and how long the implementation of the software would actually take. Once the differing project plans were recognized, the problem was addressed. New plans were not drawn up, however, because the problem of the ERP system not fitting the company was highlighted, and this problem needed to be addressed before any further plans could be made.

business Plan and VisionUpon the investigation, it was evident Com-pany X did not have a clear business plan and vision for the ERP system. Although some goals and benefits were identified, nothing was documented properly and defined in a united format. In November 2005, at the beginning of the project manager’s recruitment, there was no clear idea what the ERP systems intention was. The modules of the ERP system that were purchased contradicted the majority of senior managers’ ideas of what the system would do and what was actually required by the system. It was established that a project mission was non-existent. The justification of investment was also a subject not approached.

top Management SupportThe senior management at Company X were committed to the project. Three of the four direc-tors were members of the Steering committee, which meant they gave their input on the project on a regular basis. All of the Steering committee members were encouraged to be committed to the project by the directors. The budget for the ERP system had been approved and committed in the form of a contract between Company X and the ERP vendor. Overall time and money was allocated. The project, however, may have benefited from top management publicly and explicitly identifying the project as their top priority. As the project progressed, the existing managing director left the company. A new managing director joined the company. The resources that had previously been allocated for the project were now in question, especially, as

the project scope looked as if it was going to increase, which of course meant the cost of the project would increase. The concerns from the new managing director made the commitment of the other directors involved in the projects waver. This was portrayed in lack of attendance in meetings.

ErP team and CompositionThe ERP team, or the Steering committee as it was known, was cross-functional. It consisted of the senior manager of each department and all of the directors that were available. An ERP consultant was also involved at the chartering phase of the project. The ERP consultant’s knowledge regarding the chosen ERP system was limited, although he still contributed well to the team. It would have been preferable to assign more than one person to the project full time, however, because Company X is a SME, this was simply not feasible. All the teams were committed and meetings were scheduled regularly. Overall, Company X achieved well in terms of ERP team and composition.

Effective CommunicationCompany X communicated well within the steering committee group. However, commu-nication to outside of the Steering committee was limited. Users could find out about the ERP project by asking questions of the Steering committee, however, no other formal way of communication was identified. In hind sight, the project should have had newsletters or made use of notice boards and intranets.

appropriate business and legacy SystemsCompany X had its business faults prior to the ERP system implementation. Some busi-ness processes were duplicated or ineffective, especially processes that stretched over depart-ments. Employees were allowed to carry out tasks in their own ways, which led to an array of formats and systems. Business processes did not seem to be the business’ priority; rightly or wrongly, the opinion seemed to be that as long as the job got done, it was ok. The orga-



nizational culture was not completely open to a new computer system either. Previous, failed implementations of an ERP system had left the organization guarded. Company X possibly was not the right company to adopt an ERP system, especially at that time.

Commitment to the ChangeCompany X was committed to the project. The majority of the Steering committee gave the project their full attention in terms of attending all the required meetings, doing all of the work required and being positive about the project. When problems occurred with the fit of the ERP system, the steering committee focused on all of the options that were available at the time and came up with the most appropriate solution. The company can be seen as being committed to the change from this perspective.

a Vanilla ErP approachCompany X had a vanilla ERP approach. They realized the time and cost implications of cus-tomizing an ERP system extensively. They were extremely anti-customization; this was made clear in all of the initial meetings.

Reviewing the business processes began shortly after the employment of the project manager. It immediately became apparent that the ERP system selected was a bad fit for

Company X. Company X manufactured made-to-order furniture; they need the flexibility to make almost anything requested. This meant that Company X needed an ERP system with a good product configurator. The ERP system selected did not have a product configurator. The vendors did not suggest using an external configurator or integrating the system with the existing bill of material system. It was later discovered that this may have been because the ERP vendor had never implemented the system in a similar manufacturer and the system was mainly marketed towards service organiza-tions not manufacturing. Although Company X had a vanilla ERP approach, this approach was distorted because of the current situation. Company X could not implement the chosen ERP system in a vanilla format because it was a bad fit for the company.

DISCUSSIoN Company X’s ERP system failed to be imple-mented; it failed in the chartering phase. There has been a lot of dispute as to what constitutes ERP failure and success in literature. However, it is almost irrefutable that the ERP system at Company X failed.

