Critical success factors for successful requirements manangement
INVESTIGATION OF THE CRITICAL SUCCESSFUL...
113
INVESTIGATION OF THE CRITICAL SUCCESSFUL FACTORS (CSFs) OF BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING (BPR) IN THE CONTEXT OF ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING (ERP) PROJECT IN SMEs A study submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MSc Information Systems at THE UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD by GEORGIOS MICHAIL September 2012
Transcript of INVESTIGATION OF THE CRITICAL SUCCESSFUL...
INVESTIGATION OF THE CRITICAL SUCCESSFUL FACTORS (CSFs)
OF BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING (BPR) IN THE CONTEXT
OF ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING (ERP) PROJECT IN SMEs
A study submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
MSc Information Systems
at
THE UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD
by
GEORGIOS MICHAIL
September 2012
1
Abstract
Background: An ERP implementation implies fundamental and structural organizational
change. BPR is considered as the predominant technique for restructuring the business
processes of an organization. Moreover, BPR is recognized as one of the major key
factors of a successful ERP implementation. However, how to make the BPR a successful
case while the decision for ERP implementation has been taken is not well studied.
Aims: The study aimed to identify the critical factors of a successful BPR in the ERP
context for SMEs and also categorize the factors into the relevant categories which are
also aimed to be explored. Finally, the consequences for not meeting and satisfying the
CSFs are investigated too.
Methods: In order to answer the research question the study followed the inductive
approach of research. The data collection was conducted by using a qualitative method of
semi-structured interviews. As a case study of the research, a Cypriot SMEs has been
taken. The interview data were analyzed using the thematic analysis with a priori coding.
Results: The study identified 29 CSFs differentiating them into four categories namely
change management, process, product and people whereas a total of 27 consequences
were identified as the result for not meeting the CSFs. Each one of the categories is more
or less related to organizational and/or technological perspective and therefore it has
relevance with the ERP system, top management or the organizational mechanism to
support the overall project.
Conclusions: Finally, the four categories are inextricably linked with the basic two
stakeholders of the project, top managers and project team while all the CSFs within the
four categories in general play an equally important role for a successful BPR
implementation in ERP project. If they are not satisfied, the impact will be extremely
negative for the project and SMEs in general.
2
Acknowledgements
By the end of this study I can surely say that it was one of the most difficult projects I
ever had in my life. The need to succeed was obvious and therefore the difficulty was in
high level. Although, at the same time this dissertation has proved many important things
to my self. It is very meaningful for me and I believe is the passport to follow the
professional career I want.
I would like to express my deep gratitude to the people supported me during the period of
the dissertation building. First of all, I would sincerely like to thank my supervisor Dr.
G.C. Alex Peng for his extremely helpful guidance and determinant support and
assistance during the whole study. Dr. Peng offered to me the opportunity to work
professionally with real time limits. He was very patient and always eager to hear my
problems and difficulties. His guidance and recommendations were the keys to finish my
dissertation appropriately. Many thanks to EKA Group and ERP Vendor company but
special thanks to Vina Koliandri, Systems and Controls manager in EKA Group who was
the liaison between me the case company (EKA Group) and the vendor company.
Secondly, I offer my best regards to the professors of Information School and Computer
Science department of the University for the great academic support and atmosphere in
general during this year.
Finally, I huge thank to my family and especially my girlfriend Georgia for their
continuous support and patience. Undoubtedly, a part of the success belongs to them and
I will always be thankful them.
3
Table of contents
List of figures and tables ..................................................................................................... 5
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 6
1.1. Background .............................................................................................................. 6
1.2. Research question and objectives ............................................................................ 8
1.3. Research methodology ............................................................................................. 9
1.4. Dissertation outline ................................................................................................ 10
Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................ 11
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 11
2.2 Enterprise Resource Planning Systems ................................................................... 11
2.2.1 ERP Definition and Overview ......................................................................... 11
2.2.2 ERP in SMEs ................................................................................................... 13
2.2.3 ERP in Cyprus.................................................................................................. 15
2.2.4 CSFs of ERP systems implementation and their distinction ........................... 16
2.3 Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) ................................................................ 20
2.3.1 BPR Definition and Overview ......................................................................... 20
2.3.2 BPR methodologies ......................................................................................... 21
2.3.3 CSFs of BPR implementation .......................................................................... 22
2.3.4 BPR and IT ...................................................................................................... 26
2.4 BPR in ERP context ................................................................................................ 28
2.4.1 BPR in the ERP lifecycle ................................................................................. 28
2.4.2 Organizational Change versus ERP package customization ........................... 30
2.4.3 CSF for BPR in ERP context ........................................................................... 32
2.5 Summary ................................................................................................................. 34
Chapter 3: Methodology ................................................................................................... 35
3.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 35
3.2. Research approach ................................................................................................. 35
3.3. Qualitative approach .............................................................................................. 36
3.4. The Case study ....................................................................................................... 37
3.5. Data Collection ...................................................................................................... 39
4
3.5.1. Interview ......................................................................................................... 39
3.5.2. Interview design .............................................................................................. 40
3.5.3. Participants ...................................................................................................... 40
3.5.4. Interview administration ................................................................................. 41
3.6. Qualitative Data Analysis ...................................................................................... 42
3.7. Summary ................................................................................................................ 44
Chapter 4: Findings ........................................................................................................... 45
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 45
4.2 Motivations to BPR in ERP project ........................................................................ 45
4.3 The Critical Successful Factors (CSFs) .................................................................. 48
4.3.1 Change Management CSFs .............................................................................. 48
4.3.2 Process CSFs .................................................................................................... 54
4.3.3 Product CSFs ................................................................................................... 61
4.3.4 People CSFs ..................................................................................................... 67
4.4 Overall Findings Discussion ................................................................................... 76
Chapter 5: Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 77
5.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 77
5.2. Conclusion of the study ......................................................................................... 77
5.3. Limitations ............................................................................................................. 79
5.4. Recommendations for future research ................................................................... 80
Word Count: 15 089.......................................................................................................... 80
References ......................................................................................................................... 81
Appendix A: ...................................................................................................................... 90
Appendix B: Ethics and other student forms .................................................................. 100
5
List of figures and tables
Figures
Figure 2.1: ERP system architecture……………………………………………………..12
Figure 2.2: Percentage of papers presenting different topics…………………………….17
Figure 2.3: Summary of CSFs in BPR implementation …………………………......…..25
Figure 2.4: An eight-step framework for a successful BPR implementation...………….26
Figure 2.5: The role of IT in BPR………………………………………………………..27
Figure 2.6: The performance of BPR in ERP implementation…………………………..30
Figure 2.7: Extend of organization change versus extend of ERP software change…….32
Figure 2.8: BPR concerns in ERP context……………………………………….………33
Figure 3.1: The research wheel: inductive approach trend………………………………37
Figure 3.2: Connections between main theme, sub-themes and codes………….……….44
Figure 4.1: Concept map of Change Management category CSFs………………………54
Figure 4.2: Concept map of Process category CSFs…………………………….……….61
Figure 4.3: Concept map of Product category CSFs…………………………….……….67
Figure 4.4: Concept map of People category CSFs…………………………...…………76
Figure 5.1: Empirical investigation model of CSFs for BPR in ERP project……………79
Tables
Table 2.1: Number of Enterprises in Cyprus and the percentage of SMEs…………...…16
Table 2.2: ERP CSFs from the literature linked to authors………………………...……20
Table 3.1: Positions of interviewees………………………………………………..……42
Table 3.2: The five stages used in thematic analysis………………………………...…..43
6
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1. Background
In the highly competitive business world of recent years, organizations try to respond to
the new technological standards by changing their business environment by adopting
configurable information systems (IS) to integrate and improve in general their business
practices. An Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) is the predominant IS of the market as
the solution to new modernized era. ERP is “a configurable information systems package
that integrates information and information-based processes within and across functional
areas in an organization” (Kumar and Hillegersberg, 2000). Nevertheless, the ERP
implementation has a tremendous impact on the business processes’ (BPs) performance
and productivity because of the complexity of the system. This fact becomes critical
especially for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) whose business flexibility and
resources are limited. Therefore, organizations should perform a reengineering procedure
of their business practices to smooth ERP’s application impact. This procedure is known
as Business Process Reengineering (BPR).
BPR is a very popular concept because is considered as one the most important
techniques and management tools for transforming and restructuring the BPs of an
organization in order to improve the quality and achieve greater efficiency (Davenport,
1993; Hammer and Champy, 1993. And that can be more easily achieved by involving
information technology. Having in mind that ERP is an information system that provides
integration and automation of information across the organizational processes (Ross et
al., 2006), it is obvious that there is an inextricable link between those two terms, BPR
and ERP.
Furthermore, ERP attracts a lot of companies because it implies fundamental and
structural organizational change. The core BPs of an organization are embedded in an
ERP system and these represent the best practices from which companies expect to get
benefit (Boudreau and Robey, 1999). Some of the benefits are the cost reduction by
7
improving the inefficient areas and processes, better integration along the departments
and produce information in a real time environment (Davenport, 1998; Wallace, 2001).
The AMR Research (2007) reported that the ERP market total revenue in 2006 was
grown by 14% ($ 28.8 billions) from 2005. They also estimated that the total revenue will
be continuously increasing during the five year period from 2006 – 2011 reaching the
spectacular number of $ 47.7 billions. Moreover ERP leads to a substantial organizational
change and unique kind of technological change. Therefore it is highly important for an
organization to reengineer its business process in order to fit with the ERP.
The Critical Successful Factors (CSFs) of ERP implementation have been discussed and
studied very extensively from previous researchers (Esteves and Pastor, 2001). Moreover,
BPR is considered by the researchers as one of the most crucial CSFs of the ERP
implementation projects (Bancroft et al., 1998; Jarrar et al., 2000; Nah et al., 2001).
However, the BPR is not a straightforward task or a simple panacea to achieve a
successful implementation within time and budget due to the fact that is a very complex
project and requires universal support and control management especially when it is
implemented as parallel task of the general ERP project. In this direction, extremely little
research has been done on the analysis of the CSFs of BPR having relation with ERP
project and the impact of not only for SMEs but for large organizations too.
Consequently, there is a gap of knowledge in how to make BPR in ERP project to
become a successful case. Therefore the proposed study aims to investigate the CSFs of
BPR in the context of ERP project particularly for SMEs. This aspect will be the
inventive and critical point of the proposed research and it will try to address it.
8
1.2. Research question and objectives
In response to the general research aim the proposed project attempts to answer the
following question:
“What are the Critical Successful Factors (CSFs) of Business Process Reengineering
(BPR) in the context of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) project in SMEs?”
In order to answer and fulfill the research aim of the study the above question the
following research objectives should be established:
a. A general literature review-investigation on BPR and its relationship with ERP
implementation project will be carried out
b. Identify a set of the general areas-categories of CSFs of BPR in ERP context
c. Identify more specifically the CSFs for the successful BRR within these general
areas-categories
d. Identify the consequences for the organization for not meeting and satisfy the
CSFs that have been found.
In detail the literature review is used to acquire the basic knowledge from the most
influential researchers of the field who are related with BPR and ERP concepts. The
information from their findings and reviews in the literature will be a source of
knowledge for the proposed study along with the experts from the case company who are
going to be asked high level questions about the discussed concepts. Therefore the
method of case study will be used. Interviews will be carried out in order to present the
current situation of the company and to understand the way that the experts think and
theorize about the successful implementation of BPR in ERP context. Consequently, the
findings will guide organizations on fundamental corporate issues which are associated
with the ERP implementation helping them for a more efficient preparation for the BPR
and ERP implementation projects along with more chance to succeed.
9
1.3. Research methodology
One of the most critical parts of the study in order to fulfill the research objectives is to
conduct the appropriate research methodology. The study follows the inductive approach
of research. First of all, the literature review helped the researcher to obtain the
appropriate knowledge about the issues related with BPR and ERP projects. Also,
reviewing the literature, potential categories had been identified in order to differentiate
and categorize the CSFs, concluding to the final categorization with 4 dimensions.
The phenomenon under investigation requires data which cannot be measured and
quantified. Its nature requires a qualitative approach of data collection in order to have a
deep understanding of people perceptions and experiences regarding the CSFs of the
project (Silverman, 2001). Therefore, the qualitative approach for data collection is being
followed. Moreover, the data were collected from a single case study, a SME company
named EKA Group. EKA is a multibusiness company based in Cyprus. Its operations
have mainly to do with retail and trading divisions. EKA implemented an ERP system
called SAP Business One in 2006. At that time, the company also implemented BPR as a
result of the ERP project.
The data collection was conducted using the qualitative method of semi-structure
interviews. The flexibility of that type of interviews gave the interviewer the opportunity
to discuss freely any potential issues were emerged at any time following the structure of
the interview (Flick, 1998). Finally, the interview data were analyzed using the thematic
analysis with a priori coding which is a very useful method for identifying codes and
reporting the patterns within the data collected (Braun and Clarke, 2006).
10
1.4. Dissertation outline
Five different chapters are used to structure and separate the dissertation. The first
chapter introduces the main concepts of the study, ERP and BPR. It is an overview of
what has been done by researchers of the field in general and explains where is the gap in
the current literature that in which the study’s aim to contribute. Secondly, the next
chapter provides a review of the most relevant literature to obtain the appropriate
understanding about the concepts and related issues. The literature review is divided in
three parts: ERP systems, BPR and BPR in ERP context. That sequence helps the reader
to increase its understanding and relate those concepts efficiently. Chapter three presents
the research methodology followed to carry out the dissertation. Research approach, data
collection and analysis are being discussed. The findings are illustrated at the fourth
chapter. This chapter emphasizes at the CSFs have been identified for a successful BPR
in ERP project. Also the consequences are presented and the whole findings are
illustrated using concept maps for each category. An overall findings discussion is also
provided. Finally, the last chapter is the conclusions. This chapter draws up an overview
of the findings using a higher level of discussion. Additionally, implications and
limitations along with recommendations for future research are discussed.
11
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
In this section the existing literature review papers, studies and reports of the most
influential authors of both concepts, ERP and BPR, from 1990’s until today are
presented. The main purpose of the literature review is to present a comprehensive review
around the ERP and BPR fields and show their recursive relationship regarding the
existing publications. Moreover, some of the most important ERP research topics are
introduced such the ERP in SMEs and CSF of ERP implementation and BPR
implementation too. Also the current situation of Cypriot ERP market is presented. Then
the BPR concept is coming to the microscope introducing topics like the BPR
methodologies, its relation with information technology and the role of BPR in ERP
implementation.
2.2 Enterprise Resource Planning Systems
2.2.1 ERP Definition and Overview
As a result of the fact that ERP attracts the interest of researchers from diverse research
fields, there is a huge literature about the definition of ERP and its application context.
Although, one of the first researchers who tried to define these “enterprise systems” was
Thomas H. Davenport. According to Davenport (1998) an enterprise system is a
“commercial software package promise the seamless integration of all the information
flowing through a company - financial and accounting information, human resource
information, supply chain information, customer information”.
During the last decade many researchers have also tried to define the enterprise resource
planning systems in a parallel way but including more specific and synchronous features
12
because of the new capabilities of the system. Ross et al. (2006) stated that ERP is a
business management tool that can be used to integrate the BPs and functions in an
enterprise comprising integrated sets of comprehensive software presenting a holistic
view of the organization. Moreover, it incorporates all the individual elements of an
organization into a customizable off the shelf package providing high levels of
automation and integration all of the BPs enabling share common data along the entire
organization and real time access to information (Nah et al., 2001; Schlichter and
Kraemmergaard, 2010; Soh et al., 2000). Typically, as shown in the figure 2.1, ERP
system supports departmental integration of all BPs and operations in an organization.
The departments have better communication each other because of the information can be
shared more easily as a result of the central database through the client-server
architecture (Davenport, 1998; Tsamantanis and Kogetsidis, 2006:121)
Figure 2.1: ERP system architecture
13
Markus and Tanis (2000) stressed out that ERP systems have some very important
characteristics which make them differ from the traditional IS. It has already mentioned
the integration is one of them. Additionally, ERP systems are designed as the best
practices to support and fit to the BPs of the organization (Klaus et al., 2000). In order to
ensure best practices the closest cooperation between the users and vendor should be a
fact along with comprehensive knowledge by the vendor’s side (Soh et al., 2000).
Therefore, ERP systems have some crucial characteristics that make them differ from
other systems.
The unique character of the ERP system makes organizations to wonder why to
implement such expensive solution. The reasons are vary. Markus and Tanis (2000:180)
categorized these reasons into technical and business reasons. For example the desire of a
company to reduce the operating cost makes it to invest in ERP systems. Furthermore, a
lot of firms face the problem of maintaining their aging legacy systems which leads to
extra costs. Davenport (1998) supports this notion by saying “maintaining many different
computer systems leads to enormous costs-for storing and rationalizing redundant data,
for rekeying and reformatting data from one system for use in another, for updating and
debugging obsolete software code, for programming communication links between
systems to automate the transfer of data”. When consultants are trying to explain the need
of implementing an ERP system to the management of a company in order to persuade
and motivate them to invest in the system, these kinds of variations – technical and
business – should be taken into account and be explained very well.
2.2.2 ERP in SMEs
According to Deep et al. (2008) ERP system is viewed by small and medium enterprises
(SME) as the primordial way to initially increase their market value and achieve the
competitive advantage at the end. Moreover, Gable and Stewart (1999) argued that ERP
is the best way for SMEs to reengineer their BPs and finally leading to the same
14
advantages. In the past, technological and economic reasons restrict SMEs by
implementing an ERP system and therefore ERP adoption rate was extremely low in
contrast to the rate of large companies. However, in recent years, the reduction of IT cost
along with the popularity and attractive benefits and price of ERP systems, there has been
a significant growth in the ERP use by SMEs (Christofi et al., 2009; Deep et al., 2008).
One of the most controversial issues in the literature has to do with SMEs and their
relation with ERP systems, is the high proportion of ERP project failures (Deep et al.
2008; Doom et al., 2010). Christofi et al. (2009) pointed out that SMEs have relatively
simple organizational structure in comparison to large companies. In the same direction
Doom et al. (2010) concluded that SMEs lack of formalization of their procedures and
therefore their business structure is not well defined. The latter fact leads to unclear
objectives and to a general to confusion of how an ERP system can improve the business
performance achieving the competitive advantage. Similarly, SMEs have very often
limited resources and capital and therefore is more likely to not be able to resist in losses
and impacts caused by a potential ERP failure (Christofi et al., 2009). So they have to
address any drawbacks and problems especially when these problems have to do with
their operations and BPs in order to increase the probability of a successful ERP
implementation.
Finally Loh and Koh (2004) reported that “SMEs should critically consider having an
efficient change management programme and culture, and efficient software
development, testing and troubleshooting to ensure a successful ERP implementation”.
Hence, when an SME is embarking in ERP selection and implementation should be
aware of the current situation of the market and to be able to analyze and understand its
organizational structure too (Deep et al., 2008; Everdingen et al., 2000).
15
2.2.3 ERP in Cyprus
Currently the ERP market in Cyprus is relatively small compared to the other European
countries. Nevertheless, the spectacularly continuous growth of ERP systems adoption
around the world the last ten years forced Cypriot firms to start adopting them. The two
main facts that led local companies to this direction were initially the entrance of Cyprus
in the European Union in 2004. This fact opened the European markets to the local firms
and increased the levels of competition in the island. Secondly and most importantly, the
cost of ERP implementation is much lower now as a result of the advancement of
information technology which played a vital role in the rise of ERP use in Cyprus
(Tsamantanis and Kogetsidis, 2006).
According to the Cypriot ministry of commerce industry and tourism (2012) the
overwhelming majority of Cypriot firms are SMEs with the spectacular percentage of
99,8%. The latter number is confirmed by statistics that were published by the European
Commission (2011), as shown in the table 2.1. Therefore the vendors are working with
ERP solutions especially for SMEs. SAP and Oracle are currently the vendors with
highest market share in Cyprus following the European pattern (Jacobson et al., 2007)
Source: European Commission (2011)
Table 2.1: Number of Enterprises in Cyprus and the percentage of SMEs
16
2.2.4 CSFs of ERP systems implementation and their distinction
One of the most famous research topics of ERP research domain is devoted to the
implementation aspect of the system. According to Schlichter and Kraemmergaard
(2010), the highest percentage of research (30%) focuses on implementation aspect, as
shown in the figure 2.2. In fact, when researchers refer to the implementation of ERP
systems, the concept of critical successful factors of the implementation is implied as the
prime issue involved with it (Loh and Koh, 2004; Schlichter and Kraemmergaard, 2010).
Source: Schlichter and Kraemmergaard (2010)
Figure 2.2: Percentage of papers presenting different topics
A large number of researchers tried to identify and categorize the CSFs of ERP
implementation (Al Mashari et al., 2003; Doom et al., 2010; Esteves and Pastor, 2000;
Loh and Koh, 2004; Nah et al., 2001). The researchers used different methodologies such
literature reviews, case studies and interviews. When they try to identify the CSFs the
17
first thing that they need to do is to identify a set of higher level categories-groups. Of
course there is some overlapping between the different approaches used by the
researchers. For example, in order to structure the CSFs, Doom et al. (2010) divided them
into five groups based on the following subjects:
a) Scope, goals and vision
b) Culture, support and communication
c) Infrastructure
d) Approach
e) Project Management
On the other hand, Snider et al. (2009) analyzed the CSFs grouping them into three
categories having in mind the ERP life cycle stages:
1. Pre-implementation CSFs
2. Implementation CSFs
3. Post-Implementation CSFs
A similar approach identifying CSFs of ERP implementation based on the ERP lifecycle
was followed by Loh and Koh (2004) who divided the typical ERP lifecycle into four
specific phases. The phases are:
1. Chartering
2. Project
3. Shakedown
4. Onward and upward
During the first phase decisions are being taken about the solution constraints and for the
definition of the business care. At the second phase the end users are getting up while at
the third phase the system is being stabilizing eliminating the errors and bugs. Finally the
18
last phase has to do with the system maintenance, user support and upgrade of the system
with the newer versions.
After an extensive literature review the following CSFs have been found in the literature
from 1999 until the recent years. The table 2.2 afterwards illustrates a summary of the
most important CSFs. Each CSF is linked to specific author(s) that they have identified
them as a CSF. Some of them have been commonly identified by several researchers.
Although, as shown in the table 2.2, one of the most frequent CSFs has been identified by
researchers is BPR (as shown in Table 2.2).
Furthermore, each one of these CSFs is linked with a particular implementation phase of
ERP life cycle while at the same time a factor can be apparent in the whole
implementation of the project (Loh and Koh, 2004; Nah and Delgado, 2006; Snider et al.,
2009). For example, the clear vision and scope of the project is more inherent during the
pre-implementation phase. However, top management support and commitment is a must
CSF which is inherent throughout the entire project (Nah and Delgado, 2006).
Doom et al. (2009) argued that some of the CSFs of large organizations and SMEs are
similar to a large extent but on the other hand may not have the same consequences and
impacts. Moreover some CSFs may also differ from company to company and that fact
should be identified by the consultants at the pre-implementation phase. Hence, all CSFs
have a particular significance during the ERP implementation especially in SMEs.
Finally, among all these CSFs of ERP implementation, BPR is one of the most important
as it is cited by the majority of the researchers of the that research topic. However, how to
make BPR in ERP project a successful case has not been well study and therefore the
project becomes particularly important because it aims to explore this further.
19
Table 2.2: ERP CSFs from the literature linked to authors
CSF
Author(s)
Top
man
agem
ent
support
Chan
ge
Man
agem
ent
BP
R
Cle
ar v
isio
n,
scope
and
goal
s
Pro
ject
Man
agem
ent
Pro
ject
Tea
m
com
posi
tion
Act
ive
use
r
involv
emen
t
Use
r tr
ainin
g
Com
mu-
nic
atio
n
ER
P v
endor-
pac
kag
e
Soft
war
e
Dev
elopm
ent
met
hodolo
gy
Monit
or
and
eval
uat
ion
Al-Mashari et
al. (2003)
Doom et al.
(2010)
Esteves and
Pastor (2000)
Loh and Koh
(2004)
Nah et al.
(2001)
Nah and
Delgado
(2006)
Rosario (2000)
Snider et al.
(2009)
Stefanou
(1999)
Umble et al.
(2003)
Zhang et al.
(2003)
20
2.3 Business Process Re-engineering (BPR)
2.3.1 BPR Definition and Overview
BPR is currently considered as one the best drivers to manage the organizational change
helping the enterprises to survive in the highly competitive environment of today
(Motwani et al., 1998). There are several interpretations of BPR that have been provided
by authors. For example, Hammer and Champy (1993:32) have described BPR as “the
fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of BPs to achieve dramatic improvements in
critical, contemporary measures of performance, such as cost, quality, service and speed”.
According to Davenport (1993) BPR has promoted the analysis and design of processes
and work flows between and within organizations. Similarly, other researchers, such as
Talwar (1993), have focalized on the streamlining and restructuring the current BPs,
structure and way of working within an organization. However, there is some confusion
in the literature regarding the terms used to refer to the BPR (Simpson et al., 1999;
Valentine et al., 1998; Valiris and Glykas, 1999). Synonymous terms like reengineering,
redesign, renovation, improvement and transformation are used by researchers. Valiris
and Glikas (1999) suggested that the reengineering needs to be differentiated in the
literature. It means radical change where the BPs of the entire organization are reshaped.
On the other hand, revisionist BPR or process improvement is to focus on a smaller scope
of change and that change will be incremental. According to Grant (2002), the Hammer’s
famous definition of BPR is too limited because it ignores some major points of BPR like
people, structure and information technology.
The last two decades BPR had an explosive dissemination. And that happened because of
two major reasons. The first was the publication of the book by Hammer and Champy
(1993) entitled “Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution”.
The second reason was the need of business world to change the way of doing business in
order to survive in the highly competitive world formed in 1990’s improving its
profitability and market share (Hammer and Champy 1993; Martin and Cheung, 2000).
21
The concept of BPR has significantly increased its popularity amongst the businesses all
over the world in a relatively short period of time (O'Neill and Sohal, 1999). The heavy
promotion which was exerted by business consultants has leaded BPR in a new road,
gaining importance as the new companies develop new methods of cross inter-
organizational coordination and alliances (Attaran, 2004). BPR adds value and leads to
innovation as a result of the knowledge employees and best knowledge BPs.
2.3.2 BPR methodologies
A large piece of the literature is devoted to the methodologies that are used for BPR.
Each methodology has specific steps during the process examination in order to identify
the non-value adding events and the existing bottle necks and then proceed with the
reengineering of the BP and improve its performance (Ghan and Choi, 1997).
Furthermore some authors went a step forward and proposed specific steps for a
methodology. For example, Davenport et al. (1993) listed the following five steps in his
BPR method: identifying process for innovation, identifying change levers, developing
process visions, understanding existing processes and designing and prototyping the new
process. Some other researchers identified more steps BPR methodologies. Kale
(2000:136) proposed eight steps methodology for instance whereas Jacobson et al. (1995)
proposed four steps BPR methodology.
As it was mentioned before there is confusion in the scope and interpretation of the
organizational change. In other words, what does R mean in fact? According to Bancroft
et al. (1998) and Esteves et al. (2002) whatever the scope and methodology are there are
two dimensions in a BPR initiative:
1. Magnitude of change
2. Scale of the change effort involved
The first dimension refers to the streamlining a BP. Bancroft et al. (1998) explains that
“Streamlining a business process implies making incremental changes to the current
22
process to increase quality, decrease cycle time, or reduce cost. Reinventing a BP means
scrapping the current one and creating a process that truly meets the needs of the
company”. The second dimension – scale of the change effort involved – refers to the
proportion of the organization involved in the BPR implementation. So, when more
people and departments participate in the change, then the higher complexity of effort
and the greater the scale of change is (Bancroft et al., 1998). Therefore, whatever the R
means BPR projects are based on these two dimensions.
2.3.3 CSFs of BPR implementation
As it mentioned before, BPR concept had a significant growth the last two decades.
However, despite that fact, many organizations implemented BPR projects did not
achieve the intended result. BPR often fails to perform the expected output of managers
and consultants. Hammer and Champy (1993) concluded with the estimation that a 50 to
70 per cent of BPR implementations do not achieve the results they seek. The reasons
vary from organization to organization. Therefore, the BPR implementation process
needs to be driven and checked against the success factors in order to ensure a successful
implementation of the project (Al-Mashari and Zairi, 1999).
Reviewing the relevant literature about the CSFs of BPR implementations, it can be said
that there are not many studies in the literature related to the CSFs of BPR
implementation. Al-Mashari and Zairi (1999) categorized the factors into five subgroups
illustrating the various dimensions of organizational change related to BPR:
1. Change Management
2. Management competency and support
3. Organizational structure
4. Project planning and management
5. IT infrastructure
Each one of these dimensions has specific success factors, as shown very well in figure
2.3. The factors related with change management for instance, involve social, human and
23
cultural changes into working environment such as effective communication, training and
education and motivation (Al-Mashari and Zairi, 1999; Hammer and Champy, 1993).
Factors like strong leadership, risk management and championship are related to the
second dimension, management competency and support whereas organizational
structure is influenced by effectiveness of BPR teams, job integration and the
appropriateness allocation of responsibilities within an organization. Furthermore, a
successful BPR implementation is inextricably linked with the effective project
management too. This dimension includes factors such as the alignment of corporate
strategy with BPR strategy and the use of effective project management tools and
techniques. Finally, IT infrastructure has a major role in BPR implementation as a major
component of that enables BPR. (Al-Mashari and Zairi, 1999; Attaran, 2004;
Subramoniam et al. 2009).
24
Source: Al-Mashari and Zairi (1999)
Figure 2.3: Summary of CSFs in BPR implementation
25
Moreover, Miers (2006) proposed an eight-step framework in order to achieve and ensure
the successful outcome of BPR implementation. The steps are shown in the figure 2.4.
Source: Miers (2006)
Figure 2.4: An eight-step framework for a successful BPR implementation
The framework proposed by Miers (2006) follows an iterative approach. The results of
each iteration are continuously measured for better evaluation and optimization. Again,
IT is a vital component for this approach. This is the reason that BPR and its relation with
IT has attracted many researchers and practitioners (Al-Mashari and Zairi, 1999; Attaran,
2004; Ghan and Choi, 1997; Subramoniam et al. 2009).
26
2.3.4 BPR and IT
Undoubtedly modern information technology has tremendous capabilities. It has deeply
penetrated in organizations which are trying to minimize their costs and improve their
quality and services in order to be more efficient and competitive. BPR helps
organizations to achieve all these business objectives. Therefore, there is a close
relationship between IT and BPR (Hammer and Champy, 1993).
IT capabilities including network and communication technologies, information access
quality and real time information can play a vital role in creating or improving the BPs.
Davenport (1993) stressed out that BPR requires a broad view of business activity but at
the same time equally important is the view of IT. Similarly, Ghan and Choi (1997) and
Subramoniam et al. (2009) maintained that IT is the key enabler BPR. Now technology
should be used more extensively and BP can be changed fundamentally and not partially.
Also, Ghan and Choi (1997) explained how IT can help BPR using the what/how
distinction, as shown in figure 2.5.
Source: Ghan and Choi (1997)
Figure 2.5: The role of IT in BPR
In addition, Davenport and Short (1998), presented a seven step procedure for IT driven
BPR implementation. The steps are:
27
1. Prioritize process objectives
2. Identify the process to redesigned
3. Understand and measure/benchmark the process
4. Identify the right IT method
5. Design and build prototype
6. Test the reengineered process
7. Implement the changed process.
In the same way, this seven-step procedure was followed by Subramoniam et al. (2009)
who also pointed out that when IT is heavily implicated in the BP change, BPR is less
likely to fail.
Finally, the rapid evolution of IT creates many opportunities for organization to change
their potential wrong functions and processes and improve their business image. IT
driven BPR can help companies in achieving specific goals such as better business
performance, easy communication and high level of information share across the
functional levels of the company. Nevertheless, IT is a strange case and without the
appropriate leadership and management support BPR may fail resulting in unexpected
consequences for the companies (Attaran, 2004).
28
2.4 BPR in ERP context
2.4.1 BPR in the ERP lifecycle
Gill and Johnson (1997:27) said that “… it is evident that if we have the expectation that
doing A, B will happen, then by manipulating the occurrence of A we can begin to
predict the influence to the occurrence of B.” Moreover Kerlinger and Lee (2000)
reinforced this view by saying that when we trying to examine relationships between two
variables the purpose is to find out, predict and finally control these relationships. In this
case BPR and ERP are two concepts that are absolutely linked.
The recursive relationship between BPR and ERP has made numerous studies to be
conducted having one of these two or both terms in their microscope. When the
researchers approach the ERP research area, the majority of them focuses on the
implementation topic and therefore on CSFs of ERP. More interesting is the fact that one
of the most cited and important CSF in ERP implementation projects is the BPR
(Bancroft et al., 1998; Nah et al., 2001). Esteves and Pastor (2000) pointed out that
“comprehensive BPR is related with the alignment between business processes and the
ERP business model and associated best practices”. Therefore for a successful ERP
implementation, an organization needs to redesign its business BPs (Figure 2.6).
29
Source: Tsai (2010)
Figure 2.6: The performance of BPR in ERP implementation
An interestingly controversial issue has to do about the appropriate time of
implementation of BPR having in mind an ERP system will be in place. So, when is the
right time for BPR? Before, after or during the ERP implementation? A survey conducted
by Subramoniam et al. (2009) answers the latter question by saying that the most
effective way in reengineering the BPs of an organization is the simultaneous
implementation of BPR and ERP. Similarly, with the previous study this direction goes
another survey conducted by the Chemical Marketing Reporter (1996). The survey
included 220 European companies implementing SAP and it proved that the most
powerful and effective method for business improvement is the simultaneous
implementation of BPR and ERP. In contrast to previous statements, Schniederjans and
Kim (2003) reported that the dominating implementation sequence as being successful to
follow in the future ERP implementation is firstly BPR and the ERP implementation.
Also, they stressed out that most appropriate chronological stage is at the beginning of
ERP lifecycle and therefore at the pre-implementation stage. Nonetheless, the question
becomes more interesting because in a study conducted by Martin and Cheung (2005) it
was supported that the BPR pays after ERP implementation and therefore at the post-
implementation stage. The project demonstrated, as the authors pointed out, that BPR can
30
achieve “dramatic improvements” in quality, cost, speed and service after the ERP
implementation and companies have the opportunity to leverage the existing ERP system
to ameliorate the return on the investment. Furthermore, O’Leary (2000) said that each
one of these approaches has a set of advantages and disadvantages. When ERP is selected
after the implementation of the BPR the system must be highly customized to fit the BPs
of the organization. This fact increases the cost many times and it is more suitable for
large organizations with large capital and financial recourses who they need system
absolutely compatible with their strategy gaining a bigger share in the market. If ERP is
selected before, the implementation of BPR is driven by the chosen system and as a result
the costs are lower because of the none or least change done on the ERP (O’Leary, 2000).
2.4.2 Organizational Change versus ERP package customization
Frequently, during the pre-implementation of ERP lifecycle, managers face a serious
dilemma. They have to decide whether their company should implement the ERP system
“as is” and adopt the functionality and procedures of it or to customize the system to the
functional requirements of the company (Jarrar et al., 2000). Nevertheless, Subramoniam
et al. (2009) concluded that ERP systems can meet only 80% of the organization’s
functional requirements while the cost of ERP customization will be raised significantly.