So why did it fail? Company X successfully achieved the CSFs, ERP team and composition and commitment to the change. They had a

CSFs at the Chartering Phase Company X achieved

Company X partly achieved

Company X did not achieve

Project Champion

Project Management

Business Plan and Vision

Top Management Support

ERP Team and Composition

Effective Communication

Appropriate Business and Legacy systems

Commitment to the Change

A Vanilla ERP Approach

Table 3. Summary of the extent Company X achieved each CSF



cross-functional Steering committee who were committed to the project, attended scheduled meetings regularly and faced the problems with the ERP system with determination. However, Company X’s ERP implementation failed to be implemented; so it appears that achieving two CSFs, team and commitment to change were not enough to make a successful ERP imple-mentation in the chartering phase.

Company X only partly achieved the CSFs, project champion, project management, top management support, effective communication and a vanilla ERP approach. There was a project champion, however, as the project progressed, the project champion’s promotion for the project diminished. Project management of the ERP implementation was not admirable; the project plans differed between the ERP vendor and Company X so the timescales were not defined. The project was clearly supported by three directors, however, top management support was hindered by the existing managing direc-tor leaving the company. His replacement was a new managing Director who did not support the project. Communication within the Steering committee was good, however, communication outside of the Steering committee outside of the project was limited. There was no formal way of communicating the project to users. Although the company had a vanilla ERP approach, the selected ERP system was not a good fit to the company’s processes so the vanilla approach was distorted. Company X only partly achieved five CSFs. A partly-achieved CSF could have been a reason for the ERP failure. For example, the project champion’s diminishing support for the project could have led to the rejection of the ERP system to the users which then progressed to the rejection of the system by the Steering committee and a discontinuation of the whole project. Effectively, to only partly achieve can be said to fail in some way, and that partial failure could have led or contributed to the whole system failure.

Company X did not achieve the CSFs, business plan and vision and appropriate business and legacy systems. Although some goals and benefits were identified, nothing

was documented properly and defined in a unified format. The company did not have the appropriate business and legacy systems. The culture at Company X was guarded against a new IT system. Failing to achieve these CSFs could have been the reasons for the failure of the ERP in the chartering phase.

This research has distinguished that there is not one reason for the failure of Company X’s ERP system. This research has defined seven reasons (five partly- achieved CSFs and two not achieved CSFs) out of nine, that may have caused failure. Gargeya and Brady (2005) found that factors leading to success and failure are complex and do not occur alone. This research clearly supports this assumption.

CoNClUSIoNConsidering CSFs has allowed the authors to explore a wide variety of explanations for the ERP failure in the chartering phase of imple-mentation at Company X. Prior to this research, it was deemed by the authors that Company X’s ERP demise was simply due to lack of support of the project by the managing director. However, looking at the case in terms of CSFs, it was discovered that although lack of top manage-ment was a critical factor, it was not the only factor that led to the ERP failure. Company X only partly achieved and did not achieve in total seven CSFs. So in total, this article has identified seven reasons for the failure of the ERP implementation at Company X.

This research is extremely useful for Com-pany X to understand when they undertake IT projects in the future. Recognizing what the CSFs are and that they need to be achieved will encourage successful IT implementations.

The case study findings emphasize that practitioners need to pay particular attention to CSFs in the chartering stage of ERP implemen-tations. It also highlights that it is not just one critical success factor that needs addressing; a collection of CSFs are cause for attention.

This article is limited because it fails to identify the importance of each CSF in the chartering phase of ERP implementation, for example, whether the non-achievement of one



CSF is more critical to failure than others. This article proves that the failure and partial failure of seven out of nine CSFs cause ERP failure, however, it does not recognize how many non-achieved CSF are actually needed to cause failure. This article also fails to recognize if a particular combination of factors led to the ERP failure, for example, if the non-achievement of two CSFs together signifies failure.

Only one case study is reported in this re-search. Care was taken to improve the validity of the case by using multiple sources of data. However, this research would be strengthened further if additional cases are addressed. So many companies fail to progress their ERP implementations past the chartering phase. Us-ing the CSFs that are identified in this study with those companies would allow for comparison and validation of the conclusions reached.

rEfErENCESBuckhout, S., Frey, E., & Nemec, J. (1999). Mak-ing ERP succeed: Turning fear into promise. IEEE Engineering Management Review, Second Quarter, 116-123.