According to O’Leary (2000) in practice, the most famous solution with a percentage of
41% is to reengineer the BPs to fit the ERP package whereas the selection of ERP
package that fits the BPs and customize it a little has 37%. For example, when Rolls
Royce selected to implement a SAP ERP well known as SAP R/3, managers faced the
business problem that the aforementioned ERP software package in order to work
successfully needs a rigid business structure. So, they decided to change the business
practices to fit SAP R/3 system. As a result, Rolls Royce changed completely the way
that did business. Also, any potential modifications to the ERP system would have cost a
fortune to the company because firstly the newer versions of the system would have been
31
very difficult to install and secondly in terms of implementation resources, the cost of
SAP R/3 modification would has been increased significantly (Yusuf et al., 2004).
O’Leary (2000) made a distinction between “small-r” and “big-R”. As shown in figure
2.7, small-r means that very little changes take place in both business and ERP package
and the company implements a tight-fitting ERP system. On the other hand, big-R the
organization makes changes in both ERP software and its BPs to meet its functional
meets. Of course, according to figure 2.7, there are two more areas-cases. The first one is
when the BPs are changed extensively and the change on ERP software is minimal and
the second case when the business BP change is minimal and the scale of change on ERP
software is big. Each one of these areas has advantages
Source: O’Leary (2000)
Figure 2.7: Extend of organization change versus extend of ERP software change
and disadvantages. However, as Subramoniam et al. (2009) said, as we move from the
left bottom quadrant to the top right to quadrant, the rate of a successful BPR in ERP
implementation is being reduced. Therefore, the movement of the arrow shows the
highest success probability to the highest failure rate.
32
2.4.3 CSF for BPR in ERP context
The CSFs of both ERP and BPR implementations have been discussed in previous
sections. Also, the CSFs have been distinguished between several categories such as
change management, organization structure and culture and IT. However, there are not
any studies relating those CSFs of BPR with ERP projects. Although, a study of Esteves
at al. (2002) can be considered as an exception. The latter study identified four main BPR
concerns in ERP context based on the literature. These concerns, as figure 2.8 shows, are
the following:
1. Change management dimension
2. Process dimension
3. People dimension
4. Product dimension
Source: Esteves et al. (2002)
Figure 2.8: BPR concerns in ERP context
Change Management Dimension: this dimension emphasizes mostly on human and social
changes and cultural adjustments need to be done by the management of the company in
order deal with the new and more effective BP process. Critical decision should be taken
by the management such the appropriate time for BPR. Other critical decisions have to do
33
with the potential of change the culture of the company in order to fit to the new BPs and
motivate the employees to change their habits and behavior in their working area.
Process Dimension: here an extensive analysis of the current BPs is taken place and also
the implementation strategy is decided by the project team. The results will help the
project team to define which processes should be change, what processes are interrelated
and how is the team going to align the BP with ERP functions. Some critical factors of
that dimension are the use or not of external consultants and the alignment of the BPs to
the new ERP system which is very important factor in successful projects.
People Dimension: people and more specifically managers, operational staff and
consultants are very important during the project. So, apart of the selection of the most
appropriate consultancy team, employee involvement is critical too. Of course, the
support and commitment of top managers with continuous and effective communication
with the stakeholders of the project has a vital role. Finally, training and education of the
users is particularly important aspect too.
Product Dimension: The crucial role of IT infrastructure and IT experts, which have been
covered in a previous section, are involved in this dimension. IT can enhance the BPR
strategy in order to be more clear and detailed. Although the project team and
organization in general must adequately understand and identify the enabling
technologies for BPR. Finally, the selection of ERP package is massively important
because the selection will affect the level of ERP customization. It was mentioned before
that a potential ERP customization with the current BP will increase the cost of the ERP
significantly while at the same time no such major changes will be done on the BPs.
Furthermore, if the company intents to reengineer its BPs in a specific direction and the
ERP package cannot be customized to support direction that will result in a fail
implementation. So, the level of customization is a factor that needs to be consider as one
of the most critical in order to find and implement the right ERP package with the best
alignment with the BPs.
34
However, again, these dimensions seem to be a little general and as a result nothing
certain and can be said about the specific factors affecting the success of BPR
implementation in ERP project. Therefore, that fact seems to be a research gap that needs
to be explored in more depth and addressed by the researchers (Esteves at al., 2002).
2.5 Summary
The chapter gives a comprehensive review of the main concepts that are going to be
under investigation. The most important issues have to do with BPR and its relationship
with ERP implementation, are presented based on the findings of influential authors of
the field. The main two facts that ERP systems can meet only 80% of the organization’s
functional requirements (Subramoniam et al., 2009) and that a 50 to 70 per cent of BPR
implementations do not achieve the results they seek (Hammer and Champy, 1993)
become particularly critical to SMEs in which is more likely to have limited assets and
therefore a potential BPR failure may lead to ERP implementation failure with disastrous
impacts for the enterprise. All in all, BPR is considered by the researchers as one of the
most crucial CSFs of the ERP implementation projects (Bancroft et al., 1998; Jarrar et al.,
2000; Nah et al., 2001). Nevertheless extremely little research has been done on the
analysis of the CSFs of BPR having relation with ERP implementation life-cycle and the
impact of it. Therefore this aspect will be the inventive and critical point of the proposed
research and it will try to address it.
35
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1. Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to give a comprehensive explanation of the research
methodology used in the study, by describing the entire research strategy and approaches
were followed for the research design, the data collection method and the data analysis.
Specifically, using an inductive approach, interviews were selected as the qualitative
instrument for the data collection and the method of thematic analysis was used for the
qualitative analysis. Finally, the strategy of a single case study was followed in order to
have a deep and empirical investigation of BPR in ERP project.
3.2. Research approach
In order to select the most appropriate research approach to answer the research question
and meet the research objectives with reasonable evidence variety of methods were used.
The researcher evaluated the two research approaches: inductive and deductive (figure
3.1). These two approaches have a major difference. Deductive starts with a theory based
on it a researcher concludes to a testable hypothesis and data are being collected using a
quantitative approach (Flick, 1998; Saunders et al., 2003).
On the contrary, inductive approach follows a bottom-up approach. It starts with data
collection using a more qualitative approach such as interviews (Silverman, 2001). The
phenomenon under investigation required the appropriate amount of data to be gathered
and analyzed efficiently in order to generate a theoretical understanding. In other words,
the researcher after the review of the relevant literature collected the data and performed
a systematic data analysis and set up the relationship between the findings and research
objectives of the study (Hayes, 2000). The researcher evaluated the two approaches and
followed the following inductive steps:
36
a) Establish a theoretical background having a critical view of the relevant literature
and theories
b) Select the appropriate case study and obtain an empirical data
c) Data analysis of data and obtain empirical knowledge
d) Generate a posteriori theoretical framework based on the analyzed data
Figure 3.1: The research wheel: inductive approach trend (Rudestam and Newton,
1992:5)
Consequently, the researcher adopted the inductive approach as the most appropriate
method to investigate the CSFs of BPR in ERP context.
3.3. Qualitative approach
Choosing the appropriate method between qualitative and quantitative methods always
depends on the outcomes and findings of the study (Silverman, 2001). Again, differences
between the approaches are quite apparent. Quantitative method emphasizes on the
37
quantification of data collected and analyzed whereas data collected using a qualitative
approach can not be quantified and are involved research texts rather than figures,
statistics and numbers (Flick, 1998; Silverman, 2001).
The researcher carried out the qualitative approach for several reasons. First of all,
because of the nature of inductive approach, the qualitative method can be supported
more efficiently and therefore it can be combined with it very well. Secondly, qualitative
approach tends to be used for investigation of participants’ beliefs and perspectives about
social phenomena when the boundaries between the phenomenon and context are not so
clear, such as BPR implementation in ERP context.
Moreover, the study tried to explore phenomena and issues that cannot be measured.
People’s perspectives about the CSFs of BPR cannot be measured because there is not
enough literature to identify and conclude with a set of reliable for investigation CSFs.
Finally, Flick (1998) claims that qualitative research is suitable for interpretation of
respondents’ perceptions and attitudes since it studies human and social phenomena into
working environment. Participants have been interviewed according to the different
departments and BP of the case company that they work for. This fact also confirms what
Flick (1998) said and empowers his claim.
3.4. The Case study
According to Baxter and Jack (2008) a qualitative case study is a strategy “which is
taking into consideration how a phenomenon is influenced by the context within which it
is situated”. Yin (2003) reinforces this statement by saying that a case study investigates
a phenomenon whose boundaries and context are not so clear evident. Therefore, the
research project used the strategy of a single case study as the most applicable approach
to achieve the research objectives due to the fact that ERP implementation is very closely
related to its application context and BPR as a consequence.
38
The case company is “EKA Group” which is a Cypriot multibusiness SME with
operations also in Greece and Dubai. It is considered as a retail and also trading
organization with industrial products, construction operations and specialized
constructions. EKA Group sells building materials (e.g ceramics, wood, stonecrete),
sanitary ware, swimming pools and construction systems.
EKA Group was selected due to the fact that it has a relatively recent (2006) BPR
implementation as a result of the ERP system entire project. Having multiple business
requirements and problems with its BPs’ efficiency, EKA has fully implemented the top
brand SAP Business One ERP package along the key functional divisions in order to
integrate all company locations, departments and BPs to support its operations. SAP
Business One is specifically designed for SMEs. Consequently, EKA Group was taken
under evaluation and finally is an appropriate case study for the proposed project.
Furthermore, the ERP implementation vendor company which was responsible for BPR
was involved in the study. The aforementioned company is referred as ERP
Implementation Vendor Company in order to protect its anonymity. The company is a
partner of SAP AG and provides services and solution of the German company. Its
operations have to do especially with IT and business consulting and management. The
people of the vendor company as professionals know the case in depth and their
contribution was extremely positive. So, the vendor company is associated with the top
brand of the field and therefore the successful implementation in EKA Group makes the
case study more complete and appropriate to meet the objectives of the study.
39
3.5. Data Collection
3.5.1. Interview
As it was mentioned before the inductive research approach will be followed. Therefore
the collection of data was achieved by using the main qualitative research method of
interviews. Interview is a technique that allows in depth face to face discussion with the
participant and helps the researcher to understand people thoughts, experiences and
feelings about the given topic (Saunders et al., 2003). It is also a technique that helps the
researcher to have a better understanding of peoples’ thoughts and focus on the key
objects those he intents to explore during the interview session (Punch, 2005).
Normally, three different types of interviews are being applied depending on the project
aim and objectives. Structured interviews in which the research strictly defines exactly
what is going to be discussed and therefore the content is predefined (Hayes, 2000). On
the other hand, the type of unstructured interview is being also used by several
researchers. This type includes more general questions and there is no in advance
specification. The conversation is more flexible and spontaneous and question can
amend at any time of the interview (Punch, 2005).
The last type is the semi-structured interview which attracts the majority of the
researchers. This type can be seen as a mixture of the two previous types. It allows an
open but at the same time structured discussion and therefore questions can potentially
emerge more easily (Flick, 1998). This type offers flexibility to add any new questions
during the interview process and generally it combines the benefits of the other two
types. Subsequently, the type of semi-structured interviews was adopted by the researcher
to exploit the combination of those benefits.
The face to face approach was used to conduct the interviews. Face to face way was
preferred by researcher because it allows in depth discussions with high rates of response
by interviewees. It also offers the opportunity to interviewer to make the appropriate
40
explanations for the best understanding of the question while at the same time interviewer
can take any gesture or face expressions by interviewees (Frey and Oishi, 1995).
3.5.2. Interview design
First of all the main aspects related to BPR and ERP of the most relevant literature and
the most influential authors will be carried out concluding to a general literature review.
In order to categorize the CSFs and also structure and guide the conversation with
interviewees, 4 predefined categories were used from the study of Esteves et al. (2002)
about the dimensions related to BPR in ERP implementation.
In addition, in order to achieve efficient exploration of the CSFs and their consequences
the interview script was structured according to the 4 categories. Categories were
explored one by one following four types of questions (Saunders et al., 2003; Yates,
2004):
Initiating questions for open the discussion about the predefined categories,
Follow-up questions for encouraging participants to expand on a specific answer
given by them without changing the topic,
Trigger questions for stimulating and trigger and refocus participants’ thinking to
get an efficient response and
Closed questions in order to confirm interviewees’ opinion by making them to
answer yes or no.
Consequently, the final interview script was established by using the above mentioned
design (Appendix A1)
3.5.3. Participants
The interview script was also designed based on the diversity of interviewees and their
position in the company. People from different departments (sales, warehouse, financial,
purchasing) have been interviewed. Furthermore, in order to obtain the best
41
understanding and develop a holistic view about the factors affected the success of BPR
in ERP project and finally meet the objectives, interviews involved people from all the
levels of the company (top and departmental managers, IT staff and operational staff).
Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted. Eighteen with EKA staff and two
with vendor’s company consultants (Table 3.1).
EKA Group ERP Implementation
Vendor Company
CEO
Top Managers
Systems and Control Manager
IT Administrator
Departmental Managers
Sales
Financial
Warehouse
Purchase and Logistics
Operational Staff
Sales Clerks
Purchasing Clerks
Credit-Accountants
Office Administrator
Project Manager – Consultant
ERP Implementation Consultant
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
2
1
1
1
Total 18 2
Table 3.1: Positions of interviewees
3.5.4. Interview administration
Participants were assigned into groups according to the structure of the organization.
Therefore people from different levels of the organizational pyramid and departments
who are involved in the new BPs and interact with the system have been interviewed. The
interviews were digitally recorded using a professional recorder after obtaining the prior
permission and consent of interviewees. Interviews duration varied from 20 minutes to 1
hour and the collection lasted 5 days. The transcription of interviews was carried out at
the end of each day in order to enhance the reliability of data given (Saunders et al.,
42
2003). Finally, the open ended questions with no time limits offered the interviewee the
opportunity to express his/her view in depth. This fact made the analysis and comparison
of interviews easier.
3.6. Qualitative Data Analysis
After the collection of the data the approach of qualitative thematic analysis will be
performed. Braun and Clarke (2006:79) pointed out that thematic analysis is “a method
for identifying, analyzing and reporting patterns (themes) within data”. By analyzing the
interviews with that method, codes and themes should emerge. Also, thematic analysis
was combined with a priori coding of the four predefined categories identified in
Esteves’ et al. (2002) project. Moreover, adopting the principles of Braun and Clarke’s
(2006) study about thematic analysis, the five steps were followed are shown in table 2.3.
Stages Description
1. Familiarization with collected
data
2. Coding the data
3. Connection of codes and
identification of themes
4. Reviewing themes and concept
maps generation
5. Producing the findings report
The researcher read the interviews transcription many times
in order to acquaint himself with data.
Using the codes came out from data and the a priori coding,
the researcher developed a coding scheme.
Connecting the codes according their relations and
relevance and start grouping them to themes.
Check weather themes are related with the coded quotes
and start generating concept maps.
Final reporting of analyzed data using the selected quotes
relating them to the research question, aim and objectives.
Table 3.2: The five stages used in thematic analysis
During the second stage code related to the CSFs, motivations and consequences were
identified. These codes were revised again and again and therefore some of them have
43
been deleted or merged. So, the initial coding scheme has been established (Appendix
A2). In addition, in order to highlight the hierarchy between themes (main and sub-
themes) and codes and the relationship between CSFs and the consequences for not
meeting them the initial coding scheme was updated to the final coding scheme
(Appendix A3).
Also, concept maps were established to represent and organize the findings emerged
from the analysis. The CSFs of each factor is linked with the consequences for not
meeting it according to the coding scheme. Concept maps were produced as shown in the
figure 3.2.
Main theme Sub-theme Code (CSF) Code (Consequence)
Figure 3.2: Connections between main theme, sub-themes and codes
A limitation of thematic analysis is that sometimes the themes are not fully distinguished
and that happens because they are not “internally coherent, consistent and distinctive”
(Braun and Clarke, 2006:96). So after the analysis of the data true statements based on
the evidence gathered will be resulted.
Finally, all interviews were conducted in Greek. Also, the data transcription was done in
Greek. Although, the data analysis was conducted in English based on the Greek
transcriptions. Consequently, in order to avoid any mistakes and misinterpretations in
translation and increase the trustworthiness of the data, only selected quotations were
translated to support and findings.
Change
Management CSFs
e.g Sufficient
stimulation of
staff receptiveness
e.g Inadequate staff
involvement
CSF of BPR
in ERP
44
3.7. Summary
All in all, the study used the inductive approach to meet the research objectives with
reasonable evidence. Initially, the theoretical background gave the appropriate theoretical
knowledge to the researcher about the concepts of BPR and ERP implementations and
related issues, in order to select the suitable case to obtain the qualitative data. Moreover,
the five stages of qualitative thematic analysis allowed obtaining empirical knowledge
and generating a framework about the CSFs and their consequences based on the
analyzed data.
45
Chapter 4: Findings
4.1 Introduction
Due to the large number and diverse features of CSFs, the identification of them was very
time-consuming task. Although, in order to frame and structure the outcomes with a
meaningful way, CSFs have been identified are categorized into four predefined
dimensions – categories. CSFs are divided into the following categories:
1. Change Management CSFs: five CSFs
2. Product CSFs: eight CSFs
3. Process CSFs: five CSFs
4. People CSFs: eleven CSFs
Besides the CSFs that belong to a specific category and they have a major part of the
findings chapter, the motivations to implement BPR in ERP project were identified too.
Also, the consequences for not meeting each one of the CSFs are discussed.
Consequently, apart from the motivations which are presented first, a total of twenty-nine
CSFs and twenty-seven consequences were identified by analyzing the interview data.
Finally, in response to 2.2.5 session there is a further discussion at the end of each
category about the relevance of each dimension to the project lifecycle.
4.2 Motivations to BPR in ERP project
The factors actually motivate companies to reengineer their BPs are differ from
organization to organization. As discussed in the literature review chapter, BPR is
considered as one of the most critical factors of a successful ERP implementation.
Therefore the motivation to facilitate business and make ERP project a successful case is
one of the most basic reasons of BPR in ERP implementations (Nah et al., 2001; Nah et
46
al., 2006). This aforementioned fact is confirmed by the Systems and Controls manager
of EKA:
We wanted to ensure that ERP system would have been successfully
implemented. In order to increase the probabilities of success we
reengineered our BPs based in order to support the proposed functionality
and best practices of the system. That was a basic motivation (Systems
and Control Manager, EKA).
Moreover, other factors related to the performance of internal operations and therefore
operational efficiency propel enterprises to BPR. Al-Mashari and Zairi (1999) stress that
when organizations try to streamline their BPs, apart from the operational efficiency
improvement they also try to reduce BP cycle time and its cost too. As a result
operational efficiency is interrelated with performance and productivity of employees and
business in general. Having these, benchmarking and decision making which play a vital
role in organization life seem to be supported more satisfactorily. CEO of EKA
reinforced this notion by saying:
Some of the most important motivations for BPR were to improve the
current situation of the operations which was not as efficient as we wanted
to be. […] Our aims before the decision for implementing an ERP system
were to improve the efficiency of all functional areas, to reduce BPs cycle
time and costs and thus to help our staff to increase its productivity and
performance within BPs. Now, the decision made by management proved
to be the best securing our company’s competitiveness for the future
(CEO, EKA).
Further analysis of the interview data showed additional factors motivated EKA to BPR.
Senior managers claimed that the company was motivated by factors such as the accuracy
and integrity of information and also integration of systems and data along the
departments of organization.
47
Many times at the past we had problems with sales order processing, stock
control and job costing. An order for example may have lasted the double
time than the normal duration. Apart from that, sometimes an order was
placed but the stock was not updated and the products were not in stock.
That cost a lot of money to the company. Therefore, we wanted to change
everything that caused these kinds of problems. The integration of our
information systems with real time and accurate information were some of
our basic needs (Sales Manager, EKA).
Summarizing the factors motivated the case company to reengineer its BP in ERP
implementation we have the following motivations:
Facilitate business and ERP project
Improve operational efficiency
Accurate information across departments
Integration between systems and departments
Streamline BPs
Cost reduction
Reduce response time
Increase staff productivity and performance
Improve management reporting – decision making and benchmarking
48
4.3 The Critical Successful Factors (CSFs)
4.3.1 Change Management CSFs
BPR implementation in ERP projects has a significant impact on human and social
related side of an organization. Thus, a successful implementation of such project
requires large organizational changes not only in the structure but also changes in the
culture of the company (Zabjek et al., 2009). This statement came true in the case of
EKA too. For the implementation in the case-company the following five critical factors
have been identified which affected the project success positively, facilitating a
harmonious insertion of the new BPs in business environment. Also, the consequences
for not meeting each factor are presented (Figure 4.1).
Competent reward and motivation systems
The organizational change brought by reengineering the majority of the BPs in EKA
Group was relatively considerable. As a result, employees had many difficulties in
adopting these changes.
In order to motivate its staff having a smooth insertion in the new BPs and
also increasing their productivity management divided us into several
groups. The group with the highest levels of performance was given as a
reward a journey to a foreign country of their choice. That choice of the
management was proved very smart (Systems and Controls Manager).
As clearly shown in that statement, top management tried to encourage and motivate the
staff using an incentive system confirming what Towers (1994) pointed out about reward
and motivation systems.
Towers (1994) also explains that when something goes wrong in BPR then the
consequences are emerged like a chain pattern. That was confirmed by interviewees’
49
attitude when they had been asked about the consequences for not meeting a specific
CSF. “If there was no reward system then our involvement would have been very little
and not enough for the company needs. Inadequate involvement would have possibly
caused conflict between BPs” (Sales Manager, EKA).
Sufficient stimulation of staff receptiveness
Apart from the major changes in processes BPR requires a fundamental thinking of how
people within and without the company are managed. The majority of interviewees
responded that the management of the company tried to stimulate their receptiveness in
order to think about changes positively preparing them appropriately for the BPR. While
the level of acceptance is high, the employees become and remain not only positive to
BPR related change but also flexible, eager and pro-active (Jackson, 1997). “The
managers tried to make us feel more confident about the changes. From my point of view
that attitude eliminated my worries and suspicion and finally I was willing to change my
previous boring working routine” (Invoicing Clerk, EKA Group).
The consequences of this factor are similar to the reward motivation systems because of
the interrelated nature of the two factors. It is widely accepted that if management does
not try to stimulate its staff receptiveness, the staff will resist to the change initially. Even
if staff tries to involve in the project, that involvement will be inadequate. That will cause
a project delay too.
Create a new effective culture
Organizational culture includes values, beliefs and organizational behavior in general
(Nah et al., 2001). This is why is extremely important in successful BPR implementation.
It is not a simple task to change the culture of a company and develop a new more
effective one in a few days.
50
The creation of a new more effective organizational culture was one of the
most major tasks. We tried to inculcate a new positive attitude to
employees and prepare the appropriate conditions for their working
environment. The new BPs along with ERP functions required a new
effective culture. Co-operation and co-ordination between actors within
the company are now two new values based on the new culture and the
new processes. If we had not done that the philosophy of the company
would have been remain as it was before which was very different from
the philosophy required by such organizational changes (Overseas
Business development Manager, EKA Group).
Therefore, it is clearly emerged that top management of the case company tried to
develop a new more effective culture based on the new BP adding more value to the
company and using a decentralized and participative way of working.
If the company had failed to introduce an effective culture based on BPR related changes
then philosophy of the company would not have been the required to support the changes
and the staff would have been remained unwilling to the new business environment.
Sufficient customer focus
Customer expectations should always be in the epicenter for the BPs in which customer is
involved. Therefore, organizations should reengineer the processes in order to improve
the quality of customer services (Chang, 1994). Chang’s statement is confirmed by Sales
clerks’ responses as shown below:
The combination of the new BPs and ERP system changed not only my
life but also the customer’s. The new processes show a clear focus to
customers. The sale order processing for instance is extremely improved.
The cycle time was reduced and I believe the customer satisfaction is at
the highest level (Sales Clerk, EKA Group).
51
As shown, the company focused on customer needs. That fact increased accountability of
the entire process and not only the part that the customer is involved, enhancing finally
customer responsiveness.
As stated by participants “some of the consequences like customer dissatisfaction, are
quite obvious” (Accountant, EKA). But at the same time that means the reengineering
strategy is ill-defined and therefore the value added to the new BPs is minimum (Sales
Clerk, EKA).
Clear vision and scope – explicit BPR plan
Clear vision, objectives and scope of the project were perceived as major factor by top
management – interviewees. Undoubtedly, such important project with so many changes
across the organization, requires a very clear short and long-term plan to succeed (Al-
Mashari and Zairi, 1999).
In order to steer and coordinate the project appropriately we produced a
precise BPR plan based on the ERP system, including the potential
tangible and strategic benefits. The plan also outlined the cost and the
proposed resources that probably needed (CEO, EKA Group).
“If the plan was not clear the consequences would have been very harmful for the project
and company in general. […] Apart from the higher cost and project delay the
reengineered BPs would have been inefficiently and insufficiently changed” (Systems
and Control Manager, EKA Group). The above statement demonstrates that the
consequences for not meeting that factor have a damaging impact on the project.
52
Further Discussion
As discussed above at the beginning of this session, change management dimension has
to do with the human and social side of the BPR implementation. If someone has a quick
look at the CSFs of this category he will realize what the interviewees indirectly said
about the change management and its relation to the project lifecycle. If the project
lifecycle is divided into pre-implementation, implementation and post-implementation
phases (see 2.2.5), the CSFs of this category are particularly apparent during pre-
implementation stage of BPR lifecycle and therefore. That does not mean the change
management pays only at the first stage of BPR. In contrast, it still be apparent during the
whole project but with less focus.
53
Figure 4.1: Concept map of Change Management category CSFs
Change
Management
CSFs
Sufficient
stimulation of
staff receptiveness
Competent
reward and
motivation systems
Create a new
effective culture
Clear vision and
scope – explicit
BPR plan
Sufficient
customer focus
Staff reluctance and resistance to
change
Conflicts
between BP
Inadequate staff
involvement
Hire / loss (un)
necessary
staff
Reengineer
ing plan and
strategy is
ill-defined
The selected
ERP system cannot support
the new
philosophy and culture of the
company
Low level of
customer services –
customer
dissatisfaction
Wrong
selection of BP to be
reengineered
Low value-
added to
BP
Reengineering plan
and
strategy is ill-defined
Higher cost than
expected
Reengineerin
g plan and strategy is ill-
defined
Low value-
added to
BP
Project fund
and resources are
insufficient
Project
delays
Project
delays
Staff
reluctance and resistance
to change
Inadequate
staff
involvement
Staff
reluctance and
resistance to change
54
4.3.2 Process CSFs
The process that is going to be followed for the BPR in ERP context is extremely major
for the BPR success (Esteves et al., 2002). Therefore, the CSFs of this category are
relevant with the process-strategy that the project team with the top management of the
case organization are going to follow for a successful implementation (Figure 4.2).
Process CSFs are indirectly referred to the human factor too. Although, the relevance is
not so close. Finally, this category can potentially create BP blueprints in which the
previous BPs are defined and the new BPs are being built.
Efficient BP seminars-workshops across divisions
Stemberger and Kovacic (2008:261) stressed out the significance of assessing the
situation of the company early in the project getting adequate details about the BP. That
can be achieved more sufficiently by calling the staff of the company and having a
comprehensive discussion with them.
We were called by the project team to join a workshop to discuss various
points about the BPs of our division where important points about the
project was explained to us using the approach of case studies. If we had
not attended this workshops maybe we would not have been persuaded to
change the our routine (Shipping Purchasing Coordinator, EKA Group).
From the data analysis, it is emerged that this kind of seminars and workshops proved
quite important especially for the employees understanding. Furthermore BP workshops
helped amazingly the project team to have a better understanding of the entire company
and its current BP.
Interviewees also claimed that the consequences if a project does meet this CSF have to
the BP and inappropriate analysis and assessment and secondly with them. “BP
55
workshops helped us to have a better understanding of the scope of the project”
(Invoicing Clerk).
Define the inefficient BPs which must change
Defining which BPs are inefficient in order to follow what the system proposes is a one
of the initial steps of the reengineering process and a critical component of a successful
BPR (Motwani et al, 1998). The less time-consuming and non-profitable BPs with lowest
added value should be immediately changed and fit system’s functionality. For that,
process gaps and bottlenecks should be identified as early as possible.
We tried to evaluate every single BP and examine at which points the
process should have been changed or modified. Moreover, we established
benchmarks and baselines for future evaluation of the same BP. […] That
task was extremely important. The final decision with BP changed had a
positive impact on the project success (ERP Implementation Consultant,
ERP Vendor Implementation Company).
From the above mentioned statement it becomes clear that defining which BP must
change for the fine-tuning between BP and system has a crucial role as an initial step of
the BPR.
As one of the prime steps of the reengineering process it is obvious that any omissions
will have extremely negative consequences and gaps between the supported and required
functionality for the project. “I believe one the most important consequences is the gap
that is going to be generated between what the company wants to do and what can be
done. That fact causes low integration between departments and therefore additional
effort from us”. Some significant consequences arise from that IT Administrator’s
response.
56
Adequate staff involvement based on processes
When the BP are reengineered the staff of the company should actively and sufficiently
involved (Jackson, 1997). Human factor affects the BPR but organization staff is equally
affected by BPR too. So, staff from all levels of the company must involve in
reengineering based on the processes that they work for or belong in because not only for
the knowledge and experience they have about BPs but also because any mistakes and
errors will affect individuals.
Adequate staff involvement will help the project team to make the
appropriate decision in general. If the staff do involve sufficiently the
analysis of BP will be insufficient and then the wrong BP will be selected
for reengineering (Warehouse Manager, EKA Group).
Subsequently, the response of warehouse manager illuminates the importance of the
factor by stressing out that the wrong selection of BPs and insufficient BP analysis will
be the consequences for not meeting the factor.
Appropriate allocation of roles and responsibilities
The management of the company having the appropriate consultancy from the vendor
should allocate roles and responsibilities to the right person within the company who
have the relevant knowledge to manage the task or role given to them. A clear and formal
allocation of roles will simplify the project significantly.
The allocation of roles and responsibilities to the experts based on the
needs of the Reengineering process and ERP project in general was a
significant action to control and direct the change […] Key users in
specific cases were very helpful (Chief Accountant, EKA).
[…] the consequences will have a primary impact on us, the staff, because
if the allocation is not the appropriate some of us should put an additional
57
effort. Moreover, there is a possibility for us to loss our job as unnecessary
staff for the new BPs (Office Administrator, EKA).
It becomes clearer now that the above-mentioned factor with key users in several points
of the company during the project is necessary for the project success. The importance is
also reflected in office administrator’s response about the consequences. The staff of the
company will be the first stakeholder affected negatively by not meeting the factor.
Adequate integration between BP and jobs
Adequacy of human resources and their integration with the various BP is another factor
that seems to be equally important to reengineering process success. Job orientation
should be based on the new BP and that was early understood by top management of
EKA Group. “The alignment between the potential BP and jobs was a difficult task but
we did it carefully and finally successfully. Yet, we hire people to support the new BP
and that also supports fine integration” (CEO, EKA Group)
New staff was recruited with specific skills and knowledge with the staff
existed in the company helped not only supporting the project but also
supporting the company especially in the post implementation phase. But
if had not do that the human resources would not have been allocated
appropriately and the integration between departments would have been
remained at the same low level (Overseas Business Development
Manager).
So, it is evidence that organization should pay attention into this point and recruit or find
people inside the company because if it does not the conflict between BPs will still be
apparent and therefore integration between BPs and departments will not be the required
for the project success.
58
Continuous Monitoring and evaluation
The continuous monitoring and evaluation of the project progress is a prerequisite factor
for a successful BPR (Motwani et al, 1998). BPR efforts should be measured against the
objectives and plan produced during the pre-implementation phase. If something does not
follow what was decided, it must be modified or redesigned accordingly. What Motwani
et al. (1998) pointed out seems to be valid in the case of EKA Group. “The use of the
appropriate methodology allowed us to monitor and evaluate the project progress
continuously. Inefficient monitoring of the project could have been caused delays and
therefore the cost would have been increased” (Project Manager – Consultant, ERP
Implementation Vendor).
Proper implementation sequence between BPR and ERP
The debatable issue of the literature review chapter about the implementation sequence of
BPR and ERP is being answered here by the case company. Subramoniam et al. (2009)
concluded that the proper approach is the simultaneous implementation of BPR and ERP.
The project team followed that approach implementing BPR during the whole ERP
project. However, BPR was apparent mostly at the early stages of ERP lifecycle.
It is more appropriate to put more reengineering efforts at the pre-
implementation stage of ERP lifecycle when everything is being assessed
and analyzed. Although, during entire lifecycle of ERP it is reasonable to
have BPR procedures until the needs of BP are finally covered (ERP
implementation Consultant, ERP Implementation Vendor Company).
The participants and especially those from the vendor company argued that the
consequences are more technical rather than human or organizational. “If you follow a
wrong sequence then the supported functionality by the system to not fit with the new
BPs. Also the cost of the project will be higher than expected to be ”(ERP
Implementation Consultant). So, it clearly emerged that inappropriate sequence between
59
BPR and ERP will cause a gap between BPs and the system and therefore the integration
between them could have not been achieved.
Proper implementation strategy
Apart from the proper implementation sequence companies should follow the proper
implementation strategy. In EKA case step by step strategy was followed successfully.
The step by step implementation strategy that is proposed by ASAP
methodology helped to continuously evaluate the project with tools that
provides. It also helped us to streamline the implementation and as a result
the BPs of the company too (ERP Consultant, ERP Implementation
Vendor Company).
The aforementioned strategy confirms what Schniederjans and Kim (2003) said about the
predominate success implementation strategy for a successful BPR. If the step by step
strategy is not followed then the consequences will have to do with the integration
between departments, BPs and the supported by the system functionality. “The modules
of the system will not be integrated with the BPs of the department and therefore the
value added to the BPs will be minimal” said the Implementation Consultant of Vendor
Company mentioning the most important consequences.
Further Discussion
Process category CSFs has relevance with whole implementation lifecycle. It cannot be
said securely that process dimension is more relevant with a specific phase. Although,
looking at each separate factor and participants allegations about them it can be said that
is a little more apparent at the pre-implementation phase. The last two CSFs of the
category for example, have to be decided early in the project. Nevertheless, process
dimension is also relevant with the other two phases. For instance, continuous monitoring
and evaluation is obvious that it never stops during the project.