Cooper, R., & Zmund, R. (1990). Information tech-nology implementation research: A technological diffusion approach. Management Science, 36(2), 123-139.

Davenport, T. (1998). Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 121-131.

DeLone, W., & McLean, E. (1992). Information sys-tems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60-95.

Esteves, J., & Pastor, J. (2000). Towards a unification of critical success factors for ERP implementations. Proceedings of the 10th Business Information Tech-nology Conference. Manchester, UK.

Esteves, J., & Pastor, J. (2001). Enterprise resource planning systems research: An annotated biography. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 7(8), 2-52.

Fang L., & Patrecia, S. (2005). Critical success fac-tors in ERP implementation. Jonkoping International Business School, Jonkoping University.

Gable, G., & Stewart, G. (1999). SAP R\3 imple-mentation issues for small to medium enterprises. American Conference on Information Systems. Milwaukee, WI.

Gargeya, V., & Brady, C. (2005). Success and failure factors of adopting SAP in ERP system implementa-tion. Business Process Management Journal, 11(5), 501-516.

Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnog-raphy: Principles in practice (2nd ed.). London, Routledge.

Ho, C., Wu, W., & Tai, Y. (2004). Strategies for the adaptation of ERP systems. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 104(3), 234-251.

Holland, C., & Light, B. (1999). A critical success factors model for ERP implementation. IEEE Soft-ware, May-June, 30-36.

Hong, K., & Kim, Y. (2002). The critical success factors for ERP implementation: An organizational fit perspective. Information Management, 40, 25-40.

Kansel, V. (2006). Enterprise resource planning implementation: A case study. The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 9(1), 165-170.

Kim, Y., Lee, Z., & Gosain, S. (2005). Impediments to successful ERP implementation process. Business Process Management Journal, 1(2), 158-170.

Laudon, K., & Laudon, J. (2006). Management information systems. NJ: Pearson Education.

Loh, T., & Koh, S. (2004). Critical elements for a suc-cessful enterprise resource planning implementation in small and medium sized enterprises. International Journal of Production Research, 4, 3433-3455.

Markus, M., Axline, S., Petrie, D., & Tanis, C. (2001). Learning from adopters’ experiences with ERP: Problems encountered and success achieved. Journal of Information Technology, 15, 245-265.

Markus, M., & Tanis, C. (2000). The enterprise system enterprise—from adoption to success. In: R. Zmund (Ed.), Framing the domains of IT research, (pp. 173-207). Pinnaflex Educational Resources.

Myers, M. (1999). Investigating information systems with ethnographic research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2(23).



Nah, F., & Delgado, S. (2006). Critical success factors for enterprise resource planning implementation and upgrade. Journal of Computer Information Systems, Special Issue 2006, 99-113.

Nah, F., & Lau, J. (2003). ERP implementation: Chief information officers’ perceptions of critical success factors. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 16(1), 5-22.

Nah, F., Lau, J., & Kuang. (2001). Critical fac-tors for successful implementation of enterprise systems. Business Process Management Journal, 7(3), 285-296.

Parr, A., & Shanks, G. (2000). A model ERP project implementation. Journal of Information Technology, 15, 289-303.

Ross, J. (1999). Surprising facts about implementing ERP. IT Professional, 1(4), 65-68.

Soh, C., Kien, S., & Tay-Yap. (2000). Cultural fits and misfits: Is ERP a universal solution. Communications of the ACM, 41(4), 47-51.

Somers, T., & Nelson, K. (2001). The impact of critical success factors across the stages of enterprise resource planning implementations. Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

Taube, L., & Gargeya, V. (2005). An analysis of ERP system implementation. The Business Review Cambridge, 4(1), 1-6.

Umble, E., & Umble, M. (2002). Avoiding ERP implementation failure. Industrial Management, January/February, 25-33.

Umble, E., Haft, R., & Umble, M. (2003). Enterprise resource planning: Implementation procedures and critical success factors. European Journal of Opera-tional Research, 146, 241-257.

Wu, J., & Wang, Y. (2006). Measuring ERP success: The ultimate users view. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 26(8), 882-903.