60
Figure 4.2: Concept map of Process category CSFs
Process CSFs
Appropriate
allocation of roles
and responsibilities
Adequate staff
involvement
based on
processes
Adequate
integration
between BP and
jobs
Proper
implementation
sequence between
BPR and ERP
Define the
inefficient business
processes which
must change
Efficient Business
Process seminars-
workshops across
divisions
Proper
implementation
strategy
Continuous
Monitoring and
evaluation
Low integration
of BP between
departments
Inadequate
analysis and BP
assessment
Wrong team
formation
Hire / loss (un)
necessary staff
Inefficient training
and education –
low skilled staff
Project delays
Staff reluctance
and resistance to
change
Higher cost
than expected
Additional
effort from
employees
Gap between functionality
supported and required
functionality
Low integration
of BP between
departments
Project fund and
resources are
insufficient
Inadequate staff
involvement
Reengineering
plan and strategy
is ill-defined
Low integration
of BP between
departments
Conflicts
between BP
Staff reluctance
and resistance to
change
Low integration of BP
between departments
Additional
effort from
employees
Inefficient training
and education –
low skilled staff
Additional
effort from
employees
Inappropriate use
of IT as enabler
for BPR
Low value-
added to BP
Wrong selection of
BP to be
reengineered
Wrong selection of
BP to be
reengineered
Low value-
added to BP
Hire / loss (un)
necessary staff
Inefficient training
and education –
low skilled staff
Low integration
between BP and ERP
package (modules)
Low value-
added to BP
Gap between functionality
supported and required
functionality
Low value-
added to BP
Project delays
Inadequate staff
involvement
Low integration
between BP and ERP
package (modules)
61
4.3.3 Product CSFs
CSFs related to the product can be defined as the factors related to the technical
perspective and the product specification. Normally, product’s CSFs have close
relationship with ERP system which is the actual and tangible product. Issues like the
selection of ERP package and the vendor of it have a more focus. Although, other critical
factors have to with ERP customization, IS integration along the department and BP of
the company are also related to that category (Figure 4.3).
Suitable ERP package selection
The selection of the appropriate ERP system plays a vital role in facilitating the BPR
efforts (Stemberger and Kovacic, 2008:261). “[…] the decision for the appropriate ERP
system was very difficult. We just wanted a system with best practices embedded, having
appropriate alignment with our BPs” (CEO, EKA Group). Apart from those two specific
criteria, IT Administrator of the company continued:
Moreover the scalability of the system was important issue too. Of course,
the stability of product was another criterion in order to make the right
decision.
The above statements confirmed what Siriginidi (2000) supported about the selection of
the appropriate system and the criteria a company should take into account. Although, the
adequacy in modules and functionality and therefore the compatibility and capabilities of
the system to support the entire business area and needs of the company as a SME had a
crucial role for the ERP package final decision.
“If the ERP package is not the suitable for the organization and does not support what the
BPs was suppose to do, the consequences will affect the integration between BPs and
ERP modules.
62
Suitable ERP Implementation vendor selection
Selecting the suitable ERP package does not mean at the same time that a company
selected the appropriate ERP vendor. The decision for the latter is equally critical with
the previous factor. The analysis of interview data indicated that the EKA Group wanted
an EPR Implementation with specific characteristics. The first was the vendor company
to have a consistent temperament and philosophy in order to match with the philosophy
of EKA. Secondly, the prospects of the vendor were very was excellent because it was
associated with the top brand of the field “EKA Group has always been associated with
the top brands” (CEO, EKA Group). Thirdly and most importantly, EKA tried to find a
company with the lowest level of instability looking the history of candidate vendors.
Our experience with our partners shows that we should always the history
of the company we are going to have business with. The stability of ERP
vendor was at lowest level and that made us feel more confident with them
(Systems and Control Manager, EKA Group).
The consequences for meeting that factor can have an extremely negative impact on the
project which may fail at the end. Particularly, the level of instability can have the
greatest impact on project failure. “If the vendor is not the appropriate the communication
will ineffective and their support will be inefficient” (IT Administrator, EKA). Thus,
looking the statements above it is surely emerged that EKA paid much attention on the
ERP vendor selection in order to have better chance to succeed.
Effective IT infrastructure
As discussed in 2.3.4 session, IT infrastructure is considered by many researchers as a
vital enabler and therefore a critical component for a successful BPR (Al-Mashari and
Zairi, 1999; Siriginidi, 2000; Subramoniam et al., 2009). That fact was early realized by
management of EKA. Having the consultancy of IT people in the company and the
external consultants they upgraded the IT infrastructure efficiently to support the new
processes and changes brought by ERP system in general. New hardware such as
63
computers, servers, databases and networks of the latest generation of technology was
bought.
Our previous IT infrastructure could not support the requirements of the
new processes and ERP system in general. The need to introduce new
hardware was obvious. There is no doubt that the new infrastructure had a
positive impact on productivity and it reduced significantly the time cycle
of our BPs (IT Administrator, EKA Group).
The response of the IT administrator who has better knowledge and expertise on such
issues illuminates that the case company had seriously taken into account the factor of IT
infrastructure.
“If we had not changed our infrastructure our plan could have not been supported
sufficiently and the cost of the project would have been increased significantly. That
would have led the project to failure and the organization in a very difficult situation”.
The answer of IT Administrator who responded in a similar way with Logistics Manager
of the company outlines the consequences for not meeting this factor.
Adequate ERP customization
ERP customization to suit the BPs needs is considered as an inevitable task (Nah et al.,
2001). On the other hand, Holland et al. (1999) supported the notion that organizations
should change their processes to suit the ERP package with minimum customization.
However, EKA’s project did not follow Holland’s opinion in full. The majority of the
BPs were designed according the processes embedded within the system but at the same
time, ERP customization was neither minimal nor extensive. ERP was customized
whenever was necessary for the best was tuning of the processes and also to add extra
functionality within the processes.
64
Most of the BPs were mapped to ERP’s. In certain cases processes were
supported with customization and/or custom development (Project
Manager – ERP Consultant, ERP Implementation Vendor Company)
In specific cases we customized the system to fit processes. Sometimes
that was quite painful because of the strange nature of EKA and its
multiple divisions (ERP Implementation Consultant, ERP Implementation
Vendor Company).
The interviewees claimed that the consequences for not meeting this factor are related to
the integration between BP, ERP system and departments. “If we had not customized the
system the integration between departments would have been very low” said a
Departmental Manager of EKA Group.
The above statements are clear evidence that the system customization done on the
system was adequate and sufficient to fit the BPs and support the business needs
whenever was necessary. Therefore, this is a critical factor for a successful BPR
implementation in ERP projects too.
Adequate information systems integration
Organizations apart from ERP system have some other information systems (IS)
installed. BP are linked with these IS in many points. EKA has a CRM which is
integrated not only with its BP but also with the ERP system. “This recursive relationship
between systems has an impact on the information transferred within BP. That
information should be always accurate, consistent and in the place that it should be at
specific point in time (Systems and Control Manager, EKA Group). From that view the
CSF is arisen. The integration between IS should be in adequate levels in order to
contribute to a successful implementation. Inadequate IS integration can cause inefficient
decision making especially for the top management. Low integration means not real time
information which can increase of course the cost of a wrong decision.
65
Further Discussion
Having a quick glance at the critical factors of this category and having in mind what
interviewees said about them it can be said that product dimension is more apparent at the
second phase of the project lifecycle, the implementation phase. That conclusion is
mainly come from the fact that ERP system is partly customized to fit BP and to be
integrated with the rest IS of the organization. So, there is a clear development –
construction of a tangible product which is more related to the implementation phase.
However, product dimension is also related with the other two phases but it reaches a
peak in the middle phase.
66
Figure 4.3: Concept map of Product category CSFs
Product CSFs
Effective IT
infrastructure
Suitable ERP
Implementation
vendor selection
Adequate
ERP
customization
Suitable ERP
package
selection
Adequate
information
systems integration
Project delays
Higher cost
than
expected
Insufficient- bad
communication
between staff and vendor’s
consultants
Low
integration between BP
and ERP
package (modules)
Low
integration of BP
between
departments
Gap between
functionality supported and
required
functionality
Low
integration of BP between
departments
Incorrect data to the
system –
low data quality
Managers get
incorrect reporting –
information
Inefficient
decision making
Low
integration between
BP and
ERP package
(modules)
Inappropri
ate use of IT as
enabler for
BPR
Higher cost
than expected
Project
fund and resources
are
insufficient
Inefficient support by
vendors
consultants
Reengineer
ing plan and
strategy is
ill-defined
Additional
effort from employees
Project fund and resources
are
insufficient
The selected ERP system cannot
support the new
philosophy and culture
Wrong
selection of BP to be
reengineered
67
4.3.4 People CSFs
People CSFs can be defined as the factors which are inextricably dependent and linked
with the human factor (Esteves et al., 2002). Some examples are the factors have to do
with top managers, consultants and project team in general (Figure 4.4). However, the
management of BPR implementation in ERP projects is an extremely dangerous
challenge. Everything is decided by top managers who have the greatest direct influence
on the project because of their decision power. Therefore the majority of CSFs belongs to
this category. Although, that fact does not imply that this dimension is more vital for the
project success because all the four dimensions are equally important.
Sufficient Top management support and commitment
Top management support and commitment as a CSF was mentioned by all participants as
the one of the predominant factors which led the company to a successful BPR
implementation.
One of the 3 key factors affected the success of the BPR in ERP project
was the top management support of the company during the whole project
lifecycle. (ERP Implementation Consultant, ERP Vendor Company).
Top management of EKA using various methods tried to persuade, guide and support the
staff of the company for the best results. In order to that, they gained a clear
understanding of the goals, benefits, limitations, risks and needs of the project.
The top management support was the cornerstone of our success. An
example of the great support given by top managers was the unbelievable
patience that they showed in order to help the most difficult to teach
employees trying to identify and improve their weaknesses (Sales
Manager).
68
Finally, CEO of EKA reinforced what Holland et al. (1999) said about the top managers
who should have the appropriate know-how of their company and what is going on
around it, which is really important. “It is not only to take the decision to it. You have to
be able to do it, you have to be about it”.
Again, the consequences for not meeting that factor have a negative impact on the project
progress and therefore its success. “If top management does not give sufficient support
the project will not have many chances to be successful. The plan will be unclear and
resources and fund needed will be underestimated and insufficient”. Logistics Manager’s
response demonstrates the ill-defined reengineering plan and strategy and insufficient
project and resources are the most important consequences for not meeting this factor.
Sufficient staff education and training
The role of education and training is considered by Al-Mashari and Zairi (1999) as a
major for BPR implementation success. From the data analysis it emerged that this factor
was taken by project team and staff very seriously. Management of EKA made clear that
all employees of the company would have been educated and trained as much as was
needed to the new BP and system.
The project team spent many hours to train us. It was really painful for all.
But it was a must priority. Therefore, our skills and knowledge about the
new BP and the ERP system have been improved significantly. We also
became more computer literate and we can manage each procedure with
better results. […] If those sessions were not conducted I believe we
would have resisted more to change the way of working and therefore we
our skills would have not been the same as they are now (Accountant,
EKA).
This quote shows that the training sessions took place in the company were extremely
helpful for the staff to develop the appropriate skills and adapt to the new working
69
environment. Also, it emerges that the consequences of a potential insufficient staff
education and training have to do with their skills and the level of staff acceptance
Effective communication between stakeholders inside the company
Effective communication between the actors and departments inside the company has a
vital role in facilitating the reengineering efforts (Nah et al., 2001). That communication
was perceived as a crucial factor by all interviewees too.
The communication between us during the project was excellent. We
persuaded the staff that for any problems or worries about the project and
the company in general to not hesitate to talk with us. Key users – steering
committee – in several points of the company always had a continuous and
comprehensive communication. If that communication was missing the
analysis and assessment of BPs would have been inadequate (CEO, EKA
Group).
As it can be seen, the efficient communication during the project is essential for all levels
and all audiences within an organization. If that good communication is missing then the
analysis of the BPs is negatively affected.
Effective communication with the stakeholders outside the company.
Effective communication should be apparent and continuous between actors inside the
company and the project team which is outside the company. There is strong need of
communication between the project team and top management especially at the first
phase of the project in order to define the scope and the BPR plan in general. Although,
the frequent and rich communication should be a fact also in trainings session between
the project team and staff. “The communication with the project team was excellent. For
anything I needed I had the chance to contact with them at any time” (Sales Clerk, EKA
Group), confirming what it was mentioned above. If the communication is poor the
70
project is more possible to delay and support from vendor consultants will not be
efficient.
Appropriate project team formation
Another one important piece of BPR success in ERP projects is the appropriate team
formation. The composition of the team is always relevant with size of the company and
complexity of its BP (Holland et al., 1999). As it was mentioned previously EKA is a
medium-size enterprise. Although, the complexity of its BP was quite high. “EKA is
quite complex, multifaceted organization with operations abroad, with industrial
products, construction operations and specialized constructions” (CEO, EKA Group).
Therefore the composition of the team was affected.
Apart from vendor’s consultants and IT experts, people inside the
company like BP owners and key users were included in the team. Our
company had a total commitment in the project and new people was hired
to support the project. [...] The wrong team formation has negative impact
on the project duration and staff required for the project (ERP
Implementation Consultant, ERP Vendor Company).
The above statement of the vendor’s consultant shows clearly that project formation is a
very critical factor for the project success. If it is not met the project may delay again and
secondly qualified staff from both companies may be fired as unnecessary or to hire staff
seem necessary but actually is not.
Efficient supervision by external Project Manager
Analyzing the interview data another key component emerged for the project success was
the efficient supervision by the third party project manager who was recruited by EKA.
Indeed, an external project manager with great familiarity with such projects can
potentially supervise more carefully and efficiently the project and give additional
71
support to the project team. It also can be the liaison between the management of the
project team giving the appropriate guidelines to meet the deadlines and pass the
milestones.
“If we had not recruited external project manager the project may not have the
appropriate monitoring and therefore the evaluation would have been different.
Consequently the project may have delayed” said the CEO of EKA stressing the
consequences if that factor is not met.
Efficient Risk management
BPR in ERP project requires an efficient risk management. There are several risks that
may occur during the reengineering efforts. The majority of respondents claimed that the
one of the most dangerous risks is associated with the level of receptiveness of staff to the
changes. Moreover, the time needed for the staff to assimilate the new style of working
should be managed appropriately. “The possibility of a big confusion and operational
disruption until the staff start adapting to the changes is high. This high risk has to do
mostly with post-implementation phase. But it has passed successfully as a result of the
good risk management provided by management” (Overseas Business Development
Manager, EKA). Therefore efficient risk assessment and management is a critical factor
throughout the project lifecycle.
Efficient sponsorship and project fund
Apart from the human resources the project need an efficient financial sponsorship and
fund. It should be a major priority within the company and the management should have
the power to fund and support the project efficiently. “The project fund was a top priority
for the company during the project. If it was not then the project may have cancelled
because of its high cost” was the response of CEO of the company that clearly
illuminates the importance of the factor.
72
Strong top management leadership
Strong leadership exercised by top management is crucial component not only for the
reengineering efforts but also for the whole company life in general (Jackson, 1997).
Indeed, participants and especially the operational staff who can judge impartially
confirmed that top management provide strong and visible leadership with having at the
same time a deep understanding of each stage of the project.
I think the decisions of the management throughout the project
implementation were correct. But the final decision to change the way of
doing business was a result of hours of study and very good negotiations.
Every single task was faced with the strong leadership. Therefore, I
believe the management showed the appropriate leadership for this project
(Shipping and Purchasing Coordinator, EKA).
Consequently, strong leadership is another feature than has a positive impact on the
successful BPR implementation. For not meeting that factor the project fund and
resources need will be affected and underestimated and also the staff reluctance to change
will be higher.
Continuous and sufficient support by people inside the company – key users
The use of BPR teams with BPR owners and key users for each process has a central role
during the BPR efforts. Two of their basic duties of those teams are to help the project
team to analyze and then define each process a help the staff who have difficulties with
new BP and related changes. Interviewees also claimed that key users in specific areas
facilitated the project with their continuous coordination and general support. If that was
missing staff resistance to change would have been in a higher level and of course
education of staff would have not been the same. Therefore, the staff will be low skilled
as a consequence.
73
Continuous and sufficient support by the vendor consultants
There is no doubt that the knowledge, expertise and experience of vendor’s consultants
who have familiarity with this kind of project can be proved critical. Indeed, the ongoing
consultancy given by vendor consultants during the whole project has been mentioned by
all interviewees.
The consultancy given by the vendor company was unbelievably helpful.
They were very kind and always eager to help anytime we wanted help.
(Operations and Construction assistant, EKA Group)
They provided a great consultancy during the project and after the delivery
of it. Especially in training sessions their performance was excellent.
Although, some years later, for everything we need about maintenance or
general support are always eager to help us (IT Administrator, EKA
Group).
From the above statements it is evidently emerged that support given by vendor
consultants has a vital role to play in such projects and managers should think about it
carefully because it is also related with the appropriate vendor selection.
“Without the support and from the consultants with their very helpful education and
training sessions the staff would have been less skilled and unwilling to work and learn
the new BP and related changes” (Systems and Control Manager, EKA). From that
statement emerges the most important consequences those have to especially the staff
acceptance and its skills after the implementation.
74
Further Discussion
The People category has eleven CSFs which is largest number of CSFs among the four
categories that CSFs are divided into. As a consequence, people dimension has relevance
with all three phases of the project lifecycle. Some of the factors, efficient top
management support and factors have to do with communication for examples, have the
exactly the same focus during the project. In other words, if one of those factors is
missing in implementation phase for instance, the project may not be successful.
Although, some other factors are more apparent at the last phase such efficient trainings
session on the final BPs. Of course, training can start from the first phase but it is more
relevant with last phase. Again, efficient risk management is more related with the pre-
implementation phase but it cannot be ignored in the other stages. All in all, people CSFs
are equally relevant with all phases and therefore whole implementation of BPR.
75
Figure 4.4: Concept map of People category CSFs .
People CSFs
Effective
communication with
stakeholders who are outside the company
Effective
communication between
stakeholders inside
the company
Appropriate project team
formation
Efficient
supervision by
external Project Manager (third
party)
Sufficient
education and
training
Efficient
sponsorship and project fund
Efficient Risk
management
Sufficient Top
management support and
commitment
Strong top
management leadership
Continuous and
sufficient
support by the vendor
consultants
Continuous and
sufficient
support by people inside the
company – key
users
Staff reluctance
and resistance to change
Project delays
Inadequate
analysis and BP assessment
Inefficient
support by vendors
consultants
Hire / loss (un)
necessary staff
Inefficient
training and
education – low skilled staff
Inappropriate
monitoring and evaluation
Project delays
Staff reluctance
and resistance
to change
Low skilled staff
Additional effort from
employees
Project delays
Higher cost
than expected
Higher cost
than expected
Project delays
Wrong
selection of BP
to be
reengineered
Inadequate analysis and BP
assessment
Wrong team
formation
Cancelation
of the project
Staff reluctance and resistance
to change
Project fund and resources
are insufficient
Additional effort
from employees
Inefficient training
and education – low skilled staff
Inefficient training and education – low
skilled staff
Additional
effort from
employees
Inadequate analysis
and BP assessment
Staff reluctance
and resistance to
change
Project fund and resources
are insufficient
76
4.4 Overall Findings Discussion
Overall, from EKA Group case-study have been identified 29 CSFs divided into four
categories: Change Management, Product, Process and People. As it was mentioned at
the beginning of this session all categories and therefore all CSFs are equally critical and
important and they should be taken into account very seriously before, during and after
the project implementation in order to help SMEs to successfully implement such a
massively important project.
The identified CSFs of each category can be related to different perspectives and angles.
For example, CSFs of change management dimension are more related to the
organizational mechanism of the management to change the current situation of the
company. The second dimension’s CSFs are related to a diverse technical and
organizational perspective. The project team is the major actor of that category but
always has the support of the top management Also it is related to the users as the
involvement of them is very critical for the project success. On the other hand, product
dimension is more technical oriented whereas the final category is more human oriented
because of the universal involvement of the top management. Subsequently, in order to
achieve a successful implementation of BPR in ERP project those different angles should
be taken under consideration. The diversity of these aspects confirms what CEO of EKA
said about the project. “That project was not just some changes and a system in place. It
was the genesis of a new business world for our company”.
Finally, the consequences emerged from interviewees responses for each factor can help
especially SMEs to have a deeper understanding when they decide to go-live with such
difficult project like BPR in EPR context.
77
Chapter 5: Conclusions
5.1. Introduction
The last chapter of the study provides a summary of the entire research in the context of
research aim and objectives. In addition, the limitations of research are presented as well.
Finally, the chapter concludes with a discussion about future research by presenting some
recommendations.
5.2. Conclusion of the study
This study reports an in-depth exploration and discussion about the successful
implementation of BPR in ERP project. The study identified a set of CSFs divided into
four categories. The categories are change management, process, product and people.
CSFs are summarized in Figure 5.1.
The four categories play an equally important role for the successful BPR. Despite that
fact, the people category for instance has more CSFs to be considered while at the same
time product dimension has less. The difference at the total number of CSFs between
categories is a notable fact because each category has its own relationship and way of
connection with the stakeholders of the project and the different parts of it. More
specifically, the CSFs found can be related with top management and the project team.
On the first hand, CSFs related to top management are particularly linked with the
mechanism that top managers are going to follow to guide the project from organizational
perspective. For example, the important role of top management can be seen in many of
their decisions. Another example, the selection of vendor company in such major project
or how to prepare to stimulate the staff receptiveness, are two important highly important
decisions should be taken from the top management. On the other hand, the CSFs related
to the project team are more related to technological perspective because they have to do
mainly with the
78
Figure 5.1: Empirical investigation model of CSFs for BPR in ERP project
Change Management
CSFs
Process CSFs
Product CSFs
People CSFs
Competent reward and motivation systems
Create a new effective culture
Sufficient stimulation of staff receptiveness
Clear vision and scope –
explicit BPR plan
Sufficient customer
focus
Proper implementation
strategy
Continuous Monitoring
and evaluation
Adequate staff involvement based on
processes
Efficient Business
Process seminars-workshops across
divisions
Adequate integration
between BP and jobs
Proper implementation
sequence between BPR and ERP
Define the inefficient business processes
which must change
Appropriate allocation of
roles and responsibilities
Suitable ERP
Implementation vendor selection
Effective IT infrastructure
Suitable ERP package selection
Adequate ERP
customization
Adequate information
systems integration
Sufficient education and
training
Effective communication
between stakeholders inside the company
Effective communication with stakeholders who
are outside the company
Appropriate project team formation
Continuous and
sufficient support by
people inside the
company – key users
Efficient supervision by
external Project Manager (third party)
Strong top management leadership
Sufficient Top
management support and
commitment
Efficient sponsorship
and project fund
Efficient Risk management
Continuous and
sufficient support by the
vendor consultants
CSF of BPR in ERP
79
system and its integration with the BPs of the company. The project team should be in the
position to monitor the whole implementation efficiently by identifying potential gaps
and having immediate remedy actions to solve potential problems.
In conclusion, the importance of a successful BPR as a part of the ERP implementation
project should be acknowledged particularly by SMEs. Many researchers and specialists
of the field acknowledge that BPR is critical factor of a successful ERP implementation.
However, how to make BPR a successful case in order to increase the chances of a
successful ERP implementation seems that it has not been well study by researchers and
as a result BPR is not taken under a serious consideration by companies. The
consequences of this fact have an extremely negative impact on the project and the
company too. That becomes particularly important for SMEs whose financial resources
are limited and therefore the future of the company may be in uncertainty.
5.3. Limitations
That research has two limitations. The first one which is more major is one of the most
typical limitations of case study researches. As mentioned in the methodology chapter
the study follows the single case study approach to answer the research question. The
model produced is just an empirical model and not theoretical based on the single case
study. Therefore, the findings of this research strategy can be disputed because are just
empirical. The second limitation of the study is that the interviews were conducted in
Greek. The transcription is also in Greek. Therefore, in order to avoid the
misinterpretations in translation and increase the trustworthiness of the data, only
selected quotations were translated to support and findings. Although, this is a minor
limitation of the study.
80
5.4. Recommendations for future research
As a result of the first limitation of the study, the researcher strongly recommends the
future researchers to include the multiple case study strategy and include more cases to
validate the findings of this study. In response to the latter, they can also use
questionnaires to ask the participants about the CSFs have been identified in this study
ratifying the findings. Moreover, the potential negative impact for not satisfying each
factor can be also investigated by using case studies with fail implementations of BPR in
ERP projects. Finally, the last suggestion for future studies is to examine how inherent
the identified CSFs are, in each phase of the ERP implementation project dividing it into
pre-implementation, implementation and post-implementation phases using a quantitative
approach.
Word Count: 15 089
81
References
Al-Mashari, M., Al-Mudimig, A. and Zairi, M. (2003), “Enterprise resource planning: a
taxonomy of critical factors”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 146 No.
2, pp. 352-64.
Al-Mashari, M. and Zairi, M. (1999). “BPR implementation process: an analysis of key
success factors and failure factors”, Business Process Management Journal, 5 (1).
Al-Mashari, M. and Zairi, M. (2000). “Supply-chain Re-engineering Using Enterprise
Resource Planning (ERP) Systems: An Analysis of a SAP R/3 Implementation Case”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 30(3/4), pp.296-
313.
Attaran, M., (2004). “Exploring the relationship between information technology and
business process reengineering”, Information & Management, 41(5), 585–596
Bancroft, N. et al. (1998). “Implementing SAP R/3”, 2nd ed., Manning Publications.
Baxter, P and Jack, S. (2008) “Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study design and
implementation for novice researchers”, The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.
Boudreau, M.C. & Robey, D. (1999). “Organizational transition to enterprise resource
planning systems: theoretical choices for process research”. In Proceedings of the 20th
international conference on Information Systems (ICIS '99). Association for Information
Systems, Atlanta, GA, USA, pp.291-299.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
82
Chang, R.Y., (1994). “Improve processes, reengineer them, or both?” Training and
Development, 48(3), 54–58.
Chemical Marketing Reporter, (1996). “SAP Software Implementation Works Best with
Reengineering”, 250(8), 16.
Christofi, M. & Nunes, M.B. & Peng, G. C. (2009). “Identifying and improving deficient
business processes to prepare SMEs for implementation”. In: Proceedings of the UK
Academy for Information Systems (UKAIS) 14th
Annual Conference, St Anne’s College,
University of Oxford, 31 March – 01 April.
Davenport, T. (1993). “Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information
Technology”, Harvard Business School Press, Boston
Davenport, T. H. (1998). "Putting the Enterprise into the Enterprise System," Harvard
Business Review, July-August, 1998, 121-131.
Davenport, T.H. and Short, J.E. (1998), “The new industrial engineering: information
technology and business process redesign”, IEEE Engineering Management Review,
26(3), 46-59.
Deep, A., Guttridge, P., Dani, S. and Burns, N. (2008). Investigating factors affecting
ERP selection in made-to-order SME sector, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, 19(4), 430-446.
Doom, C., Milis, K., Poelmans, S., and Bloemen, E., (2010), "Critical success factors for
ERP implementations in Belgian SMEs", Journal of Enterprise Information Management,
23(3), 378 – 406
Esteves, J. & Pastor, J. (2000). "Towards the Unification of Critical Success Factors for
ERP implementations", 10th Annual BIT conference, Manchester, UK., November 2000.
83
Esteves J. & Pastor J. (2001). “Analysis of Critical Success Factors Relevance along SAP
Implementation Phases”, Americas Conference on Information Systems.
Esteves, J. & Pastor, J. & Casanovas, J. (2002), “Monitoring business process redesign in
ERP implementation projects” In: Proceedings of the AMCIS 2002, paper 125.
European Commission – Enterprise and Industry, (2011), “SBA Fact Sheet - Cyprus”.
EU.
Everdingen, Y.V., Hillegersberg, J.V. and Waarts, E.V. (2000). ERP adoption by
European midsize companies, Communications of the ACM, 43(4), 27-31.
Flick, U. (1998). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Sage Publications: London.
Frey, H. and Oishi, M. (1995). How to Conduct Interview by Telephone and In Person.
London: Sage Publications.
Gable, G. and Stewart, G. (1999), “SAP R/3 implementation issues for small to medium
enterprises”, In: Proceedings of the 5th Americas Conference on Information Systems,
Milwaukee, WI, pp. 779-81.
Garner Group, (1999) “The ERP Vendors Market” Brisbane, October 1999.
Ghan, L.S. and Choi, F.C., (1997) “A conceptual and analytical framework for business
process reengineering” Int. J. Production Economics, 50, 211-223
Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the corporation:a manifesto for
business evolution, Harper, Collins Publishers
Hayes, N. (2000). Doing psychological research: Gathering and Analysing Data. USA:
Open University Press.
84
Holland, C., Light, B. and Gibson, N. (1999). “A Critical Success Factors Model for
Enterprise Resource Planning Implementation”. In: Proceedings of the 7th
European
Conference on Information Systems, Copenhagen, Denmark. 1, pp.273-97
Jackson, N. (1997), “Business process re-engineering '96”, Management Services,
February, 34-36.
Jacobson, S., Shepherd, J., D’Aquila, M. and Carter, K. (2007) “The ERP Market Sizing
Report, 2006–2011”, Market Service Report, Boston: AMR Research Inc.
Jarrar Y. and Aspinwall, E. (1999). “Business Process Re-engineering: Learning from
Organizational Experience”, Total quality management, 10(2), pp. 173-186.
Jarrar, Y.F., Al-Mudimigh, A. and Zairi, M. (2000). “ERP implementation critical
success factors - the role and impact of business process management”. In: Proceedings
of IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology
(ICMIT), Singapore, 12-15 November 2000.
Jarrar Y., and Aspinwall, E. (1999). “Business Process Re-engineering: Learning from
Organizational Experience”, Total quality management, 10(2), pp. 173-186.
Klaus, H., Rosemann, M. and Gable, G. (2000). "What is ERP?". Information Systems
Frontiers, 2 (2), 141-162.
Koch, C. (2001a), “BPR and ERP: realizing a vision of process with IT”, Business
Process Management Journal, 7(3), 258-65.
Kumar, K. and Hillegersberg, J. (2000). ERP experiences and evolution,
Communications of the ACM, 43(4), 23-26.
85
Loh, T.C. and Koh, S.C.L. (2004). “Critical elements for a successful enterprise resource
planning implementation in small-and medium-sized enterprises”. International Journal
of Production Research, 42(17), 3433-3455.
Markus, M. and Tanis, C. (2000). "The enterprise systems experience-from adoption to
success". Framing the domains of IT research: Glimpsing the future through the past,
173, 173-207.
Martin, I. and Cheung, Y., (2005),"Business process re-engineering pays after enterprise
resource planning", Business Process Management Journal, 11(2), 185 - 197
Miers, D. (2006). “The Keys to BPM project success” BPTrends, Einx Consulting Ltd,
January 2006
Ministry of commerce industry and tourism. (2012), Small medium sized enterprises
[Online]. Cyprus: Republic of Cyprus.
http://www.mcit.gov.cy/mcit/mcit.nsf/dmlsme_en/dmlsme_en?OpenDocument
[Accessed 23 June 2012]
Motwani, J., Kumar, A., Jiang, J. and Youssef, M., (1998), "Business process
reengineering: A theoretical framework and an integrated model", International Journal
of Operations & Production Management, 18(9), 964 – 977
Nah, F.F., Lau, J.L. and Kuang, J. (2001). “Critical factors for successful implementation
of enterprise systems”, Business Process Management Journal, 7(3), 285-296.
Nah, F.F.H. and Delgado, S. (2006), “Critical success factors for enterprise resource
planning implementation and upgrade”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46(5),
99-113.
86
O’Leary, D.E. (2000), Enterprise Resource Planning Systems, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge
O'Neill, P. and Sohal, A.S. (1999). Business process reengineering: a review of recent
literature, Technovation, 19, 571-581.
Phipps, D. (2000). “IT Strategies for E-Business That Work”. Presented at the
Proceedings of Symposium Itexpo – Gartner Group, Orlando, Florida
Punch, F. K. (2005). Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative
Approaches. Sage Publications: London.
Rosario, J. G., (2000). “On the leading edge: critical success factors in ERP
implementation projects”. Business World, 17 May, 15–29.
Ross, J.W., Weill, P. and Robertson, D. (2006), Enterprise Architecture as Strategy,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 1 August.
Rudestam, K. E. and Newton, R. R. (1992) Surviving your dissertation, Sage
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2003). Research methods for business
students. 3rd
Edtion, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow.
Schlichter, B. R. and Kraemmergaard, P. (2010),"A comprehensive literature review of
the ERP research field over a decade", Journal of Enterprise Information Management,
23(4), 486 - 520
Schniederjans, J.M. and Kim, G.C., (2003),"Implementing enterprise resource planning
systems with total quality control and business process reengineering: Survey results",
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23(4), 418 – 429
87
Shtub, A. (1999), “Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP): The Dynamics of Operations
Mangement”, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text
and Interaction. 2nd ed. Sage Publications: London.
Siriginidi, S.R., (2000), “Enterprise resource planning in reengineering business”,
Business Process Management Journal, 6 (5), 376 – 391
Snider, B., Silveira, G., and Balakrishnan., J, (2009), “ERP implementation at SMEs:
analysis of five Canadian cases”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 29(1), pp. 4-29.
Soh, C., Kien, S.S. and Tay-Yap, J. (2000), “Cultural fits and misfits: is ERP a universal
solution?”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 47-51
Stefanou, C. J., (1999), “Supply chain management (SCM) and organizational key factors
for successful implementation of enterprise resource planning (ERP) system”. In:
Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), pp. 800–
818.
Stemberger, M.I. and Kovacic, A., (2008), “The Role of Business Process Modelling in
ERP Implementation Projects”. Computer Modeling and Simulation, 2008. UKSIM
2008. Tenth International Conference. 1-3 April 2008, 260-265.
Subramoniam, S., Tounsi, M and Krishnankutty, K.V. (2009). “The role of BPR in the
implementation of ERP systems”, Business Process Management Journal, 15(5),
Cambridge
88
Talwar, R., (1993). Business re-engineering—A strategy-driven approach. Long Range
Planning, 26(6), 22–40
Tsai, W., Chen, S., Hwang, E.T.Y. and Hsu, J., (2010),” A Study of the Impact of
Business Process on the ERP System Effectiveness”, International Journal of Business
and Management Vol. 5, No. 9; pp. 26-37.
Towers, S. (1994), Business Process Re-engineering: a Practical Handbook for
Executives, Stanley Thomas Ltd, Cheltenham.
Tsamantanis, V. and Kogetsidis, H., (2006), "Implementation of enterprise resource
planning systems in the Cypriot brewing industry", British Food Journal, Vol. 108 Iss: 2
pp. 118 – 126
Umble, J., Haft, R. and Umble, M. (2003). Enterprise resource planning: Implementation
procedures and critical success factors, European Journal of Operational Research,
146(2), 16 April 2003, 241-257
Valiris, G. and Glykas, M. (1999) “Critical Review of Existing BPR Methodologies”,
Business Process Management journal, 5(1), 65-86.
Wallace, T.F. (2001), “Enterprise Resource Planning: Making It Happen, The
Implementers” Guide to Success with ERP, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: design and methods, 3rd
edtion. SAGE
Publications, California.
Yusuf, Y., Gunasekaranb, A. and Abthorpe, M.S. (2004). “Enterprise information
systems project implementation: A case study of ERP in Rolls-Royce”, International
Journal of Production Economics, 87, 251-266.
89
Zabjek, D., Kovacic A. and Stemberger, I.M. (2009). “The influence of business process
management and some other CSFs on successful ERP implementation”, Business Process
Management Journal, 15(4), 588 - 608
Zhang, L., Lee, M., Zhang, Z. and Banerjee, P. (2003), “Critical success factors of
enterprise resource planning systems implementation success in China”, Proceedings of
36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, HI, 10.
90
Appendix A:
A1. Interview Script
Section 1: General questions
1.1. What is your position in the company and what responsibilities do you have?
Talk about your daily routine
1.2. From your point of view, what were the most important motivations to
implement an ERP system?
Follow-up question:
1.2.1 How important was the need to change the previous business process in
order to be more efficient and why?
1.3. What aspects were thoroughly considered before the ERP project and were
followed-up or reconsidered during the project?