Nah

and

D

elgd

o (2

006)

Loh

and

Koh

(2

004)

Nah

and

La

u a

nd

Kua

ng

(200

1)

Som

ers

and

Nel

son

(200

1)

Hon

g an

d K

im

(200

2)

Gar

geya

an

d B

rady

(2

005)

Parr

and

Sh

anks

(2

000)

Este

eves

an

d Pa

stor

(2

000)

Nah

an

d La

u (2

003)

Um

ble,

H

aft a

nd

Um

ble

(200

2)

Kim

, Le

e an

d G

osai

n (2

005)

Hol

land

an

d Li

ght

(199

9)

Bus

ines

s pla

n or

vis

ion

Com

mun

icat

ion

and

co-o

pera

tion

Top

man

agem

ent s

uppo

rt

Syst

em a

naly

sis,

sele

ctio

n an

d te

chni

-ca

l im

plem

enta

tion

Com

mitm

ent t

o th

e ch

ange

and

ch

ange

man

agem

ent

ERP

team

com

posi

tion

and

skill

s (s

teer

ing

com

mitt

ee a

nd c

onsu

ltant

s)

Proj

ect m

anag

emen

t

Stro

ng le

ader

ship

and

em

pow

ered

de

cisi

on m

aker

s

Impl

emen

tatio

n vi

ewed

as a

n on

goin

g pr

oces

s

Old

syst

ems e

limin

ated

Ach

ieva

ble

impl

emen

tatio

n sc

hedu

le

and

appr

opria

te m

easu

rem

ents

(goa

ls

and

obje

ctiv

es)

Educ

atio

n an

d tra

inin

g

Proj

ect c

ham

pion

Com

preh

ensi

ve B

PR

Min

imum

cus

tom

izat

ion,

van

illa

ERP,

sm

alle

r sco

pe

aPPENDIX 1



Nah

and

D

elgd

o (2

006)

Loh

and

Koh

(2

004)

Nah

and

La

u a

nd

Kua

ng

(200

1)

Som

ers

and

Nel

son

(200

1)

Hon

g an

d K

im

(200

2)

Gar

geya

an

d B

rady

(2

005)

Parr

and

Sh

anks

(2

000)

Este

eves

an

d Pa

stor

(2

000)

Nah

an

d La

u (2

003)

Um

ble,

H

aft a

nd

Um

ble

(200

2)

Kim

, Le

e an

d G

osai

n (2

005)

Hol

land

an

d Li

ght

(199

9)

Softw

are

deve

lopm

ent,

test

ing

and

troub

lesh

ootin

g

Mon

itorin

g an

d ev

alua

tion

of

perf

orm

ance

App

ropr

iate

bus

ines

s and

IT le

gacy

sy

stem

s

Ade

quat

e E

RP

stra

tegy

Use

r inv

olve

men

t and

par

ticip

atio

n

Vend

or p

artn

ersh

ip a

nd su

ppor

t

Man

agem

ent o

f exp

ecta

tions

and

ac

cept

ance



Julie Dawson is a Master of Arts degree student at the University of Lincoln, United Kingdom. Working with the Lincoln Business School, she is obtaining an MA in management and information systems. Her research interests include the implementation of information systems in organisations, particularly ERP systems. The human and organisational issues experienced throughout the planning and implementation of ERP systems are of particular interest. Julie is currently gaining valuable experience in her area of research as an operations manager at a UK Manufacturer. She is also a member of the Chartered Institute of Management.

Jonathan D Owens is a senior lecturer in the Lincoln Business School at the University of Lincoln, United Kingdom. His research interests are in New Product Development Issues and the appreciation of having a structured technology road map incorporated into the process, the learning issues to be understood in the design process, in particular the NPD process, innovation and design and knowledge transfer through distance learning. He is a chartered engineer and currently a visiting professor for the Tecnológico de Monterrey University, México. He is a member of the editorial panel for the British Standards Institute (BSI) International Journal of Quality and Standards and a member of the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply (CIPS) logistics forum.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Critical Success factors in the Chartering Phasevietnamsupplychain.com/assets/upload/file/... ·...

Documents

Transcript of Critical Success factors in the Chartering Phasevietnamsupplychain.com/assets/upload/file/... ·...