1.4. Have the business process you work in changed significantly? Why/ why not?
Explain.
Section 2: BPR critical successful factors (CSFs) in ERP context
A. Change Management Dimension
2.1. What activities have been conducted in order to change your organizational
structure and culture and thus make the company and yourself in general more
ready for the BPR?
91
Trigger questions:
2.1.1. When organizations decide to perform BPR (ERP) employees of the
company must accept the new business process as the people who are going to
perform these processes. What have you done to increase the level of acceptance
by the employees for the new business processes?
2.1.2. What are the critical factors that you need to consider in order to make it
happen successfully? What are the consequences for not meeting these
factors?
2.1.3. Did your company develop a new reward and recognition system in
response to the BPR changes? What would have been the consequences if you
had not given any reward?
Follow-up questions:
2.1.4. If we divide the ERP implementation into pre, implementation and post-
implementation which phase has more BPR activities inside? When they answer
you ask: What happened first? BPR or ERP (pre or implementation or post)? Why
did you follow that sequence?
2.1.5. What did you do to identify the risks related to BPR and ERP and how did
you manage them?
2.1.6. What was the role of the customer during the change? Was there a focus on
customer needs?
92
B. Process Dimension (Departmental staff and IT - not for Top managers)
2.2 What procedures have been followed inside the company in order to achieve a
successful BPR?
2.3 What changes happened in the business processes of your department-section?
What is your opinion about them now?
Trigger questions:
2.2.1. How did you identify the inefficient business processes and decide which of
them must be changed?
2.2.2. To what extent the existing business processes and the business processes
supported by ERP system were matched? Examples and percentage
2.2.3. How was the gap between that required and supported functionality
between has to do with the business processes closed? Was that approach
successful?
2.2.4. What was the role of the external consultants in that process? How did they
contribute? What are the consequences if that support was missing?
93
C. Product Dimension (IT – top and vendor)
2.3 How has the ERP system affected the BPR?
Trigger questions:
2.3.1. What actually happened? Did you design your business processes based on
the ERP functions or did you customize the ERP system to support your business
processes? Exlpain and highlight the factors lead to the success. What are the
consequences of not meeting these factors?
2.3.2. How flexible was that change and what was the role of the external
consultants?
2.3.3. What was the role of the current IT infrastructure in BPR? What was the
impact of your IT infrastructure and the IT department? If IT was not in place to
enable BPR what would have been the consequences?
Follow-up questions:
2.3.4. What tools and techniques were used to monitor, evaluate the project
progress? What are the consequences of inefficient monitoring and evaluation?
2.3.5 How many ERP process have been changed – Did you changed many
processes in order to support the business processes of the company?
Why or why not? Is that a critical factor that affects the success of BPR?
94
D. People Dimension
2.4 How have the people within and outside the company affected the BPR related to
ERP project? What are factors lead to the success?
Trigger questions:
2.4.1. What was the role of top management when the BPR activities were being
conducted? What are the consequences if top management support was missing?
2.4.2. How do you describe the relationship and communication between top
managers and project team?
2.4.3. How do you describe the relationship and communication your supplier
during the implementation and after the implementation? What are the
consequences of a bad – insufficient communication during a project?
2.4.4. How was the team formation affected by the situation of the business
processes in the company? Was that team created specifically for that project?
Follow-up:
2.4.4 How do you think the size of the company can lead to any factors that affect
the success of BPR activities?
95
Appendix A2: Initial Coding Scheme
Code Definition
1. Integration between systems and departments
2. Streamline business processes
3. Cost reduction
4. Reduce response time
5. Increase staff productivity and performance
6. Improve management reporting – decision
making
7. Facilitate business and ERP project
8. Improve operational efficiency
9. Accurate information across departments (stock,
job costing)
10. Clear vision and scope – explicit BPR plan
11. Define the inefficient business processes which
must change
12. Adequate staff involvement based on processes
(suggestions and feedback from them)
13. Competent reward and motivation systems
14. Sufficient stimulation of the staff receptiveness
15. Create a new effective culture
16. Sufficient customer focus
17. Appropriate allocation of roles and
responsibilities (key users)
18. Continuous Monitoring and evaluation
19. Adequate integration between BP and jobs in
the organization
20. Efficient Business Process seminars-workshops
across divisions
21. Proper implementation sequence between BPR
and ERP
22. Proper implementation strategy
23. Suitable ERP package selection
24. Suitable ERP Implementation vendor selection
25. Effective communication (continuous and
comprehensive) between stakeholders inside the
company
26. Effective communication between the
stakeholders of the company and stakeholders
outside the company.
27. Project team formation
28. Efficient supervision by external Project
Manager (third party)
29. Education and sufficient training
30. Efficient Risk management
31. Top management support and commitment
32. Effective IT infrastructure
33. Adequate ERP customization
34. Adequate information systems integration
35. Sponsorship and efficient BPR – ERP fund
36. Continuous and sufficient support by the vendor
consultants (post implementation mostly)
37. Low integration between BP and ERP package
(modules)
Texts describe the need of integration between systems and departments
Texts describe the need of streamlining the business processes within the
company
Texts describe the need of cost reduction
Texts describe the need of time response reduction
Texts describe the need to increase the performance of the staff
Texts describe the need to improve the management reporting and decision
making
Texts describe the need to make the ERP project become successful
Texts describe the need to improve the operational efficiency
Texts describe the need of accuracy of data across departments
Texts about the vision and scope of the project
Texts about defining the business processes that must change
Texts about involvement of staff to BPR project
Texts about staff involvement based on business processes they work in
Texts describe the ways of motivating and rewarding staff
Texts about stimulation of receptiveness of staff
Texts about the new culture of the company
Texts about the customer focus given during the project
Texts about the allocation of roles and responsibilities
Texts about the evaluation and monitoring during the
Texts about integration of jobs and BP for the best allocation of roles
Texts about the workshops and seminars took place across divisions
Texts about implementation sequence (BPR and ERP)
Texts about the implementation strategy
Texts about ERP package in general (modules and compatibility)
Texts about the ERP implementation vendor selection
Texts about the communication of people inside the company
Texts about the communication of stakeholders inside and people outside
the company
Texts describe the team formation of the project
Texts about the efficient supervision done by external Project manager
Texts about training and education given to staff and managers
Texts about risk management practises used from the managers
Texts about top management support given throughout the project
lifecycle
Texts about the effective use of IT infrastructure within the company
Texts about customization done on ERP system to follow BP
Texts about integration of BP with the rest IS within the company
Texts about BPR-ERP fund and sponsorship used.
Texts about support given by the vendor consultants
Texts referred to low integration between ERP and BP
96
38. Low integration of BP between departments
39. Staff reluctance and resistance to change
40. Incorrect data to the system – low data quality
41. Managers get incorrect reporting – information
42. Inefficient decision making
43. Project delays
44. Reengineering plan and strategy is ill-defined
45. Insufficient/bad communication between staff
and vendor’s consultants
46. Low value-added to BP
47. Additional effort from employees
48. Conflicts between BP
49. Wrong selection of BP to be reengineered
50. Inadequate analysis and BP assessment
51. Higher cost than expected
52. Wrong team formation
53. Hire unnecessary staff (to support the new BP) /
loss qualified staff (seemed unnecessary for the
new BP)
54. Low level of customer services – customer
dissatisfaction
55. Inefficient support by vendors consultants
56. Inadequate staff involvement
57. Inappropriate monitoring and evaluation
58. Cancelation of the project
59. Inefficient training and education – low skilled
staff
60. The selected ERP system cannot support the
new philosophy and culture of the company
61. Gap between functionality supported and
required functionality
62. Project fund and resources are insufficient
63. Inappropriate use of IT as enabler for BPR
64. Strong top management leadership
65. Continuous and sufficient support by people
inside the company – key users (post mostly)
Texts referred to low integration of BP between departments
Texts referred to the resistance of employees o change their working
routine and environment
Texts referred to incorrect data of the system
Texts referred to wrong reports generated by the system
Texts referred to insufficient decision making from incorrect reporting
Texts referred to project delays
Texts referred to ill-defined plan and strategy for BPR
Texts referred to bad communication within a company
Texts referred to low value added to BP after BPR
Texts referred to additional efforts from staff
Texts referred to conflicts and undefined crosscutting between BP
Texts referred to the wrong BP decided to be reengineered
Texts referred to inadequate BP analysis and assessment
Texts referred to costs that were not expected
Texts referred to wrong project team formation
Texts referred to new staff hired to support the new BP or staff fired as
unnecessary to support the new BP
Texts referred to customer dissatisfaction
Texts referred to the inefficient support given by external consultants
Texts referred to the inadequate staff involvement during the project
Texts referred to the inappropriate monitoring and evaluation of the project
progress
Texts referred to the case of cancelation of the project
Texts referred to inefficient training and education
Texts referred to gap in philosophy and culture of organization and
philosophy needed by ERP system
Texts referred to the gap between system functionality and required
functionality
Texts referred to insufficient project fund
Texts referred to inappropriate use of IT as enabler for BPR
Texts about strong leadership that was given by top managers during the
whole project.
Texts about support given by key users inside the company to the other
staff in order to help them
97
Appendix A3: Final Coding Scheme with Themes
Theme ID Code of CSF Definition Link with Code (Consequence)
Motivations to
BPR in ERP
project
Change
Management
CSFs
Process CSFs
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
M9
CM1
CM2
CM3
CM4
CM5
PC1
PC2
PC3
PC4
PC5
PC6
Facilitate business and ERP project
Improve operational efficiency
Accurate information across departments (stock, job
costing)
Integration between systems and departments
Streamline business processes
Cost reduction
Reduce response time
Increase staff productivity and performance
Improve management reporting – decision making
Competent reward and motivation systems
Sufficient stimulation of staff receptiveness
Create a new effective culture
Sufficient customer focus
Clear vision and scope – explicit BPR plan
Define the inefficient business processes which must
change
Adequate staff involvement based on processes
(suggestions and feedback from them)
Appropriate allocation of roles and responsibilities
(key users)
Continuous Monitoring and evaluation
Adequate integration between BP and jobs
Efficient Business Process seminars-workshops
across divisions
Texts describe the need to make the ERP project become
successful
Texts describe the need to improve the operational efficiency
Texts describe the need of accuracy of data across departments
Texts describe the need of integration between systems and
departments
Texts describe the need of streamlining the business processes
within the company
Texts describe the need of cost reduction
Texts describe the need of time response reduction
Texts describe the need to increase the performance of the staff
Texts describe the need to improve the management reporting
and decision making
Texts describe the way EKA tried to motivate and reward staff
Texts about stimulation of receptiveness of staff
Texts about the new culture of the company
Texts about the customer focus given during the project
Texts about the vision and scope of the project
Texts about defining the business processes that must change
Texts about staff involvement based on business processes they
work in
Texts about the allocation of roles and responsibilities
Texts about the evaluation and monitoring during the
Texts about integration of jobs and BP for the best allocation of
roles in the organization
Texts about the workshops took place across divisions
C3; C19; C25
C3; C7; C25
C3; C14; C17; C18
C10; C15; C18; C20
C7; C12; C18; C20;
C22
C2; C8; C10;
C20;C21
C2; C10; C11;C20
C8; C13; C14; C16;
C19; C22; C25
C7; C18; C20
C2; C8; C9; C14;
C25
C3; C9; C11; C16
98
Product CSFs
People CSFs
Consequences
PC7
PC8
PD1
PD2
PD3
PD4
PD5
PL1
PL2
PL3
PL4
PL5
PL6
PL7
PL8
PL9
PL10
PL11
C1
C2
C3
Proper implementation sequence between BPR and
ERP
Proper implementation strategy (step by step)
Suitable ERP package selection
Suitable ERP Implementation vendor selection
Effective IT infrastructure
Adequate ERP customization
Adequate information systems integration
Effective communication (continuous and
comprehensive) between stakeholders inside the
company
Effective communication with the stakeholders who
are outside the company
Appropriate project team formation
Efficient supervision by external Project Manager
(third party)
Sufficient education and training
Efficient Risk management
Sufficient Top management support and commitment
(especially at the pre-implementation)
Efficient sponsorship and project fund
Strong top management leadership
Continuous and sufficient support by people inside
the company – key users (post mostly)
Continuous and sufficient support by the vendor
consultants (post implementation mostly)
Low integration between BP and ERP package
(modules)
Low integration of BP between departments
Staff reluctance and resistance to change
Texts about implementation sequence (BPR and ERP)
Texts about the implementation strategy (Smooth and gradual
change to the new business processes – pace of change)
Texts about ERP package in general (modules and
compatibility)
Texts about the ERP implementation vendor selection
Texts about the effective use of IT infrastructure within the
company
Texts about customization done on ERP system to follow BP
Texts about integration of BP with the rest IS within the
company
Texts about the communication of people inside the company
Texts about the communication of stakeholders inside and
people outside the company (staff/managers with vendors staff)
Texts describe the team formation of the project
Texts about the supervision done by the external Project
manager
Texts about training and education given to staff and managers
Texts about risk management practises used from the managers
Texts about top management support given throughout the
project lifecycle
Texts about BPR-ERP fund and sponsorship used.
Texts about strong leadership that was given by top managers
during the whole project.
Texts about support given by key users inside the company to
the other staff in order to help them
Texts about support given by the vendor consultants
Texts referred to low integration between ERP and BP
Texts referred to low integration of BP between departments
Texts referred to the resistance of employees o change their
working routine and environment
C1;C12; C20; C21;
C23
C1; C2; C7; C8;
C20;C21
C1; C2; C4; C5; C6;
C10; C17; C21; C22
C7; C12; C19; C24
C12; C18; C22; C23
C1; C2; C8; C21
C2; C5; C6;C8; C15;
C21
C3; C7; C8; C11
C7; C8; C11; C16;
C24
C7; C14; C16
C7; C26
C3; C8; C16
C3; C7; C12
C7; C12; C22; C10;
C11
C13; C27
C3; C7; C22
C3; C8; C16
C3; C16 C19
99
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12
C13
C14
C15
C16
C17
C18
C19
C20
C21
C22
C23
C24
C25
C26
C27
Incorrect data to the system – low data quality
Managers get incorrect reporting – information
Inefficient decision making
Project delays
Additional effort from employees
Conflicts between BP
Wrong selection of BP to be reengineered
Inadequate analysis and BP assessment
Higher cost than expected
Wrong team formation
Hire unnecessary staff (to support the new BP) / loss
qualified staff (seemed unnecessary for the new BP)
Low level of customer services – customer
dissatisfaction
Inefficient training and education – low skilled staff
The selected ERP system cannot support the new
philosophy and culture of the company
Reengineering plan and strategy is ill-defined
Insufficient/bad communication between staff and
vendor’s consultants
Low value-added to BP
Gap between functionality supported and required
functionality
Project fund and resources are insufficient
Inappropriate use of IT as enabler for BPR
Inefficient support by vendors consultants
Inadequate staff involvement
Inappropriate monitoring and evaluation
Cancelation of the project
Texts referred to incorrect data of the system
Texts referred to wrong reports generated by the system
Texts referred to insufficient decision making from incorrect
reporting
Texts referred to project delays
Texts referred to additional efforts from staff
Texts referred to conflicts and undefined crosscutting between
BP
Texts referred to the wrong BP decided to be reengineered
Texts referred to inadequate BP analysis and assessment
Texts referred to costs that were not expected
Texts referred to wrong project team formation
Texts referred to new staff hired to support the new BP or staff
fired as unnecessary to support the new BP
Texts referred to customer dissatisfaction
Texts referred to inefficient training and education
Texts referred to gap in philosophy and culture of organization
and philosophy needed by ERP system
Texts referred to ill-defined plan and strategy for BPR
Texts referred to bad communication within a company
Texts referred to low value added to BP after BPR
Texts referred to the gap between system functionality and
required functionality
Texts referred to insufficient project fund
Texts referred to inappropriate use of IT as enabler for BPR
Texts referred to the inefficient support given by external
consultants
Texts referred to the inadequate staff involvement during the
project
Texts referred to the inappropriate monitoring and evaluation of
the project progress
Texts referred to the case of cancelation of the project
100
Appendix B: Ethics and other student forms
UUnniivveerrssiittyy RReesseeaarrcchh EEtthhiiccss AApppplliiccaattiioonn FFoorrmm
for Undergraduate & Postgraduate-Taught Students
This form has been approved by the University Research Ethics Committee (UREC) Complete this form if you are an undergraduate or a postgraduate-taught student who plans to undertake a research project which requires ethics approval via the University Ethics Review Procedure. Your Supervisor decides if ethics approval is required and, if required, which ethics review procedure (e.g. University, NHS, Alternative) applies. If the University’s procedure applies, your Supervisor decides if your proposed project should be classed as ‘low risk’ or potentially ‘high risk’. *PLEASE NOTE THAT YOUR DEPARTMENT MAY USE A VARIATION OF THIS FORM: PLEASE CHECK WITH THE ETHICS ADMINISTRATOR IN YOUR DEPARTMENT*
This form should be accompanied, where appropriate, by all Information Sheets / Covering Letters / Written Scripts which you propose to use to inform the prospective participants about the proposed research, and/or by a Consent Form where you need to use one.
Further guidance on how to apply is at: www.sheffield.ac.uk/ris/other/gov-ethics/ethicspolicy/approval-procedure/review-procedure Guidance on the possible routes for obtaining ethics approval (i.e. on the University Ethics Review Procedure, the NHS procedure and the Social Care Research Ethics Committee,
and the Alternative procedure) is at: www.sheffield.ac.uk/ris/other/gov-ethics/ethicspolicy/approval-procedure/ethics-approval Once you have completed this research ethics application form in full, and other documents where appropriate, check that your name, the title of your research project and the date is contained in the footer of each page. If your Supervisor has classed the project as ‘low risk’:
Email this form, together with other documents where applicable, to your Supervisor; and
Sign and date Annex 1 of this form and provide a paper copy to your Supervisor.
Important Note for Supervisors:
FFoolllloowwiinngg tthhee eetthhiiccss rreevviieeww tthhee SSuuppeerrvviissoorr mmuusstt pprroovviiddee tthhee aaccaaddeemmiicc ddeeppaarrttmmeenntt’’ss EEtthhiiccss
AAddmmiinniissttrraattoorr wwiitthh aa ccooppyy ooff tthhee ‘‘llooww rriisskk’’ rreesseeaarrcchh eetthhiiccss aapppplliiccaattiioonn tthhaatt ss//hhee rreevviieewweedd aanndd
aa ccoommpplleetteedd EEtthhiiccss RReevviieewweerr’’ss CCoommmmeennttss FFoorrmm iinnddiiccaattiinngg tthhee eetthhiiccss ddeecciissiioonn tthhaatt ss//hhee ttooookk
iinn rreellaattiioonn ttoo iitt.. TThhee EEtthhiiccss RReevviieewweerr’’ss CCoommmmeennttss FFoorrmm ccaann bbee ddoowwnnllooaaddeedd hheerree::
wwwwww..sshheeffffiieelldd..aacc..uukk//rriiss//ootthheerr//ggoovv--eetthhiiccss//eetthhiiccssppoolliiccyy//ffuurrtthheerr--
gguuiiddaannccee//uunniivveerrssiittyypprroocceedduurree22//rreevviieewweerrsscc TThhee EEtthhiiccss AAddmmiinniissttrraattoorr rreesseerrvveess tthhee rriigghhtt ttoo
ccoonnssuulltt tthhee CChhaaiirr ooff tthhee aaccaaddeemmiicc ddeeppaarrttmmeenntt’’ss EEtthhiiccss RReevviieeww PPaanneell ((oorr eeqquuiivvaalleenntt)) ooff ss//hhee
hhaass ccoonncceerrnnss tthhaatt pprroojjeeccttss ccllaasssseedd aass llooww rriisskk sshhoouulldd iinn ffaacctt hhaavvee bbeeeenn ccllaasssseedd aass ppootteennttiiaallllyy
hhiigghh rriisskk..
If your Supervisor has classed the project as potentially ‘high risk’:
Email this form, together with other documents where applicable, to your department’s Ethics Administrator; and
Ask your Supervisor to sign and date Annex 2 of this form and provide a paper copy of it to your department’s Ethics Administrator.
101
UUnniivveerrssiittyy RReesseeaarrcchh EEtthhiiccss AApppplliiccaattiioonn FFoorrmm for Undergraduate & Postgraduate-Taught Students
I confirm that I have read the current version of the University of Sheffield
‘Ethics Policy Governing Research Involving Human Participants, Personal
Data and Human Tissue’, as shown on the University’s research ethics website
at: www.sheffield.ac.uk/ris/other/gov-ethics/ethicspolicy
A1. Title of research project: “What are the Critical Successful Factors (CSFs) for
Business Process Reengineering (BPR) during the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
implementation life-cycle”
A2. Name of Student: Georgios Michail
Department: Information School Email: [email protected] Tel.: 07936 275 123
Name of Supervisor: Dr. Alex Peng A3. Proposed Project Duration: 4 months
Start date: May 2012 End date: September 2012
A4. Mark ‘X’ in one or more of the following boxes if your research:
involves adults with mental incapacity or mental illness
involves prisoners or others in custodial care (e.g. young offenders)
involves children or young people aged under 18 years
involves using samples of human biological material collected before for another purpose
involves taking new samples of human biological material (e.g. blood, tissue) *
involves testing a medicinal product *
involves taking new samples of human biological material (e.g. blood, tissue) *
involves additional radiation above that required for clinical care *
involves investigating a medical device *
* If you have marked boxes marked * then you also need to obtain confirmation that
appropriate University insurance is in place. To do this email [email protected] and request a copy of the ‘Clinical Trial Insurance Application Form’.
It is recommended that you familiarise yourself with the University’s Ethics Policy Governing Research Involving Human Participants, Personal Data and Human Tissue before completing the following questions. Please note that if you provide sufficient information about the research (what you intend to do, how it will be carried out and how you intend to minimise any risks), this will help the ethics reviewers to make an informed judgement quickly without having to ask for further details.
X
102
A5. Briefly summarise:
i. The project’s aims and objectives:
Aim: The study aims to investigate the critical successful factors (CSFs) of business
process reengineering (BPR) related to the stages of an enterprise resource planning
(ERP) implementation projects. Objectives:
e. A general literature review on BPR and its relationship with ERP implementation
project will be carried out
f. Identify a set of the general areas-categories of CSFs for BPR in ERP context
g. Identify more specifically the CSFs within these general areas-categories
h. Identify the consequences for the organization for not meeting and satisfy the CSFs
that have been found
ii. The project’s methodology:
A variety of methods are going to be used following the inductive research
approach. The main aspects related to BPR and ERP of the most relevant literature
and the most influential authors will be carried out concluding to a general
literature review. The single case study strategy will be used. the collection of data
and information will be achieved by using the qualitative research method of in
depth face to face interviews. After the collection of the qualitative data the
approach of inductive thematic analysis will be performed
A6. What is the potential for physical and/or psychological harm / distress to participants?
There no physical or psychological harm/distress to the participants. A7. Does your research raise any issues of personal safety for you or other
researchers involved in the project? (especially if taking place outside working hours or off University premises)
NO
If yes, explain how these issues will be managed.
103
A8. How will the potential participants in the project be:
i. Identified? Searching in the Internet using the step by step approach. Vendors to Companies who implemented ERP and contact that company
ii. Approached? An initial contact via telephone will be done. After that a meeting with them will be arranged and discussed the potential of participating to the project.
iii. Recruited? By explaining in detail the research aim and objectives, the potential benefits for them And their company and explaining to them any potential risks and disadvantages
A9. Will informed consent be obtained from the participants?
YES X NO
If informed consent or consent is NOT to be obtained please explain why.
Further guidance is at: www.sheffield.ac.uk/ris/other/gov-ethics/ethicspolicy/policy-notes/consent
A9.1. This question is only applicable if you are planning to obtain informed consent:
How do you plan to obtain informed consent? (i.e. the proposed process?): I will give to them an information sheet explaining in full details the whole process of
the research study and any potential benefits, risks or disadvantages for them and their company. Then if the agree they will sign the consent form.
104
A10. What measures will be put in place to ensure confidentiality of personal data,
where appropriate? The personal data of the participants will be kept strictly confidential by using the
University departmental regulations. Of course a consent form will be signed by the researcher ensuring the participants and their personal information.
A11. Will financial / in kind payments (other than reasonable expenses and
compensation for time) be offered to participants? (Indicate how much and on what basis this has been decided)
NO expenses and compensation. A12. Will the research involve the production of recorded media such as audio
and/or video recordings?
YES X NO
A12.1. This question is only applicable if you are planning to produce recorded media:
How will you ensure that there is a clear agreement with participants as to how these recorded media may be stored, used and (if appropriate) destroyed? Firstly a transcription of the interviews will be given to them asking them to confirm what is written. After the analysis of the data the result will be published to them as is. For any additional research for other purposes an extra consent form should be asked and signed by them.
Guidance on a range of ethical issues, including safety and well-being, consent and anonymity, confidentiality and data protection’ are available at: www.sheffield.ac.uk/ris/other/gov-ethics/ethicspolicy/policy-notes
105
For Undergraduate & Postgraduate-Taught Students
Student Declaration
((TThhee ssttuuddeenntt ccoommpplleetteess AAnnnneexx 11 iiff tthhee SSuuppeerrvviissoorr hhaass ccllaasssseedd tthhee
ssttuuddeenntt’’ss pprrooppoosseedd rreesseeaarrcchh pprroojjeecctt aass ‘‘llooww rriisskk’’))
TThhee SSuuppeerrvviissoorr nneeeeddss ttoo rreecceeiivvee aann eelleeccttrroonniicc ccooppyy ooff tthhee ffoorrmm,, aanndd ootthheerr ddooccuummeennttss
wwhheerree aapppprroopprriiaattee,, pplluuss aa ssiiggnneedd,, ddaatteedd ppaappeerr ccooppyy ooff tthhiiss AAnnnneexx 11 ‘‘tthhee SSttuuddeenntt
DDeeccllaarraattiioonn’’..
Full Research Project Title:
“What are the Critical Successful Factors (CSFs) for Business Process
Reengineering (BPR) during the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
implementation life-cycle in SMEs? A case of a Cypriot company”.
In signing this Student Declaration I am confirming that: The research ethics application form for the above-named project is accurate to the best
of my knowledge and belief.
The above-named project will abide by the University’s ‘Good Research Practice Standards’: www.sheffield.ac.uk/ris/other/gov-ethics/good
The above-named project will abide by the University’s ‘Ethics Policy Governing Research Involving Human Participants, Personal Data and Human Tissue’: www.sheffield.ac.uk/ris/other/gov-ethics/ethicspolicy
Subject to the above-named project being ethically approved I undertake to adhere to any ethics conditions that may be set.
I will inform my Supervisor of significant changes to the above-named project that have ethical consequences.
I will inform my Supervisor if prospective participants make a complaint about the above-named project.
I understand that personal data about me as a researcher on the research ethics application form will be held by those involved in the ethics review process (e.g. my Supervisor and the Ethics Administrator) and that this will be managed according to Data Protection Act principles.
I understand that this project cannot be submitted for ethics approval in more than one department, and that if I wish to appeal against the decision made, this must be done through the original department.
106
Name of Supervisor: Alex GC Peng Name of student: Georgios Michail Signature of student: Georgios Michail Date: 18/05/2012
107
For Undergraduate & Postgraduate-Taught Students
Supervisor Declaration
((TThhee SSuuppeerrvviissoorr ccoommpplleetteess AAnnnneexx 22 iiff ss//hhee hhaass ccllaasssseedd tthhee ssttuuddeenntt’’ss
pprrooppoosseedd rreesseeaarrcchh pprroojjeecctt aass ppootteennttiiaallllyy ‘‘hhiigghh rriisskk’’))
TThhee EEtthhiiccss AAddmmiinniissttrraattoorr nneeeeddss ttoo rreecceeiivvee aann eelleeccttrroonniicc ccooppyy ooff tthhee ffoorrmm,, aanndd ootthheerr
ddooccuummeennttss wwhheerree aapppprroopprriiaattee,, pplluuss aa ssiiggnneedd,, ddaatteedd ppaappeerr ccooppyy ooff tthhiiss AAnnnneexx 22 ‘‘tthhee
SSuuppeerrvviissoorr DDeeccllaarraattiioonn’’..
Full Research Project Title: insert name
In signing this Supervisor Declaration I am confirming that:
The research ethics application form for the above-named project is accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.
The above-named project will abide by the University’s ‘Good Research Practice Standards’: www.sheffield.ac.uk/ris/other/gov-ethics/good
The above-named project will abide by the University’s ‘Ethics Policy for Research Involving Human Participants, Data and Tissue’: www.sheffield.ac.uk/ris/other/gov-ethics/ethicspolicy
Subject to the above-named project being ethically approved I will undertake to ensure that the student adheres to any ethics conditions that may be set.
The student or the Supervisor will undertake to inform the Ethics Administrator of significant changes to the above-named project that have ethical consequences.
The student or the Supervisor will undertake to inform the Ethics Administrator if prospective participants make a complaint about the above-named project.
I understand that personal data about the student and/or myself on the research ethics application form will be held by those involved in the ethics review process (e.g. the Ethics Administrator and/or reviewers) and that this will be managed according to Data Protection Act principles.
I understand that this project cannot be submitted for ethics approval in more than one department, and that if I and/or the student wish to appeal against the decision made, this must be done through the original department.
Name of Supervisor: insert name
Name of student: insert name
SSiiggnnaattuurree ooff SSuuppeerrvviissoorr:: ssiiggnn hheerree
Date: insert date
108
Information Sheet
1. Research Project Title:
“What are the Critical Successful Factors (CSFs) of Business Process Reengineering (BPR)
in the context of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) project in SMEs?”
2. Invitation paragraph
You are being invited to take part in a research project. Before you decide it is important for
you to understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. Please take time to
read the following information carefully and discuss it with others if you wish. Ask us if there
is anything that is not clear or if you would like more information. Take time to decide
whether or not you wish to take part. Thank you for reading this.
3. What is the project’s purpose?
The study aims to investigate the critical successful factors (CSFs) of business process
reengineering (BPR) related to the stages of an enterprise resource planning (ERP)
implementation projects. In order to accomplish the above aim the following research
objectives should be established:
i. A general literature review on BPR and its relationship with ERP implementation
project will be carried out
j. Identify a set of the general areas-categories of CSFs for BPR in ERP context
k. Identify more specifically the CSFs within these general areas-categories
l. Identify the consequences for the organization for not meeting and satisfy the CSFs
that have been found.
4. Why have I been chosen?
You have been chosen as the case company due to two main reasons. Firstly, you have
recently implemented an ERP system from a gold partner of SAP which is considered as one
of the best ERP packages in the market. Secondly the implementation of the system is
considered as a successful case and therefore the outcomes are more likely to be valid.
5. Do I have to take part?
It is up to you to decide whether or not to take part. If you do decide to take part you will be
given this information sheet to keep and be asked to sign a consent form. If you decide to take
part you are still free to withdraw at any time and without giving a reason. A decision to
109
withdraw at any time, or a decision not to take part, will not affect the standard of care you
receive.
6. What will happen to me if I take part?
The research will last approximately three months. However the collection of data will last
about 6-8 days. Moreover an interview is estimated to last about 20-30 minutes. Nevertheless
in some cases it may need to last more and that depends on interviewee and his/her role in the
company. A plan of the interviews will be produced for the participants in order to give them
the opportunity to be well prepared. Interviews will be recorded with a professional recorder
and an interview script is going to be produced for them.
7. What do I have to do?
The participant will just answer some open-ended question with no time limit. There are no
lifestyle restrictions.
8. What are the possible disadvantages and risks of taking part?
There are not any possible disadvantages or risks.
9. What are the possible benefits of taking part?
‘Whilst there are no immediate benefits for those people participating in the project, it is
hoped that this work will be good enough in order to be published and therefore the name of
the participants’ organization will be heard as a successful story which helped researchers
and academics. However, this cannot be guaranteed.
10. What happens if the research study stops earlier than expected?
All the appropriate procedures are undertaken to ensure that the study will go as it was
designed.
11. What if something goes wrong?
if you wish to complain, or have any concerns about any aspect of the way you have been
approached during the course of this study, the interviewer should be available to you to
rearrange and solve the issue-problem.
12. Will my taking part in this project be kept confidential?
‘All the information that we collect about you during the course of the research will be kept
strictly confidential. You will not be able to be identified in any reports or publications’.
13. What type of information will be sought from me and why is the collection of this
information relevant for achieving the research project’s objectives?
Questions relevant to the main two aspects (ERP and BPR) of the research study will be
asked. For example questions regarding the scope of the implementation and objectives of its
110
implementation. The information will be analyzed following the thematic analysis with
inductive approach.
14. What will happen to the results of the research project?
The results of the research will be given to the participant organization just after the end of
the study. The results estimated to be published early in September of 2012. The researcher is
responsible to give o copy to the company involved. The data collected are not going to be
used for additional or subsequent research.
15. Who is organising and funding the research?
The study is self-sponsored and is conducted by Mr. Georgios Michail for the purpose of his
MSc Information Systems in the University of Sheffield.
16. Who has ethically reviewed the project?
This project has been ethically approved via Information School department’s ethics review
procedure. The University’s Research Ethics Committee monitors the application and
delivery of the University’s Ethics Review Procedure across the University.
17. Contact for further information
Researcher:
Name: Mr. Georgios Michail
Address: 12, St George Close, Opal2, S3 7HD, Sheffield, UK
Tel: 0044 7936 275 123
Supervisor:
Name: Dr. Alex Peng, Lecturer at the University of Sheffield
Tel: 0114 222 2658
Finally, as a participant you will be given a copy of that information sheet and a consent form
for you to keep. Many thanks for taking part in the project.
Question to insert into an information sheet if the research
involves producing recorded media:
Will I be recorded, and how will the recorded media be used?
‘The audio and/or video recordings of your activities made during this research will be used
only for analysis and for illustration in conference presentations and lectures. No other use
will be made of them without your written permission, and no one outside the project will be
allowed access to the original recordings.’
.
111
Participant Consent Form
Title of Research Project:
“What are the Critical Successful Factors (CSFs) for Business Process
Reengineering (BPR) in the context of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
project in SMEs? The case of a Cypriot company”.
Name of Researcher: Georgios Michail
Participant Identification Number for this project: Please initial
box
1. I confirm that I have read and understand the information sheet
dated [18.05.2012] explaining the above research project
and I have had the opportunity to ask questions about the project.
2. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw
at any time without giving any reason and without there being any negative
consequences. In addition, should I not wish to answer any particular
question or questions, I am free to decline.
3. I understand that my responses will be kept strictly confidential and
I give permission for members of the research team to have access to my
anonymised responses. I understand that my name will not be linked with
the research materials, and I will not be identified or identifiable in the
report or reports that result from the research.
4. I agree for the data collected from me to be used in future research
5. I agree to take part in the above research project.
112
________________________ ________________ ____________________
Name of Participant Date Signature
(or legal representative)
_________________________ ________________ ____________________
Name of person taking consent Date Signature
(if different from lead researcher)
To be signed and dated in presence of the participant
_________________________ ________________ ____________________
Lead Researcher Date Signature
To be signed and dated in presence of the participant
Copies:
Once this has been signed by all parties the participant should receive a copy of the
signed and dated participant consent form, the letter/pre-written script/information
sheet and any other written information provided to the participants. A copy of the
signed and dated consent form should be placed in the project’s main record (e.g. a
site file), which must be kept in a secure location.
